National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
How do we keep kids from being stuck in our gap?
A frame, a series of discussion questions, and some possible
answers
Panelist: Rachel Quenemoen, NCEO
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Purpose of No Child Left Behind
“…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Purpose of Assessment Requirements of IDEA
• Improve results for student with disabilities through improved teaching and learning
• Raise expectations for students with disabilities
• Increase access to the general curriculum
• Provide parents information about their child’s achievement in relationship to the performance of other children in their school
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Issues in both NCLB and IDEA • Students with disabilities previously
exempted from assessment and accountability system
• Students with disabilities previously received instruction in separate curriculum
• Change from low to high expectations for students with disabilities
• State leadership in fostering school and district accountability
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Assessment Options• General assessment• General assessment with accommodations (or
modifications)• Alternate assessment on grade level achievement
standards – students have mastered the grade-level content, but can’t show it on general assessment
• Alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards – assuming best instruction and access, there is compelling evidence the students learn grade-level content differently
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Observation
Cognition
Interpretation
The assessment triangle (Pellegrino et al., 2001)
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
HOW these students learn and show what they know
Assumption:
Students affected by “gap” issues generally learn and show what they know MORE like students in the general assessment than like students in the alternate assessment for students with MOST significant challenges
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
WHO are the students who are affected by a gap of some kind?
Common question: How many “can” achieve at grade level, with the best
instruction and access?
Kevin McGrew studies: http://www.iapsych.com/index.htm
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Alternative question: How many schools currently ensure every child
has the services, supports, and specialized instruction necessary to
succeed in the grade-level curriculum?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
How has the IEP process been traditionally construed?
• Identify the services, supports, and specialized instruction necessary so that the student can be successful in the grade level curriculum
OR
• Negotiate what the school can offer and the parents will accept to avoid conflict – define how to lower expectations for this student
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
WHAT should these students know and be able to do?
What does “access to, participation and progress in the general curriculum” mean?
What has it meant in your schools and districts?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Assumption: Many of these students have been failed by our system – the policy goal is first and foremost to correct that situation.
Assumption: Some (unknown number) will not achieve to proficiency at grade level by high school, even with the best possible instruction and instruction, but we don’t know which ones.
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
HOW WELL students must perform to be “proficient”
Assumption: We need to transition students in the first category out of the gap – and really push practice to make that occur as quickly as possible!
Assumption: All students, including those in the second category, have the right to be taught as if they can succeed, even if they do not ultimately achieve proficiency in all areas.
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
What are the “other” questions?• Concern about AYP? Safe harbor provisions, played
out, provide flexibility that means in 2014 you may have @75% of a subgroup at proficiency, and NEVER miss AYP
• Concern about cost of teaching to grade level? Then let’s have that discussion
• Concern about lawsuits? Case law already makes you vulnerable (reread Rowley in the context of standards-based reform) – what can give you and families common understanding?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
What can we do in our assessment and accountability policies and
practices to move MOST students into general assessment, and to
ensure all students achieve at the highest level possible?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
One part of the answer:
Progress Monitoring in an Inclusive Standards-based
Assessment and Accountability System
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
PM AS BROADLY CONCEIVED
• (1) Curriculum-Based Measurement; • (2) Classroom assessments (system or teacher-
developed); • (3) Adaptive assessments constrained to grade
level; and • (4) Grade-level large-scale assessments used
during the year to monitor growth of individual students and groups of students
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
CAUTION!!!!!!
• Aligned to GRADE LEVEL content - CONSTRAINED to grade level
• The “myth” of below grade level instruction
• Blind trust in statistical magic – black box faith
• Remediation vs. acceleration
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Challenges• Strategies for scoring, analyzing, and tracking
data.
Quick turn-around of scores necessary to provide feedback for instruction.
• INTENSIVE training on deriving meaning from the data to develop effective improvement plans.
Many (most?) teachers, school psychologists, IEP team members do NOT know how to do this!
• Needed: New models for classroom integrated assessments on grade level content for this purpose (Pellegrino et al., 2001).
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Resources Available• National Center on Student Progress Monitoring:
Improving Proven Practices in the Elementary Grades
• phone: 202.944.5300 | fax: 202.944.5454 • TTY: 877.334.3499 • e-mail: [email protected] • http://www.studentprogress.org• Research Institute on Progress Monitoring• Phone: 612.626.7220 fax: 612.625.6619 • e-mail: [email protected] • NCEO http://nceo.info [email protected]