Download presentation
Presentation is loading. Please wait.
Published byConstance Simpson Modified over 9 years ago
1
A presentation of methods and selected results 1
2
Policy, Validity Framework, Study Design 2
3
3 “Has the State ascertained that the decisions based on the results of its assessments are consistent with the purposes for which the assessments were designed?” “Has the State ascertained whether the assessment produces intended and unintended consequences?”
4
State the intended consequences Define the evidence that supports each consequence Collect data to ascertain the intended consequences Collect data to ascertain the unintended consequences 4
5
1. Teacher and administrator motivation and effort will be evident. 2. Professional development support will be provided. 3. Instruction and curriculum will be adapted. 4. Student motivation and effort will be evident. 5. Performance will improve and be related to the changes above. 5
6
6. Access to augmentative and alternative communication will be improved. 7. Parental involvement in student’s academic career will be increased. 6
7
Teacher Surveys Classroom Observation Administrator Surveys 7
8
Arguments Stakeholders Design Stratify Random Cluster Sample Pilot Version 1 Version 2 Collect Data 8
9
CFA Rasch Scaling Prepare Data Descriptive Logistic Regression Analyze Evidence of Consequential Validity Conclude? 9
10
Teaching IEP Development Student Profile Identify Elements Modified NAAC Observation Tool Observe Does Classroom Observation align with survey results? Evaluate 10
11
Student Performance (Slope of Change) Contextual Variables (Relatively Stable) Evidential Variables (Slope of Change) 11
12
CONTEXTUAL VARIABLESEVIDENTIAL VARIABLES Gender Race SES Grade/Age School Size LEP Teacher* familiarity Teacher attitudes and beliefs Professional development Instruction in content areas Access to AAC Parent involvement 12 *Includes administrators
13
GENERAL EDUCATIONSPECIAL EDUCATION A history of assessment Adequate psychometric methods to construct and evaluate assessments Academic instruction is the foundation of education In the absence of disability, opportunity to learn and do well on the assessment Assessment is relatively new Limited psychometric methods to construct and evaluate assessments Academic instruction is special education reform Limited opportunity to learn 13
14
Background, Structure, Future 14
15
Marilyn Roberts Michigan Department of Education Lynda Balmer-Lupp Pennsylvania Department of Education Sandra Berndt & Eva Kubinski Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
16
Michigan’s Alternate Assessment Program 16
17
17 A 3 tiered approach to AA-AAS 2002 – Development and Administration of Participation (P) and Supported Independence (SI) levels of Mi-Access 2005 – Development and Administration of Functional Independence (FI) levels of the Mi-Access 2007-2008 – Administered First FI Science Assessment 2007 – 2008 – Mi-Access revised to align with MI content standards
18
Type of Assessment: Subjects Assessed: Grades Administered : Administration: Response formats: Scoring: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science (R, M) 3 – 8, 11; (S) 5, 8, 11 Individual Multiple choice & constructed response Video Tape, Primary & Shadow Scorers 18
19
Common Core Alignment Learning Progressions or Other Structure? State Consortia?
20
Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment 20
21
21 A 3 tiered approach to AA-AAS 2000 – PASA Reading & Math Administered to grades 5, 8, & 11 2002 - 2005 – Grades 3, 4, 6, & 7 Added 2005– PASA scores counted toward AYP 2007 – PASA Science Administered to grades 4, 8, & 11
22
Type of Assessment: Subjects Assessed: Grades Administered : Administration: Response formats: Scoring: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science (R, M) 3 – 8, 11; (S) 4, 8, 11 Individual Multiple choice & constructed response Video Tape, Scoring Conference 22
23
PA has adopted the Common Core Standards PA has incorporated Learning Progressions into the Standards Aligned System PA is participating in a Consortia for the 1%-Alternate Assessment
24
Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities 24
25
1998 - Alternate Performance Indicators (APIs) Original WAA-SwD based on APIs 2006 WAA-SwD does not pass peer review April 2007 – Development of Extended Grade Band Standards January 2008 – Revised WAA-SwD Administered, an on-demand, performance-based AA-AAS 25
26
Type of Assessment: Subjects Assessed: Grades Administered : Administration: Response formats: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science 3 – 8, 10 (R, M); 4, 8, 10 (S) Individual Multiple choice & constructed response 26
27
Common Core Alignment Learning Progressions or Other Structure? State Consortia?
28
Descriptive Data and Frequency Counts 28
29
Teachers are familiar with the assessment 29
30
30
31
31
32
What are attitudes and beliefs toward the assessment? 32
33
33 *Results are similar for math & science
34
34
35
35
36
From a list generated from the pilot study 36
37
37
38
Professional development opportunities are being provided 38
39
39
40
Curriculum is aligned with the State’s Alternate Academic Standards 40
41
41 * Results are similar for math & science
42
READINGSCIENCE 42
43
READINGSCIENCE 43
44
Students are motivated to learn the material and do well on the assessment 44
45
45
46
Student scores are improving as a result of these factors 46
47
47
48
DIRECTOR OF C & ISUPERINTENDENT 48
49
PRINCIPALDIRECTOR OF SPECIAL ED 49
50
Marilyn Roberts Michigan Department of Education Lynda Balmer-Lupp Pennsylvania Department of Education Sandra Berndt & Eva Kubinski Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
Similar presentations
© 2025 SlidePlayer.com. Inc.
All rights reserved.