1

Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with

Disabilities

Sue Rigney

U.S. Department of Education

OSEP Project Directors Meeting

August 2008

2

Federal Policy

• State assessments

• Alternate & modified achievement standards

• NAEP

• Participation

• Requires alternate for State- and district-wide assessments

• Accommodations guidelines

NCLB

IDEA

3

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

$$

4

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

5

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

6

NCLB Requires

• Challenging State content standards

• Academic achievement standards

• Statewide accountability system that includes all schools

• Annual reporting of assessment results and AYP

7

NCLB + RegulationsAA-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

8

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)

9

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

Reporting

10

Modified & Alternate Achievement Standards

Are permitted, not required Use limited to eligible students based on State

guidelines State must provide evidence of technical quality

Sue Rigney, USED

11

Alternate achievement standards permitted only for students with most significant cognitive disability

AA-AAS

12

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

AA-AAS

13

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

14

Impact on Instruction

• Anecdotal and case studiesMost pre-date requirement for academic

content

• Inclusion in accountability makes a difference:

“I think our expectations are higher.”

15

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

16

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

17

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

18

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

19

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

State Guidelines (1)

20

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

21

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

22

State Support for IEP TeamsWhich 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?

23

Debunking the MythsIt’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

24

AYP Targets Missed by Schools ThatDid Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress,

2004-05

Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (based on data reported by 39 states for 19,471 schools that missed AYP.

25

Lessons Learned

• Collaboration needed to develop alternate assessments: assessment, special ed, content experts

• Resources needed to build local support systems

• Consequences must be documented

26

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

27

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

28

Implications for Higher Ed Collaboration is essential for

Curriculum alignment

Instruction

Test development

Who needs to be included?

Special education

Curriculum specialists

Assessment experts