The characteristics of a state’s accommodations policy may affect a state’s decision about whether to develop an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). A very restrictive accommodations policy may make it more difficult for some students to participate in the state’s regular assessment used for accountability purposes. Descriptive discriminant analysis was used to identify whether differences in the number of allowed accommodations in five categories (presentation, equipment and materials, response, scheduling and timing, setting) differentiated between states that planned to offer an AA-MAS and those that did not. The results of this study provide preliminary evidence that the number of presentation accommodations a state’s policy allowed may be related to the decision the state made about whether to develop an AA-MAS.
AlbusD.LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.CormierD. C. (2009). Characteristics of states’ alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in 2008 (Synthesis Report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
2.
AltmanJ.LazarusS.ThurlowM.QuenemoenR.CuthbertM.CormierD. (2008). 2007 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities, changes, and challenges. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3.
AndersonN. E.JenkinsF. F.MillerK. E. (1996). NAEP inclusion criteria and testing accommodations: Findings from the NAEP 1995 field test in mathematics. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
4.
BoltS. E.YsseldykeJ. E. (2006). Comparing DIF across math and reading/language arts tests for students receiving a read-aloud accommodation. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 329–355.
5.
ChristensenL. L.LailK. E.ThurlowM. L. (2007). Hints and tips for addressing accommodations issues for peer review. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
6.
CrawfordL. (2007). State testing accommodations: A look at their value and validity. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.
7.
CohenJ. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159.
8.
CoxM. L.HernerJ. G.DemczykM. J.NieberdingJ. L. (2006). Provision of testing accommodations for students with disabilities on statewide tests: Statistical links with participation and discipline rates. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 346–354.
9.
DolanM. L.HallT. E.BannerjeeM.ChunE.StrangmanN. (2005). Applying principles of universal design to test design: The effect of computer-based read-aloud on test performance of high school students with learning disabilities. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 3(7). Retrieved July 8, 2008, from http://escholarship.bc.edu/jtla/
10.
DunnW. N. (2008). Public policy analysis: An introduction (4th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
11.
ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.RoachA. T. (2008). Alternate assessments of modified achievement standards: More accessible and less difficult tests to advance assessment practices?Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 140–152.
12.
FilbinJ. (2008). Lessons from the initial peer review of alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Student Achievement and School Accountability Program.
13.
FletcherJ. M.FrancisD. J.BoudousquieA.CopelandK.YoungV.KalinowskiS.VaughnS. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 136–150.
14.
HarrJ. J.PerezM.McLaughlinD.BlankenshipC. (2005). Participation of and accommodations for students with disabilities: Report on task 1.1: participation policies (NAEP State Analysis Project). Washington DC: American Institutes for Research.
15.
HuynhH.BartonK. E. (2006). Performance of students with disabilities under regular and oral administrations of a high-stakes reading examination. Applied Measurement in Education, 19, 21–39.
16.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L. (2009). The changing landscape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS): An analysis of early adopters of AA-MASs. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 496–510.
17.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.ChristensenL. L.CormierD. (2007). States’ alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report 67). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
18.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.ChristensenL. (2009). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change 1993-2005. Journal of Special Education, 43, 67–80.
19.
LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.LailK. E.EisenbraunK. D.KatoK. (2006). 2005 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 64). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20.
MacciniP.GagnonJ. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72, 217–234.
21.
MarionS. (2007). A technical design and documentation workbook for assessments based on modified achievement standards. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
22.
RobertsN. C.KingP. J. (1996). Transforming public policy. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
23.
SilvaA. P. D.StamA. (1996). Discriminant analysis. In GrimmL. G.YarnoldP. R. (Eds.), Reading and understanding multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
24.
ThurlowM. L. (2008). Assessment and instructional implications of the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(3), 132–129.
25.
ThurlowM. L.BremerC.AlbusD. (2008). Good news and bad news in disaggregated subgroup reporting to the public on 2005-2006 assessment results (Technical Report 52). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
26.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.ChristensenL. L. (2008). Role of assessment accommodations in accountability. Perspectives on Language and Literacy, 34(4), 17–20.
27.
ThurlowM. L.ThompsonS. J.LazarusS. S. (2006). Considerations for the administration of tests to special needs students: Accommodations, modifications, and more. In DowningS. M.HaladynaT. M. (Ed.), Handbook of test development (pp. 653–673). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007a, April9). Final rule 34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Federal Register, 72(67), Washington DC: Author. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/2percentReg/FederalRegApril9TwoPercent.pdf
29.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007b, July20). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved May 14, 2009, from www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc
30.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007c). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved June 4, 2008, from www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc
31.
ZeniskyA. L.SireciS. G. (2007). A summary of the research on the effects of test accommodations: 2005-2006 (Technical Report 47). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
