Federal

NAEP Plan for Students With Disabilities Criticized

By Mary Ann Zehr — November 10, 2009 5 min read
  • Save to favorites
  • Print

Representatives of education organizations who appeared at a Nov. 9 public hearing here in the nation’s capital agreed with the governing board for the National Assessment of Educational Progress that the “nation’s report card” should be as inclusive as possible of English-language learners and students with disabilities. They didn’t agree, though, with all of the board’s proposals for how to do that.

Oscar Troncoso, a member of the National Assessment Governing Board, which sets policy for NAEP, and Lawrence Feinberg, a NAGB staff member, heard three hours of testimony on the board’s proposals for how to bring more uniformity and coherence to policies for testing ELLs and students with disabilities, an issue the board has been grappling with for a decade. The board is concerned that testing accommodations and exclusion rates for those two groups of students vary widely among states and school districts, possibly jeopardizing the fairness and validity of comparisons made with NAEP data. The board plans to vote on policies addressing the issue at its March meeting.

Particularly controversial at the hearing was the board’s proposal that students with disabilities be permitted to receive only accommodations approved by NAGB and not all of those that may appear in their individual education programs, or IEPs.

“We are concerned,” said Kim Hymes, the director of policy and advocacy at the Arlington, Va.-based Council for Exceptional Children, “that preventing an accommodation which is approved by a student’s IEP team may produce NAEP test results which don’t reflect that student’s knowledge and skills.” She added that students and parents are confused if students can’t use the same testing accommodations for NAEP that they are accustomed to using.

For example, she said, some students with disabilities are permitted to take a standardized test over a period of days, which is an accommodation that isn’t permitted for NAEP. She asked the board to reconsider its policy.

Practical Considerations

Mr. Feinberg explained that the board doesn’t permit that accommodation mostly for practical reasons, given that it is costly to hire staff to visit schools to administer the tests on more than one day. He noted that students with disabilities are, however, permitted to take twice the time within a single day as other students to complete the test.

Members of two other education organizations—the National Association of State Directors of Special Education and the National Education Association—took a similar position that it would be frustrating for students with disabilities not to be able to use on NAEP the accommodations that they are normally permitted to use on state tests.

To help address the problem, Patricia K. Ralabate, a senior policy analyst for the NEA, said the board should consider creating test items based on universal-design principles, such as using very straightforward language, called “plain English,” in test items.

A number of people giving testimony at the hearing were confused by the board’s proposal to use “targeted testing” for some students with disabilities, which they interpreted to be a separate test from the regular NAEP test. Sharon Lewis, the research director of the Washington-based Council of the Great City Schools, said her organization doesn’t support the use of paper-and-pencil targeted tests. She said the organization doesn’t want students to be “aware of being singled out” to take a special test.

But when Mr. Feinberg explained that targeted testing means merely “adaptive testing,” in which some students are given questions clustered at either the high end or low end of the spectrum of the level of difficulty of test items, people giving testimony weren’t opposed to the board’s proposal. But Ms. Lewis said her organization would still like to see that test be a computerized adaptive test rather than a pencil-and-paper one.

Mr. Feinberg said the board had proposed that initially the targeted test would be in pencil-and-paper form, but that it would eventually be computerized.

Agreement on English-Learners

Representatives of education groups testifying at the hearing were largely in favor of the board’s proposals concerning inclusion of ELLs in testing.

Currently, NAEP provides Spanish translations and bilingual dictionaries for its tests of math and science, but not for reading and writing. The board’s proposal is for reading and writing to continue to be administered only in English, but for the native-language support, such as Spanish translations, to be extended to NAEP tests in all other subjects, including U.S. history and geography.

The proposal also calls for a “plain English” version to be created for each test. In such a version, test items are written in straightforward English. The board proposes that authentic passages or quotations used in reading or other assessments not be altered.

NAGB also proposes that all ELLs who have been in U.S. schools for at least a year be eligible to participate, and that the reporting of test scores for ELLs also be matched with students’ levels of English proficiency. The board proposes that English proficiency be determined by the same tests that states are now using to measure annual progress in English for accountability purposes under the No Child Left Behind Act, even though those tests vary from state to state.

