Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals What ?????are the three core elements of classroom assessmen

International Journal of Inclusive Education

ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: www.tandfonline.com/journals/tied20

Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals

Yaoying Xu & Laura Kuti

To cite this article: Yaoying Xu & Laura Kuti (2024) Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals, International Journal of Inclusive Education, 28:8, 1474-1487, DOI: 10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662

Published online: 08 Nov 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 2113

View related articles

View Crossmark data

Citing articles: 3 View citing articles

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=tied20

Accommodating students with exceptional needs by aligning classroom assessment with IEP goals Yaoying Xu a and Laura Kutib

aDepartment of Counseling and Special Education, Virginia Commonwealth University, Richmond, VA, USA; bDepartment of Teacher Education, University of Richmond, Richmond, VA, USA

ABSTRACT The majority of students with exceptional needs receive most of their formal education in general education or inclusive classrooms. These students often need a variety of accommodations to ensure their success with the general education curriculum. The purpose of this article is to explore accommodation approaches and strategies for teaching students with exceptional needs in inclusive classrooms. We first discuss the relationship of classroom assessment and IEP goal development, followed by a discussion on how to accommodate learning objectives for classroom assessment. We further discuss how to use classroom assessment to document IEP progress. Finally, we present assessment accommodation categories by providing vignettes of students with exceptional needs who receive appropriate and adequate accommodations in inclusive classrooms. We conclude with a brief discussion on practice, policy, and research implications of accommodations for inclusive practices.

ARTICLE HISTORY Received 21 October 2020 Accepted 13 October 2021

KEYWORDS Accommodation; classroom assessment & IEP goal development; learning objectives for classroom assessment

The majority of students with exceptional needs receive most of their formal education in inclusive classrooms. Students with special needs served under the Individuals with Dis- abilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA or IDEA 2004) requirement are categorised among 13 disabilities (For the specific definition of each category, see IDEIA 2004, 46756–46757). One of the most important provisions added to IDEA in 1997 was that the law required, ‘whenever appropriate’, that general education classrooms should be used for children with special needs, recognising that most students with disabilities spend all or most of their school time in general education settings. As a result, the law included a provision requiring that a general education teacher become a member of the team for a student’s individualised educational programme or IEP. Therefore, it is essential that the general education teacher, collaboratively with the special education teacher and other team members, make reflective decisions that improve the learning of both students with or without disabilities, based on ‘the evidence gathered through assessment, reasoning, and experience’ (McMillan 2011, 4).

In addition to those commonly defined categories, curriculum adaptations or material accommodations may be necessary to ensure the success of students who may not have a

© 2021 Informa UK Limited, trading as Taylor & Francis Group

CONTACT Yaoying Xu [email protected]

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 2024, VOL. 28, NO. 8, 1474–1487 https://doi.org/10.1080/13603116.2021.1994662

diagnosed disability, but do have other special learning needs. Individuals with other special learning needs also represent a wide range of abilities, including students who are gifted and talented, students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, and students who are at risk for school failure due to environmental and/or biological risk factors. All of these students are served in general education classrooms; however, their unique needs may or may not be identified because their disabilities are not one of the 13 IDEA defined categories. As a result, it often falls to the general education tea- cher’s responsibility to collect, evaluate, and use the assessment data in making plans for the students’ learning and improvement. An effective teacher would integrate instruction and assessment before, during, and after instruction on a daily basis (McMillan 2016). The purpose of this article is to explore accommodation approaches and strategies for teaching students with exceptional needs in general educational classrooms. First, we discuss the relationship of classroom assessment and IEP goal development. Then we discuss how to accommodate learning objectives for classroom assessment. We further discuss how to use classroom assessment to document IEP progress. Finally, we present assessment accommodation categories with specific examples. We conclude our article with assessment accommodations in practice by providing vignettes of stu- dents who have special or individual needs receiving accommodations in inclusive classrooms.

