reproductions supplied by edrs are the best that can be made · 2014-03-30 · reproductions...

DOCUMENT RESUME

ED 445 037 TM 031 642

AUTHOR Rivera, Charlene; Stansfield, Charles W.; Scialdone, Lewis;Sharkey, Margaret

TITLE An Analysis of State Policies for the Inclusion andAccommodation of English Language Learners in StateAssessment Programs during 1998-1999. Final Report.

INSTITUTION George Washington Univ., Arlington, VA. Center for Equityand Excellence in Education.

SPONS AGENCY Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs(ED), Washington, DC.

PUB DATE 2000-04-00NOTE 405p.

PUB TYPE Reports - Evaluative (142)EDRS PRICE MF01/PC17 Plus Postage.DESCRIPTORS Bilingual Education; *Educational Policy; Elementary

Secondary Education; English; *Limited English Speaking;Participation; *Second Language Learning; State Programs;*Testing Programs

IDENTIFIERS *Test Adaptations

ABSTRACTThis report presents a description of state policies

regarding the participation of English language learners (ELLs) in statewideassessment programs during the 1998-1999 school year. The data collectedincluded descriptions of policies: (1) for the inclusion and exemption ofELLS; (2) regarding the allowance or prohibition of accommodations in generalas well as specific types of accommodations; (3) regarding the inclusion ofaccommodated test scores in state, district, and school totals; and (4) foruse of alternate assessments and policies for reporting the resulting scores.The study is based on the direct analysis of documents provided primarily bydirectors of bilingual and English-as-a-Second-Language education in eachstate (two states do not have state assessment programs). Findings show thatwhile almost all states (48) have exclusion/exemption policies, there isgreat variability in the degree to which state policies address aspects ofELL participation. Forty-six states allow some form of exemption. One findingof note is the absence of academic criteria from the list of criteria to beconsidered when making inclusion/exemption decisions. States offeraccommodations that can be divided into presentation, response, setting, andtiming/scheduling categories. Most state policies do not specify that aperson with professional knowledge of language learning processes participatein the decision making process. Policies regarding alternate assessmentmeasures for ELLs are absent from most state assessment programs. The reportrecommends that states review and revise their existing policies to alignthem with current legislation and good practice. Three appendixes containstudy cover letters, discussions of documentation and alternate assessment,and the fourth appendix contains the individual state reports on stateinclusion and accommodation policies. (Contains 11 tables, 18 figures, and 33references.) (SLD)

Reproductions supplied by EDRS are the best that can be madefrom the original document.

An Analysis of State Policies for theInclusion and Accommodationof English Language Learnersin State Assessment Programs

during 1998-1999

Charlene RiveraCenter for Equity and Excellence in Education

The George Washington University

Charles W. StansfieldLewis Scialdone

Margaret SharkeySecond Language Testing, Inc.

A Study sponsored by theOffice of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs

U.S. Department of Education

;

a- ' -8

1II at--

-

*-

The George Washington UniversityCenter for Equity and Excellence in Education

April 2000

naS onhniver ity®UWASHINGTON DC

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

1730 North Lynn Street, Suite 401Arlington, VA 22209

toll free: (800) 925-3223 telephone: (703) 528-3588fax: (703) 528-5973

e-mail: [email protected]: http://ceee.gwu.edu

Copyright 2000

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be freely reproduced and distributed without priorpermission, provided the source is cited as:

Rivera, C., Stansfield, C.W., Scialdone, L, & Sharkey, M. (2000). An Analysis of State Policies for theInclusion andAccomodatianofEnglish LanguageLearnasinStateAssessmentPrognwsduring1998-1999Arlington, VA: The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education.

An Analysis of StatePoliciesfortheInclusion and Accomodation of English Language Learners was sponsored by the U.S. Department of Educa-tion, Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs. The contents of this publication do not necessarily reflect the views

or policies of the U. S. Department of Education or any agency of the U.S. Government.

3

An Analysis of State Policies for theInclusion and Accommodation of English Language Learners

in State Assessment Programs during 1998-1999

Charlene RiveraCenter for Equity and Excellence in Education


Charles W. StansfieldLewis Scialdone

Margaret SharkeySecond Language Testing, Inc.

April 2000 -,/:Final Report

Study conducted by theCenter for Equity and Excellence in Education


1730 North Lynn Street, Suite 401 Arlington, Virginia 22209-2004800-925-3223 703-528-3588

www.ceee.gwu.edu

Sponsored by theU.S. Department of Education

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs

4

Acknowledgements

This study represents the collaborative efforts of several people who gave diligent attention toand invaluable support for its completion. We are grateful for the exceptional contributions of theTitle VII directors who responded perseveringly to our requests for information. They located,reviewed and sent state documents pertinent to the inclusion and accommodation of ELLs.Subsequently, they expended considerable energy verifying the accuracy of our analyses of theirpolicies. State Assessment directors also generously took time to review the individual statereports.

We thank Diane August for thoughtful and substantive advice on an initial draft of the report form,State Inclusion and Accommodation Policies for LEP Students, found in Appendix D.

The vision, guidance and contribution to the conceptualization of the study by OBEMLA DirectorDelia Pompa were invaluable. Her understanding of the need for the study motivated her strongsupport for its funding. The assistance offered by the OBEMLA staff was certainly appreciated,particularly the input and feedback offered by Milagros Lanauze, the project officer, who assistedat varying stages of the project.

The breadth of the study required in-depth knowledge of state assessments and the inclusion ofEnglish language learners. The many voices who gave thoughtful reviews, provided helpfulcomments and proposed valuable recommendations include:

Diane August, August and AssociatesPasquale De Vito, Director, Office of Assessment, Rhode Island Department of EducationTom Fisher, Administrator, Assessment and Evaluation Services, Florida Department ofEducationMilagros Lanuauze, Senior Education Program Specialist, US Department of EducationKristin Liu, Research Fellow for LEP Issues, Minnesota Assessment Project, NationalCenter for Educational OutcomesDelia Pompa, Executive Director, National Association for Bilingual EducationHeidi Ramirez, Special Assistant to Deputy Director of Education, US Department ofEducationSharon Saez, Senior. .Education Program Specialist, US Department of EducationWilliam Schafer, Associate Professor, Maryland Department of Education, University ofMarylandJan Sheinker, Educational Services, Inc.Roger Trent, Director, Division of Evaluation and Assessment, Ohio Department ofEducationKit Viator, Administrator, Accountability & Evaluation Services, Massachusetts Departmentof EducationHugh Walkup, Standards Team Leader, US Department of EducationAnnette Zehler, Senior Associate, Development Associates

Finally, a special thanks to staff members of the Center for Equity and Excellence in Education atthe George Washington University staff who contributed their time and energies to support thisstudy. Barbara Hicks, Mary DuRoss and Theresa Bui diligently tracked state documents andfollowed up collecting documents from Title VII and State Assessment directors. Nicole Chaseand Sharron Coleman received and organized the numerous state documents submitted. Theirefforts were untiring and greatly appreciated.

An Analysis of State Policies for the Inclusion and Accommodation of English Language Leamers

Table of ContentsAcknowledgements iii

Table of Contents

List of Tables vii

List of Figures vii

Executive Summary ix

I. Introduction 1

Definitions 2

II. Review of Literature 4

Definition and Identification of English Language Learners 4State Policies/Practices for Including and Exempting ELLs 5

Exclusion 5Exemption Time Limits 5Inclusion/Exemption Decision-Making 6

State Policies Regarding the Use of Accommodations 7Studies of the Impact of Accommodations 8Testing in the Native Language 8Alternate Assessments 10Score Reporting 10

III. Research Questions 12

IV. Methodology 13

Collection of Source Documents 13Classification of Documents 14Analysis of Documents 14

V. Results 17

Identifying ELLs 17Inclusion/Exemption Policies 18

Time Limits 18Inclusion/Exemption Criteria 20Inclusion/Exemption Decision-Makers 24

Accommodation Policies 26Accommodation Criteria 28Accommodation decision-makers 31Allowance of Accommodations 33View from a Traditional Classification of Accommodations 33Setting Accommodations 35Timing/Scheduling Accommodations 36Presentation Format Accommodations 37Response Format Accommodations 40Prohibition of Accommodations 42View from a Linguistic Classification of Accommodations 44

Reporting Scores 49Alternate Assessments 54Summary of State Policies 57

The George Washington University Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

VI. Discussion 59

Introduction 59Definition and Identification of ELLs 59Inclusion/Exemption Policies 60

Inclusion/Exemption Criteria 60Top Ten States 61

Inclusion/Exemption Decision-Makers 61Top Ten States 61

Accommodation Policies 62Accommodation criteria 62

Top Ten States 62Accommodation decision-makers 63

Top Ten States 63Allowance and Prohibition of Accommodations 63

Top Ten states 65The History of ELL Accommodations 65Nature of Linguistic Accommodations 66

Score Reporting 67Top Ten States 67Alternate Assessments 67Top Ten States 68

VII. Summary and Recommendations 69

Summary of Findings 69Recommendations 69Recommended Research 70Other Recommendations 71

References 72

Appendix A AlOriginal mailing sent to State Title VII Directors A2Second mailing sent to State Title VII Directors ASMailing sent to State Assessment Directors A8

Appendix B B1

Documentation B2

Appendix C B1

Alternate Assessment Policies B2Appendix D

State Inclusion and Accommodation Policies for LEP Students D1

7vi

An Analysis of State Policies for the Inclusion and Accommodation of English Language Learners

List of Tables

Table 1. Inclusion/exemption criteria by state 21

Table 2. Inclusion/exemption decision-makers by state 25Table 3. Accommodation criteria by state 30Table 4. Accommodation decision-makers by state 32Table 5. Setting accommodations allowed by state 35Table 6. Timing/scheduling accommodations allowed by state 36Table 7. Presentation format accommodations allowed by state 38Table 8. Response format accommodations allowed by state 40Table 9. Other accommodations allowed by state 41

Table 10. Accommodations prohibited by state 42Table 11. Score reporting policies by state 52

List of Figures

Figure 1. Types of relevant documents submitted by SEAs by number and percent 14Figure 2. Topics addressed in relevant state documents

by number and percent of states 15Figure 3. ELL definition used by each state 17Figure 4. Maximum number of years exemptions are allowed

by number and percent of states 18Figure 5. Inclusion/exemption policy overview 19Figure 6. Inclusion criteria by number and percent of states 20Figure 7. Inclusion decision-makers by number and percent of states 24Figure 8. Accommodation policy overview 27Figure 9. Accommodation criteria by number and percent of states 28Figure 10. Accommodation decision-makers by number and percent of states 31

Figure 11. Traditional classification of individual accommodations allowedby number and percent of states 34

Figure 12. Traditional classification of individual accommodations prohibitedby number and percent of states 43

Figure 13. Linguistic classification of individual accommodations allowedby number and percent of states 45

Figure 14. Linguistic classification of individual accommodations prohibitedby number and percent of states 48

Figure 15. Score reporting policy overview 50Figure 16. Number and percent of states that do/do not report student scores

by individual accommodations 51Figure 17. Alternate assessments policy overview 56Figure 18. Summary of inclusion and accommodation policies

by number and percent of states 58

vii


Executive Summary

The Improving America's Schools Act of1994 (IASA) requires states to adopt astandards-based system where all students,including limited English proficient (LEP)students, also known as English languagelearners (ELLs), are expected to reach thehighest standards. One important elementof the standards-based system isassessment. IASA requires states toimplement assessment systems by the2000-2001 school year that allow allstudents the opportunity to demonstratetheir skills and knowledge. As IASAimplementation deadlines approach, thedevelopment of new state policies is a majorfocus of many states.

This report presents a description of statepolicies regarding the participation ofEnglish language learners (ELLs) instatewide assessment programs during the1998-1999 school year.

The data collected regarding ELLparticipation in state assessment programsincluded: 1) policies for the inclusion andexemption of ELLs; 2) policies regarding theallowance or prohibition of accommodationsin general as well as specific types ofaccommodations, including the criteriastates use to make accommodationsdecisions; 3) policies regarding theinclusion of accommodated test scores instate, district, and school totals; and 4)policies for use of alternate assessmentsand policies for reporting the resultingscores.

We analyzed the documents with thefollowing broad questions in mind:

1. What were the states'inclusion/exemption policies in the 1998-1999 school year?

2. What were the states' accommodationpolicies for ELLs in the 1998-1999school year?

3. What were states' score reportingpolicies for ELL students who receivedan accommodated version of a stateassessment in the 1998-1999 schoolyear?

ix

4. What were states' alternate assessmentand score reporting policies for ELLstudents in the 1998-1999 school year?

Methodology

The study is unique in that it is based on thedirect analysis of state documents providedprimarily by Title VII Bilingual and English asa Second Language (ESL) directors in stateeducation agencies. Some StateAssessment directors also provided policydocuments in states where Title VII directorswere in transition. We requested thefollowing types of information:

State assessment handbooks whichinclude the policies for exempting,assessing, and accommodating ELLs;

Any state assessment policymemorandum applicable to the inclusionof ELLs in state assessment programsand not included in the stateassessment handbook;

Any guidelines the state provides todistricts, schools, or test administratorsregarding the implementation of policiesfor exempting, including, oraccommodating ELLs; and

Any documents the state has producedto help districts and schools implementstate assessment policies for ELLs.

Once all states (including the District ofColumbia) with state assessments (Iowaand Nebraska do not have state assessmentprograms) submitted policy documents, theywere classified by document type. The mostcommon types submitted included thefollowing: guides, guidelines, manuals, andhandbooks. Next, the documents wereclassified by the degree of relevance to thestudy. The relevant documents served asthe basis for the policy analysis. Followingthe analysis, state reports were generatedand sent to the Title VII and StateAssessment Directors for review. Theresulting analysis and final report provide anationwide description of inclusion andaccommodation policies.

9


Results

Inclusion Policies:Criteria and Decision-Making

Historically, states have often systematicallyexempted ELLs from inclusion in statemandated assessment programs. TheImproving America's Schools Act of 1994(IASA) requires states to create oneassessment system that is appropriate for allstudents, including ELLs. The statedocuments analyzed for this study revealthat, for the 1998-1999 school year, 47states and the District of Columbia havepolicies that address the inclusion and/orexemption of ELLs in state assessmentprograms.

The policy documents indicate that, whilealmost all states have inclusion/exemptionpolicies, there is great variability in thedegree to which state policies specificallyaddress various aspects of ELL participationin state assessments. Some states providedetailed guidelines for helping local districtsand schools make appropriate decisions,while other states offer no specific guidance.Of the 47 states and the District of Columbiathat have inclusion/exemption policies, 46allow some opportunity for exemption. Ofthese, 35 have policies regarding exemptiontime limits. The majority, 21 states, set athree-year limit on exemptions. Elevenstates set a two-year limit, two states allowmore than three years, and one state has notime limit.

The criteria to be used in making inclusiondecisions are addressed by most states(45). The greatest number of states (17)considers only one criterion. Eleven statesconsider two criteria, eight states considerthree criteria, and the remaining eight statesconsider four or more criteria. Of the 17states that focus on one criterion, 9 use atime-related criterion and the remainingstates use a variety of different criteria. Thecriterion used by the most states (23) tomake inclusion/exemption decisions is thestudent's English language proficiency asdetermined through a formal languageproficiency assessment.

One finding of note is the absence ofacademic criteria from the list of criteria to

x

be considered when makinginclusion/exemption decisions. Academiccriteria, which are related to a student'sacademic background, include performanceon tests other than the standard test(specified by 11 states as an appropriatecriterion), performance in school work(specified by 6 states as an appropriatecriterion), and the student's academicbackground in his/her native language(considered by 3 states as an appropriatecriterion).

The kinds of individuals who shouldparticipate in the decision to include orexempt a student are identified by 39 statesin their written policies. The most prevalentdecision-makers are school/district official(s)(25 states), parent(s)/guardian(s), (20states), and a local committee composed ofunspecified members (18 states). Thestudent's classroom teacher is nominated by14 states. A substantially smaller number ofstates specify inclusion of the student (6states), the student's ESL/bilingual teacher(4 states), and the test administrator (4states) in the decision-making process. It

can be assumed that local committeesinclude some of these decision-makerswithout naming them explicitly in statedocuments.

Accommodation Policies:Allowance and Prohibitions

The report provides a national picture ofstate accommodation policies as well as astate-by-state analysis of state practicesregarding the allowance and prohibition ofaccommodations for ELLs.Accommodations are changes in the test ortesting situation that address a student'sspecial needs and that provide the studentaccess to the test to enable him/her todemonstrate academic knowledge. The useof accommodations is intended to level theplaying field for students who receive them.As applied to ELLs in testing situations, thestudent's special needs are linguisticbecause of his/her limited Englishproficiency.

States offer accommodations that can beclassified into four types: 1) presentation,2) response, 3) setting, and 4)timing/scheduling. The most prevalent

4.


accommodation types are ones that modifyeither the test setting or itstiming/scheduling. Examples of settingaccommodations include individual or smallgroup administration, and administration in aseparate location. Timing/schedulingaccommodations are also popular. Theyinclude extended testing time and extrabreaks. Less frequently used areaccommodations that affect the presentationof the test. Presentation accommodationsinclude explanation, repetition, or oralreading of directions, bilingual or translatedversions of the test, and administration ofthe test by a person familiar to the student.Response accommodations include allowinga student to dictate his/her answers, andallowing a student to respond in his/hernative language.

While 40 states have accommodationpolicies for ELLs, only 37 states allowaccommodations. Of the 37 states, 13prohibit at least one accommodation. Threestates prohibit all accommodations.

An important finding with regard toaccommodations is that states morefrequently use accommodations that do notsupport the linguistic needs of ELLs. Theseinclude timing/scheduling and settingaccommodations. The accommodationswhich can address the linguistic needs ofELLs are least frequently allowed and mostfrequently prohibited. These includepresentation and responseaccommodations.

Accommodation Policies:Criteria and Decision-Making

Twenty-six states address the criteria formaking decisions to provideaccommodations to students taking stateassessments. The majority of these states(21) make decisions to allowaccommodations based on the student'sroutine classroom accommodations. Fifteenstates use one criterion to determineaccommodations; 13 of the 15 one-criterionstates specify that the accommodationsallowed should be the sameaccommodations routinely provided inclassroom instruction. The next mostpopular criterion for determining the need foraccommodations is formal assessment of

xi

English proficiency, which is used by sixstates.

Regarding state policies that addressdecision-makers, 23 states make somemention of a decision-making person orteam. The most prevalent decision-maker isthe student's classroom teacher. Fourteenstates recommend teacher participation.Twelve states recommend setting up a localcommittee, but without specifying the kindsof people who should make up thecommittee. Eleven states recommend theinvolvement of school/district officials andparents/guardians. Test administrators,ESL/bilingual teachers and the student arementioned explicitly in only a few statepolicies. Of note is the low frequency withwhich states specify that the student andESL/Bilingual teachers be included in thedecision-making process.

Reporting Results

Some states have specific policies on theinclusion of LEP students' scores in school,district, and state averages. These policiesmay also depend on the use ofaccommodations. Accommodations that areviewed as giving an unfair advantage mayresult in the student's score not beingincluded in the reported averages.

For this study, 17 out of 37 states that allowaccommodations produced documents thatexplain their score reporting practices (i.e.,whether or not the scores of ELLs whoreceive accommodations are included in

state, district and/school totals). Thedocuments submitted by these states arecharacterized by lack of detail andcomprehensiveness. Of the 17 states thataddress score reporting, 9 states indicatethat, when specific accommodations areused, scores are not to be included in state,district, and/or school totals. Eight stateshave a policy requiring the scores of ELLswho have received accommodations to beincluded in state, district, and school totals.


Alternate Assessments

Alternate assessments are formal tests orassessment procedures that may be usedwhen standard assessments areinappropriate for the student due to lack oflanguage proficiency or other matters. Statepolicies regarding alternate assessmentsvary widely. The majority of states that havestatewide assessments (27) do not mentionthem. Of the 22 states that refer to alternateassessments in their policies, 7 statesprohibit alternate assessments, while theremaining 15 states allow them, including 6states that require ELLs be given analternate assessment when the student isexempted from the regular assessment.Technical and practical issues surround theuse of alternate assessments. Among the15 states that allow alternate assessments,the majority are far from having a fullydeveloped alternate assessment program.

Conclusions

The analysis of states' policies regarding theinclusion, exemption, and accommodation ofELLs in state assessments provides anationwide picture of current state practices.The analysis of the states' policies leads tothe following conclusions about stateassessment program policies for ELLs in the1998-1999 school year:

1. Almost all states (48, including theDistrict of Columbia) have inclusion policiesfor ELLs. Forty-six (46) states allow someform of exemption. Of these, 35 states havepolicies regarding exemption time limits.Most states (40) have accommodationpolicies.

2. State policies generally provide minimalguidance to local districts and schools.

3. State policies vary significantly in detailand in their focus on ELL assessmentneeds. They are often brief, lack specificity,

and do not address important aspects ofELL participation in state assessments.

4. Most states' policies do not specify theconsideration of a student's academicbackground as a criterion forinclusion/exemption decision-making.

5. Most states' policies do not specify that aperson with professional knowledge oflanguage learning processes, such as anESL or bilingual education teacher, take partin the decision-making process.

6. The accommodations most frequentlyallowed are carried over from SpecialEducation accommodation policies and arenot specifically designed to address thelinguistic needs of ELLs.

7. Accommodations, like test translation,that would provide the greatest amount oflanguage support for some ELLs are amongthose least frequently allowed and mostfrequently prohibited.

8. Policies regarding alternate assessmentmeasures for ELLs are absent from moststate assessment programs.

In light of the efforts to provide equitableeducational opportunities for all students,state inclusion, exemption, andaccommodation policies generally need tobe more fully developed, and to beperiodically reviewed and updated to reflectthe increasing understanding of the subject.

The final section of the report recommendsthat states review and revise their existingpolicies so that they are aligned with currentlegislation and good practice. The reportconcludes with recommendations foradditional research that needs to be carriedout in order to further the equitableassessment of English language learners.

xii 12


I. Introduction

The purpose of this study is to documentinclusion, exemption and accommodationpolicies related to English language learners(ELLs) for state' required assessments.The documentation is based on an analysisof state policies in place during the 1998-1999 school year.2 Hundreds of documentswere collected from State Education Agency(SEA) Title VII Bilingual and English as aSecond Language (ESL) Directors in all 50states and the District of Columbia.

We analyzed the documents with thefollowing broad questions in mind:

1. What were the states'inclusion/exemption policies in the 1998-1999 school year?

2. What were the states' accommodationpolicies for ELLs in the 1998-1999school year?

3. What were states' score reportingpolicies for ELL students who receivedan accommodated version of a stateassessment in the 1998-1999 schoolyear?

4. What were states' alternate assessmentand score reporting policies for ELLstudents in the 1998-1999 school year?

Finding answers to these questions is criticalconsidering the current emphasis onstandards for school and studentaccountability. The Improving America'sSchools Act of 1994 (IASA) requires statesand districts to adopt a standards-basedsystem where all students, including limitedEnglish proficient (LEP) students, alsoknown as English language learners(ELLs)3, are expected to reach the highest

1 Throughout this report, any reference to statesincludes the District of Columbia.2 As this report is being completed, some states havebegun implementing changes to their policies for the1999-2000 school year. This report, however, is limitedto policies in place during the 1998-1999 school year.3 By definition, limited English proficient (LEP) studentsare those who do not have sufficient English languagespeaking, understanding, reading and writing skills toparticipate in an all English classroom. These studentsare often unable to participate in conventional Englishlanguage assessments because they do not generally

standards. Standards-based reform not onlycalls for setting standards but also forestablishing accountability systems thatensure all students reach those standards(LaCelle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). Theconsequent emphasis on accountabilityrequires states to find appropriate andequitable ways to involve all students instate assessment programs, including thosewho are in the process of learning English.

The inclusion of ELLs in standards-basedsystems and state assessment programshas proven to be a particular challenge.Since the passage of IASA in 1994, stateshave demanded extensive technicalassistance from the U.S. Department ofEducation (ED) and ED-funded technicalassistance entities to help them meet therequirement to appropriately include ELLstudents in state assessment programs. Aspart of technical assistance, there is also thedemand from both states and districts to findout what other states or districts with similardemographics and challenges are doing tomeet this requirement (Office of BilingualEducation and Minority Language Affairs[OBEMLA], 1999).

Moreover, the status of ,state assessmentsystems has changed continually since thepassage of IASA in 1994. IASA requiresstates to create one assessment system thatis appropriate for all students, includingELLs. For the most part, states havedeveloped and put in place transitionalassessment systems, but few have finalassessment systems in place. As thedeadlines approach in the IASA legislationfor final assessment systems, the U.S.Department of Education has developedcriteria to judge the acceptability of theseassessment systems (U.S. Department ofEducation, 1999). It is, therefore, critical toanalyze the status of current and emergingstate policies in this challenging area.

have the English language skills needed to participatemeaningfully in testing conducted in English (OBEMLA,1999). In communicating with the states about thestudy, we used the term LEP because it is thecommonly used term. In this report, however, we usethe term English language learner (ELL). ELL refers ina positive way to a student who is in the process oflearning English.


Previous compilations of information onwhat states are doing to include ELLs inassessment systems are dated (Lara &August, 1996; O'Malley & Valdez-Pierce,1994; Rivera, Vincent, Hafner, & La Celle-Peterson, 1997). Thus, there is a need foran updated picture of state policies forincluding, exempting and accommodatingELLs in state assessment programs. In

recognition of this need, OBEMLAcommissioned the Center for Equity andExcellence in Education at The GeorgeWashington University to conduct this study.

To gain perspective on the current status ofinclusion, exemption and accommodationpolicies related to ELLs, we first reviewrecent literature describing the ever-changing status of state ELL assessmentpolicies.

We then describe the methodology used tocollect, input, and analyze the states'assessment policies. Our analysis usesstate policies to provide answers to thestudy's research questions. The goals of theanalysis are 1) to describe the issues relatedto including and accommodating ELLs instate assessments; 2) to analyze whatstates have done so far by looking acrossstates at the national picture and to extractfrom that picture trends and issues; and 3)to develop state-by-state reports based onour examination of individual state policies.These reports are included in Appendix D.

Definitions

For clarity and because some terms haveacquired different meanings over time, weprovide definitions of certain terms used inthis report. The reader should keep in mindthat terms might be used and understoodsomewhat differently in different states,thereby making the process of researchingand discussing testing practices morecomplex.

Accommodation(s): This is a broad termthat refers to any specific change to thetesting situation, (e.g. presentation format,response format, setting, and the timing/scheduling of tests). The utilization ofaccommodations for a specific ELL, or allELLs, is a means of enabling them to

demonstrate their academic knowledgedespite their limited English proficiency.

Alternate Assessment, AlternativeAssessment: In the late 1980s, the term"alternative assessments" came into use.The term referred to any measure that wasnot limited to the use of multiple-choiceitems. It was often used synonymously withperformance assessment. Because theterm "alternative assessment" already had aspecific meaning, the term "alternate" cameto be popularly used to refer to surrogateassessments created for specialpopulations.

"Alternate assessments" are generallythought to be assessments for specialpopulations of students, such as studentswith disabilities and students with specialneeds, i.e., ELLs. They are used whenadministration of the standard assessmentwould be highly inappropriate. Alternateassessments may come in any format, andthey may or may not test the same contentor standards as the standard assessment.Therefore, they may not be comparable withthe standard assessment.

The usage of the terms "alternate" and"alternative" assessment in state policies isinconsistent. Because alternateassessments often contain the nontraditionalitem formats associated with alternativeassessment, some states simply neverbegan using the term "alternate." While"alternate" is the preferred term, "alternative"is used in some states, and in some othersthe terms are used synonymously in thesame document. Thus, the intendedmeaning of the term "alternativeassessment" in a state document is notalways clear, even to a well-informedreader. However, since a majority of statepolicies use the term "alternateassessment", for consistency we use thisterm throughout the report.

Deferral: The practice of postponingparticipation of ELLs in assessments for aspecified period of time. Deferral alwaysrequires some sort of exemption.

Exclusion: The practice of NOT allowingELLs to participate in a state required formalassessment.

2 14


Exemption: The practice of allowing aspecific ELL, or all ELLs, NOT to participatein a state-required formal assessment. Anexemption may be temporary (as in the caseof a deferral) or permanent.

Inclusion: The practice of including aspecific ELL, or all ELLs, in a statemandated formal assessment.

Inclusion/Exemption Policy: The term isused in this report because of thenature of state policies. Some states'policies focus on who should beincluded in the testing program. Otherstates' policies focus on whoshould be exempted.

Modification: Sometimes the words"accommodation" and "modification" areused synonymously within and across statepolicies. However, in this report"modification" is used to mean a type ofaccommodation that involves a change inthe test format (e.g., linguistic simplification,an adaptation, or a special version of thetest).

Sometimes the word "modification" impliesthat the scores obtained on the test may notbe comparable with scores on the standardassessment. A modified test should not beconfused with an alternate assessment,which can be quite different from thestandard assessment. The use of

modification employed here is quitefrequently encountered in state policies.

Out of level testing: In a few states, when atest is considered inappropriate for astudent, testing "out-of-level" may bepermitted. Out-of-level testing means that atest from a grade level other than the currentgrade level of the student is administered.When allowed, it would be possible foran eighth grade student to take a sixth gradetest. Depending on state interpretation, out-of-level testing may be considered anaccommodation or an alternate assessment.

Test Component: Refers to any portion orsubsection of a state's entire assessmentprogram. It may refer to an assessment of asingle subject that may or may not beadministered at a given grade level, or to apart of a subtest.

Translation/Adaptation: A translated test isone where the same exact content isrendered into a non-English language. Thestandard test and translated test then differonly in language, not in content.

An adaptation is a modified version of thestandard assessment. Due to the nature ofsome tests, adaptation is required in orderfor the standard test to be appropriatelyrendered into a non-English language;adaptation involves removing some itemsand replacing them with others that aremore valid for the examinee population.

3 Z;


II. Review of Literature

IASA requires states to implementcomprehensive assessment policies andprograms by the 2000-2001 school year. Asthat deadline nears, states have increasedtheir efforts to develop and implementappropriate assessment systems to ensurethe inclusion of ELLs.

The literature related to the inclusion ofELLs in large-scale assessments, such asthe National Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) and state assessmentprograms, is limited and tends to take theform of policy statements rather thanempirical data. The scarcity of empiricaldata in this area indicates a need for directexamination of assessment policies andpractices for ELLs, particularly as they havean impact on efforts to provide an equitableeducation for all students.

Definition and Identification of EnglishLanguage Learners

Efforts to address the needs of Englishlanguage learners as a specific studentpopulation require, as a first step, a meansfor defining and identifying ELLs. Without acommon operational definition and specificguidelines, the process of identifying ELLs issubject to inconsistency across and withinstates.

O'Malley and Pierce (1994) assert thatproper identification and placement of ELLsis a critical step for determining whichstudents need special language services,which types of services are mostappropriate, and which criteria should bemet to properly reclassify or exit studentsfrom these services. Because statewide testscores are often the basis of variousmoderate to high-stakes decisions, it isimportant to include ELLs in the tests usedto make such decisions. Moderate to high-stakes decisions based on test scores aremade on such issues as: 1) state fundingallocations, 2) curriculum restructuring, 3)staff development, 4) teacher certificationand pay, 5) determination of which teachersretain their positions, 6) changes in schoolgovernance structures, 7) grade promotionstandards, 8) requirements for placement inadvanced courses, and 9) requirements for

high school graduation. Many of these havea significant impact on the instruction theELL receives.

Results of the O'Malley and Pierce (1994)survey of 34 SEAs regarding ELLparticipation in state testing indicate that in1991, fewer than one-third of the statesrequired any kind of assessment instrumentfor the identification of ELLs. Of the statesthat did require use of an assessmentinstrument, not one had established aspecific criterion such as a designatedscore on a specific standardized test or aspecific level on an English proficiency test

that would have provided local districts witha standard for identifying ELLs.

O'Malley and Pierce view this as anabsence of a focused effort to implementspecific guidelines for identification of ELLs.In view of the fact that identification is thefirst of many steps in developing anappropriate process for deciding ELLparticipation in state assessment programs,the authors see the infrequent use ofassessment instruments to identify ELLs asa cause for concern.

Findings from other research are consistentwith those of O'Malley and Pierce. Rivera,Vincent, Hafner and La Celle-Peterson(1997) found that, though legislation hadcreated a federal definition of ELLs4 (IASA,1994), there was no common operationaldefinition across states. As a result, astudent who was identified as an ELL in onestate might not be identified as an ELL inanother. Similarly, in a study of ELLparticipation in state tests in Minnesota(Spicuzza, Erickson, Thurlow, Liu, andRuh land, 1997), school administrators andESL and Bilingual Education teachersexpressed great concern over the lack ofconsensus on the definition of ELLs, and theresulting confusion and uncertainty thiscaused when trying to decide on appropriateparticipation.

Findings of this nature have prompted theauthors of these studies, and othereducators (August, Hakuta, and Pompa,1994; National Association of State Boardsof Education [NASBE], 1997) to encourage

4 The IASA definition appears on page 17 of this report.

4 16


states to adopt a common operationaldefinition of ELLs, as well as to providespecific guidelines for local schools to use inidentifying ELLs.

State Policies/Practices for Includingand Exempting ELLs

According to a report from the U.S. GeneralAccounting Office (1994), the appropriateinclusion of ELLs in state testing programs isa critical factor in efforts to achieve equity ineducation for all students. Policies thatprovide for the inclusion of all students,including ELLs, offer multiple benefits to theschools, as well as to the students (NASBE,1997). The benefits to schools may includethe accurate identification of ELLs and thegathering of more complete studentinformation on them. These benefits canlead to well-informed decisions and policies.For example, the information gathered couldbe used to identify special service needs,which can then lead to the provision of newor improved services to ELLs. Continualupdating of information on students'background and achievement can be usedas a means for schools to monitor studentprogress. The monitoring of studentprogress is an important element in stateand district accountability for ELLs. Studentbenefits of inclusion policies includeequitable participation in the educationalsystem, the opportunity to demonstrateknowledge and skills, and the experience oftest taking, a learning experience in itself.

Exclusion

Historically, the means of addressing theneeds of ELLs in state testing frequently hasbeen to exclude or defer them (Rivera &Vincent, 1997). In an examination ofexclusion policies, August, Hakuta andPompa (1994) list factors that maycontribute to the exclusion or deferral ofELLs from large-scale assessments. Thelist includes reference to the various aspectsof the inclusion/exemption decision-makingprocess. Factors include the following: 1)the lack of clear and consistent operationaldefinitions of ELLs at the national, state andlocal levels; 2) guidelines that excludestudents who are in bilingual education andEnglish as a second language (ESL)programs; 3) the varying degrees of Englishlanguage proficiency of students in bilingual

and ESL programs; 4) guidelines that allowlocal decisions to be made about ELLparticipation; 5) differential implementationof guidelines; 6) failure to monitor the extentto which the intent of the guidelines isfollowed; 7) lack of accommodations inassessment materials and procedures thatwould enable ELLs to participate; and 8) adesire not to require ELLs to take anassessment they cannot understandbecause of limited English proficiency.

In 1994, Lara and August (1996) sent aquestionnaire to all states concerning theirpolicies toward ELLs in statewideassessments. Of the 43 states thatresponded, 35 permitted their exemption.Only five states required ELLs to participate,and three of these permitted their exemptionunder certain conditions. Four states left theparticipation up to local districts. In suchcases, the states routinely specified that the"tests should not be given if it will causeundue frustration or produce useless orinvalid scores" (p. 8).

Widespread exclusion policies bring about asystemic ignorance of the educationalprogress of the students involved. This hasoften led to ELLs being assigned to remedialtracks and lower-level curriculum tasks(La Celle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994). De Vito(1997) reported that, before recent reformtook hold, such a policy of widespreadexclusion existed in Rhode Island. Thepolicy of exclusion led to inaccuracy ofinformation, because schools could provideno information on students who were notincluded in assessments. Data reportswithout information on excluded studentswere often presented as complete. TheNational Association of State Boards ofEducation (NASBE, 1997) stated thatexempting ELLs from state testing meansthat in some schools, testing information isavailable for less than one-half of thestudent body, while the majority of thestudent body -- the excluded students -- arenot being held accountable to statestandards.

Exemption Time Limits

Some state exemption policies specify timelimits or provide criteria for deferringstudents. In a 1997 study of ELL

17


participation in high school graduation tests,Rivera and Vincent found that, of the 17states that required students to pass a highschool graduation test, eight alloweddeferrals for ELLs. The deferrals typicallyranged from six to twelve months. While theintent of the states that apply this policy is toallow the students time to improve theirEnglish language skills, it is likely that somestudents need more than six to twelvemonths to achieve a level ofcognitive/academic language proficiency inEnglish that is appropriate for successfultest-taking. Some students, those with ahigh degree of literacy, may be able to readand learn in a new content area within ayear; such students are able to benefit frominclusion in the assessment within this shortperiod of time. Others may take longer(Collier, 1992; Cummins, 1989).

A further concern related to the imposition ofexemption time limits is the issue oftestwiseness. Students who traditionallyhave been exempted from tests do not havethe opportunity to benefit from the test-taking experience (Rivera & Vincent, 1997).When these students are ultimately facedwith a test-taking situation, they are likely tolack familiarity with the testing process, andthe lack of subsequent confidence tosucceed in the test. In a 1998 survey ofeducators in Massachusetts regarding theimplementation of a new state assessmentsystem, Lachat and Brown foundtestwiseness to be one issue of concern.One Transitional Bilingual Education directorresponded, "We plan to work with thechildren on testwiseness. This task is out ofthe universe for these kids. All themechanics of it are so foreign. Most of ourkids do not read on grade level and they'venever seen tests like this before" (p. 16).

Inclusion/Exemption Decision-Making

Various aspects of the inclusion/exemptiondecision-making process include theidentification of ELLs, the gathering ofstudent information, consideration of thestudent's information in light of appropriatecriteria, and the decision-making itself. Byhaving clear policies and providing clearguidelines for implementation, states canequip local schools with measures thatensure consistency in ELL practices. In

6

considering polices that would ensure thisconsistency, Rivera and Stansfield (1998)proposed a framework for designing andimplementing appropriate decision-makingsystems. The authors recommend a systemof teams at the state, district, school, andindividual student levels. Composition of theteams would vary by level so as to includethe most suitable individuals. This systemwould include representatives of thestakeholders, ESL and bilingualcoordinators, school administrators, regularclassroom teachers, ESL or bilingualteachers, and parents. The teams wouldhave specific duties and responsibilities.Teams at the state level would set policyand provide specific guidelines, which wouldbe implemented at the school and individualstudent levels. The system would requireclose consideration of the student'spersonal, academic, and linguisticbackground as critical factors in the decisionto include and/or exempt a student.

Research regarding decision-makingpolicies indicates that existing decision-making systems are more general thanspecific in detail and focus. Stancavage andQuick (1999) found that state policies areoften too vague to be useful, and that writtenguidelines have little impact on inclusiondecisions of local personnel. Similarly,O'Malley and Pierce (1994) point out that"most guidelines regarding participation of[ELLs] in statewide assessment programsare sufficiently broad as to be of little valueto school staff' (p. 244).

In a survey of educators in Minnesotaregarding the development of a new stateassessment system, Liu, Spicuzza,Erickson, Thurlow, and Ruh land (1997)found that inclusion/exemption decisionswere often made by individuals or teamswith little professional knowledge of ELLneeds, and that respondents often either didnot know what the decision-making processwas, or else they felt the process wasinadequate. Of note is that 90 percent ofsuch responses came from educators inlarge urban areas, which are likely to havethe highest concentration of ELLpopulations.

Considering the many issues involved ininclusion/exemption decision-making, it

18


seems most likely that state policies offeringspecific guidelines for determiningappropriate participation for each studentcould lead to consistent decisions at thelocal level across a state. Specifically,decision-making processes that includeeducators who are most familiar with thestudent, who have knowledge of languageacquisition processes, and who haveexperience teaching ELLs can likely result inappropriate and well-informed decisions.

State Policies Regarding the Use ofAccommodations

The use of accommodations is a relativelyrecent phenomenon when applied tostatewide assessment programs and theinclusion of ELLs (De Vito, 1997). The policyof offering accommodations to ELLs is anextension of similar Special Educationpolicies, a point that will be discussed infurther detail in the Discussion section of thisreport. The effort to include all students instate tests warrants the use of practices thatmodify the test situation to enable ELLs todemonstrate their knowledge and abilities.IASA legislation requires that states makeefforts to provide appropriateaccommodations to give any one student anequitable opportunity to demonstrate his/herknowledge and skills.

Rivera and Stansfield (1998) note that theprovision of accommodations, when usedappropriately, can offer multiple advantagesto both schools and students. For schools,the appropriate use of accommodations mayimprove the accuracy of test scores andincrease the comparability of scores;minimize measurement error and increasethe validity of the test; provide a means forincluding some students who mightotherwise not be included; and lead to moreaccurate information on student populations.Accommodations allow more students toparticipate in the testing, providing a meansof allowing the student to demonstrateknowledge and skills. Thus, they may makefor a more equitable and meaningful testingexperience. Ultimately, they can provide theschool with a broad understanding of theachievement of all students on the particulartests used.

Rivera and Stansfield (1998) warn that,though the use of accommodations can offermany benefits, the selection of appropriateaccommodations requires carefulconsideration. Inappropriate use ofaccommodations can occur in three ways:1) if the accommodation were to give thestudent an unfair advantage over otherexaminees; 2) if the accommodation doesnot address any particular studentdisadvantage; and 3) if the accommodationwere to have a negative, rather thanpositive, impact.

First, an example of an accommodation thatcould give an unfair advantage is allowingan ELL to use a monolingual dictionary inEnglish or the student's native language. Incomparison with a bilingual dictionary, amonolingual dictionary typically offers muchmore information, including definitions. Itwould be unfair if one group of students hasaccess to definitions of scientific terms, forexample, while other examinees do not.

Second, an example of an accommodationthat might not adequately address aparticular student disadvantage is theallowance of extra time. Additional time maybe of no benefit to students whose level ofEnglish proficiency is so low that they simplycannot understand the test questions.

Third, an example of an accommodation thatcould have a negative impact is a decisionto test all ELLs who speak a certainlanguage with a translated version of thetest in that language regardless of theiracademic background. Students not literatein their first language will be at adisadvantage regardless of whether theytake they test in the native language orEnglish. Similarly, if the students have notreceived instruction in their first language inthe subject matter of the test, but havereceived such instruction in English, theymay suffer greater disadvantage than if theytake the test in English.

