Appropriate College Board Testing
Accommodations for Students with
Disabilities:
The Eligibility Process, Guidelines for
Documentation, and Looking Forward
Debby Lazarus, Psy.D.
Services for Students with Disabilities (SSD)
The College Board
March, 2006
History
 Accommodations based on disability were provided on
College Board tests before enactment of Federal laws
 College Board began implementing current eligibility
process in the mid-90’s
 College Board Guidelines unchanged since mid-90’s
 In 2003-04, set up process to review disability
documentation when Eligibility Form did not indicate
alignment with College Board Guidelines; implemented
process to review disability documentation from
selected schools
Eligibility
To be eligible, the student must:
• Have a disability that necessitates testing
accommodations;
• Have documentation on file at school that supports the
need for the requested accommodation and meets the
Board’s Guidelines for Documentation;
• Receive and use the requested accommodations, due to
the disability, for school-based tests, for at least the past
four school months.
College Board
SSD Eligibility Guidelines
Two ways for a student to be determined eligible for
accommodations on tests:
A.) School verification – the Student Eligibility Form is
completed and the SSD Coordinator verifies that the
student meets the 3 eligibility criteria and that the
disability documentation meets the Guidelines for
Documentation.
B.) Documentation Review –The College Board reviews a
student’s disability documentation to determine if it meets
the Guidelines. Students can directly request that the
College Board’s SSD office make the eligibility
determination.
When Documentation is Reviewed
College Board asks national panel of experts to advise
if documentation meets Guidelines
•
higher education level, all members hold PhDs, PsyDs in School Psychology,
Clinical Psychology, or Special Education and working either as full-time
professors and/or researchers or directors of the Disability Support Services
Programs;
•
secondary education level, all members hold PhDs, PsyDs, or M.S. in School
Psychology, Clinical Psychology, or Special Education and working as full-time
school psychologists or in Special Education; and
•
private practitioners, all members hold PhDs or PsyDs in School Psychology or
Clinical Psychology and conduct psycho-educational assessments.
Guidelines for Documentation
1) State the disability as diagnosed
2) Currency of documentation
•Academic testing
•Cognitive testing
•Psychiatric evaluations
3) Provide relevant educational,
developmental, and medical history
Guidelines for documentation
(continued)
4. Comprehensive testing and
techniques
– Cognitive ability
– Academic achievement and/or
specific achievement tests
– Input from teachers
– Rating Scales
Guidelines for
documentation (continued)
5) Describe the functional limitations supported by
the test results
– Presence of a disability does not necessarily
support the need for testing accommodations.
– Substantial functional limitations in learning
need to be demonstrated.
– Discrepancy model vs. average person rule?
Guidelines for
Documentation (continued)
6) Describe the specific accommodations
Examples of testing accommodations:
– Extended time (most commonly requested)
– Extra/extended breaks
– Small group setting
– Reader/cassette
– Enlarged print
– Braille editions
– Signed presentations
– Computer
• 7) Establish the professional credentials of the
evaluator
Documentation Guidelines for
Computer
• 3 ways to qualify:
– Physical disability (include medical documentation)
– Dysgraphia – The documentation needs to
establish that the fine motor issues are due to
dsygraphia and that because of this the student’s
written expression skills are substantially impaired.
– Language-based learning disability – Because of a
language-based learning disability, the student is
unable to organize his/her thoughts effectively and
elaborate on concepts using a paper and pencil.
Guidelines for Computer use as an
Accommodation
• Some of the common tests that are acceptable by the
professional community to document fine motor skills are
the Coding subtest of the Wechsler Cognitive Test or the
Beery Buktenica Developmental Test of Visual Motor
Integration (VMI) or Rey Complex Figure Test. Professionals
such as occupational therapists, psychologists, learning
specialists, MDs can document such conditions. As for the
writing area, tests such as written expression subtest of the
WIAT II, Broad Writing cluster of Woodcock Johnson III,
TOWL III or OWLS can document the functional impact. It is
always helpful to include a timed measure such as WJ III
writing fluency especially if timed testing condition is an
issue.
Response to Intervention (RTI)
• What’s New?
Key Points in IDEIA Revisions to IDEA
• (Federal Register, 34 CFR Part 300.307 0 300.311)
• FUTURE OF THE DISCREPANCY MODEL?
– States may prohibit the use of a severe discrepancy
between achievement and intellectual ability criterion to
determine whether a child has a specific learning
disability.