Relationship of classroom assessment and IEP goals

Sadler (1989) proposed a conceptual framework of classroom assessment within the context of curriculum and instruction that includes three elements: (1) learning goals; (2) information about the present status of learner; and (3) action to close the gap. In special education, these three elements relate directly to classroom assessment for stu- dents with special needs within the contexts of assessment, curriculum, and instruction. For students with special needs, their learning goals are documented as the IEP goals and objectives that were developed by the IEP team and implemented within the inclusive classrooms and other general education settings whenever applicable. The general edu- cation teacher and special education teacher collect formative assessment data to evaluate and monitor progress of the student and, if necessary, to modify the learning goals. The present status of the learner aligns with the present level of academic and functional per- formance of the student with special needs, as required in the student’s IEP statements. Finally, the action or the implementation of the intervention planning takes place based on the assessment data with a purpose of reducing the discrepancy or the gap between the student’s present level of performance and the student projected IEP goals, through evi- dence-based intervention.

The overall goal of classroom assessment is to improve students’ learning with well- defined learning objectives through effective assessment practices that teachers use in daily classroom activities to inform their instruction. The assessment and intervention for students with special needs serve the same goal through their IEPs. The IDEA requires that all students with disabilities have the rights to receive an unbiased and non- discriminatory evaluation conducted by a multidisciplinary team to determine these stu- dents’ educational needs (Noonan and McCormick 2014). In the field of special education, the term evaluation often refers to procedures that are used to determine

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1475

the eligibility for special education and related services. Once the student’s eligibility for special education services is determined, the terms assessment is used which refers to the procedures to identify the needs in each curriculum domain or for young children, in each developmental area, that lead to programme planning for effective instruction or intervention. Therefore, before and after the student’s IEP is established, the evaluation and assessment may serve very different purposes such as screening, diagnosis, interven- tion planning, progress monitoring, and programme evaluation (Noonan and McCor- mick 2014).

After the child is determined to be eligible for special education services the IEP team is formed, including members such as the special education teacher, general education teacher(s), parents, the student whenever possible, and any other related individuals. This is when classroom assessment can be very effective in identifying the student’s strengths and weakness, the student’s needs and concerns, and the family resources and priorities. The classroom teacher and the special education teacher can use all of this information to evaluate the student’s learning targets, in this case, the IEP goals and objectives, through formative classroom assessment techniques. Although classroom assessment was not explicitly stated in the IDEA, the support for using classroom assess- ment was evident in the IDEA through the student’s IEP content that requires ‘a state- ment of the child’s present levels of academic achievement and functional performance including how the child’s disability affects the child’s involvement and pro- gress in the general education curriculum’ (34 CFR Part 300, §300.320; italic was added).

The requirement of the general education curriculum for students with special needs makes classroom assessment an important tool to document these students’ progress. The assessment types and purposes for students with special needs are relevant to the three elements of classroom assessment. For example, the assessment for intervention planning directly relates to the learning goals of classroom assessment, including screen- ing and diagnosis to identify the students’ current status or level of development, and progress monitoring. See Table 1 for specific assessment purposes and relevant questions teachers may ask during classroom assessment practices.

Assessment types

The term assessment is often defined as the process of gathering information from different sources in order to make decisions about a student’s learning and development (Grisham-Brown and Pretti-Frontczak 2011; Wortham and Hardin 2020). Different pur- poses of assessment determine the types of assessment to be used. Assessment can be administered to a group of students at the same grade level such as screening, or it can be individually conducted to help determine the eligibility for certain services or to inform instructional planning. Specifically, four types of assessment are used at the student level: Screening, diagnosis, intervention planning, and progress monitoring.

Screening Screening is defined as the process of quickly testing students to identify those who appear to qualify for special education and related services. Those identified at screening must go on for diagnosis. Screening is a quick and effective assessment process that is administered to all children at a grade or age appropriate level. Because of these features,

1476 Y. XU AND L. KUTI

a screening test must be simple, accurate, comprehensive, and cost effective (Filler and Xu 2006). Simplicity means short, easy to administer, and simple to score. Accuracy requires that the test is both valid and reliable, gives few false positives, no false negatives, and appropriate for cultural and ethnic groups in the community.

