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

# 

For students to be appropriately included in large-scale assessments,
Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams need to be aware of what to
do, and not to do, when making individualized assessment decisions.
Because the assessment methods vary and must fit individual needs,
decisions could be made using inappropriate criteria. However, with an
appropriate sequence of decision guides, IEP teams can ask a set of
questions to arrive at an appropriate recommendation for having a
student with a disability participate in a statewide assessment.

Depending on the state system, an IEP team currently may have up to five
possible methods of participation to consider:

1\. General assessment

2\. General assessment with accommodations

3\. Alternate assessment judged against grade-level achievement
standards

4\. Assessment judged against modified achievement standards[^1]

5\. Alternate assessment judged against alternate achievement standards

Each of the five methods must produce achievement scores that can be
used in calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), as required by the
*No Child Left Behind Act* (*NCLB*). Each method is derived from federal
regulations and policies (U.S. Department of Education, 2004).
Currently, states can decide whether to use modified and/or alternate
achievement standards in judging the performance of students with
disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education has announced plans to
publish a notice of proposed rulemaking on the use of modified
achievement standards in December 2005.

All of the assessment methods are based on the same state content
standards. In Methods 1--3, student performance is judged against
grade-level achievement standards. These standards are designed to
enable inferences about the breadth and depth of content proficiency for
a respective grade level. Methods 1 and 2 (general assessments without
and with accommodations) and Method 3 (alternate assessment judged
against grade-level standards) allow for comparable inferences to be
made about proficiency, given the changes that have been made. Methods 4
and 5 judge student performance against modified or alternate
achievement standards, respectively. The modified and alternate
achievement standards infer that accommodations and extensive supports
have been used---particularly those involving assistive technologies,
prompting, or scaffolding---and/or that the grade-level content has been
changed in breadth, depth, and/or complexity. Again, the use of modified
achievement standards is clarified in the Department's notice of
proposed rulemaking.

Alternate achievement standards are designed to enable very stipulated
inferences about grade-level expectations that have been extensively
prioritized and narrowed. Alternate achievement standards also assume
that student performance is contingent on having the supports used in
the assessment.

The requirement that *all* students participate in these assessments may
raise multiple issues for IEP teams to address. However, this paper
focuses only on issues most closely related to the participation
*methods*. The paper discusses the learning and behavioral
characteristics of students likely to be appropriate for each testing
method. IEP teams also should consider whether the participation method
has consequences for meeting graduation requirements. Because graduation
requirements differ by state, this paper does not address implications
of the various participation methods on graduation. State-level testing
guidelines should specify the impact of each method on meeting
graduation requirements. We begin with the premise that all students,
with or without disabilities, should participate in the general
assessment without accommodations unless the IEP team determines
otherwise.

## 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.

## 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.

##### Question 1: In what way does the student access the general education curriculum?

Some students with disabilities access the general education curriculum
in the same way as students who are not disabled; that is, students with
disabilities are included in general education classes and/or are
expected to master the general education curriculum to the same breadth,
depth, and complexity as their nondisabled peers, although they may need
some accommodations to do so (which hopefully does not change the
construct being measured). Some of these students may have achieved
grade-level reading and math skills but also have significant physical
challenges that require extensive accommodations. In judging access
needs of the student, administration conditions and response
requirements of the general statewide assessment should not differ
greatly from those provided to the student to demonstrate grade-level
reading and math proficiency during the school year. If extensive
accommodations are used to determine that these students achieved
grade-level reading skills during the year, then the same extensive
accommodations should be used for the general statewide assessment. If
these accommodations are not a routine part of either the teaching or
assessment/testing, then unsystematic variance is introduced into the
testing situation (and potentially becomes part of the construct
irrelevant variance), making the test easier or more difficult for the
student and masking his or her true score.

An IEP team should recommend that students who are focusing on
grade-level achievement standards as part of their ongoing instructional
programs take the general assessment without or with accommodations. IEP
teams are likely to choose this method for most students with
disabilities. In fact, in a recent summary of participation rates across
states for the 2002--03 school year, the National Center on Educational
Outcomes reported that 84% of special education students participated in
the general reading statewide assessment without or with accommodations
and that 76% of special education students participated in the general
math statewide assessment without or with accommodations (Thurlow, Moen,
& Wiley, 2005).

