Guzman-Orth, D., Supalo, C. A., Smith, D. W., Lee, O., & King, T. (2021). Equitable STEM instruction and assessment: Accessibility and fairness considerations for special populations (RR–21-11). Educational Testing Service. https://doi.org/10.1002/ets2.12324

This expository report was a discussion of accessibility and accommodations issues, and a review of associated literature. Various technology was noted for use as accessibility tools including accommodations, such as enlarged font, enlarged graphics, braille, tactile graphics, digital highlighting tools, picture dictionary, increased graphics/illustrations, glossary, scribe, and Nemeth code and Unified English Braille (UEB) for scientific notation in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) content.

Academic research and various information from websites were reviewed in the process of exploring the process of including K–12 students with a range of high-incidence and low-incidence disabilities in the STEM academic content areas in the U.S. Studies considered students with a range of high- and low-incidence disabilities, with the following disabilities specifically identified: intellectual disabilities, deafness/hearing impairments, and blindness/visual impairments.

A review process was completed from an online search which included academic research articles, reports, and websites pertinent to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) accessible instructional planning and assessment development for students with disabilities.

This report was a review and exposition of accessibility and equality for students with disabilities in STEM academic content. [Note: The discussion included considerations for English learners, but these details are not addressed in this summary.] The three tiers of accessibility were described: (a) universal design for learning/assessment, (b) "designated resources," and (c) accommodations specified by IEP/504 plans. General accessibility considerations included the importance of "born accessible" tests and next-generation accessible exams such as the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) assessment, and "twinning" processes by which assessments are redesigned by replacing inaccessible content with accessible content. The authors asserted that accessibility of STEM assessments (and instruction) for students with disabilities ought to be addressed through an “assets-based” lens—rather than a deficit model—for fair and equitable access to be achieved. Important considerations need to be incorporated into initial instructional planning and test development, instead of retroactively adding accessibility features including accommodations. High expectations for special populations should be in place in addition to accountability. The authors mentioned the matter of the interference of some accommodated tests for students with specific types of disabilities. For example, additional graphics and simplified text to support intellectual disabilities can interfere with understanding for students with visual impairments. Caution ought to be taken to demonstrate efficacy in implementing technology for accessibility; that is, technology should be prototyped and used in the classroom before using these accommodations on assessments. Implementation matters were discussed, and recommendations were offered.