1. Alternate Assessments in Michigan
Vince Dean
State Assessment Manager
Office of Educational Assessment & Accountability

2. State Assessment & Students with Disabilities
Today’s Topics
Current state assessment options in the Michigan Educational Assessment System (MEAS)
Where are we headed?
National picture and recommendations
12/5/2018

3. State Assessment & Students with Disabilities
IDEA 2004 mandates that States and local education agencies ensure:
§612.(16)(A) IN GENERAL.-All children with disabilities are included in all general State and districtwide assessment programs, including assessments described under section 1111of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary and as indicated in their respective individualized education programs.
12/5/2018

4. State Assessment & Students with Disabilities
State Board of Education Policy
October of 2001, The State Board of Education adopted a broad policy regarding state-wide assessment which reads:
It shall be the policy of the State Board of Education that each local and intermediate school district, and public school academy, will ensure the participation of all students in the Michigan Educational Assessment System.
12/5/2018

5. The MEAS Components of the MEAS MME MEAP MEAP-Access MI-Access ELPA
12/5/2018

6. Assessment Continuum Assessment Type of Assessment Based On MEAP/MME
General
GLCEs/HSCEs
MEAP/MME with Accommodations
MEAP-Access
AA-MAS
GLCEs
Functional Independence
AA-AAS
Extended GLCEs
Supported Independence
Participation
12/5/2018

7. Participation in the MEAS
The vast majority of students will participate in the MEAP/MME.
Students who participate fully in the general education curriculum without identified disabilities or special circumstances will participate in the MEAP/MME without accommodations.
Most students with disabilities will be able to participate in the MEAP/MME when provided with standard, appropriate accommodations.
12/5/2018

8. MI-Access
Alternate Assessments based on Alternate Achievement Standards
Why 3 levels (Functional, Supported & Participation)?
Assessments to match curriculum and instruction
Give as many students as possible an opportunity to demonstrate proficiency
Based on Levels of Independence
Variety of item types
12/5/2018

9. Full Independence MI-Access
Full Independence students are those with physical, emotional, or learning disabilities who function in the normal range of intelligence.
Capable of becoming fully independent as adults.
Able to apply their knowledge to any task, problem, or activity they may confront in life.
Cognitive abilities necessary to be successful in traditional educational settings.
Primary educational emphasis for these students will be on academic or technical subjects.
12/5/2018

10. Functional Independence
MI-Access
Functional Independence
Students who have, or function as if they have, mild cognitive impairment.
Capable of meeting their own needs and living successfully in their communities with minimal support from others.
The instructional approach for these students must include concrete/authentic experiences in settings where the student is expected to function.
Instruction most likely will be balanced between functional academic skills and functional daily living skills.
12/5/2018

11. Supported Independence
MI-Access
Supported Independence
Students who have, or function as if they have, moderate cognitive impairment.
Will require ongoing support in major life roles and may have cognitive and/or physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning.
Instructional approach is direct, in context, and targeted toward specific, essential independent living and academic skills.
Working toward mastering daily living and employment routines and an acceptable level of independent living.
12/5/2018

12. Participation MI-Access
Students who have, or function as if they have, severe or profound cognitive impairment.
Expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood and may have significant cognitive and/or physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning.
Dependent on others for most, if not all, daily living needs.
The instructional approach for these students targets opportunities for them to integrate into age-appropriate tasks, activities related to daily living skills, and academic content.
12/5/2018

13. MEAP-Access
New State Assessment

14. Background - 2% Regulation
Assessment choices
General assessment
Alternate Assessments-Alternate Achievement Standards (MI-Access)
Neither of these options provides the best assessment of what these students know and can do.
Regular assessment too difficult
AA-AAS too easy and not full range of content
12/5/2018

15. Background
The Michigan Department of Education was awarded a grant to develop AA-MAS to fulfill two important needs in the MEAS.
Design process for modifying the existing MEAP (ELA & Math) grades 3-8 by reducing length and difficulty levels while assessing GLCEs.
Create an online professional development system usable throughout the state.
12/5/2018 15

16. MEAP-Access Timeline Piloted winter 2009 Operational fall 2009
Too few students participated to set standards
Item difficulty/complexity issues
Additional piloting, cognitive labs spring 2009-fall 2010
Operational again fall 2011
Grades 3-8 in Reading and Mathematics
Grades 4 & 7 in Writing
12/5/2018

17. Fall 2011 MEAP-Access The Eligibility Criteria for participation are:
Student must have a current IEP
Students with a Section 504 Plan are NOT eligible for alternate assessments
IEPs must include goals based on GLCEs
IEP goals should be attainable within the year covered by the IEP
12/5/2018 17

18. Fall 2011 MEAP-Access The Eligibility Criteria (cont):
IEP Team is reasonably certain student will not attain grade-level standards in the same timeframe as peers
Students must have access to, and instruction in grade-level content for the grade in which they are enrolled
Instruction may be provided by a general or special education teacher
12/5/2018 18

19. Assessment continuum options
Fall 2011 MEAP-Access
Assessment continuum options
IEP Team has the flexibility to have a student participate in MEAP, MEAP-Access or FI in different content areas.
Note: MI-Access Supported Independence and Participation students are not included in this option
12/5/2018 19

