1. The Model Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessments

2. Our Commission Develop a model for participation of students with disabilities in large-scale testing. Establish criteria for states to follow so their assessment systems are technically adequate (contain all the essential evidence for making valid decisions). Establish a system of development so the white paper is credible and acceptable. Do both of the above by August 1

3. The Process Two conference calls and three face-to-face meetings in Denver (June 5), San Antonio (June 25), and Charlotte (July 9). Four drafts completed for review on June 1, June 18, July 5, and July 21, the last two versions having been reviewed by nine individuals for technical soundness. Draft 7 was reviewed by an expert for technical soundness and by centers, states, and publishers for applicability. OSEP began publishing with back and forth contact with the authors and in April 2006 published 7 chapters as part of Tool Kit on Teaching and Assessing Students with Disabilities Tool Kit on Teaching and Assessing Students with Disabilities www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/index.asp

4. The People Almond, Pat – Consultant Browder, Diane – University of North Carolina Crawford, Lindy – University of Colorado, Colorado Springs Ferrara, Steve – American Institutes for Research Haladyna, Tom – Arizona State University Huynh Huynh – University of South Carolina Tindal, Gerald – University of Oregon Zigmond, Naomi – University of Pittsburgh Specialist Writers and Internal Reviewers Barton, Karen – CTB-McGraw Flowers, Claudia – University of North Carolina Karvonen, Meagan – Western Carolina University Wakeman, Shawnee – University of North Carolina Yovanoff, Paul – University of Oregon

5. The Product: Seven Chapters Including Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessment: Executive Summary Validating Assessments for Students with Disabilities Reliability Issues and Evidence Validity Evidence Standards and Assessment Approaches for Students with Disabilities using a Validity Argument Professional Development on Assessment Systems Glossary

6. Validation Model

7. Alignment with Grade Level Content Standards

8. Changes in Supports Assistive technologies – Any kind of encoding or decoding device (electronic, digital, manual, etc.) that allows information to be presented or responses to be made while interacting with test directions, items, or tasks. Prompts – Any form of verbal, non-verbal, or physical cue to structure, pace, or signal a response to be made by the student. Examples include verbalisms like, ‘ continue, ’ next, ’ now what, ’ or reminders of each step; physical guidance is an example of a prompt. Scaffolds – Any type of structural assistance introduced to organize information or guide responses embedded in the presentation of the item or task. Examples include the addition of highlights, underlines, outlines, crib sheets, or other information to ‘ essentialize ’ the task or response.

9. Changes in Breadth & Depth Breadth – The number of standards and objectives being met in the assessment. Depth – The type of knowledge form implied in the standard and response demand or type of intellectual operation required to respond. Examples include various knowledge forms (concepts, principles, procedures) and intellectual operations needed to solve the problem or answer the question (e.g., make predictions, provide explanations, give illustrations, consider reasons and use criteria to make judgments).

10. Working Operationalizations Grade-level achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to the breadth and/or depth of standards as specified in the test specifications for the general education large-scale assessment without or with accommodations. Both the assessment with accommodations and an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards allow comparable inferences. Inferences about comparability and meaning of proficiency are not constrained by the assessment methodology. Modified achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to grade- level expectations with specified levels of breadth and/or depth. Inferences about comparability and meaning of proficiency are constrained by the assessment methodology. Alternate achievement standards are designed to enable inferences to grade- level expectations that have been extensively prioritized but maintain high expectations for progress in the general curriculum and assume student performance is contingent on having the supports specified for the assessment. Inferences are stipulated because of the assessment methodology.

11. Presentations Overview (Tindal)-15 minutes Participation Options and Populations (Browder)-20 minutes Reliability and Validity Evidences (Tindal)- 20 minutes Approaches (Ferrara)-20 minutes Professional Development (Zigmond)-20 minutes