If a student has been taking the general assessment (either without or
with accommodations) but has not achieved proficiency, IEP teams should
consider the type and quality of instruction the student has been
receiving before recommending an alternate assessment method that is
judged against modified or alternate achievement standards. Because of
past traditions in special education in which separate, specialized
curricula have been used, students may not yet have had access to the
general education curriculum for their assigned grade level. Given the
diversity of models for delivering special education services, students'
histories may reflect pullout for instruction in basic skills, strategy
supports, or content tutorials, all of which may or may not preclude
grade-level content delivered using research-based practice by highly
qualified teachers. Therefore, a more specific analysis of instructional
focus is needed. Before recommending an assessment other than the
general statewide test, without or with accommodations, the IEP team
should consider these three questions:

-   Has the student received instruction in the grade-level academic
    content?

-   Was this instruction evidence-based?

-   Was instruction delivered by a highly qualified teacher?

If the answer to any of the three questions is "No", then the IEP team
should recommend that a student's instructional program be altered
before considering an assessment method based on modified or alternate
achievement standards. This recommendation is based on best practice.

Students who participate in general education settings during most of
their school day may need the delivery of that instruction to focus on
access or prerequisite skills. Students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities may need to have their general education
curriculum streamlined or prioritized. A number of options exist for
changing the general education curriculum to accommodate challenges in
short-term memory and transfer of knowledge that students with
significant cognitive disabilities may need within ongoing instruction
to target specific skills and provide frequent opportunities to learn.
The National Alternate Assessment Center discusses some of the variables
that relate to cognition for students with significant cognitive
disabilities (Kleinert et al., 2005). Whatever changes need to be made,
student access to the general education curriculum often involves
ongoing team planning about how the student can participate in each
instructional unit or weekly lesson.

Access also may require dual instruction (i.e., coordinated teaching
from general and special education teachers) and the use of a double
dose of time. Dual instruction can occur when teachers plan to focus on
the same skills and knowledge with different contexts: the general
education teacher within the grade-level content and the special
education teacher within the context of skills to access the content. In
this model, students with significant disabilities get double the
opportunity to learn.

For example, the supports of many students may need only simple
adjustments (e.g., amount of time, setting, prompts, scaffolds, etc.) to
deliver important grade-level content. In this case, the statewide test
should be a fair reflection of what the students have learned. As such,
the accommodations made in the classroom must also be acceptable for use
on the statewide test. In contrast, students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities may be working on emergent literacy or numeracy
skills in the context of grade-level content. For example, a fifth-grade
student with the most significant cognitive disabilities may be using
stories adapted from fifth- grade books to learn to identify pictures.
Or, the student may be learning the concept of numbers but concurrently
gaining awareness of how numbers are used in simple equations. If a
student is receiving an extensive level of prioritization within the
general education curriculum, then the IEP team may need to consider
recommending an alternate assessment judged against alternate
achievement standards.

##### Question 2: What has been the student's response to academic interventions?

Many students with disabilities respond to appropriate, intensive
interventions aimed at improving performance on academic, behavioral, or
social skills. Their progress can be reliably documented, measured, and
reported using various curriculum-based measures that are predictive of
performance on state assessments. With teachers monitoring students'
progress, instructional adjustments can be made along the way (during
the year) so that students have a maximal opportunity to catch up.
Ideally, with instruction continually informed by student progress,
students can keep pace with the grade-level curriculum and perform
proficiently on the statewide assessments in a timely fashion. With this
process, a considerable effort is needed to truly provide all students
with disabilities with an opportunity to reach proficiency by 2014.
Presently, most students with disabilities are not reaching proficiency:
The average proficiency rate among special education students taking the
general assessment (without or with accommodations) is 21% for reading
and 12% for math (Thurlow et al., 2005). Even with the allowance of the
2% and the 1% to be counted as proficient, considerable focus is needed
on the formative evaluation of instructional programs so that teachers
can determine students' responses to academic interventions. Otherwise,
as students with disabilities participate more in the general
assessment, it may be likely that lower percentages of them will achieve
proficiency.

