1% State-level Participation Cap Alternate Assessment Welcome to our webinar everyone. Today we will be looking at the Alternate Assessment and the 1% State-level participation cap. 1% State-level Participation Cap 8/10/2017

Learning Objectives Participants will become aware of the requirements in the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) pertaining to alternate assessment (AA-AAAS) and the State-level cap on 1% participation. Participants will examine the provisions in ESSA for requesting a waiver of the State-level 1% cap. Participants will be provided strategies and suggestions for meeting the State-level 1% cap. Here are our three learning objectives for this morning Read the bullets

Evolution of the 1% cap from ESEA to ESSA The 2003 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) regulations placed a 1% cap on the percentage of the total tested student population that could count as proficient on the alternate assessment. This was not a cap on participation in the assessment. Data collected before 2003 enactment of the accountability regulation indicated that participation in the alternate assessment was less than 1% of total tested population in nearly every state. Alternate assessment participation rates have increased steadily since that time. Let’s get started with the evolution of the 1% cap from ESEA in 2003 to ESSA in 2015. To begin with ESEA had a 1% cap on the percentage of the tested student population taking the alternate assessment that could count as proficient. The interesting thing about this percentage is back in 2003… THERE WAS LESS THAN 1% OF THE TOTAL TESTED POPULATION TAKING THE ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT. Since that time the numbers have continued to increase. There are several speculated reasons for this such as “since there was a percentage that could be counted as proficient, it was a benefit for schools to identify students for the alternate assessment in order to boost their proficiency rates”

Then … Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) 2015, reaffirmed that the alternate assessment is an appropriate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills, but rather than placing a cap on accountability ESSA places a 1% cap on participation in the assessment. Then in 2015 in comes ESSA. ESSA still believes that the alternate assessment is the most appropriate way to assess this population of students, but it changed what is being capped. ESSA places the 1% cap on PARTICIPATION in the assessment.

What does this mean? This shift in policy means that states, districts, schools and IEP teams need to think carefully about which students should be included in the alternate assessment. ESSA indicates that the alternate assessment is for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. So, what does this change in the 1% cap mean? It means that states, counties, and schools need to really think carefully about which students should be included in the alternate assessment. Like we talked about last week in our alternate standards webinar, the alternate assessment is intended for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities,

To reach 1.0% participation rate in WV . . . WV 2016 Alternate Summative Assessment (ASA) Participation Math Current Math participation percent (%) Current Math participation number (#) Math participation number (#) needed to reach 1.0%* Math change in participation number (+/-) to reach 1.0%* 1.40 2460 1763 -697 Reading Current ELA participation percent (%) Current ELA participation number (#) ELA participation number (#) needed to reach 1.0%* ELA change in participation number (+/-) to reach 1.0%* 2462 -699 We looked at this slide last week, but for those of you who were not on the webinar, or have not viewed it from our website, lets take another look at our states numbers. *Results for the participation number needed to reach 1.0% and the change in participation number to reach 1.0% are calculated with the assumption that the total number of students tested remain constant. Data source: WVEIS RPTCRD16 _PWVN307A

Let’s break it down and look at an un-named district in WV School All # Math Alternate # Math Alternate participation % Math Proficient Math # Proficient Math % A 91 2 2.20 1 50.00 B 83 2.41 0.00 C 100 3 3.00 66.67 D 120 4 3.33 75.00 E 127 3.15 F 248 5 2.02 20.00 G 856 20 2.34 11 55.00 This slide breaks it down a little more. This is data from a county here in WV. It is not a list of every school in this particular county, only a sampling. Here’s what we can see in this slide. Pay special attention to school G. Of the 20 students that took the alternate assessment, 11 were proficient. If you will remember back to last weeks webinar, we talked about high percentages of proficiency on the AA probably means that you need to check which students are taking the alternate assessment.

