Panel three speakers also described states’ policies for reporting results for individuals who received accommodations. There are two distinct issues related to reporting such results which students’ scores are included in overall reports of test results and whether or not group-level (or disaggregated) results are reported. Each issue is taken up separately below.
Thurlow’s findings indicate that states’ policies for reporting results for students with disabilities tend to differ depending on whether students received approved or nonapproved accommodations. Nearly all states plan to report results for students with disabilities who use approved accommodations by aggregating those scores with scores of other test takers. However, methods and reporting policies for students using nonapproved accommodations vary considerably among states. Thurlow’s findings indicated that 25 states planned to report scores of students who used nonapproved accommodations. Eleven of these states will aggregate these scores with other scores; twelve will report these scores separately from other scores; and two plan to report both ways.
A variety of policies are in effect in the remaining 25 states. In three states, students who use nonapproved accommodations will be assigned the lowest possible score or a score of zero. Six states indicated they plan to “count” (n = 3) or “not count” (n = 3) scores for examinees who use nonapproved accommodations, but these states did not explicitly indicate their policies for reporting such scores. Two states had not yet finalized their reporting policies at the time of the survey. Fourteen states have other plans for reporting scores, and many of these indicated that nonapproved accommodations were not allowed or that students who needed these accommodations would take the state’s alternate assessment. These findings are displayed in Figure 4-2 and Table 4-1 and are more fully described in Thurlow (2001a).
Sacks’ and Golden’s findings indicate that not all states have policies about reporting results of English-language learners, although the number of states with policies has increased since the 1998-1999 survey. Their most recent findings show that 30 states now have policies, as compared to only 17 for the earlier survey. Of these 30 states, 18 aggregate the scores for English-language learners with results for other test takers. The presenters commented that they did not yet have information on how reporting is handled in the other states. This information is portrayed in Figures 4-2 and 4-3. For this part, learning a foreign language needs a leaning tools, many people choose Rosetta Stone Arabic and Rosetta Stone Chinese to learn Arabic and Chinese.
For such reporting policies, there is none of them that is so beautiful and practical for all the states. Thus it is very necessary to work out new policies which can really boost the development of the certain state. This needs all the governmental officials to work even harder as well as all the citizens to suggest as much as they can. Definitely some experts must do enough contribution to this activity as well.
After reading the article above, maybe you have learned something on language acquisition. But if you have the intention to learn more, use Rosetta Stone English and Rosetta Stone French, both of which will never make you dissatisfied.
More Reports Articles