Nevertheless, with appropriate focus on skills and with ongoing,
systematic instruction[^3] on prioritized skills (Browder & Spooner, in
press), students with the most significant cognitive disabilities can
make academic progress. It is quite likely, however, that teachers will
also need to consider making changes in the number of grade-level
content standards that are addressed (breadth), the number of objectives
considered within any of the content standards (depth), or their
complexity as reflected in the requisite skills needed for successful
completion of the material covered by standards. To borrow a term used
in functional skills instruction, the target goal is "meaningful partial
participation" rather than mastery of the entire content or construct.
By appropriately including students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities through manipulations of breadth, depth, or complexity, at
least some subset of grade-level content standards will be within the
student's educational experience.

Some states have developed curricular frameworks or statements of the
critical essence of their state standards to give teachers examples of
how participation can be meaningful and aligned with the grade-level
content. The National Alternate Assessment Center
(http://www.naacpartners.org) also provides resources on making
grade-level links with prioritized skills that are focused on higher
expectations for academic learning than assumed in the past. For
students whose academic program focuses on their learning essential and
highly prioritized academic content, alternate assessments judged
against alternate achievement standards may be appropriate.

##### Question 3: How does the student interact with text?

For many students with disabilities, their interaction with text is the
focus of their instruction: They learn to read and complete math
problems in a traditional manner, using the symbol systems of the
alphabet and numbers and operations. For this group of students, the
focus is likely to be on accommodations and adjustments in the statewide
testing program that provide better access to that text.

A student who can learn with text and instructional supports that do not
change the breadth, depth, or complexity of the general education
curriculum should have the opportunity to demonstrate grade-level
achievement through Methods 1--3. If accommodations (e.g., Braille,
enlarged text, extended time to read, etc.) are needed, then the IEP
team can recommend participation in the general assessment with
accommodations (Method 2).

In contrast, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
may have inconsistent or rudimentary basic skills in reading and math.
For example, they may be gaining word or number awareness while using
symbols to fill in reports and other student assignments, or they may be
able to understand a concept in a content text if the text is not only
simplified and made accessible with technology or a human reader, but
also supplemented with extensive picture or auditory cues. Students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities may also use minimal sight
word vocabulary to glean meaning from phrases, headlines, and other
signs. In all of these examples, the critical issue is the appropriate
balance of skill and content knowledge. Interacting with text in reading
and math requires learning appropriate symbol systems. In reading,
alphabetic principles are used; in math, numeric and operational rules
are used. The IEP team should balance the needs of the student in
learning both the skill and the content.

Unfortunately, to date, few researchers and schools have focused on how
to teach students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to
read (Kliewer & Biklen, 2001; Joseph & Seery, 2004). In the absence of
an adequate research base on which to define evidence-based practice,
descriptive resources provide some illustrative adaptations that are
suitable for this group of students. For example, Koppenhaver, Erickson,
and Skotko (2001) used adapted texts and communication to promote
participation in storybook reading for students with Rett Syndrome.
Similarly, Downing (2005) made text accessible using a tactile alphabet
book. A number of researchers have taught picture reading using
assistive technology (Mechling & Langone, 2000; Musselwhite &
King-DeBaun, 1997; Snyder, Freeman-Lorentz, & McLaughlin, 1993). And,
Musselwhite and King-DeBaun (1997) embedded pictures or auditory cues so
students could keep pace with the reading of a story; they used
assistive technology to "say" repeated phrases (e.g., to read a repeated
story line). Students who access text by focusing primarily on key
words, pictures, and auditory cues may be candidates for alternate
assessments judged against alternate achievement standards.

##### Question 4: 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?

Some students with complex physical or sensory challenges can perform on
grade level if given alternative ways to demonstrate learning. One
student may have significant physical challenges and communicate in a
way that requires extensive time and possibly a translator to convey the
message. Another student may have serious medical challenges that
require providing assessments using unique responses and contexts. If
students with these types of challenges have been able to access text
and other instruction in the general education curriculum in ways that
do not change its complexity or cognitive demand, then they may be
candidates for either the general assessment with accommodations (Method
2) or an alternate assessment judged against grade-level achievement
standards (Method 3).

Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may lack the
symbolic communication skills typically used to engage in academic
instruction. Thus, they may need extensive support for academic
learning. Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Courtade-Little, & Snell (2005) have
described three levels of symbol use that have relevance for access to
the general education curriculum. Some students who do not yet use
symbolic communication may make their needs known through gestures,
sounds, or other means. To access the general education curriculum,
these students need support to use new symbols while learning academic
concepts. For example, a student may be able to use a symbol for a story
character on a voice output communication device to participate in the
reading of a story. Some students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities may use and comprehend a small vocabulary of spoken words
or symbols. These students have alternatives to begin applying symbols
in the context of grade-level content. By using assistive technology,
these students may be able to fill in simple charts by using picture
symbols or numbers. In other cases, students with significant cognitive
disabilities may have more expanded symbol systems and speech but still
need extensive supports (pictures, visual cues, objects) to apply these
skills in the context of a grade-level curriculum.

In addition to assistive technology to compensate for underdeveloped
symbolic communication, some students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities may need social supports and instruction in
self-directed learning. Some may benefit from learning from nondisabled
peers (Fisher & Frey, 2001; Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994). For
example, a student may be more responsive to a peer's prompting than a
teacher's or more likely to imitate a peer's model than a teacher's.
Other students may be more responsive if allowed to choose materials or
activities (Kennedy & Haring, 1993; Stephenson & Linfoot, 1995). Some
may be able to show partial learning (Shriner, 2000; Thurlow, Lazarus,
Thompson, & Robey, 2002). Students with significant cognitive
disabilities who need extensive assistive technology support for symbol
use and who need environmental supports, such as peer models or teacher
scaffolding, are likely candidates for an alternate assessment through
which they can demonstrate achievement using these supports and have
their performance judged against alternate achievement standards.

An important caveat to remember is that all students need the
opportunity to complete assessment tasks and make a response. Just as
color-coding the answers in a test booklet is not an appropriate form of
support (unless the test is intended to assess color recognition),
physically guiding a student with the most significant cognitive
disabilities through every task provides no information on whether the
student has learned the material. This type of prompting may be
important to early learning but should be phased out so that students
can demonstrate independence. While students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities may need extensive supports to participate in
assessment tasks, these supports should not compete with or prevent the
student from being able to show the necessary level of independence and
problem solving. Changes in cognitive, perceptual, and physical demands
can differ in many ways (between or within assessment methods and among
test takers receiving the assessment in different ways) as long as
construct underrepresentation and construct irrelevance are within
acceptable limits.

##### Question 5: What inferences can be made about how the students will generalize skills to different contexts (i.e., transfer information taught in one context to the other)?

Generalization or transfer of learning always exists within some limits.
The extent of these limits differs among students with disabilities.
Some students with disabilities can demonstrate transfer of learning
with little or no direct instruction on generalization. Most students
with disabilities, however, have some difficulty generalizing learned
information to novel situations. Students may master content material in
one educational setting but fail to apply that information to another
general education class or real-life setting (Scruggs & Mastropieri,
1984). For example, students who learned basic division in school may
not automatically apply this skill to dividing the cost of a pizza among
four friends. While such generalization problems also are encountered in
students without disabilities, they can be magnified in students with
disabilities. However, many of these same students respond well to
generalization training that helps them to apply what they have learned
to different life situations. When these students participate in
assessments judged against grade-level achievement standards (Methods 1,
2, and 3), the assessment items are assumed to sample grade-level
content. For example, if students can solve a particular word problem in
a math assessment, then presumably they can apply that same math
competence to other scenarios (real life or textbook) that require
similar levels of mathematical reasoning and computation.

However, students with disabilities need to have systematic instruction
that is oriented to generalization in reading and math to make
appropriate inferences about what they can do. Without this, their skill
level on a statewide test cannot possibly be understood. Indeed, the
core basis for resistance to intervention is based on the assumption
that students can learn and that they have been provided with
appropriate opportunities to learn across a range of conditions.

