center for assessment considerations for the alternate assessment based on modified achievement...
DESCRIPTION
Center for Assessment 3 Issues Facing NY and Most States New regulation without much discussion with states led to many questions Should states spend limited resources to develop an AA-MAS? Will it yield useful information to guide instruction? Is that the best way to support the learning of this population? Would this test only be helpful to schools for accountability purposes? Are there current best practices with this population in assessment development that should be followed? What does the research say?TRANSCRIPT
Center for Assessment
Considerations for the Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards
Briefing on a white paper commissioned by the New York Comprehensive Center in collaboration with the New York State Education Department
January 11, 2010
The contents of this publication were developed under cooperative agreement S283B050019 with the U. S. Department of Education. However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of
Education, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.
Center for Assessment 2
Introductions and Project Overview NYCC received a letter from USED informing
them that funds were available for a research project
NYSED agreed that an expert panel meeting culminating in a white paper on issues surrounding the AA-MAS would be useful
NYCC applied for the funds and contracted with NCIEA to support this work
Center for Assessment 3
Issues Facing NY and Most States New regulation without much discussion with states
led to many questions Should states spend limited resources to develop an
AA-MAS? Will it yield useful information to guide instruction? Is that the best way to support the learning of this
population? Would this test only be helpful to schools for accountability
purposes? Are there current best practices with this population
in assessment development that should be followed?
What does the research say?
Center for Assessment 4
NYSED Initial Questions Regarding the AA-MAS Which students are best served by this assessment? How different are they from the rest of the special
education population? What is an “appropriately challenging” achievement
standard? Which modifications make the most sense in the
context of the AA-MAS? How do the modifications affect the validity and
reliability of the interpretation? What is the credential that is most appropriate for
students participating in the AA-MAS and what does it lead to in terms of post-secondary potential?
Center for Assessment 5
Overview of Project NYCC contracted with the Center for Assessment to
assemble an expert panel and develop a white paper on issues concerning the development of an AA-MAS
NYSED provided guidance on important policy questions and recommended addressing issues in Filbin (2008) report
Expert panel met twice in person and several times over WebEx
Developed a 10-chapter report exploring many issues surrounding the conceptualization and development of an AA-MAS
Center for Assessment 6
Project ParticipantsProject Director: Larry Hirsch, New York Comprehensive
Center
Project Manager/Editor: Marianne Perie, Center for Assessment
New York State Department of Education: David Abrams, Assistant Commissioner
for Standards, Assessment, and Reporting
Candy Shyer, Bureau Chief of Test Development, Office of State Assessment
Rebecca Cort, Deputy Commissioner, Office of Vocational and Educational Services for Students with Disabilities
Expert Panel: Jamal Abedi, University of California, Davis Chris Domaleski, Center for Assessment Steve Dunbar, University of Iowa Howard Everson, Fordham University Claudia Flowers, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte Brian Gong, Center for Assessment Meagan Karvonen, Western Carolina University Suzanne Lane, University of Pittsburgh Scott Marion, Center for Assessment Jim Pellegrino, University of Illinois, Chicago Marianne Perie, Center for Assessment David Pugalee, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte Rachel Quenemoen, National Center on
Educational Outcomes Robert Rickelman, University of North Carolina,
Charlotte Katherine Ryan, University of Illinois, Urbana
Champagne Gerald Tindal, University of Oregon Cathy Welch, University of Iowa Phoebe Winter, Pacific Metrics
Center for Assessment 7
Authors and Reviewers NYSED and the Center for Assessment
identified chapter authors and reviewers and sent requests prior to the first expert panel meeting
Eleven expert panelists served as authors The remaining seven experts served as
reviewers Discussions were organized by section &
each reviewer was assigned a section Three reviewers read all chapters
Center for Assessment 8
Organizing Structure of Report Report is organized into three sections
Identifying and understanding the population Test Design: Understanding content and achievement
standards and incorporating appropriate item modifications Technical considerations and practical applications
Or… Should I develop an AA-MAS? How should I develop it? How should I evaluate it?
Center for Assessment 9
Organization (continued) 10 chapters within the three sections
1. IntroductionIdentifying & Understanding the Population2. Identifying the Population3. Standards-based IEPs4. Cognition of Low AchieversTest Design5. Reading and Math Content6. Test Development7. Standard SettingTechnical Considerations8. Comparability9. Validity10. Accountability and operationalization
Center for Assessment 10
Section I: Identifying and Understanding the Population Intro and first chapter provide a policy context
for the AA-MAS and a historical perspective on educating students with disabilities
Includes a discussion framework for state policymakers on assessment options and on improving student access to grade-level curriculum
Center for Assessment
Section I (continued) Second chapter describes how a standards-based
IEP supports an educational program that meets the needs of AA-MAS-eligible students, through access to grade-level curriculum using effective instruction; supports to address learner characteristics; and setting and monitoring goals to support a transition into grade-
level achievement. Third chapter describes relationships among
assessment, curriculum, and instruction, and conceptualizing assessment as a process of reasoning from evidence driven by theories and data on student cognition, and includes examples related to the AA-MAS.