Diagnosis When a student is referred for comprehensive evaluation, diagnosis is the primary purpose to determine whether the student is eligible for special education and related ser- vices. The procedure of diagnosis involves multiple assessment measures such as class- room observations, parent interviews, teacher surveys, and formal and informal tests. It is important to point out that a diagnosis of a disability does not automatically make the student eligible for special education and related services. To be eligible for special education and related services, the student needs to meet 2 criteria: (1) the student has a disability, based on the diagnosis results; and (2) the student has a need for special education and related services because of the disability. The need is based on the child’s educational performance, including academic and non-academic needs (IDEA, P L. 108–446).

Intervention planning Intervention planning is closely linked to the general education curriculum, specifically the curriculum domain in which the student is identified to have a need for special edu- cation; or for young children, the planning targets children’s developmental areas in natural environments. Assessment for intervention planning directly leads to the devel- opment of the student’s IEP goals and objectives and determines the effectiveness of the

Table 1. Types and purposes of classroom assessment for students with special needs. Classroom assessment elements

Purpose Questions to askLearning goal Current status Action

Screening To identify students who appear to have a disability

Is the test comprehensive? Can classroom teacher administer it? Are parents/families informed?

Diagnosis To determine eligibility through comprehensive evaluation only to students who were referred

Are multidisciplinary team members involved? Are multiple measures included? Are the student and his or her family concerns identified?

Intervention planning

To directly benefit the child through effective instructional planning

Are the student’s IEP goals and objectives developed based on the student’s current status? Does assessment information link to the intervention? Are accommodations and modifications made to meet the students’ individual needs?

Progress monitoring

To document student’s progress through ongoing data collection

Are data collected on a regular basis? Who collect the data, when and where? Are adjustments made based on the student’s progress or lack of progress?

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1477

intervention. Assessment for intervention planning provides information to guide tea- chers or interventionists what to teach, how to teach, and in what sequence to teach.

Progress monitoring Progress monitoring is conducted on a regular basis, such as daily or weekly, following the implementation of intervention based on the planning. Specifically, progress moni- toring is to evaluate the effectiveness of intervention strategies or approach relevant to the IEP goals and objectives, and what modifications are needed if the intervention is not effective. Systematic data collection in a classroom is essential for teachers to monitor a student’s progress.

Any of the assessment types mentioned above can be applied within the classroom assessment contexts in general education classrooms. As a member of the IEP team for a student with special needs, the general education teacher plays a critical role in developing and implementing the student’s intervention plan with appropriate learning goals. The following section discusses how to accommodate learning objectives for stu- dents with special needs within the context of general education curriculum and instruc- tion in inclusive settings.

Accommodating learning objectives for classroom assessment

The conceptual framework of classroom assessment emphasises the general education curriculum and instruction as the context of assessment. Effective classroom assessment involves student motivation, teacher expectation, quality of the environment, and most important, the purpose of the assessment. According to Stiggins and Chappius (2005), effective classroom assessment is related to clear purpose of assessment, explicit learning expectations, relevant learning objectives, and timely and effective communications with students about the assessment results. In special education, effective classroom assess- ment also means individualized. However, individualisation does not mean isolation or separation. Whenever possible, the individualised intervention should occur within the general education classroom or inclusive settings.

When a student with special needs is included in the general education classroom, the classroom teacher may need to collect additional information to identify the student’s learning needs and develop learning targets. The instruction or intervention is expected to be more effective when the student’s needs are addressed through prioritised learning objectives. Student-centered planning is an evidence-based approach to collecting accu- rate and meaningful information for developing learning objectives. Student-centered planning does not necessarily mean that the student is the sole focus; it does mean that the student’s needs are assessed and planned in a learning context that is meaningful for the student, in other words, the assessment is authentic, functional, and individualised.

It is well known that successful attempts to meet the educational needs of students with a wide spectrum of needs in a single setting require careful planning, teacher collab- orations, and administrative support (Arllen and Gable 1996; Idol 2006). Key to that planning is the identification of activities that allow for the meaningful participation of each student and, at the same time, that allow teachers to document each student’s performance through the activities.

