This paper addresses the controversy about use of "out-of-level" testing, the practice of assessing students (usually those with disabilities) with a lower-level version of a test. The controversy pits unintended instructional consequences against "accurately" measuring performance and avoiding student frustration. Introductory sections explain what out-of-level testing is and offer a brief history of its use. Next, arguments for out-of-level testing are offered, including avoidance of student frustration and emotional trauma; improved accuracy of measurement; and better measurement when the context of the test matches the student's instructional level. Arguments against out-of-level testing stress that assessments must be consistent with the purpose for which they are used and that out-of-level testing reflects low expectations for students and negatively affects their instruction. Next, five assumptions for out-of-level testing and objections to these assumptions are listed. Three considerations in using out-of-level testing for individual students are identified: (1) performance on grade level assessment is likely to be spuriously higher than on out-of-level assessments; (2) instructional issues need to be addressed before students are placed in out-of-level tests; and (3) unintended consequences of out-of-level testing include never reaching grade-level or passing a high stakes test. Finally, questions for decision makers to consider before using out-of-level tests are suggested. (DB)