In light of the multiple issues involved in theprovision of accommodations, it seemscritical that state accommodation policiesprovide a means for local schools to makeappropriate accommodation decisions.Such policies would likely include specificguidelines for the appointment of a

7 19.


knowledgeable decision-making team, aswell as for the consideration of multiplecriteria in arriving at the most appropriatedecision.

Development of the multi-level systemproposed by Rivera and Stansfield (1998)can provide the mechanism for states toensure that state policies are carried out atthe local level. The authors recommend thedecisions be made by a local assessmentteam on a case-by-case basis. This teamcan select from a list of allowableaccommodations recommended by a similarassessment team at the state level.

Various studies have focused on existingaccommodation systems. One such studywas conducted in Rhode Island, where anew state policy designed to include allstudents in testing provides a list of morethan fifty accommodations from which localassessment teams can choose (De Vito,1997). The accommodations are classifiedinto one of four groups: administration (werefer to these as presentation), response,setting, and timing (scheduling)accommodations. De Vito reported the mostfrequently used accommodations in RhodeIsland as the repeating of test directions,and the reading of questions orally -- both ofwhich are presentation accommodations. Ingeneral, there is evidence of regular andfrequent use of setting, scheduling, andpresentation accommodations (Rivera andVincent, 1997; CCSSO, 1997; Olson andGoldstein, 1997).

Studies of the Impact of Accommodations

While the provision of accommodationsseems to be an appropriate policy for theELL population, few studies exist thatexamine the impact of specificaccommodations on student scores. Abedi(1999) examined ELL math scores of eighthgrade students in California. Specifically, hestudied the impact on scores of fouraccommodations: linguistic simplification oftest items, provision of an English languageglossary, extended time limits and, finally,the combination of the use of an Englishlanguage glossary and extended time limits.The, results indicated that, regarding thelinguistic simplification of test items, astudent's level of proficiency was related to

the usefulness of the accommodation.Neither the extended time limits nor theprovision of an English language glossaryhad a significant impact on ELLperformance. In fact, the use of an Englishlanguage glossary as the onlyaccommodation resulted in lower scores.However, when provision of an Englishlanguage glossary was combined withextended time limits, there was a positiveimpact on ELL scores.

In another study, Shepard, Taylor, andBetebenner (1999) examined the impact of anumber of accommodations on mathematicstest scores for fourth grade students inRhode Island. Results revealed relativelylittle impact on scores from many of theaccommodations, including the allowance ofextra time.

In a similar study of grade eight students inNew Jersey, Miller, Okum, Sinai, and Miller(1999) looked at the impact on test scores ofthree frequently utilized accommodations:allowance of extra time, use of a bilingualdictionary, and translation of directions. Theresults showed a general inconsistency intest score impact within and across theaccommodations. In some cases,accommodated students scored significantlyhigher, in others lower, and in others, therewas no significant difference. Miller, et al.view these inconclusive results as indicatingthe need for caution in selectingaccommodations and they recommendexamination of an accommodation'spotential impact on scores before makingany one accommodation available.Similarly, as a result of a study of ELLparticipation in state tests in Minnesota,Spicuzza, et al. (1997) see a need for closeexamination of the potential impact ofspecific accommodations: "The empiricalevidence supporting accommodations for[ELLs] in a testing environment is scarceand should be researched. The best way toexamine the outcomes of accommodationsis for districts and [SEAs] to track studentoutcomes and to decide upon valid andallowable accommodations" (p. 10).

Testing in the Native Language

As a means of accommodating ELLs, testingin the native language can be useful in

8

20


providing a more accurate appraisal of astudent's knowledge of the content tested,i.e., one that is not influenced by thestudent's limited English proficiency.Although use of an interpreter is sometimesallowed as an accommodation, formalassessment in the native language is bestconducted through the use of a writtentranslation or adaptation of the originalversion of the test (Stansfield, 1996). Atranslated test is one where the same exactcontent is rendered into a non-Englishlanguage. The standard test and translatedtest then differ only in language, not incontent.

An adaptation is a modified version of thestandard assessment. Due to the nature ofsome tests, adaptation is required in orderfor the standard test to be appropriatelyrendered into a non-English language;adaptation involves removing some itemsand replacing them with others that aremore valid for the examinee population.However, adaptation affects thecomparability of raw scores of the standardand adapted versions, and necessitatesappropriate statistical adjustments to ensurescore comparability. The change in testcontent raises validity concerns, especially ifa substantial number of items are changed.As a result, it becomes necessary todemonstrate the equivalence of theconstructs measured by the standard andadapted instruments. Because of this,adaptation is rarely used in stateassessments. Instead, tests whose validityand comparability may change if translatedor adapted, are simply not translated oradapted at all.

While the distinction between translated andadapted tests is important, even translatedtests normally require minor adjustments toaccommodate the language of the non-English version.

Other issues to be considered in offeringtranslated tests include whether the originaltest is translatable and whether thetranslated version is appropriate for any onestudent. Cost is also an issue, just as it iswith the creation of alternate assessments.A central issue in considering the costefficiency of a translated test is the numberof students that may benefit from it. Cost

9

and numbers have restricted the creation oftranslated versions in languages other thanSpanish, in most states that translate tests.

Not all students who are eligible to receive atranslated test will actually choose it over thestandard test in English. Often, suchstudents are not fully literate in their nativelanguage. Because of this, bilingual testbooklets are often used (Stansfield, 1997;Stansfield & Kahl, 1998; Liu, Anderson,Swierzbin & Thurlow, 1999).

The literature regarding accommodationsidentifies several states that do providetranslated tests. Lara and August (1996)identified 12 states that were administering,piloting, or planning statewide assessmentsin languages other than English in 1994.Rivera and Vincent (1997) found that NewYork and New Mexico offer translatedversions of high school graduation tests.Stansfield (1996) noted that Rhode Islandoffers translated tests in four languages forgrades four, eight, and ten. Lachat andBrown (1998) report that Massachusettsuses translated versions of its state tests atthe fourth, eighth, and tenth grade levels.

Generally, the literature on translated andadapted tests treats the two the same andreflects a failure to differentiate the degreeof technical concerns that come into playwhen considering these two options forassessing content knowledge in the nativelanguage. Hambleton (1994) has led thedevelopment of an international set ofguidelines for test translation andadaptation. These guidelines outline avariety of technical concerns, and suggest avariety of techniques for dealing with them.Sireci (1997) has reviewed statisticaltechniques for linking tests acrosslanguages. Olson and Goldstein (1997)point out that non-English versions ofassessments are generally not available inmost languages, and that opinions ontechnical issues, such as scorecomparability, are mixed. Technicalconcerns, whether well founded or not in thecontext of specific state assessments, maypartly explain why only a handful of statestranslate their tests.



An alternate assessment may be consideredan assessment that is acceptable for adesignated purpose. In this case, thepurpose is to serve as a surrogate for thestandard assessment, when use of thestandard assessment would clearly not besuitable for the examinee.

Efforts to meet Title I requirements for theassessment of ELLs include development ofalternate assessments to be administered toELLs for whom the regular assessment isconsidered inappropriate. The 1997Amendments to the Individuals withDisabilities Education Act (IDEA) requirethat alternate assessment be used forstudents with disabilities who cannotparticipate in the standard assessmentprogram. This has resulted in recent effortson the part of states to develop andimplement appropriate alternate assessmentprograms for students with disabilities(Olsen, 1998). From Olsen's description ofthe various state efforts to meetrequirements, it is clear that there is widevariability among the states regarding thestandards upon which the alternateassessments are based, the characteristicsof the students to be given alternateassessments, and the degree to which thealternate assessments are a part of theoverall assessment system. While thedevelopment of alternate assessments forELLs is not yet so advanced, it is likely that itwill follow a path similar to that followed forstudents with disabilities. The variabilitydescribed by Olsen will probablycharacterize state efforts to provide alternateassessments for ELLs.

When taken in the place of the regularassessment, alternate assessments canprovide many advantages, such as allowingstudents to demonstrate their skills andknowledge in meaningful ways (NASBE,1997). Such measures as portfolioassessments, long-term projects, andperformance tasks are likely to measureskills that policymakers want students todevelop. In contrast to traditionalstandardized tests, alternate measures canbe designed to test content knowledge andskills that are not easily adaptable totraditional test item types. Alternate

assessments can also be designed to test astudent over a longer period of time, whichcan result in a test score that is moremeaningful and accurate. Alternatemeasures can allow flexibility in modes ofexpression, thus lessening the impact oflanguage barriers for ELLs.

Concerns regarding the use of alternateassessments surround the question of thedegree to which the assessment is notparallel to the standard assessment.Because alternate assessments do not testthe same content or standards as thestandard assessment, the comparability ofthe scores resulting from an alternateassessment with scores from a standardassessment is limited, as is the degree towhich the scores can be used inaccountability measures.

There are also concerns regarding theamount of resources required to developand implement appropriate alternateassessment systems. Such assessmentmeasures as portfolio and performanceassessments are likely to be less efficient interms of time and personnel resources thantraditional standardized assessments(NASBE, 1997). Similarly, a great deal oftime and personnel resources are requiredfor the proper development andimplementation of alternate assessmentsthat are parallel in all aspects to thestandard assessment. Furthermore, thecreation of strictly parallel alternateassessments may not always be desirable.

CCSSO (1997) data for the 1996-1997school year indicate that 11 states reportedoffering alternate assessments during the1996-97 school year. For the 1997-1998school year, 13 states reported offeringalternate assessments.

Score Reporting

Efforts to provide equitable education for allstudents have emphasizedaccountability at state and local levels(La Celle-Peterson & Rivera, 1994).A critical element in accountability measuresis the provision of data from student scoreson state assessments. Page 4 of this reportlists nine decisions that may be based ontest scores.

10 2 2


Because test results have an impact oneducational policy and practice, theinclusion of assessment scores of allstudents, including ELLs, is crucial(O'Malley & Pierce, 1994). Score reportinginvolves both aggregation anddisaggregation. When ELL scores areaggregated they are included in state,district, and local totals. As such, they affectthe mean (average) scores for the state,district, and school. When ELL scores aredisaggregated, they are reported separatelyfor the state, district, and school.Disaggregated scores for ELLs wouldindicate the mean scores for all ELLs thattook a test. Disaggregation permits acomparison of mean scores for different

11

classifications of student. Common classifi-cations are by sex, race, and special needsstatus, such as ELL or learning or physicallydisabled. Good score reporting practiceinvolves both aggregation anddisaggregation of ELLs' scores. Under suchcircumstances, ELLs' scores are included instate, district, and school means. The meanscores for each group are also reported.

With the approach of the 2000-2001 schoolyear, the legislated deadline for theimplementation of comprehensiveassessment programs, all states need toestablish policies that include ELL scores inall state reports.


III. Research Questions

As stated in the introduction, the purpose ofthis study was to document inclusion,exemption, and accommodation policiesrelated to English language learners in stateassessment programs. In order to obtainthis information, we collected informationfrom state policy documents in four areas:inclusion/exemption policies, accommoda-tion policies, score reporting, and alternateassessments. Research questions for eacharea are as follows.

Inclusion/Exemption Policies

1) How do states define and identify ELLs?

2) Which and how many states havedeveloped inclusion/exemption policies?

3) Which and how many states haveestablished a time limit on the number ofyears that an ELL may be exemptedfrom taking state assessments?

4) In cases where exemption is allowed,how long may ELLs be exempted fromtaking state assessments?

5) What criteria do states establish todetermine whether an ELL should beexempted from participating in the stateassessment program?

6) Do states specify who should make thedecision to exempt a student fromparticipating in the state assessment?

7) If yes, whom do they specify shouldmake the decision?

Accommodation Policies

8) Which and how many states havedeveloped policies on the use ofaccommodations with ELLs?

9) Which and how many states haveestablished criteria to determinewhether an ELL should receiveaccommodations?

10) What criteria do states use to determinewhether an ELL should receiveaccommodations?

12

11) How many states specify who shoulddetermine whether an ELL shouldreceive accommodations?

12) Who do states specify should determinewhether an ELL should receiveaccommodations?

13) Which accommodations are allowed bystates for ELLs?

14) Which accommodations are prohibitedby states for ELLs?

Score Reporting

15) What impact, if any, does the use ofaccommodations have on the inclusionof ELL test scores on state, district, andschool totals?


16) Are ELLs permitted to take alternateassessments?

17) Do states specify which measures areacceptable?

18) What kinds of alternate assessmentsare used by states?

Prior to collecting state policies, wedetermined that the answers to thesequestions would permit us to more broadlyevaluate the qualitative aspects of statepolicies. In particular, after gathering suchdata, we wanted to be able to evaluate howeffectively state policies address the needsof ELLs.

24


IV. Methodology

This study is unique in that, unlike previousstudies of ELL inclusion and accommodationpolicies (Rivera, et. al., 1997; CCSSO,1997), it is based on primary instead ofsecondary sources. Through their AnnualSurvey of State Student AssessmentPrograms (SSAP), the Council of ChiefState School Officers (CCSSO) annuallycompiles data similar in scope to thatcollected for this study. Though both theCCSSO survey and this policy analysisreport on similar information, there is asignificant difference in the way the datawere gathered. Whereas the CCSSO relieson state assessment directors to complete asurvey instrument, the information in thisstudy is the result of an analysis of statedocuments submitted directly by the states.The consistent application of a commonschema to analyzing and reporting statepolicies helps ensure the reliability of thefindings and the validity of the conclusions inthis study.

The use of primary sources is important fora variety of reasons. First, if the informationcollected and reported in a study is to bebelievable, it is important that it be verified.Second, sometimes researchers confuse theexistence of certain practices with formallystated policy. Although certain practicesmay exist, their presence may not applythroughout a state. Third, sometimesguidelines are conveyed by word of mouth.However, policy disseminated orally may beimplemented inconsistently. On the otherhand, written guidelines that are distributedhave the force of policy and are much morelikely to be implemented in a relativelyuniform way. Fourth, when individuals reporttheir policies, they do so in their own terms.When a single researcher or research teamreports policies, terms are consistently anduniformly applied over all documents. Thisfacilitates improved comparisons acrossstates.

Our methods involved an analysis of statepolicy documents as opposed to self-reported data from state officials. Afterstudying and summarizing the policiesbased on actual documents, we requestedthat state officials verify our summary oftheir state policies. In keeping with our

focus on written policies, any changes to bemade to a state report had to be supportedby documentation.

Collection of Source Documents

For this study, our first step was to collectstate policies from the Council of Chief StateSchool Officers (CCSSO) and from stateweb sites in order to learn about the mostrecent policies concerned with the inclusion,exemption and accommodation of ELLs instate assessment systems. We found thatstate web sites often did not contain thelatest version of the state policy; therefore,we used only the hard copy policydocuments sent to us by the states. Wealso found that CCSSO policies and datawere typically two to three years old.

Because updated policies were not availablefor all states, we requested the most currentdocumentation of state assessment policiesfor ELLs available. This request went out tostate Title VII Bilingual and/or ESL Directors.In states where the Bilingual/ESL Directorposition was in transition, the request wasmade directly to the state assessmentdirector.

The request was sent in May 1999. Thepacket sent included two letters, one fromCharlene Rivera (the study's principalinvestigator) explaining the project andasking for participation, and another letterfrom Delia Pompa (director of OBEMLA) thatemphasized the importance of the study.The packet also included a listing of thewritten materials to be sent. (A copy of theinformation in this packet can be found inAppendix A.) Information requestedincluded the following:

The state assessment handbook whichincludes the policy for exempting,assessing, and accommodating ELLs;

Any state assessment policymemorandum applicable to and notincluded in the state assessmenthandbook;

Any guidance the state provides todistricts, schools, or test administratorsregarding the implementation of policies

13 2 5


for exempting, including,accommodating ELLs; and

or Figure 1 . Types of relevant documents submitted by SEAsby number and percent

(N=99 documents)

Any user-friendly documents the state hadproduced to help districts and schoolsimplement state assessment policies forELLs.

Extensive follow-up contacts were made toSEA Title VII directors of states that did notrespond by the May 21 deadline, with theresult that nearly all states' documents werereceived by July 1999.

The number of documents sent by eachstate ranged from 0 to 37. Two hundredthirty documents were supplied by thestates, totaling more than 6000 pages. Asdocuments arrived, we skimmed theircontent and classified them as being veryuseful, somewhat useful, or irrelevant to thequestions the study was designed toaddress. Of the 230 documents wereceived, 131 (57%) were not relevant to thestudy or contained either duplicate oroutdated information. The remaining 99documents were categorized as being eithersomewhat useful (75 documents) or veryuseful (24 documents).

Classification of Documents

The type of document used to convey theirpolicies varies from state to state.Documents ranged from one-page memosto test manuals as long as 182 pages. Thepie chart in Figure 1 above divides thesedocuments by type. The most commondocument types include guides, guidelines,manuals, and handbooks. They account for53% of the relevant documents. Additionaldocument types in order of frequency werestate education codes, administrative codesand regulations (14%); memos (8%); policystatements (7%); and reports (3%). Theremaining category, which includes 15% ofthe documents, is labeled "other." The factthat this category is relatively large indicatesthe variety of documents that states use toexplain their policies. Examples of "other"document types are newsletters, bulletins,letters and teacher oriented handouts.

Once we had identified documents withrelevant information, we began classifying

14

Policystatem ent

7%

Memo8%

Stateeducation

code,administrative

code,regulations

14%

Report3%

Other15%

Guidelines,guide28%

Manual,-handbook

25%

the kinds of information that statesaddressed in their policies.

The topics that these documents addressedare found in Figure 2, along with thepercentage for each topic. Of the relevantdocuments, 64 had information related tothe inclusion of ELLs. Accommodationswere addressed in 51 of these documents.The following related information was alsofound to be included, but in fewerdocuments: definition of an LEP student (41documents), alternate assessments (26documents), score reporting (21documents), and scoring (16 documents).

Analysis of Documents

The policy analysis began with theexamination of documents from a sample ofstates that were believed to represent therange of LEP assessment conditions foundthroughout the United States.

First, an individual state report -- StateInclusion and Accommodation Policies forLEP Students (henceforth referred to as the"state report") -- was developed to documentthe policies for each state. The report formatguided project staff to look for certaininformation in state documents. Dataentered into the individual state reportautomatically went into a database whichallows information across states to besummarized, compared, and synthesized.

26


Individual state reports are found inAppendix D.

Section one of the report contains eightitems. The eight items provide an overviewof the state policies regarding inclusion,exemption, accommodation, score reporting,and alternate assessments.

Section two of the report focuses oninclusion policies. It contains three items.The first is the operational definition used bythe state to identify ELLs.5 This was notamong the initial areas of focus of theanalysis, but came to be a matter of issue asthe researchers noted the wide variation indefinitions contained in the documentssubmitted. The other two items focus on theinclusion/exemption decision-makingprocess; one focuses on the criteria used inmaking the decision, while the other focuseson the person(s) designated to make thedecision.

Section three of the report focuses onaccommodation policies. It contains threeitems. The first two items address theaccommodation decision-making process.Similar to section two, one item focuses onthe criteria used in making the decision,while the other focuses on the person(s)designated to make the decision.

The third item provides various types ofinformation. It identifies the extent to whichthe state allows and/or prohibitsaccommodations, and describes the degreeto which any one accommodation is allowedand/or prohibited. This item also identifiesscore reporting policies foraccommodations.

Finally, section four lists the documentsprovided. Each document's title, publicationdate, document type, number of pages,content focus, and degree of usefulnesswere recorded on this page.6

The state report was refined through aprocess of document review. Reports from asmall number of states were generated.These reports were reviewed by project staffand by an external advisor (Diane August).As a result of this review process, revisionswere made to the format of the state report.

Data and explanatory information for eachstate were then entered into the revisedstate reports. As each state report wascompleted, a second researcher reviewed itfor accuracy and intelligibility.

In August 1999, individual state reports weregenerated and sent to the appropriate SEATitle VII or State Assessment Director with arequest that he or she check the report foraccuracy. (See Appendix A for a copy of

Figure 2. Topics addressed in relevant state documents by numberand percent of states (N=99 documents)

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition


Score Reporting

Scoring

Other Information

0% 10% 20%

5It should be noted that information requested from the

states did not specifically include the operationaldefinition of ELL used in the state.

30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

6Appendix B lists the relevant documentation that was

submitted by each state, providing each document'stitle, type, and date of publication. Further informationabout these documents can be found in Appendix D inSection 4 of the individual state reports.

15

2 4


this request.) If a correction was necessary,the SEA Title VII director was asked toindicate the location of the information in thestate policy that was the basis for thechange in the analysis, or to supply the statedocument, if a document had not beenpreviously submitted. Only changessupported by documentation were made tothe state reports.

By October 8, 1999, 24 states had checkedtheir reports and returned them. Ten ofthese states had made changes on thereport but had not submitted thecorresponding state documentation. Follow-up email was sent to remind the Title VIIdirector that documentation was needed. Sixof the ten states responded to this request.Subsequent to the October 8 deadline,follow-up phone calls were made to the 25states that had not yet responded to ouremail request or our letter requesting thatthey verify the report for their state.

By November 1, 39 states had responded.Of these, 13 state reports needed nochanges (AL, AZ, CA, KS, MI, MN, MO, MS,OK, PA, WI, WV, and WY), 16 needed minorchanges (DC, ID, IL, IN, LA, MD, ME, MA,MT, NH, NJ, NM, NC, VA, VT, and WA),and 10 were reported by the Title VII directorto need changes, but appropriatedocuments were not submitted (AK, CT, DE,GA, HI, NV, NY, OH, OR, and UT). Noresponse was submitted from the remainingten states.

After responses and any accompanyingadditional documentation were receivedfrom Title VII directors, all availabledocumentation was reviewed, and the statereport was revised as appropriate.

Early February 2000, state reports were sentto State Assessment Directors for review.As with previous appeals, each packetincluded a letter from the principalinvestigator which explained the nature ofthe study and asked for input regarding thestate report and relevant documentation tosupport the state assessment director's

16

revisions. Also included was a form thatasked the individual evaluating the report toindicate whether any changes were to bemade and to provide contact information anda report of LEP policies specific to eachstate.

Three weeks after the initial request forreviews, requests were sent out to states yetto respond (AZ, CA, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI,ID, ME, MN, MO, ND, NJ, NM, NY, OR, RI,TN, TX, UT, VT, VA, and WY). The materialsent out to these outstanding states wasidentical to that sent out previously, with theexception of the letter, which served as areminder notice to reinforce return of thereports. All requests were sent to the statesby fax on the same day, February 24, 2000.

By mid-March 2000, 35 states had checkedtheir state reports and returned them (AL,AK, AR, AZ, CA, CT, DE, FL, GA, IL, KS,KY, LA, MA, MD, ME, NI, MN, MS, MT, NC,NH, NJ, NV, NY, OH, OK, PA, SC, SD, TX,VA, WA, WI, and WY).

Twenty-three of these states indicated thatrevisions were to be made to their statereports. However, only 18 states submittedrelevant documentation.

In mid-March 2000, the remaining stateswere contacted in order to obtain supportingmaterials. Six of those states responded bysending in relevant documentation orproviding clarification of comments on theirstate reports.

Also interesting to note is that out of the tenstates with the highest ELL enrollment (AZ,CA, FL, IL, MA, NJ, NM, NY, TX, and WA),nine reviewed their reports and returnedthem.

The next section of this report provides ananalysis of state inclusion, exemption, andaccommodation policies related to ELLs forschool year 1998-1999. The analysis isbased on information entered in statereports and analyzed across all states in thedatabase.

28


V. Results

Identifying ELLs

Before analyzing policies regarding theinclusion, exemption and accommodation ofELLs, we consider how states identify thepopulation for whom these policies aredesigned. Each state is responsible foridentifying its students with special needs, inthis case, students with limited Englishproficiency (LEP). The identification of suchstudents is substantially influenced by thestate's definition of LEP.

Our review indicates that 41 states provide adefinition of limited English proficiency intheir assessment policy documents. Eightstates (AZ, CA, ME, OH, OR, RI, TN, andVT) have policies that do not include adefinition of LEP, although such a definitionmay exist in other state documents, whichwere not provided.

As shown in Figure 3, the most commonlyused definition of limited English proficiencyis used by nine states (DE, KY, LA, MS, ND,OK, SD, VA, and WY). Based on thedefinition found in the IASA legislation,? "Alimited English proficient individual is onewho:

a) was not born in the United States orwhose native language is a language otherthan English and comes from anenvironment where a language other thanEnglish is dominant; or

b) is a Native American, or Alaska Native, ora native resident of the outlying areas andcomes from an environment where alanguage other than English has had asignificant impact on such individual's levelof English proficiency; or

c) is migratory and whose native language isother than English and comes from anenvironment where a language other thanEnglish is dominant; and

d) who has sufficient difficulty speaking,reading, writing, or understanding theEnglish language, and whose difficultiesmay deny such an individual the opportunity

United States Congress (1994)

17

Figure 3. 131 definition used by each state

(1*49 states with statewide assessrrents)

Federal

Register

(6 states)

12%

to learn successfully in classrooms wherethe language of instruction is English, or toparticipate fully in society."

Another similar definition used by six states(AL, AR, FL, MT, NC, and WV) is amodification of this definition that thesestates have attributed to the FederalRegister. This definition has essentially thesame wording as the IASA definition, but itdoes not refer to migrant students. Becausethis definition is not an exact match of thedefinition that is found in the current IASAlegislation and the states that use it refer toit as coming from the Federal Register, thedefinition is referred to in this report as theFederal Register definition.

The definition of limited English proficiencyprovided by 26 states differs widely incontent (AK, CO, CT, DC, GA, HI, ID, IL, IN,KS, MA, MD, MI, MN, MO, NH, NJ, NM, NV,NY, PA, SC, TX, UT, WA, and WI). Therange is from definitions that are the sameor similar to those found in the 1994 IASAand the Federal Register to definitions foundin legislation prior to IASA. For example,Pennsylvania's policy states that LEPstudents are "students who do notunderstand, speak, read or write English,"and Missouri's policy states that they are"students assessed as having English skillsbelow their age appropriate grade level."

n.r



As indicated in IASA8, Section 1111, statesare required to develop policies that addressthe inclusion of ELLs in their stateassessment programs by the 2000-2001school year. In the state report, Section 1.1indicates whether a state has a policyregarding the inclusion/exemption of ELLs instate assessments.

According to the documents submitted byeach state and the District of Columbia, 48out of 51 states (94%) have policies thataddress the inclusion or exemption of ELLsin state assessments. Iowa and Nebraskado not offer statewide assessments;therefore, they have no relevant policystatements and are not included in the statecounts. Alaska does have statewideassessments, yet it does not have an ELLinclusion or exemption policy.

Of the 48 states with inclusion or exemptionpolicies, 46 states allow exemptions fromthe regular assessment. Of these 46, sixstates require that students take an alternateassessment (AR, IL, MT, NM, TX, and WI).The remaining two states, California andOhio, require all students to take the stateassessments, regardless of background orlevel of English language proficiency.

Time Limits

As indicated in the Review of Literature,states often specify the number of yearsduring which an ELL may be exempted fromparticipation in the assessment program.

Section 1.2 in the state report indicateswhether ELLs are allowed exemptions for aspecific amount of time. Figure 4 illustratesthe number of states that have inclusion orexemption policies and the maximumnumber of years that exemptions apply, ifthey are allowed. In some states, the timelimit is not explicitly identified. Instead, thepolicy may specify that a student may beexempted for one administration of the test.In effect, this exempts the student until (s)hereaches the next grade at which there is astatewide test, which can range from one tofour years.

8United States Congress (1994)

18

Figure 4. Maximum number of yearsexemptions are allowed by number andpercent of states(N=48 states with inclusion/exemption policies)

Do Notspecify time

limits(11 states)

23%

Specify Notime limit(1 state)

2% Allow Morethan three

years(2 states)

4%

Allow Noexemptions(2 states)

4%

Allow Twoyears

(11 states)23%

Allow Threeyears

(21 states)44%

As shown in Figure 4, 35 of the 46 statesthat allow exemptions have policiesregarding exemption time limits. Themaximum period of exemption fromparticipating in statewide assessmentsvaries from two years to more than threeyears. The greatest number of states (21)allow a maximum exemption of three years,while 11 states allow a maximum two-yearexemption.

It is possible for a student to receive anexemption for more than three years in twostates (NH and TN). In Tennessee, thoughstate documents do not specify the gradesin which students are tested, state policiesindicate that testing for ELLs can bepostponed until later in the student's highschool years. In New Hampshire, a studentexempted from testing in grade six wouldnot encounter statewide tests until gradeten, a period of four years.

One state -- Hawaii -- specifies that there isno time limit on exemptions, and that astudent's level of English languageproficiency supercedes any timeconsiderations. Eleven states do notaddress the issue of time limits onexemptions.

Figure 5 provides a map of the UnitedStates that summarizes the aboveinformation. It identifies the states withinclusion/exemption policies and indicatestheir time limits for allowing exemptions.

30


Figure 5. Inclusion/Exemption Policy Overview

WA

OR

CA

3

NV

State has no inclusion/exemption policy. (1)State has no statewide assessments. (2)State has an inclusion/exemption policy. (48)

ID2

MT3

WY2

UT3

ND

SD3

CO

IL3

KS MO3

AZ I NM3 1

OK ,

3 i AR ? ,, SC ,

.may 1 3 ,--JitMS

%,, GA

2 i

.,:_L___._____,,,I,,....,.s.,_.14,,1 ,

2

c ,--__,,-,... ,__.

) FL7 . 2/

MI2

IN OH

KY 2

PA3

NY

ME

2 NH >3MA 3

RI 3CT 3NJ 3

DC 3DE 2MD 3

WV VA3 3

NCTN >3 2

TX3

t HINo limit

Number in each state represents maximum number of years an ELL may be exempted from statemandated assessments; N=34States with numbers allow exemptions and specify a time limit; Hawaii's policy specifies that thereis no time limit for exemptionsStates with no number specify no time limit for exemptions; N=11States in bold (CA and OH) allow no exemptions; N=2

19


Inclusion/Exemption Criteria

Inclusion or exemption policies in each stateare based on specific criteria. These criteriacan take many forms. The state report,Section 2.10, indicates the criteria that areused to determine if individual ELLs are tobe included in or exempted from the stateassessment program.

Figure 6 summarizes the criteria used bystates. Table 1 provides state-by-stateinclusion/exemption criteria. Only threestates with inclusion or exemption policiesdo not address criteria (CA, ME, and OH).California and Ohio omit criteria becausethey do not allow exemptions. In Maine,exemptions are allowed, yet state policy

does not specify the criteria schools shoulduse in making decisions. The remaining 45states have policies that outline criteria forinclusion/exemption decisions.

As Figure 6 illustrates, the most commoncriteria are those related to Englishlanguage assessment and time spent in anEnglish-medium environment.

Formal assessment of English proficiency isthe most widely used criterion in consideringELLs for exemption. Table 1 identifies the23 states that consider this criterion (AL,CO, DC, DE, GA, HI, IL, IN, KS, MD, MS,NC, ND, NJ, NM, NV, OR, SC, VA, WA.

Figure 6. Inclusion criteria by number and percent of states(N=48 states with inclusion/exemption criteria)

II -

Formal assessment of English proficiency

Informal assessment of English proficiency

Language program placement

Student's native language /proficiency

e - .

Time in U S schools/English speaking schools

Time in this state's schools

Time in the same school system

Time in U.S.

Performance on other tests

Performance on school work

Academic background in home language

OPINION-RELATED CRITERIA

Teacher observation/recommendation

Whether inclusion is considered appropriate for student

Parent's/guardian's opinion

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50%Note: Some states use multiple criteria; therefore, the total of the bar graphs is greater than 48.

20 32

. al 3

1ca

g.

**.<

<ca

tcnc

nxi-o

000z

zzzz

EE

3cE

3Er

,c--

xo-

ricro

00p>

......

>-1

>-1

><

zo0>

mxx

-<<

EgX

C70

cnO

Zm

o> .1

. < C

n Z

1.-

0>

rmo-

10>

NI

xSt

ate

4,..

to<

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

< <

zm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

rnm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mni

m,

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

n cn

w c

o cn

co

cn c

n cn

cn

co c

ocn

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

n co

cn

cn c

n co

cn

cn w

w w

cn

cn c

o cn

cn

,-st

ate

has

incl

usio

npo

licy

t cx-

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

- -

2 -

- -

- -

- -

- --

- -

Z -

- -

- -

- -

- -<

-<

- -

-<

- "

< Z

- "

< "

< Z

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mom

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mom

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

mm

omm

m ,-

,to

cn c

n cn

cn

cnto

cn c

o co

cn

cncn

cn

cncn

cn

cn c

n cn

cncn

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

nco

cn 0

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cn c

n cn

cn

cnco

cn

cn -

Sta

te h

as e

stab

lishe

dcr

iteria

12 c.,

00

00

< <

< <

<<

<0

< <

<<

<<

o -<

< <

<<

<<

<<

0<

0a)

CD

cD&

D,

cncn

cn

For

mal

ass

essm

ent o

fE

nglis

h pr

ofic

ienc

yr- a Z

A. e a

irl c

o:-

...a)

a'4 . to 47 a

0 -..

ta .... 0 z̀ ... rn co -0 ... --.

CI

Z . ^* -I a)*

...,

43.

=m

=o

oo

0-<

-<

-<

-<...

<-<

a)<

< <

io'

<<

<91

.<

<= <

Info

rmal

ass

essm

ent

of E

nglis

h pr

ofic

ienc

y*

oco

90

co3

<<

x<

<3

-<-<

-< -

< <

-<-<

x0

00

oE

3=

3

Lan

guag

e pr

ogra

mpl

acem

ent

(..1

-0a.

-oE

n

:-...

.5'

o<

<o

0".

'5=

=D

;1"

ca,

ca

Stu

dent

's n

ativ

ela

ngua

ge/p

rofic

ienc

ya.

.

o-0

30 7.

0 a

Tim

e in

U.S

/Eng

lish

spea

king

sch

ools

.3-.

13 ,.., . 0 0. a a. (7 aa.

toco a.

-o<

< <

co_<

_<

.. o

.<

<'5

Tim

e in

this

sta

te's

scho

ols

<,..

,_I

rtT

ime

in th

e sa

me

scho

ol s

yste

m

<T

ime

in U

.S.

Per

form

ance

on

othe

rte

sts

X. 0

::.co

a ' 0-

al a t° -. cl

<<

<<

<P

erfo

rman

ce o

nsc

hool

wor

k

< <

<A

cade

mic

bac

kgro

und

in h

ome

lang

uage

< <

<<

-<

Tea

cher

obs

erva

tion

and

reco

mm

enda

tion

o -a

i'a a

0 a.A m .., cu F

a' 0.

<W

heth

er in

clus

ion

isap

prop

riate

<<

Par

ent's

/gua

rdia

n's

opin

ion

-4 0

) IV

IV P

.) 0

) -

0) -

...k

(a ..

.(.

..)Is

.) -

C..I

- IV

N+

0)

4.1

IV Iv

Cr)

C.4

- I3

Ca

- N

C..)

- 4

). IV

- (

...)

4 U

10)

Num

ber

of c

riter

iaco

nsid

ered


WI, WV, and WY). Formal assessmentmeans administering a standardized test ofEnglish language proficiency to the student.The test administered varies by state, withsome states specifying an acceptable test ortests, and other states not specifying thetest.

Closely related to the most popular criterion,formal assessment of English proficiency isthe use of informal English assessments,which are also relatively popular. It isconsidered by 14 states (AL, AR, CO, DE,IN, MO, MS, NH, RI, TX, VA, WI, WV, andWY).

Another criterion related to Englishproficiency is whether or not a student isreceiving special language services (such asbilingual education or ESL instruction). Thiscriterion, called "Program Placement" inFigure 6 and throughout this report, isconsidered by 11 states (CO, CT, FL, GA,HI, IL, MA, NJ, NV, SC, and TX).

Other widely used criteria are related to theamount of time a student has spent in U.S.schools or English speaking schools.Eighteen states consider this criterion (DC,ID, KY, LA, MA, MI, MN, MT, NJ, PA, SC,SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, and WY). Othertime-related criteria used to determineexemption status are 1) time spent in thestate's schools, which is considered by 9states (AL, AR, AZ, DE, IL, MD, MO, MS,and OK), 2) time spent in the U.S., which isconsidered by Minnesota, and 3) time spentin the same school system, which isconsidered by North Carolina.

Several states consider factors related to thestudent's academic abilities. Performanceon other tests is considered by 11 states(AL, AR, MS, ND, NY, TN, TX, VA, VT, WV,and WY). Performance on schoolwork isconsidered by six states (AL, AR, MS, TX,VA, and WY). Teacher's observation and/orrecommendation are considered by sixstates (AL, AR, DE, MD, WV, and WY).Policies in three states consider a student'sacademic preparation in the home language(VA, WV, and WY). In these three states, astudent's strong academic background inthe content areas included in the state'sassessment program would support

including the student in the assessmentprogram rather than exempting him/her.

Another factor addressed in some statepolicies is the opinion of the individualsinvolved in making the exemption decision.This includes teacher judgment whichAlabama, Arkansas and Delaware consider.In addition, a few states (MI, MS, and OR)have policies that explicitly state that theopinion of the student's parent or guardianshould be considered, especially if theparent, guardian or student is opposed toincluding the student in the assessment.Three states refer to such a decision inbroad terms. Georgia states that exemptionis based on whether it is in the student'sbest interest, Missouri states that inclusion isappropriate when it provides instructionallyuseful information, and Virginia refers to theappropriateness of inclusion for the student.

Three states partially base their decisions onthe student's native language (MA, OR, andTX). In all three states, if the student'snative language is Spanish, there is atranslated test available. (In addition,Oregon is developing tests in Russian.)

As shown on Table 1, the majority of statesbase their decision to exempt ELLs fromstate assessments on only one or twocriteria. In fact, 17 states use only onecriterion (AZ, CT, FL, ID, KS, KY, LA, MT,NH, NM, NY, OK, PA, RI, SD, TN, and UT),and 11 states use two criteria (DC, HI, IN,MI, MN, NC, ND, NV, VT, WA, and WI).There are 17 states that use more than twocriteria. More than half of these states (9)use three criteria (CO, GA, IL, MA, MD, MO,NJ, OR, and SC). The others (8 states) usefrom four to seven criteria (AL, AR, DE, MS,TX, VA, WV, and WY).

The most common sole criterion is timespent in U.S. schools or English speakingschools. Of the 17 one-criterion states,seven use only this criterion (ID, KY, LA,MT, PA, SD, and UT). If we add thecriterion of time spent in the state's schools,two additional states use time as their solecriterion (AZ and OK).

The remaining eight single criterion statesuse a variety of indicators: informalassessment of English proficiency (NH and

22 3 4


RI), formal assessment of Englishproficiency (KS and NM), placement in aspecial language program (CT and FL),performance on other tests (NY), andperformance on a subtest of the actual statetest (TN).

The 11 states that use two criteria are morelikely to focus on English languageproficiency than time-related criteria. Eightstates consider formal assessment ofEnglish proficiency as one of their criteria(DC, HI, IN, NV, NC, ND, WA, and WI). Thesecond criterion recommended by each ofthese states varies widely.

Interestingly, the three remaining two-criterion states do not include formal Englishassessment as one of their criteria, but doinclude time spent in U.S. schools or Englishspeaking schools (MI, MN, and VT). Thereare three other two-criterion states thatconsider a time-related factor (DC, NC, andWA). In fact, these three states are the onlytwo-criterion states that combine formalassessment of English with a time-relatedcriterion. The District of Columbia andWashington focus on time spent in U.S.schools or English speaking schools. NorthCarolina focuses on time spent in the sameschool system.

Of the 17 states that consider more than twocriteria, all but four include both time andproficiency criteria (CO, GA, OR, and VA).These four states do not consider time-related criteria.

In summary, the trend is for states toconsider one or two criteria, usually focusingon time factors or English proficiencyfactors. If only one criterion is used, thepreference is for time-related criteria, whichnine states use (AZ, ID, KY, LA, MT, OK,PA, SD, and UT) rather than proficiency-related criteria, which four states use (KS,NH, NM, and RI). In contrast, when twocriteria are used, more states includeproficiency-related criteria (HI, IN, NV, ND,OR, and WI) than time-related criteria (MI,MN, and VT). Three states specify bothproficiency and time as criteria (DC, NC, andWA). In states that consider more than twocriteria, both language proficiency and timeare used in all but four cases (CO, GA, OR,and VA). In each of these states, time-related criteria are not considered.

Finally, criteria related to academic factors(performance on other tests, teacher'sobservation and/or recommendation,academic background in home languageand performance on school work) areamong the criteria least often considered.


Inclusion/Exemption Decision-Makers

Decisions whether to include or exemptindividual students must be made bysomeone. In the individual state reports,Section 2.9 indicates the person(s)designated by the state to make theinclusion/exemption decision.

Individuals who participate in the inclusionor exemption decision-making process inthe 48 states with relevant policies areshown in Figure 7. Table 2 identifies thedecision-makers in each state.

In summary, nine of the 48 states do notmake any recommendations regardingwho should make the participationdecision. (Two of these states, Californiaand Ohio, do not allow exemptions.) Ofthe remaining 39 states, school or districtofficials (25 states) and parents orguardians (20 states) play an importantrole in this process, participating asdecision-makers in over 40% of the states.

Classroom teachers are mentioned in statedocuments a little less frequently.Fourteen explicitly name the student'sclassroom teacher as a decision-maker(DC, DE, MD, ME, MN, MS, NH, NV, OR,TN, UT, VA, WA, and WV). ESL/bilingualteachers are only mentioned explicitly infour states (DC, DE, LA, and MS). Other

language professionals are mentioned byfour states (TX, VA, WA, and WV).Although the participation of teachers inthis decision-making process, especiallyESL/bilingual teachers appears low, it mayactually be higher. Eighteen statesdepend on a local committee comprised ofunidentified members to make theinclusion/exemption decision. The fact thatstate policies use such terms as the"student's academic team" or the "LEPcommittee" suggests that moreESL/bilingual teachers are actuallyinvolved. In Texas, the state policyidentifies the specific members of theLanguage Proficiency AssessmentCommittee (LPAC).

Only a handful of state policies incorporatethe student and test administrators in thedecision-making process. Six states allowthe student to participate in the decision-making process (GA, MD, MI, MS, OR,and TN). Four states mention theparticipation of test administrators (ID, LA,MS, and NM).

In Hawaii, the decision is determined solelyon the basis of the state's policy, whichspecifies that a student must earn aspecific score on a specific Englishlanguage achievement test in order to beincluded in state tests.

