Who are the Students in Who are the Students in Alternate and Modified Alternate and Modified Achievement Standards Achievement Standards

Assessments?Assessments?Jacqueline F. Kearns, Ed.D., NAAC

Martha Thurlow, Ph.D., NCEO

Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, Ph.D., NAAC

OSEP Project Directors’ Conference

July 22, 2008

Part IPart I

Alternate AchievementAlternate Achievement

Standards Standards AssessmentsAssessments

TopicsTopics

1.1. Alternate Achievement Standards Alternate Achievement Standards Assessments and the Validity EvaluationAssessments and the Validity Evaluation

2.2. Current Research from NAAC-Who are Current Research from NAAC-Who are the Students in Alternate Achievement the Students in Alternate Achievement Standards Assessments?Standards Assessments?

3.3. Implications for the Validity EvaluationImplications for the Validity Evaluation

OBSERVATION

INTERPRETATION

COGNITIONStudent PopulationAcademic contentTheory of Learning

Assessment SystemTest DevelopmentAdministration Scoring

ReportingAlignmentItem Analysis & DIF/BiasMeasurement errorScaling and Equating Standard Setting

VALIDITY EVALUATIONEmpirical evidence

Theory & logic (argument)Consequential features

The Assessment Triangle & Validity EvaluationMarion & Pellegrino (2006)

Cognition Vertex Validity Cognition Vertex Validity QuestionsQuestions

1)1) Is the assessment appropriate for Is the assessment appropriate for the students for whom it was the students for whom it was intended? intended?

2)2) Is the assessment being Is the assessment being administered to the appropriate administered to the appropriate students?students?

Both are important for the validity Both are important for the validity evaluationevaluation

Issues in Teaching/Assessing Students in Alternate Achievement

Standards Assessments Varied levels of symbolic communication Attention to salient features of stimuli Memory Limited motor response repertoire Generalization Self-Regulation Meta-cognition Skill Synthesis Sensory Deficits Special Health Care Needs

Kleinert, H., Browder, D., Towles-Reeves, E. (in press).Kleinert, H., Browder, D., Towles-Reeves, E. (in press).  Models of Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities:  cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities:  Implications for assessment. Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research.Review of Educational Research.

Learner Characteristics Learner Characteristics Demographic VariablesDemographic Variables

Learner Characteristics (all on a continuum of skills): Expressive Language Receptive Language Vision Hearing Motor Engagement Health Issues/Attendance Reading Mathematics Use of an Augmentative Communication System

(dichotomous variable)

MethodologyMethodology

Seven partner states chose to participate during the 2006-2007 school year. States 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 6:

gathered data in the administration process for their alternate achievement standards assessment (i.e., bubble sheet, paper/pencil version of the LCI, etc.)

State 7: gathered data using Zoomerang, an online survey

package.

States & LCI Response States & LCI Response RatesRates

State Geography Participation Rate Sample N Response Rate

State 1 North East 0.96% 2793 100%

State 2 Mid West 1.17% 2216 100%

State 3 East 1.14% 3595 75%

State 4 North East 0.99% 722 93%

State 5 South East 0.70% 2134 87%

State 6 East 0.76% 468 91%

State 7 West 0.94% 219 47%

Expressive LanguageExpressive Language

Receptive LanguageReceptive Language

Use of Augmentative Use of Augmentative Communication SystemsCommunication Systems

ReadingReading

MathematicsMathematics

Expressive Language Across Grade Bands

Reading Across Grade Bands

Mathematics Across Grade Bands

Who are the Kids in Alternate Achievement Standards

Assessments? Represent ~1% or less of the total assessed population All disability categories were represented but primarily 3

emerge, Mental Retardation Multiple Disabilities Autism

Highly varied levels of expressive/receptive language use Most students in the population use symbolic communication Level of symbolic language use does not significantly change

across grade-bands The majority of students do not use AAC Most of the population read basic sight words and solve

simple math problems with a calculator. Changes in skill progression in reading and math across

grade bands most likely due to identification of students rather than teaching and learning

Cognition Vertex: Cognition Vertex: Validity Evaluation Essential Validity Evaluation Essential

QuestionsQuestions Who is the population being assessed?Who is the population being assessed? How do we document and monitor the How do we document and monitor the

population?population? What do we know about how they learn (theory of What do we know about how they learn (theory of

learning) academic content?learning) academic content? What do our assessment results tell us about how What do our assessment results tell us about how

the population is learning academic content?the population is learning academic content? Are our data about the population and theory of Are our data about the population and theory of

learning learning consistentconsistent with student performances with student performances on the assessment?on the assessment?

