Educators’ Interpretations of Ambiguous Accommodations

By Byrnes, MaryAnn

This exploratory case study examined how general and special education teachers in one school district interpreted three frequently used accommodations. Although a majority of both groups agreed on interpretations of extended time, there was little agreement, considerable variation, and some contradiction in their understanding of the changes intended by scribing and preferential seating. Recommendations include suggestions for replacing ambiguous accommodations with functional descriptions, linking accommodations more directly with barriers presented by disabilities, and paying particular attention to ensuring that interpretations are shared as students move through their school experience. Keywords: accommodations; access to the curriculum; access to the general curriculum; effective planning; individualized education programs

Accommodations intended to facilitate access for individuals with disabilities have become a major topic in educational discussions, especially in this time of high-stakes testing. Instructional accommodations are equally important, particularly because most states require assessment accommodations to be those used in daily instruction (Thurlow, Lazarus, Thompson, & Robey, 2002). Accurate implementation of accommodations, in both instruction and assessment, is essential for students with disabilities to acquire and demonstrate knowledge.

The use of accommodations is firmly established in several federal laws. section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 and the Americans With Disabilities Act of 1990 require organizations to institute reasonable accommodations so individuals with disabilities have equal access to programs, activities, and services. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) requires Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams to consider the need for accommodations to facilitate access to instruction. IDEA (beginning with its 1997 reauthorization) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 emphasize the use of appropriate accommodations during large-scale testing programs, delegating decision making to IEP teams.

The selection and use of accommodations is often accompanied by inconsistency and confusion. States vary widely in their guidance about permissible assessment accommodations (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004). Several studies have noted special education teachers are uncertain about the process for choosing accommodations (Edgemon, Jablonski, & Lloyd, 2006; Fletcher et al., 2006; Thompson, Lazarus, Thurlow, & Clapper, 2005). During mathematics instruction and assessment, general education teachers surveyed by Maccini and Gagnon (2006) reported using fewer accommodations than did special education teachers.

This case study explores one possible contributing factor to the confusion surrounding accommodations: Educators may be using ambiguous terms to refer to a range of very different intended accommodations. Informal discussions with teachers about “preferential seating” generated several interpretations, including nearest to the teacher, nearest to the whiteboard, and apart from distracting peers. Although each of these addresses the effects of a particular disability (respectively, hearing impairment, vision impairment, attentional difficulties), implementing the inappropriate interpretation would not help the student learn.

It is essential that educators use a shared vocabulary so intended educational practices can be implemented. Misunderstandings about intended accommodations can impede, rather than facilitate, a student’s performance. This exploratory case study was designed as a first step to determining the extent to which educators share understandings of the accommodations they identify as necessary.

The Purpose of Accommodations

Before examining the understandings of teachers, it is important to clarify the purpose of accommodations. section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 stipulates that individuals with disabilities cannot be denied access to major life activities because of their disabilities. Under this statute, accommodations are meant to ensure that children with disabilities have the same educational opportunities afforded students without disabilities (Guthrie, 2006). IDEA specifies that this access encompasses both instruction and assessment.

The elements and purposes of accommodations include a number of facets: the term’s definition, elimination of barriers to access, identification of constructirrelevant interference, and the creation of a “level playing field.” Although most studies focus on assessment accommodations, few address instruction.

The definition of assessment accommodation has stabilized, most notably due to the extensive investigations conducted by the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO): “Accommodations are changes in testing materials or procedures that enable students to participate in assessments in a way that allows abilities to be assessed rather than disabilities” (NCEO, n.d.). Thompson, Morse, Sharpe, and Hall (2005) applied the definition to instruction: “practices and procedures in the areas of presentation, response, setting, and timing/ scheduling that provide equitable access during instruction and assessment for students with disabilities.”

Implementation of appropriate accommodations removes a barrier to performance, reducing the impact of a disability (Thompson, Morse, et al., 2005; Ysseldyke et al., 2001). Removing this barrier enables an individual to more accurately demonstrate what he or she knows and can do (Thurlow & Bolt, 2001). Using the example of reading directions and problems on a math test taken by a student with learning disabilities in reading, Fletcher et al. (2006) described accommodations as compensating for the effect of the disability (difficulty reading the text) that would otherwise serve as an irrelevant source of variance because it does not affect the performance of typical students.

