Assessing Very Low-Achieving Children with Disabilities Using Large Scale Assessments Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference

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)

Modified Achievement Standards Are permitted, not required Sue Rigney, USED

The Process  NPRM published in Federal Register 12/15/05  Comment period – ends 2/28/06  Comments summarized Advocates, States, Assessment specialists  Final regulation language drafted  Final regulation published in Federal Register  Regulation effective date Sue Rigney, USED

Modified Achievement Standards “Would allow a state to use a documented and validated standards-setting process to define modified achievement standards for some students with disabilities” Provide access to grade level curriculum Aligned with grade-level content standards Sue Rigney, USED

The Challenges of Implementation  Which students are eligible?  What does the test look like? (Content? Format? Administration?)  How to set achievement standards? (Adjust cut point? Same distribution of scores? On-track to grade-level? Critical skills mastered?)  How were modified achievement standards handled in Peer Review of Assessment Systems?

Practical Matters  There may be significant overlap between grade-level proficiency and modified achievement standards tho’ assessments may differ in design or format  IEP decision made separately for each content area tested  Parents informed Sue Rigney, USED

IEP Role  State defines guidelines for eligible students  IEP team applies guidelines to determine eligibility for individual student Child’s disability has precluded achieving grade level proficiency – objective evidence Previous response to high-quality instruction – unlikely to reach grade-level standards within school year covered by IEP Student receiving instruction in grade-level curriculum Decision reviewed annually Sue Rigney, USED

Safeguards  Child not identified for special education due to lack of instruction  Determine eligibility - student performance over time documented with multiple measures  Decision not permanent – reviewed annually Sue Rigney, USED

The 1% and 2% Caps Alternate Achievement Standard 1% Cap Modified Achievement Standard 2% Cap Alternate + Modified 3% Cap StateNever > 1% Only if State below 1% Cap, can not exceed 3% Cap Never > 3% LEA Only if granted exception by State Only if LEA below 1% cap. Only if State grants exception to 1% cap, limited to that amount Sue Rigney, USED

Odds ‘n’ Ends  n size – same for all subgroups  Include scores of exited SWD for two years  Eliminates first test/best test rule  Consistent reporting requirements for IDEA and NCLB Sue Rigney, USED

Interim 2% Proxy  Rules for described in Dec 14 letter secletter/051214a.html secletter/051214a.html  Rules the same as for  States required to reapply