1478 Y. XU AND L. KUTI

Using classroom assessment to document students’ IEP progress

The IEP team is required by law to complete an IEP document, implement IEP objec- tives, document the student’s progress, and make adjustment for the objectives based on the progress documented. Beyond the legal requirement, effective and devoted class- room teachers are concerned about the student’s actual learning in the classroom that may or may not be included in the student’s IEP document. IEP goals and objectives are written in very specific terms to meet the measurability requirement. Often, the instructional objectives related to classroom assessment are broad, although still measur- able, to guide instruction more effectively and at the same time to help teachers decide what to assess (McMillan 2014; Popham 2002). For students with special needs, their IEP goals often include behaviour or functional objectives as part of the educational per- formance in addition to academic goals. One effective approach is to embed the student’s specific IEP goals and objectives within the broader instructional objectives of classroom assessment that the teacher has planned. For example, the specific IEP behaviour objec- tive ‘Mark will raise his hand to ask questions during instructional time’ can be embedded within the broader class level instructional objective ‘Students will participate in the class discussion and summarize the topics’. When the student’s IEP objectives are embedded within broader instructional objectives, it makes the learning and teaching consistent and relevant, and more meaningful.

As shown in Figure 1, the student’s IEP goals and objectives are built upon the student’s present level of academic achievements and functional performance to provide the starting point of step-by-step objectives leading to annual goals. The present level of academic achievements and functional performance is based on previous test results and classroom assessment outcomes such as direct observation by the classroom teacher, anecdotal notes by the interventionist during a specified instructional time, or a portfolio evaluation pro- vided by the special education teacher. Between the present level and the annual goal are the short-term IEP objectives, which are intermediate steps, one being built upon the other. Each specific IEP objective for an individual child can be embedded within the broader class level instructional objectives for all students using the general education cur- riculum in an inclusive classroom. In each step of the objectives, classroom assessment plays a critical role in evaluating the effectiveness of the instruction for all students by fol- lowing the broader instructional objectives as well as documenting the student’s progress by examining the specific IEP objectives within the classroom assessment framework. As a result, general education and special education teachers work on a truly collaborative team towards the shared goals for all students in the classroom. For example, Scanlon and Baker (2012) showed effectiveness of a comprehensive model accommodating students in instructional and assessment contexts through shared responsibility of general and special education teachers in inclusive high school classrooms.

Curriculum-based assessment (CBA) is a type of classroom assessment that teachers often use to assess not only the content they are teaching, but also the knowledge and skills the students are learning on a regular basis. CBA is a direct application of cri- terion-referenced assessment strategies to educational content. CBA is a direct means for identifying a student’s entry point within an educational programme, and for refining and readjusting instruction. CBAs focus on skills that are part of the daily cur- riculum. Item selection in CBAs is determined by how important they are to the student’s

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1479

school performance or daily living. The test results from a CBA indicate how much the student has mastered in a specific subject area or domain. CBAs are often used for inter- vention planning or programming because items from a CBA test are directly related to a student’s IEP goals and objectives.

Types of assessment accommodations

Assessment accommodations are defined by changes to the setting, scheduling, materials, or procedures to allow meaningful participation in assessments (NCLB 2001). Cohen and Spenciner (2007) further defined accommodations for students with special needs as ‘changes to the educational program and assessment procedures and materials that do not substantially alter the instructional level, the content of the curriculum, or the assess- ment criteria’ (4). Disability can pose a serious challenge to learning and to fully demon- strating knowledge and abilities. It is important for teachers to remember that the purpose of any forms of CA is to assess the student’s ability level instead of the effects of the disabil- ity condition (Salvia, Ysseldyke, and Bolt 2007). For example, for a student with sensory motor difficulties, if the CA purpose is to assess students’writing skills, then the accommo- dation for this writing assessment can be a change of the assessment format such as a laptop

Figure 1. Embedding IEP objectives within instructional objectives using classroom assessment.

1480 Y. XU AND L. KUTI

computer instead of the pencil-paper format. Furthermore, this change of format as an accommodation can be applied to all students in the classroom. Accommodations for assessment can help students overcome orminimise the barriers presented by their disabil- ities and focus on their ability (Elliott, Kratochwill, and Schulte 1999; McDonnell, McLaughlin, and Morison 1997; Pitoniak and Royer 2001). The use of testing accommo- dations is viewed as a central factor in increasing the participation of students with disabil- ities in assessments (Thurlow, Ysseldyke, and Silverstein 1993).