For students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, the most
conservative assumption is that they can demonstrate achievement if
assessed under the same conditions and with the same supports used in
instruction. For example, Horner's research on general case instruction
demonstrated that teaching students with multiple exemplars sampled from
the range of variation for a task (not just those being taught) can lead
to performance of untaught tasks (Horner & Albin, 1988; Horner &
McDonald, 1982). Therefore, when achievement beyond the assessment items
cannot be assumed, the student's performance should probably be judged
against modified or alternate achievement standards (Methods 4 or 5).

## Summary and Recommendations

Table 1 summarizes the educational characteristics of students that IEP
teams should consider when making recommendations about student
participation in statewide assessments. States may specify additional
considerations in their individual statewide assessment guidelines and
guidance regarding the development of IEPs. Also, states that do not
choose to use all of the assessment methods available in the regulations
and summarized here should offer specific guidance about students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Table 1

Decision Framework for IEP Teams to Use When Choosing Assessment
Methods, by Type of Method and Student Educational Characteristics

+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| Prer     |         | -   **Has   |          |          |           |
| equisite |         |     the     |          |          |           |
| Consid   |         |     student |          |          |           |
| erations |         |     had     |          |          |           |
|          |         |     access  |          |          |           |
|          |         |     to      |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         | grade-level |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         |  content?** |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         | -   **Has   |          |          |           |
|          |         |     the     |          |          |           |
|          |         |     student |          |          |           |
|          |         |     had     |          |          |           |
|          |         |     evi     |          |          |           |
|          |         | dence-based |          |          |           |
|          |         |     ins     |          |          |           |
|          |         | truction?** |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         | -   **Was   |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         | instruction |          |          |           |
|          |         |     by a    |          |          |           |
|          |         |     highly  |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         |   qualified |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         |  teacher?** |          |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| If the   |         |             |          |          |           |
| answer   |         |             |          |          |           |
| to any   |         |             |          |          |           |
| of these |         |             |          |          |           |
| q        |         |             |          |          |           |
| uestions |         |             |          |          |           |
| is "No", |         |             |          |          |           |
| then     |         |             |          |          |           |
| address  |         |             |          |          |           |
| access   |         |             |          |          |           |
| consid   |         |             |          |          |           |
| erations |         |             |          |          |           |
| and      |         |             |          |          |           |
| continue |         |             |          |          |           |
| to apply |         |             |          |          |           |
| gra      |         |             |          |          |           |
| de-level |         |             |          |          |           |
| ach      |         |             |          |          |           |
| ievement |         |             |          |          |           |
| s        |         |             |          |          |           |
| tandards |         |             |          |          |           |
| and      |         |             |          |          |           |
| evaluate |         |             |          |          |           |
| response |         |             |          |          |           |
| to       |         |             |          |          |           |
| inter    |         |             |          |          |           |
| vention. |         |             |          |          |           |
|          |         |             |          |          |           |
| If the   |         |             |          |          |           |
| answer   |         |             |          |          |           |
| to all   |         |             |          |          |           |
| three    |         |             |          |          |           |
| q        |         |             |          |          |           |
| uestions |         |             |          |          |           |
| is       |         |             |          |          |           |
| "Yes",   |         |             |          |          |           |
| then     |         |             |          |          |           |
