The Math Assessment That Doesn't Measure Math
Devon is an eighth grader with bilateral profound hearing loss who uses ASL as his primary language and reads at a fourth-grade level on a silent reading test. In class, he solves multi-step algebra equations with a Deaf peer and explains his reasoning clearly in ASL; his math teacher says he 'gets it.' On last year's statewide math assessment, Devon scored below basic with extended time and a calculator. The current IEP lists an interpreter for directions, extended time, a calculator, and a word-to-word glossary. The test allows read-aloud of math items in English but does not list ASL interpretation as a standard accommodation. The special education coordinator proposes replacing the interpreter with a 'simplified English' version and says ASL interpretation would make the test nonstandard. The math teacher says the low score proves Devon belongs in a basic-skills class. The annual IEP meeting is next week.
1. How would you evaluate the validity of Devon's prior score and the coordinator's proposal?
Read the worked answer
A below-basic score is only meaningful if the test measured Devon's math knowledge rather than his English literacy or access. Devon reads at a fourth-grade level and takes a grade-level math test with English word problems; that mismatch alone can depress scores. The prior IEP included an interpreter for directions only, not for items, so Devon may have had to read complex English on his own. Extended time and a calculator do not remove that barrier. The coordinator's 'simplified English' proposal may help, but it changes the test language and may not be equivalent; it also shifts the burden to Devon to understand a modified version rather than giving him access to the original. Saying ASL interpretation is 'nonstandard' is not the same as saying it is inappropriate-the IEP team must decide what the student needs, and the test vendor's accommodation list is a starting point, not a cap. The math teacher's conclusion is premature: classroom evidence shows Devon can reason algebraically when language is accessible. The team should compare the test's construct-math-with the access skills it inadvertently requires.
2. What assessment and accommodation plan would you recommend?
Read the worked answer
First, gather diagnostic data: have the math teacher document Devon's classroom problem-solving, and administer a math assessment in ASL or with ASL interpretation to see whether his score changes when language is accessible. Check whether the state allows a qualified interpreter for math items as an accommodation; if not, request it as an individualized accommodation with justification. Keep extended time, calculator, and glossary, but add interpretation of all directions and items into ASL by an interpreter familiar with math vocabulary; a quiet testing room; and a preview of test format. Consider a bilingual glossary with ASL video for key terms. Do not replace the interpreter with simplified English unless data show that Devon understands that version as well. For accountability, the team should document the accommodation, the rationale, and the expected effect, and review the next score alongside classroom performance. If the state denies the accommodation, the team should consider whether the test is the right measure and document the access gap rather than concluding Devon needs basic skills.
3. How should the team document the decision and monitor results?
Read the worked answer
Put the decision in the IEP with specifics: which accommodations, who provides them, in which settings, and for how long. Include a statement of Devon's present levels and the access barrier-reading level versus test language demands-so the rationale is clear. If the team disagrees with the coordinator, record the discussion and the evidence. Ask the interpreter and math teacher to keep brief logs: what Devon can do with accessible language, how often he uses each accommodation, and any test-anxiety or timing issues. After the next benchmark or statewide test, compare scores with and without interpretation if possible, and bring the data to the IEP review. Monitor classroom grades, not just test scores. If scores rise with access, that confirms the prior score was not a valid measure of math ability; if they do not, the team can revisit instruction and skills. The documentation should show a hypothesis, an intervention, and a review date-not a one-time placement decision.