These barriers are sometimes described as constructirrelevant variance: elements that can appear as a difference but are unrelated to the task being measured. Characteristics of a disability could make it difficult to accurately measure the desired construct (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004). In the Fletcher et al. (2006) example above, the student’s struggles to read the directions and problems could affect his or her ability to demonstrate mathematics knowledge. A poor score on this math test might reflect content knowledge, but might also reflect the student’s difficulty reading the problems presented. Well-chosen accommodations enable students to demonstrate what they know and can do.

Several studies (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001; Thompson, Lazarus, et al., 2005; Thompson, Morse, et al., 2005) have described accommodations as creating a level playing field, defined as “a state of equality; an equal opportunity” (“Level Playing Field” n.d.). Once barriers posed by a disability have been removed, students with disabilities can participate fully in education. Learning does not become easier; it becomes more accessible.

To remove a barrier, one must think carefully about the characteristics of the disability experienced by an individual and how these impact the instructional activities at hand. Due to the heterogeneity of students with disabilities, labels will not suffice. It is critical to understand the functional impact of the disability in order to determine what barriers are raised and to state clearly what accommodations will remove those barriers (Ofiesh, Hughes, & Scott, 2004).

Eliminating barriers irrelevant to the critical construct creates a level playing field, where students can demonstrate what they know and can do so without the intervening factors of a disability. In other words, an appropriate accommodation removes a barrier caused by a disability so the individual has equal access to an educational activity.

The concept of removing barriers to participation seems straightforward, yet a number of studies describe challenges teachers experience in selecting accommodations. Although states have lists of allowable assessment accommodations, little guidance is available for the selection process (Edgemon et al., 2006) other than telling teams to base decisions on instructional accommodations and avoid using accommodations for the first time during assessments.

Although states concur on a number of accommodations for assessment, the umbrella terms for some accommodations mask a number of possible interpretations. Examining the five assessment accommodations approved most frequently by states, Bolt and Thurlow (2004) found extended time was permitted by 37 states. When considering barriers to be removed, this single accommodation might be appropriate for any of the following disability-related characteristics: slower writing speed, slower reading rate, or short attention span. However, the student with slower writing speed will not need extended time on a multiple-choice test; the student with a slower reading rate will not need extended time for an oral assignment. Both students may need help taking notes in a lecture setting; extended time will not remove a barrier as long as the teacher keeps talking. In instruction, this barrier would be removed by having a note-taker or copies of notes. Barriers change, depending on tasks. The extended time accommodation applies to a range of disabilities, referring to different barriers. Opportunities for confusion are rife when ambiguous terms are used. To date, no study has investigated whether educators agree on the changes intended by specific accommodations. Communicating clearly about the terms we use can remove barriers to providing students the accommodations they need. Lack of clarity (or differing interpretations) about the same term might be interpreted as confusion about the type and nature of interventions to be provided to students. Understanding how teachers interpret these ambiguous terms can clarify what steps need to be taken to ensure that accommodations are appropriately selected and implemented, in both instruction and in assessment.

This case study explores how general and special education teachers in one district interpreted three frequently used accommodations: extended time, scribing, and preferential seating. If these professionals agree on the action intended by an accommodation, access is likely to be enhanced. If they differ, or if they generate multiple meanings for the same term, implementation of intended accommodations could be compromised.

Method

An exploratory case study was selected to begin the examination of ambiguous accommodations, an area in which there has been no previous research. Focused exploration along with flexible methodology has been described as appropriate for the first stage of research (Odom et al., 2005; see also Levin, O’Donnell, & Kratochwill, as cited in Odom et al., 2005; Ym, 2003). Findings from an exploratory study begin to describe “what is happening” and identify areas for formal, quantitative studies (Shavelson & Towne, 2002).

The decision in favor of an exploratory qualitative case study was further influenced by Yin’s (2003) guidance that this model is appropriate when the boundaries between context and phenomenon are unclear. The influence of context was also noted by Shavelson and Towne (2002). Focusing initial inquiry on one district limits the impact of competing educational practices, procedures, and terminology.

