Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities Sue Rigney U.S. Department of Education OSEP Project Directors Meeting August 2008

Federal Policy NCLB IDEA State assessments Alternate & modified achievement standards NAEP Participation Requires alternate for State- and district-wide assessments Accommodations guidelines NCLB IDEA

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 $$

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

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

NCLB Requires Challenging State content standards Academic achievement standards Statewide accountability system that includes all schools Annual reporting of assessment results and AYP

NCLB + Regulations AA-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

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)

Reporting 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

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

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

AA-AAS 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

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

Impact on Instruction Anecdotal and case studies Most pre-date requirement for academic content Inclusion in accountability makes a difference: “I think our expectations are higher.”

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

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

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

AA-MAS Is Not… A modified assessment Modified content standards 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

State Guidelines (1) 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 (2) Establish and monitor implementation of guidelines for developing IEPs IEP goals based on grade-level content standards IEP designed to monitor student progress

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

State Support for IEP Teams Which 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?

Debunking the Myths It’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

AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did 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.

Lessons Learned Collaboration needed to develop alternate assessments: assessment, special ed, content experts Resources needed to build local support systems Consequences must be documented

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

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

Implications for Higher Ed Collaboration is essential for Curriculum alignment Instruction Test development Who needs to be included? Special education Curriculum specialists Assessment experts