1. Navigating Oregon's New Assessment Options
October 2006
ODE/COSA Fall Conference
Dianna Carrizales

2. The state of assessment in Oregon today
Objectives:
What’s gone?
What’s changed?
What’s new?
What’s left?
What are the implications?

3. Peer Review Approval Pending Rating Status Who was reviewed? Criteria
Content standards
Achievement standards
Full assessment system
Technical quality
Alignment
Inclusion
Reporting
Rating Status
Full approval
Full approval with recommendations
Approval expected
Approval pending
Non-approved
Approval Pending
The peer review was conducted in late 2005 and consisted of a nationwide review of the state’s assessment system in keeping with the changes proposed by NCLB. So that point is to emphasize that Oregon was not necessarily in a state of non-compliance since the inception, but that as statutes are reauthorized and regulations are updated, expectations change. The assessment systems of each of the 50 states were evaluated by a team of assessment, psychometric, and policy experts on the same 7 criteria: We were evaluated on our content standards (what are we testing), our achievement standards (what is a minimum demonstration of success and what does it mean), the full assessment system (who’s being tested, and accommodated and how, what grades, how does it fit together), the technical quality (validity, reliability, documentation of process), alignment (are the assessments aligned with the content standards?), inclusion (how are students with disabilities included? How are students with limited English included?), and reporting (does the state provide appropriate reports that are an accurate and defensible interpretation of the assessment data?) And then we were rated on a scale that ranged from full approval, approval with recommendations, approval expected, approval pending, and non-approved. So Oregon received a rating of Approval Pending.

4. The future of assessment in Oregon
Achieve peer review compliance
Statewide assessment literacy
Progress monitoring and RTI approaches
Universal design
Achieve alignment between accountability assessment and instructional assessments
The future of assessment in Oregon Slide 4: So that’s how we got here to this state of change and metamorphosis, but what are we morphing into? It’s comforting to me to know that there is a plan in place and that we’re not just reacting blindly to this unfortunate rating. The short term and long range plans are: 1) To achieve peer review compliance while maintaining some level of meaningful assessment for all students. 2) To achieve statewide assessment literacy because these changes have spurred a number of extremely relevant and timely internal and external discussions about the purpose and role of a statewide assessment that highlights the need for achieving a level of statewide assessment literacy so that we can all reaffirm the purpose of a statewide assessment and approach it with a little more confidence. 3) To achieve a level of statewide fluency and comfort with progress monitoring and dynamic approaches to instructional assessment that are appropriate for and useful in informing instruction at the classroom level. 4) A move toward a universally designed system that allows most children to access to the same meaningful assessment and 5) (in keeping with number 4) a move toward achieving alignment between assessment for accountability and assessments for instructional use—which we have not yet achieved.

5. What’s gone?
What’s gone (from statewide assessment) and what does gone mean?

6. Targeted Assessments (challenge down, off-grade assessment)
Four options are no longer included in district counts of participation and performance
Targeted Assessments (challenge down, off-grade assessment)
Modified Assessments
Career and Life Role Assessment System (CLRAS)
Juried Assessment
Slide 7: Four options are no longer included in district and state counts of participation and performance.
Targeted assessment (aka the act of challenging down, aka off grade assessment, because assessments have to be based on grade level standards), Modified assessment (the act of making changes to an assessment that do not appear on the statewide accommodations list, because an assessment cannot be considered valid if the construct has been compromised in some way), Assessments that are predominantly based on functional life skills such as the Career and Life Role Assessment System (the CLRAS) (because assessments have to be linked directly to grade level skills) which was an extremely difficult blow for a number of IEP teams in the state, juried assessment (which involved the collection of a body of evidence to demonstrate mastery of the content standards toward statewide assessment) (because there is not enough technical adequacy documentation to demonstrate that the materials submitted are a true equivalent of the statewide assessment.Targeted assessment was a state supported option that will no longer be supported by the state and therefore is no longer available as an assessment option

7. What’s changed?
Slide 8: What’s changed (in statewide assessment that impacts students with disabilities) and what does changed mean?

8. Some assessment options have a performance and participation caveat
Partial Assessment
Item formula
Extended Assessment
Based on grade level standards
Two grade-levels
Additional administration option
Slide 9: Some of the changes to the assessment options include a new caveat. A student could essentially hit one key, and then decline the assessment but still be counted towards participation. The remedy for this has not been fully articulated, but may involve a formula that determines whether enough of the assessment was attempted to constitute a valid attempt.
Changes in the Extended Assessment sound small, but are actually quite big. The biggest change to the extended assessment is that it is now based on grade level standards. If you remember the fact that they were not aligned to grade level previously was an issue with the peer review so the assessment itself is now a two-level assessment. Extended Assessment now consists of an elementary level for students in grades 3 – 5, and a middle/high assessment for students in grades 6 and above. So a student will take the Extended Assessment based predominantly on their enrolled grade. And finally, there is the additional administration option the Scaffolded Extended Assessment that also falls into the “what’s new category”.

9. What’s new?
Slide 10: What’s new:

10. Scaffolded Administration of the Extended Assessments
Separate administration manual
Reduced complexity items
Item level adaptations to the assessments
Additional supports for students with significant mobility and communication needs
Slide 11: The Scaffolded Administration of the Extended Assessment is new this year. This option is still in development. Student’s whose IEP teams feel that even though they are being given an assessment that has been significantly reduced in its depth, and breadth and complexity, they will still require a significant amount of additional supports to access the material. So the assessment takes the reduced complexity items of the Extended and allows for item level adaptations and additional supports for students with significant mobility and communication needs.

11. What’s left?
Slide 12 What’s left: Now that we know what’s gone, and what’s new, and what’s changed, and why, and what’s coming. It’s important to visualize what’s left, and how it compares to what was there before.

12. Assessment Options Then and Now: What’s left?
10 CIM 8 7 6 5 4 3
10 CIM 8 7 6 5 4 3
General Assessment
Juried Assessment
Extended Assessment
Targeted Assessment
Scaffolded Administration
Modified Assessment
Accommodated Assessment
Accommodated Assessment
Assessment Options, then and now: What’s left Slide 13: From around 2001 to around 2005 we had the general assessment, we could target up and down within that assessment, we could assess students using the Extended Assessments which fell at the bottom of the continuum, and we had the CLRAS option. On top of those we could accommodate at all grades, modify at all grades, and conduct juried assessments at all grades. (Incidentally, only 2 students with IEPs chose the juried option last year).
Now, in 2006, Oregon’s assessment system: general assessment, accommodated options, but now, the alternate assessments fall parallel to the assessment and not perpendicular!
Extended K - 2
Extended CLRAS

13. What are the implications?
Slide 14: What are the implications?

14. Implications for students with disabilities
IEP decision making
IEP team decision-making for newly eligible students and new move-ins
“Assessment pending” with a deadline
IEP team decision-making for students with current IEPs that are now inaccurate
Does the IEP team need to reconvene?
What paperwork, if any, is necessary?
Slide 15: The implications of all these changes for students with disabilities are in the IEP decision making, and in the training. The questions that I’ve received have been about IEP teams during this transition. One of the interim possibilities that we have discussed at SPR&I training was “can I simply leave the assessment page on the IEP as pending” until we feel firm about the appropriate fit for the student. Yes, but, in that case it will be critical to assign a reasonable deadline within which the team will review the options and all members of the IEP team will be given the option to weigh in on the final decision just as you may do with the Extended School Year option. Or you can make a decision.
The other question is, what about IEP team decision making for students with current IEPs that are sitting in file cabinets and are now inaccurate, do I need to pull everyone and reconvene the team? You can. In which case you would document the decision on the revised IEP form, inform all staff, and provide a copy of the amended IEP to the parent and place one in the student’s file. If you choose to make the change without the meeting, you will need to obtain documentation of parental agreement to amend the IEP without a meeting and between meetings, then document the change in the testing option, inform staff and update the student’s file, and provide a copy of the amended IEP with the change.

15. Implications (continued)
Training issues
No statewide trainers
Upcoming trainings
Statewide zone training and streamed trainings scheduled for January
Proficiency audits at a state level
Grants available to offset travel and substitute needs
District role
Participation in prioritization of human resources
Participation in streamlining the system for future needs
Participation in maintaining the integrity of the new system
Slide 16: There are other implications. With the vastness of the changes and newness in the Extended Assessment system, we are suddenly placed in a situation where there is no one in the state currently trained as a Qualified assessor of the Extended Assessments. So we have to respond with some priority to the upcoming trainings that are slated for January. Very briefly, in January two levels of training will be rolled out, in the first level, state level trainers will travel to 4 zones across the state to train the first Cadre of assessors. Approximately 100 individuals will be trained at this level. In the 2nd half of January the second cadre of assessors will be trained via web streaming with the facilitation of the 100 individuals from Cadre I. Proficiency will be handled on an audit basis to expedite qualified status, grants will be available to offset travel and substitute needs. And districts will be called on to participate in the prioritization of this training by identifying the appropriate individuals and accommodating substitute placements. Districts will be involved at some level with maintaining a database of individuals who have been trained, as well as assisting with the participating in maintaining the integrity of the system in this transition year. Particularly with respect to the fact that proficiency will take on a “good faith” element since not all assessment administrations will be reviewed.

16. What’s positive?

17. Legacy of Resilience Passionate special educators
Conscientious educators
Versatile administrators

18. For maintaining fluency in the new system
Links to information:
Contact:
Dianna Carrizales
(503)