<< CONTENTS >>

VARIATIONS ON A THEME:

1. PLACEMENT TESTING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES

2. WHAT ACCOMMODATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE IN PLACEMENT TESTING?

3. ACCOMMODATIONS IN DISTANCE LEARNING

4. NOTES FROM DAIS

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

<<VARIATIONS ON A THEME:
PLACEMENT TESTING FOR STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES >>

Over the last several months, as folks began a new school year with a new crop of fresh faces, there has been considerable discussion on the many listservs I monitor about placement testing and what the parameters, concerns, and ramifications are for placement testing of students with disabilities. It seems to me that these discussions typically revolve around the same two themes: (1) What kind of documentation is required of students with disabilities in order to receive accommodations in placement testing? and (2) What accommodations, if any, are really appropriate for placement tests (i.e., how can you provide a reader for a reading test???). I have tried to address both of these issues below.

DOCUMENTATION FOR PLACEMENT TESTING

(The following article is reprinted from the December, 1997 edition of the DAIS newsletter. Following the text of that old article are some new thoughts on the subject. JEJ)
------------------------

More and more institutions are administering placement testing (in reading, writing, and/or math) to ALL students upon acceptance to the institution. The results of such testing are used in determining initial placement of students in course work appropriate to their current level of functioning. It allows the institution to identify those students whose poor preparation or skills in these critical areas may interfere with their college work, and to attempt to raise their performance through remedial courses, if necessary, so that they may be competitive in standard course work. Students with disabilities should have appropriate accommodations in taking such examinations. The testing is supposed to determine how well prepared the student is to function in college-level courses. It makes no sense to test a student WITHOUT accommodation if that student will HAVE accommodation in the classroom. But how do you know the student will have accommodation in the classroom? What kind of documentation of disability and need for accommodation should be presented before accommodation is provided for placement testing?

I would suggest that accommodations be provided for placement testing on the basis of minimal documentation. Often this may amount to nothing more than an IEP, a letter from a physician or counselor, or even self-report of need and description of accommodations used in other testing settings. This seems to make sense for two reasons. First, for institutions that are testing hundreds of students prior to the beginning of school every year, the logistics of providing accommodations as needed for those few who are disabled is complicated enough without adding an additional layer of complexity by "credentialling" students to receive accommodation. In other words, just making sure there is adequate notice given of the need for special arrangements is quite enough of a headache for the people who are charged with the responsibility of running the testing program. More importantly however, there is nothing to be gained by someone claiming the need for accommodations who doesn't need or is not eligible to receive them. Let's look at a "worst case" scenario...

Student X has heard that if he claims he has a reading disability, he will be given more time on the reading placement test. He DOESN'T have a reading disability, but when filling out the paperwork to arrange a date for testing, he indicates on the sign-up sheet that he DOES have a reading disability and will need extended time. The institution's policy is to accept such reports at face value and gives Student X time-and-a-half on the placement exam. Let us suppose, for the sake of argument, that the student's score on the exam is inflated because he had extra time to complete the test (which, by the way, runs contrary to established research that indicates that if the student does not have a disability, the extended time will not significantly improve performance!). Who is harmed by Student X's deception and the institution's flexibility regarding documentation? ONLY Student X. Student X ends up getting placed in a higher level course than his current performance supports and his grade point average, class standing, and college career could conceivably be jeopardized -- but no one else is affected. The institution has not compromised its academic standards or integrity. Placement testing is about student performance, not institutional credibility, and no other student is impacted by the relative placement of Student X.

When I was preparing to teach my first course, while still a doctoral student, my major professor taught me this "truism" which served me well throughout my teaching career: "It is easier to believe that everyone is honest, and function accordingly, than to believe that everyone is out to cheat on everything. You will be taken advantage of less often than if you make it a challenge for students to try to find a way around the system -- and it is a WHOLE lot less work for you!"

One word of caution... it should be made VERY clear during the sign-up process and at the time of the test administration that the provision of accommodation on placement tests does NOT assure that these same accommodations will be made available in the future. In order to verify eligibility for such accommodations on an ongoing basis, the student will need to follow established policy/procedure (you DO have a policy/procedure, right?) regarding the provision of documentation to the appropriate source.

-----------------------

I wrote this four years ago. I still believe it today. Even more! I am sure that part of my frustration stems from my general disgruntlement over the increasing rigidity shown within the field regarding documentation of disability in ANY circumstance. As I pour over the listserv posts and talk to colleagues at professional meetings, I never fail to be amazed at how much time and energy DSS professionals spend on checking the paperwork instead of talking to the student. (I know, I know. There are lots of appropriate and important reasons for being careful in the documentation of disability and, besides, this was supposed to be a discussion of placement testing, not documentation. ) But on those same listservs and at those same professional meetings, I hear DSS providers bemoaning the lack of time, personnel, and resources they have available to fulfill the multitude of tasks -- and responsibilities -- that have been assigned to them. I keep wondering why they would CHOOSE to assume the additional burden of providing review of disability-related credentials and documentation and worrying about individually assigning accommodations in the rushed time period before the administration of such placement testing. I have GOT to believe they have better things to do with their time!

