1

Assessments and the Impact on Special Education Rebecca H. Cort

2

Public Policy – Then and Now

• Access• Separate

• Placement

• Attendance• Accommodate/

Modify

• Accountability• Inclusive• Service• High

Expectations• Universal Design

3

Accountability for Results Accountability for Results

NCLB and IDEAimproving educational results and functional outcomes for all children with disabilities…

4

Students with DisabilitiesParticipation in State Assessments

General assessment

based on grade the student is in, or

not assigned grade level (ungraded):based on chronological

age (which is consistent with birth dates of non- disabled peers)

5

Students with DisabilitiesParticipation in State Assessments

New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) not assigned grade level

(ungraded):based on chronological age chart on field memo

6

NYSAA

• Linked to grade level content standards

• Changes in NYSAA administration format and timetable beginning this year

• http://www.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/alterassessment/changesadmin.htm

7

Accountability for Students with Disabilities

• Modified Standards (2%)– For 2006-06, Grade 3-8 ELA and

Math:•34 index points added to SWD

group if SWD subgroup met participation rate and SWD subgroup was only one to fail to make AYP.

• If Performance Index with inclusion of 34 points meets or exceeds AMO, the school or district has made AYP on that criterion

State Performance Plan

• 6-year plan• 3 priority areas• 20 indicators• Measurable and

rigorous targets• Improvement strategies

9

Measuring what matters…The State Performance Plan• Graduation• Drop Out• State

Assessments• Suspension• LRE• Parental

involvement

• Timely evaluations and services

• Disproportionality

• Preschool results

• Post-school results

SPP Targets

• The State must use the targets established in the SPP and priority areas to analyze the performance of each LEA in the State.

11

What does current performance look like?

12

Participation Rate of Students with Disabilities in State Assessments (Indicator #3)

97

.0%

98

.0%

95

%

94

%

95

.0%

95

.0%

94

%

92

%

86

%

86

%

96

.0%

97

.0%

95

%

95

%

90

%

89

%

Gra

de

4 E

LA

Gra

de

4 M

ath

Gra

de

8 E

LA

Gra

de

8 M

ath

Hig

h S

ch

oo

lE

ng

lis

h

Hig

h S

ch

oo

lM

ath

em

ati

cs

2003 2004 2005

Public Schools, Including Charter Schools

Not

available

Not

available

13

6.1%

31.1

%36.8

%

26.0

%

8.8%

39.0

%

32.0

%

20.2

%

7.6%

40.9

%

34.1

%

17.4

%

11.2

%

29.3

%

15.6

%

43.8

%

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

2002 2003 2004 2005

Students with Disabilities Tested

2005: 27,791 2004: 27,7882003: 27,2162002: 27,660

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

Compared to the previous year, in 2005, lower percentages of students with disabilities scored at Level 1 and higher percentages scored at Levels 3 and 4.

Elementary Mathematics Examination

Performance on State Assessments (Indicator #3)

14

Students with Disabilities Tested

2005: 31,202

2004: 30,566

2003: 29,921

2002: 28,156

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

Performance improved at Levels 1 and 2 and more students with disabilities are participating in the examination. Proficient performance remained low.

Middle-Level Mathematics Examination

Performance on State Assessments (Indicator #3)

15

Performance of Students with Disabilities in Alternate Assessments in 2004-05 School Year

1.3% 2.8%

0.8% 1.9%

1.5%

2.5%9.

8%

10.5

%

8.9% 10.3

%

8.9%

9.2%

19.5

%

19.3

%

18.8

%

18.0

%

18.0

%

17.5

%

69.5

%

67.4

%

72.5

%

69.8

%

71.6

%

70.7

%

Elementary ELA Elementary Math

Middle Level ELA

Middle LevelMath

High SchoolELA

High SchoolMath

Level 1 Level 2 Level 3 Level 4

1,803(0.9%)

1,753(0.8%)

1,822(0.8%)

1,793(0.8%)

1,540(0.9%)

1,505(0.9%)

NumberTested and% of TotalIn Grade

Performance on State Assessments (Indicator #3)

16

8,424

7,226

8,305

5,675

6,790

2,832

4,9694,154

2,499

12,144

9,68011,194

8,60610,461

4,175

7,545

9,514

3,414

18,949

16,309

14,101

17,321

15,366

13,51812,607

5,6474,419

1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Number with Score of 65-100Number with Score of 55-100Number Tested

Since 1997, there has been more than 300% increase in the number of students with disabilities tested. Of the students tested in 2005, 64% achieved a score between 55-100.