| consider |         |             |          |          |           |
| the      |         |             |          |          |           |
| methods  |         |             |          |          |           |
| and      |         |             |          |          |           |
| q        |         |             |          |          |           |
| uestions |         |             |          |          |           |
| below.   |         |             |          |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **Q      | Ass     |             |          |          |           |
| uestions | essment |             |          |          |           |
| to       | Recomme |             |          |          |           |
| Co       | ndation |             |          |          |           |
| nsider** |         |             |          |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
|          | **Me    | **Method 2. | **Method | **Method | **Method  |
|          | thod 1. | General     | 3.       | 4.       | 5.        |
|          | General | Assessment, | A        | Ass      | Alternate |
|          | Asses   | with        | lternate | essment, | As        |
|          | sment** | Accom       | Ass      | Modified | sessment, |
|          |         | modations** | essment, | Achie    | Alternate |
|          |         |             | Gra      | vement** | Achi      |
|          |         |             | de-Level |          | evement** |
|          |         |             | Achie    |          |           |
|          |         |             | vement** |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **       | Shows   |             |          | Does not | Due to    |
| Question | p       |             |          | show     | si        |
| 1:**     | rogress |             |          | gra      | gnificant |
|          | in the  |             |          | de-level | cognitive |
| **In     | full    |             |          | achi     | dis       |
| what way | scope   |             |          | evement; | abilities |
| does the | and     |             |          | needs    | (e.g.,    |
| student  | com     |             |          | changes  | memory,   |
| access   | plexity |             |          | in       | transfer  |
| the      | of the  |             |          | co       | of        |
| general  | grad    |             |          | mplexity | l         |
| curri    | e-level |             |          | and      | earning), |
| culum?** | cur     |             |          | scope of | needs     |
|          | riculum |             |          | cu       | extensive |
|          | but may |             |          | rriculum | prior     |
|          | not yet |             |          | to show  | itization |
|          | be on   |             |          | progress | within    |
|          | grade   |             |          | in       | gr        |
|          | level.  |             |          | gra      | ade-level |
|          |         |             |          | de-level | content.  |
|          |         |             |          | content. |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **       | R       |             |          | Academic | Requires  |
| Question | esponds |             |          | problems | ongoing   |
| 2:**     | to      |             |          | persist  | s         |
|          | grad    |             |          | despite  | ystematic |
| **What   | e-level |             |          | app      | in        |
| has been | inst    |             |          | ropriate | struction |
| this     | ruction |             |          | and      | to learn  |
| s        | but may |             |          | i        | pr        |
| tudent's | not yet |             |          | ntensive | ioritized |
| response | be on   |             |          | inst     | skills;   |
| to       | grade   |             |          | ruction; | needs to  |
| academic | level.  |             |          | multiple | focus on  |
| in       |         |             |          | years    | critical  |
| tervene- |         |             |          | behind   | essence   |
| tions?** |         |             |          | gra      | of        |
|          |         |             |          | de-level | content.  |
|          |         |             |          | expec    |           |
|          |         |             |          | tations. |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **       | On or   |             |          | Needs    | Needs key |
| Question | near    |             |          | co       | words,    |
| 3:**     | grade   |             |          | ntrolled | pictures, |
|          | level   |             |          | voc      | and       |
| **How    | in      |             |          | abulary/ | auditory  |
| does     | r       |             |          | reduced  | cues      |
| this     | eading. |             |          | reading  | embedded  |
| student  |         |             |          | level;   | in        |
| interact |         |             |          | may also | adapted   |
| with     |         |             |          | need     | or        |
| text?**  |         |             |          | text     | c         |
|          |         |             |          | reader.  | ontrolled |
|          |         |             |          |          | text; may |
|          |         |             |          |          | need text |
|          |         |             |          |          | reader to |
|          |         |             |          |          | use these |
|          |         |             |          |          | cues; may |
|          |         |             |          |          | have some |