Figure 7. Inclusion/exemption decision-makers by number and percent of states(N=48 states with inclusion/exemption policies)

School/district official(s)

Student's parent(s)/guardian(s)

Local committee (members not specified)

Student's classroom teacher

Student

Student's ESUbilingual teacher(s) iiTest administrator(s)

Person responsible for education of ELLs

ESUbilingual/migrant specialist

Parent of an ELL

Interpreter

The State

1

IFS5,6

3.1

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40% 45% 50% 55%

Note: Some states have multiple decision-makers; therefore, the total of the bar graphs is greater than 48.

24 3 6


In summary, state policies indicate that,with the exception of Hawaii, the inclusionor exemption decision is the responsibilityof a team of individuals. In many states,however, it is unclear who participates onthis team. As explained, 18 states mention

local committees without specifying themembers. Moreover, many of the statesthat mention school/district officials do notprovide specific detail. In fact, three ofthese states rely solely on these unnamedofficials (IN, NY, and WY).

Table 2. Inclusion/exemption decision-makers by stateY=Yes, the state recommends the person's participat on.


Stateo

V/ CM 0.17'2 a2, .NS

o

J.c

C13

'2 EV/ z 4(I) i n 6-

.c.-E';)2 m Zz3 0u) ly 13

..C>

Sr

.")ii 7,-..)- - . . . . . _ . ,

°7°2.. Eu) o

... ....° `n. ?_) , , ,

.-Ziti.,kw ,O. o)

oo= *-oE CE u) ---.L. -08..

-QE!`"2'80 = Q._+.."u)

E ---9: co,,,(% 2''' :g 0a M m0) u It

(7)

132u)

.o1Cnwy, 7,,

cii `r..-

(7) a.°C13 c 02 :-. n3co a P.

---%...

2T.6.z

-,al 1:3

1-- co

.o e.... 0(13 :=

.,0 oO Ela(? cL --1ci: T, ...In. .1.0

aco

z......

C ,a)0.P 0:, . . . . ,

'-ii %it")

(1)Lu E

-.J--IIQ

Zrts

....o

eeCO

L.p.,w

E..,Z

o

(7')

.0I--

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIDILINKSKYLAMAMDMEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNHNJNM _YESNVNYOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXLITVAVTWAWIWVWY

NOYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

YESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYES

NO I

YESYESYESNONONOYESYESYESYESYESYESYESYESNOYESYESYESYESYESYESYESNOYESYESYESNOYESYESYESYES'YESNO !YESYES!NO

YES .,YESNOYESYES:YESYESYES.YESYESYESYES

(Does not have inclusion/exemption policy. f

Y__Y_ --

Y YY YY

(Does not allow exemptions.)(Does not recommend(Does not recommend

inclusion decision-makers.)inclusion decision-makers.) E

YY

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

Y

YY

Y

Y--Y

Y

(Does not recommend inclusion decision-makers.)

YYYY

Y

Y

YYYY

Y

Y Y

Y _

Y

.

Y

(Does not recommend inclusion decision-makers.)Y Y

YYY

Y Y Y Y

(Does not recommend inclusion decision-makers.) - , 3.Y

YY.

_.Y

Y

Y

YYY

Y

Y

(Does not allow exemptions.) w $,, ',:...

1 YI Y

. .

Y__ I __Y I __Y___, . ___(Does not recommend inclusion decision-makers.)Y

I

YY Y

_ . . .

(Does not recommend inclus on decision-makers.){

YYY

Y

Y

YY

-Y

Y

Y

YY

Y

Y

YY

Y Y

Total "YES" 48 39 25 20 18 14

S LSI COPY AVAILABLE

25

3Q



The use of accommodations is central topromoting the meaningful inclusion of ELLsin state assessments. In order to useaccommodations appropriately, manyfactors must be considered. First of all,each state must consider the extent towhich it will allow accommodations. Forthose states that choose to allowaccommodations on some or allcomponents of its assessment system, thenext decision involves identifying whichaccommodations are deemed mostappropriate. At this point, each state mustalso consider what effect, if any, the use ofindividual accommodations will have on itsscore reporting practices. Finally, statepolicy should indicate how decisions wouldbe made for each individual student, inother words, who will make theaccommodation decisions and what criteriathey will base their decisions on.

26

Our policy analysis covers these factors,and begins by answering the first question:to what extent are accommodationsallowed and/or prohibited in each state'spolicy? This information can be found inSections 1.4 and 1.5 of the state reports.

Of the 48 states with an inclusion orexemption policy, as shown in Figure 8, 40have a policy regarding accommodations instate assessments for ELLs. Thirty-seven ofthese states allow accommodations on atleast one test component. Thirteen of thestates that allow accommodations also havepolicies that prohibit specificaccommodations from being offered (DC,FL, KY, NC, NJ, NV, NY, PA, TN, TX, WA,WV, and WY). Three states (IL, IN, andNM) do not allow any accommodations. Inaddition, Illinois and Indiana make a point ofprohibiting the translation of tests. NewMexico, on the other hand, allows testtranslation on one of its components.9

9 The fact that these three states address testtranslation independently suggest that they view testtranslation as something different from anaccommodation.

33


Figure 8. Accommodation Policy Overview

c

LCA

WA 1.

OR

7 State has no accommodations policy. (9)State has no statewide assessments. (2)State has an accommodations policy. (40)

NV

UT

MT

WY

CO

ND

MN

o

KS MO

IL

ME

VT

NH.

..v NY r-MACT. Ri

PANJ

IN t OH _psDE

DC

VA (Has policy)

NCTN _

SC

AL

TX

States in bold allow no accommodations; N=3 (IL, IN and NM)Remaining states with a policy allow accommodations; N=37Underlined states prohibit at least one (but not all) accommodation(s) N=13 (DC,FL, KY, NC, NJ, NV, NY, PA, TN, TX, WA, WV, and WY)New Mexico and Massachusetts translate tests, although New Mexico does notallow accommodations and Massachusetts, has no accommodation policy;Massachusetts also has untimed tests

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

27


Accommodation Criteria

Decisions regarding the provision ofaccommodations to individual students mustbe based on some criteria. The response toSection 3.12 in the state report indicateswhether the state has established criteria fordetermining if accommodations should beprovided, and what those criteria are in eachstate.

Twenty-six of the 37 states that allowaccommodations specify the criteria onwhich decisions are to be based. Figure 9summarizes these criteria across all states.Table 3 provides state-by-state detailsregarding accommodation criteria.

The most widespread criterion involvesconsideration of the student's routineclassroom accommodations. Of the 37states that allow accommodations, 21 statesuse this criterion (AL, CO, DC, KS, KY, LA,MD, ME, MN, MS, MT, NC, NH, RI, TX, VA,VT, WA, WI, WV, and WY); in 13 of thesestates, this is the sole criterion considered(AL, CO, KS, LA, ME, MN, MS, NC, RI, TX,VA, WA, and WY). Other criteria are used ina handful of states.

Formal assessment of English proficiency(which is discussed on pages 20 and 22) isa factor in six states (DC, KY, MD, MT, SC,and WI). Criteria that are considered bythree states or fewer include: program

Figure 9. Accommodation criteria by number and percent of states(N=37 states that allow accommodations)

LANGUAGE-RELATED CRITERIA

Formal assessment of English proficiency

Language program placement

Informal assessment of English proficiency

TIME-RELATED CRITERIA

Time in U.S. schools/English speaking schools

Time in this state's schools

ACADEMIC CRITERIA

Academic background in home language

Performance on other test(s)

Routine classroom accommodations

Accommodations that do not distrupt others

Accommodations adopted by the districts

Accommodations suggested by test publisher

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60%

Note: Some states use multiple criteria; therefore, the total of the bar graphs is greater than 37.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

28 4 0


placement (which is discussed on page 22)is considered by three states (CT, NV, andSC); informal assessment of Englishproficiency is considered by two states (NHand WV); academic background in homelanguage (which is discussed on page 22) isconsidered by one state (MT); time in thestate's schools is considered by one state(DE); and performance on other tests isconsidered by one state (VT).

Utah specifies that accommodation criteriabe determined by the school district.Vermont considers the suggestions of thetest publisher. Finally, Nevada considers

429

whether the accommodation might disruptothers taking the test.

As shown in Table 3, states vary in thenumber of criteria used. Sixteen statesconsider only one criterion (AL, CO, CT, DE,KS, LA, ME, MN, MS, NC, RI, TX, UT, VA,WA, and WY), six states consider twocriteria (DC, KY, MD, NH, WI, and WV), onestate considers three criteria (SC), and onestate considers four criteria (MT). It isunclear how many criteria are considered bytwo states because they do not specify theircriteria for accommodation decision-makingin their policy documents (NV and VT).


Table 3. Accommodation criteria by state(Y=Yes, the state considers given criterion.)

Accommodation Criteria

State

>.!..)

6aco

'ato 0to E'c EIP. 02 2V) ta

-0

.20----2

;),

ofn01

.22 CD2 .;0 (..)

Eo tero.. 20 :...0 com 'a(..) 0o E.c E.. 00 i.;

CY m

....o..c.'ov,

wv)thco

-- -:co .4

Iiio e

4. ILI

Eto

taoticu *E"a) 4)MI Ezan uco a,-4 R.

.c4e 0W .e

,..)v,

C .:-- 4c0 RI......E 2.1.- Ul

o

Z0E

u)0cr)(/)A)

70 CE .4ii'.. c-7. W

y)a)

mo0sc 4- 0CD 0

,-.E tr-- col

0.eoeo0ueco

E3t 1120 V)m

o. :.-.

e

cto,..a)

-lcc.) 0).o ao TE .1.2a)% E

0 0cc .e

uI.-.oTsN.

'a

0.0130

430

1-..

TO.0.... ,v, cu

.P. 0

'0 C2"z0 ,,E E.Ea0 ...u c4..) 0cc -0

..0

0

0._ ......

11 za) !I13):...0) -0=0 Q.

AK NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)AL YES YES YAR NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)AZ YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)CA NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)CO YES YES YCT YES YES V

DC YES YES Y Y

DE YES YES V

FL YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)GA NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)HI NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)ID NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)IL YES NO (Does not allow accommodations.)IN YES NO (Does not allow accommodations.)KS YES YES YKY YES YES Y Y

LA YES YES' Y

MA NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)MD YES YES Y Y

1 1

ME YES YES Y

1

MI YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)MN YES YES Y I

I I I I I I I I

MO YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)MS YES YES YMT YES YES Y Y Y YNC YES YES YND YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)NH YES YES Y YNJ YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)NM YES NO (Does not allow accommodations.)NV YES YES

Y 1

I

NY YES NO1 I I

I

1

OH YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)OK NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)OR YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)PA YES NO (Allows accommodations but does not have accommodation criteria.)RI YES YES V

1 1 1

SC YES YESI Y I Y 1 Y 1 1 1 I

SD NO NO (Does not have an accommodation policy.)TN,TXUT

YESYES,YES

NOYESYES

(Allows accommodationsY

but does not have accommodation criteria.)

YVA YES YES Y

VTWA.

YESYES

YESYES

Y

yY Y

WIWVWY

YESYESYES

YESYESYES

Yyy

YY

Total 40 26 21 6 3 2 2 1 1 1 1 1"YES"

304 2 BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Accommodation decision-makers

Section 3.11 in the state report identifies whomakes the decision concerning the provision ofaccommodations to individual students. Of the37 states that allow accommodations, 23 statesrecommend accommodation decision-makers,as illustrated in Figure 10 and shown in Table 4(AL, AZ, CO, KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MN, MS,MT, NC, NH, NY, OR, RI, TX, VA, VT, WA, WI,WV, and WY).

In 14 states, the accommodation decision-making team most frequently includes thestudent's classroom teacher(s) (CO, KS, MD,ME, MN, MS, NH, NY, OR, RI, VA, VT, WI, andWV). Parent(s)/guardian(s), may be included innine states (AL, MD, ME, MN, NH, OR, VA, VT,and WV).

Similar to the inclusion decision-makingprocess, the accommodation decision-makingprocess involves a team of individuals, some ofwhom are not identified explicitly in state policy.

Twelve states mention a local committeewithout specifying its members (AL, KY,MD, ME, MT, NC, NH, OR, RI, VT, WA,and WI). Likewise, school officials, whoform a relatively broad category, areincluded in eleven states (AZ, LA, ME, MN,MS, NH, NY, TX, VA, WV, and WY).

Six states involve ESL professionals in thedecision-making process (KS, LA, MS, NC,VA, and WV).

Only a few states explicitly state that thestudent may be involved in the process(MD, OR, and VT).

Figure 10. Accommodation decision-makers by number and percent ofstates (N=37 states that allow accommodations)

Student's classroomteacher(s)

Local committee (membersnot specified)

School/district official(s)

Parent(s)/guardian(s)

Test administrator(s),coordinator(s)

1

Student's ESL/bilingualteacher(s)

Student

1

0% 5% 10% 15% 20% 25% 30% 35% 40%

Note: Some states use multiple decision-makers; therefore, the total of the bar graphs is greater than 37.

31

p. BEST COPY AVAILABLE


Table 4. Accommodation decision-makers by state(Y=Yes, the state recommends the given person's participation.)

r Accommodation decision-makers

State

AK NO NOAL YES YESAR NO NOAZ YES YESCA NO NOCO YES YESCT YES NODC YES NODE YES NOFL YES NOGA NO NOHI NO NOID NO NOIL YES NOIN YES NOKS YES YESKY YES YESLA YES YESMA NO NOMD YES YESME YES YESMI YES NOMN YES YESMO YES NOMS YES YESMT YES YESNC YES YESND YES NONH YES YESNJ YES NONM YES NONV YES NONY YES YESOH YES NOOK NO NOOR YES YESPA YES NORI YES YESSC YES NOSD NO NOTN YES NOTX YES YESUT YES NOVA YES YESVT YES YESWA YES YESWI YES YESWV YES- YESWY YES YES

(Does not have an accommodation policy.)



(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Does not have an accommodation policy.)(Does not have an accommodation policy.)(Does not have an accommodation policy.)(Does not allow accommodations.)(Does not allow accommodations.)


YV I YV

Y

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)V I I Y I ( I

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)

YY Y

Y YY Y

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)Y Y Y Y

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Does not allow accommodations.)(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)

V I I V I I I I I

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Does not have an accommodation policy.)

Y I Y I I N( I I Y I I

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)Y I Y I I I Y I I I

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)(Does not have an accommodation policy.)(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)

Y I I I

(Allows accommodations but does not recommend decision-makers.)Y Y Y Y

Total 40 23"YES"

Y Y

Y

14 12 11 9

32

5 3 3 3

44BEST COPY AvVLABLE


Allowance of Accommodations

When state policies address individualaccommodations, they provide one or moreof the following pieces of information:whether the accommodation is allowed ona specific test component, whether it isprohibited on a specific test component,and whether its use affects score reporting.

For the purposes of this report, testcomponent refers to any section orsubsection of a test that is part of a state'sentire assessment program. It may refer toa single test, which may or may not begiven at different grade levels (for example,the Florida Writes! assessment, which testswriting at grades 4, 8, and 10), a battery oftests (for example, the Connecticut MasteryTest, which tests reading, writing andmathematics at grades 4, 6, and 8), or asubtest in a battery (for example, one of thesubject tests of the Connecticut MasteryTest). In this section, we discuss whichaccommodations are allowed and whichaccommodations are prohibited. In thenext section, we discuss how the use ofaccommodations affects score reporting.

In each case, the important factor is thatthe state has identified the particular test asa component of its assessment program,and has provided accommodation policiesparticular to that component. In NewHampshire, for example, oral reading ofquestions in English is a prohibitedaccommodation on the reading and Englishlanguage arts sections of the NewHampshire Educational Improvement andAssessment Program. Oral reading isallowed on the other non-language artssections, such as math. In our study,therefore, we report that oral reading isallowed on some test components.

State policies address dozens of differentaccommodations. As mentioned in thereview of literature and discussed in thenext section, these accommodations havetraditionally been classified based on asystem that was first applied toaccommodations used for specialeducation. Within this system,accommodations are typically classified as:presentation format accommodations,response format accommodations, setting

accommodations, timing/schedulingaccommodations, and "other" accommoda-tions.

We first applied this classification schemeto analyze the state policies. Next, toexplore how the specific assessment needsof ELLs were being addressed, we createda new classification scheme designedespecially with ELLs in mind. Thisclassification scheme is based on linguisticconsiderations. It categorizes accommoda-tions into three groups: native language,English language, and non-linguisticaccommodations.

Both the traditional and linguisticclassification schemes are used to providea clear understanding of current statepolicies for accommodating ELLs.

View from a Traditional Classification ofAccommodations

The analysis of accommodations from thetraditional classification scheme shows thatstates include accommodations that havevarying degrees of acceptability. Weclassify the acceptability of an individualaccommodation based on the number ofstates that allow it on all components, allowit on some components, or prohibit its useon all components.

Based on these criteria, Figure 11 providesa list of all individual accommodationsallowed by the states, and indicates thenumber of states that allow eachaccommodation on all components, and thenumber of states that allow it on somecomponents. As Figure 11 shows, the mostpopular accommodations are setting andtiming/scheduling accommodations.Moreover, unlike accommodations in othercategories, no state prohibits their use. Byimplication, these accommodations areconsidered by states to be the mostacceptable accommodations.

33 4 5

The George Washington University Centerfor Equity and Excellence in Education

Figure 11 . Traditional classification of individual accommodations allowed by number and percent of states(N=49 states with statewide assessments)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

SETTING; ACCOMMODATIONSSmall group administration

Individual administration

In a separate location, carrel

Preferential seating

Teacher facing student

TIMING/SCHEDULING ACCOMMODATIONSExtended testing time (same day)

Frequent, extra, longer breaks

Time of day most beneficial to student

Several (shorter) sessions

Testing over several days (some extended time)

Flexible scheduling (of subtests)

Other timing/scheduling accommodations

PRESENTATION FORMAT ACCOMMODATIONS

Oral reading of questions in English

Explanation of directions

Other presentation format accommodations

Translation of directions

Repetition of directions

Translation of test into native language

Person familiar with student administers test

Use of audio cassette

Clarification of words (spelling, defining, explaining)

Highlighted key words

Oral reading of directions

Use of an interpreter (sight translator)

Bilingual version of test

Oral reading of questions in native language

Simplified/sheltered English version of test

Use of place markers to maintain place

RESPONSE FORMAT ACCOMMODATIONS

Student dictates answer, uses scnbe

Student responds in native language 4 I

Student marks answers in test booklet

Other response format accommodations 2Student types, uses machine

OTHER ACCOMMODATIONSUse of bilingual word lists, dictionaries

Other accommodations 2Out-of-level testing 11

Use of brainstorming activities 1

10

"'Allowed on all state assessment components 0Allowed on some state assessment components

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 34 46


Setting accommodation

Setting accommodations include practicesthat affect the environment in which the testis given. When setting accommodationsare mentioned in state policy, they areusually allowed on all components of astate assessment program. Of the 37states that allow accommodations, noneprohibit any setting accommodations.

As shown in Table 5, three settingaccommodations are allowed by a largenumber of states: 1) small groupadministration, which is allowed by 28states on all components (AL, CT, DC, DE,KS, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS,MT, ND, NH, NV, NY, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX,VA, WA, WI, WV, and WY) and by 1 stateon some components (AZ), 2) individualadministration, which is allowed by 24states on all components (AL, CT, DE, KS,LA, ME, MI, MN, MO, MS, ND, NH, NV,NY, OR, RI, SC, TN, TX, VA, VT, WA, WV,and WY) and by 2 states on somecomponents (AZ and MD), and3) administration in a separate location orcarrel, which is allowed by 22 states on allcomponents (AL, CT, FL, KS, MD, ME, MI,MN, MS, NC, ND, NH, NJ, NV, NY, OR,PA, RI, TX, VA, WA, and WY) and by onestate on some components (AZ).

Another fairly popular settingaccommodation is preferential seating,which is allowed by 17 states on all testcomponents (AL, DC, DE, KS, MD, ME,MS, ND, NH, NV, OR, RI, TX, VA, WA, WI,and WV). This accommodation allows astudent to sit in the front of the room,providing the student with the bestopportunity for understanding oraldirections given by the test administrator.For similar reasons, one state identifies onesetting accommodation as making sure thatthe teacher is facing the student (NH).

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

4e

Table 5. Setting accommodations allowedby state1=Allowed on all components2=Allowed on some components

Setting Accommodations

State

ga -..7-.

fa0 h.;....,,17,z c7o E= _Um 171

-ro

7, h.z 1-4

:12 :,...? E1 _c 2

,P.

7r,

".n3 2,s3-

0. c'% .0

7,3'co 0c 0

-433

g t,,.- c

49- -.w 03ci du

ZL. 003 13.5 Zm to2 enTS S... 0

4,2

AKAL 1 1 1 1

ARAZ 2 2 2CACOCT 1 1 1

DC 1

DE 1 1

FL 1

GAHIIDILINKS 1 1 1 1

KY 1

LA 1

MAMDME 1

MI 11

1

MN 1

MOMSMTNCND

11

NH 1 1 1

NJ 1

NMNV 1 1 1 1

NYOHOKORPA 1

RISCSDTNTXUTVAVT 1

WA 1 1 1

WI 1 1

WV 1

WY 1 1 1

Totalallowed 29 26 23 17 1


Timing/Scheduling accommodations

Similar to setting accommodations,timing/scheduling accommodations areoffered by many states, and no stateprohibits their use. By far, the most populartiming/scheduling accommodation isextending the test time on the same day.As shown in Table 6, extra time is allowedby 26 states on all components (CO, CT,DC, DE, LA, MA, MD, ME, MI, MN, MO,MT, NC, ND, NJ, NY, OH, OR, PA, RI, SC,TX, VT, WA, WI, and WV), and by 6 stateson some components (AL, FL, MS, NV, VA,and WY). This accommodation is soacceptable that it may be allowed for allstudents taking the test, not just for thosestudents with special needs. This is thecase of Massachusetts, which has untimedtests.

Regarding restrictions applied to timeextensions, Alabama, Nevada, and NewJersey specify a maximum amount of timeallowable.

As shown in Table 6, four timing/schedulingaccommodations are fairly popular: 1)offering frequent, extra or longer breaks,which is allowed on all components by 21states (CO, CT, DC, DE, KS, MD, ME, MI,MN, MS, ND, NH, OR, PA, RI, TX, VA, VT,WA, WI, and WV) and allowed by twostates on some components (AL and WY),2) choosing the time of day most beneficialto the student, which is allowed by 15states on all components (AL, CO, MD,ME, MS, ND, NH, NV, OR, RI, VA, WA, WI,WV, and WY), 3) offering several (oftenshorter) sessions, which is allowed by 11states on all components (CO, CT, DE, FL,ME, NC, ND, NH, OR, VA, and WV) and by3 states on some components (AZ, MN,and TN), and 4) allowing testing overseveral days, which is allowed by 10 stateson all components (DC, MD, ME, NC, ND,OR, RI, WA, WI, and WV) and by 2 stateson some components (AZ and VA).

One timing/scheduling accommodations isless popular. Flexible scheduling ofsubtests is offered on all components infive states (DC, MT, ND, VA, and WV) andon some components in one state (RI).

Table 6. Timing/scheduling accommodationsallowed by state1=Allowed on all components2=Allowed on some components

Timing/Schedu ing Accommodations

i'C'-0) LI-_-

.E,...,

n24... ,

mZ; T30 .?.=ci,

--,,wt

I-, ITL Ew .> -:a, -0CA 0

a,e.

--:.,s.

00

State ''''22 -5:

r(4C0 2 sOg.

0.=

..C5; c-

(., 12th .E -0

1:3 ct,

4:b 1)

C"o a)Q., =

..: ....

C "Qw ....m a),,.

a -,-,* ',,'"

az:CD 4:1)

z...) en- c)-L.CD

o ..-tr) t.S ""

0 2im EI

zo m

£E)- E

Lii " ir. ° i2 13 :4 ig azzo 0 kiAKAL 2 2 1 2*ARAZ 2CACO 1 1 1

CT 1 1

DC 1 1 1 1

DE 1 1 1

FL 2 1

GAHIIDILINKS 1

KYLA 1.

MAMD 1

ME 1 1

MI 1 1

MN 1 1

MOMSMT 1

NC 1

NDNHNJNMNVNYOHOKOR 1 1

PA 1 1

RI 1 1

SCSDTNTXUTVAVT 1 1

WA 1 1 1

WI 1 1 1 1

WV 1 1 1 1 1 1 1"**WY 2 2 1

Totalallowed

32 23 15 14 12 6

'Unspecified other acccimmodations. **Group breaks,more than 20 minutes. ***Breaks during a subtest..

36 4 on BEST COPY AVAILABLE


There appears to be less of a consensusregarding the use of the remainingaccommodation types in the traditionalclassification, presentation format andresponse format accommodations. This isevidenced by the fact that fewer statesallow these accommodations, as we havealready seen in Figure 11; conversely,some states explicitly prohibit their use.(These prohibitions will be discussed inmore detail in the following section.)

Presentation format accommodations

Presentation format accommodations arethe most numerous, accounting for nearlyhalf of the accommodations. These areaccommodations that affect the manner inwhich the assessment instrument ispresented to the student.

The most popular presentation formataccommodation is oral reading of questionsin English. As shown in Table 7, five statesallow this on all assessment components(DE, KY, ME, MI, and ND); 17 states allowthis accommodation on some assessmentcomponents (AL, CO, FL, KS, MD, MO,MS, NC, NH, OR, RI, SC, VA, WA, WI, WV,and WY).

The next most popular presentation formataccommodations can be grouped togetherbased on the fact that they all involve thetest directions. Explanation of directions isallowed on all components by 14 states(CT, DC, DE, KY, ME, MN, MT, NV, OR,SC, TX, VA, WA, and WV), and allowed onsome components by two states (AZ andFL). It is notable that, in Minnesota, theexplanation of directions is allowable before-- but not at the time of the test.Repetition of directions is allowed on allcomponents by 10 states (CO, DC, DE, LA,MD, OR, SC, TX, WA, and WY), and onsome components by one state (AZ).Translation of directions is allowed on allcomponents by eleven states (MI, MN, MT,NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, and WA),and on some components by two states(AL and AZ).

Nine states (AL, FL, LA, ME, MS, NH, SC,TN, and TX) allow a person familiar withthe student to administer the test on allcomponents.

Translation of the test into the native languageis used by few states. As shown on Table 7,three states allow it on all components of thestate assessment (DE, KY, and ME) and eightstates allow it on some components (MN, NM,NY, OR, RI, TX, UT, and VT).

Similarly, Table 7 indicates that few statesallow either bilingual versions of tests orsimplified/sheltered English versions.Bilingual versions of tests are available inSpanish in four states (CO, MA, OR, and WY).Wyoming allows the use of bilingual tests onall components; the other states allow bilingualtests on some components.Simplified/sheltered English versions of testsare available in two states (KS and ME),where they are allowed on all tests.

Table 7 continues to illustrate this trend: theleast used presentation formataccommodations are those related to usage ofthe native language. Oral reading ofquestions in the native language is allowed onall tests by New York, and on some tests byOregon, Rhode Island and Wyoming.

Table 7 shows that use of an interpreter orsight translatorl° is allowed on all componentsby Delaware and New Hampshire; it is allowedon some components by Ohio and Vermont.

A handful of states allow other presentationformat accommodations related to makingEnglish more accessible. Clarification of wordsin English is allowed by one state (MT) on allcomponents; it is allowed on somecomponents by five states (AZ, CO, FL, NV,and WY). Use of audiocassettes is allowed onall components by three states (MT, ND, andVT), and on some components by three states(MD, MN, and RI). Oral reading of directionsis allowed on all components by three states(CO, VA, and WV), and on some componentsby Wisconsin. Highlighting key words on thetest to focus the student's attention on mainideas is allowed by four states (KS, ND, OR,and VA).

10Sight translation is the act of orally rendering a

document written in language A to language B. In thecontext of state assessment, sight translation involvesrendering orally all or part of a test written in English intothe student's native language.

A n37 `tor

Tab

le 7

. Pre

sent

atio

n fo

rmat

acc

omm

odat

ions

allo

wed

by

stat

e1=

Allo

wed

on

all c

ompo

nent

s2=

Allo

wed

on

som

e co

mpo

nent

s

Pre

sent

atio

n F

orm

at A

ccom

mod

atio

ns

.52

ED re,

S. o

gl E

t,t,

2a

ac.

5.

to o 43 C m 0 o "

P z:. s , 6' = 9, CL Ff ,. 0 G

A

5 = 411 ar m 13 9% 0. . g 0 0

2 il,

Zz

0 0 cl

i2

ccco

aC 41

sz

a)...

. 0 a 0

ti 12 .7.

i t"

c, z 0 ,;,...

....

.

R ,-.T

.o 0 cn

VP

ma

0 0

? z 7,

,..o.

sS

....

s- 0

-1-

a "

a *

.1...

vo 3

-,,, C

D a

51 m.

0 01

'a 0

v.; 0

4o-

a 7 0 " g -, 0

m 0 ' " ' t o. -6- , C

O 12 is C D

s- 9

2 E

tm

.`' 2

0 lo

.a-

, s.

z ,

42 ,

it-.

..

1M 0 C

4

EP. 5- (0 c 9. c Cc: co a ' 0 07 w -

9 94 - t 2 tt. s. co 0 -- 9 a cl̂ 11", . t a

lz 9 s .

. , 0 - 22 a _.

.... 7

9. r

o.5

.:/-

3 a " '

z I. :7:4

cc a. le,'

..c * 94 0°

F 0 .9 11 24 cp a R.

sit

4 n

V4

a. .,

...N

az-

F.:.

,':, 0

)fb

9.-

a 1,

4is

- g

0 43

2 a.

Li

....

119-

, ...,

c -0

,.9 a

a al

0, ,

so^:

.....;

- g ...

. 0 co ...

Not

es

AK

-

AL

AR

AZ

*Tea

cher

prov

ides

cla

rific

atio

n.C

AC

O2

12*

2**

1*S

pelli

ng o

f wor

ds to

stu

dent

s w

ho r

eque

st it

. **S

pani

shC

T1

DC

1

DE

11

1*1

1*L

angu

age(

s) n

ot s

peci

fied.

FL

22

12*

*May

ans

wer

que

stio

ns a

bout

a w

ord

or p

hras

e.G

AH

IID IL

...

IN KS

21

1

KY

11

1*1*

**L

angu

age(

s) n

ot s

peci

fied.

**P

arap

hras

ing

dire

ctio

ns in

stu

dent

's n

ativ

ela

ngua

ge.

LA MA

2**S

pani

shM

D*W

ritte

n co

pies

of o

rally

pre

sent

ed m

ater

ials

.M

E1

11*

11

*Lan

guag

e(s)

not

spe

cifie

dM

IM

N*S

pani

sh, V

ietn

ames

e, W

hite

Hm

ong

11

2*2

2**

**S

crip

t of a

udio

cass

ette

. Sho

rt s

egm

ent b

ookl

ets.

_mb

MS

M T

11

1*1

1**

*Dec

reas

e la

ngua

ge d

eman

ds (

e.g.

, by

clar

ifyin

g in

form

atio

n--p

arap

hras

es,

syno

nym

s). *

*Pro

vide

nat

ive

lang

uage

sup

port

(e.

g., t

aped

inst

ruct

ions

).N

C2

Loi

Pre

sent

atio

n F

orm

at A

ccom

mod

atio

nsC

l)"6

OM

.....g

b

11rg

. Q

. s. CO .0 ecc a 0 0

T 03 ..., c Z 0 -..

Q.

el c at = 0

-1 Z 64... is. , _ g. P

c. a . 0

0-1

lb a

Z 0

alal

.

p 6-

.0 ,

C I"' u

4.13

"e°

re 0 s-

x ,

ett

'2 tt. 0 z 0 ""' a .... .... - C 0

0-0-

0e 0.

.a.Z cl

,Fi

r0.

aa

rzS

' s'

co .;2 0

....

....

0 ,-

a to ,,

ri.

m 9.. f

,,,(7

1..T

...0.

0 0 40 -% 0 ...,

CL 0,

c e' ...;

C 0. n su tn c a

-60 N

21`'

.3-

2 Q.

is-

s-Z

00

'41

oE

, ..

to 4

cp % in 0 0

03 z . Lb, 0 0 a 0 -

0 a P,,

O. s. 4:

1 o .... a a n 0 0 w

7, C

6- 2 ~.

@ % _.

X̀ a

0 13

-7-t

. c ,... ,

Z co (0 2 ''' 'r 4 0 . 0

C 0 m 0 ... 12. ,

CD s . ;1- c .

171

0

to 3 13 " .....

(L'.

iii<

pa2

41.,-

a 0

8" c

i. -- .....

9, 5

sC

L0

0., 0

0 n S

S 1 -0

0 a

0,cr

ito

°:t.

a0

tu= ,,,

0 0 ..h 0 i al

Not

es

ND

11*

'*T

ape

test

. **H

ighl

ight

key

wor

ds in

dire

ctio

ns.

NH

NJ

NM

2**S

pani

shN

V*D

efin

e w

ords

in te

st to

pics

.1*

***

Tes

t adm

inis

tere

d by

ES

L te

ache

r or

spe

cial

test

adm

inis

trat

or.

NY

*Spa

nish

, Chi

nese

, Hai

tian,

Cre

ole,

Kor

ean,

and

Rus

sian

OH

OK

OR

*Spa

nish

(R

ussi

an u

nder

dev

elop

men

t)*

1 (a

-c)

**a.

Writ

ten

oral

dire

ctio

ns2

(d)*

*b.

Sim

plifi

ed d

irect

ions

c. T

rans

late

d ke

y w

ords

on

test

d. R

ead

the

read

ing/

liter

atur

e te

st a

loud

PA

RI

22*

1***

*Spa

nish

. **A

udio

tape

d pr

esen

tatio

n. *

**D

irect

ions

sim

plifi

ed.

SC

SD

TN

*Adm

inis

trat

ion

of a

sin

gle

subt

est.

TX

*Spa

nish

UT

2**L

angu

age(

s) n

ot s

peci

fied

VA VT

2*1*

**L

angu

age(

s) n

ot s

peci

fied

**U

se o

f vid

eota

pe.

WA

WI

2W

V2

*Rea

ding

of e

mbe

dded

writ

ten

dire

ctio

ns in

Eng

lish.

WY

21

2 **

*Spa

nish

**I

n na

tive

lang

uage

: rea

d in

stru

ctio

ns, c

larif

y w

ords

.T

otal

allo

wed

2216

1311

119

66

BE

ST

CO

PY

AV

AIL

AB

LE

1=A

llow

ed o

n al

l com

pone

nts

2=A

llow

ed o

n so

me

com

pone

nts


Response format accommodations

Response format accommodations affecthow a student is allowed to respond to testitems. These accommodations are similarto the presentation format accommodationsin that their use is more limited than thesetting and timing/scheduling accommoda-tions. This category is different frompresentation format accommodations inthat it represents fewer accommodations,and these accommodations are lesspopular.

The most significant member of thiscategory is an accommodation in which thestudent is able to dictate answers and/oruse a scribe. Ten states allow thisaccommodation on all components (CO,KS, MD, MI, MO, MT, ND, OR, RI, and WI);six states allow it on some components(DE, ME, NH, VA, VT, and WY). Otherresponse format accommodations includeallowing the student to respond in thenative language, which is allowed by fourstates on all components (KS, MT, ND, andOR), and by four states on somecomponents (DE, MA, RI, and TX); allowingthe student to mark answers in the testbooklet is allowed by four states on at leastone component (AL, MN, NC, and SC); andallowing the student to type or use amachine, is allowed on all components byMaryland and on some components byAlabama.

Notes for Table 8

AL *Student marks answers by machine.

DE *Scribe records student response on a writingprompt.

KS *Student dictates answers on tape for verbatimtranslation.

MD *Student types response for transcription byschool personnel.

ND *Student tape records responses for laterverbatim translation.

VA *Student responds verbally and teacher or proctormarks answer sheet.

WY *Words can be spelled for student providingwritten response

40

Table 8. Response format accommodationsallowed by state1=Allowed on all components2=Allowed on some components

Response Format Accommodations

State

AKALARAZCACOCTDCDEFLGAHIIDILINKSKYLAMAMD ,

MEMIMNMOMSMTNCNDNHNJNMNV_NYOHOKORPARISCSDTNTXUTVAVTWAWIWVWY

cu-0,0 V

ai n)

{.2, 2

. lz 20 R,

2

1

1

2

1

2

1

0 a)z a,o n,2 - 5e 2)

18 lz 7,co =

10co

N

t .7,g g

1%1z0 ...s

we

0. =,... caro faE E

2)2117,

e z4

41.1z 20 4,

El..2ii) c(i) 2g .-

,9,- 3

112 E

4-, g.s. ,,..;

0 co

2

1*

1

2 2*

.

1*

2*

Totalallowed 16 8 4 2 3



The four traditional categories do notaccount for all accommodations allowed bystates, so a fifth category called otheraccommodations must be included.

According to Table 9, the most significantaccommodation in this category is allowingthe use of bilingual dictionaries or wordlists. This accommodation is allowed on alltests by 11 states (FL, KY, LA, MD, ME, MI,MT, NC, NJ, OH, and WY) and on somecomponents by ten states (AL, AZ, CO, DE,MS, NY, RI, SC, VA, and WA). One policyof note is that of Louisiana, where it isstipulated that an "English/NativeLanguage dictionary (no definitions)" isallowed for all tests, while an "English/Native Language dictionary" is allowed onlyfor the written composition test.

Other accommodations include the use ofout-of-level testing (administering a testbelow grade level) and the use ofbrainstorming activities such as creatingsolution maps and discussing in pairs. Theformer is allowed by Kansas, Montana andVermont; the latter is allowed by Delawareand Vermont.

Considering the number of possibleaccommodations and the choices involvedin determining the extent to which theyshould be offered, it is no surprise thatstate policies regarding whichaccommodations are allowable are sovaried. Just as much (and perhaps more)can be learned about the states' attitudestoward ELL accommodations byconsidering the accommodations that areprohibited.

Notes for Table 9

AL *Unspecified other accommodations which need to beapproved by the state Department of Education.DE *Students discuss/brainstorm in pairs during the pre-writing part of the Writing test.KY *Use of grammar or spell-checking systems.LA *Bilingual dictionary, with definitions.MD *Those proposed by a Local Accountability Coordinatoror LEP staff, and approved by MSDE Office and LEP staff.MO *Use of native language dictionary.ND *Special test preparation (not specified).On-task/focusing prompts.OR *Use of an electronic translation device.SC *Alternative Holistic Score Scale.VT Solution maps; Pre-conferencing.WA *Use of student created dictionaries.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 41

Table 9. Other accommodations allowedby state1=Allowed on all components2=Allowed on some components

Other Accommodations

State

o ,7,, .tto

0.=

co

: 0 .')

46 "EIUi.

t/1 tr)Z zr.

coc;)

2.1r)

Wt4.

0

0)c,-a

Eoco

.%

IS rb)

13 ...z:0 ?cn 5Z co

U)cocl'00E

k- EZ' (9.- 60 ti

AKAL 2 2

ARAZ 2CACO 2CTDCDE 2 2'FL 1

GAHIIDILINKS 1

KY 1 1'LA 1 2*MAMD 1 1*ME 1

MI 1

MNMO 1'MS 2

MT 1 1

NC 1

ND 1'NHNJ 1

NM

NVNY 2

OH 1

OKOR 1'PARI 2

SC 2 2'SDTNTXUTVA 2

VT 2 1'WA 2'WIWVWY 1

Totalallowed 21 3 2 8


Table 10. Accommodations prohibited by state(N=16 States that prohibit all or some accommodations)Y=Yes, the given accommodations are prohibited by that state.

Accommodation Presentation 'Response' Others

State

To

,_ u)...L c2 °-...a (.076 0

E0Em 00463' ,0

i75 C-6

o

in'CD a.)

u)0 7C 0)IT; 0

a)

2 Toi c

.0Na)

O Li!CO Ccco

2 -2To

To a)- 70 o-

O0)cco cF_-) 2ti

To a)" "0 '5

V)a)

"a"c.00ai

To7a)

671

cgCD:=to

a).c.7)N

(2.00-cocti

O.

c.9.17)a)70"

60)c

T1a),-

ta:

0

a)0)

a)C0

7 a -,

>4.'7.coc

..g.

C. _,,,

-00 0)a COco 7a) c")

2'c'a) a)-0 >, ..;.-)., cov) c

co

-c.0--

'5

a)a)co7a)

°) wW .r--oco0) :7-10 0D'5

T.2o3 0.,

TD a)ca (13-2 oc-_--c-, =...._ -20 -00) V;0 tAn_

-o(1)

co

b-

-.E.

a)

13 su) 0O0.) L.-CO 0D3

.wo a)C C0 -=.c "'o a).- -To 2"'Do °E 13 '2c oE.0 -o O0 a) ,C.) 0 . - ,<DV)

a)

t7)a)

a)ct"9.w0

DCFLIL*IN*KYNCNJ

NM**NVNYPATNTXWAWVWY

YESYES

YES

Y

YY

Y Y Y

Y

Y

Y

YY

Y Y

Total prohibited 3 6 2 1 1 1 i 1 2 3 3 1 1 1

*Prohibits the use of all accommodations, and exp icitly prohibits the use of translated tests.**Prohibits the use of all accommodations, but allows the use of translated tests.

Prohibition of Accommodations

When discussing the use ofaccommodations, most state policies focuson enumerating the accommodations thatare allowed. Some state policies,however, also include information aboutaccommodations that are explicitlyprohibited. As discussed earlier, thepolicies of three states (IL, IN, and NM),prohibit the use of all accommodations, andthe policies of thirteen states prohibit theuse of at least one accommodation (but notall) (DC, FL, KY, NC, NJ, NV, NY, PA, TN,TX, WA, WV, and WY). Table 10 providesstate-by-state details regarding theseprohibitions. Figure 12 gives a summary ofthese prohibitions based on the traditionalclassification of accommodations.

In the previous section we explained thatpresentation format, response formataccommodations and otheraccommodations are not used as much asthe setting and timing/schedulingaccommodations. These are the

42

accommodations that some states explicitlyprohibit.

The most popular presentation formataccommodation, oral reading of questionsin English, is prohibited by two states (PAand TN).

Less popular presentation formataccommodations, those related to nativelanguage use, are also prohibited by somestates. Translation of the test into thenative language is explicitly prohibited bysix states (DC, IL, IN, NJ, PA, and WV).Pennsylvania explicitly prohibits bilingualtests and the oral reading of questions inthe native language.

Two presentation format accommodationsrelated to making English more accessible,oral reading of directions and paraphrasingtest items are also prohibited. Tennesseeprohibits the former; Wyoming, the latter.

