Prevalence of Out-of-Level Testing Martha Thurlow and Jane Minnema National Center on Educational Outcomes

Slides:



Advertisements
Similar presentations
National Accessible Reading Assessment Projects Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) Martha Thurlow.
Advertisements

Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment (PARA) Research Martha Thurlow National Center on Educational.
IDEA and NCLB The Connection Elizabeth Burmaster, State Superintendent Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction December 2003.
South Carolina Alternate Assessment (SC-Alt) Advisory Committee September 28,
Review of Barrier Free Approach and Additional Analysis of MEPS Data Related to ‘Potential’ vs. ‘Experienced’ Barriers.
May Dr. Schultz, Dr. Owen, Dr. Ryan, Dr. Stephens.
N C E O National Center on Educational Outcomes State Variations in Accommodations Policy and Practice Martha L. Thurlow University of Minnesota.
ACCOMMODATIONS MANUAL How to Select, Administer, and Evaluate Use of Accommodations for Instruction and Assessment of Students with Disabilities.
National Center on Educational Outcomes N C E O Leaving No Child Behind: Are English Language Learners With Disabilities Considered? Martha Thurlow, Jane.
Introduction & Background Laurene Christensen National Center on Educational Outcomes National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)
N C E O National Center on Educational Outcomes Linking Curriculum Standards, Assessment, and Instructional Practices Martha L. Thurlow February 11, when.
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 How do we keep kids from being stuck in our gap? A frame, a series of discussion questions, and some.
N C E O National Center on Educational Outcomes Accommodation Decisions: Policy, Training, and Monitoring as Critical Aspects of an Objective Approach.
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES University of Minnesota Rachel Quenemoen Cammy Lehr Martha Thurlow.
Connecticut Comprehensive System of Monitoring the use of Accommodations in Testing Connecticut Comprehensive System of Monitoring the use of Accommodations.
Who Are The “2% Students” …eligible to be judged as proficient based on modified grade-level academic achievement standards? Naomi Zigmond University of.
Meeting NCLB Act: Students with Disabilities Who Are Caught in the Gap Martha Thurlow Ross Moen Jane Minnema National Center on Educational Outcomes
Using School Climate Surveys to Categorize Schools and Examine Relationships with School Achievement Christine DiStefano, Diane M. Monrad, R.J. May, Patricia.
National Center on Educational Outcomes NCEO Pre-conference Clinic Under the Big Top! Accommodating Assessments for ALL Students.
National Center on Educational Outcomes N C E O Reporting Assessment Results for Students with Disabilities Martha Thurlow National Center on Educational.
National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) Martha Thurlow National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring Nebraska Department of Education Response-to-Intervention Consortium.
The Characteristics of Non-Proficient Special Education and Non-Special Education Students on Large-Scale Assessments Yi-Chen Wu, Kristi Liu, Martha Thurlow,
Longitudinal Analysis of Effects of Reclassification, Reporting Methods, and Analytical Techniques on Trends in Math Performance of Students with Disabilities.
Common Questions What tests are students asked to take? What are students learning? How’s my school doing? Who makes decisions about Wyoming Education?
Evaluating SES Providers Steven M. Ross Allison Potter Center for Research in Educational Policy The University of Memphis
Results Following Signal Detection Theory, Accuracy is calculated as the difference between Real and Foil claim rates, and Bias is the mean of the two.
KCCT Kentucky’s Commonwealth Accountability Testing System Overview of 2008 Regional KPR.
ANNUAL STATUS OF EDUCATION REPORT ASER 2014: HARYANA.
Accessing the General Curriculum. A look back… “in 1970, U.S. schools educated only one in five children with disabilities, and many states had laws excluding.
Martha Thurlow and Laurene Christensen National Center on Educational Outcomes CEC Preconvention Workshop #4 April 21, 2010.
COMENIUS PROJECT WORK ABOUT INDEX OF INCLUSIVE SCHOOLS WITH PUPILS (GLORIA FUERTES SCHOOL, SPAIN) 2013 December.
375 students took the number sense common formative assessments this school year. These are their stories. (Please view as a slide show)
The Analysis of the quality of learning achievement of the students enrolled in Introduction to Programming with Visual Basic 2010 Present By Thitima Chuangchai.
Maximum Likelihood Estimator of Proportion Let {s 1,s 2,…,s n } be a set of independent outcomes from a Bernoulli experiment with unknown probability.
A Principled Approach to Accountability Assessments for Students with Disabilities CCSSO National Conference on Student Assessment Detroit, Michigan June.
Project Advisors and Partners Eileen Ahearn, NASDSE Martha Thurlow, NCEO June 23, 2010.
Knower-Levels and the Acuity of the Approximate Number System James Negen and Barbara W. Sarnecka University of California, Irvine
Reevaluation Using PSM/RTI Processes, PLAFP, and Exit Criteria How do I do all this stuff?
Perceptions of the Appropriateness of Student Placement in English, Math, Reading, and ESL Courses at Cañada College CAÑADA COLLEGE PLANNING, RESEARCH,
Standard Setting Results for the Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program Dr. Michael Clark Research Scientist Psychometric & Research Services Pearson State.
12.2 Inference for a Population Proportion We are interested in the unknown proportion p of a population that has some outcome – call the outcome we are.
Alternate Proficiency Assessment Erin Lichtenwalner.
Catholic College at Mandeville Assessment and Evaluation in Inclusive Settings Sessions 3 & /14/2015 Launcelot I. Brown Lisa Philip.
Laurene Christensen and Martha Thurlow National Center on Educational Outcomes April 4, 2009 ACTIVITIES THAT WORK: SELECTING ACCOMMODATIONS FOR INSTRUCTION.
ASSESSMENT AND PLANNING. Special Education  The term ‘special education’ means specially designed instruction, at no cost to parents, to meet the unique.
© Copyright McGraw-Hill 2004
Slide 1 National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) States’ Data-Based Responses to Low Achieving Students on State Assessments Martha L. Thurlow National.
CfE Advanced Higher Physics
Minnesota Manual of Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Training January 2010.
America´s Lab Report. Chapter 2: The Education Context Key Points: “High school students’ science achievement nationwide is not impressive and has not.
Partnership for Accessible Reading Assessment PARA Field Test Martha Thurlow, Deborah Dillon, Jamal Abedi, Marsha Brauen June 22, 2010 Partnership for.
Cumberland County Schools Transition. Indicator 1 Graduation Percent of youth with IEPs graduating from high school with a regular diploma is.
Including analysis and self-help tools for coordination with Section 618: Table 6.
Policy and Practice Implications for Secondary and Postsecondary Education and Employment for Youth With Disabilities September 18 and 19, 2003 Washington,
1 National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) Martha L. Thurlow Accommodations for Students with Disabilities Decision Making Considerations for Validity.
C R E S S T / U C L A UCLA Graduate School of Education & Information Studies Center for the Study of Evaluation National Center for Research on Evaluation,
Crystal Reinhart, PhD & Beth Welbes, MSPH Center for Prevention Research and Development, University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign Social Norms Theory.
Comparative Analysis of Aggregate Educational Data Between Children in Foster Care and the General Population Florida Department of Children and Families.
Title 1 Annual parent Meeting
State Graduation Policies for Students with Disabilities
Tests About a Population Proportion
What States are Doing That Meet the 1% Cap
More about Tests and Intervals
Title 1 Annual parent Meeting
Title 1 Annual parent Meeting
Solving the Riddle That Is APR Indicator 3
WA-AIM 1% Participation Cap
Overview of Individual Student Systems
Presentation transcript:

Prevalence of Out-of-Level Testing Martha Thurlow and Jane Minnema National Center on Educational Outcomes

National Center on Educational Outcomes Out-of-level testing is a controversial approach to including all students General assessment without accommodations General assessment with accommodations >>> Alternate assessment

National Center on Educational Outcomes One major concern about out- of-level testing is that we do not know how often it is used  Lack of information on overall prevalence  Lack of information on how far below students are being tested out of level

National Center on Educational Outcomes Three states’ assessment data were available for analyses – asked two questions: ?How many students with disabilities are tested below their grade of enrollment? ?What do test performance data show about the difficulty of tests for students with disabilities who are tested below their grade of enrollment?

National Center on Educational Outcomes Study Method: Collected data from (a) data reports of states (2 states) or (b) analysis conducted by state in response to NCEO request (1 state). These data were not easy to obtain, nor were they easy to analyze – and this was all started before No Child Left Behind!

National Center on Educational Outcomes Complications Some states’ data could produce only data for the grade of the test administered – not the grade of the student’s enrollment (e.g., of the 40 students tested out of level, 20 were tested at grade 2 and 20 were tested at grade 3 – their actual grade of enrollment was unknown) Some states’ data could produce only data for the enrollment grade – not the grade at which the student was tested (e.g., of the 40 students in grade 5, 20 were tested at a lower grade level – but which specific grades were unknown)

National Center on Educational Outcomes State One Results Prevalence data available for both enrollment grade and grade at which tested.  Approximately 30% of special education students were tested out of level in reading and math, and approximately 20% in writing  How far below grade students were tested spread as grade level increased: Enrolled grade 8: 44% tested gr 6; 40% tested gr 4; 16% tested gr 2 Enrolled grade 4: 68% tested gr 4; 32% tested gr 2

National Center on Educational Outcomes State One Results Performance data showed from 5% to 35% of students performed at goal level on the below grade level test – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: 35% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 2 reading test performed at goal level 5% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 6 math test performed at goal level

National Center on Educational Outcomes State Two Results Prevalence data available only for grade at which tested.  Approximately 12% of all students tested were tested below their grade of enrollment on the state’s reading literature test  [No data available on how far below grade level students were tested]

National Center on Educational Outcomes State Two Results Performance data showed from 3% to 8% of students performed at a level of >80% correct – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: 3% of students tested on grade 3 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were higher grades) 8% of students tested on grade 5 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were in higher grades) 3% of students tested on grade 8 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were higher grade)

National Center on Educational Outcomes State Three Results Prevalence data available only for grade at which tested.  Approximately 62% of special education students were tested out of level in reading  Approximately 56% of special education students were tested out of level in math

National Center on Educational Outcomes State Three Results Performance data showed from 44% to 54% of students performed at a level of >80% correct – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: Overall 50% of students tested below grade in reading performed at >80% correct Overall 50% of students tested below grade in math performed at >80% correct

National Center on Educational Outcomes Conclusions  Lack of data on prevalence of out-of- level testing and performance of students tested out of level is shocking  Context of state assessment and state assessment policies has an important effect on prevalence of out- of-level testing

National Center on Educational Outcomes Conclusions  Prevalence rates vary by state  Using performance as a proxy for accuracy of placement indicates that generally students are tested at the level where they are performing This was not the case in one state, however, where most nearly half of the students were performing at a level >80% correct Even when numbers are relatively small, the consequences for the students may be big

National Center on Educational Outcomes Conclusions  Prevalence and performance data reveal significant instructional issues for students with disabilities  Continued scrutiny of out-of-level testing data – prevalence and performance – is needed

National Center on Educational Outcomes Some Next Steps  Adjust policies to reduce numbers of students taking out-of-level tests  Adjust instruction to decrease the prevalence of out-of-level testing