Evaluating students with IEPs is a major concern for me. A lot of times I feel like I am watering down my program and it is unfair to the other students in my course. How can I make it fair for all students in my course to receive the same content without dropping the integrity of my program?

In order to answer this question it is necessary to explain the difference between evaluation accommodations and evaluation modifications.
Accommodations change the method of testing but the student is expected to achieve the same level of competency as any other student enrolled in the program. Examples include:
Alternative testing methods
Extended testing time
Test readers
Since only the methodology of testing changes while the standard of performance remains consistent there are no equity or integrity issues.
Modifications typically require changes to the content or standards of the exam that results in the student achieving fewer competencies or performing at a lower level than your other students.
Application Work Session

Think about your program.

What evaluation accommodations and modifications have been specified in the IEP goals for students in your classes?
Were the accommodations clearly delineated clearly from modifications on the IEP?
How successful were you in making those accommodations and modifications?
What barriers were there to your being able to implement those accommodations and modifications?
What steps can you take to eliminate those barriers in the future?
By making modifications for special needs students – isn’t that watering down the curriculum and isn’t it unfair to the other students?

The very nature of evaluation modifications can lead to reducing the content measured and the standard of achievement required for success. If our only evaluation method is in comparing students’ performance to other students as in a norm-referenced evaluation we have little choice but to implement modifications for students with disabilities. But if we use “standards-based evaluations” there is no need for modifications thus the potential for inequities or “watering down” the curriculum is reduced.