Selection of Accommodations

This case study focused on accommodations that are used often during both instruction and assessment. Frequency of use was important to maximize the likelihood that educators have arrived at shared understandings through extensive experience. Studying accommodations permitted by state assessment policies, Bolt and Thurlow (2004) examined five that they felt were considered controversial: dictated response, large print, Braille, extended time, and interpreter for instructions. Because large print, Braille, and interpreter for instructions are clear in their intent, and readily identified as connected to sensory disabilities, they were excluded for the purposes of this study. Dictated response (referred to as scribing in this study) and extended time were included in this study because they can apply to a number of disabilities and are used in both instruction and assessment.

A third accommodation, preferential seating, was included, due to teacher familiarity. Although not typically applicable for assessment, preferential seating was identified as the most frequently used instructional accommodation in a study of Rhode Island schools (Paul Sherlock Center on Disabilities, as cited in Thompson, Lazarus, et al, 2005).

Survey Development

Survey questions were designed to be concise, openended inquiries about the respondents’ interpretations of each of the three accommodations. Items were first piloted with a group of graduate special education students, all of whom had completed at least one semester of graduate study. Approximately 80% of these students were working in schools. After items were revised to eliminate confusing language, they were field-tested with a group of special education administrators attending a state professional conference. Feedback from this group informed final revisions.

Setting and Participants

Acknowledging the possible impact of context in interpreting accommodations, a moderate-size district was purposively sought as the sample for this exploration. A shared vocabulary and experience are more likely to support agreement on ambiguous terms. If differences existed in a system of moderate size, they would likely be even more prevalent in a large system, with more schools and a wider diversity of perspectives.

During the field testing of survey items, I stated that I was seeking a moderate-size district in which to conduct the study. A special education administrator indicated an interest in participating in this exploration. When I studied the district, I found it to be of moderate size and to approximate state percentages of students with disabilities, thereby making it an appropriate candidate for this study. This purposively selected site is referred to by Yin (2003) as available through special arrangement or access.

Target participants included all 242 general and special education faculty in a suburban New England school district with an enrollment of slightly less than 4,000 students. The district served 17% of its children in special education, comparable to the state average of 16%. The faculty included K-12 teachers of classrooms and subject areas and specialists such as teachers of art, music, and physical education (collectively referred to as general education faculty) as well as special education teachers, therapists, school psychologists, and guidance counselors (collectively referred to as special education faculty).

Procedure

A single-sheet survey was sent to all faculty through interoffice mail, accompanied by a letter of support from district administration. Participants were asked the following question: “Three of the most frequently encountered instructional accommodations are preferential seating, extended time, and scribe. When you encounter these on IEPs, what changes do you expect the teachers will make for the student?” The survey provided space for respondents to enter their interpretation(s) for each of the three accommodations. Surveys were anonymous, asking only that respondents check off whether they were in general education or special education. The decision to use anonymous surveys, rather than interviews or focus groups, was intended to replicate the experience teachers face when they read an IEP and must implement it independently.

Completed surveys were returned to district administration, which forwarded them to this researcher. A total of 45 completed surveys were received, 33 from general education faculty and 12 from special education faculty. The return rate was 18.6%.

For analysis, responses were examined to identify major themes or ideas, based on the use of similar words and/or phrases (Patton, 1987). Responses for each accommodation were listed, grouping together semantically similar interpretations (e.g., close to teacher; near the teacher). Those communicating a difference in implementation (e.g., “extra time on assignments” contrasted with “extra time on tests”) were treated as distinct interpretations.

Teachers’ actual words are used throughout the Results section. The written survey responses provided a data trail, so all statements and groupings could be reviewed, confirmed, and reanalyzed if necessary.

The percentage of general and special education faculty listing each interpretation was calculated. Their use in this qualitative study is intended to provide added detail about the interpretations listed by participants. No generalization is suggested or implied.

Results

For each accommodation studied, tables of interpretations are arranged by the decreasing percentage of general education faculty mentioning them. The percentage of special education faculty generating the same interpretation is indicated in an adjacent column. Interpretations provided only by special education faculty are arranged by decreasing percentages, following the general education faculty responses. Educators’ actual words are used throughout.

Some faculty provided statements in addition to their understanding of the accommodation, for example, “May be used for a grade, as is.” Because they do not refer to a change in instructional procedure or setting, these are presented and discussed as comments rather than specific accommodations.