One response format accommodation,allowing the student to respond in the



native language, is prohibited by two states(KY and PA).

Under the category other accommodations,the use of bilingual dictionaries or word listsis prohibited on all components by Nevada,Tennessee, and Texas. Allowing the useof English language dictionaries isprohibited on all components by threestates (FL, NC, and NY). Similarly, the useof student created word lists is prohibitedby the state of Washington. Finally, the

use of out-of-level testing and the use ofaccommodations that are not used in thestudent's regular classroom or testingsituations are prohibited by North Carolina.

In order to better understand nationaltrends regarding the allowance andprohibition of accommodations, we nextfocus more directly on accommodationsbased on whether the accommodationaddresses the linguistic needs of ELLs.

Figure 12. Traditional classification of individual accommodations prohibitedby number and percent of states (N=49 states with statewide assessments)

0% 5%

PRESENTATION FORMAT






Paraphrasing of test items

RESPONSE FORMAT

Student responds in native language

-OTHER_ACCOMM.ODATIONS

Use of English language dictionaries

Use of bilingual word lists, dictionaries

Student created word lists

Accommodations not used in class/testingsituations

Out-of-level testing

10% 15%

Prohibited on all state assessment components

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 43 55


View from a Linguistic Classification ofAccommodations

In the previous section, accommodationswere presented according to a traditionalclassification system. In analyzing theresults based on this system, it becameapparent that in order to better evaluate theextent to which the assessment needs ofELLs were being addressed, it would beuseful to reclassify the accommodationsbased on linguistic factors. This section ofthe report, therefore, focuses on a linguisticclassification of the accommodations thathave already been presented. By analyzingaccommodations using both the traditionaland linguistic classification systems, it ispossible to clearly picture current policyregarding the accommodations offeredELLs.

Figure 13 takes the accommodations listedin Figure 11 and re-arranges them based onlinguistic considerations.

The first group, native languageaccommodations, includes anyaccommodations used to make the contentinformation accessible to the student inhis/her native language (e.g., allowing theuse of bilingual dictionaries, translating thetest's directions).

English language accommodations includeany accommodations used to help thestudent better understand test informationpresented in English (e.g., allowingquestions to be read orally in English,explaining directions). The remainingaccommodations can be classified as non-linguistic accommodations (e.g., extendingthe test time, allowing the test to beadministered in a small group setting).

The data in Figure 13 suggests that non-linguistic accommodations are used bystates far more than either native languageor English language accommodations. Theleast utilized and perhaps morecontroversial group (as we will see when wefocus on the prohibited accommodations)appears to be native languageaccommodations.

The most common native languageaccommodation offered by state policies is

44

allowing the use of bilingual word lists anddictionaries. Eleven allow their use on allstate assessment components states (FL,KY, LA, MD, ME, MI, MT, NC, NJ, OH, andWY), and ten states allow them on at leastone component (AL, AZ, CO, DE, MS, NY,RI, SC, VA, and WA), according to Table 9.

Some states have gone a step further inaddressing the language needs of ELLs byproducing translated directions and tests.As shown in Table 7, eleven states translatedirections on all test components (MI, MN,MT, NJ, NV, OH, OR, PA, SC, TX, and WA),and two states translate directions on atleast one component (AL and AZ).

Combining two categories, the use oftranslated tests and bilingual tests, Table 7shows that 14 states offer translated tests(CO, DE, KY, MA, ME, MN, NM, NY, OR,RI, TX, UT, VT, and WY). Nine of thesestates specify that the translation is availablein Spanish (CO, MA, MN, NM, NY, OR, RI,TX, and WY); five states do not specify thetarget language (DE, KY, ME, UT, and VT).In addition to offering Spanish versions,Minnesota translates tests into Vietnameseand White Hmong; New York has translatedversions in Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean,and Russian.

It is interesting to note that there are twostates that provide translated tests althoughthey have not specified accommodationpolicies related to translation (MA and NM).Massachusetts has a bilingual test inSpanish. Similarly, Texas allows Spanishlanguage tests for some components. NewMexico offers a Spanish version of its HighSchool Competency Examination. For itsother tests, instead of offering translatedversions, the state recommends usingcommercially published Spanish languagetests as alternate tests.

56


Figure 13. Linguistic classification of individual accommodations allowed by number and percent of states(N=49 states with statewide assessments)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

NATIVELANGUAGEACCOMMODATIONS





Use of an interpreter (sight translator) "''' 2


Oral reading of questions in native language 3 I

t- 8

4 1

111111KENG SHWGUA(Oral reading of questions in English bnignow


Student dictates answer, uses scribe


Use of audio cassette 3

Clarification of words (spelling, defining, explaining) 5

Highlighted key words Nam

Oral reading of directions Mal I


NON-LINGUISTIC ACCOMMODATIONS

Extended testing time (same day)

Small group administration













Student types, uses machine

Use of brainstorming activities

17

26

1

24

22

21

17

15

11

10

Allowed on all state assessment components Allowed on some state assessment components

BEST COPY AVAILABLE45 57


Other native language accommodations areallowed in few states. Table 8 shows thateight states allow the student to respond inhis/her native language (DE, KS, MA, MT,ND, OR, RI, and TX). Four states allow thestudent to use an interpreter or sighttranslator (DE, NH, OH, and VT). Fourstates permit oral reading of questions in thestudent's native language (NY, OR, RI, andWY). (See Table 7.)

English language accommodations areoffered by more states than native languageaccommodations. These accommodationsmost often affect the manner in which thetest is presented. Most English languageaccommodations focus on lessening thereading/writing burden of assessments. Themost common English languageaccommodation is oral reading of questionsin English. As shown in Table 7, a total of22 states allow this accommodation on atleast one test component (AL, CO, DE, FL,KS, KY, MD, ME, MI, MO, MS, NC, ND, NH,OR, RI, SC, VA, WA, WI, WV, and WY). Sixstates allow the use of an audiocassette topresent the test (MD, MN, MT, ND, RI, andVT). One state allows the use of avideotape (VT).

In addition to accommodations that apply tothe presentation of the entire test, there areaccommodations that apply solely to thedirections. Table 7 shows that explanation ofdirections" is offered on at least onecomponent by 16 states (AZ, CT, DC, DE,FL, KY, ME, MN, MT, NV, OR, SC, TX, VA,WA, and WV), and repetition of directions isoffered on at least one component by 11states (AZ, CO, DC, DE, LA, MD, OR, SC,TX, WA, and WY). Oral reading ofdirections is less popular; it is allowed in fourstates (CO, VA, WV, and WI).

Beyond modifying the presentation of thetest and directions, Table 7 shows that sixstates attempt to lessen the languagedemands of their tests by allowing theclarification of words through spelling,defining and explaining vocabulary (AZ, CO,FL, MT, NV, and WY). Four states attempt

Explanation of directions includes the paraphrasingof directions. In at least one state, Minnesota, this isallowed as early as days before the test, but not at thetesting time.

to provide clarification by highlighting keywords (KS, ND, OR, and VA).

As shown in Table 7, two states, Kansasand Maine, go beyond offering limitedmodifications to either the questions ordirections. They have developedsimplified/sheltered versions of theirassessments.

An English language accommodationaddressed by the states does not affect thepresentation of the assessment: allowingthe student to dictate his/her answer, asshown in Table 8. This accommodation isallowed on at least one component by 16states (CO, DE, KS, MD, ME, MI, MO, MT,ND, NH, OR, RI, VA, VT, WI, and WY).

Figure 13 illustrates that the remainingaccommodations, those that account for themajority of accommodations addressed instate policies, are non-linguistic. For adetailed description of the results regardingnon-linguistic accommodations, please referto Figure 11 and the correspondingdiscussion in the previous section.

By reclassifying allowable accommodationsbased on a linguistic classification scheme,it is apparent that both native languageaccommodations and English languageaccommodations are offered less frequentlyby the states than non-linguisticaccommodations. Similarly, if we apply thelinguistic classification scheme to prohibitedaccommodations, we find that nearly allprohibited accommodations are linguistic(See Table 10).

Figure 14 summarizes the prohibitedaccommodations based on whether they arenative language accommodations, Englishlanguage accommodations or non-linguisticaccommodations.

The only non-linguistic accommodations thatare prohibited are out-of-level testing andaccommodations that are not used in dailyclassroom and testing situations, both ofwhich are prohibited by North Carolina. Theremaining prohibited accommodations arelinguistic accommodations.

46 58


The least used accommodation is testtranslation, which is explicitly prohibited bysix states (DC, IL, IN, NJ, PA, and WV).Pennsylvania also prohibits bilingual tests.(In contrast, as discussed earlier, 15 statesallow some type of test translation.) Otherprohibited native language accommodationsare the use of bilingual word lists ordictionaries, prohibited by three states (NV,TN, and TX), allowing the student torespond in his or her native language (KY

47

and PA), and oral reading of questions innative language (PA).

Prohibited English language accommoda-tions are use of English languagedictionaries (FL, NC, and NY), oral readingof questions in English (PA and TN), oralreading of directions (TN), paraphrasing oftest items (WY), and the use of studentcreated word lists (WA).

59


Figure 14. Linguistic classification of individual accommodations prohibitedby number and percent of states (N=49 states with statewide assessments)

0% 5%

NATIVE LANGUAGE ACCOMMODATIONS






ENGLISH LANGUAGE ACCOMMODATIONS

Use of English language dictionaries



Paraphrasing of test items

Student created word lists

NON-LINGUISTIC ACCOMMODATIONS

Accommodations not used in class/testingsituations


10% 15%

Prohibited on all state assessment components

GO48


Reporting Scores

Once a state has decided to useaccommodations, it must also decide howthe accommodated students' scores will bereported. The state may include or excludethe scores in state, district and/or schooltotals, or it may do both.

Figure 15 provides a summary of scorereporting policies used by the states thatallow accommodations. Nine states indicatethat when specific accommodations areused, scores are not to be included in state,district and/or school totals (DE, KS, MD,MS, ND, OR, VA, WV, and VT). Eight stateshave a policy requiring the scores of ELLswho have received accommodations to beincluded in state, district, and school totals(KY, LA, ME, MI, NC, NV, TX, and WA).The remaining 20 states that allowaccommodations did not supplydocumentation on this issue.

Figure 16 provides an overview of thenumber and percent of states that addressscore reporting when specificaccommodations are used. Policies onscore reporting vary by the category ofaccommodation used. No states excludescores that are obtained through any settingaccommodations.

However, some states exclude scores fromgroup totals for students who receivetiming/scheduling, presentation, response,and other accommodations. As shown inTable 11, the accommodations that mostfrequently result in excluded scores includethe provision of extended testing time(excluded on at least one component by DE,MD, MS, and VA, and on all components byND and WV), and the oral reading ofquestions in English (excluded on at leastone component by MD, MS, OR, and VA,and on all components by DE, ND and WV).

49_

The following accommodations result inexcluded scores on at least one componentbut not on all components: the use ofbilingual dictionaries (VA); allowing thestudent to dictate the answer (MD and OR);oral reading of questions in the student'snative language (OR); student responds innative language (OR); translation of the testinto the student's native language (OR); theprovision of frequent, extra, or longer breaks(VA); the use of an audio cassette recordereither to present the test to students whohave difficulty with printed words andnumbers or to allow students to respond totest questions orally (MD); and the oralreading of directions (VA).

Use of the following accommodations resultsin exclusion of scores on all components:several shorter sessions (DE); breaks duringa subtest (WV); explanation of directions(DE); use of an interpreter (DE); use ofbrainstorming activities (DE); the provisionof frequent, extra, or longer breaks (DE); theuse of an audio cassette recorder either topresent the test to students who havedifficulty with printed words and numbers orto allow students to respond to testquestions orally (ND); the oral reading ofdirections (WV); translation of the test intothe student's native language (DE);simplified version of the test (KS); out-of-level testing (KS); and use of a scribe torecord student response to a writing prompt(DE). 12

12Both Virginia and West Virginia have determined that

oral reading of directions does not maintainstandardized conditions, and therefore they do notinclude the scores of students who receive thisaccommodation.


Figure 15. Score Reporting Policy Overview

State has no score reporting policy. (20)II State has no statewide assessments. (2)[1:1 State has no accommodation policy or prohibits accommodations. (12)

State has score reporting policy. (17)

WA

OR

MT NDMN

[ wl- \

WY MN&NY

MI

\ PA

OH it_._-1/16;DE

--,114/V DC

VA (No policy)KY

----T.:9 NCTN

COKS

AZ

TX

..zazasakt , 0,10+.5P.527k.

I MS

LA )

States in bold exclude some scores from state, district and/or school totals; N=9(DE, KS, MD, MS, ND, OR, WV, VA, and VT)Remaining states with score reporting policy do not exclude any scores from totals;N=8 (KY, LA, ME, MI, NC, NV, TX, and WA)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

50

62


Figure 16. Number and percent of states that do/do not report student scores by accommodation(N=49, the number of states with statewide assessments)

ULING ACCOMMODATIONS

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%


Individual administration p



Other setting accommodations

MING/SCHEDULIN







Other timing/scheduling accommodations

PRESENTATION FORMA



Repetition of directions .

Translation of directions imiicmoi a t:Person familiar with student administers test Effallit 1

Highlighted key words MilsTranslation of test into native language Emil 111

Other presentation format accommodations zr

1

12

1 1 '4 2

1

4 3

Clarification of words (spelling, defining, explaining)








RESPONSE FORMAT ACCOMMODATIONS




Student types, uses machine

Other response format accommodations

OTHER ACCOMMODATIONS


Other accommodations



11111

1

a

11

Scores are included in school and/or district totals Scores for some components are excludedScores for all components are excluded Score reporting is not addressed

BEST COPY AVAILABLE51 63


-oa)

79(a)

a)

0E0Oa)E0

a)00

0

co

0O0.c0U)

0

as

O

ai

-0

toTr)

a)

77.)C

."S

a) CO .cC13 .0

-oa) c(1) (43a.) ec.) CD V

asv,Ea En 0cn o,.c ci) c

-tooa0.§2 a) '=

a) a' LaI- To 8 c

U) := CD V) W

a) 0,co 11


co



Use of bilingual word lists, dictionaries .0 c0

Other response format accommodations V

Student types, marks answers usingmachine


Student response in native language

Student dictates answer, uses scribe J2



Use of place markers a)


Use of an interpreter (sight translator) V





Clarification of words In English



co

CD (0 .12



Explanation of directions CD CD "0 CO

Oral reading of questions in English , 12 DI

Other timing accommodations

Flexible scheduling (of subtests) CD

Testing over several days (extended time) CO

......-....-....-:.00 C) 0 0c cc c c00 0 0 0

tO li t; TO tO

EEEEEgEggg;.;

8 8 0CO CO CD CD D:I

CD 0 0 W0 0 0 0 07 7 7 7 7

Several (shorter) sessions fns m 03


Frequent, extra, longer breaks .0...

V) 0c0 (O 0CO 07

E EE E§ co 30CO (0mCD a) CD ,,,

CI)

7 76)coacrac

0 0CD (1)0 00 MCI M

..-. CV CD

0CD V

Extended testing time (same day)c0 010 :3(0

010 0 3

Other setting accommodations E

Preferential seatingE8C3

(,) .0

In a separate location, carrelCD

(1) ct07

,,,

Individual.administration ti0

000cacao ooN 0 0 0CD CD CD (1)0 0 00 00 0C1 00Small group administration

CU0O (0 .0

State/Accommodation

.0 .0 co

.0a .0 .0 CO .0

.0

a)

as

CJ 12 J2 CO

.0 m as

.0

.0

U a7

.0

.0 .0

.0 CO

.0 .0 CD LI

a.0

.0 .0

.0 CD

.0 .0

.0 .0 .0 co .0

.0 0 .0 12 CO 01 0

.0 .0 .0

.0 .0 .0 OS .0

.0 .0 42 CO .0

IX N 0 (-) - j z V) 2- < 1:1 LLI Z 0 V)< <<<00()C100.0I--- 2 E E E52 bff§T COPY AVAILABLE__L

6 4

0






Other response format accommodations

Student types, marks answers usingo machine0.)

a Student marks answers in test booklet

cc Student response in native language




Use of place markers







Clarification of words in English







Other timing accommodations


"S Testing over several days (extended time)

u Several (shorter) sessions

c Time of day most beneficial to student

Frequent, extra; longer breaks


Other setting accommodations

Preferential seatingerr




State/Accommodation

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

co

0 .CO .0 CD CO CO OS ! 0 .0 0 -Co:

.0 a3r

CO

-csa)

to-

.0co

E2

.0 (0 .o....

co

co

5

.0 CO coN.a CD CO CO

'0o

0.0 0 (0 co _

EEo00co

To

5

.o .o .0c

4);

co143

0 (1:1 U)ca)C0

>< E0a) 0co a,co Eoco <0

o `<5.173 ToVo g

0 o0co -(5-

o0 .0

:Z"U*C

15

L:nai

-0 E

ofTo 24...

o0 0E `12 -5cn

x2

a(o))

(0 0 (0 co -

0 N(0

.0 co

CO (0.0

.0 .0 a mI

.0 .0

N(0 (0 .0 CD

0 co .0 a a .0

.0 '0 CO CO CO 0 CO.0 II CO

.11.-_o.0 .o -

.0 .0 CO .o .o

.0.0(0 -.0 .0 0 CO.0 .0 .0 CD

.0 M .0 al M

0

E

8

/2

cQ)

.0 0 .0 .0E (I)

D0(13

_1343X ja

E"E' z0E> --C 0

CL.1.E

C)

CJ?LU

ofC

CO .0 13 ((3 -0 CO CO 2 .0 M 0 CO1 -0.

.0 0 CO .0 CO '0 CO

CO-8

E.0 CO CO 8a

C.).0 a .0 C13 .0

(0

.0 .0 0 0 a(0 v9 .0 M .0 .0 .0 0

xi CO .0 CO c .0 M a) .0 .0 m.0 .0 a)

13 CD a (O.01 0 .0 .0 0 .0

2zzzzzzz0(000.cecncn1-1-0>>53

- 65



Alternate assessments are formal tests orassessment procedures that may be usedwhen standard assessments areinappropriate for the student due to lack oflanguage proficiency or other matters.Alternate assessments are not parallel to thestandard assessment in format or content.Often, they are based on different contentstandards. The concept of an alternateassessment, like the concept ofaccommodations, originates in the field ofspecial education, where such assessmentsare provided to students with significantphysical or cognitive disabilities. For thetesting of ELLs, alternate assessmentsshould be designed to accommodate theirlimited English proficiency. Thus, analternate assessment may be considered atype of accommodation, in that it addressesthe particular needs of the ELL in a testsituation.

In this study, state policy documents werereviewed in order to understand if alternateassessments are used to assess ELLs. Theinformation recorded in sections 1.7 and 1.8in each state's report indicates if alternateassessments are allowed or available forELLs and if the state policy specifies anyparticular alternate assessments or providesany other guidance on the subject.

As shown in Figure 17, the majority of stateswith statewide assessments (27) have nopolicy regarding alternate assessments.Twenty-two states have a policy to allow orprohibit alternate assessments. Fifteenstates offer alternate assessments to ELLs(AR, AZ, IL, KY, MT, NC, ND, NJ, NM, OH,OR, TX, VT, WI, and WY). Seven statesexplicitly prohibit their use (CA, GA, KS, LA,MN, RI, and SC). It is likely that states thatprohibit alternate assessments do sobecause of the concern that their scores arenot comparable to those of the standardassessment. Indeed, some states may feelthat alternate assessments are a threat tothe imposition of common standards for allstudents.

Information from the 15 states that offeralternate assessments varies greatly indetail and content. The types of informationaddressed include whether alternate

assessments are required of students notparticipating in state assessments, whoshould be given the assessments, whattypes of assessments are allowed, andwhether scores from students who tookalternate assessments are to be included instate reports. Few states have a policy thatprovides information in all these areas.Therefore, in general it can be said thatstate policies regarding alternateassessments for ELLs lack detail.

A review of state documents reveals thefollowing:

1. Alternate assessments are required forthose students not participating in the stateassessment in six states (AR, IL, MT, NM,TX, and WI).

2. Four states specify the number of yearsthat an ELL may be given an alternateassessment (AR, IL, KY, and WY).

3. In two states the specified alternateassessments are simply the existing stateassessments presented orally (OH) or in thestudent's native language (KY). Theseaccommodations would not be consideredalternate assessments in other states.

4. Five states allow the use of an alternateassessment in the student's native language(NM, KY, WY, NJ, and WI). Two statesspecify that commercially published tests begiven to Spanish-speaking students (AZ andNM). Arizona specifies the test; NewMexico does not.

5. Two states use state-developed tests asalternate assessments for ELLs (IL and WI).In both states, the focus of the alternateassessments is in transition from languageproficiency skills to content-basedknowledge.

6. Three states specify that portfolioassessments may be used as alternateassessments (KY, NC and TX).

7. Two states specify the allowance ofperformance assessment or other authenticassessment methods (NJ and NC).

54 66


8. Two states provide considerable guidanceto districts as to other appropriate testformats, methods, and indicators of the statecontent competencies (NM and WI).

9. One state, New Mexico, which has a highschool exit exam, permits ELLs to take analternate assessment of its high stakesexam. The district can create this alternateassessment. A student may take theSpanish version of the state exam, ifappropriate.

10. One state, Wisconsin, has developed acomprehensive manual for developingalternate assessments for ELLs.

11. Half of the states that have alternateassessment policies use the term "alternateassessment" interchangeably with"alternative assessment."

To provide a more detailed and accuratedescription of state policies regardingalternate and "alternative" -- assessments,policies of the individual states are providedin Appendix C. In a few cases, state policiesare summarized. In the majority of cases,the policy is stated verbatim from the statedocuments. This is done to avoid anymisrepresentation of the intent of the statepolicies caused by the variability in usage ofthe terms "alternate" and "alternative."

55

Examination of the written references anddiscussions of alternate assessment forELLs in state documents indicated that thediscussion of this subject is often minimaland lacking in detail and focus. The 15states whose policies are summarized inAppendix C are the only states whosepolicies allow for some type of alternateassessment. Generally, policies in most ofthe 15 states are sufficiently vague as tooffer little or no help to local districts andschools in deciding on alternate assessmentmeasures. In most states, it is unclear fromthe policies whether the alternateassessments are to be parallel in format andcontent, and whether they will be based onthe same standards as the regularassessment. Similarly, the state policiesusually do not define whether and howscores from alternate assessments are to bereported.

The examination of alternate assessmentpolicies and measures in states that havemade more rigorous efforts -- Montana,Vermont, and Wisconsin -- can providesubstantial information to other statesseeking to develop alternate assessmentprograms for ELLs. The alternateassessment programs developed in thesethree states provide more options for ELLparticipation in the states' assessmentprograms.

6 7


Figure 17. Alternate Assessment Policy Overview

_State has no alternate assessment policy. (27)

IN State has no statewide assessments. (2)State has alternate assessment policy. (22)

ND

CO 1

SD

KS

TX

MN

MO

ME 2,

AV

NY

PA,NJ

e`WV fi

VA 1,`

di KY

OKTN policy)tr.-

SCAR

/MSGA

I, LA

Fl

States in bold do not allow alternate assessments; N=7 (CA, GA, KS, LA, MN, RI, and SC)Remaining states with policy allow alternate assessments; N=15Underlined states require alternate assessments be given to students not participating instate assessments; N=6 (AR, IL, MT, NM, TX, and WI)

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

56

68


Summary of State Policies

Figure 18 provides a visual summary ofinclusion and accommodation policies bynumber and percent of states. It shows thatnearly all states (48) have an inclusion orexemption policy statement. Forty-six statesallow exemptions; two states prohibitexemptions. Thirty-five states have a policyregarding exemption time limits. Forty-fivestates have policies that address the issueof inclusion criteria. Thirty-nine statesindicate who should make the inclusion orexemption decision.

Forty states have accommodation policies.Accommodations are allowed by 37 states,and 13 of these states prohibit at least onetype of accommodation. Three statesprohibit all accommodations. Twenty-sixstates have policies that includeaccommodation criteria. Twenty-three

57

states identify accommodation decision-makers.

The effects of accommodations on scorereporting are not discussed in thedocuments submitted by 20 of the 37 statesthat allow accommodations. The 17 statesthat do discuss the effect ofaccommodations on score reporting aredivided on the issue. Eight states includethe scores of accommodated students instate, district and/or school totals. Ninestates exclude some scores.

Alternate assessments are addressed by 22states. Fifteen states allow alternateassessments; seven states do not. Of the15 states that offer alternate assessments,six require an alternate assessment begiven to students who are not included inthe regular state test.


Figure 18. Summary of inclusion and accommodation policiesby number and percent of states

(N=49 states that have statewide assessments)

Have inclusion and/or exemption policy

Allow exemptions

Prohibit exemptions

Have exemption time limit policy

Have inclusion criteria

Recommend inclusion decision-makers

IP

Have accommodations policy

Allow accommodations

Prohibit all accommodations

Prohibit specific accommodations

Have accommodation criteria

Recommend accommodation decision-makers

SCORE REPORTING POLICIES

Address score reporting

Include scores

Exclude some scores

ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT POLICIES

Address alternate assessments

Allow alternate assessments

Require alternate assessments

Do not allow alternate assessments

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

II States with given policy

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

2 3

58 70


VI. Discussion

Introduction

The analysis of state policies reveals that inthe 1998-1999 school year, almost all states(48) had policies in place that address theinclusion and exemption of ELLs in stateassessment programs. In addition, moststates had policies for identifying ELLs (41states) and for accommodating ELLs in theirstate assessments (37 states). Little morethan one-third of the states (18) provideddocuments that address the issue ofreporting ELL test scores, and fewer states(15) offer alternate assessments. Thesedata indicate that states are at varyingstages of implementing policies to includeELLs in state tests. The inclusion of ELLsis a vital element in ensuring that allstudents are expected to reach the samestandards.

State policy documents vary in length andfocus. Some states provide minimalinformation. For example, Georgia's policystates, "LEP students shall participate in allstate assessments unless the school andthe parent(s) or guardian(s) agree it is not inthe best interest of the student to participateat this time." This one sentence alludes toinclusion, exemption, and relevant criteriaand decision-makers. It is essentially theonly mention of these issues in all the statedocuments provided.

Accommodation policies in some states arealso very brief. For example, Tennesseestates, "Modifications in testing may includethe following. *Flexible Scheduling:Administer the test in shorter sessions.*Flexible Setting: Have the testadministered individually or in small groupsby a person(s) familiar to the student. Nopart of the [test], including internal testdirections and test items, may be read tostudents. Translation dictionaries may notbe used."

The format in which policies are presentedvaries greatly. Documents submitted bystates that contained information relevant tothe analysis ranged from one-page memosto grant-funded reports to actual statecodes.

Regardless of their length or format, a lookat state policies suggests trends in howstates are handling the issue of includingand accommodating ELLs in stateassessment programs. A focused look ateach aspect of ELL participation in stateassessments helps identify these trends.

Top Ten States. Efforts to describe anational picture of ELL inclusion andaccommodation policies require a look atrelevant policies in all states, regardless ofthe density or scarcity of the ELL populationin any one state. However, since it is likelythat states with higher ELL populationswould have developed more detailed andcomprehensive policies than states withfewer ELLs, a subgroup of ten states withthe highest ELL populations was analyzed.It may be expected that a focus on thestates with higher ELL populations wouldidentify the state-of-the-art in ELL inclusionand accommodation policies. The "top ten"states are, in order of ELL population,California, Texas, Florida, New York,Illinois, Arizona, New Mexico, Washington,New Jersey, and Massachusetts (Macias,1998).13 These states account for 82.8 % ofthe total ELL population in U.S. publicschools, with California alone accounting for40%. A brief description of relevant findingsfrom a review of state policies in the "topten" states follows each sub-section of thisDiscussion section.

Definition and Identification of ELLs

The definition of ELLs came to be a point ofinterest. Though the request fordocumentation did not specifically askstates to submit a definition of ELL, as weanalyzed the state documents, we noticedtwo emerging trends: 1) for eight states, adefinition of ELLs was not included in thedocuments submitted; and, 2) of the 41states for which a definition was provided,there was a broad range of detail and focusacross definitions, as discussed in theResults section. This finding is neither newnor insignificant. To reiterate a point thathas been made previously (August, et al.,1994; O'Malley & Pierce, 1994; Rivera, etal., 1997; Spicuzza, et al., 1997), the

13The state census report for 1996-1997 provides the

latest available data.

tl I59 1 -11.


definition and identification of ELLs may bethe first step in determining the degree ofELL participation in state tests, and ameans of accumulating complete andaccurate information on the studentpopulation. Varying definitions, and poor ornon-existing definitions, across states canlead to inconsistent practices in classifyingELLs and determining ELL participation.

Top Ten States. There is a lack ofconsensus in ELL definitions across the topten states. Of the eight states that providea definition of LEP (FL, IL, MA, NJ, NM, NY,TX, and WA), one state uses the FederalRegister definition (FL), as described onpage 17 of this report. The remainingseven states use a definition unique to thestate. Two states do not include a definitionin their assessment policy documents (AZand CA).


The analysis of inclusion/exemption policiesfocuses on four major aspects of theinclusion/exemption decision:

1. Does the state have anexclusion/exemption policy?

2. What criteria does the state specify beused in making inclusion/exemptiondecisions?

3. Who does the state specify shouldmake the inclusion/exemption decisions?

4. If the state allows exemptions, what isthe maximum length of time, if any, astudent may be exempted or deferred?

Inclusion/Exemption Criteria

The analysis of state assessmentdocuments showed that 48 states haveinclusion/exemption policies. A look at thecriteria used in making inclusion/exemptiondecisions, as specified by state policies,shows four notable tendencies:

1. State policies tend to specify the use ofone or two, rather than multiple, criteria ininclusion or exemption decision-making.

60

2. The two most commonly specifiedcriteria are the assessment (both formal andinformal) of a student's English proficiency,and the amount of time a student has spenteither in the U.S., in a public school in thestate, or in a special program.

3. States that specify more than twocriteria tend to list a student's enrollment orplacement in a special program as one ofthe criteria.

4. Criteria that might be classified asacademic are specified by only a few states.These criteria include performance inschoolwork, academic background inanother country, and teacher observationsand recommendations.

These trends seem to be based on thebelief that there is a specific identifiablepoint at which inclusion or exemptionbecomes justifiable. That point can be aspecific score or level achieved on aproficiency test, or a specific length ofexposure to English or to the schoolcurriculum. Proficiency level and time maybe useful in combination with other factorsto form an overall picture of a student'sdegree of preparedness for taking astandardized test. However, it is arguablewhether these criteria consistently provideenough information to make an informedinclusion/exemption decision, in and ofthemselves.

The use of one or two criteria, rather thanmultiple criteria, to determine inclusion orexemption can lead to inaccurate decisions.Given the limited amount of information anyone criterion can provide, state policiesshould require schools to gather morecomplete information on a student and toconsider multiple factors when deciding ona student's participation in state tests.

The occurrence of either criterion (languageproficiency or time) as the only criterionconsidered for inclusion/exemptiondecisions as it is in the case of 17 statesis notable, particularly in light of thelimitations of each.

Proficiency tests can be a good indicator ofcertain English language skills, but such

'7 2


tests typically do not test all skill areas, nordo they address a student's academic skills.Consequently, the information provided bythese tests can give an incomplete pictureof a student's level of preparedness fortaking a standardized test.

Similarly, the use of time criteria offersincomplete and insufficient information onwhether a student is fit for inclusion orexemption.

The infrequent use of academic criteria indecision-making is notable. As anindication of a student's preparedness fortaking a standardized test, a student'sacademic background would seem to be avalid criterion. Therefore, perhaps statesneed to specify academic criteria in additionto the factors considered when makinginclusion/exemption decisions. Academicbackground can be a useful consideration incases where the native language schoolingis strong but the language proficiency ortime in school is marginal or weak. Astudent with a strong academic backgroundwho does not meet a time criterion may wellbe capable of participating in theassessment and may benefit fromparticipation.

Top Ten states. All of the ten states withthe highest ELL populations haveinclusion/exemption policies. Nine states(AZ, FL, IL, MA, NJ, NM, NY, TX, and WA)allow exemptions; California does not.Consistent with national tendencies, policiesin the states with large ELL populationsspecify language and time criteria mostfrequently. One finding of note is programplacement as the most frequently specifiedcriterion, an indication that special programsdesigned for ELLs are in place in states withlarge numbers of ELLs. One other findingthat is consistent with the national trend isthe general absence of consideration ofacademic factors in inclusion/exemptiondecisions. Two of the states in thiscategory (NY and TX) considerperformance on other tests; Texas is theonly state that considers a student'sperformance in schoolwork. Regarding thenumber of criteria used, four of the ninestates in this category that allow exemptionshave policies that specify only one criterion

(AZ, FL, NM, and NY), one state specifiestwo criteria (WA), and four states specifymore than two criteria (IL, MA, NJ, and TX);this is also generally consistent with policiesacross the nation.


Of the 48 states with inclusion/exemptionpolicies. 39 address the issue of decision-makers. A close look at these 39 states'policies indicates a tendency to specify useof a team approach for makinginclusion/exemption decisions. Policiestypically specify teams that consist of threeto five members, including a principal orother school official, the student's parent(s)and/or guardian(s), the student's regularclassroom teacher, and one or two othermembers. Noticeably absent is specificmention of individuals with professionalknowledge of language learning processes(e.g., ESL or bilingual teachers). To decideif a student should participate in statetesting, a person with professionalknowledge of language learning processescan provide valuable information to thedecision-making process. While it may bethe intention of state policies that suchpersons be included as members ofdecision-making teams, it is unfortunate thatonly five states indicate that a student's ESLor bilingual teacher, who are presumablyknowledgeable about language learningprocesses, take part in the decision-makingprocess.

Top Ten States. Policies regardinginclusion/exemption decision-makers in thestates in this category are consistent withnational tendencies. State policies mostfrequently specify that decision-makersinclude unspecified committee membersand school/district officials, each specifiedby half the states. Five states specifyschool/district officials (AZ, MA, NM, NY,and WA). Four states' policies indicate thatdecision-makers include unspecifiedcommittee members (FL, IL, NJ, and NM).In Texas, members of the LanguageProficiency Assessment Committee are toinclude a professional bilingual educator, aprofessional transitional language educator,a parent of a limited English proficientstudent, and a campus administrator.Washington is the only other state in this

a61


category that specifies that a person withprofessional knowledge of languagelearning processes, anESL/bilingual/migrant specialist, take part inthe decision-making process. Thespecification of parents or guardiansappears in the policies of two states (AZand WA). This represents a rate of twentypercent, which is somewhat less than theforty percent national average.


With respect to the accommodation of ELLsin state assessments, the purpose of thepolicy analysis was to identify the number ofstates that allow (37) and/or prohibit (23)specific accommodations, as well as toanswer the following questions.

Regarding the decision-making process:

1. What criteria does the state specifyshould be used to decide onaccommodations for any one student?

2. Who does the state specify shouldmake the decision?

Regarding the specific use ofaccommodations, across states:

1. Which accommodations are mostfrequently offered?

2. Which accommodations are leastfrequently offered?

3. Which accommodations are mostfrequently prohibited?

Accommodation criteria

A total of 37 states have a policy that allowsaccommodations for ELLs. Regarding thecriteria specified in state policies foraccommodation decision-making, the mostfrequently specified criterion is "Thoseaccommodations which are used in astudent's routine classroom situation." Thiscriterion is specified by 21 states, including13 states in which it is the only criterionspecified. The predominance of thiscriterion seems easily justifiable, perhapstoo easily. An attempt to fully understandthe reasoning and dynamics behind this

policy decision can lead to speculation inmany areas.

The practice of extending the use ofclassroom accommodations into testingsituations first developed out of the attemptto address the needs of students withdisabilities, whose classroom accommoda-tions have long been tracked by theirIndividualized Education Plan (IEP). Incomparing education policies and practicesestablished for ELLs to those of studentswith disabilities, it is important to note that,unlike students with disabilities, ELLs do nothave IEPs. In the absence of IEPs forELLs, it might prove difficult for states toidentify which accommodations, if any, areroutinely provided to each ELL. To theextent that this is the case, thedetermination of appropriate accommoda-tions for ELLs may prove to be a moredifficult task than it is for students withdisabilities. While it is possible that someaccommodations offered to students withdisabilities may be beneficial to some ELLs,attention to the question of how best tochoose ELL accommodations should beaddressed independently fromconsideration of policies established forstudents with disabilities.

Close consideration of the use of classroomaccommodations, as applied to the ELLpopulation, might lead to further speculationas to which accommodations fit thedescription of being part of a student'sroutine classroom situation. Use of abilingual dictionary might seem a likelychoice, and, in fact, is an allowableaccommodation in 21 states. Identificationof other accommodations that fit thisdescription, however, might prove difficult.

Top Ten States. Of the ten states with thehighest ELL populations, only six allowaccommodations (AZ, FL, NJ, NY, TX, andWA). Two have no accommodation policy(CA and MA), and two states prohibitaccommodations (IL and NM). New Mexicodoes, however, allow the administration ofSpanish language versions of tests. Of thesix states that allow accommodations, onlytwo specify a criterion to be used in thedecision-making process (TX and WA). Asis consistent with national tendencies, the

62 7 4


sole criterion in both states is the student'sroutine classroom accommodations.

Accommodation decision-makers

A look at decision-making policies reveals atendency to suggest use of a teamapproach in making accommodationdecisions, along the lines recommended byRivera and Stansfield (1998). Consistentwith inclusion/exemption decision-makingpolicies, team members typically include thestudent's classroom teacher, a schoolofficial, the student's parent(s) orguardian(s), and one or two other members,often unspecified. More often thaninclusion/exemption policies, accommoda-tion policies specify that a student'sclassroom teacher take part in the decision-making process. This policy is appropriate,particularly in light of the tendency tospecify classroom accommodations asthose to be allowed in a testing situation.Another similarity to the inclusion/exemptiondecision-making policy is the absence of ateam member with professional knowledgeof language learning processes, e.g., abilingual educator or ESL teacher.

One member notably absent from moststate lists of accommodation decision-makers is the student. Rivera andStansfield (1998) recommended askingstudents which accommodations theybelieve they need. Considering the lack ofresearch in the area of accommodations,and the widely varying policies that exist, itis possible that student input would providequite useful information regarding choice ofaccommodation(s). A student could begiven a practice test, with the opportunity totry out different accommodations. Thestudent could then decide whichaccommodation(s) would benefit him/her.In addition to providing valuable informationfrom the student perspective, this practicewould also provide another means ofinvolving the student in his/her educationalprogram.

Top Ten States. Of the six high ELLpopulation states that allowaccommodations (AZ, FL, NJ, NY, TX, andWA), four (AZ, NY, TX, and WA) specifywho the decision-makers should be.School/district officials are specified by

three states (AZ, NY, and TX). One state(NY) specifies a student's classroomteacher, while one state (WA) suggestsunspecified committee members.

Allowance andAccommodations

Prohibition of

Before turning to the specific use ofaccommodations, we consider the intentbehind the provision of accommodations,and how this might relate to their use, asapplied to the ELL population.

Accommodations are offered to minimizethe effects of disadvantage. As applied toELLs in testing situations, disadvantagesgenerally fall into one of two categories.These can be identified as linguistic andother. Linguistic disadvantages are relatedto the student's limited English proficiency.This is a temporary condition, which can becorrected in time through exposure to andtraining in English. The use of certainlinguistic accommodations can help tominimize the impact of these limitations.Other disadvantages include lack offamiliarity with American culture, particularlyits education system and the system ofstandards-based assessments.

Additional obstacles include a student'sinexperience and unfamiliarity with thetesting process. Some students fromdiverse cultural and educationalbackgrounds may lack experience with thetest-taking process familiar to Americanstudents. Such students would likely belacking in testwiseness and may also lackconfidence in their academic abilities.These limitations may affect their interest inand motivation to perform on a standardizedtest. There was no evidence in any statedocument of accommodations that addressthese features of cultural background.These features can be appropriatelyaddressed by a test preparation program,such as that described in Rivera andStansfield (1998), and discussed in theReview of Literature.

Two notable patterns about the specific useof accommodations have emerged from thisstudy:

7a63


1. The types of accommodations mostfrequently allowed are setting andtiming/scheduling accommodations.2. The types of accommodations leastfrequently offered and most frequentlyprohibited are those that lighten thelanguage load of the test, i.e.accommodations that might be mostbeneficial to ELLs.

As enumerated in the Results section, themost frequently allowed accommodationsfall into the setting and timing/schedulingclassifications. While any one of theseaccommodations might be of coincidentalbenefit to any one student, closeexamination reveals that none of theseaccommodations is designed to meet thelinguistic or cultural disadvantages of ELLs.This raises the issue of propriety: for whichstudents were these accommodationsdeveloped, and which student needs dothese accommodations appropriatelyaddress?

Let us consider the following twoaccommodations, both of which are amongthe most frequently allowedaccommodations for ELLs:

1. Administering the test to one individual(an accommodation of setting).

2. Administering the test at a time of daymost beneficial to the student(timing/scheduling).

An initial impression might be that theseaccommodations seem appropriate andmay be beneficial to some students.However, it is not easy to identify whichspecific ELL needs these accommodationsare intended to meet, or which specificlimitations of the ELL theseaccommodations are intended to minimize.Both of these accommodations aredesigned to reduce test anxiety. As such,they would be beneficial to any student, notjust an ELL. In fact, it could be argued,albeit weakly, that the provision of thesepresentation accommodations to any onestudent provides an unfair advantage to thatstudent. If this is not a strong argument forstudents in general, it is not a strongargument for ELLs either. Although these

64

accommodations might not do any harm,and might ultimately provide some positivepsychological or attitudinal benefit to theELL, they do not address the ELL's principallimitation, which is lack of Englishproficiency, or the ELL's lack of familiarity orreadiness for formal assessment situations.

It should be expected that the allowance orprohibition of any one accommodationshould include examination of theunderlying assumptions that serve as abasis for that accommodation. Let usconsider the possible assumptions thatunderlie the basis for allowing "Oral readingof questions in English," one of the mostfrequently allowed accommodations forELLs. This accommodation assumes thatspoken questions are more comprehensiblethan written questions. This is aquestionable assumption because spokenquestions require retention of what is heard,and both decoding and retention areaffected by lack of proficiency in alanguage. The accommodation alsoassumes illiteracy in English, and that thiscan be offset by a student's auralcomprehension. While such a configurationof second language skills is frequentlyfound in adult immigrants working in thiscountry, children in school situationsnormally acquire literacy and oral languageat about the same rate. The assumption ofilliteracy also means that a student withlimited literacy in English would not be ableto provide written answers in English toconstructed response questions. Therefore,this accommodation should not beconsidered particularly helpful for studentswho have limited English proficiency. Thus,this accommodation does not seem to bedesigned to address the needs of an ELL.

