1. Navigating the Test Accommodation Process Between Secondary and Postsecondary Settings Nicole Ofiesh, Ph.D University of Arizona California State University, East Bay March 2006

2. Major Differences between School Age and Postsecondary School Age –IDEA & 504. –Focus is prescriptive. –Accommodations for instruction and on state tests. –Decisions made by IEP team based on curriculum-based or performance-based evaluations. –Parents are advocates. Postsecondary –Section 504 & ADA. –Not a focus on remediation; primarily access to education through accommodations. –Accommodations for instruction and tests. –Decisions based on nature of disability and diagnostic evaluation. –Individuals must self-advocate.

3. Similarities Accommodations both based on disability Disability can be present but not substantial enough to warrant special education at the k-12 level under IDEA or 504, or accommodations at the postsecondary level under 504 or ADA

4. Quote from teacher …I looked down at the list of accommodations for the first time and felt like I had this wonderful menu of desserts to choose from that just happened to be calorie-free-- so I started with the apple pie ala mode, then the fudge brownie, then I thought oh what the heck throw in the cheesecake with chocolate raspberry sauce…

5. In general… There is a need for IEP teams to make decisions regarding accommodations based on: –History of accommodation use –Data collected in the classroom –Psychoeducational tests –Knowledge of the research surrounding the accommodation –Student characteristics –Educational goals –Construct of the test –Format of the test (multiple choice, essay, etc.)

6. Focus of Decisions at Postsecondary Level Test construct; Maintenance of test validity once accommodations are granted; Once in college service providers look at essential requirement of program of study; Link between the functional limitation(s) of the disability and the format of the test; Severity of the disability with respect to “average person” interpretation of the law.

7. Sign language interpreters need to read signs fast! …or else? Essential requirement of program of study

8. Current Model Determine if documentation meets standards. Confirm LD exists. Determine what area(s) the LD impacts and severity of impairment. Consider the interaction between LD & test content and format. Evaluate additional information. Ofiesh, Hughes, Scott (2004)

9. Caveat on determining impairment For high functioning students with LD, an impairment can still exist when scores are in the average range. For ALL individuals, but especially these individuals, critical indicators are: –History –Endorsement from teachers and evaluators –Description of test behavior –Evidence of intense remediation

10. New Directions for Decision Making with Respect to IDEA and RTI In response to section 614 of IDEA (2004) in which it is proposed that schools should exit students from high school with a “summary of performance,” various groups dedicated to the successful transition of students with disabilities have proposed what would make this kind of document effective.

11. Summary of Performance No definitive template or model at this time. Strong consensus: document will be used for accommodation decisions after high school for standardized tests postsecondary service delivery Less consensus: The SOP would replace psychoeducational documentation as a basis for accommodations Should include: Test data from most recent testing Teacher evaluations IEPs History of accommodation use and service delivery Grades Any curriculum-based documentation of performance Additional information: medication, initial diagnosis of disability, dual diagnoses.

12. Research on Speeded Tasks Students with LD perform slower and more variably on the majority of speeded tasks…despite similar intelligence. The impact of this condition is seen in the use of all basic academic skills which are the foundation for higher learning.

13. Impact of LD on reading fluency College students with phonological and orthographic weaknesses frequently remain dysfluent readers even when word identification and comprehension are at grade level; In general students with LD who demonstrate deficits in reading need more time to identify new or non-routine text, comprehend what is read, and respond to as many test items as their nondisabled peers.

14. Impact of LD on writing fluency An LD can impact handwriting, spelling, and/or written expression. When the actual process of writing is inefficient, a student may sacrifice lengthier written expression and accurate spelling in order to simplify the task. –Research strongly suggests students who are provided with a spellchecker receive higher grades on content.

15. Impact of LD on math fluency Strawser and Miller (2001) explain the processing of students with math-based LD interferes with: Predicting or completing patterns Findings and correcting errors in a problem Interpreting graphs and tables “deeper” interpretation of components of math problems All of these associated problems interfere with the speed with which students can solve problems.

16. It’s just not calculus if it’s not done fast! … and then what exactly does it become…sloowww calculus? Test Validity

17. 17 x 3 20 Student with orthographic dyslexia and math Student read the problem aloud as 13 + 7, and misread multiplier for addition.

18. Research on Extended Time Results from several studies have indicated that: –Students with LD make statistically significant greater gains than students without LD. –Performance of students with LD under extended time mimics performance of students without LD under standard time.

19. Research on Extended Time

23. Summary This research is still used to underscore the point that students with and without disabilities, specifically LD perform differently under timed situations Not an issue of IQ Students without disabilities most often do not make the same gains as students with disabilities Provides rationale for new directions and research in test development.