Transcript Document

The Effect of Public Policy
on Alternate Assessments
Sue Rigney
Alternate Assessment Conference
University of Maryland
College Park, MD
October 2007
Alternate Assessment
Historical
1990-2000: Many SWD routinely excluded from state
& national assessments
Exemption of a special education student requires:
a) “the student has been found eligible for special
educations services through an IEP; and
b) receives Special Educations services prior to the
first day of testing; and
c) receives 49% or less of his/her reading/English
instruction per week through general education
instruction.”
Source: MEAP Assessment Administration Manual, 1991
Alternate Assessment
Key Federal Statutes
• IASA 1994
 Standards and assessments by 2000-01
 All SWD to be included in assessments
• IDEA 1997
 Access to general curriculum
 Alternate assessment in place July 2000
• NCLB 2001
 SWD included in assessments & accountability
for all public schools
• IDEA 2007
 Follows NCLB
Alternate Assessment
NCLB + Regulations
• 1% AA-AAS December 2003
• Permits alternate achievement standard for
students with most significant cognitive disability
• 2% AA-MAS April 2007
• Permits modified academic achievement
standard for students whose disability prevents
them from meeting grade level standard in
period covered by current IEP
Alternate Assessment
Examining Policy Effects
• Intent
• Implementation
• Impact on State practice
Alternate Assessment
Intent
• Is always good
• Realized through implementation
 Diverse actions, actors
 Slow, must be sustained
• Consequences may be unexpected
 Perception vs reality
 Perception is reality
Alternate Assessment
Intent - IDEA 04 & IASA
Paradigm Shifts
IDEA 04
• Access to general curriculum for SWD
IASA 97 for Title I Schools
• All students included in State assessments
• Scores of SW must be publicly reported for
school and district accountability
• State must explain how scores from alternate
assessment are integrated into accountability
system
Alternate Assessment
Intent - NCLB
“To ensure that all children have a fair,
equal, and significant opportunity to obtain
a high quality education…”
 All schools publicly accountable for
performance of SWD
 Alternate achievement standard permitted only
for students with most significant cognitive
disability
 1% cap as safeguard for students
Alternate Assessment
Implementation
• Statute clarified by guidance
• Occurs in the field - monitoring must
examine evidence of compliance
• Compliance alone may not ensure that
policy goals are reached
• Successful implementation requires State
as well as federal action
Alternate Assessment
Federal Policy Implementation
• Statute, regulations & guidance drafted
and disseminated
• Compliance monitoring carried out by
multiple offices e.g.,OSEP, OESE, SASA
• Peer review of Title I State Plan required
• Technical assistance
• $$
Alternate Assessment
State Policy Implementation
• Inclusion policies and procedures
• Optional development & implementation of
AA-AAS or AA-MAS consistent with statute
• Support for test administration and use
• Infrastructure for local implementation
 Assessment training
 Professional development to support effective
instruction
Alternate Assessment
Implementation - IASA
• Compliance monitoring
• Assessment system peer review
 Focus on test administered in 2000-01
 Continued under NCLB for States not
approved
IASA Peer Review – AA Must
“When assessment procedures are
altered, it is critical to ensure that scores,
decisions, and judgments based on those
assessments are fair, reliable, and valid. The
criteria for technical quality outlined in….
“Professional Standards of Technical
Quality,” apply to modified, accommodated,
and alternate assessments.
IASA Peer Review Guidance, p. 15
Alternate Assessment
Implementation - NCLB
•
•
•
•
Accountability workbooks
Title I monitoring
OSEP monitoring
Peer review of State assessment systems
“…the NCLB standards and assessment
peer review process increased the
requirements for documenting the technical
quality of all assessments, but the biggest
shift was for AA-AAS. The type of technical
documentation necessary to fulfill the peer
review requirements has never been
expected from AA-AAS developers
previously.”