Finally, a look at the list of presentationaccommodations indicates a strongtendency toward ensuring that the studentunderstands test directions. After "The oralreading of questions in English," fouraccommodations intended to help thestudent understand test directions theexplanation, repetition, translation, and oralreading of test directions represent nearly50 percent of all presentationaccommodations allowed. Because theunderstanding of test directions is essential,

76


accommodations involving test directionsare appropriate for ELLs.

To facilitate discussion of the infrequency ofaccommodations designed to lighten thelanguage load of the test, we again focus ona new system of classifyingaccommodations. With this system, wepropose a framework that moreappropriately addresses the needs oflanguage learners. This framework dividesaccommodations into two broad types:linguistic and nonlinguisticaccommodations. Linguistic accommoda-tions include English languageaccommodations and native languageaccommodations. Non-linguistic accommo-dations consist of all those that aredesigned to address other (non-linguistic)characteristics of the ELL.

1. English language accommodations.These include the repeating, simplifying, orclarifying of test directions in English, theuse of English language glossaries, thelinguistic simplification of test items, thereading aloud of test questions in English,and the use of alternate assessments oralternate assessment procedures thatlighten the language load of the test.

2. Native language accommodations.These include the use of bilingualdictionaries; the use of a translator orinterpreter; the oral reading of testquestions in the student's native language;the provision of bilingual, translated oradapted versions of tests; the use ofassessments in the student's nativelanguage, and allowing a student torespond in his/her native language.

3. Non-linguistic accommodations. Theseinclude all other accommodations, such asextended time, use of a familiar examiner,testing in a separate room with other ELLs,and a special test preparation programdesigned to familiarize the student with thenature of formal state assessments, amongothers.

The policy analysis of state documentsreveals a tendency of states to allow adisproportionate number of non-linguistic tolinguistic accommodations for ELLs. This

65

finding may be explained as the logicalresult of a combination of factors. Onefactor may be the history of howaccommodations came to be available toELLs. Another may be the controversialnature -- both pedagogical and political ofsome linguistic accommodations. A thirdfactor may be the challenge, in terms ofcost and human resources, of appropriatelyproviding and administering some linguisticaccommodations.

Top Ten States. Accommodation policiesamong the ten states with the largest ELLpopulation reflect the national tendencies.From a traditional viewpoint, findingsinclude the following:

1. Setting and timing/schedulingaccommodations are the most frequentlyallowed accommodations.

2. Presentation accommodations are themost numerous kinds of accommodations;the ostensible purpose for their use is toensure students understand the testdirections.

From a linguistic perspective, as well,findings are consistent with nationaltendencies:

3. Use of bilingual word list/dictionary is themost frequently allowed accommodation.

4. Translation of the test into a student'snative language is the only accommodationprohibited; it is prohibited by two of the topten states (IL and NJ).

The History of ELL Accommodations

The recent practice of providingaccommodations to ELLs is an extension ofsimilar policies to accommodate studentswith physical, developmental, or cognitivelimitations that has existed for some time inthe field of special education. The extensionof accommodations from the specialeducation field also explains the "traditional"accommodation classification system andthe pattern of availability of specificaccommodations.

Many state policies list accommodations forELLs that are more appropriately suited to

7 7


students with disabilities. For example,states' lists of accommodations available toELLs often include the followingaccommodations: Braille versions of tests,use of a magnifying glass, use of signlanguage interpreters, use of specialrecording equipment for student responses,test administration in a student's home, theuse of masks or markers to maintain place,and extending the testing time to a pointwhere the student seems no longer able toremain on task. Because it was evident thatthe state policies that contained theseaccommodations were developed forstudents with disabilities and simplytransferred to documents concerning thetesting of ELLs, these accommodations arenot discussed in this report.

Other accommodations carried over fromspecial education policies more likely to beof benefit to some ELLs are discussed inthe report. Examples of theseaccommodations include individual or groupadministration, extended testing time, andallowing the student to dictate answers.

Nature of Linguistic Accommodations

In addition to the fact that ELLaccommodations were first developedbased on accommodations provided formonolingual English-speaking specialneeds students, another contributing factorto the infrequent availability of linguisticaccommodations may be the political andfinancial nature of some linguisticaccommodations. Native languageaccommodations can be of particularconcern, specifically the use of aninterpreter and the translation of tests.

The use of interpreters and assessments inthe native language incurs practicalproblems. Interpreters with appropriatelanguage and interpreting skills must beidentified and trained in appropriateassessment practices. The creation ofassessments in the native language canalso be complicated. If the assessment isto be a substantially or completely differentassessment, the time and effort requiredare equivalent to the time and effortrequired to develop assessments in English.If the assessment is to be essentially a

translation of the standard assessment, thetask is simpler, but the translation must becompetently done and reviewed. Testtranslation requires a competentprofessional translator who is also trained initem writing procedures, and there are alimited number of people who fit this profile.

The political atmosphere prevalent in anyone state can inhibit a state from providingnative language accommodations. Forexample, in states that have declaredEnglish as the official language of the state,it may be neither possible nor politic todevote substantial amounts of energy andmoney to the development of an array oflinguistic accommodations. From a financialperspective, the cost of hiring interpretersand the development of translated versionsof tests can be prohibitive, particularly if thenumber of students to be served is small.

In light of the historical, political, financial,and practical concerns surrounding theprovision or prohibition of linguisticaccommodations, we suggest that statesidentify allowable accommodations onlyafter having sufficiently answered thefollowing questions:

1. Is this accommodation appropriate forELLs? What specific need or disadvantageis it intended to address, and can it addressthe need or disadvantage appropriately?

2. Will use of this accommodation give theaccommodated student an unfairadvantage?

3. Is use of this accommodation likely toprovide more accurate information on thestudent's knowledge and skills than wouldotherwise be provided?

4. C'an proper provision of thisaccommodation be ensured, givenpedagogical and practical resourcesavailable?

Despite the fact that researchers (August &McArthur, 1996; Rivera & Vincent, 1997)have called attention to the need toconsider the use of accommodations on anindividual basis rather than to apply thembroadly to students with disabilities and

66 7 0


ELLs, state policies generally do not do this.In short, the assessment policies need to bemore clearly delineated to address theneeds of individuals and groups of Englishlanguage learners. Reclassifyingaccommodations offered to ELLs based onlinguistic factors might be a step towardsproviding educators with a new perspectivewhen focusing on which accommodationsactually help ELLs and which do not.

In summary, it seems thatrecommendations outlined in Title I, andhighlighted by Stancavage and Quick(1999) are worth repeating:

"Furthermore, assessments used for Title I

must provide for inclusion of LEP students,who shall be assessed, to the extentpracticable, in the language and form mostlikely to yield accurate and reliableinformation on what they know and can doto determine their mastery of skills insubjects other than English. (To meet thisrequirement, the State shall make everyeffort to use or develop linguisticallyaccessible assessment measures, and mayrequest assistance from the Secretary ifthose measures are needed.)" (p. 7).

Score Reporting

The policy analysis indicates that the statepolicies submitted for this study typically donot address the issue of reporting ELLscores. In addition, policy documents fromthe 17 states that do address scorereporting often lack detailed evidence of acomprehensive policy. For these reasons,description of score reporting practices inthis report is limited. Since the IASArequires states to implementcomprehensive policies regarding theparticipation of ELLs in state assessmentsby the 2000-2001 school year, states mustaddress the issue of score reporting. Statesthat have minimally addressed the issuefirst need to analyze where their policies fallwith regard to ELLs. Next, they need torefine their ELL assessment policies toensure that score reporting is addressed inan appropriate way.

Top Ten States. Only two of the ten highELL populated states address scorereporting in their policies (TX and WA). The

policies for both states specify that testscores of ELLs are to be included in schooltotals.


Data on the availability of alternateassessments seem to confirm that alternateassessments are infrequently used.Policies in less than one-half of all states(22) include some mention of alternateassessments. Of these, alternateassessments are prohibited in seven states,while 15 states allow alternateassessments. Policies from these 15 statesare brief. In all cases where a description ofthe alternate assessment is provided, theassessment is a modified version of existingstate assessments, or is a languageachievement test, either in English orSpanish. Five states allow portfolioassessments, performance assessments, orother authentic assessment methods (IL,KY, NC, TX, and WI). These states requirethe alternate assessments be developed atthe local level. The one exception to this isKentucky, where portfolio assessment is apart of the state assessment program, andthe state provides guidelines for theassessment. The lack of development ofalternate assessment measures is evidenceof a need for states to further examine howthey are meeting ELL assessment needs.

The development of alternate assessmentsystems is evident in a small number ofstates. However, the systems generally arenot in an advanced stage of development.Nevertheless, the existence of alternateassessment policies may point to the earlystages of a move to provide assessmentsthat allow flexibility in mode of expression,that are less likely to penalize a studentbecause of language limitations, and thatare more closely in line with currentinstructional practices than are the standardstate assessments.

Although alternate assessments may likelyprovide appropriate means for assessingELLs, the provision of alternateassessments needs to be approachedcautiously. Close consideration needs to begiven to the feasibility of the development ofalternate assessments, the types ofassessments appropriate for any givencontent area, and the comparability of

s7. 79


alternate assessments with existingassessments. Research in these areaswould be helpful to provide information forthe development of appropriate alternateassessments for ELLs.

State alternate assessment policies suggestthat development of an alternateassessment policy in the majority of statesis slow. States in which efforts have beenmade shows great inconsistency in all areasof alternate assessment policies, includingsuch fundamental issues as the meaningsand usage of the terms "alternate" and"alternative" assessments. As states look

68

to develop this aspect of their assessmentprograms, they need to first settle on anoperational definition of the terms, beforesetting forth the foundations of the alternateassessment system.

Top Ten States. There is evidence ofalternate assessment policies in six of theten states in this category (AZ, CA, IL, NJ,NM, and TX). Of the six, five allow alternateassessments (AZ, CA, IL, NJ, and TX).Three of the five states require them (AZ,CA, and IL). New Mexico does not allowalternate assessments.

80


VII. Summary andRecommendations

Summary of Findings

Data from the analysis of state policiesprovide a national picture of current statepolicies regarding the inclusion, exemption,and accommodation of ELLs in stateassessments. Bearing in mind the researchquestions, the analysis of state policies leadto the following conclusions:

1. Almost all states (48) have inclusionpolicies for ELLs. Forty-six (46) states allowsome form of exemption. Of these 35states have policies regarding exemptiontime limits. Most states (40) haveaccommodation policies.

2. State policies generally provide minimalguidance to local districts and schools.

3. State policies vary significantly in detail,in their focus on ELL assessment needs.They are often brief, lack specificity, and donot address important aspects of ELLparticipation in state assessments.

4. Most state policies do not specify theconsideration of a student's academicbackground as a criterion forinclusion/exemption decision-making.

5. Most state policies do not specify that aperson with professional knowledge oflanguage learning processes, such as anESL or bilingual education teacher, takepart in deciding if a student shouldparticipate in an assessment and/or beaccommodated.

6. The accommodations most frequentlyallowed are carried over from SpecialEducation accommodation policies and donot specifically address the linguistic needsof ELLs.

7. Accommodations, like test translation,that would provide the greatest amount oflanguage support for some ELLs, areamong those least frequently allowed andmost frequently prohibited.

69

8. Policies regarding alternate assessmentmeasures for ELLs are absent from moststate assessment programs.

9. Policies in the ten states with the highestELL populations are generally consistentwith those across the nation. They arecharacterized by a lack of consensus andcomprehensiveness. One notable findingacross the ten high ELL population states isthe lack of policies regardingaccommodations.

Recommendations

In light of efforts to provide equitableeducational opportunities for all students,state inclusion, exemption, andaccommodation policies generally need to bemore fully developed. Consideration of thefollowing recommendations can be useful tostates that wish to review existing policiesand revise them so that they are aligned withcurrent legislation and good practice:

To equip local districts and schools with thetools necessary for making appropriatedecisions regarding the participation of ELLsin state assessments, states need tocontinue to develop assessment policies thatoffer specific guidelines. Guidelines shouldbe provided in seven areas.

1. The definition and identification of ELLs.Assuming availability, the definition andidentification of ELLs should be included inassessment policies.

2. Inclusion, exemption, and accommodationdecision-making. State policies need todirect districts and schools to considermultiple factors, including the student'sacademic background. State policies shouldalso encourage professionals withknowledge of language learning processesto participate in the decision-making process.

3. Accommodation criteria. When designingaccommodation policies for formalassessments states need to specify policiesthat rely less on general criteria (such aswhatever accommodations are currentlyused in instruction). State policies shoulddirect districts and schools to focus more on

81


a student's educational background andneeds.

4. Accommodation policies. Accommoda-tions allowed for ELLs must be designed toaddress specific needs of ELLs. States andLEAs should work with their test developersto address the appropriateness and validityof accommodations.

5. Alternate assessments. Stateassessment programs need to developmeasures that are adequately aligned tocurriculum, but lessen the impact of Englishlanguage proficiency, and allow studentsthe opportunity to demonstrate skills andknowledge in meaningful ways. One meansof doing this is through developing alternateassessment instruments.

6. Score reporting. States need toimplement policies that meet IASArequirements for reporting ELL test scores,a vital element in the task of holding schoolsaccountable for the education of allstudents.

7. High stakes testing. Although this studydid not focus on the use of tests todetermine eligibility for a high schooldiploma, the study did identify a growingnumber of states that are moving rapidly inthis direction. When the assessment is highstakes for the examinee, guidelinesregarding inclusion and accommodations ofELLs assume increased importance.Under such circumstances, it may beappropriate to offer increased guidance orguidelines to districts. It may be appropriatefor the decision-making criteria to be slightlydifferent or more specific in suchcircumstances. For example, Englishlanguage proficiency might be moreimportant than number of years in the U.S.under such circumstances.

Recommended Research

As IASA implementation deadlinesapproach, the development of new statepolicies is a major focus of many states.Indeed, during the time that this study hastaken place, several states have submitteddocuments relating policy changesregarding ELLs in state assessment

systems, many of which are to have goneinto effect beginning in the 1999 - 2000school year. As policies are being furtherdeveloped, it is advisable that descriptiveand experimental research be conducted atthe national and state levels. At the nationallevel, state policy documents should begathered and analyzed at least every twoyears in order to keep pace with the constantchanges in the ways that states address theassessment needs of ELLs. The regulargathering of policies would identify newpolices and provide an updated picture ofongoing efforts of states to include andaccommodate ELLs in state assessmentprograms.

At the state and district level, researchshould focus on both policy andimplementation studies regarding inclusionand accommodation policies for ELLs. Thefollowing topics of study should be pursued:

Regarding inclusion policies, a survey ofstates is needed to determine thenumber and extent to which ELLs ineach state are participating in stateassessment programs includingparticipation in alternate assessments.Assessment case studies should also beconducted to document implementationpractices at the district and school level.

Regarding accommodation policies,research in districts and schools isneeded to examine accommodationsused and their utility and effect on ELLscores, and on school and district testscores. The goal of this research wouldbe to identify accommodations thatenable ELLs to demonstrate contentknowledge by minimizing interferencecaused by limited English proficiency. 14

Regarding score reporting policies, animplementation study is needed to

14While it would be an ideal situation if all

accommodations were studied in terms of theirappropriateness and impact before being allowed, inmany cases, this is far from practical. Like otherworthwhile educational innovations, the provision ofaccommodations cannot wait until a research base forthem has been compiled. Instead, educators shoulduse good judgment and then study the effects andadequacy of the policies they have set.

70 IIO


determine how scores of ELLs, whethertested under standard or non-standardconditions, are treated at the state,district and school levels. In addition, itis important to analyze the effects ofscore reporting policies on the studentand his/her education.

Regarding alternate assessment,research is needed to determine thecomparability between state standardsand alternate assessments, as well asthe degree of correspondence betweenstandard and alternate assessments. Ofparticular interest is the issue of howELL inclusion in assessment programsaffects instruction in the content area.

Findings from these kinds of studies shouldinform states' and provide "best practice"ideas that can help states improve ELLinclusion and accommodation policies.

71

Other Recommendations

Given the importance of standards-basedassessment to education reform, and theimportance of appropriate accommodationsto the successful incorporation of ELLs intothe current reform effort, the following tworecommendations are warranted:

1. it would be appropriate for the U.S.Department of Education (ED) to provideleadership and support to states related toinclusion and accommodation of ELLs. Auseful first step in this process would be forED to host a national conference on ELLinclusion and accommodation policies andpractices and on research related to theseissues.

2. The inclusion and accommodation ofELLs should be an integral part of thetraining ED offers to states on the subject ofstandards and assessment. An issue that isan integral part of training is one that isconsidered in-depth and interwoven into allpresentations.


References

Abedi, J. (1999). Examining the effectiveness of accommodation on math performance of Englishlanguage learners. Unpublished manuscript, University of California, Los Angeles, NationalCenter for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

August, D., Hakuta, K., & Pompa, D. (1994). For all students: Limited English proficient studentsand Goals 2000. Occasional Papers in Bilingual Education, 10 (1994):4.

Collier, V.P. (1992). A synthesis of studies examining long-term language minority student dataon academic achievement. Bilingual Education Research Journal, 16(1 / 2), 187-221.

Council of Chief State School Officers (1997). Annual Survey of State Assessment Programs.Washington, DC: Author.

Council of Chief State School Officers (1998). Annual Survey of State Assessment Programs.Washington, DC: Author.

Cummins, J. (1989). Empowering language minority students. Sacramento, CA: CaliforniaAssociation for Bilingual Education.

De Vito, P. (1997, March). The issue of accommodations to include LEP students in stateassessment: The Rhode Island Perspective. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of theNational Council on Measurement in Education, Chicago, IL.

Hambleton, R. (1994). Guidelines for adapting educational and psychological tests: A progressreport. European Journal of Psychological Assessment, 10(3), 229-244.

LaCelle-Peterson, M., & Rivera, C. (1994). Is it real for all kids? A framework for equitableassessment policies for English language learners. Harvard Educational Review, 64 (1), 55-75.

Lachat, M. A., & Brown, S. A. (1998). Views from the field on policies to include students withlimited English proficiency in statewide testing. Providence, RI: Brown University, Northeastand Islands Regional Educational Laboratory At Brown University.

Lara, J., & August, D. (1996). Systemic reform and limited English proficient students.Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Liu, K., Anderson, M., Swierzbin, B., & Thurlow, M. (1999). Bilingual accommodations for LEPstudents on statewide reading tests: Phase 1 (Minnesota Report 20). Minneapolis, MN:University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.

Liu, K., Spicuzza, R., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., & Ruhland, A. (1997). Educators' responses toLEP students' participation in the 1997 Basic Standards Testing (Minnesota Report 15).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Macias, R. F. (1998). Summary report of the survey of the states' limited English proficientstudents and available educational programs and services, 1996-97. Washington, DC:National Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.

Miller, E. R., Okum, I., Sinai, R., & Miller, K. S. (1999). A study of the English language proficientstudents to participate in New Jersey's statewide assessment system. Paper presented at theNational Council of Measurement in Education Meeting, Montreal, Canada.

72 84


National Association of State Boards of Education (1997). The full measure: Report of theNASBE study group on statewide assessment systems. Alexandria, VA: National Associationof State Boards of Education.

Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (1999). Work Scope Statement.Washington, DC: Author.

Olsen, K. (1998). What principals are driving development of state alternate assessments?Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Mid-South Regional Resource Center, InterdisciplinaryHuman Development Institute.

Olson, J. F., & Goldstein, A. A. (1997). The inclusion of students with disabilities and limitedEnglish proficient students in large scale assessments: A summary of recent progress (NCES97-482). Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement, National Centerfor Education Statistics.

O'Malley, J.M., & Valdez Pierce, L. (1994). State assessment policies, practices, and languageminority students. Educational Assessment, 2, 212-255.

Rivera, C., & Stansfield, C. (1998). Leveling the playing field for English language learners:Increasing participation in state and local assessments through accommodations. In R. Brandt(Ed.), Assessing student learning: New rules, new realities (pp. 65-92). Arlington, VA:Educational Research Service.

Rivera, C., & Vincent, C. (1997). High school graduation testing: policies and practices in theassessment of English language learners. Educational Assessment, 4 (4), 335-355.

Rivera, C., Vincent, C., Hafner, A, & LaCelle-Peterson, M. (1997). Statewide assessmentprograms: Policies and practices for the inclusion of limited English proficient students. ERICDigest. Washington, DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (ERIC/AEDigest Services EDO-TM-97-02)

Shepard, L. A., Taylor, G. A., & Betebenner, D. (1999). Inclusion of limited-English proficientstudents in Rhode Island's Grade 4 Mathematics Performance Assessment. Center for theStudy of Evaluation Tech. Rep. No. 486. Los Angeles: University of California at Los Angeles,National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.

Sireci, S.G. (1997). Problems and issues in linking assessments across languages.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices. 16(1), 12-19.

Spicuzza, R., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Liu, K., & Ruhland, A. (1996). Input from the field onassessing students with limited English proficiency in Minnesota's Basic Requirements Exams(Minnesota Report 2). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center onEducational Outcomes.

Stancavage, F., & Quick, H. (1999). Laws and regulations, current practice, and researchrelevant to inclusion and accommodations for students with limited English proficiency in theVoluntary National Tests. Paper presented at the meeting of the American EducationResearch Association, Montreal, Canada.

Stansfield, C. W. (1996). Content assessment in the native language. ERIC Digest. Washington,DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Assessment and Evaluation (ERIC/AE Digest Services EDO-TM-96-02)

Stansfield, C.W. (1997). Experiences and issues related to the format of bilingual tests.Springfield, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 419002.

73 85


Stansfield, C.W. & Kahl, S. (1998). Tryout of Spanish and English versions of a stateassessment. Springfield, VA: ERIC Document Reproduction Service, ED 423306.

United States Congress (1994). Improving America's Schools Act. PL 103-382. (Section1111(b)(3); subsections 200.1(b)(2) and 200.4). Washington, DC: Government PrintingOffice.

United States Department of Education (1999). Peer review guidance for evaluating evidence offinal assessments under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act.

United States General Accounting Office (1994). Limited English proficiency: A growing andcostly educational challenge facing many school districts. GAO/HEHS-94-38.

86

74


Appendix A

Correspondence

Appendix A.1


Original mailing sent to State Title VII Directors

TheGeprgewasn 1 onun wersit y

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

April 27, 1999

NameOrganizationAddressCity, State, Zip

Dear ,

Since the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994, there havebeen substantial changes in the way states include Limited English Proficient (LEP) students instate assessment programs. States that formerly had no LEP inclusion policies have begun todevelop these policies. LEP students who were routinely excluded from assessments in somestates have begun to be included; and in some states state assessment policies allow LEPstudents to be accommodated as well.Since each state is at a different point on this continuum, a variety of policies on inclusion andaccommodation exist. In order to understand what policies are being implemented as statesmove towards greater accountability for LEP students, OBEMLA has asked the Region IIIComprehensive Center at The George Washington University to analyze each state policy toprovide insight into the level of inclusion and the types of accommodations offered to LEPstudents.

We have collected state policies and related documents available from the Council ofChief State School Officers and from state web sites. However, in order to be certain thatthe materials we analyze are as up-to-date as possible, we are requesting that you providecopies of your most recent state policies, guidance documents, and any other documentsintended to help districts implement state policies. The items we are requesting are listed onthe attached form. Please return it with your documents to Ms. Barbara Hicks using the enclosedaddress label by May 21, 1999.

In the next phase of the study, we will identify districts that routinely include and accommodateLEP students in ways that can be adopted or adapted by other districts and schools. You will becontacted later to make nominations in this category, so please be thinking about the districts inyou state.

Should you have any questions or need further clarification on what we are requesting, pleasecall Barbara Hicks at 1-800-925-3223, or email her at [email protected]. We look forward tosharing the results of this study with you when our analysis is complete. Thank you very much foryour help.

Sincerely,

Charlene RiveraDirector

Appendix A.2 8 3


UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Dear Title VII SEA Director:

OFFICE OF BILINGUAL EDUCATION ANDMINORITY LANGUAGE AFFAIRS

The Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Language Affairs (OBEMLA) is seeking to learnmore about the implementation of state policies for including and accommodating limited Englishproficient (LEP) students in state required assessment programs. While some states haveprovided their policies to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) in response to theannual survey of state assessment directors, the file is not complete and not always up-to-date.We have also searched state web sites to find updated policies and, have found only a few statesthat have posted them. Therefore, OBEMLA has asked the Region III Comprehensive Center atThe George Washington University to collect and analyze the most recent state assessmentpolicies available. I would like to make a personal appeal to you to participate in this importantstudy by providing the information requested.

Enclosed you will find a sheet detailing the information requested by the investigators, along withother directions. All information is to be returned directly to the research team at The GeorgeWashington University. If you have any questions, please feel free to contact Dr. CharleneRivera, the primary investigator (703/528-3588) or Milagros Lanauze at OBEMLA (202/205-9475).

I am hoping to hear that all Title VII Directors have contributed data to this important project. Themore we can learn about how LEP students are faring in state assessment programs now, thebetter advocates we can be for them in the future.

Sincerely,

Delia PompaDirector

600 INDEPENDENCE AVE. S.W. WASHINGTON, D.C. 20202

Our mission is to ensure equal access to education and to promote educational excellence throughout the Nation.

Appendix A.3 $9,


The Participation and Accommodation of LEP Students inState Assessment Programs

RecipientAddressAddressAddressAddress

Please indicate whether or not you are inluding each item below inthe materials you are sending.Please be sure that each document includes the date it becameeffective.

Included NotIncluded

Your state assessment handbook which includes the policyfor exempting, assessing, and accommodating LEPstudents;Any state assessment policy memorandum applicable toand not included in the state assessment handbook;Any guidance your state has provided to districts, schools,or test administrators regarding the implementation ofpolicies for exempting, including, or accommodating LEPstudents;Any user-friendly documents your state has produced tohelp districts and schools implement state assessmentpolicies for LEP students.

If your state has no statewide assessment program, please checkthis box.

Return this form with your documents to Ms. Barbara Hicks usingthe enclosed address label by May 21, 1999.

Person Completing this Form Phone Date

00

Appendix A.4


Second mailing sent to State Title VII Directors

The

SilePrge

till weCenter for Equity and Excellence in Education

August 23, 1999

«Title» «First Name» «Last Name»«Job Title»«Company»«Address1»«Address2»«City», «State» «Postal Code»

Dear «Title» «Last Name»:

In May, I wrote you announcing that the Center for Equity and Excellence in Educationhad received funding from OBEMLA to conduct a study of state policies concerning the inclusionof LEP students of English language learners (ELLs) in state assessment systems. You werekind enough to provide me with your state's policy documents concerning LEP student inclusionin statewide assessments. Based on the documents sent, we have completed the attachedreport on your state. The first part of the report contains a description of the documents sent.The second part is a series of questions that we answered based on the information contained inthese documents.

In order to verify that our information on your state is correct, we are requesting that youreview the attached report. A description of the state report and instructions for reviewing thestate report are found in this packet. After we have revised and finalized the report for your state,we will send you a copy. Later, once the entire study is complete, we will communicate theresults to you.

Thank you again for your cooperation. We hope the information gathered from this jointeffort will help us to be better understand assessment issues that need to be addressed for LEP.

Sincerely,


Graduate School of Education and Human Development1730 North Lynn Street Suite 401 Arlington, VA 22209 (703) 528-3588 Fax (703) 528 5973

BEST COPY AVAILABLEugix A.5


Policies and Practices Related to Inclusion and Accommodation ofLEP Students in State Assessment Systems

Instructions for reviewing state reports

First, please fill out the form below so that we know who has reviewed the report, and so wewill have contact information should we need further clarification of an item.

Second, read the next page on the Format of State Report on Inclusion andAccommodations and familiarize yourself with the format of the report.

Third, carefully examine your state report. If there are no corrections or additions to be made,please initial and fax (703-528-5973) this page me as soon as possible, but no later thanSeptember 9.

If there are changes to be made, please follow the following steps.

1. Circle any information that should be deleted and mark it with a D.

2. Use blue or black ink to make any corrections or additions directly on the report, ifpossible. If limited space does not allow you to make these changes directly on the report, youmay add an additional page of explanation. Please refer clearly to each question that you areaddressing by using the question's number and/or repeating the question itself.

3. When making corrections or additions directly on the report, please write and identify themclearly so they can be easily read and understood.

4. For each correction or addition made, please indicate the state document(s) and thepage(s) on which this information appears. If the document isn't among those already submitted,please submit a photocopy of the document with the relevant pages marked. In order for us tomake changes to the completed report, we must have a copy of the relevant documentwhere that information can be found.

5. Fax or mail your corrections in the enclosed self-addressed envelope. Please complete andinitial this page and include it with your corrected report so we know who has reviewed thereport should we have questions about the corrections. Please return your corrections assoon as possible or so that they arrive to us no later than September 9, 1999.

Thank you.

Reviewer's Name: Position:

Phone: E-mail: State:

The completed inclusion/accommodation report accuratelydescribes our state policies.

initial.

The inclusion/accommodation report requires some revisions,which I have made and faxed or mailed.

Please initial

(1 0V 4.

Appendix A.6

mease



Description of Format of State Report on Inclusion and Accommodations

Your state report is not a report to the state. Instead, it is the pages that relate to your state in ournational database on inclusion and accommodation policies. The information in this database isobjectively coded and categorized so that national totals can be calculated based on theinformation provided by each state. Your state report is in the format of a completedquestionnaire. The questionnaire was completed based on information taken from the statepolicies you sent to us. An important feature of this research project is that the information thatgoes in the database must come from written policy statements or publications.

The first part of your state report consists of one or more pages labeled State Documents.These pages catalogue and describe the documents submitted by each state. An importantfeature of the State Documents page is that it identifies the location within each document of thevarious policies and practices that are relevant to inclusion and accommodations. Thus, theState Documents page(s) serve as a bibliographic reference on documents concerning statepolicies. Since the State Documents pages do not represent policies, the information on thesepages will not be part of any national totals or tabulations.

The second part of the report is on numbered pages (1-4) in question/answer format. It consistsof responses to 13 questions. The answers are brief and objective, but space is included at thebottom of each page for descriptive and qualitative elaboration.

Page 1 is labeled LEP Inclusion/Accommodation Overview. This page provides generalinformation on the kinds of policies (inclusion, accommodations, score reporting, alternateassessment) the state has established for LEP students. Comments or information concerning aspecific question are found in the box at the bottom of the page. The reference for eachcomment is identified by the letter Q. For example, a comment following up on question 3 isidentified by Q 3.

Page 2 is labeled Inclusion/Exemption Information. This page begins with the state's definitionof an LEP student, if the state has one. The two additional questions (numbers 9 and 10) on thispage ask who makes the inclusion decision and what are the criteria used to make the decision.

Page 3 is labeled Accommodations Information (1). This page also contains the answers totwo questions. The questions relate to the specific accommodations each student may receiveand the criteria that are used to make decisions regarding eligibility for and provision of specificaccommodations. A box at the bottom of the page is used to provide further informationconcerning the response to each question. A specific accommodation is identified by its letter ornumber in the Comments box.

Page 4 is labeled Accommodations Information (2) and contains information related to specificaccommodations that are allowable within the state assessment system. Numbers (1, 2, 3, and4) are used to identify whether each specific accommodation is allowed or prohibited on some orall assessments.

Letters (a, b, c, and d) are used to indicate whether specific accommodations affect the inclusionof scores in state, district, and school totals. In some states, the provision of specificaccommodations (such as extended time) is allowed, but when this is done, the student's scoresare not included in the school and district totals that are released to the press and the public.Whether LEP student scores are included in school and district totals is identified for eachspecific accommodation by the letter c or d. For example, if extended time is allowable on allassessments, but results in exclusion of student scores from school and district totals, then this isindicated by "1d" in box 19 on page 4. Additional comments on the allowable or prohibitedaccommodations can be found in the box at the bottom of page 3.

Appendix A.7

92,


Mailing sent to State Assessment Directors

Ther

as onnrve ityw,..,,MGt, N 17c c

«Title» «First Name» «Last Name»«Job Title»«Company»«Addressl»«Address2»«City», «State» «Postal Code»

Dear «Title» «Last Name»:

Since the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act in 1994, there have beensubstantial changes in the way states include Limited English Proficient (LEP) students in state assessmentprograms. States that formerly had no LEP inclusion policies have begun to develop such policies.. LEPstudents who were routinely excluded from assessments in some states have begun to be included; in somestates, state assessment policies allow LEP students to be accommodated, as well.

A variety of policies on inclusion and accommodation exist because each state is at a different point on thiscontinuum. In order to understand what policies are being implemented as states move towards greateraccountability for LEP students, the Office of Bilingual Education and Minority Languages Affairs (OBEMLA)of the US Department of Education has asked the Region III Comprehensive Center at The GeorgeWashington University to document each state's inclusion policy and the types of accommodations offered toLEP students for the 1998-1999 school year.

In May 1999, we requested documents containing state policies on LEP inclusion and accommodation inyour state's assessment system from the Title VII Bilingual or ESL director. Based on the documentssubmitted, we completed an analysis of state assessment policies, prepared a report and sent each state'sreport to the appropriate Title VII or ESL director for review. Revisions were made to individual state reportsand to the whole report based on reviewers' comments and supporting documentation.

Since assessment directors have a global understanding of the states assessment policies, we would like toask you to review your individual state report for accuracy. The report represents our analysis of policies inyour state, as described in the state documents provided. The purpose of the review is to identify any areaswhere there may be inaccuracies in our interpretation of the policies. As you review the report, please notethat the focus of the report is on policies in place during the 1998 1999-school year. In order to makechanges to your state report, the change must be supported by appropriate documentation. Please note thatno changes will be made to the report without documentation.

Since this study is scheduled for completion in March, we must receive your feedback no later thanFebruary 18. Please return the enclosed form that indicates you have reviewed the report. Youmayfax if to 703-528-5973. If there are changes to the report, the report and any supporting documentation canalso be faxed. If documents are difficult to fax, please send them together with a copy of the formindicating you reviewed the report and the corrected state report via Federal Express to:

Appendix A.8 9 it


Ms. Theresa BuiThe George Washington University

Center for Equity and Excellence in Education1730 North Lynn Street, Suite 401

Arlington, VA 22209

Should you have any questions or need further clarification on what we are requesting, please email me atcriveraceee.qwu.edu or call me at 1-800-925-3223.

Thank you for your participation in ensuring the accuracy of the information we provide to °BEM' A. We Innkforward to sharing the results of this study with you.

Sincerely,


Appendix A.9

9 5



Instructions for reviewing state reports

1. Please read the next page, Format of State Report on Inclusion and Accommodations to becomefamiliar with the format of the state report for accuracy. .

2. Carefully examine your state report for accuracy. If there are no corrections or additions to be made,please initial and fax (703-528-5973) the form to Theresa Bui as soon as possible, but no later thanFebruary 18.

If there are changes to be made, please follow these steps.

Circle any information that should be deleted and mark it with a D.

Use blue or black ink to make any corrections or additions directly on the report, if possible. Iflimited space does not allow you to make these changes directly on the report, you may add anadditional page of explanation. Please refer clearly to each question that you are addressing byusing the question's number and/or repeating the question itself.

Please write and identify corrections or additions clearly on the report. Please, only makechanges to the state report that relate to the 1998-99 school year.

Please indicate the state document(s) and the page(s) for each correction or addition made. Ifthe document is not among those already submitted, please include a copy of the document with therelevant pages marked. In order for us to make changes to the completed report, we must havea copy of the relevant document where that information can be found. Please only submitdocuments that relate to the 1998-99 school year.

Fax or send your corrections using Federal Express, account number 1885-5541-1. Pleasecomplete, initial, and include this page with your corrected report. Please return yourcorrections so that we receive them no later than February 18, 2000.

Thank you.

Reviewer's Name: Position:(Please complete, if reviewer is other than person listed above.)

Phone: E-mail: State:

The completed inclusion/accommodation report accuratelydescribes our state policies. Please initial

The inclusion/accommodation report requires some revisions,which I have made and faxed or Federal Expressed. Please initial

Appendix A.10



Description of Format of State Report on Inclusion and Accommodations

Your state report is not a report to the state. It is the information taken from the state documents that relatesto your state's inclusion and accommodation policies. The information is objectively coded and categorizedso that national totals can be calculated based on the information provided by each state. Your state reportis in the format of a completed questionnaire. An important feature of this research project is that theinformation included in the report must come from written policy statements or publications.

Part one of the report, Sections I IV consists of 13 responses. The answers are brief and objective, butspace is included at the bottom of each page for descriptive and qualitative elaboration.

Section I is labeled LEP Inclusion/Accommodation Overview. This page provides general information onthe kinds of policies (inclusion, accommodations, score reporting, alternate assessment) the state hasestablished for LEP students. Comments or information concerning a specific item are found in the box atthe bottom of the page. The letter Q identifies the reference for each comment. For example, Q 3 identifiesa comment following up on item 3.

Section II is labeled Inclusion/Exemption Information. This page begins with the state's definition of anLEP student, if the state has one. The two additional items (numbers 9 and 10) on this page ask who makesthe inclusion decision and what criteria are used to make the decision.

Section III is labeled Accommodations Information (1). This page contains information on two items. Theitems relate to the specific accommodations each student may receive and the criteria that are used to makedecisions regarding eligibility for and provision of specific accommodations. A box at the bottom of the pageis used to provide further information concerning the response to each item. Its letter or number in theComments box identifies a specific accommodation.

Section IV is labeled Accommodations Information (2) and contains information related to specificaccommodations that are allowable within the state assessment system. Numbers (1, 2, 3, and 4) are usedto identify whether each specific accommodation is allowed or prohibited on some or all assessments.

Letters (a, b, c, and d) are used to indicate whether specific accommodations affect the inclusion of scores instate, district, and school totals. In some states, the provision of specific accommodations (such asextended time) is allowed, but when this is done, the student's scores are not included in the school anddistrict totals that are released to the press and the public. Whether LEP student scores are included inschool and district totals is identified for each specific accommodation by the letter c or d. For example, ifextended time is allowed on all assessments, but results in exclusion of student scores from school anddistrict totals, then this is indicated by "1d" in box 19 in Section IV. Additional comments on the allowable orprohibited accommodations can be found in the box at the bottom of Section III.

The second part of your state report, Section V, consists of one or more pages labeled State Documents.These pages catalogue and describe the documents submitted by each state. An important feature of theState Documents page is that it identifies the location within each document of the various policies andpractices that are relevant to inclusion and accommodations. Thus, the State Documents page(s) serves asa bibliographic reference on documents concerning state policies.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Appendix A.11

N,


Appendix B

Relevant documents provided by states

9

Appendix B.1


Documentation

AK State Code No date4 AAC 34.050

AL Bulletin February 1998Alabama Student Assessment Program, Policy and Procedures for Students ofSpecial Populations

AR Testing Manual Fall 1998Arkansas Department of Education Stanford Achievement Test, TestCoordinator's Handbook

Policy September 1997Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations, ArkansasComprehensive Testing and Assessment Program

AZ Guidelines No dateBilingual Programs and English as a Second Language Programs MonitoringGuide

CA State Education Code October 1997Senate Bill Number 376-Chapter 828

Information Booklet December 1998Standardized Testing and Reporting Program: Questions and Answers about thePrimary Language Test Designed for Spring 1999

CO Guidelines January 1999Special Education for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: Meeting theChallenges, Realizing the Opportunities

CT

DC

Test Demonstration Manual 1999Colorado Student Assessment Program Demonstration Binder

Monthly Newsletters 1998, 1999 (8 issues)Colorado Student Assessment Program Update

Guidelines 1998Assessment Guidelines for Administering the Connecticut Mastery Test and/orConnecticut Academic Performance Test

State Education Code January 1999Connecticut Education Laws (Chapter 164, Part 1, Sections 10-14q)

Guidelines 1984 (revision)Connecticut Regulations and Guidelines Concerning Bilingual EducationPrograms

Policy 1999Standardized Testing for Special Populations

Appendix B.2 9 9

DE

FL

GA

HI


Guidelines March 1999Delaware Student Testing Program Guidelines for the Inclusion of Students withDisabilities and Students with Limited English Proficiency

Guidelines May 1996Language Arts through ESOL: A Guide for ESOL Teachers and Administrators(Introduction and Chapter 6)

Testing Manual 1999Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Administration Manual

Resource Guide 1999English to Speakers of Other Languages Resource Guide

Student Assessment Handbook 19981998-1999 Student Assessment Handbook

Guidelines, Memo 1999Exemption and Inclusion Requirements for Spring 1999

Guidelines May 1996Identification, Assessment, and Programming System for Students in the Englishfor Second Language Learners (ESLL) Program

ID Testing Manual 1999Idaho Statewide Testing Program Test Coordinator's Guide

IL Q & A Report 1999Extended Questions and Answers, ISAT, IGAP 1999

Report 1995Illinois Assessment Initiatives for Bilingual/ESL Students

IN Testing Manual Fall 1998Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Program Manual

KS Testing Manual 1999Examiner's Manual for 1999 Kansas Writing Assessment

KY State Administrative Regs February 1999Inclusion of Special Populations in the State Required Assessment andAccountability Programs

LA

Coordinator's Manual September 19971997-1998 District Assessment Coordinator Implementation Guide

Guidelines September 1998Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP), Criteria for Deferment fromParticipation in the LEAP for LEP Students

Letter No dateSchools that Work: Setting Higher Standards for Our Students, Letter from StateSuperintendent of Education

Appendix B.31 0


MA

MD

ME

MI

MN

Manual 1999The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System: Principal'sAdministration Manual, Spring 1999

Report 1998The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System: Report of StatewideResults, November 1998

Regulations September 1998Regulations for Accommodating, Excusing and Exempting Students in MarylandAssessment Programs

Testing Manual 1999Maine Education Assessment Grades 4, 8, and 11, Principal/Test Coordinator'sManual for 1999

Testing Manual Winter 1999Michigan Educational Assessment Program Coordinator's Manual (excerpt)

Guidelines March 1995The Michigan High School Proficiency Tests Testing Guidelines for Students withDisabilities, LEP and Dual Enrollment Eligibility

Guidelines 1998-1999Testing Guidelines for Students with Limited English Proficiency

Outline of Process May 1997Basic Standards Testing: Establishing a District Process for Including LimitedEnglish Proficient (LEP) Students

MO Assessment Handbook June 1998Assessment Standards for Missouri Public Schools

MS

Testing Manual Spring 1999Missouri Assessment Program's Communication Arts Assessment

Handbook September 1998The Participation and Accommodation of LEP Students in State AssessmentPrograms, Handbook of Educational Services for LEP Students

MT Testing Manual February 1999Montana Office of Public Instruction Assessment Handbook, Volume 1

NC Guidelines March 1998Guidelines for Testing Students with Limited English Proficiency

ND Testing Manual 1999Test Coordinator's Manual

Survey 1995Survey of State's LEP Students and Available Education Programs and Services

NH Manual No dateProcedures for Test Accommodations and Exclusions

101Appendix B.4

NJ

NM

NV

NY


Policy (revised) 1998Process for Exemptions and Accommodation criteria

State Education Code No dateNew Jersey Statutes Annotated Title 18A

Guidelines No dateProcedures for the Identification and Assessment of English Language Learners,New Mexico Department of Education Guidelines

Memo February 1999Memo from State Superintendent of Public Instruction to District Superintendentsand Other Appropriate Personnel

Guidelines 1998Guidelines for the Conduct of the Nevada Proficiency Examination Program,1998-1999

State Regulations No dateAdopted Regulations of the State Board of Education

Guidelines No dateThe Regents' Strategy for Intensive English Language Arts for LEP Students

Memo with Guidelines January 1999Memo from the Office of Bilingual Education and the Office of State Assessmentto District Superintendents, School Superintendents, and School Principals

State Education Code 1999Apportionment and Services for Pupils with Limited English Proficiency

OH Guidelines March 1999Ohio Lau Resource Center Update

Guidelines April 1997Ohio's Statewide Testing Program: Rules for Proficiency Testing

OK Testing Manual Spring 1999Oklahoma School Testing Program, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Pretest InserviceManual

Policy January 1996Oklahoma State Department of Education LEP Definition

State Education Code 1995Rules Pertaining to the Oklahoma School Testing Program

OR Administrator's Manual 1999Oregon Statewide Assessment Administration Manual

PA Handbook February-March 1999The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Handbook for AssessmentCoordinators

Appendix B.5 102


RI

SC

Test Manual February-March 1999The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Writing Sample AdministrationManual

Test Coordinator's Handbook 1999State Assessment Program Spring 1999 District and School TestingCoordinator's Handbook

Policy 1999Policy on Student Participation and Assessment Accommodations

Teacher's Guide Spring 1999Mathematics and English Language Arts Teacher's Guide

Test Manual Spring 1999Test Coordinator's Manual for the South Carolina Basic Skills AssessmentProgram and Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests

Holistic Score Scale No dateSouth Carolina Basic Skills Assessment Program, Alternative Holistic ScoreScale for ESL and Students with Disabilities to Comply with 1993 Act 153

Memo October 1993State of South Carolina Department of Education Implementation of Act 153 of1993

Memo February 1994District Identification Procedures for BSAP Exit Exam in Compliance with PL3808

Memo April 1994District Identification Procedures for BSAP Exit Exam in Compliance with PL3808-Clarification

Teacher-friendly handout No dateTesting and Assessment of LEP Students: What to do?

