Questions
& Answers About IDEA, Students with Disabilities and State
and District-wide Assessments |
| OSEP
Memorandum
August
24, 2000 Important
Note: OSEP
Memorandum 00-24 provides guidance about the provisions of IDEA '97 related
to students with disabilities and State and district-wide assessments.
This FAQ presents the complete text of OSEP Memo 00-24 in a web-enhanced format.
A PDF
file of the Memorandum is also available for downloading and printing. Question
Quick Pick
I.
Accountability 1.
Are students with disabilities required to participate in a State's accountability
system? 2.
How do States and LEAs use their assessment results? II.
IEP Processes 3.
What is the role of the IEP team in determining whether the child will participate
in general or alternate assessments? 4. May IEP teams exempt children
with disabilities from participating in the State or district-wide assessment
program? 5. Can the IEP statement of how the child will participate
in State and district-wide assessments of student achievement be changed without
reconvening the IEP team? III. Parental Permission 6.
Is parental permission required for children with disabilities to participate
in State and district-wide assessment programs if parental permission is not required
for the participation of non-disabled students? 7. If a State permits
parents of non-disabled children to choose not to have their child participate
in State or district-wide assessments, do parents of children with disabilities
have the same right in regard to assessments and alternate assessments?
IV. Accommodations and Modifications 8.
The words "accommodations" and "modifications" are both used
in the federal statute and regulations, but the precise meanings are unclear.
Will OSEP differentiate the two and explain the relationship between them?
9. Can the SEA or LEA limit the authority of the IEP team to select individual
accommodations and modifications in administration needed for a child to participate
in the assessment? V. Alternate Assessments 10.
What is an alternate assessment? 11. When does a State (or LEA) need
to conduct an alternate assessment? 12. Do the requirements to establish
participation guidelines for alternate assessments and to develop alternate assessments
apply to both SEAs and LEAs? 13. If the SEA has developed guidelines
for participation in State alternate assessments, can the LEA use those guidelines
to meet its LEA responsibility? 14. Does a State need to have an alternate
assessment for each content area assessed in the regular assessment program?
15. Can LEAs use the State alternate assessment to meet its obligation to
develop an alternate to its district-wide assessment? 16. Can LEAs use
their own alternate assessment or must they use the State's alternate assessment?
VI. Out-of-Level Testing 17.
Is out-of-level testing by States acceptable? 18. Can an out-of-level
test be considered an "alternate" assessment? VII. Reporting 19.
What reports on assessment are required by IDEA? 20. IDEA refers to
children with disabilities being included in "general State and district-wide
assessment programs," but only requires that State education agencies report
to the public on the participation and performance of children with disabilities
on assessments. Are local education agencies also required to report to the public
in a similar fashion? 21. What are the requirements for aggregation
and disaggregation of data? Are aggregation and disaggregation required at the
State level only? State level and district level only? Or State level, district
level, and site level? 22. Are performance results from alternate assessments
required to be aggregated with data from general assessments? 23. What
is meant by "statistically sound" in 34 CRF 300.139? 24. Can
a State or local education agency provide individual performance results to its
schools, or would this violate the requirement to avoid disclosure of performance
results identifiable to individual children? 25. To avoid publicly disclosing
performance results identifiable to individual students, can a State or local
education agency adjust the administrative levels at which it reports these results?
For example, can it report the alternate assessment at the district level even
though the general assessment is reported at the school level? VIII.
Monitoring 26.
How will OSEP monitor compliance with IDEA '97 assessment requirements? I.
Accountability
1.
Are students with disabilities required to participate in a State's accountability
system? Although IDEA makes no specific reference as to how States
include children with disabilities in the State accountability system, the IDEA
requires States to establish performance goals and indicators for children with
disabilities--consistent to the maximum extent appropriate with other goals and
standards for all children established by the State--and to report on progress
toward meeting those goals. Under
Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, in the 2000-01 school year,
each State must have a State assessment system that serves as the primary means
for determining whether schools and districts receiving Title I funds are making
adequate yearly progress toward enabling all students in Title I schools to reach
high standards. All students with disabilities in those schools must be included
in the State assessment system, and the scores of students with disabilities must
be included in the assessment system for purposes of public reporting and school
and district accountability. Under Title I, State assessment systems must assign
a score, for accountability purposes, to every student who has attended school
within a single school district for a full academic year. And, States must explain
how scores from alternate assessments are integrated into their accountability
systems.² 2.
