Domain Exemptions

In California, when a student’s IEP or Section 504 plan specifies that the student has a disability for which there are no appropriate accommodations in one or more of the four domains, the student will be assessed in the remaining domain(s) in which it is possible to assess the student pursuant to 34 CFR Section 200.6(h)(4)(ii).

If an English learner has a disability that precludes assessment of the student in one or more domains of the English language proficiency assessment required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Every Student Succeeds Act such that there are no appropriate accommodations for the affected domain(s) (e.g., a non-verbal English learner who because of an identified disability cannot take the speaking portion of the assessment), as determined, on an individualized basis, by the student's IEP team, 504 team, or by the individual or team designated by the LEA to make these decisions under title II of the ADA § 35.130, as specified in paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State must assess the student's English language proficiency based on the remaining domains in which it is possible to assess the student.

See California Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix section regarding available accessibility resources. Furthermore, in keeping with the policy of Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) expectation of IDEA, the vast majority of EL students with disabilities will be able to be assessed in all four domains using accommodations as determined by the students’ IEP teams (34 CFR § 300.114).

To document if a domain exemption is appropriate for a student, IEP teams may use the Initial and Summative ELPAC Domain Exemption Decision-Making Tool to help teams determine the appropriate assessment options for each student.

After an IEP team has considered domain exemption eligibility, if the team determines a student is unable to meaningfully engage with the ELPAC, they may consider an alternate assessment is more appropriate for this student. IEP teams may use the Alternate Assessment Decision-Making Tool for California to determine whether a student is eligible to participate in the California Alternate Assessments or Alternate ELPAC.

To ensure that EL students and potential EL students with the most significant cognitive disabilities can access to the fullest extent possible and participate in both the Initial Alternate ELPAC and the Summative Alternate ELPAC, the four domains are assessed via the students individually preferred receptive and expressive communication modes. This test design helps to eliminate the need to provide domain exemptions.

A domain exemption for the identified domain(s) is assigned in TOMS by the LEA ELPAC or site ELPAC coordinator.

Justification for ELPAC Domain Exemption Policy

In 2017, ETS used field test data to conduct a dimensionality study—An Investigation of Factor Structure for the Summative ELPAC (refer to Appendix B)—which examined the underlying statistical structure of the Summative ELPAC and explored different combinations of the four domains for reporting student proficiency. As a result of this dimensionality study, student performance in the Listening and Speaking domains are reported as an Oral Language composite and the Reading and Writing domains are reported as a Written Language composite. If one of the two domains within the same language composite is exempted, the student’s composite score will be based on the other domain the student completed. For example, if the Listening domain is exempted, then the Oral Language composite score will be based on the student’s performance on all items from the Speaking domain; otherwise, an Oral Language composite score and Overall score cannot be reported. Similarly, for the Written Language composite, if the Writing domain is exempted, the score will be based on the student’s performance on all items from the Reading domain.

In summary, a student must engage in at least two domains(one from each composite) to produce an Overall score and be counted as participating in testing. Each composite score contains some information the other composite score does not provide, therefore an Overall score based on one domain (in the case of three exempted domains out of the four domains), or within only one composite (in the case of two exempted domains within the same composite), would not be comparable to the scores that are based on information from both composite scores. For these reasons, only one exempted domain within each composite is allowed, as presented in table 1 below(ESSA 1111 [20 USC 6311(b)(2)(B)(vii)(III)(bb)(BB)).

**Table 1. Sample Domain Exemption Scenarios**
Scenarios	Oral Language: Listening	Oral Language: Speaking	Written Language: Reading	Written Language: Writing	Overall S core Produced
Scenario 1	Exempt	Tested	Tested	Tested	Yes
Scenario 2	Tested	Tested	Exempt	Tested	Yes
Scenario 3	Exempt	Tested	Not Tested	Tested	Yes
Scenario 4	Tested	Exempt	Tested	Exempt	Yes
Scenario 5	Not Tested	Not Tested	Exempt	Tested	No
Scenario 6	Tested	Tested	Not Tested	Exempt	No

Permittable Domain Exemptions

The following scenarios illustrate when to potentially assign a domain exemption and are not intended to be an exhaustive list. Keeping in mind that the ELPAC is a language proficiency test, a student’s inability to perform a skill in English is not an appropriate criterion for exempting a domain, particularly if the student can perform skills in the same domain in another language. Accessibility resources used daily for in-class instruction should enable students to access all domains of the Initial and Summative ELPAC. To document that a student should be considered for a domain exemption, IEP teams may use the Initial and Summative ELPAC Domain Exemption Decision-Making Tool to help teams determine the appropriate assessment options for each student, located on the CDE website.

Scenario 1: Exempt Listening Domain

A student is exempted from the Listening domain and the student completed all three other domains. The student’s Oral Language composite score is based on the student’s performance on all items from the Speaking domain. The student’s results include a score and level for each composite and overall.

The Listening Domain Exemption Considerations (table 2) provides considerations for determining whether an exemption in the Listening domain is appropriate based on the available accessibility resources in the California Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix.

Scenario 2: Exempt Reading Domain

A student is exempted from the Reading domain and the student completed all three other domains. The student’s Written Language composite score is based on the student’s performance on all items from the Writing domain. The student’s results include a score and level for each composite and overall.

The Reading Domain Exemption Considerations (table 3) provides considerations for determining whether an exemption in the Reading domain is appropriate based on the available accessibility resources in the California Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix.

Scenario 3: Exempt Listening and Reading Domains

A student is exempted from the Listening and Reading domains and the student completed the Speaking and Writing domains. The student’s Oral Language composite score is based on the student’s performance on all items from the Speaking domain and the student’s Written Language composite score is based on the student’s performance on all items from the Writing domain. The student’s results include a score and level for each composite and overall.