Marion & Pellegrino
Alternate Assessment
NCLB Peer Review: AA-AAS Must
 Yield results separately in reading and math
 Clear guidelines for student participation provided to all LEAs
 Designed and implemented in a manner that supports use of
results for AYP
• Aligned with state content standards
• Assessment design - appropriate for school accountability measure
(e.g., results comparable across schools and districts)
 State provides evidence of technical quality,
• Validity, reliability accessibility, objectivity, and consistency with
nationally recognized professional and technical standards
• Description of the standard-setting process, the judges and their
qualifications, and state adoption of alternate achievement standards
 Reports results to teachers and parents in a manner
consistent with the alternate achievement standards
Alternate Assessment
Impact-IASA
On January 19, 2001
Decision
#
States
Full Approval
11
DE, IN, KS, LA, MD, MA, PA, RI, VT,
VA, WY
Conditional Approval
(Complete by Spring
2001)
Timeline waiver
Compliance Agreement
Still under review
6
14
3
18
KY, MO, NC, OR, TX, WA
CO, CT, GA, HI, ME, MS, NE, NV, NH,
NY, ND, OH, SC, SD
CA, WV, WI
AL, AK, AZ, AR DC, FL, ID, IL, IA, MI,
MN, MT, NJ, NM, OK, PR, TN, UT,
Impact-IASA
Issues Facing States on January 19, 2001
Requirement
Inclusion of limited English proficient
students
Inclusion of students with disabilities
#
22
Disaggregated Reporting
30
Finish Standards-based System
11
14
Alternate Assessment
Impact NCLB
States Revising/Developing Alternate
Assessment in 2005
Area
Approach
# States
8
Content
10
Standard-setting
13
Scoring Criteria
17
Source: 2005 State Special Education Outcomes, NCEO
Current Status
As of 8/6/07
31 States = Approved + Approval Expected
12-16 States working on AA-AAS
Major concerns:
 alignment with grade level content
 documenting technical quality
Completing the AA-AAS
2005-06 DEADLINE EXTENDED
Approval Pending (does not meet all of the requirements)
If only significant issues with an alternate assessment based on
alternate achievement standards or an assessment for limited
English proficient students…
 Condition on its fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award
 Mandatory Oversight, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §80.12.
 Agreement with the Department
 demonstrating a commitment and investment of resources
to resolve all outstanding issues for the 2007–08
administration of its assessments.
 a mutually acceptable timeline for how and when the
remaining work toward having a fully approved standards
and assessment system will be accomplished.
Review of AA-MAS
Standards and Assessment Peer Review
Guidance: Information and examples for
meeting requirements of the No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001
• Revised to include AA-MAS requirements
• Distribution to States TBA
• Peer reviewer training Jan 2008
Alternate Assessment
Impact on Assessment Practice
 Virtually all State assessment participation
policies changed since IASA
 Participation of SWD in State assessments is
substantially increased
 22/50 states have changed participation
policies/guidelines for AA-AAS since the Dec
9, 2003 regulation
 Peer Review has prompted linkage to
academic content for all states
Impact on Assessment Practice
 State examples of rigorous practice emerging,
e.g. Alabama standard setting report
 New methodology emerging: e.g. Links for
Learning, NAAC Learner Characteristics
Inventory
 Articles in professional journals focus on AAAAS
 Questions about validity of AA-AAS challenges
some assumptions about general test
Impact on Instruction
• Anecdotal and case studies
• Most pre-date requirement for academic
content
• Inclusion in accountability makes a
difference:
“I think our expectations are higher.”
Alternate Assessment
Impact on Student Outcomes
• Evidence of student outcomes limited
 Reports do not separate general test
results and alternate results
 OSEP collects detailed data in biennial
report but it’s hard to find
MSA Snapshot (State)
With trend data
ALT-MSA Snapshot (State)
With trend data
http://www.mdreportcard.org/Assessments.aspx?WD
ATA=State&K=99AAAA#ALTsnapshot
Alternate Assessment
Impact on Student Outcomes
• Evidence of student outcomes limited
 Reports do not separate general test results and
alternate results
 OSEP collects detailed data in biennial report
• Evidence of student outcomes difficult to
interpret
 Many state alternates redesigned in last 3 years,
so trend data is not interpretable
 Test results confounded with OTL
Alternate Assessment
Lessons Learned?
• Collaboration needed to develop alternate
assessments: assessment, special ed, content
experts
• Resources needed to build local support
systems
• Consequences must be documented
• Interpretation of outcomes difficult because
student results confounded with opportunity to
learn