1. Oregon’s Statewide Assessment Options for Students with Disabilities Alternate Assessments and Accommodations Dianna Carrizales ODE COSA Fall Conference October 13 th

2. Mr. Elephant

3. Related Issues  More paperwork  Mixed messages  Hazy decision-making guidelines  IEP documentation (more t ’s to cross more i ’s to dot)  The forced implementation of seemingly opposing laws  The students

4. Statewide Assessment of Students with Disabilities: The NCLB/IDEA Connection  NCLB Count all students Disaggregate data Hold schools, districts, and states accountable (participation, inclusion, education to grade level content standards) Demonstrate progress and improvement toward nationwide expectations  IDEA 2004 Include all students Be aware of civil rights while addressing individual educational needs Provide access to meaningful education Demonstrate progress and improvement on individualized educational goals

5. What is the primary purpose of statewide assessment in Oregon?  Disaggregated grade level accountability for results at a federal level  Adequate Yearly Progress Funding Programs Addressing all students

6. How do we support IDEA 2004?  Free and appropriate education  Least restrictive environments  Procedural safeguards  Individualized Education plans  Progress monitoring and dynamic instruction  Provision of appropriate accommodations  Assistive technology  Research based instructional methods

7. Peer Review  Who was reviewed?  Criteria Content standards Achievement standards Full assessment system Technical quality  Document that life skills scores do not count for AYP Alignment  Document alignment of alternate to academic content standards Inclusion Reporting  Rating Status Full approval Full approval with recommendations Approval expected Approval pending Non-approved

8. Oregon’s Assessment System

9. Assessment Options Then and Now  2001-2005  2006-2007 10 (CIM) 8 7 6 5 4 3 8 7 6 5 4 3 Extended CLRAS Extended Assessment Scaffolded Administration Accommodated Assessment General Assessment Juried Assessment Accommodated Assessment Modified Assessment Extended K-2 Targeted Assessment

10. What’s really different?  2001-2005  2006-2007 10 (CIM) 8 7 6 5 4 3 8 7 6 5 4 3 Extended CLRAS Extended Assessment Scaffolded Administration Accommodated Assessment General Assessment Targeted Assessment Juried Assessment Modified Assessment Extended K-2 Accommodated Assessment

11. What counts toward participation and performance  General  Accommodated  Extended*  Scaffolded*

12. Decision Making: Heuristics for transition Previous: Targeted 2006-2007: Accommodated: depending on the difference between actual grade and target grade level Previous: Modified 2006-2007: Accommodated or Extended: depending on the difference between actual grade and target grade Previous: Extended K-2 2006-2007: Extended grade level assessment Previous: CLRAS 2006-2007: Most likely Scaffolded administration of Extended Previous: Juried 2006-2007: Either accommodated or general*

13. How can we make decisions Before we’ve seen the test? Draft guidelines

14. Consider General Assessment with or without accommodations if:  Student: Performs at or around grade level Has academic difficulties that primarily surround reading but may be average or close to average in other subject areas Has academic difficulties in areas other than reading that are “mild to moderate” and can typically be addressed by using simplified language Is reading within two to three grades of his or her enrolled level  Instruction: Is primarily general curriculum instruction (but may also use a specialized curriculum in some areas)  Some Judgment variables: What assessment did he take last year? How is his attention? What types of behaviors should be considered?

15. Consider Extended Assessment if:  Student: Performs well below grade level Is significantly below grade level in reading Has academic difficulties that are generalized (to all subject areas) and are significant Benefits from specialized individual supports  Instruction: Is primarily a specialized curriculum or From general curriculum must be significantly reduced in breadth, depth, and complexity  Some Judgment variables: What assessment did he take last year? How is his attention? What types of behaviors should be considered? Previous relevant experiences

16. Consider Scaffolded Administration of Extended Assessment if:  Student: Performance is significantly impacted by a disability Does not read Has academic, mobility, and receptive and expressive language difficulties that are generalized and significant Relies on individual and significant supports to access reduced content materials  Instruction: Is from a specialized curriculum and has functional components and/or Includes academic goals that are significantly reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity from grade level content  Some Judgment variables: Is the student able to interact with instructional material in a way that provides meaningful feedback?

17. Accommodations Accommodations of Setting Response Presentation Timing/Scheduling  Examples Extended time Frequent breaks Change in test directions Change in font or size of text Assistive technology Test setting Manipulatives  When used? In the classroom vs. Testing only?