How do States and LEAs use their assessment results? Under IDEA,
States must use information about the performance of children with disabilities
in State and district-wide assessment programs to revise their State Improvement
Plans as needed to improve their performance. Under Title I, States and LEAs also
use the results to review the performance of LEAs and schools, respectively, and
to identify LEAs and schools in need of improvement. States and LEAs also use
results for rewards and sanctions for schools and districts, and some for decisions
about student promotion or graduation. Assessment results can also be used in
planning teacher training, summer school and after school programs, and in reviewing
alignment between assessments and curriculum. These are State and local district
decisions. In addition, IEP teams can consider individual assessment results as
they develop programs for students with disabilities. Back
to Top
II.
IEP Processes 3. What is the role of
the IEP team in determining whether the child will participate in general or alternate
assessments? The IEP team determines how the child participates
in State and district-wide assessments of student achievement. The IEP team determines
if any individual modifications in administration are needed in order for the
student to participate in the assessment. If the IEP team determines that the
child will not participate in a particular State or district-wide assessment of
student achievement (or part of an assessment), the IEP team states why the assessment
is not appropriate for the child and how the child will be assessed. IEP teams
should have the level of expertise needed to make these decisions in an effective
manner.
4. May IEP teams exempt children with disabilities from participating in the
State or district-wide assessment program? No. The IEP team determines
HOW individual students with disabilities participate in assessment programs,
NOT WHETHER. The only students with disabilities who are exempted from participation
in general State and district-wide assessment programs are students with disabilities
convicted as adults under State law and incarcerated in adult prisons (34 CFR
§300.311(b)(1)). With this statutory exception, there should be no language
in State or district assessment guidelines, rules, or regulations that permits
IEP teams to exempt students from State or district-wide assessment programs. Section
504 prohibits exclusion from participation of, denial of benefits to, or discrimination
against, individuals with disabilities on the basis of their disability in federally
assisted programs or activities. Title II of the ADA provides that no qualified
individual with a disability shall, by reason of such disability, be excluded
from participation in or be denied the benefits of the services, programs, or
activities of a public entity or be subjected to discrimination by such an entity. Inclusion
in assessments provides valuable information which benefits students either by
indicating individual progress against standards or in evaluating educational
programs. In some States, participation in assessments is a means to access benefits
such as promotion and graduation. Given these benefits, exclusion from assessment
programs based on disability would potentially violate Section 504 and Title II
of the ADA.
5. Can the IEP statement of how the child will participate in State and district-wide
assessments of student achievement be changed without reconvening the IEP team?
No. If the IEP team wishes to modify a provision of the IEP, it
must meet again to make the change. Back to Top
III.
Parental Permission
6. Is parental permission required for children with disabilities to participate
in State and district-wide assessment programs if parental permission is not required
for the participation of non-disabled students? No. If parental
permission is not required for participation in the State and district-wide assessment
programs for non-disabled children, it is not required for children with disabilities.
However, parents of children with disabilities as members of the IEP team will
be involved in IEP team decisions on how an individual child will participate
in such assessment programs. 7.
If a State permits parents of non-disabled children to choose not to have their
child participate in State or district-wide assessments, do parents of children
with disabilities have the same right in regard to assessments and alternate assessments?
Yes. Parents of a child with a disability should have the same right
to "opt out" as parents of non-disabled students consistent with any
allowable justification criteria established by the SEA or LEA. Denying parents
of children with disabilities the same rights afforded parents of non-disabled
children would raise concerns about discrimination on the basis of disability.