Strategies for meeting the 1% participation cap Gather district and school data on current participation rates in the alternate assessment. Gather data on the characteristics of students participating in the alternate assessment. Create or examine a state definition of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” and revise guidelines, as needed, for determining whether a student should participate in the alternate assessment. Provide PD for IEP team members and other educators on alternate assessment and who should participate in it. Provide information sessions for parents of students with disabilities so that they can participate in the IEP decision-making process about the assessment in which their child participates. The next section of this webinar deals with strategies for meeting the 1% participation cap. Read 1-5

Recommended Strategy #1 Gather data on current participation rates- Examine participation rates in districts and by grade level. This data will help in understanding whether there are pockets of schools or districts in which the numbers are higher than expected and whether there are certain grades in which participation in the alternate assessment is higher than expected. Read Gather data… It’s important to know the landscape of participation rates of participation rates in the alternate assessment in districts and schools through out the state. It would also be helpful to know the rates by grade level. It would be good to know if there were pockets of schools or districts in which numbers were higher than expected, and certain grades where there might be unusual spikes. Our next few slides will take a look at both national and state data on participation in the AA.

National Data

WV Alternate Summative Assessment Participation for Math, SY 2016, Grades 3-11 by District Hancock WV% = 1.40 (Target % = 1.0) Brooke Ohio Marshall Wetzel Monongalia Pleas- Morgan Marion ants Tyler Preston Berkeley Mineral Taylor Jeff- Dodd- Harrison Hampshire erson Wood ridge Ritchie Barbour Grant Tucker Wirt Lewis Hardy Cal- Gilmer Jackson houn Upshur Randolph Mason Roane Braxton Pendleton Putnam Webster Cabell Clay Kanawha    Above WV % (>1.40%) Nicholas Pocahontas Wayne Lincoln Boone    At or below WV % (≤1.40%) but above 1.0% Fayette Greenbrier Mingo Logan    At or below target (≤1.0%) Raleigh Wyoming Sum- mers Monroe Note: Results exclude WVSDB and Institutional Programs Data source: WVEIS RPTCARD16_PWVN307A McDowell Mercer

WV Alternate Summative Assessment Participation for ELA, SY 2016, Grades 3-11 by District Hancock WV% = 1.40 (Target % = 1.0) Brooke Ohio Marshall Wetzel Monongalia Pleas- Morgan Marion ants Tyler Preston Berkeley Mineral Taylor Jeff- Dodd- Harrison Hampshire erson Wood ridge Ritchie Barbour Grant Tucker Wirt Lewis Hardy Cal- Gilmer Jackson houn Upshur Randolph Mason Roane Braxton Pendleton Putnam Webster Cabell Clay Kanawha    Above WV % (>1.40%) Nicholas Pocahontas Wayne Lincoln Boone    At or below WV % (≤1.40%) but above 1.0% Fayette Greenbrier Mingo Logan    At or below target (≤1.0%) Raleigh Wyoming Sum- mers Monroe Note: Results exclude WVSDB and Institutional Programs Data source: WVEIS RPTCARD16_PWVN307A McDowell Mercer

Recommended Strategy #2 Gather data on the characteristics of students participating in the alternate assessment- Use existing data from national studies as a benchmark for judging whether there might be students participating in the Alternate Assessment (AA) who do not have a significant cognitive disability. Read Gather Data…. Information on the characteristics of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities has been gathered by many states. This data provides a general picture of most students with significant cognitive disabilities, and a bench mark for judging whether it is possible that students are participating in the AA who do not have SCD.

Communication Considerations Receptive One type of data to look at to judge the appropriateness of a student taking the AA is to look at receptive and expressive communication skills. 48% of students taking the AA can follow 1-2 step directions with no cues. 40% can follow 1-2 step direction with cues such as pictures or objects 9% of students on AA show an alert response to stimuli, but do not follow directions unless they are given physical assistance. (start here) This chart shows us that less than 3% (the little blue slice) show no evident receptive responses.

Communication Characteristics Expressive Now looking at Expressive Communication Skills- The expressive communication skills of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities- based on teachers’ perceptions generally range from those having only pre-symbolic communication skills such as cries (about 10%)- blue slice To those having emerging symbolic communication skills such as gestures, pictures, use of objects (about 17%)- orange slice to those having expressive communication skills using verbal or written words, signs and braille, or language-based augmentative and alternate communication (about 72%) Schools may want to investigate the expressive communication skills of their students who participate in the AA.

