1. 1 1% and Reallocation Applications – What are They? Peggy Dutcher Michigan Department of Education Assessment for Students with Disabilities Program Sessions 41 & 47

2. 22 Confused?

3. 33 1% Regulation Quiz 1.What percent of students with disabilities should be included in the state assessment system? A. 75% B. 95% C. 100%

4. 44 1% Regulation Quiz 2. What happens if a student uses nonstandard accommodations that cause the test to be invalid? A. the student is considered as participating B.the student is considered not assessed C. the student needs to retest

5. 55 1% Regulation Quiz 3. What are alternate achievement standards? A. different content standards B. different complexity for performance standards C. different assessment

6. 66 1% Regulation Quiz 4. Who is eligible to participate in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards? A. only students with significant cognitive disabilities B. only students with the eligibility category of cognitively impaired C. only students with severe cognitive impairment

7. 77 1% Regulation Quiz 5. How does the Title 1 regulation authorizing alternate achievement standards affect the IEP Team decisions about appropriate assessments? A. responsibility is unchanged B. responsibility is modified C. responsibility is changed

8. 88 1% Regulation Quiz 6. The 1% cap is 1% of what student population enrolled in the grades assessed? A. Special education B. General education C. Both A and B

9. 99 1% Regulation Quiz 7. Does the 1% cap limit access of the students with disabilities to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards? A. Yes B. No

10. 1010 1% Regulation Quiz 8. Does the 1% cap apply to each school building? A. Yes B. No

11. 1111 1% Regulation Quiz 9. Can a state grant an exception to an LEA/ISD to exceed the 1% cap? A. No B. Yes

12. 1212 1% Regulation Quiz 10. Does the 1% cap put specialized and small schools at a disadvantage? A. Yes B. No

13. 1313 1% Regulation Quiz 11. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it reapply for that exception? A. every year B. every two years C. it depends

14. 1414 1% Regulation Quiz 12. Does the state have a 1% cap? A. Yes B. No

15. 1515 1% Regulation Quiz 13. Does the 1% cap apply only to LEAs in which the “students with disabilities: subgroup exceeds the State’s minimum group size? A. Yes B. No

16. 1616 1% Regulation Quiz 14. What additional responsibilities does an LEA have in connection with the use of alternate achievement standards? A. managing its IEP Teams decisions B. making sure schools limit the number of students taking alternate assessments C. none, it is an IEP Team decision

17. 1717 1% Regulation Quiz 15. What is used to calculate NCLB participation rates? A. number of students enrolled in the district for a full academic year B. number of students enrolled during the assessment window C. number of students taking MEAP and MI- Access

18. 1818 1% Regulation Quiz 16. What is used to calculate NCLB proficiency rates for AYP? A. number of students enrolled in the district for a full academic year B. number of students enrolled during the assessment window C. number of students taking MEAP and MI- Access

19. 1919 Computing the District 1% Cap 100150100 3rd 4th5th6th7th8th 11th Total Number of Students enrolled in grades assessed = 750

20. 2020 Computing the District 1% Cap 750 x 1% = 7.5 District 1% cap is 7

21. 2121 Applying the 1% Cap 100150100 3rd 4th5th6th7th8th District Cap = 6 students for elementary and middle school

22. 2222 Applying the 1% Cap 100 11th District Cap = 1 student for grade 11 If all 6 students are not needed for grades 3-8, the balance can be applied to grade 11.

23. 2323 Exception to the 1% Cap 2007 District Application for an Exception to the 1% Cap on Students Proficient Using Alternate Achievement Standards (Grades 3-8 and 11)

24. 2424 Exception to the 1% Cap All of the current MI-Access assessments (Participation, Supported Independence, and Functional Independence) are based on alternate achievement standards and therefore fall under the 1% cap regulation.

25. 2525 Exception to the 1% Cap NCLB Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities - Non Regulatory Guidance NCLB Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities - Non Regulatory Guidance 7 safeguards to ensure proper inclusion of students with significant cognitive impairment in state assessment 7 safeguards to ensure proper inclusion of students with significant cognitive impairment in state assessment

26. 2626 Exception to the 1% Cap Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. Data showing incidence rate of students who were administered the MI-Access assessments. Data showing incidence rate of students who were administered the MI-Access assessments.

27. 2727 Example Data for Question 2 CISLDEIOHIHIVI FISIPFISIPFISIPFISIPFISIPFISIP Grade 3 4 5 67312 7 211 85212 11

28. 2828 Exception to the 1% Cap Please describe 1) the guidelines used by IEP teams to determine when a child should be administered the MI-Access assessments, which are based on alternate achievement standards and 2) how IEP Teams were trained to apply the guidelines. Please describe 1) the guidelines used by IEP teams to determine when a child should be administered the MI-Access assessments, which are based on alternate achievement standards and 2) how IEP Teams were trained to apply the guidelines.

29. 2929 Exception to the 1% Cap Describe how parents are informed that their child will be assessed based on alternate achievement standards, including information about the implications of participation in the alternate assessment if the district has identified consequences for students based on assessment results (e.g., passing an assessment is a requirement for graduation).