|          |         |             |          |          | emerging  |
|          |         |             |          |          | reading   |
|          |         |             |          |          | skills.   |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **Q      | Ass     |             |          |          |           |
| uestions | essment |             |          |          |           |
| to       | Recomme |             |          |          |           |
| Co       | ndation |             |          |          |           |
| nsider** |         |             |          |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
|          | **Me    | **Method 2. | **Method | **Method | **Method  |
|          | thod 1. | General     | 3.       | 4.       | 5.        |
|          | General | Assessment, | A        | Ass      | Alternate |
|          | Asses   | with        | lternate | essment, | As        |
|          | sment** | Accom       | Ass      | Modified | sessment, |
|          |         | modations** | essment, | Achie    | Alternate |
|          |         |             | Gra      | vement** | Achi      |
|          |         |             | de-Level |          | evement** |
|          |         |             | Achie    |          |           |
|          |         |             | vement** |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **       | None    | Needs       | Needs    | Needs    | Needs     |
| Question | needed. | acc         | modified | supports | extensive |
| 4: Do    |         | ommodation. | prese    | that     | supports, |
| the      |         |             | ntations | reduce   | such as   |
| supports |         |             | and      | co       | s         |
| required |         |             | r        | mplexity | implified |
| by this  |         |             | esponses | or       | symbol    |
| student  |         |             | but on   | breadth  | system,   |
| to       |         |             | grade    | of       | peer      |
| perform  |         |             | level.   | as       | model or  |
| or       |         |             |          | sessment | m         |
| par      |         |             |          | items,   | otivation |
| ticipate |         |             |          | such as  | through   |
| mean     |         |             |          | aids     | choice    |
| ingfully |         |             |          | that     | making to |
| and      |         |             |          | reduce   | retrieve  |
| prod     |         |             |          | judgment | response. |
| uctively |         |             |          | needed   |           |
| in the   |         |             |          | to do    |           |
| general  |         |             |          | task or  |           |
| e        |         |             |          | teacher  |           |
| ducation |         |             |          | sca      |           |
| cu       |         |             |          | ffolding |           |
| rriculum |         |             |          | during   |           |
| change   |         |             |          | ass      |           |
| the      |         |             |          | essment. |           |
| co       |         |             |          |          |           |
| mplexity |         |             |          |          |           |
| or       |         |             |          |          |           |
| c        |         |             |          |          |           |
| ognitive |         |             |          |          |           |
| demand   |         |             |          |          |           |
| of the   |         |             |          |          |           |
| mat      |         |             |          |          |           |
| erial?** |         |             |          |          |           |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+
| **       | Shows   |             |          | Transfer | Needs     |
| Question | t       |             |          | of       | s         |
| 5: What  | ransfer |             |          | learning | ystematic |
| in       | of      |             |          | is more  | in        |
| ferences | l       |             |          | limited  | struction |
| can be   | earning |             |          | in scope | to        |
| made     | to the  |             |          | than     | ge        |
| about    | extent  |             |          | grade    | neralize; |
| the      | e       |             |          | level;   | because   |
| s        | xpected |             |          | may only | gener     |
| tudent's | for the |             |          | transfer | alization |
| generali | grade   |             |          | to       | is        |
| za-tion/ | level   |             |          | similar  | e         |
| transfer | during  |             |          | or       | specially |
| of       | ongoing |             |          | familiar | ch        |
| lea      | instr   |             |          | content  | allenging |
| rning?** | uction. |             |          | or       | during    |
|          |         |             |          | c        | ins       |
|          |         |             |          | ontexts. | truction, |
|          |         |             |          |          | should    |
|          |         |             |          |          | not be    |
|          |         |             |          |          | assumed   |
|          |         |             |          |          | unless    |
|          |         |             |          |          | assessed. |
+----------+---------+-------------+----------+----------+-----------+