However, parents and students should be informed of the consequences of participation
and non-participation in State or district-wide assessments. For example, parents
should know that State and district-wide assessments can improve accountability
and promote services that better meet the needs of the participating students,
while non-participation may limit opportunities for promotion, graduation and
access to programs. Parents should not be pressured to "opt out" of
assessment programs. Most States already keep track of students who are "opted
out" of assessment programs by parents. States and districts should keep
track of parent-requested "opt out" exemptions for students with disabilities
disaggregated from those for students without disabilities. This should help the
State to determine if "opting out" pressure is occurring.
Back to Top IV.
Accommodations and Modifications 8.
The words "accommodations" and "modifications" are both used
in the federal statute and regulations, but the precise meanings are unclear.
Will OSEP differentiate the two and explain the relationship between them?
There is no universal agreement about the definitions of these terms, but
OSEP recognizes that there has been an evolution of assessment terminology and
increased agreement about such terminology since the IDEA Amendments of 1997.
When referring to assessments, the term "accommodation" is
commonly used to define changes in format, response, setting, timing, or scheduling
that do not alter in any significant way what the test measures or the comparability
of scores. In contrast, when changes in the assessment alter what the test is
supposed to measure or the comparability of scores, terms such as "modification",
"nonstandard administration", "non-approved or non-aggregatable
modifications" are often used. However, some States use the terms "modification"
or "modified" to refer to changes commonly thought of as "accommodations." The
IDEA statute and regulations use the terms "accommodations" and "modifications
in administration" in connection with State and district-wide assessment
programs and assessments of student achievement. And, the Analysis of Comments
and Changes that accompanied the publication of the final regulations uses the
terms "individual modifications" and "necessary modifications"
as well. However, the definitions of these terms as used in the statute
and regulations are not intended to correspond with the evolving usage of these
terms in the field of assessment as discussed in the previous paragraph. For example,
34 CFR §300.347 requires that IEPs include a statement of "modifications
in the administration" of assessments of student achievement. In this context,
"modifications in administration" should be viewed as a general term
that would include both accommodations and modifications, as they are commonly
used in assessment practice. Further, 34 CFR §300.138 requires that children
with disabilities be provided with "accommodations and modifications in administration,
if necessary", which would include the full range of accommodations and modifications,
as they are commonly used in assessment practice. 9. Can the SEA
or LEA limit the authority of the IEP team to select individual accommodations
and modifications in administration needed for a child to participate in the assessment?
No.
34 CFR §300.347(a) (5)(I) requires that the IEP team have the responsibility
and the authority to determine what, if any, individual modifications in the administration
of State or district-wide assessments of student achievement are needed in order
for a particular child with a disability to participate in the assessment. If
the IEP Team determines that individual modifications in the administration of
State or district-wide assessments of student achievement are needed, the Team
must include a statement of any such modifications in the IEP. In addition,
§300.138(a) requires that appropriate accommodations and modifications in
administration of State or district-wide assessments must be provided if necessary
to ensure the participation of children with disabilities in those assessments.
As part of each State's general supervision responsibility under §300.600,
it must ensure that these requirements are carried out. States that have developed
a comprehensive policy governing the use of testing accommodations (including
the conditions and instructions for appropriate use of specific accommodations
and how scores are to be reported and used) need to ensure that they are consistent
with this IDEA requirement. At
the same time, IEP teams need to understand and consider the implications of SEA/LEA
policies on the reporting and use of scores in addressing what individual modifications
and accommodations are appropriate for an individual child with a disability.
SEAs and LEAs should carefully consider the intended and unintended consequences
of accommodation policies that may impact on student opportunities such as promotion
or graduation (e.g. receipt of a regular diploma, a certificate of attendance,
etc.). Parents and students need to be fully informed of any consequences of such
policies. A
major challenge for assessment programs is how to maintain assessment rigor (reliability
and validity of assessments), implement and protect the individual rights of students,
and simultaneously ensure that schools teach all children what they need to know
and to do (knowledge and skills). Much of the current research on accommodations
and modifications is inconclusive, so in many cases the impact of specific accommodations
is not known. Continued research is underway, and more is needed. A
number of legal principles and concerns apply if a student may be denied benefits
such as promotion or graduation because of questionable validation of accommodations.
One solution suggested by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at
the University of Minnesota is to collect and use additional evidence that allows
the student to demonstrate competency in lieu of a single test score. Further
information is available from the NCEO (612-626-1530; http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO/).
