More than 80 individuals representing staff from state departments of education, school districts, other countries, testing and testing-related companies, and other educational organizations participated in a forum on June 20, 2016 in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, to discuss the need for common accessibility language across assessment platforms. The implications for general education students, students who are English learners (ELs), and students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) or 504 plans were discussed in breakout sessions. The forum was a pre-session to the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) National Conference on Student Assessment (NCSA), and was a collaboration of the Assessing Special Education Students (ASES) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS), the English Language Learner (ELL) SCASS, and the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). The purpose of the forum on common language for states and assessment vendors was to discuss the need for greater collaboration across technology platforms. Although new technology platforms offer a greater array of accessibility supports (accessibility features and accommodations), the variation in the language used to describe these supports and approaches to employing them makes it confusing for educators, students, and other stakeholders. The specific focus of the forum was for participants to see demonstrations of several vendor accessibility supports and then discuss the challenges related to the differences in language used as they pertain to the following three groups: (1) General Education Students; (2) ELs; and (3) Students with IEP's or 504 plans. Although this report summarizes the introductory information provided to forum participants, its main purpose is to describe the panel presentations and the facilitated forum discussions. Summaries of the panel presentations were developed from notes taken during the presentations, and from the presenters' slides. Summaries of the facilitated discussions were developed from notes taken by notetakers. Participants were encouraged to comment and discuss freely, with assurances that no individual's name, nor any state, company, or organization would be attached to comments that were made. Complete anonymity of statements was ensured. This led to frank and open conversations.