SD Testing Manual 1999District Test Coordinator Pre-Test Manual (one page excerpt)

TN Guidelines No dateTennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test AllowableTest Modifications for LEP Students

TX

Guidelines No dateTennessee Proficiency Test Allowable Test Modifications for LEP Students

State Administrative Code 1999Testing LEP Students: 1998-99 State Assessment Program

State Administrative Code No dateTexas Administrative Code, Section 101.3

Test Administrator Manual 1999Grade 4 TAAS Test Administrator Manual

1 0Appendix B.6

UT

VA

VT

WA


Report Forms 1998Alternate Assessments Report Forms

Test list 19981998-1999 List of Approved Tests for Assessment of Limited English ProficientStudents

State Education Code No dateTexas Law Bulletin

Rules No dateCommissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating Limited EnglishProficient Students

Guidelines August 1997Guidelines for Inclusion and Accommodation of Students in Statewide TestingPrograms

Guidelines October 1997LEP Students: Guidelines for Participation in the Standards of LearningAssessments

Guidelines February 1997LEP Students: Guidelines for Testing in the Virginia State Assessment Program(norm-referenced testing)

Procedures Manual February 1998Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments: Procedures to Follow in ProvidingStudents with Accommodations

Memo June 1999Memo from the Superintendent of Public Instruction to Division Superintendentsin Virginia

Guidelines 1996Statewide Assessments and Students with Special Assessment Needs

Memo April 1998Memo to Teachers Who Have ESL or LEP Students

Administration Manual January 1998Including All Students in Vermont's Comprehensive Assessment System: Whyand How

Memo January 1999Memo Regarding Assessment Participation Tools and Materials

Testing Manual 1999Procedures and Options for Including All Students in Vermont's ComprehensiveAssessment System

Guidelines February 1999Revised Guidelines for Inclusion and Accommodations for Special Populationson the Washington Assessment of Student Learning

Appendix B.7

1O


WI

Policy No dateState Assessment Policy for ESL Students for Washington State

Guidelines January 1999DPI Guidelines to Facilitate the Participation of Students with Special Needs inState Assessments

Guidelines February 1999Standards-Based Alternate Assessment for Limited English Proficient Students

State Administrative CodeDefinition of LEP Students

WV Guidelines No dateGuidelines: Limited English Proficient Students for Testing in the SAT-9

WY Policy February 1999Policies for the Participation of All Students in District and Statewide Assessmentand Accountability Systems

Appendix B.8


Appendix C

State policies regarding alternate assessments

1 0 G

Appendix C.1


Alternate Assessment Policies

To provide a more detailed and accuratedescription of state policies regardingalternate -- and "alternative" -- assessments,policies of the individual states are providedin Appendix C. In a few cases, state policiesare summarized. In the majority of cases,the policy is stated verbatim from the statedocuments. This is done to avoid anymisrepresentation of the intent of the statepolicies caused by the variability in usage ofthe terms "alternate" and "alternative."

The description of each state's policyincludes a statement regarding whether andhow scores from alternate assessments areto be reported.

Arkansas: "All students enrolled in a state-tested grade shall be accounted for in thestate assessment system, either byparticipation in the standard assessments orthe authorized alternate assessment."

"Limited English proficient (LEP) studentsmay participate in the alternate assessmentprogram for a period which shall not exceedthree (3) years before entering the standardstate assessment."

"Scores for ... English language learnersparticipating in the Arkansas AlternateAssessment Program shall be reported bythe state/district/school in separate reportsat all levels."

Arizona: "The only exemption from statetests will be for those students (probably 1or 2 percent of the total student population)whose Individualized Education Plansexempt them from participating."

"The instructional program for limitedEnglish proficient pupils who are exemptfrom the nationally standardized norm-referenced achievement testing requirement... shall include an alternative assessment ofachievement to be administered annually."

Aprenda 2 is offered for Spanish-speakingstudents.

For students who are already exempted andwhose parents have requested that their

children be tested, the Stanford 9 test, withaccommodations, can be offered. Districtsmay also select any other alternateassessment, including district assessments,as a substitute for the Stanford 9 test forstudents that are already LEP exempt.

No further information is provided. Scorereporting is not addressed.

Illinois: "ISBE has developed the Illinoismeasure of Annual Growth in English(IMAGE) tests. IMAGE tests measurereading and writing proficiency in Englishand are given to bilingual students in grades3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, and 11 who do notmeet the criteria for ISAT/IGAP [thestandard state assessments]."

"Bilingual students who have been in astate-approved TBE or TPI program since atleast September 30 of the school year, butless than 3 full and continuous academicyears (and who do not have sufficientEnglish language skills to take ISAT/IGAP)are required to take the IMAGE testsappropriate for their grade."

"IMAGE scores are not included on theannual School Report Card."

Kentucky: "The student with limited Englishproficiency who has been in an English-speaking school for fewer than 2 yearspreceding the year of assessment inquestion may be exempted from the portfolioassessment. This student may submit aportfolio in a language other than English if:

* the student's daily instruction and classwork are conducted in the student's nativelanguage, and

* the local scorer or a scorer hired by thedistrict is both fluent in that language andtrained to score the portfolio."

Score reporting is not addressed.

Montana: All accredited schools arerequired to "provide alternate tests forstudents who are excluded from taking theregular test."

Other documents provided includesubstantial amounts of information on many

Appendix C.

1 0 7


aspects of different types of alternate andalternative (nontraditional) assessmentsavailable, as well as a discussion of thedifferences between alternate andalternative assessments.

The state allows the local schools to decideupon the alternate assessments to be used.

Score reporting for the 1998-99 school yearis not addressed.

North Carolina: "Although a student may beexempted because of limited Englishproficiency, the school system will need toassess the progress of these students usingother assessment methods in order to showthat the students are progressing in English,as well as in their other subject areas."

"A student who is exempted from statewidetesting must still have his/her progressassessed in English and other subject areasusing alternative assessment methods. Thechoice of the assessment method is up tothe local school system. The alternativeassessment may include portfolios and otherauthentic assessment methods."

The following statement appears in othersections of the guidelines document: "Allcompleted tests must be scored andincluded with the other tests at theappropriate grade level."

There is no specific reference to scorereporting for "alternative" assessments.

North Dakota: "All limited English proficient(LEP) students shall participate in the state-wide achievement testing program exceptthose students who score at level 1 as'determined by the [name of commerciallypublished language proficiency test] orsimilarly designed test ... If a student doesnot participate in the statewide achievementtesting program, the school must provide analternative form of academic achievementassessment."


New Jersey: "... when students areexempted from specific testing situations,alternative means must be used to assessthese students' mastery of essential skills.

A special effort should be made to useassessment procedures that are based inthe student's native language and that canprovide a reasonable, valid assessment ofthe student's mastery level. This couldinclude the following:

*Native language achievement tests;

*Teacher-made and criteria-referenced testsin the native language;

*Assessments made with the assistance ofan individual proficient in the students'native language;

*Assessment in the English languageadministered under the supervision of acertified teacher or guidance counselor;

*Performance assessment; and/or

*Writing samples and other classroom workfrom the student."


New Mexico: For the Reading Assessment(grades 1, 2): "Students exempted from thisassessment due to the languageassessment should be given an appropriatealternative assessment in the homelanguage."

For the New Mexico AchievementAssessment Program (grades 4, 6, 8):"Students exempted from this assessmentdue to limited English skills ... must beassessed with a standardized test in alanguage appropriate for each student."

For the New Mexico Writing AssessmentProgram (grades 4, 6, optional at grade 8):"No student should undergo a modifiedadministration of the writing assessment dueto limited English skills, but rather shouldhave an appropriate alternative assessmentin the home language."

For the New Mexico High SchoolCompetency Exam (NMHSCE): "Alternativeassessment procedures, used to determinestudent mastery of necessary contentcompetencies in lieu of taking or passing theNMHSCE ... may include, but need not belimited to, the following' examples:

Appendix C.3 1006


coursework grades; scores obtained on out-of-state high school competency/proficiency-type tests; written recommendations fromcurrent teachers in the appropriate contentareas; and, results of other appropriatetests, exams, exhibits and/or demonstrationsof student performance."


Ohio: There is an "alternativeadministration" of the 9th grade tests inreading, mathematics, and citizenship, butnot writing. The alternative administration isan oral administration of the test.


Oregon: The documentation lists threeoptions for ELL participation in stateassessments:

*Tested under standard conditions;*Tested under modified conditions; or*Exempted.

In another section of the same document,there is a description of another form of thestate tests Form "E". There is noindication which of the above options Form"E" test administration falls under, if any.

"Form "E" versions of the state tests areavailable at grades 3, 5, and 8, inReading/Literature and Mathematics only.These versions are intended to providemore accurate scores for those studentslikely to respond to fewer than 30% ofanswers correctly."

"The Spanish-English "E" form of theMathematics test should be used with thosestudents whose mathematical contentknowledge is significantly below grade level.Form "E" does not reduce the amount of'language' on the test."

"Students scoring 1 or above in English,Spanish, or Russian [on a languageproficiency test] are eligible to participateusing a Bilingual version of the mathematicstest."

For 1999, Bilingual Spanish-English andRussian-English versions of theMathematics test will be available.

Score reporting for use of the "E" forms isnot addressed.

Texas: "LEP students who are exemptedfrom TAAS (Texas Assessment of AcademicSkills) must be given an alternativeassessment."

"Alternative assessments can be selectedfrom the list of state-approved tests, orreleased TAAS tests from previousadministrations may be used whenappropriate. For the few students who maynot be literate and for whom paper andpencil tests may not be valid, portfolioassessments may be used."

"The alternative assessment results shouldbe kept in the student's permanent record."


Vermont: The documents describingassessment options are inconsistent inprecision of language used. In many areas,information is presented in precise termsand has clear meaning. In other areas,ambiguous language impedes thoroughunderstanding. Relevant information can befound in the following excerpts.

"Alternate assessment options include:

*Modified assessments. These have thesame content standards and performancestandards of the regular assessment, butare available for students who cannot beaccommodated in the regular assessment;

*Adopted assessments. These have thesame content standards, but at lowerperformance standards, than the regularassessment;

*Functional Lifeskills assessments. Theseare not available for ELLs.

For all of the above options, "scores are notaggregated, but reported separately andwith the same frequency and in the samedetail as regular assessment results."

One document lists the following definitions:

"Accommodated assessment. Thestandards (knowledge, skills, habits of mind)

Appendix C4 o 9


being measured are the same as thosebeing measured on unaccommodatedassessments.

"Alternative assessment. The standardsbeing measured are derived from thestudent's individual curricula."

Other documents offer information regardingthe development of a set of performance-based assessment instruments for ELLS andCulturally and Linguistically Different(CLD)/Language Minority Students.

Wisconsin: "Students who do not participatein the WKCE [Wisconsin Knowledge andConcepts Examinations], grades 8, 10, mustreceive an alternate assessment."

"Locally developed alternate assessmentsoffer the 'best practices' solution for fullinclusion of students with limited Englishproficiency at the early English languageproficiency levels."

Wisconsin has developed AlternatePerformance Indicators (API). APIs are in atransitional stage, from "assessments oflanguage proficiency to assessments thatpresent a clearer picture of students'

academic skills as well as students'readiness for participating in WKCE."

The documents do not specify the existingscore reporting policy, but suggest that asAPIs are developed, use of rubrics and otherforms of documenting student performanceshould be uniformly implemented acrossclassrooms with a focus on alignment withthe scoring of the statewide tests.

Wyoming: "Limited English proficient (LEP)students attending schools in the U.S. for 2years or less may be exempt from thestatewide assessment. LEP students whoare exempted from the statewideassessment must be tested for Englishproficiency. In cases when an LEP studentis unable to respond to a publishedassessment in English, the district shoulduse an alternative method of assessment toascertain how much the child understands inEnglish as well as his/her contentknowledge in the home language. When anappropriate test does not exist for aparticular language, an alternativeassessment should be administered in thenative language of the child, if possible."


1 0Appendix C.5


Appendix D

Individual State Reports

Appendix D.1

The George Washington Center for Equity and Excellence in Education

State Inclusion and Accommodation Policies for LEP Students

Section 1. Policy Overview*

State: AK

1. The state has a policy regarding the inclusion and/or exemption of LEPstudents in state mandated assessments.

Year:

2. State policy allows exemptions for LEP students for a specific amount of time.

3. If "YES," the longest possible period of exemption is:

4. State policy allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

98/99

NO

NO

5. State policy prohibits specific accommodations from being offeredin state assessments for LEP students.

6. State policy specifies that when certain accommodations are used,scores are not included in state, district and/or school totals.

7. State policy allows alternate (alternative) assessments for LEP students forwhom the regular assessment, even with accommodations, is not appropriate.

8. If "YES," state policy specifies alternate (alternative) assessments.

"N/A" means "Not addressed."

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8In the document provided, there is no indication that Alaska has any policy regarding the participation and accommodationof LEP students in statewide assessments.

11°

Appendix D.2



Section 2. Inclusion and Exemption Policies*

State: AK Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Both children born in the United States and children not born in the United States who have difficulty performing ordinaryclasswork in English due to an interference with their English comprehension by a language other than English.

98/99

Other

9. The decision regarding LEP student inclusion/exemption is made by:

State policy addresses this issue.

a. Student

b. Parent(s)/guardian(s)

c. Student's classroom teacher(s)

d. Student's ESUbilingual teacher(s)

Not applicable e. School/district official(s)

f. Test administrator(s)

g. Local committee (members not specified)

h. Other(s)

1

10. The criteria for inclusion/exemption are:


1. Time in U.S.

2. Time in U.S. schools/English speaking schools

3. Time in this state's schools

4. Formal assessment of English proficiency

5. Informal assessment of English proficiency

Not applicable 6. Performance in school work

7. Performance on other test(s)

8. Academic background in home language

9. Language program placement

10. Teacher observation/recommendation

11. Other(s)

* "V" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."** "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 113

Appendix D.3



Section 3. Accommodation Policies*

State: AK Year: 98/99

11. The decision regarding the specific accommodations each LEP student should receiveis made by:


a. Student



d. Student's ESL/bilingual teacher(s)




h. Other(s)

12. The criteria for accommodations are:


1. Time in U.S.









10. Routine classroom accommodations

11. Other(s)

""Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13

11Appendix D.4


State Inclusion and Accommodation Polices for LEP Students

Section 3. Accommodation Policies (continued)

State: AK

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*a=Score reporting is not addressedb=Scores are included in school and/or district totalsc=Scores for some components are excludedd=Scores for all components are excluded

1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format

1. Explanation of directions

2. Repetition of directions

3. Oral reading of questions in English

4. Oral reading of questions in native language

5. Person familiar with student administers test

6. Translation of directions

7. Translation of test into native language

Languages:

8. Bilingual version of test

Languages:

9. Simplified/sheltered English version of test

10. Other (Specify below.)

Response Format

11. Student can respond in native language

12. Student dictates answers


Year: 98/99

Setting

14. Preferential seating

15. Individual administration

16. Small group administration

17. In a separate location


Timing/Scheduling

19. Extended testing time (same day)

20. Extended testing time (other days)

21. Time of day most beneficial to student

22. Frequent or extra breaks



24. Out-of-level testing

25. Use of word lists/dictionaries


*For comments related to question 13, refer to bottom of previous page, Section 3, Accommodation Policies.

Appendix D.5 11 5



Section 4. State Policy Documents

State: AK Year: 98/99

Title: 4 MC 34.050

Date: No date Number of Pages: 9

Document Type: State code Document Number: 1 / 1

Information Available

Usefulness:

Comments:

Check all that apply.

Inclusion/Exemption Information

Accommodation Information

2 LEP Definition

Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 9

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains some relevant information MIP

This document indicates that there is a system in place that categorizes students into sixcategories, based on degree of language dominance. The system includes placementof students into six types of programs -- bilingual/bicultural, transitionalbilingual /bicultural, ESL, high intensity language training curriculum, supplementalEnglish skill and concept development curriculum, language other than English as asecond language curriculum. Also included are guidelines for re-evaluation of students,as well as for instructional staff.

There is no evidence of state policies for inclusion or accommodation of LEP students instatewide assessments.

116

Appendix D.6




State: AL


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years






""N/A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 2, 3. For all tests except the High School Basic Skills Exit Exam (HSBSEE) and the Alabama High School GraduationExam (AHSGE), two years of exemption are allowed. For the HSBSEE and the AHSGE, a deferment is allowed. For theHSBSEE and AHSGE, a student can not request one additional year of deferment. For all other state assessments,students can request one additional year of exemption.

Q 5. Accommodations which change the nature, content, or integrity of the test, such as reading of a reading testdesigned to assess the skill of reading, are not allowed.

The documents provided indicate that Alabama offers no specific guidelines for accommodations criteria or for alternateassessments for LEP students exempted from state assessments.

117Appendix D.7




State: AL Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**A limited English proficient student is an individual:(1) i. who was not born in the United States or whose native language is other than English;ii. who comes from a home in which a language other than English is dominant; oriii. who is an American Indian or Alaskan Native and comes from a home in whicha language other than English has had significant impact on his or her level of English language proficiency as a result ofsubstantial use of that other language for communication; AND(2) who, as a result of the circumstances described in paragraph (1) of the definition, has sufficient difficulty speaking,reading, writing, or understanding the English language to deny him or her the opportunity to:i. learn successfully in classrooms in which the language of instruction is

English; orii. participate fully in our society.


98/99

FR 1


a. Student




YES

Y

e. School/district official(s)



h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y

Y

6. Performance in school work





11. Other(s)

Y

Y

* "Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."** "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, g. An LEP committee consists of the student's parents and 3 or more LEA representatives knowledgeable of thestudent's language proficiency.

Q 10, #3. If less than 2 years, student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #4. Language Assessment Scales (LAS), Idea Proficiency Test (IPT), or other unspecified assessment.

118

Appendix D.8




State: AL Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES e. School/district official(s)



h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES 6. Performance in school work





11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, g. An LEP committee consists of parents and 3 or more LEA representatives knowledgeable of the student'slanguage proficiency.

Q 13, #3, 6, 13a, 25, 26. Available for grade-level criterion-referenced tests, pre-graduation exam, graduation exam, andHigh School Basic Skills Exit Exam.

13, #13b, 19. Available for grade-level criterion-referenced tests only.

119Appendix D.9




State: AL

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format

Year: 98/99

of each accommodation.*a=Score reporting is not addressedb=Scores are included in school and/or district totalsc=Scores for some components are excludedd=Scores for all components are excluded








Languages:

2a

1a


Languages:



Response Format



13. Other (Specify below.) 2a

a. Student marks answers in test booklets.b. Student marks answers by machine.

Setting






1a

la

1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






2a

la

2a

2a

Unspecified other accommodations needed due to thestudent's level of English language proficiency.





2a

2a

Unspecified other accommodations which need to be approvedby the state D.O.E.


1"v

Appendix D.10




State: AL Year:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

98/99

Alabama Student Assessment Program, Policy and Procedures for Students ofSpecial Populations

Feb 1998

Bulletin

Check all that apply.Information Available:

Usefulness:

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 13-15, 23

page(s): 16, 29, 30

page(s): 12

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains substantial relevant information

Appendix D.11

32

1/1




State: AR


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






*"N/A" means "Not addressed."

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Elementary students can appeal for one additional year.

N/A

N/A

N/A

YES

YES

Q 7, 8. Students exempted from state assessments are required to participate in the Arkansas Alternate AssessmentProgram.

The documents provided indicate that, in Arkansas:* There are no state guidelines for identifying LEP students;* The state offers no specific criteria for inclusion or exemption of LEP students in state assessments;* The state does not have a policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

Appendix D.12




State: AR

LEP Definition:A limited English proficient student is one who:a. meets one or more of the following conditions:i. the student was born outside of the United States or whose native language is not English;ii. the student comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; oriii. the student is American Indian or Alaskan Native and comes from an environment where a language

other than English has had a significant impact on his/her level of English language proficiency;andb. has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language to deny him or her the

opportunity to learn successfully in English-only classrooms.

Year:

Source of definition:**

98/99

FR



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Y

Y

* "Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."*" "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, b. For the SAT-9, parental written permission is required for an exemption.

9, d. For the SAT-9.

Q 10, #3. If three years or less, student is eligible for exemption.

r.Appendix D.13




State: AR Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

*"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Arkansas does not have a policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

124

Appendix D.14




State: AR

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99

a=Score reporting is not addressedb=Scores are included in school and/or district totalsc=Scores for some components are excludedd=Scores for all components are excluded

Setting






Timing/Scheduling











BEST COPY AVAILABLE417Appendix D.15




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

AR Year: 98/99

Arkansas Department of Education Stanford Achievement Test, TestCoordinator's Handbook

Fall 1998

Testing manual

Information Available:Check all that apply.

Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 8, 9

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains some relevant information V

14.04. 0

Appendix D.16

61

1/2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

AR 98/99

Arkansas Department of Education Rules and Regulations, ArkansasComprehensive Testing and Assessment Program

Sep 1997

Policy


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

El Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

81

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 3, 9

page(s):

page(s): part 5.03

page(s):


Appendix D.17

9

2/2




State:


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







YES

YES

N/A

YES

YES

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. The first year of exemption is the first academic year in which the pupil is enrolled in this state in grade 2 orabove.

Q 8. Aprenda 2 is offered for Spanish speaking students.Q 8. For students who are already exempted and whose parents have requested that their children be tested, theStanford 9 Test with the following accommodations (see the "Accommodations Information - 2" page) can be offered: 2,6, 10 ("Teacher interprets/simplifies language"), 15, 16, 17, 19, 20, 23. Districts may also select any other alternateassessment, including district assessments, as a substitute for the Stanford 9 Test for students that are already LEPexempt.

The documents provided indicate that, in Arizona, while there is a detailed system for identifying and placing LEPstudents, the system for addressing the participation and accommodation of LEP students in statewide testing is definedby policies and guidelines that do not specifically address inclusion, exemption, and accommodations criteria, or specify adetailed decision-making process.

128Appendix D.18




State: AZ

LEP Definition:Not furnished.

Year:



1 98/99


a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.


3. Time in this states schools



YES

Y






11. Other(s)

*"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."** "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #3. If less than 3 years, student is eligible for exemption.

1 2 9Appendix D.19




State: AZ Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

1




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





NO 6. Performance in school work





11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13. All accommodations are only available for the Arizona Instrument to Measure Standards (AIMS) tests. For theSAT-9, accommodations are prohibited.

0 13, #8. A student may take the Spanish version only once.

130

Appendix D.20




State: AZ


Presentation Format

Year: 98/99









Languages:

2a

2a

2a


Languages:



Teacher provides clarification.

Response Format




F

Setting






2a

2a

2a

Timing/Scheduling






2a

2a

Several sessions





2a


I 01Appendix D.21 4!




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

AZ Year: 98/99

Bilingual Programs and English as a Second Language Programs MonitoringGuide

No date

, Guidelines


Usefulness:

I

E

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

IS I

page(s): 63

page(s): 66, 68

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 63, 66, 67

page(s):


132Appendix D.22

109

1/1




State: CA


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A




"NW" means "Not addressed."

N/A

N/A

N/A

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 7. Spanish-speaking students must take the SABE/2 assessment, in addition to the English language assessment.Q 7. "At the school district's option, LEP students may take a second achievement test in their primary language."If a student has been in a California public school for less than 12 months, the student is required to take a test in his/herprimary language, if such a test is available.

The documents furnished indicate that, in California:* There are no statewide guidelines for defining or identifying LEP students;* There is no policy that allows LEP students exemptions or accommodations on statewide assessments.* The state does not allow alternate assessments for LEP students. All students, regardless of background or level ofEnglish proficiency, must take the state tests.

Appendix D.23133




State: CA


Year:



98/99


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Only a parent's note -- indicating that, for whatever reason, the parent does not want the student to participate in statetests -- can exempt a student from a statewide assessment.

134Appendix D.24




State: CA Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

"'Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13O 11, 12, 13. California has no policy that allows for accommodations for LEP students in statewide assessments.

IAppendix D.25

r'




State: CA Year: 98/99

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components a=Score reporting is not addressed2=AI lowed on some components b=Scores are included in school and/or district totals3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




c=Scores for some components are excludedd=Scores for all components are excluded

Setting






Timing/Scheduling











136Appendix D.26




State:

Title:

Date:

Document Type:

CA Year: 98/99

Senate Bill No. 376-Chapter 828

Oct 1997

State Education Code


Usefulness:

Comments:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information

El Alternate Assessments

Other

Specify:

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):


5

1/2

Education Code Section 60640(f), (g), and (j)(4)

Appendix D.27




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

Information Available:

CA Year: 98/99

Standardized Testing and Reporting Program: Questions and Answers aboutthe Primary Language Test Designed for Spring 1999

Dec 1998

Information booklet


Number of Pages:

Document Number:

Usefulness:

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1, 2

page(s):


133Appendix D.28

2

2/2




State: CO


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A




* "N /A" means Not addressed."

YES

NO

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that Colorado offers:* No specific guidelines for selecting decision-makers regarding the participation of LEP students in statewideassessments;* No specific accommodations criteria.

139Appendix D.29




State: CO Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**LEP, also referred to as "culturally and linguistically diverse (CLD)," "language minority or national minority status," "secondlanguage learners," and "new speakers of English":

98/99

Other

Students whose primary or home language is other than English. LEP students are limited in their ability to speak, read,comprehend, and/or write English proficiently as determined by objective assessments.



a. Student




NO e. School/district official(s)



h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Language Assessment Scales (LAS), Idea Reading and Writing Proficiency Test (IPT), Woodcock-MunozLanguage Survey

1 4

Appendix D.30




State: CO Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #9. Accommodations must be a routine part of the student's instructional situation for at least 3 months prior to theassessment.

Q 13, #3, 25. For grade 5 mathematics test.Q 13, #8. For grades 3 and 4, only.Q 13, #10b. Not allowed on items where spelling will be scored.Q 13. The following accommodations need not be documented for the Reading and Writing assessments:

#2, #10b, #19, if up to ten minutes, #21, #22.Q 13. The following accommodations must be documented for the Reading and Writing assessments:

#10a, #13, #19, if more than ten minutes per session.Q 13. There is no indication whether documentation is needed for the following documents:

#3, #8.

141Appendix D.31





13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components a=Score reporting is not addressed2= Allowed on some components b=Scores are included in school and/or district totals3=Explicitly prohibited on all components c=Scores for some components are excluded

d=Scores for all components are excluded

Presentation Format








Languages:

is

2a


Languages:

2a

Spanish


10. Other (Specify below.) la, 2a

a. Oral reading of directions.b. Spelling of words to students who request it.

Response Format



13. Other (Specify below.) la

Use of a scribe to write oral responses.

Setting






Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

1a

1a

More but shorter sessions.






142Appendix D.32




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

CO Year: 98/99

Special Education for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students: Meetingthe Challenges, Realizing the Oppportunities

Jan 1999 Number of Pages: 85

Guidelines Document Number: 1/3


Usefulness:

Check all

iS Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

iS LEP Definition

Reporting

1:1 Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

that apply.

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s): 13, 14

page(s):

page(s): IV

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains some relevant information

IA 3Appendix D.33





Title. Colorado Student Assessment Proqram Demonstration Binder

Date: Number1999 of Pages: 100

Document Type: DocumentTest demo manual Number: 2/3


Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 2-9

Accommodation Information page(s): 2, 3LEP Definition page(s):

Reporting Information page(s):

Scoring Information page(s):

Alternate Assessments page(s):

Other page(s):

Specify:

Usefulness: Contains some relevant information V

144Appendix D.34





Title. Colorado Student Assessment Program Update (8 issues)

Date: 1998, '99 Number of Pages: 30

Document Type: Monthly newletters Document Number: 3/3


Usefulness:

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

I SI Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

that apply.

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s):

page(s): 1, 2

page(s):

page(s): 4

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


145Appendix D.35




State: CT


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






*"N/A" means Not addressed."

YES

NO

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that, in Connecticut::* The state offers no guidelines for alternate assessments for LEP students;* The state offers no specific recommendations for inclusion, exemption, or accommodations criteria, nor for selectingcommittee members to decide on the participation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

1 4 G

Appendix D.36




State: CT

LEP Definition:

Year:


98/99

Other

Children whose dominant language is other than English and whose proficiency in English is not sufficient to assume equaleducational opportunity in the regular school program.



a. Student







h. Other(s)

L



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #9. If 3 years or less in an ESL or bilingual program, the student is eligible for exemption.

Appendix D.37 4 7




State: CT Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y

*"r means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #10. "Accommodations are not restricted to students enrolled in LEP programs 3 years or less."

Q 13, #19. A student can have as much time as necessary. All students receiving this accommodation must be testedseparately.

1V3

Appendix D.38




State: CT


Presentation Format








Languages:

1a

1.


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






la

la

la

Several sessions.





j


Appendix D.39 149




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

CT Year: 98/99

Assessment Guidelines for Administering the Connecticut Mastery Test and/orConnecticut Academic Performance Test

1998

Guidelines


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 2

page(s): 10, 15, 16

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


1 5 o

Appendix D.40

58

1/2




State: CT Year: 98/99

Title. Connecticut Education Laws (Excerptl

Date: NumberJan 1999 of Pages: 3

Document Type: DocumentState Education Code Number: 2/2



1=1 Accommodation Information

page(s): See below.

page(s):

LEP Definition page(s):


1:1 Scoring Information page(s):


Other page(s):

Usefulness:

Comments:

Specify:


Inclusion/exemption information is found in Chapter 164, Part 1,Sections 10-14q.

Appendix D.41

151




State: DC


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The document provided indicates that, while there are policies regarding the participation and accommodation of LEPstudents in citywide assessments, the policies generally do not address inclusion, exemption, and accommodationscriteria, alternate assessments, or a decision-making team.

152

Appendix D.42




State: DC Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Language Minority Student: A student who understands or speaks a language other than English which was learned fromhis/her family background, or a student with a family background where a language other than English is spoken in the home.

98/99

Other

Non-English (NEP) or LEP: A language minority student with a non-English/limited-English language proficiency that doesnot allow the student to participate in the general education program or the school without alternative language services.



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If less than 3 years, the student is eligible for exemption. If more than 3 years, the student should participate incitywide assessment, regardless of LAS category. The local school determines whether such students should participatein the SAT-9 under level 2 (Standard conditions with special accommodations), or level 3 (Non-standard conditions withpermissible accommodations). School-based staff may also make a decision regarding the student's participation incitywide testing that falls outside of recommended guidelines.

Q 10, #4. Not specified.

Appendix D.431,5




State: DC Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Q 12, #4. Not specified.Comments related to questions 11-13

154

Appendix D.44




State: DC

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*a=Score reporting is not addressedb=Scores are included in school and/or district totalsc=Scores for some components are excludedd=Scores for all components are excluded

1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

la

la

3


Languages:



Use of masks or markers to maintain place.

Response Format




Year: 98/99

Setting






1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

la

1a

1a

a. Flexible scheduling (order of subtests).b. Breaks during subtests.






1Appendix D.45 55




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

DC Year: 98/99

Standardized Testing for Special Populations

1999

Policy


El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 6

page(s): 2 8

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


156

Appendix D.46

8

/




State: DE


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Expressed as one test administration.

YES

NO

YES

N/A

The document provided indicates that Delaware has established policies regarding the participation and accommodationin statewide assessments of LEP students. In certain other areas -- accommodations criteria, selection of a decision-making team, alternate assessments -- the state does not offer specific guidelines.

Appendix D.47




State: DE

LEP Definition:A limited English proficient individual is one who:

Year:


98/99

IASA

* was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comes from anenvironment where a language other than English is dominant; or* is a Native American, or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas and comes from an environment where alanguage other than English has had a significant impact on such individual's level of English proficiency; or* is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language otherthan English is dominant; and* who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language, and whose difficulties maydeny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or toparticipate fully in society.



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y



Q 10, #4. Not specified.

158

Appendix D.48




State: DE Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #3. If less than 2 years, student can receive accommodations.

Q 13, #7. Not appropriate for inclusion of Reading and Writing test scores.

Q 13, #19. Not appropriate for inclusion of SAT-9 Reading and/or Mathematics test scores.

Q 13, #13a. Not allowable for the Writing test.

Q 13, #25. Not appropriate for the Reading test.

Q 13, #11. Not appropriate for the Reading and Writing tests

159Appendix D.49




State: DE


Presentation Format








Languages:

1d

1b

1d

1d

Not specified.


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) ld

Use of an interpreter.

Response Format




2b

2b

ld

Use of a scribe to record student response to a writingprompt.

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






lc

1d

1d

Several sessions.





2b

2d

Students discuss/brainstorm in pairs during the pre-writing partof the Writing test.

For comments related to question 13, refer to bottom of previous page, Section 3, Accommodation Policies.

1 G

Appendix D.50




State:

Title.

DE Year: 98/99

Delaware Student Testing Program Guidelines for the Inclusion of Students withDisabilities and Students with Limited English Proficiency

Date:[ Mar 1999 Number of Pages:

Document Type: Guidelines


Usefulness:

El

El

2

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 13, 17, 18

page(s): 13, 16

page(s): 2

page(s): 14 - 16

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains substantial relevant information V

Appendix D.5116 1

20

1 / 1




State: FL


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years






*"N /A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that, in Florida:" The Florida Writing Assessment Program administered in 1999 is a census test, given to randomly selected studentsfrom around the state;* The state offers no specific guidelines regarding selection of committee members for deciding LEP student participationin statewide assessments.* Unless a LEP student has been enrolled in an approved district LEP Plan for 2 years or less, the student must beincluded in statewide assessments;* There are no alternate or alternative assessments available to LEP students.

1 6

Appendix D.52




State: FL Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Language Enriched Pupils or Limited English Proficient students:* Individuals who were not born in the U.S. and whose native language is a language other than English; or* Individuals who come from home environments where a language other than English is spoken in the home; or* Individuals who are American Indian or Alaskan natives and who come from environments where a language other thanEnglish has had a significant impact on their level of English language proficiency; and* Individuals who, by reason thereof, have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or listening to the English languageto deny such individuals the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English.

98/99

FR



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #9. A student with 2 years or less in an approved district LEP Plan may be exempted from statewide assessments.All other LEP students are to be tested.

1 3Appendix D.53




State: FL Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





NO

1






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #10, b. Available for the Mathematics test. If the Mathematics test is administered to a group, the teacher mayanswer questions about directions for the benefit of the whole group. Questions of clarification from individual studentsmust be answered on an individual basis. For the Reading test, an ESOL or heritage language teacher may answerquestions about general test directions, but is prohibited from answering students' questions and from reading words tostudents from passages, test items, and performance tasks.

Q 13, #19. Available for the Writing test. No specific time limit indicated.

16n

Appendix D.54




State: FL


Presentation Format








Languages:

2a

2a

1a


Languages:



ESOL or heritage language teacher may answer specificquestions about a word or phrase.

Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






la

Timing/Scheduling






2a

1a

Several short sessions





la

3a

Monolingual dictionaries


Appendix D.55




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

FL Year: 98/99

Arts through ESOL: A Guide for ESOL Teachers and Administrators(Introduction and Chapter 6)

May 1996

Guidelines


Usefulness:

ra

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



El LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): ch.6, p.4,5

page(s):

page(s): ch.6, p.4

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


166Appendix D.56

20

1/2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

FL Year: 98/99

Florida Comprehensive Assessment Test Administration Manual

1999

Testing manual


IS I

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1; 2

page(s): 80

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.57

107

100

[ 2/2



Section 1. Policy Overview`

State: GA


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A





N/A

N/A

N/A

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that:* English is the official language of Georgia;* The policy that addresses the participation in statewide assessments for LEP students is brief and does not offerspecific guidance to local schools;

168

Appendix D.58

I




State: GA Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Those students who, because their native language/home language/first language is other than English, have so muchdifficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language that they cannot successfully participate inclassrooms where the language of instruction is English.

98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Whether it is in the student's best interest.


Comments related to questions 9 & 1010 9. LEP students shall participate in all state assessments unless the school and the parent(s) or guardian(s) agree it isnot in the best interest of the student to participate at this time.

O 10, #4. The Language Assessment Battery (LAB) is administered to determine if a student should receive ESOLservices.

I 0Appendix D.59




State: GA Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

I


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Georgia has no policy that allows accommodations in statewidewide assessments for LEP students.

1 7 0

Appendix D.60







Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Setting






Timing/Scheduling











Appendix D.61171




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

GA Year: 98/99

to Speakers of Other Languages Resource Guide

1999

Resource Guide


Usefulness:

Comments:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



ig LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 14

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


100

1 / 2

This document contains suggestions on how to implement programs.

172

Appendix D.62





Title. 1998-1999 Student Assessment Handbook

Date: 1998 Number of Pages: 100

Document Type: Student assessment handbook Document Number: 2 / 2



E Accommodation Information

page(s): Appendix E

page(s):

LEP Definition


page(s): 160-4-5.02(ii)

page(s):



Other page(s):

Specify:

Usefulness: Contains some relevant information

1 '7 3

Appendix D.63




State: HI


Year:





98/99

YES

NO





N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents furnished indicate that, beyond recommendations for procedures to categorize LEP students, Hawaii hasno statewide policies or guidelines for deciding on LEP students' participation and accommodation in statewide testing.

17 4Appendix D.64




State: HI Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Potential English for Second Language Learners (ESLL) Program students: All students whose first acquired or more oftenused language is other than English, or who come from homes where a language other than. English is most often used.

98/99

Other



a. Student







h. Other(s)

1

State



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4, 9. A student must achieve a 3 or higher rating on either the Language Assessment Scale (LAS) or the BasicInventory of Natural Language (BINL) and "have been placed in the LEP Students of L.E.P. category" to be included inthe Stanford Achievement Test.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 175Appendix D.65




State: HI Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

1



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Hawaii has no policy that allows accommodations for LEP students in statewide assessments.

1_ 7 0

Appendix D.66




State: HI


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






L

Timing/Scheduling











1'7aAppendix D.67




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

HI Year: 98/99

Exemption and Inclusion Requirements for Spring 1999

1999

Guidelines, memo


iSI

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


176

Appendix D.68

3

1/2




State: HI Year: 98/99

Title.lIdentification, Assessment, and Programming System for Students in theEnglish for Second Language Learners (ESLL) Program

Date:

Document Type:


Number

Document

May 1996 of Pages: 60

Guidelines Number: 2/2

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

that apply.

Information

Information

page(s):

page(s):

LEP Definition


page(s): 3

page(s):

1:1 Scoring Information page(s):


Other page(s):

Specify:

Usefulness: Contains some relevant information V

17 .9Appendix D.69




State: ID


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years






"'N /A" means "Not addressed."

N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that Idaho has no policies or guidelines for defining or identifying LEP students; forestablishing or recommending inclusion, exemption, or accommodations criteria; or for addressing the participation andaccommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments, beyond allowing a two-year exemption.

180Appendix D.70




State: ID


Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If less than 2 years, student may be exempted.

1 Q.J.Appendix D.71




State: ID Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Idaho does not have a policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

189Appendix D.72




State: ID


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling











Appendix D.73 183




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

ID Year: 98/99

Idaho Statewide Testing Program Test Coordinator's Guide

1999

Testing manual


I

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

IS I Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 7

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 16

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


184Appendix D.74

67

1/1




State: IL


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years








NO

YES

N/A

YES

YES

Q 4, 5. The only mention of accommodations allowed or prohibited is that translation of any part of a state test isprohibited.Q 8. For grades 3 - 11, the Illinois Measure of Annual Growth in English (IMAGE) tests, which measure reading andwriting proficiency in English, are required of all students not taking state assessments.

The documents provided indicate that, in Illinois:* 1999 marks the beginning of a transition from using the Illinois Goal Assessment Program (IGAP) to using the IllinoisStandards Achievement Test (ISAT) as the statewide assessment program;* The state offers no guidelines for defining or identifying LEP students;* The state offers no specific recommendations for selecting decision-makers, nor for English language proficiencyassessments, for determining inclusion, exemption, or placement in an appropriate services program;* The "alternate" assessment described is, in fact, a language assessment;* There is no specific state policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

Appendix D.7518 5




State: IL


Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, g. Unspecified school personnel.

