Testing accommodations allow students with disabilities to both participate in and demonstrate their knowledge and abilities on statewide assessments. This article discusses accommodation-related research findings of a 3-year federally funded research study. The data analysis includes an examination of accommodation policies and discipline rates in all 50 states, participation rates in states for which data were available, and the relationships among these data as indicated by statistical correlations. Also, a detailed discussion of the proctor/scribe accommodation is included, because it correlated more strongly with higher participation rates than any other specific accommodation. Implications of these findings for students, parents, policymakers, and practitioners are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bielinski, J., Sheinker, A., & Ysseldyke, J. (2003). Varied opinions on how to report accommodated test scores: Findings based on CTB/McGraw-Hill's framework for classifying accommodations (Synthesis Report No. 49). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved October 27, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis49.html
2.
CTB/McGraw-Hill. (2001). Guidelines for inclusive test administration. Monterey, CA: Author.
3.
Elliott, J., Bielinski, J., Thurlow, M., DeVito, P., & Hedlund, E. (1999). Accommodations and the performance of all students on Rhode Island's performance assessment (Rhode Island Assessment Report No. 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
4.
Elliott, S.N., & Roach, A.T. (2002, April). The impact of providing testing accommodations to students with disabilities. Madison: University of Wisconsin—Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research and Department of Educational Psychology. Retrieved September 10, 2004, from http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/testacc
5.
Herner, J., Demczyk, M., & Cox, M. (2004, April). Technical report: SAAS expert opinion survey on meaningful inclusion of students with disabilities in state accountability systems. Columbus, OH: University of Dayton Research Projects. Retrieved May 5, 2004, from http://www.ssco.org/saas
6.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, P.L. 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
7.
Koretz, D. (1997). The assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 431). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Standards and Student Testing.
8.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (1999). Assessing students with disabilities in Kentucky: The e fects of accommodations, format, and subject (Tech. Rep. No. 498). Los Angeles: Center for Research on Standards and Student Testing.
9.
Koretz, D., & Hamilton, L. (2000). Assessment of students with disabilities in Kentucky: Inclusion, student performance, and validity. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22, 255—272.
10.
MacArthur, C.A., & Cavalier, A.R. (2004). Dictation and speech recognition technology as test accommodations. Exceptional Children, 71, 43— 58.
11.
MacArthur, C.A., & Graham, S. (1987). Learning disabled students' composing under three methods of text production: Handwriting, word processing, and dictation. The Journal of Special Education, 21(3), 22—42.
12.
National Center on Educational Outcomes. ( 1999—2003). Online accommodations bibliography, article summaries. Retrieved October 28, 2004, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/Accommodations/
13.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et. seq. (2002).
14.
Sireci, S.G., Li, S., & Scarpati, S. (n.d.). The e fects of test accommodation on test performance: A review of the literature (Center for Educational Assessment Research Report No. 485) . Amherst: University of Massachusetts—Amherst, School of Education.
15.
Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the e fects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Tech. Rep. No. 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved July 6, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical34.htm
16.
Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report No. 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html
17.
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes . Retrieved January 10, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html
18.
Thurlow, M. L., Wiley, H. I., & Bielinski, J. (Eds.). (2002, December). Biennial performance reports: 2000—2001 state assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 3, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/onlinedefault.html
19.
Tindal, G., & Fuchs, L. (1999). A summary of research on test changes: An empirical basis for defining accommodations. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute.
20.
Trimble, S. (1998). Performance trends and use of accommodations on a statewide assessment: Students with disabilities in the KIRIS on-demand assessment from 1992—93 through 1995—96 (Maryland—Kentucky Report No. 3). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 7, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/MDKY_3.html
21.
United States Department of Education. (2001 ). Percentage of children (based on child count) with disabilities subject to unilateral removal by school personnel for drug or weapon o fenses, removal based on a hearing o ficer determination regarding likely injury, or long-term suspension/ expulsion during the 2000—2001 school year (Data Tables). Washington, DC: Office of Special Education. Retrieved November 25, 2002 , from http://www.ideadata.org/
