Printer Friendly Version (pdf, 132K)

A Decision Framework for IEP Teams Related to Methods for Individual Student Participation in State Accountability Assessments

Clarifying the IEP Team's Role in Decision Making

Since the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 1997), all students with disabilities must be included in state and district assessments. The IEP team cannot decide that a student will not participate in a statewide assessment. All students unable to participate with accommodations must be provided with an alternate assessment. Some states may specify certain conditions under which parents may refuse to permit their children's participation; these exemptions apply to all students in a given state. For example, in Pennsylvania, students may be excused from the assessment if (and only if) their parents have reviewed the test's content and have declared it to be inappropriate based on religious grounds. Beyond that, it is inconsistent with federal law for an IEP team to exempt a student from state assessments.

IEP teams must decide how students with disabilities will take the statewide assessment. These decisions are complex because of increased methods for having students with disabilities participate in state testing.² The decisions also have important implications for school accountability, reporting, and graduation rates. IEP teams develop individualized education programs that consider the effects of the disability on the needs of the individual student. These programs include recommendations to participate in statewide assessments. IEP teams may need guidance and training in recommending the most appropriate form of participation in statewide assessments for each student with a disability.

The IEP team should not select an assessment method based on a student's participation in a separate, specialized curriculum

Although test scores serve many purposes, we focus on the use of statewide assessment data for accountability (i.e., to estimate a student's achievement with regard to the state's academic content standards). All accountability assessments, including alternate assessments, must be linked to the state's academic content standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2003). Deciding that a student will participate in an alternate assessment judged against alternate achievement standards because he or she needs a functional or other specialized curriculum is inconsistent with this purpose.

The 1997 amendments to IDEA specify that all students must have access to the general curriculum. This access was reaffirmed in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA, 2004). Additionally, NCLB (2002) requires that all students be assessed in reading and math for accountability purposes. An important principle of assessment is that students have the opportunity to learn the material on which they will be tested. English and Steffy (2001) call this the "doctrine of no surprises." Because all students are to be assessed based on grade-level content standards, instruction for all students with disabilities should be aligned with grade-level content in reading and math (albeit reduced in breadth, depth, and/or complexity for some students). The IEP team may decide that simple accommodations can be made in general education classroom instruction so (a) a statewide test can be given or taken and (b) a student's disability does not interfere with making proper inferences about his/her level of skill and proficiency. At the other extreme, an IEP team may decide that students with the most significant disabilities need additional instruction in daily living and functional skills that do not link to academic content standards. Or, they may decide that a student with a disability needs remedial work in reading or math, instruction in social skills or learning strategies, or other unique curricula. Specifying these additional curricular needs is an appropriate role for the IEP team, and specialized curricula may be prescribed to augment participation in the general curriculum. These augmentative curricula do not, however, imply any particular assessment model. For example, augmentative work in life skills may be appropriate for students participating in the general assessment and for students participating in an alternate assessment that is measured against alternate achievement standards.

NCLB sets the high expectation that all students achieve state standards in reading, math, and science. This expectation has substantially increased the educational—and specifically the curricular—opportunities for all students with disabilities. Evidence suggests that even students with the most significant cognitive disabilities can learn academic content, but continued research is needed to demonstrate how to teach the full breadth of the general curriculum to such students (Browder, 2005; Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2005). Alternate assessments with strong links to grade-appropriate content standards use academic tasks and responses, although functional activities also may be incorporated for the application of academic content (Browder et al., 2003). Modified achievement standards (Method 4) and alternate achievement standards (Method 5) may be applied to a small sample of students, but the content of the assessment needs to be linked to the academic curriculum and the academic content standards for the grade level.

The IEP team should not select the assessment method based on current placement

The decision about the most appropriate type of assessment for students with disabilities should not be based on current placement or the setting in which the student receives instruction. As noted previously, every student has the right to access to the general curriculum. Students also have the right to receive instruction from highly qualified teachers who are trained in the content area and the right to an appropriate education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) (IDEA, 2004). LRE does not define the way a student participates in a statewide assessment. Every type of educational setting includes students with disabilities who can be recommended for any of the assessment methods. For example, a student with learning disabilities who attends a separate day school might participate in the regular state assessment without accommodations. Or, a student with significant cognitive disabilities who is fully included in a general education classroom might participate in an alternate assessment judged against alternate achievement standards. In this decision making, a group other than the IEP team may make the placement decision (see CFR §300.552).

The IEP team should not select the assessment method based on disability classification

The type of assessment chosen for a student should not be based on the student's disability classification, which is used to determine his or her eligibility for special education services. The term "significant cognitive disabilities" does not define a new category of students with disabilities. A student's performance should not be judged against grade-level, modified, or alternate achievement standards based on his or her disability label. Instead, best practice dictates that the IEP team's decision about assessment be based on the types and intensity of support the student needs to show academic learning during ongoing instruction.

Furthermore, a student's disability should not serve as the basis for making accommodation decisions. Rather, direct measures of a student's behavior are needed to define their needs. For example, a student who is visually impaired may use specialized orientation strategies to access instructional materials and large print with high contrast to show what he or she knows and can do. The IEP team may decide to accommodate this student by recommending a general assessment in large print with high contrast. Another student might be easily distracted or have high anxiety in larger groups and need special accommodations in the location where the assessment is administered. Therefore, the IEP team might accommodate this student by recommending that he or she be assessed in a separate location. Nevertheless, the student's performance is still to be judged against grade-level achievement standards. In each case, the recommendation for participation and assessment method is based on the individual student's needs.

² States are not required to use every assessment method. Some states may have alternate assessments but not choose to use alternate or modified achievement standards. State guidelines should clarify which methods are available.