20. Resources for IEP Team State Assessment Decisions
Guidelines for Participation in State Assessment
Assessment Plans
EGLCEs, EHSCEs, EBs, GLCEs, HSCEs
Sample assessment booklets
OSE-EIS Model IEP material
12/5/2018

21. Resources for IEP Team State Assessment Decisions
Michigan Online Professional Learning System (MOPLS)
Guidelines for determining participation in state assessments
Using assessment results
Ensuring access to Michigan’s ELA and mathematics Grade Level Content Expectations
Trainer of Trainers
12/5/2018

22. What’s Next for Alternate Assessment?
SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium
ELA and Mathematics assessments based on Common Core State Standards
Expected to address MEAP-Access population
Improve access for SWD through technology
12/5/2018

23. Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium
Neal Kingston & Alan Sheinker
Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation
University of Kansas 23
12/5/2018 23

24. Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium
Separate from RTTT common core assessment funding
6 consortia applied, 2 were funded
Philosophical lines separated applicants in large part
12/5/2018

25. State Participants 25
12/5/2018 25

26. Additional State Collaboration
Other states have indicated they would like to participate in the consortium and cover their own costs
Washington and Virginia joined
In discussions with five other states 26
12/5/2018 26

27. Delivery Team University of Kansas AbleLink Technologies
Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation
Beach Center on Disability
Center for Research Methods and Data Analysis
Center for Research on Learning
Faculty in several departments
AbleLink Technologies
The ARC
The Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill
Edvantia 27
12/5/2018

28. Key Features
Common Core Essential Elements and achievement level descriptors Learning maps Dynamic assessment Inclusion of instructionally-relevant tasks Instructionally-embedded and stand-alone versions Advanced feedback and reporting systems (including growth modeling) 28
12/5/2018

29. Key Features
Technology platform Universal design Evidence-centered design including cognitive labs Structured scaffolding Development of over 11,900 tasks/items Professional development 29
12/5/2018

30. Identify CCEEs and Create ALDs: What
Analyze grade-level Common Core State Standards (CCSS) for essential elements
Identify Essential Elements to reflect clear links to CCSS for students with significant cognitive disabilities
Draft instructional achievement level descriptors (IALD) for at least 3 levels for each standard
Develop/collect/vet range of examples for each IALD
Draft assessment achievement descriptors 30
12/5/2018 30

31. Identify Essential Elements and Create ALDs: Why
Standardize meaning for users to understand targets for learning
Provide consistency in expectations across grades and achievement levels
Emphasize skill similarities in content learning and skill achievement even though ways of performing may be highly diversified
Provide instructional guidance as students move up a varied path on an achievement continuum 31
Prepared by Jan Sheinker, Ed.D. 2000
12/5/2018

32. Identify Essential Elements and Create ALDs: Why
Connect formative assessments to the CCSS in ways that makes their alignment with culminating expectations clear
Accommodate diverse learners by providing a range of examples for performing expectations in diverse ways
Ground the alternate assessments in clear expectations for learning and achievement
12/5/2018

33. Development and Validation of Learning Maps
Review of literature
Starting with Common Core State Standards, internal team breaks skills down until they cannot be broken down further
Expect 2,000-6,000 skills per content area
Create semi-ordered graph (hypothesized precursor and post-cursor relationships)
Educator and other Expert review
Align learning maps to Common Core State Standards
Validation based upon pilot test and field test data 33
12/5/2018

34. Current System Usage in Kansas
2.8 million formative test sessions
1.8 million summative test sessions
16 thousand users of Management and Reporting System
20 thousand users of Test Builder 36
12/5/2018

35. Open Source
Code is published and modifiable by any state or its agent for use in alternate assessments as long as the resulting modifications are similarly made available.
Should SBAC and PARCC participate in the development, the royalty-free license will be extended to all state general assessment programs. 37
12/5/2018 37

36. Instructionally-Relevant Item Types
Determine item types that model good instructional practices
Focus groups with master educators
Review by special education, assessment, and technology experts 38
12/5/2018 38

37. Upcoming Activities
January 24-31, 2011: Training learning map delivery team on creation of learning maps
Ongoing development
Common Core Essential Elements
Early February: Planning with CETE and state partners
March: Training webinar for state partners
April: Training webinar for ELA and face-to-face meeting
April: Training webinars for Math
May: Face-to-face meeting with Math
June: Initial draft of CCEE & ALD
July and August: Comments and revisions to draft
October: Final document 39
12/5/2018

38. Upcoming Activities Instructionally-relevant item types
February-April: Schedule brainstorming sessions with 6 or 7 volunteer states
6 educators (special education and general education experienced with alternate assessment population) meet at state department of education
Michigan visit in March 40
12/5/2018 40

39. Upcoming Activities Technology
November 2011: Release of version 1 of item and test authoring system
August 2012: Release of version 1 of management system
August 2012: Release of version 2 of item and test authoring system
August 2012: Release of version 1 of test delivery engine
12/5/2018

40. Contact Information
Vince Dean
Neal Kingston
Alan Sheinker
12/5/2018