Extended Time

Educator interpretations of extended time are summarized in Table 1. A total of six interpretations were generated by the responding faculty. Three interpretations were mentioned by both general and special education faculty. General education faculty generated three interpretations not mentioned by special education faculty. Although there was strong agreement on two interpretations, a number of divergent implementation comments were provided by individual educators.

The majority of general and special education faculty interpreted extended time to mean “extra time to complete assignments (or work or tasks).” A smaller majority of each group interpreted the accommodation to call for “extra time on tests and/or quizzes.”

Small numbers of general education and special education faculty noted that extended time would mean they should provide “wait time for oral questions.” Although no specific disability was noted, this interpretation would remove a participation barrier for individuals with expressive language disorders.

Aside from interpretations, respondents provided comments about the amount and scheduling of the extended time. Almost a quarter of the general education faculty noted that the extended time should be “unlimited,”"until done,” or “as much as needed.” A small number of general and special education faculty noted that the amount of time should be “as much as needed within reason.”

Five educators commented on the scheduling of the extended time. Two general education faculty noted that the extended time should take place within the same day as the original activity. One general education teacher stated that the time should not interfere with instruction. Although one general education teacher noted that extended time should not interfere with lunch or recess, the only special education teacher addressing scheduling suggested before school or recess as acceptable options for extended time. A quarter of the special education faculty specifically mentioned the location of extended timing, commenting that it might take place outside the general education classroom. No general education faculty commented on location.

Several general education faculty voiced opinions about the use of extended time. In opposite directions, two general education teachers (6%) noted extended time should not apply to projects, homework, or essays, although 15% of the general education faculty volunteered that extended time should apply to projects. One general education faculty member specified that extended time should not be accompanied by extra help.

Scribing

Participants’ understandings of the scribing accommodation are presented in Table 2. A total of 10 interpretations were generated: 4 by both faculty; an additional 5 by only the general education faculty; and 1 mentioned only by a special education teacher. One interpretation received substantial agreement between the two faculties. Several comments were also expressed.

“Write exactly what the student says/dictates” was listed by the highest number of general education faculty (48%), although not quite by a majority. Two thirds of the special education faculty cited this interpretation. Four of these respondents (three general education faculty and one special education teacher), added comments specifying that the student must provide spelling, punctuation, and capitalization during the process.

“Write for the student” was noted by 33% of the general education faculty and 25% of the special education faculty. This interpretation is almost identical to the most frequently noted one, but the omission of “exactly,” and the lack of comments about student editing, suggest a different meaning might be intended.

One special education teacher listed “for essay tests” as a change intended by scribing. No general education faculty referred to tests.

Approximately a quarter of both general and special education faculty mentioned note taking as an interpretation of scribing. Of this group, half of the general education faculty and all of the responding special education faculty noted that another student might scribe.

Four general education faculty (12%) listed alternate means of recording information, such as computer use and typed sentences that could be cut and glued onto paper. No special education faculty mentioned any alternate recording method.

A pair of general education faculty offered contradictory interpretations. Although one stated prompting was not permitted, another indicated the scribe should be “more than a writer/copier,” suggesting a more active role in the process.

Seven special education faculty offered comments. Three of these identified characteristics (e.g., disability in written expression, motor, processing; overwhelmed by amount of notes) related to the accommodation. Other comments referred to ways in which the written product could be used (e.g., “may be used for a grade, as is” or “may be used to edit with adult”).

Preferential Seating

The preferential seating accommodation generated the largest number of interpretations, the most diversity in response, and the most contradictory interpretations. Of the 25 interpretations provided, 7 were shared by both general and special education faculty, 13 were listed only by general education faculty, and 5 were given only by special education faculty. Responses for this accommodation are summarized in Table 3.

The interpretation cited most frequently was “close to the teacher.” However, this was listed by slightly less than a majority (48%) of general education faculty and 50% of special education faculty.

Repeated reading of faculty responses suggested that some interpretations could be grouped into broader categories. These included groups of interpretations related to the following: proximity to elements of the classroom, distraction, access to attention, social contact concerns, and a number of sensory characteristics. One additional category addressed preferential seating as the end point of an active process, rather than a specific place in the classroom. Much variation existed within these categories as well as between them.

