In my last blog entry on testing of special education students, I asked at the end, “is it fair to say that children being tested at their grade level are not being tested at their ‘learning level’ when the IAA [Illinois Alternative Assessment] takes into account the students’ Individualized Education Program (IEP)? Wouldn’t the IEP be tied to the child’s ‘learning level’?”

Well, I posed this question to Bryan Chumbley, the director of research, testing, and assessment for District 150, and here’s how he responded:

It is true that federal legislation does not allow students with disabilities to be tested off grade level except in the case of IAA students (specific to Illinois). If we keep in mind that the IAA is intended for those students with significant cognitive delays, then it is more clear how these students are assessed. The portfolio that is created for IAA students identifies specific learning standards that classroom teachers are working on with these students. Given the severity of the disability for these students, the types of activities provided these students look much different than any regular classroom assignment or test. Thus, the evidence of student progress for the IAA is, in most cases, not in alignment with the work we would see of regular education students of the same age. This assessment is an “alternate” to other state testing because this 1% of the population cannot be assessed by more traditional assessment methods. In essence, the IAA does provide an assessment opportunity that does not measure this small segment of our school population at the grade level at which their chronological age would indicate.

The issue of “fairness” is of great concern to educators. For those students for whom the IAA is not determined to be appropriate, these students must participate in the regular state testing program. However, during the IEP process teachers, coordinators, and parents can identify specific accommodations that can be provided to account for needs of students. Some of the accommodations that can be provided include:

• extended time
• small group setting
• test read to student (does not include the reading test)
• scribe (for students for whom the physical act of writing presents difficulties).

However, there is certainly widespread concern that for those students who do not currently function at grade level in reading or math, asking those students to participate in testing at their chronological grade just does not seem fair. The concern is centered around the fact that, even with accommodations, some students are at a disadvantage when it comes to testing. There has been legislative action taken (I believe Aaron Schock coauthored the legislation) in Illinois to allow students to be tested at their “functional level”, but these changes have not been approved by the US Dept. of Education. Until the federal legislation changes we have no choice but to comply. The District would be interested in reviewing any future legislation and provide support if the legislation would result in a benefit for our students.

I found this to be a very thorough and thoughtful response, and it makes me wish more administrators and school board members were as helpful and communicative as Mr. Chumbley. The News-Gazette (Champaign) explains the same issue this way:

Districts are allowed to test up to 1 percent of the IEP students – most of whom have more severe levels of mental retardation – using an alternative assessment. The other 99 percent, which includes students with IQs of 55 to 70, must take the general test for their grade level – not ability level – the same test that’s given to students without disabilities.

Here’s where I was confused: I thought the 1% rule was 1% of the total student body, but it turns out it’s only 1% of the special needs children (those with Inidividualized education programs, or IEPs). That leaves a lot of special needs children in the position of having to perform as well their non-disabled peers on the same states tests, which does seem to be unfair.

Mr. Chumbley mentioned legislation. The only legislation on this issue I could find sponsored by Rep. Schock was HB3678 , which was signed into law August 23, 2005. It “[p]rovides that the indicators to determine adequate yearly progress for children with disabilities shall be based on their individualized education plans” and sundry other provisions, but is “contingent upon the federal government not formally disapproving through the submission and review process for the Illinois Accountability Workbook.” I got the impression from Mr. Chumbley’s e-mail that even though this legislation was approved by the state, it was still in limbo pending federal approval, but perhaps he was referring to different legislation. If anyone has any further info, let me know.