1. IDEA and NCLB Standards-Based Accountability Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference

2. NCLB Requirements for State Assessment System in 2005-06 Standards-based, CRT Reading, Grades 3-8 + HS Mathematics, Grades 3-8 + HS Alternate Assessment English Proficiency Test

3. Peer Review of State Assessment Systems  By spring 2006, each state must submit evidence to ED showing how its system of standards and assessments meet the NCLB requirements.  ED uses a peer review process to examine states’ evidence.  States should NOT submit actual standards or assessment instruments. Rather, they must submit evidence related to the development, implementation, and quality of these systems.  A State may require several review sessions to meet the assessment requirements

4. Peer Review Process  Team of 3 external experts + Standards Team staff examine evidence submitted by State  Reviewers’ comments + staff recommendations = Decision about status  Structure = Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (April 2004)

5. Organization of the Peer Review Guidance Seven Critical Elements Academic Content Standards Academic Achievement Standards Statewide Assessment System Technical Quality Alignment Inclusion Reporting Overview and rationale Questions for state to address Examples of acceptable evidence Examples of incomplete evidence

6. Peer Review Results  Approval &  Approval with Recommendation (10) * * * * * * * * * *  Approval Expected (4)  Approval Pending (36)  Non-approved (2)

7. Notification Letters to States @ www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/ nclbfinalassess/index.html Dear Secretary Woodruff: I am pleased to approve Delaware's assessment system under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB requirement. My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Delaware. I have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Delaware's standards and assessment system satisfies the NCLB requirements. Specifically, Delaware's system includes academic content and student achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in those subjects; assessments in each of grades 3 through 10 in reading/language arts and mathematics; assessments in science in three grade spans; and alternate assessments for each subject. Accordingly, Delaware's system warrants Full Approval with Recommendation. This status means that Delaware's standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements; however, one element of the system could be improved. Delaware's academic achievement standards in science meet the essential requirements of NCLB, but I recommend completion of the activities now underway to create new achievement descriptors.

8. Consequences “These deficiencies must be addressed in a timely manner… that is, by the end of the 2006-07 school year.” “ must provide, not later than 25 business days from receipt of this letter, a plan and detailed timeline for how it will meet the remaining requirements… Beginning in September 2006, must also provide bi-monthly reports on its progress… If at any time, does not meet the timeline set forth in its plan, the Department will initiate proceedings to withhold 15 percent of fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds…”

9. Alternate Assessment Requirements in:  IDEA & NCLB Grade-level Achievement Standard

10. Alternate Assessment Requirements in:  IDEA & NCLB  Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS Grade-level Achievement Standard Alternate Achievement Standard

11. Alternate Assessment Requirements in:  IDEA & NCLB  Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS  NPRM AA-MAS (12/15/05) Grade-level Achievement Standard Alternate Achievement Standard Modified Achievement Standard

12. Alternate Assessments  Aligned with the State’s content standards.  Yield results separately in reading/language arts and math.  Designed and implemented to support use of the results to determine AYP.

13. Alternate Assessment – Grade Level Standards  NC, MA  Requires evidence of comparability  Content  Achievement standard

14. Alternate Assessment – Modified Achievement Standard  KS, LA, OR  ED can not review until regs are final

15. Alternate Assessment – Alternate Achievement Standards Issues  Alignment with grade level content standards  Technical quality  Report separate scores in reading & mathematics  Not available in all grades/subjects tested  OOLT, not alternate achievement standard

16. Out-of-Level Assessments Could only be considered an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards if…  Alternate achievement standards defined through a documented and validated standards-setting process  Proficient results included in the 1% cap

17. Out-of-Level Assessments Could only be considered an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards if  Alternate achievement standards defined through a documented and validated standards-setting process  Proficient results included in the 1% cap

18. Essential Requirements for AA-AAS in Peer Review Separate results in reading & math Clear guidelines for participation to LEAs Designed & implemented to support use of results for AYP Evidence of technical quality Reports consistent with alternate achievement standards

19. Additional Requirements  Document that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are, to the extent possible, included in the general curriculum and in assessments aligned with that curriculum  Promote use of appropriate accommodations to increase the number of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are tested against grade-level academic achievement standards  Ensure that regular and special education teachers and other appropriate staff know how to administer assessments, including making appropriate use of accommodations, for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

20. Monitoring Implementation  States are required to report separately the number and percentage of students taking an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards or on alternate achievement standards.  OESE reviewed the State’s process for developing alternate achievement standards and alternate assessments during peer review and will monitor State completion of remaining work.  OSEP monitors may examine documentation that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are included in the general curriculum and participating in assessments aligned with content standards.

21. Technical Assistance  Site visits  Sharing successful strategies among States  The Comprehensive Centers and OSEP Centers  Enhanced Assessment Instruments Grant