Calculators, a Whiteboard, and a Principal Who Wants Silence
Theo Park coordinates CAASPP at a K–8 school with 640 students. In May, during the grade eight mathematics summative, the test administrator for a group of 27 students reports three incidents. First, a student whose 504 plan documents 'use of a calculator for all mathematics tasks' used the embedded calculator during the calculator-allowed session; the plan does not mention the non-calculator session. Second, six students without an IEP, 504 plan, or English learner designation took four-function calculators from the classroom bin during the non-calculator session because the bin was open. Third, the test administrator, seeing students stuck on the term 'unit rate,' wrote a definition and a worked example on the whiteboard and left them up for about eight minutes. When Theo raises reporting, the principal says the calculators were already in the room so 'nothing really happened,' the whiteboard was erased so there is 'no evidence,' and the school cannot afford an invalidation because its participation rate is already at risk.
1. Analyze each of the three incidents. Which were permissible, which were not, and why?
Read the worked answer
Three different situations with three different answers.
The documented 504-plan calculator use is permissible to the extent the plan and the state rules align. The plan states calculator for mathematics tasks, so the student may use the embedded calculator in a session where a calculator is available. Theo should confirm the plan's wording and confirm that the session permits calculators; a plan cannot create access to a tool in a session where the state test does not offer one.
The six students using calculators in the non-calculator session is a real problem. Calculators are not on the universal-tools list for that session. Where a calculator is permitted as a support, it must be documented in an IEP or 504 plan, or identified through the English learner process. A classroom bin is not documentation, and the fact that the tools were in the room does not authorize their use.
The whiteboard is the most serious. A definition plus a worked example is direct coaching on content; a definition is exactly what the item measures. Eight minutes does not cure it. Test administrators may manage logistics and read directions verbatim, never teach.
2. What must Theo do about reporting, documentation, and the principal's request to treat the incidents as harmless?
Read the worked answer
Theo should report first and analyze second. He should notify the LEA CAASPP coordinator the same day, within the timeframe the Test Administration Manual requires, and the LEA should report the irregularity to the California Department of Education. He should not let the principal talk him into silence. Erasing the whiteboard removes the display, not the obligation to report, and it is the students' results that are at stake rather than the school's comfort.
Documentation should capture, for each incident, the date and session, the students involved, exactly what was used or displayed, how long it was available, whether any test items were discussed, and which staff were present. The LEA and CDE decide whether results are invalidated; a school cannot clear its own irregularity. Theo should carry out whatever direction comes back even if it means a lower tested count or an invalidated group, and he should say so to the principal in plain terms.
Prevention belongs in the same conversation. Before the next window Theo should verify each student's documented supports in the test delivery system, secure classroom materials so no bin is open, and brief administrators that they may not teach, define, or translate content during a test.