30. 3030 Exception to the 1% Cap Documentation that describes how students administered the MI-Access assessments are included, to the extent possible, in the general curriculum and assessments aligned with that curriculum. Documentation that describes how students administered the MI-Access assessments are included, to the extent possible, in the general curriculum and assessments aligned with that curriculum. Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations.

31. 3131 Exception to the 1% Cap Describe efforts taken to ensure teachers and other staff know how to administer assessments, including appropriate use of accommodations, such as professional development or guidance documents used. Describe efforts taken to ensure teachers and other staff know how to administer assessments, including appropriate use of accommodations, such as professional development or guidance documents used.

32. 3232 Example of Poor Evidence Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Trainings have been conducted with staff on the extended grade level content expectations and extended benchmarks. Staff have also been trained in all phases of MI-Access. Trainings have been conducted with staff on the extended grade level content expectations and extended benchmarks. Staff have also been trained in all phases of MI-Access. **Accommodations not addressed**

33. 3333 Example of Good Evidence Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Our special education service unit provides annual training to ensure all special education teachers know and understand appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. These accommodations are implemented not only for the State MEAP/MI-Access assessment but in the general education daily instructional practices, as well. In addition, our MEAP/MI- Access director provides additional training prior to the testing window to disseminate and review the test administrator’s manual to ensure understanding of proper procedures and allowable accommodations.

34. 3434 Example of Poor Evidence Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. Student 1 – moved before the second count day to John Doe Public Schools Student 1 – moved before the second count day to John Doe Public Schools Student 2 – Autistic Student 2 – Autistic Student 3 – Autistic Student 3 – Autistic Student 4 – Autistic Student 4 – Autistic Student 5 – EI Student 5 – EI Student 6 – EI Student 6 – EI

35. 3535 Example of Good Evidence Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments…

36. 3636 Example of Good Evidence John Doe Intermediate School District provides center-based classroom options for local districts. Three Early Childhood Special Education classrooms provide programming for students age 3-6. Seven classrooms offer instruction for students age 7-26 with programming aligned with the Supported Independence and Participation curriculums. These classrooms are designed for students who have, or function as if they have a moderate to severe cognitive impairment or multiple impairments. Four classrooms are intended for students whose behavior is so extreme; the general education setting no longer supports their intense aggressive behavioral needs. One classroom is designed to meet the needs of students with hearing impairments.

37. 3737 Exception to the 1% Cap If a district applies for an exception to the 1% cap and the district has a number of students who were administered the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments and had scores suppressed, you ALSO need to complete the 2007 District Application to Request Reallocation of Functional Independence Suppressed Scores.

38. 3838 Example of Good Evidence If your district only has MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence students ONLY the Exception to the 1% Cap Application needs to be submitted. If your district only has MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence students ONLY the Exception to the 1% Cap Application needs to be submitted.

39. 3939 Exception to the 1% Cap If Application for an Exception to the 1% Cap is Approved: – –It is not good forever – –1% regulations requires the state to have districts apply periodically

40. 4040 Reallocation Form 2007 District Application to Request Reallocation of Functional Independence Suppressed Scores (Grades 3-8 and 11)

41. 4141 Steps for Determining Preliminary AYP Step 1: The MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence proficient scores are all counted for students who have been in the district FAY (Full Academic Year). If the district did not exceed the 1% cap the proficient Functional Independence score were reviewed.

42. 4242 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores All students who were administered the Functional Independence assessments will be counted as participants when calculating the NCLB participation rates for the building and district. All students who were administered the Functional Independence assessments will be counted as participants when calculating the NCLB participation rates for the building and district.

43. 4343 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Step 2: The fall 2006 SRSD submission information for grades 3-8 and the spring 2007 SRSD submission information were used by the MDE to suppress proficient Functional Independence scores of students in the following special education categories Specific Learning Disability (SLD or LD) Specific Learning Disability (SLD or LD) Speech and Language Impairment (SLI) Speech and Language Impairment (SLI) Emotional Impairment (EI) Emotional Impairment (EI) Physical Impairment (PI) Physical Impairment (PI) Otherwise Health Impaired (OHI) Otherwise Health Impaired (OHI)

44. 4444 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Step 3: Of the remaining Functional Independence scores, the MDE started with the lowest proficient score and “counted up” until all the eligible Functional Independence proficient scores were used or the 1% cap was reached.

45. 4545 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores After the three-step process has been applied, the MDE allows flexibility in cases where there is an impact on the school or district making AYP. After the three-step process has been applied, the MDE allows flexibility in cases where there is an impact on the school or district making AYP. For example, districts may request reallocation of the students' proficient scores that were suppressed by the three- step process for buildings within the district. For example, districts may request reallocation of the students' proficient scores that were suppressed by the three- step process for buildings within the district.

46. 4646 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores The Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance (PLAFP) from the IEP of each student for whom this application is being submitted is the only piece of required documentation.

