Oregon’s Statewide Assessment Options

for Students with Disabilities

UpdatesDianna Carrizales

ODE COSA Fall ConferenceOctober 4th and 5th

Mr. Elephant

Alternate Assessment Peer Review General Assessment System:

Approved Content standards Achievement standards Full assessment system Technical quality Alignment Reporting

Extended Assessment System: No status assigned

Criteria to be re-addressed Achievement standards

Approved, re-established alternate academic achievement standards

Technical quality Technical report and standard

setting process report Reliability and validity

documentation Alignment

Establish that grade-level content standards for 6 – 10 can be assessed in a single test

Alignment/links of Extended Assessment to alternate standards

Oregon’s Response Achievement standards

Alternate Achievement standards: Set in May and June by Oregon teachers Approved in August by state Board of Education

Technical quality Technical documentation

Administration, Participation, Standard Setting, Reliability and Validity Test Specifications and Blueprints

Alignment Establish that grade-level content standards for 6 – 10 can be

assessed in a single test Vertically aligned content standards Grade level achievement standards Intent to divide into three levels instead of two

Alignment/links of Extended Assessment to alternate standards Alignment studies and reviews

Standard Setting Method:

Bookmarking Participants:

35 Oregon teachers administrators, specialists, and community representatives representing regions from around the state

Outcomes: Cutscores for all grades, all subjects all categories

(Does not meet, Nearly Meets, Meets, Exceeds) Achievement level descriptors for each grade, each

subject, and each category

Placing the Bookmarks in the Item Ordered Booklets

Meets

Nearly Meets

Exceeds

Meaning of a Cutscore Items at the bookmark indicate that

students have mastery of all previous items (likely to know all the correct responses) and therefore meet the minimum requirements of category membership

Individuals within a category will display a range of scores

Extended Assessment Caveats for Bookmarking Decisions Students must have some success on

some of the content prompts to meet a grade level achievement standard

Each grade level will have an individual achievement standard

Scaffold and Standard Administrations will hold students to the same standard

Standard Setting Evaluation Feedback Statement

Panel Average

1. The training materials were organized. 3.86

2. The process of making judgments for cut scores was clear. 3.35

3. By the time I began making judgments on cut scores, I knew how to administer and score the test.

3.66

4. By the time I began making judgments on cut scores, I understood the intended population served by this test.

3.73

5. The draft Achievement level (ALDs) descriptors were important in making the cut score judgments.

3.86

6. The outcome data helped articulate the judgments made regarding the cut scores.

3.66

7. Realistic (not overly-forced) consensus was reached on the small-group judgments for cut scores.

4

8. The cut scores being recommended to ODE are defensible. 3.86

9. The Extended Assessment with these recommended cut scores, provides a realistic accountability of students with significant disabilities.

2.9

Adopted Reading Standards

Table 1: Reading: Ranges of Scale Scores by Category

Grade Does Not Yet Meet Nearly Meets Meets Exceeds

3 95 and below 96 – 103 104 – 112 113 and above

4 101 and below 102 – 107 108 – 116 117 and above

5 104 and below 105 – 110 111 – 121 122 and above

6 95 and below 96 – 102 103 – 111 112 and above

7 96 and below 97 – 104 105 – 115 116 and above

8 98 and below 99 – 106 107 – 116 117 and above

CIM 102 and below 103 - 111 112 - 119 120 and above

Adopted Mathematics Standards

Table 2: Mathematics: Ranges of Scale Scores by Category

Grade Does Not Yet Meet

Nearly Meets Meets Exceeds

3 86 and below 87 – 96 97 – 102 103 and above

4 96 and below 97 – 99 100 – 102 103 and above

5 98 and below 99 – 102 103 – 107 108 and above

6 92 and below 93 – 99 100 – 108 109 and above

7 93 and below 94 – 100 101 – 111 112 and above

8 97 and below 98 – 103 104 – 115 116 and above

CIM 99 and below 100 – 107 108 - 118 119 and above

Adopted Writing Standards

Table 4: Writing: Ranges of Scale Scores by Category

Grade Does Not Yet Meet Nearly Meets Meets Exceeds

4 93 and below 94 – 103 104 – 117 118 and above

7 104 and below 105 – 109 110 – 118 119 and above

CIM 109 and below 110 - 111 112 - 123 124 and above

Adopted Science Standards

Table 3: Science: Ranges of Scale Scores by Category

Grade Does Not Yet Meet Nearly Meets Meets Exceeds

5 99 and below 100 - 107 108 - 116 117 and above

8 94 and below 95 - 106 107 - 111 112 and above

CIM 98 and below 99 - 108 109 - 113 114 and above

2006-2007 Extended Assessment Participation by Disability Elementary

Mental Retardation (25.5%)

Specific Learning Disabilities (20.75%)

Autism Spectrum Disorders (16.5%)

Communication Disorder (12.25%)

Middle High Mental Retardation

(42%) Autism Spectrum

Disorder (18%) Specific Learning

Disabilities (12.25%) Other Health

Impairments(9.5%)

6 – 10 Justification: Vertical Alignment

Alternate assessment items focused on the subset of content standards that are linked by a common cohesive construct across at least 3 grade levels

Basis for the link was either:

standards were the same across the grades in the grade band, or

standards were linked to each other via a distinct developmental progression

The vertical alignment process ensured that students would be exposed to a minimum number of items outside of their grade level while simplifying the test design

6 – 10 Justification: Standard Setting by grade

Alternate achievement standards were set by Oregon teachers for each individual grade level for each assessment.