Back to Top V.
Alternate Assessments 10. What
is an alternate assessment? Generally, an alternate assessment is
understood to mean an assessment designed for those students with disabilities
who are unable to participate in general large-scale assessments used by a school
district or State, even when accommodations or modifications are provided. The
alternate assessment provides a mechanism for students, including those with the
most significant disabilities, to participate in and benefit from assessment programs. Alternate
assessments need to be aligned with the general curriculum standards set for all
students and should not be assumed appropriate only for those students with significant
cognitive impairments. The need for alternate assessments depends on the individual
needs of the child, not the category of the child's disability. Although
it is expected that the number of students participating in alternate assessments
will be relatively small, participation in alternate assessments should not, in
and of itself, preclude students from access to the same benefits available to
non-disabled students for their participation. Thus, the alternate assessment
is sufficiently flexible to meet the needs of difficult-to-assess students with
disabilities who may need the alternate assessment to demonstrate competency for
benefits such as promotion or a diploma. It may also enable IEP teams, including
informed parents, to make choices about appropriate participation that may lead
to an IEP diploma or other type of certification.
11. When does a State (or LEA) need to conduct an alternate assessment?
All SEAs and LEAs must provide alternate assessments for all State and
district-wide assessments conducted beginning no later than July 1, 2000.
12.
Do the requirements to establish participation guidelines for alternate assessments
and to develop alternate assessments apply to both SEAs and LEAs?
Yes. 34 CFR §300.138 specifically requires inclusion of children with disabilities
in both State and district-wide assessment programs and requires both the SEA
and the LEA, as appropriate, to develop guidelines for the participation of children
with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate
in State and district-wide assessments, and develop alternate assessments. Of
course, if an LEA does not conduct district-wide assessments other than those
that are part of the State assessment program, then the LEA would follow SEA guidelines
and use the SEA alternate assessment(s). The requirements apply to district-wide
assessments regardless of whether or not there is a State assessment.
13. If the SEA has developed guidelines for participation in State alternate
assessments, can the LEA use those guidelines to meet its LEA responsibility?
There is nothing that prohibits the LEA from adopting the SEA guidelines
if the SEA guidelines are consistent with the assessment program objectives of
LEA district-wide assessments. However, if the district-wide assessment is used
for significantly different purposes than the State assessment, the LEA should
ensure that the participation guidelines developed for the State assessment are
consistent with the purposes of the district-wide assessment, or should develop
guidelines consistent with the purposes of its district-wide assessment.
14. Does a State need to have an alternate assessment for each content area
assessed in the regular assessment program? The number of alternate
assessments is a State decision. As in many State and district-wide assessment
programs, the assessment may consist of multiple components or batteries. The
alternate assessment(s) should at a minimum assess the broad content areas such
as communication, mathematics, social studies, science, etc. assessed in the State
or district-wide assessment. The alternate assessment may assess additional content,
including functional skills, as determined necessary by the State or local district.
Functional skills can also be aligned to State standards as real world indicators
of progress toward those standards. Title I requires that at a minimum reading/language
arts and math are assessed, but Title I also requires that if other subject areas
are assessed by the State for Title I purposes, then all students in Title I schools
in the grades assessed need to be assessed in those content areas as well. The
purpose of an alternate assessment should match at a minimum the purpose of the
assessment to which it is intended to serve as an alternate.
15. Can LEAs use the State alternate assessment to meet its obligation to develop
an alternate to its district-wide assessment? The issue is alignment
between the alternate assessment and the large-scale assessment. Districts must
adopt local guidelines for participation in alternate assessments and they must
develop and conduct alternate assessments no later than July 1, 2000. Whether
an alternate assessment developed by the State for use with a State-wide assessment
is also an appropriate alternate assessment to the local district-wide assessment
depends upon the type of alternate assessment selected, the nature of the district-wide
assessment, the content measured, and the purposes for which the results will
be used. The purpose of an alternate assessment should match at a minimum the
purpose of the assessment to which it is intended to serve as an alternate.
16.
