Sheryl S. Lazarus

A Longitudinal Analysis of State Accommodations Policies Twelve Years of Change, 1993—2005

State accommodations policies affect the way that students with disabilities are included in large-scale assessments. This articles uses information collected by the National Center on Educational Outcomes to analyze how accommodations policies changed between 1993 and 2005. Throughout the 1990s, state accommodations policies often sought to level the playing field for students with disabilities. In recent years, more emphasis has been placed on seeking to ensure that the accommodations permit valid measurement of test constructs. Accommodations that involve the use of technology and the extended time accommodation are generally better accepted now than in the past. There continues to be no consensus across states about how several accommodations, including calculator, read aloud questions, sign interpret questions, and spell-checker, should be included in the policies, and states may want to consider focusing on the creation of high-quality, universally designed assessments that minimize the need for accommodations.

States’ Accommodations Policies and Development of Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Achievement Standards A Discriminant Analysis

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.

Special Education--Non-Special Education Achievement Gap in Math: Effects of Reporting Methods, Analytical Techniques, and Reclassification.

ABSTRACT Federal regulations indicate that the achievement gap must be closed between subgroups, including the gap between special education and non-special education students. We explored the ways in which achievement trends are influenced by three methods of reporting (cross-sectional, cohort–static, and cohort–dynamic). We also investigated (a) the ways in which achievement gaps change when different analytical techniques (proficiency levels, scale scores, effect size) are used, and (b) the relationship between student achievement and the extent to which students’ special education status changes across years. We conclude by discussing the practical and policy implications of using the three methods for reporting data about the performance gap.

An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of the AA-MAS Policy:

In 2005, to address concerns about students who might fall in the “gap” between the regular assessment and the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), the U.S. Department of Education announced that states could develop alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). This article reports empirical evidence on characteristics of students participating in the AA-MAS, how students were assigned to test types, research on changes in assessment designs over a 4-year period, and changes in rates of participation and proficiency. The results suggest states and districts have struggled with how to appropriately assign students to this test option, and that there is a need to ensure this group of students has access to rigorous standards-based content. It concludes with a discussion of what can be learned from this policy attempt to resolve a very real problem as the United States moves toward the next generation of assessments.

Test Takers and the Validity of Score Interpretations

This article argues that test takers are as integral to determining validity of test scores as defining target content and conditioning inferences on test use. A principled sustained attention to how students interact with assessment opportunities is essential, as is a principled sustained evaluation of evidence confirming the validity or calling into question the inferences for individual students. Three innovative assessment systems are highlighted to illustrate where and how the developers might handle diverse test taker needs and learning characteristics. ONPAR measures challenging content using multisemiotic methods and novel item types, designing items to handle multiple profiles so they are accessible for most students. Dynamic Learning Maps has built an innovative network of learning maps, and multiple pathways designed to model how diverse students acquire knowledge. To support their assessments, the National Center and State Collaborative has built an exemplary web of educator resources such as content modules and guides in order to support differentiated learning.