11
Center for Assessment 12
Section II: Test Design Starts with a chapter describing content
domains for ELA and Math with a focus on ways to modify content so that we can measure greater depth with easier items
Next chapter discusses item and test development and reviews approaches to modification of items and assembly of test forms with respect to psychometric consequences and standards-based interpretations of proficiency for the AA-MAS population.
Center for Assessment 13
Section II (continued) Final chapter in this section focuses on
developing modified achievement standards Includes a discussion on how to define
“modified” proficiency, synthesizing information from the previous sections on cognition and test design, and provides ideas for setting cut scores on assessments with fewer items and lower sample sizes
Center for Assessment 14
Section III: Technical Considerations First chapter in this section discusses comparability
between AA-MAS and general assessments from different perspectives including content and construct, psychometrics, scale and score, linguistic structure, text features, and depth of knowledge.
The next chapter describes why and how to develop a validity argument using Kane’s argument-based approach as a framework for considering validity issues related to AA-MAS.
Center for Assessment 15
Section III (continued) The final chapter in this section describes
operational and accountability issues and is specifically geared towards policymakers
It focuses on the interrelationship of the AA-MAS to the existing state assessment and accountability system considering several practical, technical, and policy issues that must be considered when implementing a new program.
Center for Assessment 16
Other Features Other resources developed at the request of
NYSED List of additional web-based resources on
instructing and assessing students with disabilities Tool for policymakers that includes guiding
questions for state policymakers considering the development of an AA-MAS and references back to specific sections within the report
Glossary of terms related to special education, assessment, and federal policy
Center for Assessment 17
Overarching Themes Clear link between assessment, instruction, and student
cognition, Several of the chapters focus on the importance of bringing lessons
learned in studying the students and designing the assessments into the classroom.
Similar to accommodations, certain modifications will only be successful to the degree they are incorporated into a student’s daily instruction.
Important to develop a validity argument for this assessment early in the process and test the various assumptions throughout. Testing the assumption that a new assessment is needed is one of the
first important recommendations. Many chapters address ongoing collection and evaluation of validity
evidence to ensure that the development is in line with the expected goals.
Consider how to incorporate the recommendations into an existing assessment and accountability system Including how to work with current state content standards and grade-
level achievement standards.
Center for Assessment 18
Suggested Uses State policymakers should find this report
useful in determining whether or not developing an AA-MAS makes sense for their state, and if so, how.
Even in states with no intention of designing an AA-MAS, this report could be a useful tool for designing professional development activities.
Contains suggestions for several areas: special education, curriculum & instruction, assessment, and accountability
Center for Assessment
Lingering Concerns Still concerned about identifying right population
Kids are classified differently from one school to the next
We need to understand the need for such classifications and find ways to better classify them into instructionally useful categories
If AA-MAS modifications work well for these kids, why not expand the approach for all assessments Need more focus on universal design, better
accommodations, and aligning assessments with diagnostic approaches to learning.
19
Center for Assessment
Lessons Learned from the Report This report is applicable to multiple tests and
types of students – not just the “2%” population.
We need to consider how the AA-MAS fits in with the general assessment.
It highlighted the importance of an integrated test design, meaning we must consider assessment, curriculum, and instruction together in consideration of how tests will be used and validated.
20
Center for Assessment
Bigger Lessons Learned Key decision points should be identified and
informed by research and best practices. There is a value in triangulating federally-
funded research with states’ operational work: States need time to have thoughtful discussion to
process issues. This type of work increases professional
development of state department staff. It helps inform several areas like RTTT and allows
measurement research to inform policy.
21
Center for Assessment
Lessons Learned on Next Steps We need to strengthen our understanding of
learning progressions and integrate that understanding into classroom instruction and assessment development. Where do students with disabilities differ from
general population? Need to understand more than scope and
sequence Should provide information on next steps to help
strengthen nuances of student learning
22
Center for Assessment
Next Steps for New York Will not develop an AA-MAS under current
political context Need to see what happens with ESEA
reauthorization and RTTT In the meantime…
This work is helping us think through formative and interim assessment strategies.
We are also working with our colleagues in special education to rethink IEP design.
23