As mentioned earlier, general education teachers or teachers of content subjects are most likely to teach students with special needs in the general education or inclusive classrooms. Accommodations will allow teachers to provide appropriate instruction to all students with or without disabilities in the classroom, including students who are gifted or talented. In addition to students with disabilities, gifted students also need support when individualised instruction is provided to accommodate their unique needs. They may not be able to differentiate instruction on their own and they may need guidance in recognising their unique learning needs to reach their potential capa- bilities (Manning, Stanford, and Reeves 2010). To reach this goal, it is essential to provide effective differentiated instruction to meet the diverse educational needs, learning styles, and interests of all learners in the inclusive classroom. Differentiated instruction (DI) is an alternative approach to teaching and learning that allows teachers options of varying learning content, contexts, and modes of assessment to meet the individual needs of each student (Stanford and Reeves 2009; Thousand, Villa, and Nevin 2007).

Universal design for learning (UDL) is one way to implement differentiated instruction. UDL is a theoretical framework designed to guide the development of curricula that are flexible and supportive of all students (Dolan and Hall 2001; Meyer and Rose 1998; Pisha and Coyne 2001; Rose 2001). The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 further defined UDL as ‘a scientifically valid framework for guiding educational practice tha… reduces barriers in instruction, provides appropriate accommodations, supports, and challenges, and maintains high achievement expectations for all students, including students with disabilities and students who are limited English proficient’ (Section 103 [24]). Within the framework of UDL, the individual needs of all students in the setting will be addressed, including students who have disabilities, students who are gifted or talented, and students who are from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. The methods, materials, and assessment are usable by all. UDL helps meet the challenges of diversity by suggesting flexible instructional materials, techniques, and strategies that empower educators to meet the various individual needs within the general education cur- riculum. The UDL framework guides the development of adaptable curricula by means of 3 principles: multiple means of representation, multiple means of expression, andmultiple means of engagement (CAST 2008). Instead of adapting the existing curriculum to meet the individual needs of students, UDL is promoting flexible accessibility for diverse lear- ners through multiple options of materials in representation, expression, and engagement.

The Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 requires equal access to goods and ser- vices for people with disabilities. The concept of Universal design came about through the field of architecture as a way to address these legal requirements by providing equal access to physical environments for people with special needs (Story, Mueller, and Mace 1998). Universal design proposes that accessibility features should be con- sidered during the conceptualisation, design, and development stages of any

INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF INCLUSIVE EDUCATION 1481

environmental interface to provide an environment with the least amount of restrictions or specialised provisions for people with special needs (Pisha and Coyne 2001). This concept was then applied to the field of education and became known as Universal Design for Learning (UDL) (Rose and Meyer 2002). The three principles of UDL are:

. Principle 1: To support recognition learning, provide multiple, flexible methods of presentation.

. Principle 2: To support strategic learning, provide multiple, flexible methods of expression and apprenticeship, and

. Principle 3: To support affective learning, provide multiple, flexible options for engagement.

Within the framework of UDL, technology or assistive technology has played an important role in accommodating students’ learning in inclusive classrooms. For example, a means of representation can be conducted through video, audio, or text-to- speech methods. Online blogs and searches can be an effective means of engaging the student in a subject relevant project. Similarly, a means of students to express themselves can include PowerPoint presentations, augmentative communication, concept maps, or music and art.

Through the principles of UDL, accommodations can provide access to assessment and intervention. In inclusive classrooms, accommodations can be any tools used during assessment and/or intervention in assisting students with disabilities to access to the learn- ing content without lowering the expectations of outcomes. Specifically, assessment accommodations can be grouped into four categories: setting accommodations, schedul- ing accommodations, testing materials accommodations; and test procedures accommo- dations (Christensen et al. 2008). See Table 2 for examples of accommodations of each category that teachers can apply during CA practices. A common accommodation ma