– States may not require local education agencies (LEA’S)
to use a discrepancy model to determine a learning
disability.
KEY POINTS (continued)
• RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION (RTI)
– States are required to permit a process that
examines whether the child responds to
scientific, research-based intervention as part of
the evaluation procedures.
– Three and four tiered intervention approaches
have been suggested (Reschley and others)
KEY POINTS (continued)
• ELIGIBILITY FOR SLD DETERMINATION
•
•
•
Current regulations permit SLD identification if the child does not
achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels, and if
the LEA finds a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability.
Under the proposed regulations, two elements would be required to
determine the existence of an SLD. The first element is a finding that
the child does not achieve commensurate with his/her age in one or
more of the eight specified areas when provided with learning
experiences appropriate to the child’s age.
The second element is a finding that the child failed to make sufficient
progress in meeting state approved results when using a response to
scientific, research-based intervention process, or the child exhibits a
pattern of strengths and weaknesses that the team determines is
relevant to the identification of an SLD. The pattern may be in
performance, achievement, or both relative to intellectual
development.
Controversy About RTI
• Supporters claim:
•
•
•
The discrepancy model is a “wait to fail model.” RTI has been
presented as a system to screen all students by mid-kindergarten, at
least three times, and routinely afterward in order to identify learning
disabilities. (Reschley, 2003, NRCLD; Reschley and Shinn, 2005,
APA)
Many students placed in special education because of an SLD ( in
part, because of achievement/ability discrepancies) show minimal
gains in achievement, and few actually ever leave special education.
The problem with the current LD definition (using a discrepancy
model) is that students are often inappropriately classified.
– Using the current discrepancy model, there is a great deal
of variability from state to state, in percentages of students
who have been classified LD (Reschley, Hosp, Schmeid
study – 2003 - provides examples - Kentucky – 2.85%
classified LD; RI – 9.5% - classified LD).
– Different schools and school districts interpret discrepancy
or significant discrepancy differently.
Supporters of RTI (continued)
•
•
Scientifically based RTI programs can pick up problems at any
age, intervene right away, figure out who needs additional help,
and provide several levels of intervention before referral to special
education. (Reschlely, 2003, NRCLD; Reschley and Shinn, 2005,
APA)
RTI claims to be much more focused on outcomes.
• IQ testing does not provide sufficient links to intervention.
• RTI is for all kids – it will bridge the gap between special
education and general education.
• RTI model proposes to reduce the number of unnecessary
assessments.
• Proposes to identify more females. (The assumption is that
females have as many difficulties as boys, but boys’ overt
behaviors are more likely to attract attention and consequently
referrals and identification).
Issues with RTI
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
RTI is not a process for evaluating the psychological processes found
in the definition of learning disabled. The RTI model will not evaluate
patterns of cognitive strengths and weaknesses.
RTI does not rule out the exceptions of the LD definition (for example,
environmental factors).
The RTI model does not evaluate possible additional problems
underlying the learning disorders (i.e. – ADD, emotional issues, etc.)
because it is solely based on academic achievement.
It is a single method of assessment and as such is not allowable
under IDEA.
How will one measure if a child is achieving commensurate with
his/her age if there is no reference to the ability to achieve?
How will results be analyzed without standard scores?
RTI success is not well-defined; competency levels can be set low.
(Naglieri and Reynolds, 2005, APA)
Issues with RTI (continued)
•
•
•
How is “scientifically based” being defined? RTI has not been
consistently applied, and its premise therefore lacks research to
know if it is effective.
No one has really addressed the roles of teachers and
diagnosticians, and how their roles may change with the
implementation of RTI.
How will issues of consistency in decision making be ensured
among schools, districts, and states? (Mastropieri and Scruggs,
2005)
LOOKING FORWARD…
Impact on SSD and our Guidelines for Documentation
• If IDEA is no longer requiring a discrepancy formula to classify
students and is telling the states that they must allow districts to
include a process in their evaluation procedures that examines a
child’s response to “a scientific, research-based” intervention, what
are the implications for IQ testing?
– Many people seem to be advocating a combined approach for
classification purposes - an RTI process, as well as the psycho
educational testing.
• How will we determine functional limitations without
psychoeducational assessments, including fluency and/or NelsonDenny scores?
• At the moment, information on a student’s response to interventions
is additional qualitative information that we will consider as part of a
student’s entire documentation packet.