Notes From MCAS 2.0 Accessibility Work Group
February 3, 2016 – 2:00-4:30 p.m.
Dan Wiener, Administrator of Inclusive Assessment
Robert Pelychaty, Accommodations and Portfolio Appeals Coordinator
Participants (in person)
Suzanne Recane
Carrie Ingrassia
Sean McAdam
Paul Bottome
Anthony Volpe
Alexis Glick
Kate Gearon
Leslie Trotta
Jillian Jacobs
Dave Thompson
Mardi Loeterman
Lauren Scorpio
Deb Hand
Participants (via phone conference)
Kathleen Buchanan
Kathy Elich
Laura Tino
Leslie Sullivan
Marsha Olsen
Kelly Jones
Amy Winston
Theresa Melito
Kate Gearon
Review of agenda and previous meeting
After introductions and a description of the agenda, the work group reviewed the topics
discussed at the previous (second) work group meeting. There was strong agreement for
continuing the ASL video as an accommodation and expanding the availability of the ASL video
accommodation to other tests (where feasible). The group recommended continuing the use of
nonstandard accommodations; there was a general recommendation to offer spell-checker as
an accessibility feature for all students. The group recommended that the use of graphic
organizers and reference sheets be permitted as an accommodation for the MCAS 2.0, and
there was support to explore the use of Department pre-approved reference sheets and
graphic organizers, instead of the individualized submissions. Two other topics were covered
quickly with unanimous recommendations: If MCAS 2.0 is a timed assessment, then extended
1
time should be offered as an accommodation for students with disabilities and ELLs. Finally,
MCAS 2.0 should adopt the PARCC test administration considerations for all students, at the
principal’s discretion.
Discussion Topic
 Which ELL accommodations available on PARCC tests should be continued or
discontinued on MCAS tests?
Comments
o Extended time should be allowed for ELLs; there are many ELLs who need more
time, especially if they are using approved bilingual dictionaries.
o Using a word-to-word dictionary is time consuming.
o Word-to-word dictionaries should be embedded in the CBT, if possible.
o Word-to-word glossaries and dictionaries should continue to be available for
ELLs and for former ELLs.
o Test directions okay to be read in the student’s native language (if a person
speaking that language is available).
o Because the language in the school (English) is different than the home language,
it is a helpful to have the test directions translated and clarified.
o Test directions are often written in idiosyncratic language, not typical of
classroom instruction.
o Clarifying test directions in the student’s native language is vital to obtain an
accurate score.
o Even if the test administrators do not know how to speak the home language,
some terms and/or phrases can be cobbled together in the student’s language in
an attempt to provide some equity to the test experience.
The work group revisited the English-Spanish grade 10 math test:
Comments
o For the English- Spanish high school math tests, the test formats should be: sideby-side English-Spanish (for PBT) and Spanish onscreen with a paper version in
English (for CBT).
o Since passing the math test is needed for the Competency Determination (CD),
the test should be offered in other languages so more ELL students have a better
chance of earning a CD in at least one domain.
2
o PARCC tests are available in many more languages than Spanish. Since PARCC
tests were available in other languages, MCAS 2.0 should provide other highfrequency languages.
o It was pointed out that MA is an “English-only state” with a requirement to test
only in English.
The work group discussed the read-aloud and text-to-speech for ELLs.
Comments:
o For some ELLs, a human reader would be very helpful, but for other ELLs the
human read-aloud may not be appropriate.
o Should the read-aloud be based on a literacy score?
o The read-aloud decision should be made by the group of adults most familiar
with the students.
o There should be guidance from the Department on how districts should assign
ELL accommodations.
o There should be a method of documenting the recommendations.
o The ACCESS test score is a year and half old by the time the student is scheduled
to take the test; we should not use the ACCESS score as the sole criteria.
The work group transitioned to a discussion of the PARCC guidance document for the selection
of accommodations for ELLs.
Comments:
o The guidance document with the categories seems very helpful.
o I like the three general categories, more categories would be confusing.
o It is helpful to have a guidance document to reference when assigning
accommodations (for ELLs).
Recommendations





The work group recommended that accommodations for ELLs be available on MCAS 2.0.
The Department should provide guidance to districts for appropriate assignment of ELL
accommodations.
The Department should develop an optional form to document
accommodations/features/considerations decisions.
Extended time should be allowed for ELLs
Word-to-word glossaries and dictionaries should continue to be available for ELLs and
for former ELLs.
3



Allow test directions to be read, repeated, and/or clarified in the student’s native
language (if a person speaking that language is available).
The read-aloud on math and science should be allowed for ELLs, with the decision made
by the group of adults most familiar with the student.
Department should provide guidance on appropriateness of certain accommodations
for Beginning, Intermediate, and Advanced English proficiency levels
The facilitator summarized today’s work group meeting and thanked the members for their
thoughtful comments and participation. Each member had a chance to ask any closing
questions. The next steps of the process were described to the group. Their comments and
recommendations will be on the record for examination by the Commissioner, Board, and
Department staff and management.
4