For the long term, the board proposes creating “a brief, easily administered” test of English-language proficiency that would identify NAEP test-takers as having beginning, intermediate, or advanced levels of proficiency.

Kathleen Leos, a former director of the U.S. Department of Education’s office of English-language acquisition, testified that she was in favor of the proposed changes for policy concerning ELLs, but she had one additional recommendation. She said she’d like to see the federal government create a “national language panel,” similar to the national panels that have been previously formed on literacy and on reading, to study language development and language acquisition and produce a set of guiding principles for educators and NAEP.

Ms. Leos testified in her role as the president of the Global Institute for Language and Literacy Development, a Washington-based policy institute she formed after she resigned from the Education Department in September 2008.

Luis Martinez, a senior policy analyst specializing in ELLs at the National Education Association, testified in support of the testing accommodations for ELLs proposed by NAGB, such as side-by-side Spanish-English test booklets and test directions and items that are written in plain English. He said the NEA supports the disaggregation of data about ELLs on NAEP, but urges the board to continue to ensure that “data obtained from ELL students should be used strictly for research and analysis purposes only and to refine classroom instruction.”

A version of this article appeared in the November 18, 2009 edition of Education Week

Events

School & District Management Webinar Fostering Productive Relationships Between Principals and Teachers
Strong principal-teacher relationships = happier teachers & thriving schools. Join our webinar for practical strategies.
Jobs Virtual Career Fair for Teachers and K-12 Staff
Find teaching jobs and K-12 education jubs at the EdWeek Top School Jobs virtual career fair.
This content is provided by our sponsor. It is not written by and does not necessarily reflect the views of Education Week's editorial staff.
Sponsor
Artificial Intelligence Webinar
Promoting Integrity and AI Readiness in High Schools
Learn how to update school academic integrity guidelines and prepare students for the age of AI.
Content provided by Turnitin

EdWeek Top School Jobs

Teacher Jobs
Search over ten thousand teaching jobs nationwide — elementary, middle, high school and more.
View Jobs
Principal Jobs
Find hundreds of jobs for principals, assistant principals, and other school leadership roles.
View Jobs
Administrator Jobs
Over a thousand district-level jobs: superintendents, directors, more.
View Jobs
Support Staff Jobs
Search thousands of jobs, from paraprofessionals to counselors and more.
View Jobs

Read Next

Federal Data: Which Ed. Dept. Offices Lost the Most Workers?
Cuts disproportionately hit the agency’s civil rights investigation and research arms, according to an Education Week analysis.
3 min read
Chloe Kienzle of Arlington, Va., holds a sign as she stands outside the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Education, which were ordered closed for the day for what officials described as security reasons amid large-scale layoffs, Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington.
Chloe Kienzle of Arlington, Va., holds a sign as she stands outside the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. The department this week announced it was shedding half its staff.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Federal Ed. Dept. Says SEL Can 'Veil' Discrimination. What Does This Mean for Schools?
A document from the Education Department flags social-emotional learning—a once bipartisan education strategy—as a means of discrimination.
Deeper learning prepares students to work collaboratively and direct their own learning.
There has been an uptick in political pushback against social-emotional learning, with the Education Department recently saying some schools "have sought to veil discriminatory policies" with terms like SEL.
Allison Shelley for All4Ed
Federal Civil Rights, Research, and More: What’s Hit Hardest by Massive Ed. Dept. Cuts
An analysis of the Trump administration's cuts to the agency shows its civil rights enforcement and research arms are hit particularly hard.
Chloe Kienzle of Arlington, Va., holds a sign as she stands outside the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Eduction, which were ordered closed for the day for what officials described as security reasons amid large-scale layoffs, Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington.
Chloe Kienzle of Arlington, Va., holds a sign as she stands outside the headquarters of the U.S. Department of Education on Wednesday, March 12, 2025, in Washington. The department this week said it was cutting nearly half its staff.
Mark Schiefelbein/AP
Federal Opinion The Threat to Federal School Data Is a Threat to Us All
The erosion of this fundamental information will create immediate blind spots for districts and states.
Ronald L. Wasserstein
6 min read
A bar graph melts into a puddle.
iStock/Getty Images