Can LEAs use their own alternate assessment or must they use the State's alternate
assessment? In States with statewide assessment programs, local
districts must administer the State alternate assessment. Moreover, local districts
must develop and conduct alternate assessments if they have district-wide assessments,
or use the State alternate if appropriate. Back to Top
VI.
Out-of-Level Testing 17. Is out-of-level
testing by States acceptable? "Out-of-level testing" means
assessing students in one grade level using versions of tests that were designed
for students in other (usually lower) grade levels. Some States allow out-of-level
testing in an effort to limit student frustration and provide appropriate assessment
levels. Although IDEA does not specifically prohibit its use, out-of-level testing
may be problematic for several reasons when used for accountability purposes.
34 CFR §300.137 requires that the performance goals for children with disabilities
should be consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and
standards for all children established by the State. The purpose is to maintain
high expectations and provide coherent information about student attainment of
the State's content and student performance standards. Out-of-level
testing may not assess the same content standards at the same levels as are assessed
in the "grade-level" assessment. Thus, unless the out-of-level test
is designed to yield scores referenced to the appropriate grade-level standards,
out-of-level testing may not provide coherent information about student attainment
of the State or LEA content and student performance standards. Also, many assessment
experts argue that out-of-level testing produces scores that are (even using transformation
formulations) insufficiently comparable to allow aggregation, as required by 34
CFR §300.139. If out-of-level tests are used, IEP teams need training and
clear information about the statistical appropriateness of administering such
tests at each possible level different from the student's grade level. Out-of-level
tests may lower expectations for students, prevent them from demonstrating their
full competence, subject them to a lower-level curriculum, and restrict their
access to the general curriculum. Important goals of both IDEA and Title I are
to maintain high expectations for all children and to ensure that teachers and
schools are able to teach diverse learners. Students with disabilities are entitled
to the same rich curriculum as their non-disabled peers. One
source for additional information about out-of-level testing is the National
Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota (612-626-1530;
http://www.coled.umn.edu/NCEO/).
18.
Can an out-of-level test be considered an "alternate" assessment?
Out-of-level tests are considered modified administrations of the State or
district-wide assessments rather than alternate assessments, and scores on out-of-level
tests should be converted to reflect performance at grade level and reported as
performance at the grade level at which the child is placed unless such reporting
would be statistically inappropriate. Back to Top
VII.
Reporting
19. What reports on assessment are required by IDEA? 34 CFR §300.137
requires States to report to the Secretary and to the public every two years on
the progress of the State and of the children with disabilities in the State toward
meeting performance goals including performance on assessments, drop-out rates,
and graduation rates. Additionally, 34 CFR §300.139 requires the SEA to report
to the public, in the same frequency and detail as it reports for non-disabled
children, on the number and performance results of children with disabilities
participating in regular and alternate assessments and to include in those reports
aggregated data that include the participation of children with disabilities together
with all other children and disaggregated data on the performance of children
with disabilities.
20. IDEA refers to children with disabilities being included in "general
State and district-wide assessment programs," but only requires that State
education agencies report to the public on the participation and performance of
children with disabilities on assessments. Are local education agencies also required
to report to the public in a similar fashion? The IDEA requirement
is for reporting by the State education agency. Many States have similar requirements
for local education agencies to report similarly on local assessment programs.
Under IDEA, this is a State decision.
21. What are the requirements for aggregation and disaggregation of data? Are
aggregation and disaggregation required at the State level only? State level and
district level only? Or State level, district level, and site level?
Under IDEA, States must report aggregated data that include the performance
of children with disabilities together with all other children and disaggregated
data on the performance of children with disabilities. There is no requirement
for disaggregation by category of disability, just disaggregation of the performance
of children with disabilities separate from the performance of non-disabled children.
These reports must be made with the same frequency and in the same detail
as reports on the assessment of non-disabled children. For example, if school
level results are reported, then school level results for students with disabilities
generally must be disaggregated. It is the SEA's decision how to collect sufficient
data from LEAs to meet the Federal SEA reporting requirement consistent with these
provisions.
