This page describes the different types of testing irregularities incidents that might result from district testing personnel actions taken before, during, and after testing and includes examples of both procedural testing irregularities and serious testing violations. Testing personnel should understand the distinctions between different types of irregularities testing incidents so that any that occur may be properly reported and addressed.

Procedural Testing Irregularities

Procedural testing irregularities are less severe and more common than serious testing violations and typically occur when district testing personnel deviate from specified testing procedures. Annual training on test security and administration procedures and administration-specific training are the best ways for district personnel to avoid procedural irregularities. Examples of specific types of procedural testing irregularities follow.

Accommodation Errors

Accommodation errors typically involve providing appropriate accommodations (i.e., accessibility features, designated supports) to ineligible students or not providing appropriate accommodations to eligible students. Many accommodation errors, when identified in a timely manner, can be resolved with minimal impact to students. Testing personnel should be instructed to immediately notify their campus coordinator if they discover an accommodation error. If the error is not detected until after the assessment is complete, the district coordinator should submit the assessment for scoring unless the lack of the specific accommodation has a significant effect on the student’s ability to accurately demonstrate his or her knowledge and skills. If In that is the case, the assessment should be invalidated. If the district coordinator decides to invalidate a student’s assessment, campus personnel should notify the student’s parent or guardian. District coordinators should contact the /wiki/spaces/ODCCM2324/pages/2974918588 TEA Student Assessment Division for guidance in resolving accommodation errors.

Examples:

• A student was provided an unallowable accommodation.

• A student was provided an accommodation for which he or she was not approved.

• An allowable and approved accommodation was not provided to a student.

• An allowable and approved accommodation was not properly administered or applied.

• District testing personnel administered Complex Transcribing, Extra Day, Mathematics Scribe, or Other designated supports without TEA approval.

Accounting Errors

Improperly accounting for secure materials typically involves late, lost, or missing materials; failure to maintain the security of the materials; or improperly accounting for students’ tests, responses, or results. Most situations that involve the loss or late return of secure materials result from not establishing or implementing basic inventory procedures.

Testing personnel who locate any secure materials that were not returned after an administration must contact the TEA Student Assessment Division immediately. District coordinators should always question why materials were returned late or how these materials were discovered in order to determine whether there was a breach in security or confidentiality.

For all incidents where secure materials were left unattended, district coordinators are required to submit a testing irregularity incident form indicating if there was a breach in security or confidentiality.

Examples:

• Testing personnel lost or misplaced student test tickets, secure test materials (e.g., test session IDs), or test booklets.

• Secure online assessments were left open and visible, or secure test materials were left unattended.

• A student was issued test materials (e.g., test ticket, test booklet) belonging to another student.

• A student’s responses, holistic ratings, or Observable Behaviors ratings were submitted incorrectly (e.g., wrong subject or domain, wrong student).

• Secure test materials that were required to be returned to the testing contractor were destroyed.

• Secure test materials were not returned to the testing contractor by the published dates.

• Students’ test results or test performance were improperly shared (i.e., a violation of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act [FERPA] of 1974).

Eligibility Errors

Eligibility errors typically involve administering the incorrect assessment to a student, not testing an eligible student, or testing an ineligible student. Many eligibility errors, when identified in a timely manner, can be resolved with minimal impact to students. Testing personnel should be instructed to immediately notify their campus or district coordinator if they suspect a student is being tested or has been tested incorrectly. District coordinators should contact the TEA Student Assessment Division for guidance in resolving the issue.

Examples:

• A student was administered an incorrect assessment (e.g., wrong grade level, wrong language, wrong version).

• A student was administered the same assessment more than once in an administration (e.g., a paper version and an online version).

• An eligible student (e.g., an emergent bilingual student whose parents waived district English as a second language services) was not administered an assessment.

• An ineligible student was incorrectly administered an assessment (e.g., a student who has completed only the first part of a U.S. History course was administered the STAAR U.S. History assessment).

• District testing personnel failed to submit student responses from paper administrations or Observable Behaviors ratings in DEI resulting in no test scores for the students.

• District testing personnel failed to upload ratings from TELPAS holistic administrations in the Test Information Distribution Engine (TIDE).

• District testing personnel failed to properly account for all eligible testers.

Monitoring Errors

Monitoring errors are some of the most common types of testing irregularitiesincidents, but the incidence occurrence of monitoring errors can be reduced with annual training. Disruptions to testing that should have been avoided are considered monitoring errors (e.g., planned fire drills).

Improper monitoring can be detrimental to students. For example, providing a student with access to materials not allowed during an assessment may result in the student not receiving a score for that assessment. Other monitoring errors might lead to breaches in confidentiality that could place students’ test scores in question.

For all incidents where students were left unattended and unmonitored during testing, district coordinators are required to submit a testing irregularity incident form and indicate if the validity of the students’ assessments was compromised and the students’ assessments were invalidated.

Examples:

• A test administrator:

  • left a room unmonitored while students were testing; 

  • did not monitor students during a break from testing;

  • did not ensure that all students reported to the new testing room after consolidation;

  • reinforced test-taking strategies;

  • did not properly prepare a testing environment or device for testing;

  • did not use the test administrator manual during testing, did not read the “SAY” directions to students prior to testing, or deviated from the scripted directions; or

  • did not properly complete the required seating chart; or

  • did not provide sufficient time to test.

• A test administrator did not actively monitor students and did not:

  • ensure that students worked independently during testing; or

  • prevent students from using cell phones or any other electronic device to capture images or recordings, share postings, or send messages.

Training Errors

Training errors involve mistakes in training, calibration, or test security oaths.

Examples:

• Personnel were permitted to administer assessments, monitor test sessions, relieve a test administrator during a break, or handle secure materials even though they were not properly trained or did not sign a test security oath.

• Raters for TELPAS did not follow proper training or calibration procedures.

Serious Testing Violations

Incidents caused by district testing personnel that violate the security and confidentiality of an assessment are considered serious testing violations. District coordinators must report serious testing violations to the TEA Student Assessment Division as soon as they are made aware of such incidents. District Testing personnel should contact TEA when they are unclear what constitutes a serious testing violation or whether an irregularity a testing incident has occurred. Serious testing violations include the following:

, as outlined in Texas Administrative Code (TAC) §101.3031, are listed in the following table.