IEP teams should use a systematic process for recommending how students
with disabilities participate in large-scale assessments. When choosing
assessment methods for students with disabilities, IEP teams should
consider the following factors:

1\. Data that focus primarily on students' skills and needs

2\. The type of assessment that measures the student against appropriate
achievement standards (i.e., grade-level, modified, or alternate)

3\. Results of annual evaluations that, when examined over time, measure
students as they have better and more complete access to the general
education curriculum.

## References

Browder, D. (2005, June 7). *Research on academic learning by students
with significant cognitive disabilities*. Presented at the OSEP 15th
Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference, Washington, DC.
Retrieved June 9, 2005, from education.uncc.edu/access/ppt/DOE June 7 05
lit review sw5-24.ppt.

Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. H. (in press). Teaching reading, math, and
science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M.
(2005). General curriculum access. In M. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.),
*Instruction for students with severe disabilities* (6th ed.) (pp.
489--525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C.,
Algozzine, R., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the
curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessments.
*Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities*, 2,
165--181.

Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine,
B. (2005). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive
disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Clay, M., & Cazden, C. (1992). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading
recovery. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), *Vygotsky and education: Instructional
implications and applications of socio-historical psychology* (pp.
206--222). New York: Cambridge University Press.

DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., & Lloyd, C. A. (2001). Teacher decision
making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale
assessments. *Exceptional Children*, 68, 7--22.

Downing, J. E. (2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant
disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment:
Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of
educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical
ingredients for student success. *Remedial & Special Education*, 22,
148--157.

Horner, R. H., & Albin, R. W. (1988). Research on general case
procedures for learners with severe disabilities. *Education and
Treatment of Children*, 11, 375--388.

Horner, R., H., & McDonald, R. S. (1982). Comparison of single instance
and general case instruction in teaching a generalized vocational skill.
*Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped*, 7, 7--20.

Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all
students within the context of cooperative learning groups. *Journal of
the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps*, 21, 53--71.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et
seq. (1997).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.
S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350 (2004).

Joseph, L. M., & Seery, M. E. (2004). Where is the phonics? A review of
the literature on the use of phonetic analysis with students with mental
retardation. *Remedial and Special Education*, 25, 88--94.

Kennedy, C. H., & Haring, T. G. (1993). Teaching choice making during
social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities.
*Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis*, 26, 63--77.

Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Powles-Reeves, E. (2005). The Assessment
Triangle and Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Models of
Student Cognition. National Alternate Assessment Center,
Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky.
Retrieved December 5, 2005, from
naacpartners.org/Products/Files/NAAC%20Assmt%20Triangle%20White%20Paper%20-%20FINAL%20HK.doc.

Kliewer, C., & Bilken, D. (2001). "School's not really a place for
reading": A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with
severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with
Severe Handicaps, 26, 1--12.

Koppenhaver, D., Erickson, K., & Skotko, B. (2001). Supporting
communication of girls with Rett syndrome and their mothers in storybook
reading. *International Journal of Disability, Development and
Education*, 48, 395--410.

Mechling, L., & Langone, J. (2000). The effects of a computer-based
instructional program with video anchors on the use of photographs for
prompting augmentative communication. *Education and Training in Mental
Retardation and Developmental Disabilities*, 35, 90--105.

Musselwhite, C., & King-DeBaun, P. (1997). Emergent literacy success:
Merging technology and whole language for students with disabilities.
Park City, UT: Creative Communicating.

*No Child Left Behind Act of 2001*, Pub. L. No. 107--110, 115 Stat. 1425
(2002).

Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1984). Issues in generalization:
Implications for special education. *Psychology in the Schools*, 21*,*
397--403.

Shriner, J. G. (2000). Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment
for students with disabilities. *Journal of Special Education*, 33,
232--239.

Snyder, T. L., Freeman-Lorentz, K., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). The
effects of augmentative communication on vocabulary acquisition with
primary age students with disabilities. B. C. *Journal of Special
Education*, 17*,* 73--93.

Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1995). Choice-making as a natural context
for teaching early communication board use to a ten-year-old boy with
not spoken language and severe intellectual disability. *Australia and
New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20,* 263--286.

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Robey, J. (2002).
2001 *State policies on* assessment participation and accommodations
(NCEO Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 9, 2005, from
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html>.

Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E., & Wiley, H. I. (2005). *Annual performance
reports: 2002-2003 State assessment data*. Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 22,
2005, from <http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/APRsummary2005.pdf>.

U. S. Department of Education. (2003, December 9). Title I---Improving
the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Final rule, 68 Fed. Reg.
236.

U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessment peer
review guidance: Information and examples for meeting the requirements
of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.

This document was produced in December 2005 under U.S. Department of
Education Contract No. EDO4CO0025/0002 with the American Institutes for
Research. Renee Bradley served as the contracting officer\'s
representative. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of
Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in
this report or on Web sites referred to in this report is intended or
should be inferred.

[^1]: See the U.S. Department of Education's interim policy on modified
    achievement standards at
    http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/raising/disab-options.html
    (retrieved October 20, 2005).

[^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.

[^3]: ^3^ The term "systematic instruction" is used here to refer to the
    prompt fading procedures like time delay, least intrusive prompts,
    and similar methods used to promote skill acquisition for this
    population.