Proximity to certain elements of the room was mentioned by a number of participants, in a variety of ways. Seating “in the front of the room” was listed by the second largest group of general education faculty (42%) but by the largest percentage of special education faculty (58%). Almost a third of the general education faculty listed seating “close to the board,” although this was noted by only one special education teacher.

Distraction was a focus of several responses. Approximately 40% of both general education and special education faculty listed “away from distractions” as what they meant this accommodation to accomplish. Another general education teacher noted that the student should sit “in the back of the room so they don’t distract others.”

Attention by adults was important to some respondents, but perhaps in different ways. About a fifth of the general education faculty (but no special education faculty) noted the student should sit “close to where help may be given.” Additionally, a small number of general and special education faculty would seat the child “in the best place to receive teacher monitoring.”

Almost a third of the general education teachers highlighted social contact issues, but each type of seating was noted by only one teacher: near a role model, in a small group, apart from certain children, apart from friends, and alone. None of these were mentioned by a special education teacher. Each could reduce a barrier, but all are represented by the same ambiguous term: preferential seating.

A quarter of the general education faculty provided responses related to diverse sensory issues, mentioning proximity to visuals or the best place to see or hear. One third of the special education teachers mentioned specific sensory issues: “in the back of the room for vision” or “on the side of the room for hearing.” Two special education faculty used the phrase “in the best place to access the board.”

Finally, a group of faculty described preferential seating as an active decision, rather than a specific place. A third of the special education faculty and 12% of the general education faculty indicated seating should be deliberately chosen, dependent on the student’s disability and the task at hand. Respondents explained that the seat needed to be “not random, but planned,” giving “thought to the optimal seating in light of the student’s issues.” Seating could change, “depending on the situation.”

Discussion

Educators in this exploratory case study supplied multiple interpretations for the actions they expect teachers to take when encountering three commonly used accommodations: extended time, scribing, and preferential seating. A majority of both general and special education faculty agreed on only two interpretations for one accommodation: that extended time could mean providing extra time to complete assignments/work/tasks and/or it could mean providing extra time for tests and quizzes. Varied comments about the timing, scheduling, and setting of the extended time suggest that below this surface agreement exist differences in implementation.

For both scribing and preferential seating, educators differed widely in their interpretations, both within their own group and between general and special education faculties. A number of interpretations conflict: for example, requiring students to provide spelling and punctuation, as opposed to editing text with a scribe who is “more than a writer/copier.” Some interpretations might be challenging to implement: If the teacher moves around the room during instruction, and the student is supposed to sit “near the teacher,” does the student’s seat change to follow the teacher? What happens if a student seated in the front of the room is easily distracted by a number of other children who have the same accommodation?

Within these differing responses, educators listed interpretations that can effectively remove barriers to participation. Unfortunately, the umbrella term for each of the three common accommodations covers too many options: It is ambiguous.

Effective communication requires three components: a paired sender and receiver, a shared intent, and a shared means of conveying meaning (Kuder, 2003). In educational teams, general and special educators, parents, and students comprise the senders and receivers of messages. Team members share the intent of designing and implementing appropriate educational plans. The third component, a shared means of communication, is most challenging in this study of ambiguous accommodations. Shared definitions of common terms are essential to successful communication. Earlier findings of teachers’ confusion about selecting accommodations might actually be reflecting this semantic ambiguity.

There is wide agreement that accurately selected accommodations should remove barriers related to a disability so that an individual can have equal access to instruction and assessment. Thompson, Lazarus, et al. (2005) have developed a rubric to guide the selection of assessment accommodations that can also be used for determining instructional accommodations. The highest level of this rubric begins with the statement that an accurately chosen accommodation “explains learning needs in each subject area and advocates for the appropriate accommodation(s).”