Q 10, #3. If 3 years or more, student may not receive an exemption.Q 10, #4. Not specified.Q 10, #9. If less than 3 "full and continuous" years in a state approved Transitional Bilingual Education (TBE) orTransitional Programs of Instruction (TPI), a student may be exempted.

185

Appendix D.76




State: IL Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

""y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13O 11, 12, 13. While there is mention in the documents provided that appropriate school personnel are to decide onaccommodations, there is no other indication that Illinois has a policy that allows accommodations to LEP students onstate assessments. The only mention of accommodations allowed or prohibited is that translation of any part of stateassessments is prohibited.

13Appendix D.77




State: IL


Presentation Format








Languages:

3


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling











1 8 6'

Appendix D.78




State: IL Year: 98/99

Title.

Date:

Extended Questions and Answers, ISAT, IGAP 1999

1999 Number of Pages: 13

Document Type: & A Report Document Number: 1/2


Usefulness:

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

that apply.

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s): 8

page(s): 8

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


(.Appendix D.79 1 Li Or




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

IL Year: 98/99

Illinois Assessment Initiatives for Bilinqual/ESL Students

1995

Report


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


100Appendix D.80

3

2/2




State: IN


Year:




98/99

YES

N/A






NO

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that:* English is the official language of Indiana;* Unless a student reads at a level at least 2 years below his or her grade level, the student will participate in the testing,without accommodations;* Beyond the policy stated in the previous point, and the fact that translation of any part of a test is prohibited, Indiana hasno policies or guidelines regarding any aspect of the participation of LEP students in statewide tests.

9 1Appendix D.81




State:L IN Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Limited proficiency in English is evidenced by any of the following:(A) The student does not understand, speak, read, or write English, but may know a few isolated words or expressions.(B) The student understands simple sentences in English, especially when they are spoken slowly, but speaks only isolatedwords and expressions.(C) The student:

(i) speaks English with hesitancy;(ii) understands English with difficulty;(iii) converses in English, but only with effort and assistance;(iv) understands only some parts of lessons;(v) cannot understand and follow simple directions; and(vi) cannot write sentences that do not contain errors in syntax and fact.


98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 100 10, #4. If the student reads at least 2 years below grade level, the student is exempted from statewide testsQ 10, #5. Further specific information is not provided.

192

Appendix D.82




State: IN Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Indiana has a policy that does not allow accommodations for LEP students on statewide tests. Further, thestate prohibits the translation of test directions or content.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

Appendix D.83193




State: IN


Presentation Format








Languages:

3


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling











194Appendix D.84




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

IN Year: 98/99

Indiana Statewide Testing for Educational Progress Program Manual

Fall 1998

Testing manual


51

51

ig

Number of Pages:

Document Number:

Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 9, 22, 23

Accommodation Information page(s): 23LEP Definition page(s): 22Reporting Information page(s):



Other page(s):

Specify:


Appendix D.85 1 5

100

1/1




State: KS


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A





YES

YES

NO

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 2. Students who are enrolled in a district on a temporary basis of one year or less, such as foreign exchange students,may be exempted. Migrant Education students are not to be considered temporary.

Q 6. Test scores of students who receive accommodations are included in the building summary which reports averagesof all students, but not included in the general education/gifted building summary. Those of students who take theassessment with modifications are not included.

Q 7. There are no alternate assessments, but the state allows for modified versions of the Kansas Assessments.Modifications are determined at the local level. Possible modifications are:

.a. utilize the Kansas Assessments in an instructional format rather than a testing format;b. provide group or team administration of Kansas Assessment;c. eliminate selected questions from Kansas Assessment.

196

Appendix D.86




State: KS Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**LEP and NEP: Students who do not speak, read, write, and/or understand the English language at a level comparable to thatof a native speaker.

98/99

1 Other



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."** "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Must be determined by a standardized assessment -- such as Idea Proficiency Tests (IPT), LanguageAssessment Scales (LAS), etc. that includes Reading, Writing, and Oral Language proficiencies.

197Appendix D.87




State: KS Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #3. Allowable for the Mathematics Assessment only. Prohibited on the Reading Assessment.

Q 13. The following identified not as accommodations, but as "acceptable practices", are allowed:1

3 (reading prompts for Writing Assessment),1925 Translation dictionaries for Reading, Writing, Mathematics assessments; dictionaries or bilingual dictionaries for

Reading and Writing assessments.

Q 13, #9, #24. These are considered modifications, which are seen in this state as changes in what is being measured onthe assessment; therefore the use of these results in excluded scores.

1DAppendix D.88




State: KS

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2=Al lowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

2b


Languages:



ld

1b

a. Key words or phrases highlighted/underlined

Response Format



13. Other (Specify below.) 1b

a. Use of a scribeb. Student dictates answers on tape for verbatimtranslation

Year: 98/99


Setting


15. Individual administration.




1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b





1d


Appendix D.89 I 0 (1,J




State:

Title:

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

KS Year: 98/99

Examiner's Manual for 1999 Kansas Writing Assessment

1999

Testing manual


El

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 18

page(s): 18, 20-22, 31

page(s): 18

page(s): 18

page(s): 24-29

page(s): 18

page(s):


2 0 0

Appendix D.90

31

1/1




State: KY


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Scores of all LEP students, including those who received accommodations, are included.Q 7, 8. For the Writing Portfolio assessment (grades 4, 7, 12), there is an altemate assessment, the Alternate PortfolioProgram. Students may submit a portfolio in a language other than English if: a) the student's daily instruction and classwork are conducted in a language other than English, and b) the local scorer or a scorer hired by the district is both fluentin that language and trained to score the portfolio. There is no alternate assessment for the Kentucky InstructionalResults Information System (KIRIS) assessments.

One reviewer from the state wrote that the name of the assessment system is the Commonwealth Accountability TestingSystem (CATS), though there is no indication of this in the documents provided.

The documents provided indicate that, in Kentucky:The state policies regarding decision-makers, inclusion/exemption and accommodations criteria, and alternate

assessments are generally non-specific, requiring local school districts to develop more specific local policies regardingparticipation and accommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

Appendix D.91




State: KY


Year:


98/99

IASA




a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If a student has been in an English speaking school for 2 full years, the decision for the student's inclusion orexemption in statewide testing is to be made by school personnel.

200

Appendix D.92




State: KY Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #4. Assessment is not specified.

Q 13, #10b. Students may use the same form of a test so that one interpreter per foreign language may be employed, inthe case of a lack of interpreters.

203Appendix D.93




State: KY


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b

lb

Not specified.


Languages:



a. Paraphrasing directions in student's native language.b. Administering a single form of the test.

Response Format



13. Other (Specify below.) 3

Student dictates answers in his/her native language andhas a teacher translate.

Year: 98/99


Setting






rL lb

Timing/Scheduling










lb

lb

Use of grammar or spell-checking systems.


ApgnQx




State: KY Year: 98/99

Title. Inclusion of Special Populations in the State-Required Assessment andAccountability Programs

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

Feb 1999

State administrative regulations


171

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


1=1 Scoring Information

1:1 Alternate Assessments

Other

Specify:

page(s): 9

page(s): 17, 18

page(s): 16, 17

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


2017

Appendix D.95

30

1 / 2




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

KY Year: 98/99

1997-1998 District Assessment Coordinator Implementation Guide

Sep 1997

Coordinator's Manual


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

El

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 10

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


20E;

Appendix D.96

150

2 / 2




State: LA


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years






""N/N. means "Not addressed."

YES

NO

NO

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that, while Louisiana has policies regarding the inclusion and accommodation of LEPstudents in statewide assessments, the policies do not include specific guidelines for implementing these policies.

20'?Appendix D.97




State: LA


Year:


98/99

IASA




a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If less than 2 years, student can be exempted.

208Appendix D.98




State: LA Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y



Q 13, #25. For written composition only.

Q 13, #26. There is a differentiation between this type of dictionary and the type of dictionary allowed by accommodation#25. The one allowed in #25 is identified as an "English/Native Language Word-to-word dictionary," while the dictionaryallowed by #26 is referred to as an "English/Native Language Dictionary (no definitions)."

203Appendix D.99




State: LA


Presentation Format

Year: 98/99









Languages:

1b

[ 1b


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.).

Response Format




Setting






1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling





23. Other (Specify, below.)

1b





2b

1b

Provision of English/Native Language dictionary.


I it 210Appendix D.100




State: LA Year: 98/99

Title. Louisiana Educational Assessment Program (LEAP), Criteria for Defermentfrom Participation in the LEAP for LEP Students

Date:

Document Type:

Sep 1998

Guidelines


El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

Usefulness:

page(s): 1 1 , 12

page(s): 12

page(s): 13

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.101

A.

4

1/2




State:

Title-

Date:

Document Type:

LA Year: 98/99

Schools that Work: Setting Higher Standards for our Students, Letter fromState Superintendent of Education

No date

Letter

kInformation Available:

Chec all that apply.

Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


El Accommodation Information

LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


21

Appendix D.102

1

2/2




State: MA


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that:* For the 1998 assessments, LEP student scores were included with those of the other students, and also weredisaggregated for diagnostic purposes;* Beyond offering a Spanish version of certain subtests, Massachusetts has no policy for allowing accommodations forLEP students in statewide testing, nor is there a policy for providing altemate or alternative assessments for LEPstudents.

21 or)

Appendix D.103




State: MA

LEP Definition:LEP students:1) Students who were not born in the U.S. whose native language is a language other than English and who are currently notable to perform ordinary classroom work in English, or2) Students who were born in the U.S. to non-English speaking parents and who are not currently able to perform ordinaryclassroom work in English.

Year:


98/99

Other



a. Student



YES





h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Literacy in Spanish


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If less than 3 years, student can be exempted.Q 10, #9. If a student is enrolled in a Transitional Bilingual Education program or receives ESL support and has been/willbe recommended for regular education classes for the following school year, the student is included in statewide testing.If the student will not be recommended for regular education classes the following school year and has been in U.S.schools for 3 years or less, the student is not required to take the test.Q 10, #9. "A student in a two-way bilingual program with three or fewer years of school in the U.S. must take the Englishversions of the The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) tests if he or she would likely betransitioned into regular education classes if such a program were offered."Q 10. A Spanish-speaking student with three or fewer years in U.S. schools who does not possess sufficient reading andwriting skills in Spanish to permit participation in the MCAS Spanish version may be exempt.

Appendix D.104

214




State: MA Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Massachusetts has no policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students otherthan a Spanish version of the mathematics, science and technology, history, and social science tests.

Q 13, #8. Available for the mathematics, science and technology, history, and social science tests. The Spanish versionsof these tests can be taken if a student has three or fewer years in U.S. schools; is currently enrolled in a TransitionalBilingual Education program or receives ESL support and will not be recommended for regular education classes for thefollowing school year; and the student possesses reading and writing skills in Spanish.

Q 13, #11. Available for Spanish versions of tests.

Q13, #19. There are no time limits on the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS). This conditionapplies to all students, not only ELLS.

Appendix D.105 215




State: MA


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:

2a

Spanish



Response Format




2a

Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling






1b





*For comments related to question 13, refer to bottom of previous'Oage, Section 3, Accommodation Policies.

Appendix D.Z1 0




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

MA Year: 98/99

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System: Principal'sAdministration Manual, Spring 1999

1999

Manual


Usefulness:

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


1:1 Other

Specify:

page(s): 48, 49

page(s): 48, 49

page(s): 48

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.107a

74

1/2




State:

Title

MA Year: 98/99

The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System: Report of StatewideResults, November 1998

Date:

Document Type:


Number

Document

1998 of Pages: 21

Report Number: 2/2

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

that apply.

Information

Information

page(s):

page(s):


Reporting Information page(s): 17

Scoring Information


page(s): 1 21

page(s):

Other page(s):

Specify:


218Appendix D.108




State: MD


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






""N/A" means Not addressed."

YES

NO

YES

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Maximum time of exemption from the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), which is givenat grades 3, 5, and 8, expressed as one administration of the test. For the Maryland Functional Testing Program (MFTP),the maximum amount of time a student can be exempted is one year.

2iaAppendix D.109




State: MD

LEP Definition:

Year:

Source of definition:**Students who have a primary or home language other than English and who have limited or no age-appropriate ability tounderstand, speak, read, or write English.

98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

Y

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9. For the Maryland School Performance Assessment Program (MSPAP), exemption is based on a languageproficiency assessment and on teacher recommendation, agreed to in writing by the parents or guardians, and certified bythe principal. For the Maryland Functional Testing Program (MFTP), the student must request an exemption, a parentmust agree in writing, and the decision must be certified by the school principal. For the CTBS/5, an exemption must berecommended by a teacher, followed by the parent's agreement in writing and the principal's certification.

Q 10, #3. If one year or less, student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #4. Assessment is not specified.

220Appendix D.110




State: MD Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11. Documents provided also indicate that an LEP committee (whose members are not specified) make the decisionson specific accommodations, for all state assessments.

Q 12, #4. Assessment is not specified.

Q 13, #10. For the MSPAP, the following accommodations are available: a) Verbatim reading of selected section of testor vocabulary; b) Verbatim audiotape of directions; c) Verbatim reading of entire test to the student. For the MSPAP andthe MFRT, the following accommodations are available: d) Written copies of orally presented materials; and e) Verbatimaudiotape of the test, for which a student's reading score is invalidated in the scoring process.

Q 13, #19. MSPAP time extensions must allow for participation in group activities. CTBS/5 time extensions are seen asa non-standard administration which invalidate comparisons to national norms, and therefore will not be included in statereports.

Appendix D.111




State: MD

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2=AI lowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1

2c


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) la, 2c

a. Written copies of orally presented materialsb. Use of audio-tape.

Response Format




1c

1b

Student types response for transcription by schoolpersonnel.

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

2b

r 1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1c

1b

1b

1b





1b

1b

Those proposed by a Local Accountability Coordinator or LEPstaff, and approved by MSDE Office and LEP staff.


2 9 r/

Appendix D.112




State: MD Year: 98/99

Title* Regulations for Accommodating, Excusing and Exempting Students inMaryland Assessment Programs

Date:

Document Type:

Sep 1998

Regulations


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


El

El

El


LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 5,7,9

page(s): 4,6,8,10,12-16,25,26

page(s): 3

page(s): 10

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.113

28

1/1




State: ME


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A





YES

YES

NO

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Scores of all students will be included with the school's, unless a student misses one or more sections of the testbattery.

The documents provided indicate that, in Maine, there are no specific state policies or guidelines regarding the followingaspects of the participation and accommodation in state assessments of LEP students:* The definition and identification of LEP students;* Inclusion, exemption, or accommodations criteria;* Maximum amount of time a student can receive an exemption;* Alternate or alternative assessments.

221Appendix D.114




State: ME


Year:



98/99


a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. Building principal.

Q 10. A student can be excluded from some sections of the assessment and included in others.

9 9Appendix D.116-d




State: ME Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, e. Building principal.

Q 13, #7. Available if the student is participating in a native language instruction program.

22 G,;Appendix D.116




State: ME


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b

1b

1b

Not specified.


Languages:



1b

Response Format




2b

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

lb

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b

1b

1b

1b

Short sessions followed by breaks.





1b


Appendix D.117 22 7




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

ME Year: 98/99

Maine Education Assessment Grades 4, 8 and 11, Principal/Test Coordinator'sManual for 1999

1999

Testing manual


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


El Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 22

page(s):

page(s):


2Appendix D.118

27

1 / 1




State: MI


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







YES

NO

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that Michigan offers no specific guidelines, regarding the participation andaccommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

22Appendix D.119




State: MI Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Children who have or reasonably may be expected to have difficulty performing ordinary classwork in English because theirnative tongue is a language other than English, or because they come from a home or environment where the primarylanguage used is a language other than English.

98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s) Student and/or parent can request exemption.



"Under no circumstances may a student be denied the opportunity to take the tests by the LEA."

2 r' 0Appendix D.120




State: MI Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #25. Both English language and native language dictionaries are allowed.

Appendix D.121




State: MI


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b


Languages:



Response Format




1a

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b





1

1a

1b

Any classroom accommodation that does not violate thepurpose of the test.


2 3,2imppendix u.122




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

MI Year: 98/99

Michigan Educational Assessment Program Coordinator's Manual (Excerpt)

Winter 1999

Testing manual


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



El LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 14, 15

page(s):

page(s): 13

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.1232' 3. 3

4

1 / 2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

MI Year: 98/99

The Michigan High School Proficiency Tests Testing Guidelines for Studentswith Disabilities, LEP and Dual Enrollment Eligibility

Mar 1995

Guidelines


El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 3

page(s): 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


23

Appendix D.124

9

2 / 2




State: MN


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






""N/N. means "Not addressed."

YES

NO

N/A

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 7. There are no alternative assessments for statewide assessments. There is a policy that allows for alternativeassessments, to be chosen by a local committee, for the High Standards diploma.

The documents provided indicate that, in Minnesota, while the state provides a skeletal framework of items for districts toconsider as the districts look to identify and decide on participation and accommodation of LEP students in statewidetesting, there are only a few instances of specific statewide guidelines or policies. It seems that this failure on the part ofthe state to provide specific policy and/or guidelines shifts the responsibility of developing an appropriate system to thelocal level.

235Appendix D.125




State: MN Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Individuals whose first language is not English and whose test performance may be negatively impacted by lack of Englishlanguage proficiency.

98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #1. If 12 months or less, student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #2. If 3 years or less, student is eligible for exemption.

2 r'3 0

Appendix D.126




State: MN Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #7. Available for the Mathematics and Written Composition tests only.

Q 13, #10a, #10b. Available for the Mathematics test only.Q 13, #10c. Available for the Mathematics and Reading tests only.

Q 13, #19. The tests are untimed.

Q 13, #23. For the Mathematics and Reading tests only, a student may take up to 4 sessions.

Appendix DCR7) -!40- .?




State: MN


Presentation Format








Languages:

1a

la

2a

Spanish, Vietnamese, White Hmong


Languages:



a. Audio cassetteb. Script of audio cassette read by administratorc. Short segment test booklets

Response Format




Student can write in the test booklet

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

2a

Extra sessions






Appendix .1Z8




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

MN Year: 98/99

Testing Guidelines for Students with Limited English Proficiency

1998 99

Guidelines


El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify: LEP student identification

page(s): 1, 4

page(s): 2, 4, 6, 7

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2


2 3 5AAppendix D.12, .

7

1/2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

MN Year: 98/99

Basic Standards Testing: Establishing a District Process for Including LimitedEnglish Proficient (LEP) Students

May 1997 Number of Pages: 5

Outline of process Document Number: 2/2


Usefulness:

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

that apply.

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

Contains some relevant information 'V

2 4 0

Appendix D.130




State: MO


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Expressed as one test administration.

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

The documents provided indicate that, in Missouri, state policies regarding the participation and accommodation of LEPstudents in statewide assessments are general and do not address all aspects of the issue, which places theresponsibility for developing specific policies on the districts.

241Appendix D.131




State: MO Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**Students assessed as having English skills below their age appropriate grade level.


98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s) When it provides instructional information.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #3. If one year or more, the student is included, unless the student's level of English proficiency precludesparticipation.

24 2Appendix D.132




State: MO Year: 98/99

11. The decision regarding the specific accommodations each LEP student should receiveIS made by:


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

""y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #10. Prohibited for Communication Arts, Sessions 1, 3.Q 13, #19. Available to complete Session 3.Q 13. The documents indicate that all accommodations not identified as allowable are prohibited.

24 r)Appendix D.133




State: MO


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Student responds orally in English.

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a





Use of native language dictionary.


2%1Appendix D.134




State: mo Year: 98/99

Title. Assessment Standards for Missouri Public Schools

Date:

Document Type:

Jun 1998

Assessment handbook


Usefulness:

El

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:

Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 6

Accommodation Information page(s): 1 1





Other page(s): 16

Specify:Identifying LEP students


245Appendix D.135

28

1/2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

MO Year: 1999

Missouri Assessment Program's Coommunications Arts Assessment

Spring 1999 Number of Pages: 5

Testing manual Document Number: 2/2


Usefulness:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


2.4

Appendix D.136




State: MS


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years






"N/N. means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

YES

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8These issues are addressed in a handbook prepared using Title IV and Title VII funds, The Participation andAccommodation of LEP Students in Statewide Assessment Programs, Handbook of Educational Services for LEPStudents. As well as addressing educational issues, the handbook includes demographic data related to the location andnumber of LEP students in Mississippi schools.

The document states that "This handbook was developed to assist state educators in providing equal opportunities tolimited English proficient students in Mississippi. The materials within should provide educators with information onappropriate and effective services for these students." It continues to explain that, based on the state's only relevantmandate, districts must design programs that "enable their LEP students to achieve full competence in English and tomeet school grade-promotion and graduation requirements." PL 100-297, section 7002.(a) The handbook quotesO'Malley and Valdez-Pierce (1991), "By participating in statewide testing programs, LEP students can be followed toensure that they meet grade-appropriate standards at all levels and graduate from high school."

2 4 7

Appendix D.137



Section 2. Inclusion and Exemption Policies*State: MS

LEP Definition:A limited English proficient individual is one who:* was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comes from anenvironment where a language other than English is dominant; or* is a Native American, or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas and comes from an environment where alanguage other than English has had a significant impact on such individual's level of English proficiency; or* is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language otherthan English is dominant; and* who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language, and whose difficulties maydeny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or toparticipate fully in society.


Year:


98/99

IASA


a. Student




YES

Y

Y

Y

Y

e. School/district officials)



h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y




9. Language program placement'


11. Other(s)

Y

Parent's approval needed for exemption.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q9/10 LEP students are expected to participate in all aspects of the Mississippi Assessment System (MAS). Studentsmust take the Functional Literacy Examination (FLE) in order to receive a regular high school diploma. Exemptions seemto be offered for the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), and the Mississippi CareerPlanning and Assessment System (MIS-CPAS). Students can be exempted from the Subject Area Testing Program(SATP). Exemption is based primarily on language assessment (whether or not the student's level of English significantlyinterferes with test results).School districts may develop their own inclusion/exemption criteria. It is recommended that districts form LEPassessment committees composed of the district test coordinator, counselor(s), teacher(s), psychometric personnel andprincipal(s).010 #4 Multiple measures are recommended; the handbook lists many possibilities.Q10 #5 Multiple measures are recommended, including teacher observations and home language survey.

248Appendix D.138




State: MS j Year:11. The decision regarding the specific accommodations each LEP student should receiveis made by:

98/99


a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y

"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q11-13 "Mississippi Code 37-16-9 ensures that appropriate test modifications/accommodations are provided for eligiblestudents. Test accommodations are considered changes in testing procedures that provide...LEP students with an equalopportunity to participate in test situations and to demonstrate their knowledge and abilities."Q11 Teachers recommend accommodation; school principal and district test coordinator authorize recommendation.Q13 The handbook suggests the following policies (Accommodations for both LEP students and students with disabilitiesare listed together.):1) Accommodations must be consistent with what is provided on the student's instructional program.2) Scores are not included when students who are exempt take the test or students choose to take the test usingprohibited accommodations.3) The list of prohibited accommodations is not meant to identify all prohibited accommodations. It is based on frequentinquiries. Scores from students who take the test under nonstandard test conditions are not comparable.4) The student should be familiarized with testing procedures since his or her culture may not have provided extensiveexperience with standardized testing. Practice on items that have formats similar to those used with standardized testingis recommended. However, practice with actual test items, alternate test forms, or items closely parallel to actual testitems is prohibited.Tests: Iowa Test of Basic Skills/Test of Academic Proficiency ( ITBS/TAP), Subject Area Testing Program (SATP), MS-Career Planning and Assessment System (MS-CPAS)Q13 #3 Prohibited on FLE, TAP, and CPAS (Reading for Information Test); Allowed on SATP & CPAS (except Readingfor Information Test).Q13 #20 Prohibited on TAP & CPAS; allowed on SATP.Q13 #26 The use of native language dictionaries (dictionaries that translate English words into the native languagewithout providing definitions) is prohibited on ITBS/TAP; native language dictionary use is allowed on SATP & MS-CPAS.

Appendix D.99AA ot


State Inclusion and Accom


State: MS


Presentation Format

modation Polices for LEP Students

Year: 98/99









Languages:

2c

1b


Languages:



Response Format




Setting






1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






2c

1b

1b





2b


6 kjAppendix D.140




State: Ms Year:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

98/99

The Participation and Accommodation of LEP Students in State AssessmentPrograms, Handbook of Educational Services for LEP Students

Sep 1998

Handbook


El

El

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


El Other

Specify: Identifying LEP studentsusing assessments

page(s): 71-74,77,78,81-84

page(s): 75,79,81-84,88-99

page(s): 2

page(s): 73,76,78,81-84

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 54-70


Appendix D.141

182

1 / 1




State: MT


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







YES

NO

N/A

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 8. "If participation in the regular assessment is waived, an alternative assessment must be administered. Thealternative assessment should cover the same standards being assessed for all students; it must assess contentknowledge in the student's primary language; if an assessment in the student's primary language is impracticable orinappropriate, accommodations can be used."

The documents provided indicate that, in Montana:* The state offers no specific guidelines for defining or identifying LEP students;* The state offers no specific guidelines for selecting members of the decision-making team involved with the participationof LEP students in statewide assessments, nor does it offer specific accommodations criteria or recommendations foralternate assessments.

2524pendix D.142




State: MT


Year:



98/99

FR


a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If 3 years or less, the student is eligible for exemption.

Appendix D.14




State: MT Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #2. If 3 years or less, a student can receive accommodations.Q 12, #4. Assessment not specified.

Q 13, #10. Other presentation format accommodations include:* Providing additional clarifying information, e.g. synonyms for difficult words and phrases;* Providing a tape of instructions in the student's home language;* Providing simplified directions;* Providing native language support (not specified);* Decreasing the English language demands of the assessment (not specified, examples not given).

;:Appendix D.144




State: MT

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3= Expiicitiy prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

1a

1a


Languages:



See notes on previous page.

Response Format




1a

la

Student can respond orally.

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

la

Flexible scheduling.





la

la


Appendix D.145 2 0




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

MT Year: 98/99

Montana Office of Public Instruction Assessment Handbook, Volume 1

Feb 1999

Testing manual


Usefulness:

Comments:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 4, 19, 20, 26

page(s):

page(s): 2, 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


30

1/1

Exemption seems to be included with other accommodations in thisdocument's framework.

25G

Appendix D.146




State: NC


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Two years from the time of initial enrollment in the school system.

YES

YES

NO

YES

NO

Q 8. The choice of assessment method is up to the local school system. Alternate assessments may include portfoliosand other authentic assessment methods.

The documents provided indicate that, in North Carolina:* The state provides no specific recommendations regarding decision-makers;* The state provides no specific guidelines regarding the identification of LEP students;* The state provides no specific criteria for deciding on LEP student participation in statewide testing;* The state provides no specific accommodations criteria, nor for alternate assessments.Students can be exempted for 2 years from the time of enrollment in a school system. There is no indication that the statehas in place a mechanism to prevent students from changing school systems every 2 years.

25 7Appendix D.147 , .




State: NC Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**A limited English proficient student is one who:a. meets one or more of the following conditions:i. the student was born outside of the United States or whose native language is not English;ii. the student comes from an environment where a language other than English is dominant; oriii. the student is American Indian or Alaskan Native and comes from an environment where a language

other than English has had a significant impact on his/her level of English language proficiency;

98/99

FR

andb. has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language to deny him or her the

opportunity to learn successfully in English-only classrooms.



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s) Time in the same school system.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Assessments are not specified.Q 10, #9. If two years or less, student can be exempted. After two years, the student must be included in statewideassessments, regardless of his/her level of English proficiency.

A student may be exempted from one test while included in others.

2 8

',Appendix D.148




State: NC Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y

ESL coordinator; Test coordinator



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, Team of LEA personnel, including ESL coordinator and test coordinator, must review and approve of electronictranslator or dictionary. No indication is given of decision-makers for other accommodations.

Q 13, #3. Prohibited on reading tests and North Carolina Competency Tests.

Appendix D.149 259




State: NC


Presentation Format








Languages:

2b


Languages:



Response Format





Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b

1b

Multiple sessions





1b

Monolingual dictionaries.Those accommodations not used in daily instructional andtesting situations.


200Appendix D.150




State: NC Year:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

98/99

Guidelines for Testing Students with Limited English Proficiency

Mar 1998

Guidelines


El

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 12, 29, 30

page(s): 13-22

page(s): 10

page(s): 8

page(s):

page(s): 32

page(s):


Appendix D.1516 I

50

1/1




State: ND


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A





YES

NO

YES

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Scores of students who receive the following accommodations are excluded from the average: a) Extended testingtime; b) Provide complete test on audio tape; c) Read the test to the student.

Q 7. "If a student does not participate in the statewide achievement testing program, the school must provide analternative form of academic achievement assessment." No further specific information is given.

The documents provided indicate that, in North Dakota, the state does not provide policies or guidelines regarding criteriafor accommodations nor for who should decide on LEP student participation in statewide assessments, nor is there amaximum amount of time a student can receive exemptions.

The following 2 excerpts from the documents provided help describe the state of the issue of LEP students in NorthDakota:* "Many schools have a very informal method of identifying LEP students. It is not very consistent or valid."* "LEP figures in North Dakota fluctuate because of inconsistency in reporting. Because there are no state requirementsor funding, there is little incentive to accurately collect data .... "

2 6 2

Appendix D.152




State: ND


Year:


98/99

IASA




a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Language Assessment Scales (LAS), Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BINL), Woodcock-MunozLanguage Proficiency Test. A student who scores at level 1 is exempted.

10, #7. CTBS achievement test.

2 U 3Appendix D.153




State: ND Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13. The following accommodations have been identified as those that compromise standards: #10b, c, #19. Scores ofstudents who receive these accommodations are excluded from the average.

. Appendix D.154




State: ND


Presentation Format








Languages:

1d


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) lb, ld

a. Highlight key words or phrases in test directions.b. Provide complete test on audio tape.

Response Format




Tape record responses for later verbatim translationUse of a scribe

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






ld

1b

1b

1b

1b

Several sessions; Subtests in a different order; Providefrequent breaks on one subtest but not on another.





Special test preparation (not specified).On-task/focusing prompts.


Appendix

5:




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

ND Year: 98/99

Test Coordinator's Manual (McGraw-Hill)

1999

manual


Usefulness:

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


Accommodation Information page(s): Appendix C



Scoring Information

19 Alternate Assessments

Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 6

page(s):

Contains some relevant information 41,

Appendix D.156

36

1 / 2




State: ND Year: 98/99

Title- Survey of State's LEP Students and Available Education Programs andServices

Date:

Document Type:

1995

Survey


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:

1=I Inclusion/Exemption Information


C:] LEP Definition

1:1 Reporting Information

Scoring Information

1:1 Alternate Assessments

Other

Specify:

ElIdentifying LEP students

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 7


2 7Appendix D.157

9

2 / 2




State: NH


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

More than three years







YES

NO

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that, while New Hampshire requires districts to identify and make decisions regardingLEP student participation and accommodation in statewide assessments, the state offers no specific guidelines or policiesfor defining LEP students, identifying inclusion, exemption, or accommodations criteria, setting a maximum period ofexemption, or allowing alternate assessments.

2US

Appendix D.158




State: NH


Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. The school principal.

Q 10, #5. No guidelines are provided.

Appendix D.1 b ot.




State: NH Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, e. The school principal.

Q 12, #5. No guidelines are provided.

Q 13, #3. Not available for Reading sections and questions in the English Language Arts section.Q 13, #12. Students may not dictate their responses to the writing prompt in the English Language Arts section.

2 7 0Appendix D.160;




State: NH


Presentation Format








Languages:

2a

la


Languages:

9, Simplified/sheltered English version of test


Use of a sight translator.

Response Format




2a

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

1a

1a

1a

With the teacher facing the student.

Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

1a

Short sessions followed by breaks.






Appendix D.161

2:'7 A.




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

NH Year: 98/99

Procedures for Test Accommodations and Exclusions

No date

Manual


Usefulness:

113 I I

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 2

page(s): 2, 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


2'7 2

Appendix D.162

3

1/1




State: NJ


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






* "N /A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 4. At the elementary school and grade 8 assessments; not for grade 11 assessments.Q 8. Alternative assessments can include the following:* Native language achievement tests;* Teacher-made and criteria-referenced tests in a student's native language;* Assessments made with the assistance of an individual proficient in the student's native language;* Assessment in the English language administered under the supervision of a certified teacher or guidance counselor;* Performance assessment; and/or* Writing samples and other classroom work from the student.

The document furnished gives no indication that New Jersey provides guidelines for appointing decision-makers to handleLEP student inclusion or accommodations on statewide assessments, for recommending specific alternativeassessments, nor for whether LEP student scores are to be included in reporting.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE

g.1.7 .41

Appendix D.163




State: NJ Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**"Limited English proficient (LEP) students" means students from pre-kindergarten through grade 12 whose native language isother than English and who have sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing or understanding the English language asmeasured by an English language proficiency test, so as to be denied the opportunity to learn successfully in the classroomswhere the language of instruction is English.

98/99

Other



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If three years or less, student can be exempted.Q 10, #4. Most recent score on Language Assessment Battery (LAB) or Maculaitis Assessment Program.Q 10, #9. If two years or less, student can be exempted.

In order to be exempted, a student must meet condition #4 and either #2 or #9.

2 7 4Appendix D.164




State: NJ Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #17. This is required of LEP students.

Q 13, #25. Ideally, a student should use the same dictionary as in his/her instructional program.

Appendix D.1




State: NJ


Presentation Format








Languages:

1a

3


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






la

Timing/Scheduling






1a





1a


2 '' t

Appendix D.166




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

NJ Year: 98/99

Process for Exemptions and Accommodations Criteria

1998

Policy (revised)


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 2

page(s): 2, 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.16727'

4

1/2




State: NJ Year: 98/99

Title. New Jersey Statutes Annotated Title 18A


Document Type: Education Code Document Number: 2/2


Usefulness:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


273Appendix D.168




State: NM


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A





NO

YES

N/A

YES

YES

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 5. Beyond offering a Spanish version of the New Mexico High School Competency Examination, the state prohibits allstudents, including LEP students, from receiving accommodations on statewide assessments. The fact that the statedoes allow tests in Spanish, but prohibits all accommodations indicates that in New Mexico, translated versions of testsare not considered an accommodation.Q 8. For the writing test (grades 4, 6, 8): "No student should undergo a modified administration of the writing assessmentdue to limited English skills, but rather should have an appropriate alternative assessment in the home language."Q 8. For the reading test (grades 1, 2, 4, 6, 8): Students exempted from taking statewide tests in English must take thetests in a language appropriate for each student. "If an appropriate test does not exist for a particular language, theneducational achievement must be assessed by each student's teacher(s). Demonstration of mastery may involve thefollowing:1. Classroom, school, or district tests; 2. Student class work; and 3. Systematic teacher observations."

Q 8. The state allows the administration of standardized achievement tests in Spanish. Recommended tests are LaPrueba de Realizacion en Espanol, Supera, and Aprenda 2: La Prueba de Logros en Espanol.

The documents provided indicate that, in New Mexico, there are no statewide guidelines for selecting a committee todecide on LEP student participation in statewide assessments.

Appendix D.1




State: NM

LEP Definition:ELL (includes LEP and NEP) students:Students with a primary or home language other than English who are unable to speak, read, write, and understand theEnglish language at levels comparable to their grade-level English proficient peers as determined by objective measures ofproficiency normed for language minority students and who also cannot meaningfully participate in the curriculum.

Year:


98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

1




h. Other(s)

Y

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Recommended tests include: 1) Basic Inventory of Natural Language (BINL), 2) Idea Proficiency Test (IPT), 3)Language Assessment Scales (LAS), 4) Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey.

2Appendix D.170




State: NM Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. Beyond a Spanish version of the New Mexico High School Competency Examination, New Mexico does notallow accommodations for LEP students in state assessments.

231Appendix D.171




State: NM


Presentation Format








Languages:

2a

Spanish


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling









26. Other (Specify below.)1


20

Appendix D.172




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

NM Year: 98/99

Procedures for the Indentification and Assessment of English LanguageLearners, New Mexico Department of Education Guidelines

No date

Guidelines


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



Ei LEP Definition


Scoring Information

El

El


Other

Specify: Identifying LEP students

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 4

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 6, 8

page(s): 6, 7, 8


Appendix D.173

23,

70

1 / 2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

NM Year: 98/99

Memo from State Superintendent of Public Instruction to DistrictSuperintendents and Other Appropriate Personnel

Feb 1999 Number of Pages: 9

Memo Document Number: 2 / 2


Usefulness:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 2, 4

page(s): 2, 3

page(s):

page(s): 5-8

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):


2a 4

Appendix D.174




State: NV


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A




"NIA" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

NO

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Scores are included for those tested under standard conditions, without accommodations that would disrupt otherstaking the test.

The documents provided indicate that, in Nevada, there are no specific guidelines or policies to define or identify LEPstudents, suggest a maximum amount of time a student can receive an exemption, or provide for alternate assessments.

285

Appendix D.175




State: NV


Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.

YES










11. Other(s)

" "V" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item.""" "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. Language Assessment Scales (LAS) Reading/Writing and Oral assessments for students in grades 4, 8, 10.

Q 10, #9. Whether a student receives instruction in English and/or Mathematics in regular classrooms and can be testedunder standardized conditions used with regular students.

Q 10. Exempted students may take one or more parts of the Terrallova assessment for diagnostic purposes, the resultsof which are not aggregated.

2U()0

Appendix D.176




State: NV Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y

Accomodations that don't disrupt others.

"'Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #10a. Whether a student receives instruction in English and/or Mathematics in regular classrooms and can betested under standardized conditions used with regular students.

Q 13, #10b. Available for the Writing exam only.

Q 13, #14. Provisions of special furniture, such as a carrel.

Q 13, #19. Not to exceed twice the allotted time of the test.Not permissible for the Terra Nova assessments.Available only for writing assessments and the High School Proficiency Examinations.

287Appendix D.177




State: NV


Presentation Format








Languages:

1a

1a


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) lb, 2b

a. Test administered by ESL teacher or special testadministrator.b. Words in test topics may be defined.

Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






la

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






2b

1b





3


2 Q. oAppendix D.178




State: [ NV Year:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

98/99

Guidelines for the Conduct of the Nevada Proficiency Examination Program,1998-1999

1998

Guidelines


Usefulness:

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): Ap.D, pp.1,4

page(s): Ap.D, pp.1,2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


2UAppendix D.179

50

1/2




State: NV Year: 98/99

Title. Adopted Regulations of the State Board of Education

Date: NumberNo date of Pages: 12

Document Type: DocumentState regulations Number: 2/2


Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 389-11

Accommodation Information page(s):


El Reporting Information page(s): 389-10

Scoring Information page(s): 389-10


Other page(s):

Specify:


200Appendix D.180




State: NY


Year:





98/99

YES I

N/A




"N/A" means Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that, in New York State:

The state does not provide specific guidelines regarding the participation of LEP students in statewide testing, includingwho should be selected to serve on a decision-making committee, and what criteria should be considered when makingappropriate decisions;

The state has no policy that allows for alternate or alternative assessments for LEP students who are exempted fromstatewide assessments.Document 1 states that "all LEP students must be provided with intensive English language instruction" and "a state andnational search for effective models must be conducted." The state has designed a 12-step plan to provide appropriateservices for ELLs, which is to be phased in from 1999 - 2001.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE291

Appendix D.181




State: NY Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**"Pupils with limited English proficiency shall mean pupils who by reason of foreign birth or ancestry, speak a language otherthan English, and1) either understand and speak little or no English; or2) Score at or below the 40"' percentile, or its equivalent as determined by the commissioner, on an English languageassessment instrument approved by the commissioner provided, however, that no pupil shall be served in a bilingual orEnglish as a second language education program pursuant to this Part for a period in excess of three years from the date ofenrollment in school unless such period is extended by the commissioner with respect to an individaul pupil in accordancewith the provisions of subdivision 2 of section 3204 of the Education Law."

98/99

Other



a. Student



YES





h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10O 10, #7. For grades 4, 8: If a student scores at or above the 30th percentile on an (unspecified) English reading test,the student must take part in the English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics assessments. If a student scores belowthe 30th percentile, he/she may be exempted from the ELA assessment. If a student scores below the 30th percentileand the D.O.E. has a written translation of the Mathematics test in the student's native language, the student is required totake the test, either in English or in the student's native language. If the D.O.E. does not provide a written translation inthe student's native language, the student may be exempted from the Mathematics test.

2 fl

.Appendix D.182




State: NY Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13C) 11, c, e. The only indication of a guideline for choosing decision-makers is that the principal and the classroom teacherare to determine extended time accommodations; no mention is made of who should be the decision-makers regardingother accommodations.

Q 13, #7. All translations must be oral, word-for-word. Written translations are not allowed.Q 13, #7. Available for all exams except English Language Arts.Q 13, #7. Korean language translations are not available for assessments in grades 4, 8; only on the ComprehensiveRegents exams.Q 13, #25. Not available for tests of English or foreign languages.

Q 13. "Schools are encouraged to provide the most optimum testing environment and facilities for LEP students." Thisstatement indicates that other unspecified accommodations may be allowed.

Appendix D. )42




State: NY


Presentation Format


Year: 98/99









Languages:

la

2a

Spanish, Chinese, Haitian Creole, Korean,Russian


Languages:



Response Format




Setting






1a

la

la

Timing/Scheduling






la





2a

3

Monolingual dictionaries


234Appendix D.184




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

NY Year: 98/99

The Regents' Strategy for Intensive English Language Arts for LEP Students

No date

Guidelines


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information

Altemate Assessments

Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 4

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.1852 5

30

1/3




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

NY Year: 98/99

from the Office of Bilingual Education and the Office of State Assessmentto District Superintendents, School Superintendents and School Principals

Jan 1999

Memo with Guidelines


Usefulness:

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 2

page(s): 2, 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


2 9 (

Appendix D.186

6

2/3




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

NY Year: 98/99

Apportionment and Services for Pupils with Limited English Proficiency, Section154.1

1999 Number of Pages: 6

State Education Code Document Number: 3/3


Usefulness:

1:1 Inclusion/Exemption Information

1:1 Accommodation Information

El LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 3

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Z9 7Appendix D.18




State: OH


Year:




98/99

YES

N/A






Comments related to questions 1-8Q 1. A policy has been proposed and is under consideration.

YES

NO

N/A

YES

NO

Q 7, 8. There is an alternative administration of the 9th grade Reading, Mathematics, and Citizenship assessments, butnot the Writing assessment.