Regents English ExaminationStudents with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter Schools

Performance on State Assessments (Indicator #3)

17

Regents Diplomas Since higher standards were adopted in 1996, the number of students with disabilities earning Regents diplomas has increased by more than 700%.

52

6

62

3

77

4

1,1

15

1,3

29

1,8

39

2,2

57

2,8

65

86

4

4,5

07

Total State

1995-96 1996-97 1997-98 1998-99 1999-00 2000-01 2001-02 2002-032003-04 2004-05

Students with Disabilities

Public Schools-Including Charter SchoolsFinal March 2006Source: OLAP

Note: Students that graduated with Regents diplomas in 2004-05 were required to pass five Regents examinations compared to eight required in previous years.

Graduation Rate (Indicator #1)

18

Percentage SWD in 2001 Cohort6/05 after 4 years

Needs Resource Category

Cohort Enrollment

Regents/Local

Diploma

IEP Diploma Dropped Out

New York City 7,397 16.8% 17.7% 28.9%

Rest of State 19,305 45.1% 13.2% 15.0%

Westchester County

2539 58.4% 8.5% 8.2%

Total Public 26,702 37.3% 14.4% 18.9%

19

Expectations of IDEA 2004 for Special Education

Creating the conditions for learning by implementing best practices based on research

20

Scientifically-Based Research

Research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to educational activities and programs

21

Research-based Instructional Practices

• Personnel: skills and knowledge include how to use scientifically based instructional practices

• Whole-school approaches: – Scientifically-based reading

instruction– Positive behavioral interventions and

supports– Early intervening services

22

Behavioral Interventions

• Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)

• Functional behavioral assessments

• Behavioral intervention plans

• Expand Health and Mental Health Collaborations with Schools

23

Timely and Appropriate Evaluations

• Children do not wait to fail before receiving interventions

• Determinations of eligibility do not result from lack of appropriate general education instruction in reading and math

• All referred receive timely and appropriate evaluations

24

Eligibility for Special Education• Student shall not be determined

eligible for special education if the determinant factor is– lack of appropriate instruction in

reading, including explicit and systematic instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, vocabulary development, reading fluency (including oral reading skills) and reading comprehension strategies;

– lack of appropriate instruction in math; or

– limited English proficiency

25

Learning Disabilities

Process that determines if the student responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures.

26

Components of Response-to-Intervention

1. Research-based instruction

– Reading

– Early grades

2. Increasing levels of intervention

3. Ongoing assessments of how student responds

27

Federal Regulations:Determining Learning Disabilities

• Child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards

• Child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards, or

• Child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards or intellectual development

28

Data to Review in LD Determination

To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math:

– Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel and

– Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents

29

Accountability – Persistent Focus on Improving

Results• State Annual Performance Report – Feb.

1

• Annual public reporting of school district results - Spring

• Annual review and designation of levels of interventions

• Sustained and focused technical assistance and professional development

30

Levels of Intervention

• In need of assistance• In need of intervention• In need of substantial

intervention

31

District in Need of Assistance

• School district requires technical assistance in order to improve performance

• Criteria:– Graduation rate is more than 18.5% and less than

35%; and/or– Drop out rate is 20% to less than 33%; and/or– Math and ELA State assessment results: score on

performance index in two or three areas is below the State average and district did not make AYP in these areas.

• 58 school districts are “in need of assistance”

32

District in Need of Intervention

• Requires direct State involvement and oversight to improve performance

• Criteria:– Graduation rate is 18.5% or less; and/or– Drop out rate is 33% or higher; and/or– Math and ELA State assessment results:

Score on performance index in four areas is below State average and district did not make AYP in these areas.

• 17 school districts are “in need of intervention”

33

District In Need of Substantial Intervention

• Criteria:– History of chronic noncompliance or

substantial failure to achieve progress and/or

– Systemic agency-wide problem of noncompliance and poor performance of students with disabilities

• No school districts identified this year as in need of substantial intervention.

34

State assistance and intervention options for identified districts

• State review of district instructional practices

• Compliance or corrective action plans• Professional development/consultation on

instructional practices for students with disabilities– literacy instruction– behavioral supports and services– effective delivery of special education

services• Redirection of district’s use of federal

dollars

35

Resources for Information

• NYSED VESID Special Educationwww.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/home.html

• State Performance Planwww.vesid.nysed.gov/specialed/spp/home.html

• IDEA 2004http://idea.ed.gov