In Iowa, we regularly receive questions about whether administration instructions and allowable accommodations from other assessments, such as ISASP, can be applied to FastBridge assessments.
The short answer is: No, instructions and vendor-allowed accommodations are not interchangeable between assessments. If it’s not specifically listed in the instructions and accommodations that go along with the test, it’s not “allowable” for this assessment unless directed by an IEP. In FastBridge, these instructions are found in both the assessment administration certification module and at the top of the administration page for teacher administered assessments.
What does “allowable” really mean?
Test developers create standardized testing procedures to ensure that their test is administered under consistent conditions. This ensures that the test results can be validly interpreted against the norms, benchmarks or standards set for the test. Test developers generally examine a variety of common accommodations and may identify appropriate accommodations and deviations from the standardized testing that can be applied when necessary, and dismiss other potential accommodations as inappropriate for the test. The documentation for the test includes standardized administration and scoring procedures as well as any approved accommodations or supports.
Why instructions and accommodations aren’t interchangeable
Altering the standardized testing and scoring changes the meaning of the test subtly or drastically, which can result in the test actually measuring something very different from the test author’s intent. This may result in altered test results that could affect the meaning of the scores and any decisions made with the results. Because the alterations are not documented with the test results, others will not know if the results are due to a significantly altered test.
Supporting understanding
As people learn and use new assessments they often find that similar assessments may have different administration procedures, allow different accommodations and modifications, and use different scoring procedures. All of that is in addition to the strategies and supports teachers may use during instruction and interventions. What is allowed where, when, and how can become confusing and possibly appear illogical. In that confusion it is very tempting to use favorite accommodations everywhere. For example, while one CBM oral reading fluency test has an administration rule that says that common names are not counted as errors even if read incorrectly, FastBridge does not use this rule because they made an effort to make sure the names were appropriately readable. Thus, following the scoring “rule” of another CBM oral reading fluency test with FastBridge's CBMreading test would result in an inaccurate score.
Have a district policy
It is very important to create a culture where it is unacceptable to administer a standardized test using non-standard procedures. Allowing non-standard administration at all puts the standardized testing process on the edge of a slippery slope. There will be an increased temptation to allow "just this one" more adaptation, with the result being test results that have been diluted or corrupted to the point that their results are not meaningful. It is far better to draw the line and have a clear district policy that each standardized test will always be administered under its own standard procedures, only allowing accommodations permitted for the test, with deviations very carefully devised and on an individual basis. The last is to allow room for the occasional need in an IEP.
Be deliberate when considering IEP accommodations
One idea to consider is to help people think about the difference between instructional scaffolding and an accommodation that might need to be provided, especially for different kinds of assessments - classroom level to evaluate knowledge vs standardized, higher-stakes assessments. These can easily be confused. When writing an IEP and talking about accommodations, the IEP team needs to think separately about the characteristics of each type assessment the student may encounter. Some high level (suggested) things to consider:
- The purpose of the assessment (classroom skills, accountability measure, screening, etc.)
- The nature of the test (is it a test that has standard administration rules or a classroom quiz?)
- What is appropriate for standard administration of that assessment (from the vendor documentation)
- What would invalidate the assessment
- What are the unique learning needs of the individual student?
Developing the assessment accommodations on an IEP is an individual thing, both for the student and for the assessments. Blanket copy and paste of "if kids are on IEPs they get to use a calculator" statements are unlikely to serve the students best interests or provide usable assessment results. When the test is intending to measure independent calculation skills, using a calculator would invalidate the results. Similarly, when teaching new skills or concepts the teacher may use scaffolding as the skills are developing, but the intent is to remove that scaffolding so that the child is independent. While using counting blocks may be useful for the early development of math skills, it is not the desired method for students to use to do math problems.
Analogy
This is a somewhat absurd analogy, but it may help as you’re explaining these concepts. Imagine a test of physical fitness that looked at the ability to run a certain distance within a given time. Permitting participants to use a bicycle to complete the fitness task because a bicycle is used in a triathlon is kind of silly. The people using a bike would be able to complete the running test much faster than those who just ran. Any "norms" used in this test would say that the bikers were superior, while in reality they really were doing a very different task from those who still had to run. To extend this analogy further, a student who uses a wheelchair for mobility will not be able to complete the running test at all without significant modification to the task. The IEP team would need to think carefully about the purpose of the test and how it might be applied to this student with a disability. Now to take the analogy to a very absurd level to illustrate the consequence of breaking the standardized test. Imagine that the purpose of the test is to ensure that the person being tested is able to run fast enough to get out of trouble (say, escaping a chasing bear). If a person was determined to pass the running test by virtue of riding a bicycle, that person may not actually be able to run fast enough to escape the bear when no bicycle is available. In this way, what was meant to be kindness (allowing the use of a bicycle) actually masked that the person could not do the actual task, which is to run fast enough to get away from the predator.