A total of 55 college students with reading- and writing-related disabilities were asked to report on their high school and college experiences with 14 accommodations. Receiving assistance with having materials read aloud, extended time, and individual setting were the accommodations reported as being used by most students. Students tended to report that accommodations were helpful. Some students reported using particular accommodations more frequently than others. More than one third of the students who participated reported not receiving special education or 504 plan services during high school, and thus numbers of students reporting use of accommodations in college tended to be higher than for high school, although use did vary by specific accommodation. A variety of perceived barriers and facilitators to their use of accommodations was reported, including system-level variables, instructor knowledge and attitudes, and students’ own self-advocacy efforts. Implications for practice and research are discussed.

The purpose of this study was to examine the development of English reading achievement among English Language Learners (ELLs) and to determine whether the time that an ELL's family was in the United States and the type of native language spoken affected their reading development. Participants were 300 third-grade ELLs from two different native language backgrounds (93 Somali-speaking and 207 Spanish-speaking students) who attended a large Midwestern urban school district. Students' reading achievement was assessed using curriculum-based measurement and a statewide reading assessment. Moderated multiple regression and multiple-group latent growth curve analyses were conducted. Results indicated that the time an ELL's family had been in the U.S. was an important factor in understanding the development of ELLs' reading achievement, whereas language type did not appear to be as important. Implications for research and practice associated with understanding and promoting English reading development among ELLs are discussed.

No Child Left Behind and Standards-based Reform and Accountability. Making Participation Decisions for Diverse Students. Testing Accommodations for Students with Disabilities. Testing Accommodations for English Language Learners. Alternate Assessments for Students with Disabilities. Facilitating and Evaluating Access to the General Education Curriculum. Universal Design for Instruction and Assessment. Conclusions.

The intent of large-scale assessment systems is to promote student achievement toward specific standards by holding schools accountable for the performance of all students. However, it is difficult to know whether large-scale assessment systems are having this intended effect as they are currently implemented. In this article, the authors examine the research on intended and unintended consequences of large-scale assessment and accountability systems, highlight critical issues in using large-scale assessment programs to measure student learning and to inform intervention, and provide guidelines for promoting the intervention validity of large-scale assessments.

Research support for providing a read-aloud accommodation (i.e., having an individual read test items and directions aloud) to students with disabilities has been somewhat limited, particularly when merely examining effects of the accommodation on overall test scores for general groups of students with disabilities. We examined data on accommodated and nonaccommodated performances of students with specific reading disabilities on math test items anticipated to be highly sensitive to accommodation effects due to their level of reading and math difficulty. We conducted analyses across 3 consecutive years of data from an elementary and middle school statewide assessment program. Within the elementary data set we identified a significant Accommodation Group × Reading Difficulty interaction effect, such that the accommodation appeared to more positively impact student performance on items that were classified as difficult to read. We describe other identified effects and discuss limitations of the study, as well as implications.

Many students with disabilities are provided accommodations to enable their participation in statewide assessment programs; however, there is concern that accommodations may invalidate test results. For test administrations to be considered valid for all student groups, there must be comparable measurement across groups. This can ensure that decisions based on test results are made in a fair manner for all students. In this study, measurement comparability for two groups of accommodated students with disabilities (i.e., accommodated students with physical disabilities and accommodated students with mental disabilities) was examined using differential item functioning (DIF) analysis, in which item-level characteristics of the test for these groups were systematically compared with those for a reference group of nonaccommodated students without disabilities. A relatively large number of DIF items were identified for both accommodated disability groups, suggesting that more attention to the testing needs of students with disabilities is warranted. Suggestions for future research are provided.

Current educational practices for classifying and serving students with mental health disorders such as obsessive-compulsive disorder (OCD) have been associated with specific problems. These include the stigma of labeling, misalignment of school-based categories (e.g., E/BD, OHI) with clinical diagnoses, and concerns regarding the provision of appropriate services to these students. In the present study, Illinois school psychologists completed a survey on current practices for classifying and serving students with a primary diagnosis of OCD. The results indicated that 0.7% of the students served by school psychologists had a primary diagnosis of OCD. The majority of these students (74.5%) were served under IDEA. Of the students receiving services under IDEA, 51.4% were classified under E/BD and 31.8% under OHI. Approximately two-thirds of the students with OCD (67.1%) were educated in less restrictive settings (e.g., regular classroom with or without resource/part-time special class). School psychologists’ comments suggested a pattern of ambiguity and uncertainty surrounding the appropriateness of IDEA categories for OCD, concerns regarding the stigma of labeling, and problems related to providing appropriate services to these students. Response-to-Intervention (RtI) as an alternative to current evaluation practices is proposed and recommendations for improving traditional categorical service delivery models when RtI is not implemented are provided.

Professionals with expertise in assessment and diverse learners are in demand to assist in developing and implementing large-scale assessment and accountability systems. This article highlights aspects of current federal legislation that pertain to the development of these systems, describes the areas of expertise and unique perspectives of educational diagnosticians, school psychologists, and special educators that can be used to inform best practice, and emphasizes where additional training is needed to assist educational personnel in taking on new roles. Given the enormous impact that these systems are likely to have on educational agencies, it is argued that individuals with assessment skills and diverse learner expertise must take an active role to ensure the best possible outcomes for all students as these systems are implemented.

Although testing accommodations are commonly provided to students with disabilities within large-scale testing programs, research findings on how well accommodations allow for comparable measurement of student knowledge and skill remain inconclusive. The purpose of this study was to examine the extent to which 1 commonly held belief about testing accommodations, namely that the read-aloud accommodation allows for better measurement on a math (MA) test than a reading/language arts (R/LA) test, was supported through an analysis of data from a statewide assessment program. An analysis of differential item functioning (DIF) was used to compare measurement for 2 groups of students with disabilities (i.e., those receiving a read-aloud accommodation [RA] and those not receiving an accommodation [NSD]) to that for a reference group of nonaccommodated students without disabilities. Analyses were conducted separately for MA and R/LA test sections. DIF was identified for both groups within both content areas. There tended to be more DIF identified for the RA group than for the NSD group, particularly on the R/LA test sections. This seems to indicate that the read-aloud accommodation was associated with greater measurement problems on the R/LA section than the MA section of the test.

Considerable variation exists across response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches. There is currently insufficient research on outcomes associated with these different RTI approaches to inform decision-making. However, school psychologists who are asked to work within an RTI model need guidance to select an approach that has a high likelihood of leading to optimal student outcomes. This article describes, illustrates, and supports two aspects of the RTI approach used at the Heartland Area Education Agency, from the perspective of a practicing school psychologist. These two aspects include (a) intervention selection that is based on an individualized problem analysis, and (b) the identification of specific instructional needs as a part of the special education eligibility determination process. An analysis of how the Heartland Problem-Solving Model (PSM) was applied to address the needs of a kindergarten student is provided to illustrate these features. Criticisms and challenges associated with the Heartland PSM are noted, along with guidance for future RTI model research and implementation.

This study reports empirical data on the use of various test accommodations for students with disabilities participating in the Missouri Assessment Program. The findings indicate that three accommodations, extended time, small-group administration, and read-aloud, account for nearly all of the students using an accommodation. The results also demonstrate that accommodations are rarely used in isolation. Students using one accommodation are very likely to use at least one additional accommodation. Although the read-aloud accommodation was not the most frequently used, we argue that more emphasis should be given to studying the effects of this accommodation.