Who Are The “2% Students”

Who Are The “2% Students”…eligible to be judged as proficient based on modified grade-level academic achievement standards?

Naomi Zigmond University of PittsburghPennsylvania

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Assumptions Underlying Standards-Driven Accountability

• Student achievement in specific subject matter content is so important that accountability should be focused on achievement indices

• Universal standards are essential for equity• Student performance can be accurately and reliably

measured• Consequences are necessary to motivate educators

and students to get the intended results of improved teaching AND will result in improved learning

• Unintended consequences will be minimal

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The Outcome

• Annual assessments of student achievement for accountability

• Schools required to “meet AYP”– For all students – For subgroups including students with IEPs

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The Accountability Question

• Are schools providing the educational opportunities that permit students to become “proficient” in (at least) reading and mathematics (and science)?

• The question:– How many students meet the grade-level standard? Or– What % of students are “Proficient or Advanced” on grade-level

standards– NOT

• How much does each student know?• How much has each student learned?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

To Answer the Accountability Question

• Create grade level content standards• Create assessment of grade level content• Delineate grade level achievement standards

– What it takes to be “proficient” on grade level academic content

– Defined and published on the state web-site• As description of performance• As numerical cut-score

• Report annually

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Guidance

• Everyone must be in the count• Students with the most significant cognitive

disabilities may be judged as proficient based on alternate achievement standards aligned with grade-level content – 1%

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

That Left “The Gap Kids”

• Students with IEPs who did not have the most significant cognitive disabilities

• Were not eligible for the “1% alternate assessment” (AA-AAS)

• Were unable to achieve yearly proficiency on the regular accountability assessment

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The National Picture

• Among students taking the standard accountability assessment with or without accommodations

~30% PROFICIENT IN READING~30% PROFICIENT IN MATH

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

0

5

10

15

20

>50% 40%-49.9%

30%-30.9%

20%-20.9%

10%-19.9%

0%-9.9%

States Reporting Proficient Rates in Reading

Elementary Middle School High School

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

0

5

10

15

20

>50% 40%-49.9%

30%-30.9%

20%-20.9%

10%-19.9%

0%-9.9%

States Reporting Proficient Rates in Mathematics

Elementary Middle School High School

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The National Picture• Reports of “emotional trauma” associated with test-taking

among students with disabilities• Reports of “scape-goating”

– Blaming students with disabilities for schools not making AYP

• Fact that students with disabilities challenge many of the underlying assumptions of statewide accountability assessments

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Not Just Low Performers

• Persistently low performers– Students in lowest performance category for

three consecutive years• Despite

– Intensive instruction – Opportunity to learn the general curriculum– Appropriate accommodations in instruction and

on assessments

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

December, 2005The 2% Solution

• Give students an assessment they can access• Allow students to achieve proficiency by

modifying expectations for student achievement (i.e., modifying achievement standards)

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Feds Persuaded by LD Researchers

• That “85 percent of students receiving special education services have the cognitive ability to work at grade level with their peers.” *

*Separating Fact From Fiction: Special Education Students and NCLBNCLD Briefing Announcement, June 2007

Modified Achievement Standards Must Be Based on Grade-Level

Content!

“Out of level” testing not allowed!

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

So, Who is the Modified Assessment For?

• Who can access grade-level content modified in complexity, or depth, but not breadth?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Students with IEPs

Below Basic25%

Basic45%

Proficient25%

Advanced5%

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Students with IEPs

Below Basic25%

Basic45%

Proficient25%

Advanced5%

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Students with IEPs

Below Basic25%

Basic45%

Proficient25%

Advanced5%

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The GSEG Question

• Who can handle a grade-level assessment?– What do we mean by grade level?– What makes a reading test a “grade level” test?

• The readability of the text• The nature of the questions/items

– What makes a math test a “grade level” test?• What does it mean to do “some” 10th grade math?

• Who will we “pretend” is proficient?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

The Tension

• There is no limit on the number of students who can be assigned to this modified assessment by their IEP team– But assignment to the modified assessment presumes

lower expectations for achievement• Decreases the pressure to reach higher and teach more• There is probably a cumulative effect of modifying

expectations grade by grade– So movement in-and-out will probably be limited– Will it return us to “tracking”?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Non-Regulatory Guidance* Who should be eligible?

• Students with IEPs in– Any of the disability categories– Whose disability precludes achievement of

grade-level proficiency– Whose past progress predicts that, even with

significant growth, will not achieve grade level proficiency in one year

– Whose IEP includes goals based on grade-level content standards

*April 2007

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

How to Decide?

• What data should we look at to help us make that decision?– What kinds of SWD persistently fail to achieve

proficiency?• What constitutes ‘persistent’?• Age?• Disability?• Opportunities to learn?

– Special education placement?– Intensity of instruction?

• How far from being proficient are they?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

How to Decide?

• How will that translate into guidelines for IEP teams in their annual recommendation on which assessment a student will take?

• What constitutes ‘persistent’? • Age?• Disability?• Opportunities to learn?

– Special education placement?– Intensity of instruction?

• How far from being proficient are they?

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Or is it Simpler Than That?

• The alternate assessment judged against alternate achievement standards is too easy

• The general assessment judged against grade level achievement standards is too hard

• The “2% students”…– Can learn some grade level content, but in the time

available• Cannot cover as much content• Cannot cover the content in as much depth• Cannot learn the content to the same degree of cognitive

complexity

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

In Other Words…

• Students with IEPs who are very, very, very hard to teach

Can We Design a Modified Assessment Without Knowing

Who it is For?Is this an empirical question

OrIs it a theoretical (philosophical) question

GSEG Meeting, Washington D.C. January 16, 2008

Questions We Need to Address• What are the cumulative effects of yearly reductions in grade level

content depth and breadth in skill subjects and in content subjects?• How to manage differential expectations (in terms of depth and

breadth) in inclusive settings?• How will the changes in expectations for some play out for the

other 70+% of SWD?• Will "giving away" 2% reduce the stress associated with the

accountability assessment?• Does accountability testing weild the same power if it doen’t

happen every year?• Will these problems go away if accountability question were

changed to measure growth not status?