47. 4747 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Examples of additional evidence that may be submitted for review include: Transition Plans Transition Plans Standardized Assessment Scores Standardized Assessment Scores Adaptive behavior profiles Adaptive behavior profiles Individual or district-wide assessment scores Individual or district-wide assessment scores

48. 4848 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores No judgments will be made about the appropriateness of the IEP Team's decision to have the student administered the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments. No judgments will be made about the appropriateness of the IEP Team's decision to have the student administered the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments.

49. 4949 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores The evidence will be examined to determine if a case has been made for having the student's score counted as proficient. The evidence will be examined to determine if a case has been made for having the student's score counted as proficient. If such a case is not adequately made, the student's score will not be counted as proficient. If such a case is not adequately made, the student's score will not be counted as proficient.

50. 5050 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Review Process Review Process –OEAA Assessment Consultant reviews every reallocation request (700+ for elementary and middle school alone) School Psychologist School Psychologist –All questionable ones co-reviewed by OSE/EIS Program Accountability staff

51. 5151 Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Review Process-Common Problems Review Process-Common Problems –evidence cut and pasted for multiple students –student name on application not matching name in evidence –reallocation needed for both content areas, but evidence submitted for only one –student designated CI in SRSD

52. 5252 Example of Poor Evidence Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance The student scored 35 out of 45 earned points in total. The scale score 2522 had the performance level of surpassed. The student shows limited development with insufficient details and/or examples. In mathematics, the student scored 23 out of 30. The scale score 2518 had the performance level of surpassed. MI-Access performance the only evidence submitted! MI-Access performance the only evidence submitted!

53. 5353 Example of Good Evidence Present Level of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance Based upon the re-evaluation given in February 2005, the student’s hearing impairment affects her involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the area of language arts, reading, and math. Based on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II, her full scale IQ is a 66, and is achieving right where she would be expected to achieve in the areas of reading and math. This puts her in the cognitive impaired range academically although it is important to be cautious when assessing her cognitive abilities as her hearing impairment impacts the way she respond. Based upon the re-evaluation given in February 2005, the student’s hearing impairment affects her involvement and progress in the general education curriculum in the area of language arts, reading, and math. Based on the Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement II, her full scale IQ is a 66, and is achieving right where she would be expected to achieve in the areas of reading and math. This puts her in the cognitive impaired range academically although it is important to be cautious when assessing her cognitive abilities as her hearing impairment impacts the way she respond.

54. 5454 Example of Good Evidence, cont. Reading Reading Student is currently at a reading comprehension RIT of 184, which is at a high second grade level. She was given a DRA level 40 which is a 4 th grade reading level and scored a 100% accuracy and a level 6 (Very Little Comprehension) the lowest you can score is a 6 and the highest is a 24. The student struggles with retelling short stories, identifying the main ideas, and making inferences. She can answer questions after she has read out a piece orally and then can answer a question at that point.

55. 5555 Example of Good Evidence, cont. Language Language The student struggles in the area of expressive language with the use of descriptors when she needs to describe something, explain something or write descriptive information. She has carried over previously learned language skills to other academics. She is stimulable to improve her word finding and vocabulary. This in turn will allow her to express her self and information more clearly and with more description. Based on her ability to generalize learned skills, if she learns to use more descriptor words when explaining or expressing a thought, then she should carry this over to her written work. She may also increase her verbal participation in class discussions and social conversations.

56. 5656 Example of Good Evidence, cont. Her math is currently scoring at a 202 RIT in math which is at mid 4th grade level. At this time she has difficulty with and without a remainder when dividing and using short division skills. Her math is currently scoring at a 202 RIT in math which is at mid 4th grade level. At this time she has difficulty with and without a remainder when dividing and using short division skills. Hearing Impairment Hearing Impairment The student is a thirteen year old girl with an educationally significant hearing loss which requires bilateral hearing aids. According to an assessment completed 10-05-06, She has a moderate bilateral sensor neural hearing loss. These results have not changed since her previous examination.

57. 5757 Example of Good Evidence, cont. She is utilizing a personal FM system. She continues to take responsibility for the daily maintenance of the system and calls the HI Consultant weekly to report problems. The FM continues to provide additional listening support and it is recommended that she continue to use it. She is utilizing a personal FM system. She continues to take responsibility for the daily maintenance of the system and calls the HI Consultant weekly to report problems. The FM continues to provide additional listening support and it is recommended that she continue to use it.

58. 5858 Resources Download the applications at www.michigan.gov/mi-access Download the applications at www.michigan.gov/mi-access www.michigan.gov/mi-access Guide to Reading School Report Cards Guide to Reading School Report Cards www.michigan.gov/edyes

59. 5959

60. 6060 Contact Information Peggy Dutcher Peggy Dutcher dutcherp@mi.gov dutcherp@mi.gov dutcherp@mi.gov Vince Dean Vince Dean deanv@mi.gov deanv@mi.gov deanv@mi.gov Or call Or call517-241-4416