This clear rubric element is key to changing our vocabulary to increase shared understanding of ambiguous accommodations. Each IEP contains a statement of how the disability affects performance in curriculum: its functional impact (Ofiesh et al., 2004). Accommodations should describe clearly the action that will remove barriers raised by this impact. Instead of “preferential seating,” the IEP for a student with a hearing impairment might list the following accommodations: seated away from the noise of open windows or heating vents; seated with a clear view of the teacher’s mouth to facilitate lip-reading. The IEP for a student with a disability that results in slow motor speed could specify extended time for written responses and tasks or copies of notes for lecture classes. In addition to increasing communication among educators, families, and students, using functional descriptive statements rather than ambiguous terms can enhance the development of self-advocacy in students. As students with disabilities transition into employment and/or higher education, they assume responsibility for requesting accommodations necessary to increase access in those settings. To meet the standard of section 504, students must be able to explain the connection between the disability and the requested accommodation to people unfamiliar with these concepts (Ofiesh et al., 2004; Sahlen & Lehmann, 2006). Functional, descriptive statements instead of ambiguous terms are likely to establish shared meaning with each student’s new team and smooth the way for implementation and access.

Limitations

This exploratory case study was designed to examine the range of interpretations teachers hold about ambiguous accommodations, an area not previously studied. Although informative, findings must be interpreted with caution, due to a number of limitations, most notably the low return rate, the fact that the sample comprised only one school district, and the decision not to probe responses. Future studies could eliminate these limitations, seeking to increase the return rate, expand the range of educators surveyed, and/or engage educators in discussions about their interpretations.

The low return rate may reflect the fact that the survey was distributed in May, a time when educators were focusing on the administration of statewide testing and the upcoming end of the school year. This timing was selected deliberately, anticipating that accommodations would be in the forefront of teachers’ thinking during a time when they were implementing formal assessments and writing IEPs. The return rate might have been higher if reminders had been issued, but this action was purposely not taken for fear that teachers would begin to talk more about the study and, in consequence, change the responses they would have given.

The limitation to one school system, of moderate size, was also purposeful. If a number of systems had been surveyed for this initial inquiry, the context of system policies and definitions might have created additional sources of variance. If teacher interpretations are diverse in this single system, it is likely that they are even more so in a larger, more complex district.

Finally, it was not possible to probe statements made by respondents because anonymous surveys were used to replicate the situation many teachers face when they must implement an IEP independently.

The goal of this exploratory study was not consensus but, rather, an understanding of the range of interpretations teachers hold. Some apparent differences might have been resolved through follow-up questioning; areas of agreement might have become more discrepant. Conversely, teachers might have been reluctant to admit uncertainty without anonymity. A later stage of inquiry should engage participants more intensely to explore reasons that guide their thinking.

Implications for Practice

Collaborate to select accommodations that directly address the impact of the disability. Understanding the nature of the disability and the tasks ahead is critical to effective decision making about accommodations (Bolt & Thurlow, 2004). Special education professionals can use their expertise to identify relevant aspects of a disability in the impact statement of the 1ER General education professionals can contribute their curriculum knowledge to explain the tasks that will be expected. Together, educators should think carefully about each characteristic of a disability to determine what should be done to remove educational barriers and increase access.

Use functional descriptions instead of ambiguous umbrella terms. Clear communication will be enhanced when team members describe the changes that need to happen instead of using ambiguous terms such as scribing or preferential seating. Describing specifically what is intended will enhance faithful implementation. This approach requires team members, including students and parents, to discuss exactly what they understand is meant by each accommodation to ensure the meaning of each is shared.

Pay particular attention to communicating accommodations during times of educational change. Two particular transitions are likely to lead to increased confusion when ambiguous terms are used: moves between schools and changing educational demands across grades. Each deserves special attention to ensure shared communication about accommodations.

When students move from one school to another, either within or across districts, opportunities for confusion multiply. Elementary and secondary educators in the same district may think differently about terms such as preferential seating. Semantic differences might be even more dramatic across districts. Differences in meaning can result from varied educational practices or environmental circumstances, such as room arrangements. In both situations, functional, descriptive accommodations will communicate barriers more accurately than will ambiguous terms.

Second, as a student ages, the impact of the disability may change, as will the tasks presented. For example, a student with a written language disability may need a notetaker in early middle school; as the student develops skills in written language, that note-taker may no longer be needed. Eliminating unneeded accommodations increases independence. Similarly, demands for independent content reading are more strenuous at seventh grade than they are in second grade. For an older student with a severe reading disability, this curriculum demand might lead the team to select an accommodation of text-to-speech software for content material. Clarity about the reason for each accommodation, and its link with the student’s disability, is essential to decision making and shared communication.