The Listening Domain Exemption Considerations (table 2) and the Reading Domain Exemption Considerations (table 3) provide considerations for determining whether exemptions in the Listening and Reading domains are appropriate based on the available accessibility resources in the California Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix.

Scenario 4: Exempt Speaking and Writing Domains

A student is exempted from the Speaking and Writing domains and the student completed the Listening and Reading domains. The student’s Oral Language composite score is calculated based on the student’s performance on all items from the Listening domain and the student’s Written Language composite score is based on the student’s performance on all items from the Reading domain. The student’s results include a score and level for each composite and overall.

The Writing Domain Exemption Considerations (table 4) and the Speaking Domain Exemption Considerations (table 5) provide guidance for determining whether exemptions in the Writing and Speaking domains are appropriate based on the available accessibility resources in the California Assessment Accessibility Resources Matrix.

Sample Domain Exemption Considerations

The following considerations for each domain are illustrations of when an IEP team or Section 504 team may potentially decide to assign a domain exemption but not an exhaustive list. Accessibility resources used daily for in-class instruction should enable students to access all domains of the Initial and Summative ELPAC. In some instances, however, the IEP team or Section 504 team may find that despite the use of UDAs, a domain is inaccessible to the student. Thus, the existing UDAs are not sufficient, and the domain is found by the team to not be accessible due to the individual student’s needs as they result from their unique disability.

**Table 2. Listening Domain Exemption Considerations**
Situation	Considerations
Student is hard of hearing and uses an amplification device.	No exemption Designated supports Amplification Breaks Noise buffers Pause or replay audio—Listening domain Separate setting Simplified test directions Streamline Translated test directions Accommodations Alternate response options ASL or Manually Coded English (MCE)—Listening domain Audio transcript (includes braille transcript) Breaks Closed-captioning—embedded
Student has a moderately severe to severe degree of hearing loss (hard of hearing) and has trouble understanding speech even with amplification devices or is functionally deaf but has a clear understanding of ASL and closed captioning.	The IEP team or Section 504 team must decide whether the student’s difficulties in hearing are so extensive as to prevent demonstration of what the student knows and can do in the Listening domain, considering available accessibility resources.
Student is profoundly deaf and does not understand ASL and is still unable to read closed captioning at this time in their education.	The IEP team or Section 504 team could decide to exempt the Listening domain.

**Table 3. Reading Domain Exemption Considerations**
Situation	Considerations
Student is blind and reads braille at or near grade level.	No exemption Designated supports Simplified test directions Streamline Accommodations Braille
Student is blind and has partial knowledge of braille.	The IEP team or Section 504 team must decide whether the student’s expertise with braille is sufficient to allow demonstration of what the student knows and can do in the Reading domain, considering available accessibility supports. Refer to Designated supports section Refer to Accommodations section
Student is blind and has no knowledge of braille.	The IEP team or Section 504 team could decide to exempt the Reading domain.

**Table 4. Writing Domain Exemption Considerations**
Situation	Considerations
Student has a cognitive, physical, or intellectual disability which makes writing difficult and laborious.	No exemption Designated supports Breaks Read aloud—Writing domain Simplified test directions Streamline Accommodations Alternate response options Breaks Scribe Speech-to-text—embedded and non-embedded Text-to-speech
Student has a cognitive, physical, or intellectual disability which impedes expression of ideas in writing, even if those ideas can be expressed via some other mode of communication.	The IEP team or Section 504 team must decide whether the student’s disability is so extensive as to prevent demonstration of what the student knows and can do in the Writing domain, considering account available accessibility resources. Refer to Designated supports section Refer to Accommodations section Alternate response options can use an alternate response option that includes, but is not limited to, adapted keyboards, large keyboards, Sticky Keys, Mouse Keys, FilterKeys, adapted mouse, touch screen, head wand, and switches. For the ELPAC-P, the test examiner or scribe must transcribe student responses in the Answer Book. For the ELPAC-A, alternate response options can also include picture cards, answer choice cards, objects, and manipulatives.
Student has a cognitive, physical, or intellectual disability which prevents expression of ideas in writing entirely, in English or any other language, even with available accessibility resources such as adaptive technology or scribe.	The IEP team or Section 504 team could decide to exempt the Writing domain.

**Table 5. Speaking Domain Exemption Considerations**
Situation	Considerations
Student has an articulation disorder or physical malformation which distorts their speech. Speech is comprehensible to sympathetic listeners or in a quiet environment.	No exemption Designated supports Amplification Breaks Noise buffers Pause or replay audio—Speaking domain Separate setting Accommodations Alternate response options ASL or MCE Breaks Speech-to-text Text-to-speech
Student has an articulation disorder or physical malformation which renders their speech difficult to understand, even for a TE who is familiar with the students’ preferred mode of communication.	The IEP team or Section 504 team must determine whether the student’s articulation difficulties impede comprehension to such a degree as to prevent a demonstration of what the student knows and can do in the Speaking domain, taking into account available accessibility supports. Alternate response options can use an alternate response option that includes, but is not limited to, adapted keyboards, large keyboards, Sticky Keys, Mouse Keys, FilterKeys, adapted mouse, touch screen, head wand, and switches. For the ELPAC-P, the test examiner or scribe must transcribe student responses in the Answer Book. For the ELPAC-A, alternate response options can also include picture cards, answer choice cards, objects, and manipulatives.
Student has an articulation disorder or physical malformation which renders their speech impossible to understand, even for a TE who is familiar with the student’s preferred mode of communication. NOTE: Additional guidance on selective mutism is provided below.	The IEP team or Section 504 team could decide to exempt the Speaking domain.

A domain exemption for the identified domain is assigned in the testing system by the LEA.