Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education Advance Access originally published online on April 28, 2006
The Journal of Deaf Studies and Deaf Education 2006 11(3):337-359; doi:10.1093/deafed/enj040
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
National Survey of Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in the United States
Online Research Lab
Walden University
This paper reports the results of the National Survey of Accommodations and Alternate Assessments for Students who are Deaf or Hard of Hearing in the United States (National Survey). This study focused on the use of accommodations and alternate assessments in statewide assessments used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. A total of 258 participants responded to the survey, including 32 representing schools for the deaf, 168 from districtwide/school programs, and 58 from mainstreamed settings. These schools and programs served a total of nearly 12,000 students who are deaf or hard of hearing nationwide. The most prevalent accommodations used in 2003–2004 statewide standardized assessments in mathematics and reading were extended time, an interpreter for directions, and a separate room for test administration. Read aloud and signed question-response accommodations were often prevalent, used more often for mathematics than in reading assessments. Participants from mainstreamed settings reported a more frequent use of accommodations than those in schools for the deaf or districtwide/school programs. In contrast, schools for the deaf were most likely to have students participate in alternate assessments. The top three alternate assessment formats used across all settings were out-of-level testing, work samples, and portfolios. Using the National Survey results as a starting point, future research will need to investigate the validity of accommodations used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing. In the context of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 accountability policies, the accommodations and alternate assessment formats used with students who are deaf or hard of hearing may result in restrictions in how scores are integrated into state accountability frameworks.
1 Participants in this study were asked to describe their educational setting from the following list: schools for the deaf, districtwide program for the deaf or hard of hearing, school program for the deaf or hard of hearing, mainstreamed setting, or other. Schools for the deaf were either residential or day schools with separate facilities for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Districtwide programs were those that served students at multiple locations, possibly including some students who were mainstreamed. School programs were those that served students in a single setting with specified programs for students who were deaf or hard of hearing, possibly including some integration into regular education classes for parts of the day. Mainstreamed settings were those without formal programs for students who were deaf or hard of hearing; students in mainstreamed settings were integrated for the entire school day. It is likely that these designations include overlapping characteristics and services. 2 Pilot participants included teachers of the deaf or hard of hearing, graduate students in education who work with students with disabilities, and administrators of programs for students who are deaf or hard of hearing. The pilot resulted in combining individual grades into grade ranges, adding "other" categories to most questions to allow for additional responses and adding additional formats to the alternate assessment list. Correspondence should be sent to Stephanie W. Cawthon, 15501 Waxler Court, Austin, TX 78754 (e-mail: scawthon{at}waldenu.edu).
Received January 9, 2006; revised March 28, 2006; accepted April 3, 2006
CiteULike 
Connotea 
Del.icio.us What's this?
This article has been cited by other articles:
|
|
 |
|
  S. W. Cawthon and K. A. Wurtz Alternate Assessment Use With Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing: An Exploratory Mixed-Methods Analysis of Portfolio, Checklists, and Out-of-Level Test Formats J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., July 23, 2008; (2008) enn027v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
J. Lollis and C. LaSasso The Appropriateness of the NC State-Mandated Reading Competency Test for Deaf Students as a Criterion for High School Graduation J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., June 5, 2008; (2008) enn017v1. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
|
|
S. W. Cawthon and Online Research Lab Accommodations Use for Statewide Standardized Assessments: Prevalence and Recommendations for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing J. Deaf Stud. Deaf Educ., January 1, 2008; 13(1): 55 - 96. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 S. W. Cawthon Hidden Benefits and Unintended Consequences of No Child Left Behind Policies for Students Who Are Deaf or Hard of Hearing American Educational Research Journal, September 1, 2007; 44(3): 460 - 492. [Abstract] [Full Text] [PDF]
|
|