Sankofa Learning Design
← Back to portfolio
Decoding the Code · Assessment Simulation

Built in, not bolted on.

Modifying a general-education assessment for every student on an IEP is a second job. There is no time for it, so it quietly does not happen — and the students who needed it take the unmodified test. This simulation rebuilds one assessment so the differentiation is structural instead of retrofitted.

0 of 6 stations

Third period, Biology

28 students · one co-teacher · 40 minutes of shared planning per week · unit assessment due Friday

Jaylen · dyslexiaIEP: text read aloud, extended time, reduced reading load. Knows the biology. Cannot get it off the page fast enough.
Amara · ADHDIEP: tasks chunked, movement break, reduced visual distraction. Loses her place on a dense page and never finds it again.
Elias · autismIEP: predictable format, advance notice of changes, reduced open-ended writing. A surprise item type costs him the whole section.
Devon · dysgraphiaIEP: scribe or keyboard, reduced writing volume. Handwriting takes so much effort that content disappears.
Sofia · emergent bilingualLinguistic accommodations: glossary, cognate support. Strong reasoning, still building academic English.
23 general-education studentsNo paperwork. Several read below grade level anyway, and no one has flagged them.
Hold this in mind: nothing you do in this simulation is allowed to make the assessment easier. Every change has to keep the biology exactly as demanding as it was.
1

The retrofit math

Time budget

Your assessment is written. Now do it the usual way — modify a copy for each student who needs one. Click every task the retrofit approach actually requires, and watch your 40 minutes of shared planning time.

Planning time used: 0 minYou have 40 min
2

Signal or noise

Diagnose the item

Before you rebuild anything, find out what each item is actually measuring. If a biology question is written so densely that reading it is the hard part, the item is measuring reading — and the score you get back is not a biology score. Tag all five.

3

Rewrite without lowering

One choice

Here is the worst item on the test. Three rewrites are on the table. Pick the one that drops the reading load and keeps the thinking exactly where it was.

Original item 3

"Notwithstanding the aforementioned environmental constraints, hypothesize which independent variable would most substantially attenuate the rate of photosynthetic energy transduction, and justify your determination with reference to the antecedent data."

4

Three doors, one rubric

Choose exactly 3

Same question, different ways to answer it. Pick three response modes that between them give all five students a route — and that you can score with one rubric. Three modes needing three rubrics is just the retrofit problem again with better branding.

5

The free layer

Toggle all seven

These are format decisions. Every one costs you nothing once, at design time, and each absorbs accommodations you would otherwise write and deliver individually. Turn them all on and watch the count.

0
Accommodations absorbed
0
Extra minutes per student
6

The honest audit

What is left

Built-in design does not absorb everything, and claiming it does is how teachers get talked out of trusting it. Here is the real split for this assessment. Read it, then close the loop.

Accommodations now built into the assessment versus those still requiring individual action
AccommodationStudentStatus
Take this with you

The built-in assessment protocol

Six moves, run once per assessment, before you make a single individual copy.

  1. Name the construct. Write down the one thing this assessment measures. Anything that makes the test harder without measuring that thing is noise, and noise is what you are allowed to remove.
  2. Strip construct-irrelevant language. Rewrite every stem at the lowest reading level the content permits. Keep the technical vocabulary you are actually assessing; cut the academic filler around it.
  3. Offer response modes that share a rubric. Two or three routes to the same answer, scored on the thinking rather than the medium. Write the rubric first and the modes fall out of it.
  4. Apply the free format layer. Sans-serif type, generous spacing, chunked sections, predictable order, glossary on the page, audio available to everyone, untimed within the period.
  5. Audit against the IEPs. Go student by student and mark which accommodations the design now satisfies on its own. Most of them will.
  6. Deliver only what is genuinely individual. Scribe, separate setting, specific device configuration. It is a short list, and a short list actually gets done.
One more reason this is not optional. Under the ADA Title II rule that took effect in April 2026, public-school digital content has to meet WCAG 2.1 Level AA. Contrast, structure, and text alternatives are compliance requirements now, not courtesies — and every one of them is already in step four.

References

CAST. (2018). Universal Design for Learning guidelines version 2.2. https://udlguidelines.cast.org

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 (2004).

Texas Education Agency. (2024). The dyslexia handbook: Procedures concerning dyslexia and related disorders (2024 update). Texas Education Agency.

Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Christensen, L. L., & Shyyan, V. (2016). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment systems in a changing assessment landscape. NCEO Report 400. National Center on Educational Outcomes.

U.S. Department of Justice. (2024). Nondiscrimination on the basis of disability: Accessibility of web information and services of state and local government entities, 28 C.F.R. § 35.200.

Wiggins, G., & McTighe, J. (2005). Understanding by design (2nd ed.). Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.