1. AACC 1 Helping States and Regional Centers Meet NCLB Goals: State Accountability Systems Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. WestEd CRESST Conference January 22-23, 2007

2. AACC 2 Comprehensive Centers (CC): Brief Overview CC Types of Activities CC Guiding Criteria Improving Assessment and Accountability Systems: Examples

3. AACC 3 Comprehensive Centers (CC) Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Old versus New Model Old model –Decentralized –Each CC focused on own priorities/issues –Problems with repetition and quality assurance New model –Centralized (USED) –Focus on main NCLB issues –No development without USED approval

4. AACC 4 Comprehensive Centers (continued) Five Content Comprehensive Centers –Assessment and Accountability –High Schools –Innovation and Improvement –Instruction –Teacher Quality Sixteen Regional Comprehensive Centers Dissemination through Regional Comprehensive Centers and States –No direct contact with schools

5. AACC 5 Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC) Strands: Key Areas of Focus Special Populations Data Use Support for Quality State Assessment and Accountability Systems

6. AACC 6 Key Activities: General Identify information/resources Review Disseminate

7. AACC 7 Key Activities: More Detail Research, analysis, and dissemination of evidence-based products, services, etc. linked to key NCLB initiatives and goals Synthesis of evidence in selected, high- need NCLB areas Strategic responses to requests from RCCs and SEAs on high-need NCLB areas

8. AACC 8 Key Activities: More Detail (continued) Respond to USED requests on high-need NCLB areas Limited development in high-need NCLB areas determined by both the AACC and USED as lacking in key information and products Assist states with Peer Reviews (preparation, response) Disseminate information

9. AACC 9 Activities: General Criteria High quality in terms of grounding in sound technical theory, research, and practical experiences. High relevance that is appropriate for states and regional comprehensive centers (RCCs) and responsive to their immediate and long-term needs. High utility to RCCs and state educational agencies (SEAs), keeping up with recent research developments in assessment and accountability and thereby supporting decision making and improvement of student performance.

10. AACC 10 Activity Example 1 Peer Review Workshops –Response to initial Peer Review: Key Areas Comparability Special Education (Alternate Assessment—1%) Alignment Reporting

11. AACC 11 Activity Example 2 LEP Partnership Meetings: Key Topics –Accommodations –Plain English Assessments –Native Language Assessments –Title I/Title III Crossover –Portfolios/Alternative Assessments

12. AACC 12 Example 2 (continued) LEP Partnership Meetings: Key Activities –Dissemination of best practices and research findings –National workshops on ELL assessment issues for state assessment teams –Facilitating workgroups of states re: technical issues for specific assessment methods –Research to expand the knowledge and procedural basis for ELL assessments –Direct technical assistance

13. AACC 13 For more information: Stanley Rabinowitz, Ph.D. srabino@wested.org or www.aacompcenter.org

14. AACC 14 Assessment of Special Populations Students Edynn Sato, Ph.D. WestEd CRESST Conference January 22-23, 2007

15. AACC 15 Objectives Challenges General Methods Work: Description and Examples

16. AACC 16 Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC) Strands: Key Areas of Focus Special Populations Data Use Support for Quality State Assessment and Accountability Systems

17. AACC 17 Why a Special Populations focus? Evidence of national need Some unique population characteristics Lack of (complete) transfer NCLB assessment and accountability expectations

18. AACC 18 Strand Objective Special Populations –To provide information and resources to Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCCs), and through the RCCs to state education agencies (SEAs), regarding the assessment and accountability of their special student populations (i.e., English language learners [ELLs] and students with disabilities [SWDs], including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities) with respect to the requirements of NCLB (i.e., Title I, Title III, alternate assessments, modified assessments).

19. AACC 19 Our ChargeOur Challenge Build capacity (of RCCs and SEAs) to achieve NCLB goals Communicating technical and complex information in a manner that is understandable, meaningful, and usable Readiness Share expertise across the network Widely varying needs and stages of development or implementation Widely varying contexts and resources Communication, coordination, and collaboration

20. AACC 20 Our Methods Expertise and experience in state, regional, national assessment and accountability Expertise and experience in special populations (SWDs, ELLs) Systematic and deep examination and evaluation Translate technical into practicable –Examples (best/promising practices, models, strategies) –Explanations/considerations –Indicators of success/evaluation Models for communication, collaboration, cooperation, dissemination

21. AACC 21 Work Example 1—Guidelines Focus on technical quality of assessment for special student populations Law and regulations (Title I and Title III) –Define key terms –Highlight critical requirements Peer review Technical Quality Critical Elements (Section 4) –Evidence –Examples Specific information regarding: –Accommodations –Comparability (Linking/Equating) –Standard setting –Annual Measurement Achievement Objectives (AMAOs) for ELLs

22. AACC 22 Work Example 2— Evaluation of technical evidence Evidence of technical quality of assessments for special student populations Review criteria for evidence of validity, reliability, freedom from bias Summary of evaluation for body of evidence related to an assessment [Test developers have the opportunity to provide additional information/evidence for inclusion in the review]

23. AACC 23 For more information: Edynn Sato, Ph.D. esato@wested.org or www.aacompcenter.org