If not, what assumptions are challenged?If not, what assumptions are challenged? What adjustments should be made?What adjustments should be made?

ParticipationParticipation Theory of LearningTheory of Learning Student PerformanceStudent Performance

Alternate Achievement Standards Alternate Achievement Standards AssessmentsAssessments

ReferencesReferences Kleinert, H., Browder, D., Towles-Reeves, E. (in Kleinert, H., Browder, D., Towles-Reeves, E. (in

press). Models of cognition for students with significant press). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities:  Implications for assessment. cognitive disabilities:  Implications for assessment. Review Review of Educational Research.of Educational Research.

Marion, S., & Pellegrino, J. (2006). A validity framework for Marion, S., & Pellegrino, J. (2006). A validity framework for evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments. evaluating the technical quality of alternate assessments. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 25Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 25(4), 47-(4), 47-57.57.

Additional ResourceAdditional Resource Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J. Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., & Kleinert, J.

(2008, May 12). An analysis of the learning characteristics (2008, May 12). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. achievement standards. Journal of Special Education. Journal of Special Education. Retrieved June 2, 2008, from Retrieved June 2, 2008, from http://sed.sagepub.com/cgi/rapidpdf/0022466907313451v1. .

Part IIPart II

Modified AchievementModified Achievement

Standards Standards AssessmentsAssessments

Topics

1.Research and Regulation Advice

2.Current Practice

3.GSEG Project Work

Why Start from the Student?

National Research Council – Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, (2001) – Knowing What Students Know

Luecht (2007) - good assessment design would apply human factors engineering principles by developing cognitive maps and cognitive construct models

Pellegrino (2007) - Principled Assessment Design process that started with a clear student model as the basis for an evidence model that would, in turn, serve as the basis for a task model.

Why Start from the Student?

Mislevy and Haertel (2007) - central point of agreement of these models is the necessity of first developing a good understanding of how people do or fail to do what is to be measured. Then tasks can be developed that let us observe what people do so we are able to make inferences that are more fully supported by clearer evidence.

Assessment as a Process of Reasoning from Evidence

Cognition

– model of how students represent knowledge & develop competence in the domain

Observations– tasks or situations that allow one

to observe students’ performance

Interpretation– method for making sense of the

data

observation

interpretation

cognitionMust be

coordinated!

The Assessment Triangle

Cognition Vertex Validity Questions

1) Is the assessment appropriate for the students for whom it was intended?

2) Is the assessment being administered to the appropriate students?

Both are important for the validity evaluation

April 9, 2007 Regulations Address Who the Students Are

Preamble: The final regulations intentionally do not prescribe which students with disabilities are eligible to be assessed based on modified academic achievement standards; that is the determination of a student’s IEP Team, which includes the student’s parents, based on criteria developed by the State as part of the State’s guidelines for IEP Teams

April 9, 2007 Regulations Address Who the Students Are

The student’s progress to date in response to appropriate instruction . . ., is such that, even if significant growth occurs, the IEP team is reasonably certain that the student will not achieve grade-level proficiency within the year covered by the student’s IEP.

Section 200.1(e)(2)(ii)

April 9, 2007 Regulations Address Who the Students Are

Inform IEP teams that students eligible to be assessed based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards may be from any of the disability categories listed in the IDEA.

Section 200.1(e)(2)(ii)

From Cortiella (2007), Learning Opportunities for Your Child Through Alternate Assessments – Alternate Assessments based on Modified Achievement Standards

Current Practice

• In 2007, 5 states had assessments that they believed to be an AA-MAS before the April, 2007 regulation release – see Lazarus, Thurlow, Christensen, & Cormier (2007)

• Update study now being conducted – have pulled information on eligibility for AA-MAS

Eligibility Criteria in States

In 2008, 10 states had assessments that they believed to be an AA-MAS

California North Carolina

Connecticut North Dakota

Kansas Oklahoma

Louisiana Texas

Maryland Virginia

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Format of Criteria# of

States

Descriptions (bullets, chart, written description) 10

Flowchart/Decision Tree 4

Checklist 5

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Disability Status Criteria# of

States

Student has IEP 10

Not based on disability category label 5

Not due only to ELL designation or being on 504 plan 3

Not due to being identified as having a significant cognitive disability

2

Student may be in any of the disability categories 6

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Classroom Learning/Teaching Criteria# of

