Transcript Document

IDEA and NCLB
Standards-Based Accountability
Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education
OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference
NCLB Requirements for
State Assessment System
in 2005-06
• Standards-based, CRT
Reading, Grades 3-8 + HS
Mathematics, Grades 3-8 + HS
• Alternate Assessment
• English Proficiency Test
Peer Review of State
Assessment Systems
 By spring 2006, each state must submit
evidence to ED showing how its system of
standards and assessments meet the NCLB
requirements.
 ED uses a peer review process to examine
states’ evidence.
 States should NOT submit actual standards
or assessment instruments. Rather, they must
submit evidence related to the development,
implementation, and quality of these systems.
 A State may require several review sessions to
meet the assessment requirements
Peer Review Process
 Team of 3 external experts + Standards Team
staff examine evidence submitted by State
 Reviewers’ comments + staff recommendations =
Decision about status
 Structure = Standards and Assessments Peer
Review Guidance: Information and Examples for
Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (April 2004)
Organization of the
Peer Review Guidance
Seven Critical Elements
• Academic Content Standards
• Academic Achievement
Standards
• Statewide Assessment System
• Technical Quality
• Alignment
• Inclusion
• Reporting
• Overview and rationale
• Questions for state to
address
• Examples of acceptable
evidence
• Examples of incomplete
evidence
Peer Review Results
 Approval &
 Approval with Recommendation (10)
********************
 Approval Expected (4)
 Approval Pending (36)
 Non-approved
(2)
Notification Letters to States @
www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/
nclbfinalassess/index.html
Dear Secretary Woodruff:
I am pleased to approve Delaware's assessment system under Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB
requirement.
My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S.
Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed
and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Delaware. I have concluded
that the evidence demonstrates that Delaware's standards and assessment system
satisfies the NCLB requirements. Specifically, Delaware's system includes academic
content and student achievement standards in reading/language arts,
mathematics, and science; alternate achievement standards for students with the
most significant cognitive disabilities in those subjects; assessments in each of
grades 3 through 10 in reading/language arts and mathematics; assessments in
science in three grade spans; and alternate assessments for each subject.
Accordingly, Delaware's system warrants Full Approval with
Recommendation. This status means that Delaware's standards and assessment
system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements; however, one element of
the system could be improved. Delaware's academic achievement standards in
science meet the essential requirements of NCLB, but I recommend completion of
the activities now underway to create new achievement descriptors.
Consequences
“These deficiencies must be addressed in a timely
manner… that is, by the end of the 2006-07 school
year.”
“<State> must provide, not later than 25 business days
from receipt of this letter, a plan and detailed timeline
for how it will meet the remaining requirements…
Beginning in September 2006, <State> must also
provide bi-monthly reports on its progress… If at any
time, <State> does not meet the timeline set forth in its
plan, the Department will initiate proceedings to
withhold 15 percent of <State’s> fiscal year 2006 Title I,
Part A administrative funds…”
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
 IDEA & NCLB
Grade-level
Achievement
Standard
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
Grade-level
Achievement
Standard
 IDEA & NCLB
 Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS
Alternate
Achievement
Standard
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
 IDEA & NCLB
Grade-level
Achievement
Standard
 Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS
 NPRM AA-MAS (12/15/05)
Alternate
Achievement
Standard
Modified
Achievement
Standard
Alternate Assessments
 Aligned with the State’s content
standards.
 Yield results separately in
reading/language arts and math.
 Designed and implemented to
support use of the results to
determine AYP.
Alternate Assessment –
Grade Level Standards
 NC, MA
 Requires evidence of comparability

Content

Achievement standard
Alternate Assessment –
Modified Achievement Standard
 KS, LA, OR
 ED can not review until regs are
final
Alternate Assessment –
Alternate Achievement Standards
Issues
 Alignment with grade level content
standards
 Technical quality
 Report separate scores in reading &
mathematics
 Not available in all grades/subjects tested
 OOLT, not alternate achievement standard
Out-of-Level Assessments
Could only be considered an alternate
assessment based on alternate
achievement standards if…
 Alternate achievement standards
defined through a documented and
validated standards-setting process
 Proficient results included in the 1% cap
Out-of-Level Assessments
Could only be considered an alternate
assessment based on alternate
achievement standards if
 Alternate achievement standards
defined through a documented and
validated standards-setting process
 Proficient results included in the 1% cap
Essential Requirements
for AA-AAS in Peer Review
Separate results in reading & math
Clear guidelines for participation to LEAs
Designed & implemented to support use of
results for AYP
Evidence of technical quality
Reports consistent with alternate
achievement standards
Additional Requirements
 Document that students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities are, to the extent possible,
included in the general curriculum and in
assessments aligned with that curriculum
 Promote use of appropriate accommodations to
increase the number of students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities who are tested
against grade-level academic achievement
standards
 Ensure that regular and special education teachers
and other appropriate staff know how to administer
assessments, including making appropriate use of
accommodations, for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.
Monitoring Implementation
States are required to report separately the number and
percentage of students taking an alternate assessment based
on grade-level achievement standards or on alternate
achievement standards.
OESE reviewed the State’s process for developing alternate
achievement standards and alternate assessments during peer
review and will monitor State completion of remaining work.
OSEP monitors may examine documentation that students
with the most significant cognitive disabilities are included in
the general curriculum and participating in assessments
aligned with content standards.
Technical Assistance
Site visits
Sharing successful strategies among States
The Comprehensive Centers and OSEP
Centers
Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant