For the past dozen years, California has been acknowledged as having some of the highest K-12 academic standards in the nation. However, recent changes in our assessment and accountability systems suggest that these standards have been eroded for at least one subgroup of kids in California schools. This erosion leads to lower expectations for this subgroup, and it artificially boosts California’s accountability data in a manner that misleads both educators and the public.

I speak of the special education students now taking the California Modified Assessments (CMAs) that have been phased into the statewide standardized testing system, STAR.

The CMAs have scores that reflect lower levels of achievement than the STAR tests they replace. The CMAs have been phased into California’s statewide assessment system since 2008, with a final batch of CMAs being administered for the first time this spring. The CMAs are now being administered to about 4 percent of the total STAR enrollment for grades 3-11, or about 40 percent of California’s special education enrollment

Recently, U.S. Secretary of Education Arne Duncan, addressing assessment and accountability for students with disabilities, declared his opposition to so-called modified assessments. The U.S. Education Department website declared: “Sec. Duncan vowed to end the so-called ‘2-percent’ rule that obscures an accurate portrait of the academic needs of America’s students with disabilities. He said that students with disabilities should be judged with the same accountability system as everyone else and that the Department of Education would not issue another policy that allows districts to disguise the educational performance of 2 percent of its students.”

It was the federal “2-percent rule” that led to the introduction of the CMAs in California. While advertised as affecting only 2 percent of total enrollment (or about 20 percent of special education enrollment), as implemented the rule applies only to federal accountability calculations. So, California now tests twice the advertised percentage of students with the CMA, and all students taking the CMA contribute to California’s API accountability calculations. In fact, some local school districts now administer CMAs to as many as 75 percent of their special education students.

In the years before the introduction of CMAs, California’s policy was identical to the policy that Duncan articulated. In California, special education advocates firmly agreed with a policy to have the same expectations and the same accountability system for students with disabilities as for all other students. As an example, advocates have consistently not supported the notion of differentiated high school diplomas for students with disabilities who are not able to meet the same academic achievement requirements as all other students, in particular passage of the high school exit exam as a requirement for graduation.

However, with the CMAs, California has now instituted a differentiated accountability system. Students with disabilities who get a score of “proficient” on a CMA have that score treated the same as a score of “proficient” on the more rigorous STAR test that the CMA replaced. In effect, California is substituting lower achievement standards for the advertised “high” academic standards for the subgroup of kids now taking CMAs. This change has been instituted without any vetting at the policy or public level; rather, it was just included in API calculations.

We probably need to parse the policy articulated by Duncan for clarity. The policy cites using “the same accountability system” for all students, including students with disabilities. It does not necessarily mean that all special education students have to take the same tests as other students. Indeed, there are good reasons to have CMAs for selected students with disabilities in order to increase the validity and usability of the results. Having kids stare at test booklets that are beyond their current achievement level is not a good use of student time or taxpayer dollars.

However, scores from CMAs can be adjusted downwards to reflect the more rigorous California Standards Test level of measurement, and then included in California’s API calculations. In fact, California’s API already has an adjustment of this type: the General Math CST scores given to eighth and ninth graders not yet ready to take Algebra I are adjusted downwards by one or two performance levels (e.g., for 8^th graders, a score of “proficient” on the General Math test is treated the same as a score of “basic” on the more rigorous Algebra I test). Retaining the CMAs  for a defined group of students with disabilities would be good, but only if the CMA scores were adjusted appropriately for API calculations.

From a policy perspective, lowering California’s high academic standards for a subset of our students with disabilities is an issue that needs immediate attention. The State Board of Education has the authority to correct the policy, and should do so.

Finally, I should note that the same policy erosion has now crept into the State Board of Education’s discussion regarding a California High School Exit Exam Alternative Means program for selected students with disabilities. The key notion for this program is that any CAHSEE Alternative Means must reflect the same level of achievement as required for passing the high school exit exam.

Recent action at the State Board of Education seems to indicate the same type of treatment that has happened with the CMAs would be applied for the CAHSEE Alternative Means program – specifically the prospect of using a STAR Algebra I CST score reflecting only 32 percent of the items correct on a 65-item test (21 items correct; only 5 raw score points higher than a randomly marked answer sheet) as an approvable CAHSEE Alternative Means. The State Board needs to keep Duncan’s policy principle in mind when dealing with the CAHSEE Alternative Means issue, as well as use of CMA scores for California’s API accountability system.

Doug McRae is a retired educational measurement specialist living in Monterey. In his 40 years in the K-12 testing business, he has served as an educational testing company executive in charge of design and development of K-12 tests widely used across the US, as well as an adviser on the initial design and development of California’s STAR assessment system. He has a Ph.D. in Quantitative Psychology from the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill.