1. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 How do we keep kids from being stuck in our gap? A frame, a series of discussion questions, and some possible answers Panelist: Rachel Quenemoen, NCEO

2. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Purpose of No Child Left Behind “…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high- quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”

3. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Purpose of Assessment Requirements of IDEA Improve results for student with disabilities through improved teaching and learning Raise expectations for students with disabilities Increase access to the general curriculum Provide parents information about their child’s achievement in relationship to the performance of other children in their school

4. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Issues in both NCLB and IDEA Students with disabilities previously exempted from assessment and accountability system Students with disabilities previously received instruction in separate curriculum Change from low to high expectations for students with disabilities State leadership in fostering school and district accountability

5. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Assessment Options General assessment General assessment with accommodations (or modifications) Alternate assessment on grade level achievement standards – students have mastered the grade-level content, but can’t show it on general assessment Alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards – assuming best instruction and access, there is compelling evidence the students learn grade-level content differently

6. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Observation Cognition Interpretation The assessment triangle (Pellegrino et al., 2001)

7. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 HOW these students learn and show what they know Assumption: Students affected by “gap” issues generally learn and show what they know MORE like students in the general assessment than like students in the alternate assessment for students with MOST significant challenges

8. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 WHO are the students who are affected by a gap of some kind? Common question: How many “can” achieve at grade level, with the best instruction and access? Kevin McGrew studies: http://www.iapsych.com/index.htm

9. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Alternative question: How many schools currently ensure every child has the services, supports, and specialized instruction necessary to succeed in the grade-level curriculum?

10. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 How has the IEP process been traditionally construed? Identify the services, supports, and specialized instruction necessary so that the student can be successful in the grade level curriculum OR Negotiate what the school can offer and the parents will accept to avoid conflict – define how to lower expectations for this student

11. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 WHAT should these students know and be able to do? What does “access to, participation and progress in the general curriculum” mean? What has it meant in your schools and districts?

12. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Assumption: Many of these students have been failed by our system – the policy goal is first and foremost to correct that situation. Assumption: Some (unknown number) will not achieve to proficiency at grade level by high school, even with the best possible instruction and instruction, but we don’t know which ones.

13. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 HOW WELL students must perform to be “proficient” Assumption: We need to transition students in the first category out of the gap – and really push practice to make that occur as quickly as possible! Assumption: All students, including those in the second category, have the right to be taught as if they can succeed, even if they do not ultimately achieve proficiency in all areas.

14. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 What are the “other” questions? Concern about AYP? Safe harbor provisions, played out, provide flexibility that means in 2014 you may have @75% of a subgroup at proficiency, and NEVER miss AYP Concern about cost of teaching to grade level? Then let’s have that discussion Concern about lawsuits? Case law already makes you vulnerable (reread Rowley in the context of standards- based reform) – what can give you and families common understanding?

15. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 What can we do in our assessment and accountability policies and practices to move MOST students into general assessment, and to ensure all students achieve at the highest level possible?

16. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 One part of the answer: Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based Assessment and Accountability System

17. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 PM AS BROADLY CONCEIVED (1) Curriculum-Based Measurement; (2) Classroom assessments (system or teacher- developed); (3) Adaptive assessments constrained to grade level; and (4) Grade-level large-scale assessments used during the year to monitor growth of individual students and groups of students

18. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 CAUTION!!!!!! Aligned to GRADE LEVEL content - CONSTRAINED to grade level The “myth” of below grade level instruction Blind trust in statistical magic – black box faith Remediation vs. acceleration

19. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Challenges Strategies for scoring, analyzing, and tracking data. Quick turn-around of scores necessary to provide feedback for instruction. INTENSIVE training on deriving meaning from the data to develop effective improvement plans. Many (most?) teachers, school psychologists, IEP team members do NOT know how to do this! Needed: New models for classroom integrated assessments on grade level content for this purpose (Pellegrino et al., 2001).

20. National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004 Resources Available National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: Improving Proven Practices in the Elementary Grades phone: 202.944.5300 | fax: 202.944.5454 TTY: 877.334.3499 e-mail: studentprogress@air.org http://www.studentprogress.org Research Institute on Progress Monitoring Phone: 612.626.7220 fax: 612.625.6619 e-mail: walla001@umn.edu NCEO http://nceo.info quene003@umn.eduhttp://nceo.info