Recommended Strategy #3 Create or examine state definition of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” and revise guidelines, as needed, for determining whether a student should participate in the alternate assessment. Make sure the problem is not a lack of implementation of the definition. ESSA regulations indicate that each state must define students with the most SC Disability, and provide clear guidelines for decision makers that are consistent with the definition. We want to make sure the over identification is not due to a lack of understanding or implementation of the definition Next slide

Strategy #3 Continued Assessment regulations require that the state definition: Address cognitive functioning and adaptive behavior; Identify exclusionary factors (e.g. EL, low performance); and Reflect the instructional needs of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (extensive, direct individualized instruction; substantial supports). The definition must Read bullet points

WVDE Definition Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (moderate to severe intellectual disability) have general intellectual functioning more than three standard deviations below the mean, in consideration of 1.0 standard error of measurement as determined by a qualified psychologist, using an individually administered intelligence test; and the student exhibits concurrent deficits in adaptive functioning expected for his or her age across multiple environments based on clinical and standardized assessment in at least one of the following domains: conceptual, social, or practical. Here is our state’s definition as stated in policy 2419 Read definition

Recommended Strategy #4 Provide Professional Learning for IEP Team members and other educators on the nature of the alternate assessment and who should participate in it. Include, at minimum: Using participation guidelines to make assessment participation decisions. Differentiating instruction (DI) and providing better access (UDL) to academic content. Selecting, implementing, and evaluation accessibility features and accommodations for instruction and assessment. IEP team members need to understand the purpose of the AA and the characteristics of students who most appropriately participate in the assessment. Ideally, training would be given to district personnel, who would then train educators in their schools. Professional learning should be provided that includes at a minimum Read bullet points

3B2 District Action Plans Improvement Plan Action Steps Examples Train principals and IEP Teams on how to analyze data and inform parents on what it means to be on an alternate diploma. Train teachers on the Guidelines for Participation on Alternate Assessment. Provided Professional Learning opportunities to raise awareness of implications and limitations of alternate diploma. This slide gives a few examples of things that you all put into your ADA improvement plans, I believe with all of my heart because we have made the participation rate a focus and an indicator on the ADA we are going to continue to see results.

Recommended Strategy #5 Provide information sessions for parents of students with disabilities so that they can participate in the IEP decision-making process about the assessment in which their child participates. Parents must be provided information about what it mean for their child to be on the AA.

Strategies for meeting the 1% participation cap Gather district and school data on current participation rates in the alternate assessment. Gather data on the characteristics of students participating in the alternate assessment. Create or examine a state definition of “students with the most significant cognitive disabilities” and revise guidelines, as needed, for determining whether a student should participate in the alternate assessment. Provide PD for IEP team members and other educators on alternate assessment and who should participate in it. Provide information sessions for parents of students with disabilities so that they can participate in the IEP decision-making process about the assessment in which their child participates. Here are the 5 strategies again. I repeated this slide so we could take another look and see which things we are already doing in our state. Believe me as we talk to the federal govt and other states, we realize that again WV is leading this charge around the alternate standards, alternate assessment and alternate diploma.

ESSA 1% State-level Cap Waiver Requirements The waiver must be submitted at least 90 days prior to the start of State’s testing window. The waiver must provide State-level data from the current or previous school year to show: The number and percentage of students in each subgroup who took the alternate assessment and The State has measured the achievement of at least 95% of all students and 95% of children with disabilities subgroup who are enrolled in grades for which the assessment is required. The waiver…. Let me start off by saying, yes districts can get a waiver, but it is not an easy process. The intention of the waiver is a one time deal, and then the process begins to reduce the number of students on AA so that the district meets the 1% cap for the next testing window. Here are the steps for obtaining a waiver.

Waiver Requirements Continued… Include assurances from the State that it has verified that each LEA that the State anticipates will assess more than 1% of it’s assessed students in any subject for which assessments are administered in that school year using the alternate assessment. Followed each of the State’s guidelines and Will address any disproportionality in the percentage of students in any subgroup.

Include a plan and timeline by which The State will improve the implementation of its guidelines by reviewing and if necessary, revising its definition. The State will take additional steps to support and provide appropriate oversight to each LEA that the state anticipates will assess more than 1% of it’s assessed students. The State must define how it will monitor and regularly evaluate each LEA to ensure that the LEA provides sufficient training such that the staff that participate as members of an IEP Team understand and implement the guidelines. The State will address any disproportionality in the percentage of students taking an alternate assessment aligned with alternate academic achievement standards.

Dawn Embrey-King Coordinator WVDE OSE dembreyking@k12.wv.us 304-558-2696 (53222)