22. Are performance results from alternate assessments required to be aggregated
with data from general assessments? It is important for States to
report performance data from alternate assessments in a way that ensures that
all children with disabilities are included in the accountability benefits of
State and district-wide assessments. Thus, OSEP encourages States to aggregate
scores from the alternate assessment with scores from the general assessment whenever
appropriate.
23. What is meant by "statistically sound" in 34 CRF 300.139?
There are at least two issues for consideration. One has to do with the sample
size. In some instances, for example if a State chooses to disaggregate by disability
categories (not a federal requirement) or report on the performance of students
with disabilities in small school districts, the relatively small number of students
in that category or district might raise questions about statistical soundness
if generalizations are to be made about student performance. A second issue centers
around the reporting of performance for students who take non-standard or modified
administrations of an assessment. In such cases, there may be questions about
the validity of the assessment and its comparability to the standard assessment. OSEP
is concerned about students with disabilities who are excluded from assessment
reports because of questions about statistical soundness. Public reports are a
key component of many educational accountability systems, and exclusion from these
reports may deny students with disabilities the benefits of these systems and
fail to hold schools and LEAs accountable for their performance. It is important
for States, LEAs, and test developers to provide a range of modifications in administration
that preserve the validity and comparability of assessments so that student performance
can be fully reported. In cases where validity or comparability are found to be
significantly weakened, full reporting may be achieved through the collection
of additional evidence, as discussed under Question 9.
24. Can a State or local education agency provide individual performance results
to its schools, or would this violate the requirement to avoid disclosure of performance
results identifiable to individual children? The reference to disclosure
simply refers to the inappropriateness of public reports that deal with samples
so small as to publicly disclose the performance of individual students, not to
providing results to schools for students served by the school.
25. To avoid publicly disclosing performance results identifiable to individual
students, can a State or local education agency adjust the administrative levels
at which it reports these results? For example, can it report the alternate assessment
at the district level even though the general assessment is reported at the school
level? Yes, but only if necessary to avoid publicly disclosing results
identifiable to individual students. Back to Top
VIII.
Monitoring
26. How will OSEP monitor compliance with IDEA '97 assessment requirements?
OSEP's Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process focuses on compliance
and results. There are several mechanisms that OSEP employs to review a State's
performance in these areas. Through the State's self-assessment and OSEP's data
review, OSEP examines results-oriented data such as drop-out rates, graduation
rates, and performance on assessments. These data will be used to determine the
level of intervention of OSEP's monitoring activities. Federal
requirements related to assessment can be found at 34 CFR §§300.138
(Participation in Assessments), 300.139 (Reports) and 300.347(a)(5)(i) (Content
of IEP). These requirements will be examined in several ways through OSEP's Continuous
Improvement Monitoring Process. As part of the State's self-assessment process,
information from State and district-wide assessment should be used by the State's
monitoring Steering Committee to evaluate the State's level of implementation
and performance. For example, States should examine in their self-assessment,
the number of students taking the Statewide assessments and the number participating
in alternate assessments. Also, performance on assessments is an important indicator
for a State to use in evaluating and improving results for children with disabilities.
As part
of data collection in the SEA and in LEAs, OSEP monitors will review documents
and interview regarding participation in State and district-wide assessments.
OSEP will gather data to determine that the State has developed alternate assessments
and provided guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in
alternate assessments. In addition, OSEP will review the extent to which alternate
assessments are aligned with general curriculum standards. OSEP will gather information
about participation of children with disabilities in Statewide and district-wide
assessment programs, including information that is reported to the public - aggregated
and disaggregated - in the same frequency and in the same detail as for non-disabled.
Finally, OSEP will review whether the IEP team determines any modifications in
administration in State or district-wide assessments. Back
to Top Dowload
the full
OSEP Memorandum about Assessment in pdf from Wrightslaw. ¹Source:
Dear Colleague letter by Judith E. Heumann, Assistant Secretary for Special Education
and Rehabilitative Services, and Norma V. Cantu, Assistant Secretary for Civil
Rights, U.S. Department of Education, September 29, 1997. ²Source:
Letter sent to Chief State School Officers by Michael Cohen, Assistant Secretary
for Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, April 7,
2000. |