When I have broached the subject with service providers, the most common explanation given for WHY they choose to evaluate documentation before allowing any accommodations to be provided, even on placement testing, seems to always come back to the fear of establishing a precedent. "If we provide the accommodations to the student for the placement testing, s/he is going to expect that the same accommodations will be provided throughout their tenure with us. Even if we tell them differently, they are going to assume that because we gave them the accommodations once, they are entitled to get them later. Besides, isn't there some legal obligation on our part to actual provide the same accommodations once we have provided them even once? Can we withdraw the accommodations later if we find the documentation doesn't hold up?"

I can think of a couple of reasons why you are NOT required to continue to provide the accommodation (provided you do so carefully the first time), but there is no reason that I can see that obligates you to follow a "once is always" policy.

• We do not provide the same accommodations for students in every class they take throughout their career, right? (At least, I hope you don't!) Some courses may require a notetaker. Others may not. The manner of testing in some classes may suggest the need for double time, while the same student may only need time and a half in another class. So long as you remember that the accommodations are supposed to fit BOTH the student and the student's need in the particular circumstance under consideration, then the provision of the accommodations in placement testing does not have direct bearing on the provision of accommodations in other testing situations because the PURPOSE of placement testing is unlike the purpose of any other test the student will take while involved in your institution.
• You can simplify your life by developing a documentation policy that CLEARLY STATES that this is the policy for students enrolled in the institution to establish eligibility for protection as a person with a disability and to access necessary support/service in academic coursework and co-curricular activities (or however you want to word it). In other words, by clearly excluding Placement Testing from coverage under your documentation policy, and by publicly acknowledging a SEPARATE policy regarding documentation of the need for accommodations *specifically* for Placement Testing, you separate the two activities -- and make it easier for everyone else to do so, as well.
• Is there any concern about even acknowledging that someone IS a person with a disability while providing accommodations in placement testing if the person may NOT be recognized as such later on when they have to meet our more stringent documentation guidelines? I will resist the urge to make a crack about documentation policies in general as being too often inflexible and unduly burdensome (oh... I guess that qualifies as a cheap shot, huh? grin) and instead simply refer you back to the article from 1997. Who is hurt by the student who comes forward and identifies himself/herself as a person with a disability needing accommodation on placement tests? So long as the placement testing policy clearly indicates (for example), "For purposes of expediting the placement testing process ONLY, students may establish their need for disability-related accommodations through self-report. In all other institutional contexts, additional rules are in place regarding the scope and kind of documentation required to establish eligibility for protection."

But what about the concern that a student who has been given the accommodation by the institution in one setting will ASSUME that you are going to give him/her the same accommodations in every other setting, no matter how clearly you spell it out for them? I have news for you. The students who make that assumption are the SAME students who would assume you owe them the world because (1) they had those accommodations in high school; (2) their diagnostician SAID they should have those accommodations so you HAVE to provide them; (3) their mothers are meaner than, and can yell louder than, your Dean; or (4) some combination of the above! (Remember the old Penzoil commercial where the mechanic says, "You can pay me now, or you can pay me later?" You are going to have your work cut out for you with this group somewhere along the line!

I realized, as I was writing the NEXT article, that I needed to clarify the kinds of self-report and requested accommodations that I would accept readily. If the student said he/she needed extra time on placement testing as a result of a SPECIFIED disability (I can think of lots that would qualify, but I would want SOME explanation as to which one was causing the noted difficulty), I would be inclined to grant it without a fuss. If the student said he/she needed large print, Braille, a scribe, or a quiet setting for a specified disability-related reason, I would be inclined to grant it without a fuss. If a deaf person requested an interpreter, or an LD student requested a reader for placement testing, I would... need to think it through based on my philosophy and the circumstances (we'll discuss this more below). I know what **I** would say, but I will admit these instances are not as straightforward as the others.

Let's explore...

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

<< WHAT ACCOMMODATIONS ARE APPROPRIATE

IN PLACEMENT TESTING? >>

Lately I have had a kind of surreal feeling that I am LIVING my work, instead of working at it. As I continue to do battle with the local school regarding accommodations for my 11-year old daughter (my, how time flies!), it seems that almost daily it leads me to some new insight in my DSS work. Here is one of them...

We often talk to faculty about examining (and grading) on the basis of the outcome, rather than the process. I don't care if the blind student uses the word processor to write answers to the history exam or dictates to a scribe. I want to know that the answers are complete, the information is there, and the theory is well formulated. Recently, though, I have recognized that *sometimes* it is appropriate to think about the PURPOSE of the exercise, rather than the outcome.

In my case, that means that if the other 5th graders are giving oral reports on the State of ____ (Cottie picked Hawaii!) and are being graded on eye contact with the audience and whether their voices carried to the back of the room, a different kind of evaluation is appropriate for my daughter, whose CP makes her VERY shy about trying to communicate expressively with all eyes upon her, knowing that her speech is not intelligible to very many under the *best* of circumstances. YES... others are shy, too, and may lose points on their report if they don't learn better presentation skills. That isn't the point. While the requisite skill is difficult for those kids, it is impossible for mine BECAUSE OF HER DISABILITY.

