1. State Efforts to Improve Instruction and Assessment of Students who May be Candidates to Take the Alternate Assessment Based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) OSEP Project Directors’ Meeting July 20, 2010

2. Overview and Example from the Multi-state GSEG toward a Defensible AA-MAS Sheryl Lazarus and Jason Altman National Center on Educational Outcomes 2

3. AA-MAS Participants: Must have an IEP. Must have been instructed in grade-level content. Progress in response to appropriate instruction makes it unlikely will achieve grade-level proficiency within school year covered by IEP. 3

4. 2% GSEG Grants 15 GSEGs (23 states) Studies looked at: Characteristics of the students Instruction and opportunity to learn Test design issues 4

5. . During the 2008-09 school year 13* states had information about an assessment that they believed was an AA-MAS on their website: California Connecticut Indiana Kansas Louisiana Maryland Michigan North Carolina North Dakota Ohio Oklahoma Tennessee Texas *One additional state had information on its website late last summer when data for the participation guidelines report was collected—but the state decided not to move forward with an AA-MAS and deleted the link. 5

6. Criteria Included in States’ Participation Guidelines CriteriaNo. of States Student has IEP14 Previous performance on multiple measures12 Learning grade level content11 Not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP 11 IEP includes goals based on grade level standards9 Not based on disability category label8 Cannot demonstrate knowledge on regular assessment even with accommodations 8 6

7. Comparison of AA-MAS and Regular Assessment: Design Changes, 2009 7

8. Peer Review Only a few states are through peer review for their AA-MAS According to Filbin (2008) states need to : 1.Identify the population of students. 2. Provide guidelines for standards-based IEPs and for monitoring them. 3. Design an appropriate assessment based on grade-level content standards. 4. Determine the relationship between the assessments in a state’s system. 8

9. New tool that can be used to develop and continuously improve AA-MAS Alternate Level Descriptors Quenemoen, R., Albus, D., Rogers, D. & Lazarus, S. (2010). Developing and improving Modified Achievement Descriptors: Rationale, procedures, and tools. State Example General ALDAA-MAS ALD Can apply proportional reasoning skills to familiar situations Understand proportions and are developing proportional reasoning skills 9

10. Multi- State GSEG Consortium Members 10

11. 11 Persistently Low Performance Accommodations Practices (AL, SD, TN) Nature of Instruction Received (SD, TN, WI) Effects of Learning Progressions (HI)

12. Hawaii The Hawaii Progress Maps Project was based on learning progressions research that support classroom teacher decision-making and actions. Conducted across multiple years, the first two years focused on development of progress maps using Hawaii Content and Performance Standards (HCPS III), which included field testing of student work to validate the progress maps. The third year focused on classroom teachers using the progress maps to plan and implement standards-based curricula, and to monitor progress of struggling learners. 12

13. Sample Level Descriptors MA 2.9.3: PATTERNS & FUNCTIONS: Demonstrate and explain the difference between repeating patterns and growing patterns Hawaii Tessellations use repeating patterns 13

14. Wisconsin Wisconsin conducted focus groups to explore characteristics of the students that may be eligible to participate in the AA-MAS. Participants became familiar with the federal regulatory language about students who may qualify for the AA-MAS. Participants, including educators and parents, recognized that the decision to select a student for the AA-MAS needed to be based on direct academic factors, rather than student demographic characteristics or disability category label. Participants discovered the importance of access to the grade level curriculum on student's academic performance. Participants identified strategies to improve instructional and assessment practices. 14

15. South Dakota South Dakota’s efforts have focused on learning more about how to improve instruction and assessment of low-performing students with disabilities who might be candidates for an AA- MAS. Analyzed data and conducted stakeholder meeting to learn more about the characteristics of the students. Conducted additional analyses to learn more about the accommodations used by low performing students on the statewide test. Found that some students with disabilities may not have access to grade-level content; and that there is a need for training and professional development. Developing online training on standards-based IEPs. 15

16. Alabama 16 A detailed secondary analysis of the students who persistently perform poorly on state large-scale testing showed: Students that use accommodations are at risk for PLP Students are more likely to be PLP at 5 th grade Ethnic minority students are more likely to be PLP Males who are PLP are more likely to have low SES PLP students in 5 th grade are more likely to have low SES It was of particular interest to follow up on accommodations Teachers were surveyed (n=2,300) about decision making Student’s performance in the classroom not a factor Facilitation of access to the curriculum important Big 4 accommodations are provided more than others State policies and guidelines not always considered Majority indicate tie between instruction and assessment

17. Alabama 17 NeverAlways MetroMicroRuralMetroMicroRural Best time of Day52.5%51.0%50.2%8.5%11.7%9.3% Breaks between subtests/during test37.3%35.2%27.0%8.6%11.9%13.8% By students special education teacher10.5%11.5%8.4%16.4%21.4%18.3% Extended Time limits25.9%25.0%21.0%20.5%25.0%22.2% Flexible Scheduling48.0%46.7%44.1%6.1%7.9%8.4% Directions interpreted/signed57.5%59.5%58.0%6.9%12.5%10.5% In the special education classroom13.9%16.3%15.0%16.2%17.8%11.4% Preferential seating23.3%21.9%21.0%12.1%15.9%12.0% Small group/individual administration5.6%4.9%9.6%27.6%30.8%24.6% Amplification equipment66.0%65.4%73.3%2.7%5.9%1.5% Braille84.3%83.9%89.2%1.2%3.0%1.5% Colored Overlay77.6%78.6%80.5%1.0%0.9%1.5% Large print54.5%52.9%59.8%2.3%3.6%2.4% Magnifying Equipment74.1%76.6%78.1%1.6%2.3%1.8% The table below demonstrates the differences among the teachers’ responses about accommodations use by subgroup

18. Tennessee Most notable: Development of AA-MAS Participation Guidelines; Training; Feedback Pilot of new test in Spring 2009 Live testing in Spring 2010 Other Activity: Secondary analysis of low performers Survey of teachers – student characteristics Matching student IEPs to survey – X analysis Teacher survey dissemination: Summer 2010 Teacher interviews Parent survey developed 18

19. Tennessee Certain groups of students are more likely to display some of identified factors: Students with multiple disabilities Students in inclusion or resource Students with LD; Functionally delayed Students who use more accommodations Students who use certain accommodations 19

20. 20 For More Information National Center on Educational Outcomes www.nceo.info Sheryl Lazarus laza0019@umn.edu Jason Altman altma014@umn.edu