States

Student not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP

8

Student is learning grade-level content 6

Not due to receiving instruction based on extended or alternate standards or being eligible to take AA-AAS

6

Not based on attendance (extended/excessive absence) 5

Student receives specialized instruction 3

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Classroom Learning/Teaching Criteria – cont. # of

States

Student requires differentiated content for classroom assessment

3

Student needs accommodations during classroom instruction

2

Student’s classroom achievement and performance significantly below grade-level peers

2

Student consistently requires instruction in pre-requisite skills to the grade-level indicators

2

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Classroom Learning/Teaching Criteria – cont.# of

States

Not based on placement setting 2

Not based on amount of time in general or special education services

2

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

Previous Performance Criteria# of

States

Student passed or failed AA-AAS or other large-scale tests

5

Student cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with accommodations

3

Student has been tested on multiple, valid, objective measures over time

3

Student’s previous performance on multiple measures is considered

3

2008 Study

Number of States With Selected Eligibility Criteria

IEP Goals & Other# of

States

IEP includes goals that are based on grade-level content standards

4

Not due to social, cultural, language, economic, or environmental factors

2

2008 Study

Identifying Accommodations for AA-MAS

• State Approaches• Accommodations issues for

regular assessment• Integration of “accommodations”

and universal design principles into the regular assessment first, then in the design of the AA-MAS

State Approaches – Accommodations Incorporated into AA-MAS Design

Accommodation No. of States

Fewer items/page 3

Larger font size 3

Calculator 2

Breaks as needed 2

Key text underlined/bolded 1

State 1 (long time) Reading = 19%Math = 17%

State 2 (long time) Reading = 10.5% Math = 9.9%

AA-MAS Participation Rates (2006-07)

State 3 (long time) Reading = 23%Math = 21%

State 4 (newer) Reading = 31%Math = 29%

Rates based on # students with IEPs

State 1 (long time) Reading = 24%Math = 33%

State 2 (long time) Reading = 4.3% Math = 2.6%

AA-MAS Rates Proficient (2006-07)

State 3 (long time) No Data No Data

State 4 (newer) Reading = 52%Math = 54%

Rates based on # students with IEPs

Alternate Achievement Standards Alternate Achievement Standards Assessments:Assessments: Consideration of students with high Consideration of students with high

reading and math abilitiesreading and math abilities Assessment design for a highly varied Assessment design for a highly varied

populationpopulation Considering symbolic language useConsidering symbolic language use Skill progressions in reading and mathSkill progressions in reading and math

ConsiderationsConsiderations

ConsiderationsConsiderations

Modified Achievement Standards Modified Achievement Standards Assessments:Assessments: Moving from student characteristics to an Moving from student characteristics to an

assessment based on grade-level content, but with assessment based on grade-level content, but with modified achievement standardsmodified achievement standards

Clearly defining the relationships among the Clearly defining the relationships among the general assessment, the AA-AAS, the AA-MAS, and general assessment, the AA-AAS, the AA-MAS, and the AA-GLAS, if one existsthe AA-GLAS, if one exists

Separating instructional issues from assessment Separating instructional issues from assessment issuesissues

Providing training and assistance for good Providing training and assistance for good decisions about who needs which assessmentdecisions about who needs which assessment

Contact InformationContact Information

Jacqueline Kearns, Ed.D.Jacqueline Kearns, Ed.D. 1 Quality Street, Suite 7221 Quality Street, Suite 722 Lexington, Kentucky 40507Lexington, Kentucky 40507 859-257-7672859-257-7672 859-323-1838859-323-1838 Jacqueline.kearns@uky.ed

u

Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, Ph.D.Elizabeth Towles-Reeves, Ph.D. 1 Quality Street, Suite 7221 Quality Street, Suite 722 Lexington, Kentucky 40507Lexington, Kentucky 40507 859-257-7672859-257-7672 859-323-1838859-323-1838 Liztowles-reeves@uky.edu

http://www.naacpartners.org/

Contact InformationContact Information

Martha Thurlow, Ph.D.Martha Thurlow, Ph.D. 207 Pattee Hall207 Pattee Hall 150 Pillsbury Drive SE150 Pillsbury Drive SE Minneapolis, MN 55455Minneapolis, MN 55455 612-624-4826612-624-4826 THURL001@umn.edu

www.nceo.info