state efforts to improve instruction and assessment of students who may be candidates to take the...
TRANSCRIPT
State Efforts to Improve Instruction and Assessment of Students who May be
Candidates to Take the Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Academic
Achievement Standards (AA-MAS)
OSEP Project Directors’ MeetingJuly 20, 2010
Overview and Example from the Multi-state GSEG toward a
Defensible AA-MAS
Sheryl Lazarus and Jason Altman
National Center on Educational Outcomes
2
AA-MAS
Participants: • Must have an IEP.• Must have been instructed in grade-level
content.• Progress in response to appropriate
instruction makes it unlikely will achieve grade-level proficiency within school year covered by IEP.
3
2% GSEG Grants
• 15 GSEGs (23 states)
• Studies looked at:
Characteristics of the students
Instruction and opportunity to learn
Test design issues
4
.
During the 2008-09 school year 13* states had information about an assessment that they believed was an AA-MAS on their website:
•California•Connecticut•Indiana•Kansas•Louisiana•Maryland•Michigan
•North Carolina
•North Dakota
•Ohio•Oklahoma•Tennessee•Texas
*One additional state had information on its website late last summer when data for the participation guidelines report was collected—but the state decided not to move forward with an AA-MAS and deleted the link. 5
Criteria Included in States’ Participation Guidelines
Criteria No. of States
Student has IEP 14
Previous performance on multiple measures 12
Learning grade level content 11Not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP
11
IEP includes goals based on grade level standards 9
Not based on disability category label 8Cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with accommodations
8
6
Comparison of AA-MAS and Regular Assessment: Design Changes, 2009
7
Peer Review
• Only a few states are through peer review for their AA-MAS
• According to Filbin (2008) states need to :
1.Identify the population of students.
2. Provide guidelines for standards-based IEPs and for monitoring them.
3. Design an appropriate assessment based on grade-level content standards.
4. Determine the relationship between the assessments in a state’s system. 8
New tool that can be used to develop and continuously improve AA-MAS Alternate Level
Descriptors
Quenemoen, R., Albus, D., Rogers, D. & Lazarus, S. (2010). Developing and improving Modified Achievement Descriptors: Rationale, procedures, and tools.
State ExampleGeneral ALD AA-MAS ALD
Can apply proportional reasoning skills to familiar situations
Understand proportions and are developing proportional reasoning skills
9
11
Hawaii•The Hawaii Progress Maps Project was based on learning progressions research that support classroom teacher decision-making and actions.
•Conducted across multiple years, the first two years focused on development of progress maps using Hawaii Content and Performance Standards (HCPS III), which included field testing of student work to validate the progress maps.
•The third year focused on classroom teachers using the progress maps to plan and implement standards-based curricula, and to monitor progress of struggling learners.
12
Sample Level DescriptorsMA 2.9.3: PATTERNS & FUNCTIONS: Demonstrate
and explain the difference between repeating patterns and growing patterns
HawaiiHawaii
Tessellations use
repeating patterns
13
WisconsinWisconsin conducted focus groups to explore characteristics of the students that may be eligible to participate in the AA-MAS. •Participants became familiar with the federal regulatory language about students who may qualify for the AA-MAS.
•Participants, including educators and parents, recognized that the decision to select a student for the AA-MAS needed to be based on direct academic factors, rather than student demographic characteristics or disability category label.
•Participants discovered the importance of access to the grade level curriculum on student's academic performance.
•Participants identified strategies to improve instructional and assessment practices.
14
South Dakota
South Dakota’s efforts have focused on learning more about how to improve instruction and assessment of low-performing students with disabilities who might be candidates for an AA-MAS.
•Analyzed data and conducted stakeholder meeting to learn more about the characteristics of the students. Conducted additional analyses to learn more about the accommodations used by low performing students on the statewide test. •Found that some students with disabilities may not have access to grade-level content; and that there is a need for training and professional development. •Developing online training on standards-based IEPs.
15
Alabama
16
A detailed secondary analysis of the students who persistently perform poorly on state large-scale testing showed:
•Students that use accommodations are at risk for PLP•Students are more likely to be PLP at 5th grade•Ethnic minority students are more likely to be PLP•Males who are PLP are more likely to have low SES•PLP students in 5th grade are more likely to have low SES
It was of particular interest to follow up on accommodations
•Teachers were surveyed (n=2,300) about decision making•Student’s performance in the classroom not a factor•Facilitation of access to the curriculum important•Big 4 accommodations are provided more than others•State policies and guidelines not always considered•Majority indicate tie between instruction and assessment
Alabama
17
Never AlwaysMetro Micro Rural Metro Micro Rural
Best time of Day 52.5% 51.0% 50.2% 8.5% 11.7% 9.3%
Breaks between subtests/during test
37.3% 35.2% 27.0% 8.6% 11.9% 13.8%
By students special education teacher
10.5% 11.5% 8.4% 16.4% 21.4% 18.3%
Extended Time limits 25.9% 25.0% 21.0% 20.5% 25.0% 22.2%
Flexible Scheduling 48.0% 46.7% 44.1% 6.1% 7.9% 8.4%
Directions interpreted/signed 57.5% 59.5% 58.0% 6.9% 12.5% 10.5%
In the special education classroom
13.9% 16.3% 15.0% 16.2% 17.8% 11.4%
Preferential seating 23.3% 21.9% 21.0% 12.1% 15.9% 12.0%Small group/individual administration
5.6% 4.9% 9.6% 27.6% 30.8% 24.6%
Amplification equipment 66.0% 65.4% 73.3% 2.7% 5.9% 1.5%
Braille 84.3% 83.9% 89.2% 1.2% 3.0% 1.5%
Colored Overlay 77.6% 78.6% 80.5% 1.0% 0.9% 1.5%
Large print 54.5% 52.9% 59.8% 2.3% 3.6% 2.4%
Magnifying Equipment 74.1% 76.6% 78.1% 1.6% 2.3% 1.8%
The table below demonstrates the differences among the teachers’ responses about accommodations use by subgroup
Tennessee
Most notable: Development of AA-MAS•Participation Guidelines; Training; Feedback•Pilot of new test in Spring 2009•Live testing in Spring 2010
Other Activity:•Secondary analysis of low performers•Survey of teachers – student characteristics•Matching student IEPs to survey – X analysis•Teacher survey dissemination: Summer 2010
•Teacher interviews•Parent survey developed
18
Tennessee
Certain groups of students are more likely to display some of identified factors:
Students with multiple disabilitiesStudents in inclusion or resourceStudents with LD; Functionally delayedStudents who use more accommodationsStudents who use certain accommodations
19
20
For More Information
National Center on Educational Outcomes
www.nceo.info
Sheryl [email protected]
Jason [email protected]