Setting standards by grade ensured that Oregon teachers could make achievement determinations for students at each grade using information contained in the Achievement Level Descriptors.

6 – 10 Justification: Increasing Rigor by grade

Increases in scale-scores by grade is combined with decreases in the percentage of students passing the assessment in the higher grades.

This decrease suggests an increase in rigor of expectations of the assessments as grades increase.

6 – 10 Future Plan: Split grade levels 07-08

ODE will continue with the original plan to develop separate middle and high school assessments in phase-two of development 2007-2008

The 2007-2008 Extended Assessments will reflect three grade bands:

Elementary (grades 3 – 5) Middle (grades 6 – 8) High (grades 9 and

above or CIM)

Current Assessment Options for Students with Disabilities General assessment

With accommodations Without accommodations

Extended assessment Standard administration Scaffold administration

Anticipated changes? Oregon has decided to create an assessment for

students “whose disability has prevented them from achieving grade-level proficiency and who will likely not reach grade-level achievement in the same time frame as other students” Alternate assessment 2 – 3 years of development Allowances for an additional 2% of district AYP The IEPs of students who are assessed on this

assessment must: include IEP goals that are based on the academic content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled and be designed to monitor the student’s progress in achieving the standards-based goals.

http://www.schoolsmovingup.net/events/standardsbasedspecialed

Decision Making for 2007-2008 No changes

Consider General Assessment with or without accommodations if Student:

Performs at or around grade level Has academic difficulties that primarily surround reading but may be

average or close to average in other subject areas Has academic difficulties in areas other than reading that are “mild to

moderate” and can typically be addressed by using simplified language Is reading within two to three grades of his or her enrolled level

Instruction: Is primarily general curriculum instruction (but may also use a

specialized curriculum in some areas)

Some Judgment variables: What assessment did he take last year? How is his attention? What types of behaviors should be considered?

Consider Extended Assessment if Student:

Performs well below grade level Is significantly below grade level in reading Has academic difficulties that are generalized (to all subject areas) and are

significant Benefits from specialized individual supports

Instruction: Is primarily a specialized curriculum or From general curriculum must be significantly reduced in breadth, depth, and

complexity

Some Judgment variables: What assessment did he take last year? How is his attention? What types of behaviors should be considered? Previous relevant experiences

Consider Scaffolded Administration of Extended Assessment if: Student:

Performance is significantly impacted by a disability Does not read Has academic, mobility, and receptive and expressive language

difficulties that are generalized and significant Relies on individual and significant supports to access reduced content

materials

Instruction: Is from a specialized curriculum and has functional components and/or Includes academic goals that are significantly reduced in depth,

breadth, and complexity from grade level content

Some Judgment variables: Is the student able to interact with instructional material in a way that

provides meaningful feedback?

District Level Decision Making 1% of students meeting on the Extended

Assessment (whether scaffold or standard administration) can count toward district AYP performance counts

All students taking an Extended Assessment (as appropriately determined by an IEP team and meeting minimum participation requirements) can count toward district AYP participation counts

Accommodations

Accommodations of Setting Response Presentation Timing/Scheduling

Examples Extended time Frequent breaks Change in test directions Change in font or size of text Assistive technology Test setting Manipulatives

When used? In the classroom vs. Testing only?

Changes: Assessment and Materials Refinements

Overall difficulty

Wording of the “preamble language” in the Scaffold administration

Reporting possibilities (i.e. links to score reporting categories or strands)

Changes There will now be three

assessments covering 3 grade bands: Elementary (grades 3 – 5), Mid-Level (grades 6 – 8), and High School (grade 10)

Location and number of the Prerequisite Skills items

Scoring values of Content Prompt items (0,1, vs. 0, 1, 2)

Number of content prompt items (field test items, anchor items)

Changes: Data Entry Refinements

Data entry, speed, ease of entry, general issues as reported throughout the year including capacity

Clarity surrounding which level of the assessment is being accessed

Clarity surrounding which administration of the assessment is being accessed

Changes Changes to retain

consistency with changes to the assessment

Reports

Changes: Training Train the trainer model 8 regional trainer trainings Between October and December Approximately 300 trainers Web training and proficiency Assessors can be trained as early as trainers are trained

and ready Trainers will have more flexibility to determine the

length of the trainings depending on the needs of the trainees

District funding allocations similar to those provided in 2006-2007

Testing Window Has been widened to fall between

February 15th and April 25th.

For Information Links to information:http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/?id=178

Contact: Dianna Carrizales(503) 947-5634Dianna.Carrizales@state.or.us