1. Federal Policy & Statewide Assessments for Students with Disabilities
Sue Rigney
U.S. Department of Education
OSEP Project Directors Meeting
August 2008

2. Federal Policy NCLB IDEA State assessments
Alternate & modified achievement standards
NAEP
Participation
Requires alternate for State- and district-wide assessments
Accommodations guidelines
NCLB
IDEA

3. Federal Policy Implementation
Statute, regulations & guidance drafted and disseminated
Compliance monitoring carried out by multiple offices e.g.,OSEP, OESE, SASA
Peer review of Title I State Plan required
Technical assistance $$

4. State Policy Implementation
Inclusion policies and procedures
Optional development & implementation of AA-AAS or AA-MAS consistent with statute
Support for test administration and use
Infrastructure for local implementation
Assessment training
Professional development to support effective instruction

5. Intent - NCLB
“To ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high quality education…”
All schools publicly accountable for performance of SWD

6. NCLB Requires Challenging State content standards
Academic achievement standards
Statewide accountability system that includes all schools
Annual reporting of assessment results and AYP

7. NCLB + Regulations AA-AAS (1%) December 2003
Permits alternate achievement standard for students with most significant cognitive disability
AA-MAS (2%) April 2007
Permits modified academic achievement standard for students whose disability prevents them from meeting grade level standard in period covered by current IEP
1%-2% caps as safeguard for students

8. Testing Students with Disabilities
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)

9. Reporting
State must report to the Secretary the number and percent of SWD taking
General assessments
General assessments w/ accommodations
AA-Grade Level Achievement Standards
AA-Modified Achievement Standards
AA-Alternate Achievement Standards

10. Modified & Alternate Achievement Standards
Are permitted, not required
Use limited to eligible students based on State guidelines
State must provide evidence of technical quality
Sue Rigney, USED

11. AA-AAS
Alternate achievement standards permitted only for students with most significant cognitive disability

12. AA-AAS Required since July 2000 Operational in all states
Regulation requires alignment with grade-level content standards
Most states needed to revise the AA-AAS to meet requirement for academic content
A few states still working on it

13. Impact on Assessment Practice
Virtually all State assessment participation policies changed since IASA
Participation of SWD in State assessments is substantially increased
22/50 states have changed participation policies/guidelines for AA-AAS since the Dec 9, 2003 regulation
Peer Review has prompted linkage to academic content for all states

14. Impact on Instruction Anecdotal and case studies
Most pre-date requirement for academic content
Inclusion in accountability makes a difference:
“I think our expectations are higher.”

15. Impact on Student Outcomes
Evidence of student outcomes limited
Reports do not separate general test results and alternate results
OSEP collects detailed data in biennial report but it’s hard to find

16. Modified Achievement Standards
Are aligned with State’s academic content standards for the grade in which student is enrolled
Challenging for eligible students but less difficult than grade-level achievement standards
Include 3 achievement levels

17. Student Eligibility
Disability precludes achievement of grade-level proficiency as demonstrated by
State’s Grade-level assessments or
Other measures such as:
Response to appropriate instruction
Multiple measurements over time

18. AA-MAS Is Not… A modified assessment Modified content standards
Accommodations that would invalidate the general test are not permitted for the AA-MAS because the construct should be the same
Modified content standards
No change to the grade-level content standards permitted
AA-MAS test blueprint should be comparable to the general test blueprint
A lower cut point on the general test

19. State Guidelines (1)
Establish and monitor guidelines for IEP teams to determine which students eligible
Provide IEP teams a clear explanation of differences between AA-GLAS, AA-MAS, AA- AAS
Ensure that parents are informed

20. State Guidelines (2)
Establish and monitor implementation of guidelines for developing IEPs
IEP goals based on grade-level content standards
IEP designed to monitor student progress

21. Other state responsibilities
Inform IEP teams that student may be assessed on MAS in one or more subjects
Ensure student has access to grade-level curriculum
Ensure students not precluded from attempting to complete diploma requirements
Ensure annual IEP team review of assessment decisions
Disseminate guidelines for appropriate use of accommodations

22. State Support for IEP Teams
Which office(s) will:
develop participation guidelines for AA-MAS?
develop guidelines for writing standards-based IEPs?
disseminate materials and provide professional development to IEP teams?
monitor the implementation of IEP teams’ appropriate use of participation guidelines and development of standards-based IEPs?

23. Debunking the Myths
It’s unfair to require students with disabilities to take those tests
It’s unfair to expect children with different types of disabilities to achieve on a “one size fits all” test
It’s unfair to find districts “in need of improvement” when it’s only the scores of students with disabilities holding them back

24. AYP Targets Missed by Schools That Did Not Make Adequate Yearly Progress, 2004-05
Source: Study of State Implementation of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under NCLB (based on data reported by 39 states for 19,471 schools that missed AYP.

25. Lessons Learned
Collaboration needed to develop alternate assessments: assessment, special ed, content experts
Resources needed to build local support systems
Consequences must be documented

26. More Lessons Learned Assessment gap vs instruction gap
Simpler test items may not be the answer
A test alone does not change practice
Interpretation of outcomes difficult because student results confounded with opportunity to learn

27. Implications for Higher Ed
All new teachers need to know the state content standards
Content
Pedogogy
Teachers & Administrators need to know how to work with special pops
Research
Resources

28. Implications for Higher Ed
Collaboration is essential for
Curriculum alignment
Instruction
Test development
Who needs to be included?
Special education
Curriculum specialists
Assessment experts