The documents provided indicate that, in Ohio, although there is no statewide policy regarding the inclusion andexemption of LEP students in statewide testing, such a policy has been proposed and is being considered. Aspects of thenew proposal that have received mention in the documents are treated in general terms, indicating that the proposal willnot address, or address specifically, such issues as the definition and identification of LEP students, inclusion, exemption,and accommodations criteria, and selection of appropriate team members for deciding on the participation of LEPstudents in statewide testing.

2t)

Appendix D.188




State: OH


Year:



98/99


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, 10. Although these issues are not addressed, a policy has been proposed and is being considered. Under theproposed policy, the decision regarding LEP student inclusion and exemption would be made by "school districts"; nofurther specific information was provided. The criteria for exemption, under the new proposal, would be the amount oftime a student has spent in English speaking schools. Students with less than 2 years in an English speaking schoolwould be eligible for exemption.

Appendix D.189




State: OH Year: 98/99



a. Student




NO

1




h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #6. If not available, "gestures, demonstrations, and simplified sentences" may be used.

Q 13, #10. Available for seniors wishing to graduate only. Available for the Mathematics and Citizenship assessmentsonly.

300Appendix D.190




State: OH


Presentation Format








Languages:

la


Languages:



Use of a state-provided interpreter.

Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling






1a





1a


Appendix D.194,




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

OH Year: 98/99

Ohio Lau Resource Center Update

Mar 1999

Guidelines


El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

!Si Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 4, 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


302Appendix D.192

12

1/2




State: OH Year: 98/99

Title' Ohio's Statewide Testing Program: Rules for Proficiency Testing

Date: Apr 1997 Number of Pages: 54

Document Type: Guidelines Document Number: 2/2


Usefulness:

1151



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


151 Other

Specify: Alternate administration.

page(s): 2

page(s): 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 31


30 3Appendix D.193




State: OK


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Documents provided indicate that, beyond a policy of allowing school districts to exempt students with 3 years or less inthe state's schools, Oklahoma offers no policies or guidelines regarding the participation of LEP students in statewideassessments.

3 0

Appendix D.194




State: OK

LEP Definition:An individual who:* was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comes from anenvironment where a language other than English is dominant; or* is a Native American, or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas and comes from an environment where alanguage other than English has had a significant impact on such individual's level of English proficiency; or* is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language otherthan English is dominant; and* who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language, and whose difficulties maydeny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or toparticipate fully in society.

Year:


98/99

IASA



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

1






11. Other(s) "To be established by the local schooldistricts."


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. "At the discretion of the local district."

Q 10, #3. If 3 years or less, student is eligible to receive exemption.

305Appendix D.195




State: OK Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13ID 11, 12, 13. Oklahoma does not have a policy that allows accommodations in state assessments for LEP students.

3 0 GAppendix D.196




State: OK


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting





18. Other (Specify below.) L

Timing/Scheduling











Appendix D.19P 7




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

OK Year: 98/99

Oklahoma School Testing Program, Iowa Tests of Basic Skills, Pretest InserviceManual

Spring 1999

Testing manual


Usefulness:

IS

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 17

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


,3 c.)

Appendix D.198

24

1/3




State: OK Year: 98/99

Title. Oklahoma State Department of Education LEP Definition

Date: Jan 1996 Number of Pages: 1

Document Type: Policy Document Number: 2/3


Usefulness:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


309Appendix D.199




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

OK Year: 98/99

Rules Pertaining to the Oklahoma School Testing Program

1995

State Education Code

Information Available: Check all that apply.

Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:

Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


I=1 LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

Contains some relevant Information

310Appendix D.200

1

3/3




State: OR


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A




"NIA" means "Not addressed."

YES

NO

YES

YES

YES

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Though the issue of inclusion and exclusion of LEP student test scores is not specifically addressed in thedocuments provided, document 1 indicates that scores of students who took the bilingual version of the mathematics test"are not included in averages."

Q 8. The state offers Form "E" versions of the state assessments. Form "E" versions are available for grades 3, 5, and 8,in Reading/Literature and Mathematics only, including bilingual versions in Spanish-English and Russian-English. Thebilingual versions of Form "E" tests do not reduce the amount of "language" on the test. "Form 'E' versions are intendedto provide more accurate scores for those students likely to respond to fewer than 30% of answers correctly."

The documents further indicate that Oregon identifies certain accommodations as maintaining standardized conditionsand others as modifications that do not maintain standardized conditions, though there is no information provided thataddresses the relationship, if any, between these differentiations and any effect(s) these have on score reporting.

Oregon imposes no maximum time limit on exemptions of LEP students from statewide testing. There is no mention in thedocuments provided of a statewide effort to provide services for LEP students who do not qualify to participate instatewide testing, nor of alternate or alternative assessments for LEP students.

31, 1Appendix D.201




State: OR


Year:



98/99


a. Student




YES

Y

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.


YES









11. Other(s) Parental objection; Spanish, Russianproficiency.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, b. Parents who object to their child's participation in statewide assessments may have their child exempted.Q 10, #4. On the reading and writing subtests of the Woodcock-Munoz, a student who earns a score of 4 or above (or anequivalent score on another reading and writing assessment), will take the Oregon Statewide Assessments in English. Astudent who scores above a 1 in either the reading and writing subtests in English or on a native language test in Spanishor Russian, is eligible to use the bilingual version of the mathematics test. A student who scores a 1 in a native languagetest and a 1 on the reading and writing subtest in English, may be exempt.Q 10, #11. As determined by a formal proficiency test (unspecified).Q 10. A student may be exempt from one subtest and included in others.

1

sAppendix




State: OR Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #8. Available for the mathematics test.

Q 13, #7, 10e, 26. Oregon identifies these accommodations as modifications, rather than a standard administration.

Q 13, #2. Also a modified administration, if provided between each reading selection or between questions.

Appendix 012031:1


State Inclusion and Accommodation Polices for LEP StudentsSection 3. Accommodation Policies (continued)

State: OR


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b

2c

2c

1b

2c

Spanish(Russian versions are under development.)


Languages:

2a

Spanish(Russian versions are under development.)


10. Other (Specify below.) 1b (a-d),2c(e)

a. Written version of oral directions b. Simplify lang. Indirec's c. translation of key words on test d. highlightwords in direc's e. rd. the rd/lit. test aloud

Response Format




lc

lc

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

lb

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b

1b

lb

1b

Several sessions





Use of an electronic translation device


31 4Appendix D.204




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

OR Year: 98/99

Oregon Statewide Assessment Administration Manual

1999

Manual


Usefulness:

IS

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

IS Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 10

page(s): 12

page(s):

page(s): 11

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3/5Appendix 11205

14

1/1




State: PA


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






"NW" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The Handbook for Assessment Coordinators covers the above topics briefly. LEP students who have been in the U.S. formore than three years are excluded. Those who have been in the U.S. for more than three years are included.Accommodations are minimal. Data is collected regarding the student's LEP status, whether the student has been in U.S.schools for at least three years, and whether he or she was given extended time. "This is done so that the DRC [the testcontractor] and the [State Education] Department will be aware that the sample may inaccurately reflect the schoolpopulation."

31 (;

Appendix D.206




State: PA

LEP Definition:Students who do not understand, speak, read or write English.

Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10"Students who do not understand, speak, read or write any English and have been in U.S. school systems less than threeyears should be excused from assessments." This approach seems to encourage exclusion, although the coordinator'shandbook also states that all students should participate and exclusions should be kept to a minimum.

317Appendix D.207




State: PA Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13The accommodations policy included in the handbook was prepared by the Eastern Instructional Support Center. Itfocuses on students with disabilities. No parallel version for LEP students is provided.

Q13 #3 Reading aloud the reading assessment is prohibited.Q13 #18 Students can move to another room for extended time after the majority of students have completed their work.Q13 #20 Extended time is given to all students on reading and mathematics components; LEP students can also takemore time on the writing component.Q13 #4, 7, 8, 11, 12 Students must read the "passages, tasks and items in English and respond to written portions inEnglish."

31 8

Appendix D.208




State: PA


Presentation Format


Year: 98/99









Languages:

3

la

3


Languages:



3

Response Format




3

Setting






1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

la






Appendix ost




State:

Title-

Date:

Document Type:

PA Year: 98/99

The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Handbook for AssessmentCoordinators

Feb-Mar 1999

Handbook


Usefulness:

IS

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 4, 5, 7

page(s): 2,6,7, Ap.A

page(s): 5

page(s): 4

page(s): 4

page(s):

page(s):


3 2 L)

Appendix D.210

28

1/2




State: PA Year: 98/99

Title: The Pennsylvania System of School Assessment Writing Sample AdministrationManual

Date:

Document Type:


Feb-Mar 1999

Test manual


Number of Pages:

Document Number:

El Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 2, 3


1=1 LEP Definition

page(s): 3

page(s):


Scoring Information


page(s): 10

page(s):

Other page(s):

Specify:


Appendix D.211

13

2/2




State: RI


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Expressed as one testing cycle.

YES

YES

N/A

NO

Q 6. Scores of LEP students classified as advanced, using TESOL classification standards, are included. The scores ofstudents classified as intermediate are not included. Scores of intermediate level students are sheltered for one testingcycle, in the expectation that they will progress to the advanced level or beyond by the next testing cycle.

The documents provided indicate that, in Rhode Island, while there are policies regarding many aspects of theparticipation and accommodation of LEP students in state assessments, some areas lack specific information. Thecriteria provided for inclusion, exemption, and accommodations, for example, are general. Similarly, the state provides noguidelines for defining or identifying LEP students.

Appendix D.212




State: RI


Year:



98/99


a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."** "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, b. For the Health Education Assessment.

Q 10, #5. A trained member of the school staff administers the TESOL ESL Proficiency Standards. Students who aredetermined to be at the beginning level of proficiency are exempted. Those determined to be at the intermediate oradvanced level must participate in the assessment.

32 3Appendix D.213




State: RI Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #3, #4. On the English Language Arts assessment, tasks can not be read to students.Q 13, #7. Not available for the English Language Arts assessment.Q 13. #10b. For the English Language Arts assessment, general administration directions can be taped. The actual taskcannot be taped for the student to listen to.Q 13, #11. Available on the Health and Mathematics tests only. On the Mathematics test, the student must includespecific references to details of how to construct pictures, charts, graphs, etc.Q 13, #13b. For the Writing and English Language Arts tests, the student must include specific references to grammar,spelling, and punctuation.Q 13, #23. Not available for Writing and Health assessments.Q 13. The following accommodations are prohibited:

#25, for the Writing, Health Education, and English Language Arts assessments;#11, for the Writing and English Language Arts assessments.

3 2 4

Appendix D.214




State: RI

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2= Allowed on some components3= Expiicitiy prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

2a

2a

2a

Spanish


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) la, 2a

a. Directions simplified.b. Audio taped presentation.

Response Format




2a

la

Year: 98/99


Setting






la

1a

1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

1a

1a

2a

Subtests in a different order.





2a


Appendix D.24




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


RI Year: 98/99

State Assessment Program Spring 1999 District and School TestingCoordinator's Handbook

1999

Testing manual


El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition




Other

Specify:

Usefulness:

page(s): Ap. F, p. 3

page(s): Ap. E, pp.1-5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): Ap. F, p. 3

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.216

(

30

1/3




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

RI Year: 98/99

Policy on Student Participation and Assessment Accommodations

1999

Policy


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



1:1 LEP Definition

['Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

El

El

ElIdentifying LEP students

page(s):

page(s): 15

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 15, 16

page(s): 1

page(s): 12


327Appendix D.217

21

2/3




State:

Title:

Date:

Document Type:

L RI Year: 98/99

Mathematics and English Language Arts Teacher's Guide

Spring 1999

Guide


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): Ap.C, p.2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.218

30

3/3




State: SC Year: 98/99

1. The state has a policy regarding the inclusion and/or exemption of LEPI YES

students in state mandated assessments.



YES

Three years







YES

NO

N/A

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Information regarding standardized assessments and LEP students is available in the test coordinator's manual.Suggestions regarding informal classroom assessments is available on a teacher-friendly handout.

In addition, there is an alternative holistic score scale available to LEP and ESL students designed to "place emphasis onthe conveyance of meaning and other linguistic accommodations..." The score scale was created because "it has beenevidenced that in the rigorous task of second language writing, linguistic and cultural interference may take place whichwould hinder the recognition of an ESL student's ability." Districts are free to develop their own manner of identifyingstudents who are eligible for this scale.

3 -

Appendix D.219



Section 2. Inclusion and Exemption Policies*State: SC

LEP Definition:

Year:


98/99

OtherA limited English proficient (LEP) student is defined as a student who has a background language other than English and isnot proficient in listening, speaking, reading, or writing in the English-speaking classroom as determined by a languageassessment instrument.



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q9b A letter of waiver from a parent or guardian must accompany the decision of an academic team that taking statewideassessments is not in the student's best interest.The criteria in Q10 must all be met to exempt a student from statewide assessment. "As soon as the LEP student hasreading and writing abilities in English, s/he should begin taking standardized tests. The school system is responsible toprepare all students to participate fully inthe educational system. Although the test scores will probably not accuratelyreflect all that the student knows (due to their [sic] limited English proficient), the information will offer necessary baselinedata on the student."Q10 #2 If three years or less, student is eligible for exemption.Q10 #4 Tests include Language Assessment Scales (LAS), IPT-IDEA Proficiency Test, Woodcock-Munoz, and LanguageAssessment Battery (LAB)"During the period of exemption, a school district is still responsible for the student's academic progress and is required tochart that progress by informal means (informal assessment, grading), as well as formal means (language assessmentinstrument)."

330Appendix D.220



Section 3. Accommodation Policies*State: SC Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q12 #4 Students whose scores fall below fluent on their language assessment test but who do not meet the exemptioncriteria may use accommodations when taking state assessments.

Q12 #2 & #10 These are the two criteria that determine eligibility for the use of the Alternative Holistic Score Scale on theBasic Skills Assessment Program (BSAP), Writing Subtest. The time limit is less than eight years in English-mediuminstruction.

Q13 #3 Oral administration is allowed for the Palmetto Achievement Tests (PACT) Mathematics and Science Tests andthe BASP Exit Examination in Reading and Mathematics Tests.(For the Reading Subtest, the student's record reflects that his/her score reflects the ability to process information read tohim or her, not the ability to decode printed symbols.)

Q13 #26 Students are permitted to use "word-by-word bilingual dictionaries" that do not include definitions during allBSAP Exit Examination Subtests and the PACT; Bilingual dictionaries that include definitions may be used during theBSAP Exit Examination Writing Subtest and day 1 of the PACT English Language Arts Test in grades 6, 7, and 8 only.

Q13 #27 See above (Q12 #2 & #10) for criteria related to the use of the Alternative Holistic Score Scale.

Appendix D.221




State: SC


Presentation Format

Year: 98/99









Languages:

1a

1a

2a

1a

la


Languages:



Response Format




Student can write directly in the test booklet.

Setting






la I1a

Timing/Scheduling






la





la, 2a

Alternative Holistic Score Scale


3

Appendix D.222




State:

Title*

Date:

Document Type:

Sc Year: 98/99

Test Coordinators Manual for the South Carolina Basic Skills AssessmentProgram and Palmetto Achievement Challenge Tests

Spring 1999

Test manual

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 5, 49, 50

El Accommodation Information page(s): 49-51

El LEP Definition


page(s): 49

page(s):



Other page(s):

Specify:

Usefulness: Contains substantial relevant information V

33 0

Appendix D.223

83

1/6




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

SC Year: 98/99

South Carolina Basic Skills Assessment Program, Alternative Holistic ScoreScale for ESL and Students with Disabilities to Comply with 1993 Act 153

No date

Holistic score scale


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


E Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


32...Appendix' D.224

1

2/6




State: sc Year: 98/99

Title. State of South Carolina Department of Education Implementation of Act 153 of1993

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

Oct 1993

Memo


Number of Pages:

Document Number:

El Inclusion/Exemption Information

I=1 Accommodation Information

LEP Definition




Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


ar--Appen_

3

3/6




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

SC Year: 98/99

District Identification Procedures for BSAP Exit Exam in Compliance with PL3808

Feb 1994

Memo


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition



Altemate Assessments

Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3 3

Appendix'D.226

2

[ 4/6




State: sc Year: 98/99

Title' District Identification Procedures for BASP Exit Exam in Compliance with PL3808--Clarification

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

I Apr 1994

L Memo


Number of Pages:

Document Number:


P Accommodation Information

LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

El

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


337Appendix D.227

1

5/6




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

Sc Year: 98/99

Testing and Assessment of LEP Students: What to do?

No date

Teacher-friendly handout


El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3

Appendix D.228

1

6/6




State: SD


Year:



98/99

YES I

YES

Three years







N/A

N/A

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8The documents provided indicate that South Dakota has no policies or guidelines regarding the participation andaccommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

333Appendix D.229




State: SD


Year:


98/99

IASA




a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

* "r means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."* "FR" means Federal Register (1984). "IASA" means Improving America's School Act (1994).

Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If less than 3 years, student can be exempted.

3 :'0

Append bi D.230




State: SD Year: 98/99

11. The decision regarding the specific accommodations'each LEP student should receiveis made by:


a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, 12, 13. South Dakota has no policy that allows accommodations for LEP students in statewide assessments.

Appenca.




State: SD


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling











34Appendix D.232




State: SD Year: 98/99

Title. District Test Coordinator Pre-test Manual (Excerpt)

Date:

Document Type:

1999

Testing manual


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



El LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


343Appendix D.233

1

1/1




State: TN


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

More than three years






"'N/A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 2, 3. A student may delay taking the Tennessee Proficiency Test until "later high school years".

The documents provided indicate that Tennessee offers minimal policies and guidelines regarding the participation andaccommodation of LEP students in statewide testing, shifting the burden of developing an appropriate system to the locallevel.

344Appendix D.234




State: TN


Year:



98/99


a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #9. If a student scores below the 20th percentile on a Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP)subtest, the student may be excluded from testing.

345Appendix D.235




State: TN Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

"Y" means "Yes, state policy mentions this item."

Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #23. Available only for the Tennessee Proficiency Tests (TPT).

3 4

Appendix D.236




State: TN


Presentation Format








Languages:

3


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) 1 a, 3

a) Administration of a single subtest;b) Oral reading of directions.

Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






Shorter sessions.





3


Appendix D.237 34 7




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

TN Year: 98/99

Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program Achievement Test AllowableTest Modifications for LEP Students

No date

Guidelines


Usefulness:

1511

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3 3

Appendix D.238

1

1 / 2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

TN Year: 98/99

Tennessee Proficiency Test Allowable Test Modifications for LEP Students

No date Number of Pages: 1

Guidelines Document Number: 2 / 2


Usefulness:


El Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 1


LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3 4 "

Appendix D.239




State: TX


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years







YES

YES

N/A

YES

YES

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 4. The state offers the Texas Assessment of Academic Skills (TAAS) in Spanish in grades 3 through 6.

Q 8. An alternate assessment is required when a student is exempted from the TAAS tests.Q 8. The state offers a list of state-approved alternate assessments appropriate for various grade levels and variouscontent areas. Approved tests include: IDEA, LAS, Woodcock-Munoz, CAT, CTBS, ITBS, TAP, MAT 7, SAT 9,Terra Nova, TASK, La Prueba Riverside de Realizacion en Espanol, SABE 2, Aprenda 2: La Prueba de Logros enEspanol, and Terra Nova SuperaQ 8. In grades 3 through 6, released TAAS tests from previous administrations can be offered.Q 8. For students who may not be literate and for whom paper and pencil tests may not be valid, portfolio assessmentsmay be used.

The documents provided indicate that:* Texas requires each school district to establish a Local Proficiency Assessment Committee (LPAC) to decide on LEPstudents' participation in statewide assessments.

35 0Appendix D.240




State: TX Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**"'Student of limited English proficiency' means a student whose primary language is other than English and whose Englishlanguage skills are such that the student has difficulty performing ordinary classwork in English."

98/99

Other



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y

A language proficiency assessment committee(LPAC)



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Y

Y

Spanish abilities; Language of instruction/test.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, h. Committee members are to include a professional bilingual educator, a professional transitional languageeducator, a parent of a limited English proficient student, and a campus administrator.

Q 10, #2. If less than 3 years, student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #7. Unspecified.Q 10. For exit level tests, a student who is a recent immigrant (no more than 12 months in the U.S.) may be exempted forone test administration; otherwise, LEP exemptions are not permitted from exit level tests and end-of-course tests. Themaximum total time of exemption from the English language version of the TARS tests is 3 years, including years takingthe Spanish version. For a student who is enrolled continuously beginning at least in the first grade, the LPAC isdiscouraged from selecting exemptions for more than 2 years. A student who does not participate in a bilingual or ESLprogram due to parental denial can not qualify for an LEP exemption.

35Appendix D.241




State: TX Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y



Q 13, #1, 2, 5, 14, 15, 16, 17, 22. These accommodations are available to any student who meets the eligibility criteria,including LEP students.

Appendix D.242




State: TX


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b

1b

1b

2b

Spanish


Languages:



Response Format




2b

Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b





3


Appendix D.635 -




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

TX Year: 98/99

Testing LEP Students: 1998 - 1999 State Assessment Program (Used to traintesting personnel in test administration procedures that relate to stateadministrative code.)

1999

State administrative code manual


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

El


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s): 2

page(s): 2

page(s):


Appendix D.244

3

1/7





Title: Texas Administrative Code Section 101.3

Date:

Document Type:

No date

State administrative code


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):


355Appendix D.245

2

2/7





Title. 1999 Grade 4 TAAS Test Administrator Manual

Date: 1999 Number of Pages: 7

Document Type: Test Administrator Manual Document Number: 3/7


Usefulness:



LEP Definition

1:1 Reporting Information

1:1 Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 24-26, 51, 52

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


356

Appendix D.246




State: TX Year:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

98/99

1998-1999 Alternative Assessment Report Forms

1998

Report Forms


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):


35"'

Appendix D.247

1

4/7




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

TX Year: 98/99

1998-1999 List of Approved Tests for Assessment of Limited English ProficientStudents

1998

Test list


Usefulness:

ig

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition

['Reporting Information

Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 3-7

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 3-7

page(s):


358

Appendix D.248

5

5/7





Title. Texas School Law Bulletin


Document Type: State administrative code Document Number: 6/7


Usefulness:

El Inclusion/Exemption Information


LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 141, 142

page(s):

page(s): 137

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


359Appendix D.249




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

TX Year: 98/99

Commissioner's Rules Concerning State Plan for Educating Limited EnglishProficient Students

No date

Rules


Usefulness:

rdl

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3 ti 0

Appendix D.250

1

7/7




State: UT


Year:



98/99

YES I

YES

Three years






* "N /A" means "Not addressed."

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 2, 3. Allowed for the SAT only.

YES

NO

N/A

N/A

Q 4. Available for the Core Assessment Program. Accommodations for the SAT assessment are not addressed.

The documents provided indicate that, in Utah:* Participation in the Utah State Core Curriculum's Core Assessment Program is voluntary on the part of school districts;* The state "strongly encourages full inclusion and accommodation," but offers no specific policies or guidelines foraddressing the many aspects of LEP student participation and accommodation in statewide assessments.

331

Appendix D.251




State: UT


Year:



98/99

Other


a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, 10. For the SAT only.

Q 10, #2. If less than 3 years, student is eligible for exemption.

3(2

Appendix D.252




State: UT Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s) To be adopted by districts.


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #7. Available for Core assessments only.

Q 13. Documents indicate no specific accommodations allowed or prohibited, but that any accommodation would violatestandardized requirements of the tests.

36Appendix D.253




State: UT


Presentation Format








Languages:

2a

Not specified.


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






Timing/Scheduling











3 G 4

Appendix D.254




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

UT Year: 98/99

Guidelines for Inclusion and Accommodation of Students in Statewide TestingPrograms

Aug 1997

Guidelines


Usefulness:

IS

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition




Other

Specify:

page(s): 3, 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 4

page(s):

page(s):


365

Appendix D.255

5

1 / 1




State: VA


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Three years






"N/N" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

YES

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 1. There are no exemptions from the Standards of Learning (SOL) assessments for students enrolled in high schoolcourses associated with the tests.Q 2, 3. There is a one-time exemption from the SOL assessments at grades 3, 5, or 8.Q 6. For the SOL exams at grades 3, 5, 8, and for high school end-of-course tests: scores of students who have beenenrolled in school fewer than 11 semesters will not be included when calculating the school's accreditation rating. Scoresresulting from a nonstandard accommodation must be accompanied by an explanation that the scores resulted from anonstandard administration of the exam.Q 6. For the Virginia Student Assessment Program (VSAP): The scores of LEP students who took the tests withoutaccommodations or with standard accommodations are included in the school/division averages. Scores of those whoreceived non-standard accommodations are not included.

The documents provided indicate that Virginia has established policies and guidelines regarding the participation andaccommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

36(3

Appendix D.256




State: [ VA


Year:


98/99

IASA

" was not born in the United States or whose native language is a language other than English and comes from anenvironment where a language other than English is dominant; or* is a Native American, or Alaska Native, or a native resident of the outlying areas and comes from an environment where alanguage other than English has had a significant impact on such individual's level of English proficiency; or* is migratory and whose native language is other than English and comes from an environment where a language otherthan English is dominant; and* who has sufficient difficulty speaking, reading, writing, or understanding the English language, and whose difficulties maydeny such an individual the opportunity to learn successfully in classrooms where the language of instruction is English, or toparticipate fully in society.



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y




1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Y

Y

Whether inclusion is appropriate for thestudent.


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. School division assessments.

3 6e

Appendix D.257




State: VA Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s) Person responsible for the education of ELLs



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 13, #3. Not available on the Virginia State Assessment Program (VSAP) reading test.Q 13. The following accommodations have been identified as not maintaining standardized conditions for the VSAPexams:

#10b, #19, #22, #25.Q 13. The following accommodations have been identified as not maintaining standardized conditions for the Standardsof Learning (SOL) exams:

#3, when used on the English: Reading/Literature and Research exam, #12Q 13, #19, #20, #25. Available only on VSAP exams.Q 13, #10a (Reading the directions in English), #12, # 13: Available only on SOL exams.

:Appendix D.258




State: VA Year: 98/99



Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

2c


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) lb, lc

a. Reading the directions in English; simplifying oraldirections; place markers to maintain place.b. Reading the embedded written directions.

Response Format




2b

2b

Student responds verbally, teacher or proctor marksanswer sheet.

Setting






1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






2c

2b

1b

lc

1b

Order of tests administered; Several sessions.





2c


Appendix D.25ce, e.1




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

VA Year: 98/99

LEP Students: Guidelines for Participation in the Standards of LearningAssessments

Oct 1997

Guidelines


Number of Pages:

Document Number:

El Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 2, 3

El Accommodation Information page(s): 3-5El LEP Definition


page(s): 1

page(s):



page(s): 5

page(s):

Other page(s):

Specify:


370

Appendix D.260

7

1/4




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

VA Year: 98/99

LEP Students: Guidelines for Testing in the Virginia State Assessment ProgramINorm- Referenced Testing)

Feb 1997

Guidelines


El

151

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 5

page(s): 4, 5

page(s): 1, 2

page(s): 6, 7

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.261

8

2/4




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


VA Year: 98/99

Virginia Standards of Learning Assessments, Procedures to Follow in ProvidingStudents with Accommodations

Feb 1998

Procedures manual


Number of Pages:

Document Number:

Usefulness:

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

Alternate

Other

Specify:

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.262

4

3/4




State:

Title*

Date:

Document Type:

VA Year: 98/99

Memo from the Superintendent of Public Instruction to Division Superintendentsin Virginia

Jun 1999

Memo


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



igiS

LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 1, 5

page(s):

page(s): 3

page(s): 1, 5

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


373

Appendix D.263

9

4/4




State: VT


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







YES

YES

YES

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6, 7, 8. The documents provided contain the terms "Modified Assessments," "Adapted Assessments," "AlternateAssessments," and "Accommodated Assessments." Occasional references to these terms, which follow below, shedsome light on the differences among them, but the character and function of each type of assessment is not always clear.* An Alternate Assessment differs from an Accommodated Assessment in that the standards being measured are derivedfrom the student's individualized curricula. * An Adapted Assessment can be out-of-level test editions of regularassessments.* Scores from Adapted Assessments and Modified Assessments are not to be included with scores from regularassessments. * Alternate Assessments are not yet available for the grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment.

The term LEP is never used; rather, a reasonable assumption is that LEP students fall into the broad category of"students with special needs." No specific guidelines regarding decision-making, accommodations criteria, and alternateassessments are provided.

3'7

Appendix D.264




State: VT


Year:



98/99


a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

L


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #2. If 2 years or less, a student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #7. Tests are not specified.

Exemptions do not apply to portfolio assessments.

375Appendix D.265




State: VT Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y

Suggestions of test publisher.


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #7. Practice tests and released tasks are not specified.

Q 13. The following accommodations have been identified as not maintaining standardized conditions:#10a, when used on the English Language Arts and Developmental Reading Assessments;#13, when used on independent writing and long response to reading passages sections;#23b, when used on a writing section;and #24.

Q 13, #13, #24. Not available on the grade 2 Developmental Reading Assessment.

Appendix D.266




State: VT


Presentation Format








Languages:

2a


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) 2a, la

a) Use of an interpreter. b) Use of video or audio tape.

Response Format




Use of a scribe.

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

la, 2a

a) No time limits.b) Group breaks: more than 20-minute intermission





2a

1a

Solution maps; Pre-conferencing


BEST COPY AVAILABLEAppendix 927 7




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

VT Year: [ 98/99

Statewide Assessments and Students with Special Assessment Needs

1996

Guidelines


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



1:1 LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 40,43,51,53

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 40

page(s):


Appendix D.268

61

1/5




State: VT Year: 98/99

Title: Memo to Teachers who have ESL or LEP Students

Date:

Document Type:

Apr 1998

Memo


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):


373Appendix D.269

2

2/5




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

VT Year: 98/99

Including All Students in Vermont's Comprehensive Assessment System: Whyand How

Jan 1998

Administration manual


Usefulness:

tg

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


['Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

IS I

page(s): 5, 10

page(s): 6

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):


Appendix D.270

11

3/5




State: VT Year:

Title: Memo regarding Assessment Participation Tools and Materials

98/99

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

Jan 1999

Memo


Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s): 2

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


3 3 1Appendix D.271

4/5




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

VT Year: 98/99

Procedures and Options for Including All Students in Vermont's ComprehensiveAssessment System

1999

Testing manual

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


Usefulness:

Check all

Inclusion/Exemption

Accommodation

LEP Definition

Reporting

Scoring

El Alternate

Other

Specify:

that apply.

Information

Information

Information

Information

Assessments

page(s): 3

page(s): 3, 4, 8

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1, 5, 6

page(s):


3 a 2

Appendix D.272

8

5/5




State: WA


Year:



98/99

IYES

YES

Three years







Comments related to questions 1-8Q 3. Expressed as "one administration of the test."

Q 6. "Reports of results should include students in special populations."

YES

YES

NO

N/A

NO

The documents provided indicate that, in Washington, regarding the participation and accommodation of LEP students instatewide assessments, there are no specific state policies or guidelines for:* Defining and identifying LEP students. In fact, Washington doesn't distinguish LEP students as a distinct population.Rather, the term "ESL/Bilingual" is used;* Providing inclusion, exemption, or accommodations criteria;* Providing alternate assessments.The policies and guidelines are consistent in that they pass the responsibility of developing specific systems foraddressing the many aspects of LEP participation and accommodation in state assessments on to the local schooldistricts.

333Appendix D.273




State: WA Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**The state doesn't define LEP as a distinct student population.ESL/Bilingual students: Students who have a primary language other than English and have English language skilldeficiencies which impair their learning in regular classrooms.

98/99

Other



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

ESL/bilingual/migrant specialist; Interpreter



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. Building administrator.

Q 10, #4. A student who scores at the lowest level on a state-approved language proficiency test administered within thecurrent school year can be exempted.

Q 10. There are no automatic exemptions.

3 3

Appendix D.274




State: WA Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

1

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, g. "A team of educators familiar with the student's special needs."

Q 12. Accommodations should be considered on a test by test basis, not automatically applied to all assessments.

Q 13, #3. Available on the Mathematics assessment.Q 13, #19. All state assessments are untimed, therefore any student may have more time.Q 13, #25. Not allowed on the Reading assessment.

BEST COPY AVAILABLE 335Appendix D.275




State: WA

13. Choose the letter that best describes the use of each accommodation.*1=Allowed on all components2=Allowed on some components3=Explicitly prohibited on all components

Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

1b

2b

1b


Languages:



Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

1b

Timing/Scheduling






1b

1b

1b

1b





2b

3

Student created dictionaries.


3 OAppendix D.276




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


Usefulness:

WA Year: 98/99

Revised Guidelines for Inclusion and Accommodations for Special Populationson the Washington Assessment of Student Learning

Feb 1999

Guidelines


El

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s): 5, 6, 7, 10

page(s): 13-16

page(s): 18

page(s): 12

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


387Appendix D.277

23

1/2




State: WA Year: 98/99

Title. State Assessment Policy for ESL Students for Washington State


Document Type: Policy Document Number: 2/2

-CheckC all that apply.

Information Available

Usefulness:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


333

Appendix D.278




State: WI


Year:





98/99

YES

N/A




N/A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

N/A

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 8. Students who do not participate in the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examinations (WKCE), statewideassessments taken at grades 4, 8, and 10, are required to receive an alternate assessment.Q 8. Wisconsin has identified Alternate Performance Indicators (API) as an alternative means of assessing LEP students.The APIs are in a transitional stage, from a focus on assessing language proficiency to one that presents a clearer pictureof a student's academic skills, as well as a student's readiness for participating in the WKCE. The state recognizes thatlocally developed standards-based alternate assessments offer the "best practices" solution for full inclusion of studentswith LEP at the early English language proficiency levels.

The documents provided indicate that Wisconsin has focused on establishing a framework for helping local schooldistricts develop APIs. The state does not provide specific guidelines for selecting a committee to decide on LEP studentparticipation and accommodations in statewide testing, or for recommending inclusion/exemption and accommodationscriteria. Local schools districts must decide on these matters.

389

Appendix D.279




State: WI Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**A pupil whose ability to use the English language is limited because of the use of a non-English language in his or her familyor in his or her daily, nonschool surroundings, and who has difficulty, as defined by rule by the state superintendent, inperforming ordinary classwork in English as a result of such limited English language ability.

98/99

Other



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y

Y






11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 10, #4. This assessment is unspecified.

Appendix D.280




State: WI Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y




h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 12, #4. Students who, as a result of an (unspecified) assessment, are identified as having a level 5 English languageproficiency, as defined by PI Administrative Rule 13.03(3)(a)-(e), may not receive accommodations on the WisconsinReading Comprehension Test (WCRT), taken at grade 3.

Q 13, #10a. Available for the Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies tests of the Wisconsin Knowledge and ConceptsExaminations (WKCE) only.Q 13. This is not an exhaustive list. Other (unspecified) accommodations are available.

3.91

Appendix D.281




State: WI


Presentation Format








Languages:


Languages:



Response Format




"Someone records student's responses."

Year: 98/99


Setting






1a

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

1a

1a

1a






39 2Appendix D.282




State: WI Year: 98/99

Title. DPI Guidelines to Facilitate the Participation of Students with Special Needs inState Assessments

Date:

Document Type:

Jan 1999

Guidelines


Usefulness:

El

El

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


Accommodation Information page(s): 2, 9, 10LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 3

page(s):


393Appendix D.283

11

1/2




State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:

WI Year: 98/99

Standards-Based Alternate Assessment for Limited English Proficient Students

Feb 1999

Guidelines


Usefulness:

Number of Pages:

Document Number:



LEP Definition


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

page(s):

page(s):

page(s): 1

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):

page(s):


Appendix D.284

135

2/2




State: WV


Year:



98/99

I YES I

YES

Three years






"'N /A" means "Not addressed."

YES

YES

YES

N/A

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 6. Scores of students who receive accommodations that do not maintain standard conditions are not included inschool/county averages. Scores of students who receive accommodations that maintain standard conditions areincluded.

The documents provided indicate that West Virginia has established policies and specific guidelines for addressing themany aspects of the participation and accommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments.

395

Appendix D.285


State Inclusion and Accommodation Policies for LEP Students.


State: WV Year:

LEP Definition: Source of definition:**A limited English proficient student is an individual:(1) i. who was not born in the United States or whose native language is other than English;ii. who comes from a home in which a language other than English is dominant; oriii. who is an American Indian or Alaskan Native and comes from a home in whicha language other than English has had significant impact on his or her level of English language proficiency as a result ofsubstantial use of that other language for communication; AND(2) who, as a result of the circumstances described in paragraph (1) of the definition, has sufficient difficulty speaking,reading, writing, or understanding the English language to deny him or her the opportunity to:i. learn successfully in classrooms in which the language of instruction is

English; orii. participate fully in our society.


98/99

FR


a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y




1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y

Y


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. Guidance counselor or reading specialist, for example.

Q 10, #2. If 3 years or less, student is eligible for exemption. If more than 3 years, student is tested under standardtesting conditions or with accommodations which maintain the standards.Q 10, #4. County language assessments.Q 10, #5. Whether the student's English language proficiency is "enough to attempt the subtest."

Q 10. A student may take one or more subtests.

Appendix D.286 r.)0 0 0




State: WV Year: 98/99



a. Student




YES

Y

Y




h. Other(s)

Y

Person responsible for the education of ELLs



1. Time in U.S.





YES

Y






11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, e. Guidance counselor or reading specialist, for example.

Q 12. #5. No specific guidelines are provided.

Q 13, #3. Not allowed on the Reading test.

397Appendix D.287




State: WV


Presentation Format








Languages:

1b

2d

3


Languages:


10. Other (Specify below.) lb, ld

a.Use of masks or markers to maintain place.b. Reading of embedded written directions in English

Response Format




Year: 98/99


Setting






1b

1b

1b

r

Timing/Scheduling






1d

1b

1b

1b

ld

Breaks during a subtest.






Appendix D.288 308

An Analysis of State Policies for the inclusion and Accommodation of English Language Learners



State:

Title.

Date:

Document Type:


WV Year: 98/99

Guidelines: Limited English Proficient Students for Testing in the SAT-9

No date

Guidelines

Number of Pages:

Document Number:


Accommodation Information page(s): 2-4LEP Definition page(s): 1


Scoring Information


Other

Specify:

elpage(s):

page(s): 5

page(s):

page(s):


399Appendix D.289

6

1 / 1




State: WY


Year:



98/99

YES

YES

Two years







YES

YES

N/A

YES

NO

Comments related to questions 1-8Q 8. When an appropriate alternate test doesn't exist, a test in the student's native language should be administered byan individual fluent in English and in the student's native language. The documents do not offer specific guidelinesregarding an appropriate alternate test.

The documents provided indicate that, in Wyoming:* While there are some specific guidelines, especially regarding inclusion and exemption criteria, regarding theparticipation and accommodation of LEP students in statewide assessments, there are no specific policies or guidelinesfor other aspects, including the selection of decision-makers and the identification of recommended accommodationscriteria.

400Appendix D.290




State: WY


Year:


98/99

IASA




a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y


State policy addresses this issue. YES 6. Performance in school work Y

1. Time in U.S. 7. Performance on other test(s)

2. Time in U.S. schools/English speaking schools Y 8. Academic background in home language Y

3. Time in this state's schools 9. Language program placement

4. Formal assessment of English proficiency Y 10. Teacher observation/recommendation Y

5. Informal assessment of English proficiency Y 11. Other(s)


Comments related to questions 9 & 10Q 9, e. Not specified.Q 10, #2. If 2 years or less, student is eligible for exemption.Q 10, #4. Must use tests devised by experts in language content: the Idea Proficiency Tests (IPT), LanguageAssessment Scales (LAS), Woodcock-Munoz Language Survey, for example.Q 10, #7. Standardized achievement tests, such as the Iowa Test of Basic Skills (ITBS), the Comprehensive Test ofBasic Skills (CTBS), Stanford Achievement Tests (SAT), should be used to measure reading comprehension and other(unspecified) areas.Q 10. A student who is exempted must be tested for English proficiency.

BEST COPY AVAILABLEAppeniV.241




State: WY Year: 98/99



a. Student







h. Other(s)

Y



1. Time in U.S.










11. Other(s)

Y


Comments related to questions 11-13Q 11, e. Not specified.

Q 12, #10. Accommodations should be used in the classroom for at least three months prior to testing.

Q 13, #3, #4, #13. Available for the Mathematics test only.

Q 13, #12, #19, #22. Not available for the Terra Nova.

Q 13, #10a. Prohibited for reading sections.

Q 13, #13. Prohibited for the English Language Arts test.

Q 13. For state assessments, Wyoming identifies two categories of accommodations: those that require documentation,and those that don't. Those that don't are considered minimal changes to standard conditions. The followingaccommodations do not require documentation: #2, #13, #21.

4 0 2Appendix D.292




State: WY


Presentation Format








Languages:

la

2a

2a


Languages: Spanish


10. Other (Specify below.) 2a, 3

a. Read instructions aloud in student's primary language;Clarify words in student's primary language or English.b. Paraphrase test items.

Response Format




2a

2a

Spell words for student providing written response.

Year: 98/99


Setting






la

1a

Timing/Scheduling






1a

2a





1a


40'J

Appendix D.293




State:

Title'

Date:

Document Type:

WY Year: 98/99

Policies for the Participation of All Students in District and StatewideAssessment and Accountability Systems

Feb 1999 Number of Pages: 24

Policy Document Number: 1 / 1


El Inclusion/Exemption Information page(s): 5, 11-13

El Accommodation Information page(s): 9, 10LEP Definition


page(s): 21

page(s):


Alternate

Other

Assessments page(s): 2

page(s):

Specify:


404

Appendix D.294

tr3Fige.11.14101THIb.1.1.4,iklf

-srge\ \vasl ifT onUnive 7itye

WASHINGTON DC

1730 N. Lynn St. Suite 40iArlington, VA 22209

(703) 528-3588 and (800) 925-3223www.ceee.gwu.edn

70.

U.S. Department of EducationOffice of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI)

National Library of Education (NLE)

Educational Resources Information Center (ERIC)

NOTICE

Reproduction Basis

ER1.1\1103i 642

This document is covered by a signed "Reproduction Release(Blanket)" form (on file within the ERIC system), encompassing allor classes of documents from its source organization and, therefore,does not require a "Specific Document" Release form.

This document is Federally-funded, or carries its own permission toreproduce, or is otherwise in the public domain and, therefore, maybe reproduced by ERIC without a signed Reproduction Release form(either "Specific Document" or "Blanket").

EFF-089 (3/2000)