18. Accommodations Review Process  Process for determining accommodations  Panel review process  Research base as a format  What is the issue considered? Construct has been compromised Item is no longer connected to the standards

19. Extended Assessments Content  Mathematics, Reading, Writing, Science  Elementary level assessment  Middle/High level assessment  Grade level content standards reduced in depth, breadth, and complexity (show standard)  Manipulatives  Graphics  Approximately 5 items per task  Scoring Independence Accuracy

20. Structure  Format (last year’s sample assessments)  Similar administration  Restructured scoring  Similar data entry EXTENDED SCIENCE (GENERAL) SCORING PROTOCOL March 13 – April 28, 2006

21. An Extended Administration Example  Content standard: Describe and interpret relationships using information from tables and graphs including coordinate graphs (first quadrant)  Scoring Accuracy:  Incorrect response not related to item = 0  Incorrect response selected from “flowers” column=1 (can ask for clarification “where would you look?”  Correct response = 2 Independence:  Student needed a verbal prompt, student needed a gestural prompt, student needed no prompt, student needed full assistance to complete the task.  While pointing, teacher reads prompt: “This table shows the weeks that Laura planted flowers. And the number of flowers planted each week. How many flowers did she plant in the 3 rd week?” WeekFlowers 13 26 39 412

22. Scaffolded Extended Administration Option  More modeling and modeling language  More examples  More stratified scoring  Simplified/plain language  Avoid exceptions  Careful sequencing  Extended wait time following the presentation of an item  Incorporation of signals and cuing  Alternative routes to accuracy “raise your hand/nod/blink if you see a match”  Provide multiple choice options for items when possible  Allowances for pacing  Incorporation of performance-neutral praise statements for teacher to use regularly throughout assessment (e.g. You are working so hard!)

23. Scaffolded Example  While pointing at each feature in the example, read the prompt: “This table shows how many baskets Mike made each day. Look. Day 1, 2 baskets. Day 2, 3 baskets, day 3 (etc. to day 4) How many baskets did he make in Day 4?” (or, “Point to how many baskets he made in day 4”) Wait 10 seconds for response.  If correct, move on to item 1.  If incorrect say, let’s look slide finger down “day” column from the word “day” to the number 4 and say here is day 4. Move finger across to the baskets and column and say, Mike made 5 baskets that day. DayBaskets 12 23 34 45

24. Scaffolded Item  Original: “This table shows the weeks that Laura planted flowers. And the number of flowers planted each week. How many flowers did she plant in the 3 rd week?”  Scaffolded: Pointing at columns: “This table shows the weeks that Laura planted flowers and the number of flowers planted each week. Look, week 1, 3 flowers, week 2, 6 flowers, week 3, 9 flowers (etc. to 4 weeks) How many flowers did she plant in the week 3?” Or, “point to how many flowers she planted in week 3.” WeekFlowers 1 3 2 6 3 9 4 12

25. Scoring Accuracy:  Incorrect response not related to item = 0  Incorrect response, but selected from “flowers” column=1  Correct response = 2 Independence:  Student needed a verbal prompt e.g. “Show me week 3. Now look in this column”.  Student needed a gestural prompt e.g. weeks 1 and 2 covered.  Student needed no prompt (fully independent response)  Student needed full assistance to complete the task (fully supported, e.g. hand over hand or teacher provides answer)

26. Scenario: Lily  Lily is in a life-skills classroom and is receiving instruction from a life-skills curriculum. Lily’s IEP goals include recognizing letters, her name, and using a picture schedule to communicate basic needs.

27. Scenario: Troy  Troy is in 4th grade, and has been on an IEP for reading for a full academic year. During reading, Troy is grouped with students who, like him, are currently reading from 2nd grade material and are receiving support in the form of a phonological intervention program. During math, Troy receives assistance from a classroom aid who reads the problems with him, and waits (providing no additional assistance) as he works the problems on his own.

28. Scenario: Steele  Steele is a 9th grade student who receives math instruction in a class entitled, “functional math.” Steele is learning how to tell time, count money, make change, use metrics with a ruler, and identify simple fractions. Steele can decode and identify literal information from a headlining newspaper article, and reads at the 11th percentile, or the below average range, as compared to other children his age. Using a mapping strategy, and given additional time to complete the task, Steele can write a 5-sentence paragraph.

29. Scenario: Zera  Zera is a 7 th grade student. She is performing at the 80 th percentile on the curriculum based measurement tests her teachers give her in the content areas. Zera has difficulties moving the mouse and sitting in one position for long periods of time.

30. Scenario: Jim  Jim is on an IEP and is in a self-contained behavioral setting where he receives additional support for to assist with manifestations of ED. Last year, in 4 th grade, he took the Extended Assessments Reading and targeted down in other assessments. Over the course of the year he has done very well on his schoolwide reading measures and is now reading at a 3 rd /4 th grade level.

31. Data Entry  State data entry site  Separate from administration  Passwords necessary  Trained assessors take responsibility for accuracy of data entry

32. Training  January  No trainer of trainer  District level monitoring  Cadre I ESD and district level assessors State trainers in 4 zones Grants awarded for travel and substitutes  Cadre II Live statewide web-streaming Cadre I serve as facilitators in district and county trainings Grants awarded for travel and substitutes

33. For Information  Links to information: http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/results/? id=178  Contact: Dianna Carrizales (503) 947-5634 Dianna.Carrizales@state.or.us