Accessibility and Accommodations Workgroup Wendy Carver Utah Department of Education Deborah Matthews Kansas State Department of Education

2 To develop a set of comprehensive and innovative assessments for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards Students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching The assessments shall be operational across Consortium states in the school year

3

4 Fiscal Agent: Washington State 19 Governing States 11 Advisory States CA, CT, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI, MO, MT, NC, NH, NM, NV, OR, UT, VT, WA, WI, WV AL, CO, DE, IA, KY, ND, OH, PA, SC, SD, WY Total Number of States = 30 Membership Status as of March 30, 2011

5 Co-ChairsTony Alpert (OR) Judy Park (UT) Executive DirectorJoe Willhoft Executive CommitteeDan Hupp (ME); Joseph Martineau (MI); Carissa Miller (ID); Lynette Russell (WI); Mike Middleton (WA); Charles Lenth (Higher Education Representative) Project Management PartnerWestEd Policy CoordinatorSue Gendron Senior Research AdvisorLinda Darling-Hammond Last Modified November 8,2010

6 Consortium has established 10 work groups Work group engagement of 80 state-level staff: o Each work group: 2 co-chairs and 6 members from states; 1 liaison from the Executive Committee; 1-2 WestEd partners Work group responsibilities: o Define scope and time line for work in its area o Develop a work plan and resource requirements o Determine and monitor the allocated budget o Oversee Consortium work in its area, including identification and direction of vendors

7 1.Transition to Common Core State Standards 2.Technology Approach 3.Assessment Design: Item Development 4.Assessment Design: Performance Tasks 5.Assessment Design: Test Design 6.Assessment Design: Test Administration 7.Reporting 8.Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development 9.Accessibility and Accommodations 10.Research and Evaluation

8 Jamal Abedi UC Davis/CRESST Randy Bennett ETS Derek Briggs University of Colorado Greg Cizek University of North Carolina David Conley University of Oregon Linda Darling-Hammond Stanford University Brian Gong The Center for Assessment Ed Haertel Stanford University Joan Herman UCLA/CRESST Jim Pellegrino University of Illinois, Chicago W. James Popham UCLA, Emeritus Joe Ryan Arizona State University Martha Thurlow University of Minnesota/NCEO

Accessibility and Accommodations Workgroup

10 Co-Chairs: Deborah Matthews (KS) and Michael Hock (VT) Executive Committee member: Carissa Miller (ID) Workgroup members: Wendy St. Michell (ID) Doreen Strode (ND) Gaye Fedorchak (NH) Robert Romero (NM) Dianna Carrizales (OR) Wendy Carver (UT) Project management partners: Eric Haas, Edynn Sato, Greg Hill Jr. Whole workgroup meets every other week Leadership team meets every other week

11 Purpose ensure the SBAC Assessment System is maximally accessible to the broadest range of students through identifying, recommending, and evaluating strategies, tools, and technologies, thereby providing information and guidance that will positively impact critical aspects of assessment design and development

12 New paradigm that focuses on the student first, not the test items. Addresses accessibility issues as part of item development, not as an afterthought.

13 Computer based assessment allows technology to open many doors for students because accessibility is built into the assessments. The necessity of accommodations is reduced. Accommodations that are allowed are more targeted.

14 In both policy and practice, SBAC will include the broadest range of students by facilitating each student’s ability to demonstrate as fully as possible what they know and can do on the targeted constructs being measured in a manner that is equitable and reliable, and yields valid interpretations of results.

15 1.Create policies that reflect current research, best practices, and future possibilities related to accessibility and accommodations a)Conduct State Review

16 2.Create assessments that are free from bias and sensitivity issues leveraging new technologies, including interoperability while preserving test constructs a. Conduct State of the Field Review o Across modalities (expression, reception, internal process needs) o Across types of student needs (e.g., ELL, SWD, Other) b. Create Policy and Strategy Recommendations c.Create A & A Framework d.Develop Item Coding Guidelines

17 3.Create accessible and accommodated assessments that will yield valid and reliable results a.Develop a vision statement b.Determine operational definitions for the key groups of students (e.g., ELL, SWD, 504 and low- and high-performing students)

18 3.Create accessible and accommodated assessments that will yield valid and reliable results (cont’d) c. Define key elements of content, constructs and modalities to ensure specific accessibility and accommodation options are offered without violating the construct to be measured d. Develop a common set of participation policies and procedures for ELL, SWD, 504 and low- and high-performing students

19 4.Ensure accessibility and accommodations practice and policy are implemented with fidelity a.Common accommodations policies and procedures are vetted and adopted by SBAC stakeholders b.Assist in the development of sustainable processes to evaluate and ensure on-going fidelity in application of accessibility and accommodations guidelines

20 5. Develop useful reporting and presentation guidelines that include information on accessibility and accommodations actions in the aggregate and at the individual student level for a.Improving curricula, teaching practices and individual learning activities o that are meaningful and useful to a wide audience (e.g., teachers, policy makers, parents) b.Improving the testing system itself

21 Input from member states Input from national disability organizations Input from national English learner originations Input from CCSSO - ASES and ELL SCASS