Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education OSEP Project Directors Meeting August 2008
Download ReportTranscript Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education OSEP Project Directors Meeting August 2008
Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities
Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education OSEP Project Directors Meeting August 2008 1
NCLB
Federal Policy
• •
State assessments Alternate & modified achievement standards
•
NAEP IDEA
• •
Participation Requires alternate for State- and district-wide assessments
•
Accommodations guidelines
2
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
$$
3
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
4
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
5
NCLB Requires
• • •
Challenging State content standards Academic achievement standards Statewide accountability system that includes all schools
•
Annual reporting of assessment results and AYP
6
NCLB + Regulations
•
AA-AAS (1%) December 2003 Permits alternate achievement standard for students with most significant cognitive disability
•
AA-MAS (2%) April 2007 Permits modified academic achievement standard for students whose disability prevents them from meeting grade level standard in period covered by current IEP 1%-2% caps as safeguard for students
7
Testing Students with Disabilities
• • • • •
State Testing Options
Grade level test Grade level test with accommodations Grade level test – alternate format, same academic achievement standards Test based on modified achievement standards (2% cap) Test based on alternate achievement standards (1% cap)
8
Reporting
State must report to the Secretary the number and percent of SWD taking
General assessments General assessments w/ accommodations AA-Grade Level Achievement Standards AA-Modified Achievement Standards AA-Alternate Achievement Standards
9
Modified & Alternate Achievement Standards
Are permitted, not required Use limited to eligible students based on State guidelines State must provide evidence of technical quality
AA-AAS
Alternate achievement standards permitted only for students with most significant cognitive disability
11
AA-AAS
Required since July 2000 Operational in all states Regulation requires alignment with grade-level content standards
Most states needed to revise the AA AAS to meet requirement for academic content
A few states still working on it
12
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
13
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.”
14
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
15
Modified Achievement Standards
Are aligned with State’s academic content standards for the grade in which student is enrolled
Challenging for eligible students but less difficult than grade-level achievement standards
Include 3 achievement levels
16
Student Eligibility
Disability precludes achievement of grade level proficiency as demonstrated by
•
State’s Grade-level assessments or
•
Other measures such as:
–
Response to appropriate instruction
–
Multiple measurements over time
17
AA-MAS Is Not…
A modified assessment
Accommodations that would invalidate the general test are not permitted for the AA-MAS because the construct should be the same
Modified content standards
No change to the grade-level content standards permitted
AA-MAS test blueprint should be comparable to the general test blueprint
A lower cut point on the general test
18
State Guidelines (1)
Establish and monitor guidelines for IEP teams to determine which students eligible
Provide IEP teams a clear explanation of differences between AA-GLAS, AA-MAS, AA AAS
Ensure that parents are informed
19
State Guidelines (2)
Establish and monitor implementation of guidelines for developing IEPs
IEP goals based on grade-level content standards
IEP designed to monitor student progress
20
Other state responsibilities
Inform IEP teams that student may be assessed on MAS in one or more subjects
Ensure student has access to grade-level curriculum
Ensure students not precluded from attempting to complete diploma requirements
Ensure annual IEP team review of assessment decisions
Disseminate guidelines for appropriate use of accommodations
21
State Support for IEP Teams
Which office(s) will:
develop participation guidelines for AA MAS?
develop guidelines for writing standards based IEPs?
disseminate materials and provide professional development to IEP teams?
monitor the implementation of IEP teams’ appropriate use of participation guidelines and development of standards-based IEPs?
22
Debunking the Myths
It’s unfair to require students with disabilities to take those tests
It’s unfair to expect children with different types of disabilities to achieve on a “one size fits all” test
It’s unfair to find districts “in need of improvement” when it’s only the scores of students with disabilities holding them back www.napas.org
23
AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 2004-05
NCLB (based on data reported by 39 states for 19,471 schools that missed AYP.
Lessons Learned
•
Collaboration needed to develop alternate assessments: assessment, special ed, content experts
•
Resources needed to build local support systems
•
Consequences must be documented
25
More Lessons Learned
• • • •
Assessment gap vs instruction gap Simpler test items may not be the answer A test alone does not change practice Interpretation of outcomes difficult because student results confounded with opportunity to learn
26
Implications for Higher Ed
All new teachers need to know the state content standards
Content
Pedogogy
Teachers & Administrators need to know how to work with special pops
Research
Resources
27
Implications for Higher Ed
Collaboration is essential for
Curriculum alignment
Instruction
Test development
Who needs to be included?
Special education
Curriculum specialists
Assessment experts
28