Alternate Assessment: State of the States 2004 Martha Thurlow NCEO Betsy Case Harcourt Assessment June 2004

Important Survey Enclosed Jan – Pilot Feb - Modify and Send Out March - Survey April - Analyze Results May - Summarize Findings Interested in Alternate Assessment?

2000 – 2004 Comparison % of states had an alternate assessment in place 30% had selected portfolios, performance assessments, or direct observation 70% said alternate assessments would be based on state standards % had an alternate assessment in place 75% had selected portfolios 50% said state standards 25% said had alternate standards

Benefits/Negative Consequences % No real pressure felt by teachers 60% did not understand why have to participate in alternate assessments 55% students will never be proficient % of elementary teachers felt pressured 30% high school teachers felt pressured 40% still not wanting to be accountable 40% students will never be proficient

Alignment % did not know if tests aligned with state standards 25% had descriptors for proficiency % of elementary teachers knew there were state standards and alignment 60% used same achievement level descriptors

Training Needs % of special ed teachers not familiar with standards % familiar with state standards

% said not worth time and resources OK 40% wanted training % said not worth time and effort 80% preferred multiple measures 80% wanted more training on all aspects

Conclusion % had alternate assessment in place 30% wanted more training % of states made or making changes in alternate assessment 80% clamoring for more training.