With the help of a truly enlightened school principal, we encouraged (insisted? dragged? coerced?) the classroom teacher to identify the PURPOSE of the assignment. In this case, there were four purposes to the assignment: (1) to learn about how to research, develop, and draft an in-depth report on a given subject; (2) to learn a lot you didn't know before about the chosen state; (3) to figure out what information to put into a report that would be interesting to others (not just a dreary recital of the facts and figures you had discovered); and (4) to present the report in an effective manner. Cottie (1) learned how to research, develop, and draft an in-depth report; (2) learned a lot she didn't know about Hawaii; (3) determined which information she wanted to present that would be interesting to others; and (4) made her first Power Point presentation, with me providing the voiceover while she clicked through the accompanying visuals she had chosen on cue. Her report didn't look or sound like ANY of the others that were presented. So what? The outcome -- the product -- was very different, but the purpose was served.

Why am I telling you all this? Because when we start talking about placement testing and what, if any, accommodations may be appropriate to provide, I think we often lose sight of the PURPOSE of testing in our concern about the OUTCOME of testing -- and the comparability of that outcome against the outcome of others.

Several months ago, the following post appeared on the listserv of one
of the statewide AHEAD groups:

<< There is a student with a severe hearing impairment interested in "computers." I had a long conversation with his mother and she requested that the COMPASS test be read to him because he can glean meaning from reading lips that he cannot get from the written words.

Would having the COMPASS read to this student be an appropriate accommodation--even when the test is measuring a student's ability to read? I would like to hear your thoughts, and especially like to hear any similar experience you've had.>>

Someone immediately responded with this:

<< I don't see how a hard of hearing student qualifies for a test to be read, unless he also has an LD specific to reading or is visually impaired. >>

I am going to play devil's advocate here. I am not saying I think the accommodation IS appropriate, I am just "testing" to see why we might say "yes/no." What is the PURPOSE of administering the COMPASS test to incoming students? Is it to see how much/how well the student reads, or is to see how much/how well the student can make sense out of print material?

From the reference in the second post to the listserv ("unless the student has a LD specific to reading or visual impairment"), it seems as though having a reader for the test WOULD be seen as an appropriate accommodation if the student had a known print impairment. That would seem to suggest that there is valuable information to be gained from the test that has to do with USING the information/vocabulary, rather than just the perceptual task of reading the words independently. If that is the case, then the accommodation requested by THIS student becomes more plausible from a curricular perspective.

Meantime, I found this on the website of a prominent community college:

"Do not think of the COMPASS test as a test that you can pass or fail. Remember it is a PLACEMENT test, and its purpose is to place you into the math or English class at _______ Community College which is best for your academic development... Your goal should be to do as well as you can so that you will be placed as accurately as possible.

"If you score into a higher level class that you're not really prepared for, you will probably do poorly in that class. You will end up wasting a semester struggling to survive the class when you could have taken a class that could have helped you strengthen your math, writing and/or reading skills. If you don't do your best and end up in a class that is below your level, you may end up wasting a semester taking a class that's too easy for you."

If the PURPOSE of the COMPASS test is individual placement, and if no one other than THIS student is affected by THIS student's score on the test, then I am at a loss to figure out why it isn't in EVERYONE's best interest to maximize the student's performance on the test. If the student performs better on the test than s/he would without accommodations, you will not have a good feel for how well THIS student reads independently compared to other students. So what? Another nugget I gleaned from my recent experience with elementary schools -- the principal reminded me that from K-3rd grade, children learn to read. After that time, they read to learn. Very few colleges I know of would want to suggest that they teach reading, at the college level, because they believe fluent reading to be a college-level mastery skill. They teach it only because they recognize that students NEED it in order to take full advantage of the rest of the curriculum (indeed, some don't teach it at all. I am hearing more and more stories of institutions dropping any remedial programming).

What matters, then, is how the student is able to deal with the college-level information and material that IS important to the curriculum. (AS AN ASIDE: I am speaking here about placement testing as used by the CC cited above for the purposes noted. I recognize that some institutions use scores from tests such as the COMPASS to determine entrance into programs of study. I would simply note that, according to the folks who DEVELOPED the test, that was not the intention. You can argue that out with our administration on your own time! GRIN)

Now you have to deal with the issue of whether it is a disability-related request. Ironically, a recent discussion DSSHE-L parallels this scenario of the deaf student wanting the test to be read to him because of what he can glean from lipreading, not available to him in print. That DSSHE-L discussion revolved around the problems associated with determining co-morbidity (that is, the existence of additional disabilities) when one has a significant primary disability -- like deafness -- that skews all the testing. One might speculate that there could be other reasons why this student cannot read the printed word easily that may never be clearly identified (identifiable). Knowing that he is able to garner meaning from seeing/hearing the words spoken that he does not get from independent reading makes that possibility seems more credible.

Food for thought?

+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+

(End of Part 1... keep reading!)