Conclusion

Based on the responses of the participating educators in one district, it appears that the accommodations ambiguity I have encountered in other districts, and with my graduate students, is not unique to them.

Clearly, more formal study is necessary to establish the scope and impact of diverse interpretations of ambiguous accommodations. In the meantime, the range of responses in this district may motivate other educators to consider the status of ambiguous accommodations in their own schools (Brantlinger et al., 2005).

To maximize student access, special education teams must utilize functional terms to describe the accommodations meant to be implemented. Multiple interpretations for the same term can result in difficulty implementing the IEP as intended. To clarify investigations and findings, researchers should also provide this level of specificity.

Accurately implemented, an accommodation can remove a barrier to educational access. Conflicting interpretations can result in unintentional denial of appropriate access, unintentional denial of educational opportunity, inappropriate instruction, and unintentional failure to implement the IEP as intended. When functional, descriptive accommodations are used, educational decisions will be made more clearly and implemented as intended. When this occurs, students with disabilities will have the best chance to learn and to demonstrate what they know and can do.

References

Bolt, S. E., & Thurlow, M. L. (2004). Five of the most frequently allowed testing accommodations in state policy: Synthesis of research. Remedial and Special Education, 25(3), 141-152.

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195-207.

Edgemon, E. A., Jablonski, B. R., & Lloyd, J. W. (2006). Large- scale assessments: A teacher’s guide to making decisions about accommodations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3), 6-11.

Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Boudousquie, A., Copeland, K., Young, V., Kalinowski, S., et al. (2006). Effects of accommodations on high-stakes testing for students with reading disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 136-150.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test accommodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 174- 181.

Guthrie, P. (2006). Section 504 and IDEA: Promoting student access: A resource guide for educators (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Council of Administrators of Special Education.

Kuder, S. J. (2003) Teaching students with language and communication disabilities (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Level playing field, (n.d.). Dictionary.com Unabridged (v. 1.0.1). Retrieved September 14, 2006, from http:// dictionary.reference .com/search?q=level_playing_field&r=66

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 217-234.

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). (n.d.). NCEO special topic area: Accommodations for students with disabilities. Introduction to accommodations. Retrieved September 15, 2006, from http://www.education.umn.edu/NCEO/TopicAreas/ Accommodations/ Accomtopic.htm Odom, S. L., Brantlinger, E., Gersten, E., Homer, R. H., Thompson, B., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137-148.

Ofiesh, N. S., Hughes, C., & Scott, S. S. (2004). Extended test time and postsecondary students with learning disabilities: A model for decision making. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19(1), 57-70.

Patton, M. Q. (1987). How to use qualitative methods in evaluation. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Sahlen, C. A. H., & Lehmann, J. P. (2006). Requesting accommodations in higher education. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 38(3), 28-34.

Shavelson, R. J., & Towne, L. (Eds.). (2002). Scientific research in education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Retrieved January 30, 2007, from http://books.nap.edu

Thompson, S. J., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M. L., & Clapper, A. T. (2005). Topical review 8: The role of accommodations in educational accountability systems. College Park, MD: Institute for the Study of Exceptional Children and Youth.

Thompson, S. J., Morse, A. B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers. Retrieved June 22, 2006, from http:// osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/accomodations.asp

Thurlow, M. L., & Bolt, S. E. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S., Thompson, S., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 state policies on assessment participation and accommodations (Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Yin, R. K. (2003). Case study research: Design and methods (3rd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Bielinski, J., House, A., Moody, M., & Haigh, J. (2001). The relationship between instructional and assessment accommodations in an inclusive state accountability system. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(3), 212-220.

Mary Ann Byrnes

University of Massachusetts Boston

Author’s Note: Please address correspondence to MaryAnn Byrnes, University of Massachusetts Boston, Graduate College of Education, 100 Morrissey Blvd., Boston, MA 02125; e-mail: maryann .byrnes@umb.edu.

Mary Ann Byrnes, EdD, is an associate professor of education at the University of Massachusetts Boston. Her current interests include instructional/assessment accommodations and the linkage between policy, research, and practice.

Copyright PRO-ED Journals Sep/Oct 2008

(c) 2008 Remedial and Special Education; RASE. Provided by ProQuest LLC. All rights Reserved.