Printer Friendly Version (pdf, 132K)

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

The IEP team should not select the assessment method to
improve school AYP reports

Because of perceived pressure from the school or public, an IEP team may select an assessment method for a student that would most likely contribute to improved school accountability scores. Selecting a method for participation in statewide assessments, like all educational decisions made by the IEP team, should focus on creating an appropriate education for each student with disabilities. Although limits are in place on the number of students who can be reported as proficient using modified or alternate achievement standards (Methods 4 and 5, respectively), an unlimited number of students can be assigned to these alternate assessments. Thus, the IEP team should have the flexibility to select the assessment method that is best for each student and consistent with the state's guidelines. (See IDEA sections 612(a)(16) and 614(d)(1)(A)(i)(VI).) Similarly, if a student's needs are best met by participating in an assessment judged against grade-level achievement standards, even if scoring proficiently is a long shot for this student, the IEP team should select this method. By using evidence-based procedures and practices to teach the general education curriculum to all students, more students will achieve proficiency in whichever assessment they are assigned to take and school scores will improve.

The IEP team should select the assessment method based on educational needs

The current educational needs of students with disabilities are the most appropriate criteria to consider when selecting an assessment method. The IEP team identifies the types of supports and interventions that the student requires for educational success. The team has information on how the student has participated in various types of assessments in the past. From this information, the team can address the specific educational needs that relate to a statewide assessment and make a recommendation.

Considering Educational Needs to Select an Assessment Method

When considering an assessment method, IEP teams must be cognizant of their primary role: They need to determine if a student has a disability and if a student needs specially designed instruction to meet his or her unique needs (i.e., requires special education). This is a critical context for IEP teams as discussed in this paper. Once these determinations are made, a number of questions can be asked to arrive at a decision for the student's participation in statewide assessment:

• In what way does the student access the general education curriculum?
• What has been the student's response to academic interventions?
• How does the student interact with text?
• Do the supports required by the student to perform or participate meaningfully and productively in the general education curriculum change the complexity or cognitive demand of the material?
• What inferences can be made about how the student will generalize skills to different contexts (i.e., transfer information taught in one context to another)?

The next few pages discuss how the answers to these questions can lead an IEP team to a particular assessment recommendation.

Of course, in asking these questions, it is important for the IEP team to be fully informed about the state standards and assessments. In particular, the team needs to know about the demands, administration conditions, and response requirements of the general assessment and about the approaches to assessment for any alternate assessments promulgated by the state. If the IEP team is deciding whether a student should participate in the general assessment, the first questions should be: Is this student capable of taking the general statewide assessment? If not, why not? Is it because the student does not have access to appropriate content in the grade-level general education curriculum and, therefore, is not likely to know the specific content assessed on the statewide test? Is it because of the conditions of administration and/or response requirements? Or, is it because the student simply does not reach a high level of mastery on the specific content despite having ample and highly supported access? The answers to this first order of questions raise a number of other questions that can guide an IEP team in making an appropriate recommendation for student participation in the state assessment.