How was LAA 2 developed?  Committee of Louisiana educators (general ed and special ed) Two meetings (July and August 2005) Facilitated by contractor West Ed

LAA 2 Development  Content and grade-level committees identified: Range of abilities/capabilities of LAA 2 population Range of appropriate sample items taken from LEAP and GEE item banks Appropriate grade level expectations (GLEs) regarding breadth and depth  Reviewed proposed assessment design and made recommendations regarding: Content depth, breadth, and difficulty Item types (MC and CR) Test length Test accommodations Test format

LAA 2 Development  LAA 2 Items: Selected from LEAP and GEE item banks Reviewed by LDE staff: assessment development and special populations Prior review of items by Content and Bias Committees

How does LAA 2 differ from LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP?  LAA 2 has fewer questions less reading less writing a modified format fewer questions per page more white space larger font

Most Significant Format Change  English Language Arts Using Information Resources (UIR) The test question follows the resource it references. Proofreading Each of the 8 items is a complete sentence with an underlined part to edit. (no intact passage for students to read)

How is LAA 2 like LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP?  LAA 2 Based on Louisiana content standards (modified content standards) Includes both multiple-choice and constructed-response questions Requires the same procedure for test administration and test security

Who took LAA 2 in 2006?  Student whose IEP reflected a functioning grade level in ELA and/or Mathematics at least three (3) grade levels below the grade in which he/she is enrolled  Student who scored Unsatisfactory in ELA and/or math on the previous year’s LEAP/GEE or one who participated in LAA 1  Student whose instructional program is predominantly academic in nature  Student who met the criteria listed on the LAA 2 Participation Criteria Form (

LAA 2 in 2005–2006  Grades 4, 8, and 10 English Language Arts Mathematics  Grade 11 Science Social Studies

LAA 2 in 2006–2007  Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 English Language Arts Mathematics  Grade 11 Science Social Studies

LAA 2 in 2007–2008  Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 English Language Arts Mathematics  Grades 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, and 11 Science Social Studies

Standard Setting for LAA 2  Convened Standard Setting Committee June 8-9, 2006 in Lafayette Educators representing general and special education Content and grade-level expertise Parent and community representatives Selection based on: ethnicity, geographic location, and past experience in development activities related to standards and assessments  Facilitated by testing contractors: Data Recognition Corp. and West Ed content and psychometric staff LDE staff present in each group

Standard Setting for LAA 2  Purpose To establish the level of ability students would be required to have to be placed into any one of the four achievement categories, which are: Basic Approaching Basic Foundational Pre-Foundational

LAA 2 Achievement Levels  Top two LAA 2 achievement levels: Basic Approaching Basic (AB) Align with the Basic and AB levels for LEAP and GEE Students scoring at these 2 levels on LAA 2 have similar performance to students scoring at Basic and Approaching Basic on LEAP or GEE.

LAA 2 Achievement Levels  Lower two levels of LAA 2: Foundational Pre-Foundational Intent is to differentiate the performance of LAA 2 students who would fall into the “Unsatisfactory” level on LEAP and GEE

Alignment of Achievement Levels: LEAP/GEE and LAA 2

LAA 2 Achievement Level Policy Definitions  Basic: A student at this level has demonstrated only the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for the next level of schooling (same as for LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP)  Approaching Basic: A student at this level has only partially demonstrated the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for the next level of schooling (same as for LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP)

LAA 2 Achievement Level Policy Definitions  Foundational: A student at this level has not demonstrated the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for the next level of schooling but has demonstrated the foundational knowledge and skills that can be built upon to access the grade-level curriculum.  Pre-Foundational: A student at this level has not demonstrated the fundamental knowledge and skills needed for the next level of schooling. However, the student may be developing the foundational knowledge and skills that can be built upon to access the grade-level curriculum.

LAA 2 Accountability Points LAA 2 Achievement LevelSPS PointsSubgroup Basic100Proficient Approaching Basic75 Non- proficient Foundational50 Pre-Foundational0

Standard Setting Process  Panelists were trained extensively in large group setting: “Bookmark” Method The method used to set the standards (cut points). A tried, true, and defensible standard setting methodology Method used to set standards for LEAP, GEE, and iLEAP  (Preliminary) Achievement Level Descriptors (ALDs) ALDs describe the content and skills students taking LAA 2 should know and be able to do at each achievement level. They guide the bookmark process.  Small group setting (content and grade level) Took the LAA 2 assessment

Bookmark Procedure  Panelists were given a LAA 2 Ordered Item Booklet (OIB). LAA 2 test items, ordered from easiest to hardest, based on 2006 scale score data

Bookmark Procedure  Using the Preliminary ALDs to guide their decisions, panelists placed a bookmark (post-it) in a location where they thought there was a separation between achievement levels. Ex: To place a cut between the Approaching Basic and Basic level, panelists reviewed the items in the OIB, starting at the beginning, and asked themselves, “Would I expect a student at the top of the AB level to answer questions like this accurately most of the time?” Reminder: Focus is what a student “should be able to do,” not what he/she “can” do.

Bookmark Procedure  Panelists had at least 2 rounds to place their bookmarks at each cut. Round 1: Panelists made judgments individually, then discussed their cuts as a small group (approx. 5) and as a large group (approx. 10). After round 1, panelists were presented with percentages of students that would fall within in each achievement level, based on group recommended cuts. Further discussion ensued.

Bookmark Procedure  Round 2: Panelists had another opportunity to place bookmarks; the same procedures were followed.  Round 3: If necessary, a 3 rd round was conducted. (seldom occurred)  Group consensus was not required.

Standard Setting Results  Psychometric staff (contractor and LDE) reviewed the final recommended cut points.  Final cuts were converted into scale score ranges.

SBESE Approval of LAA 2 Achievement Levels  August 2006, SBESE approved: Recommended cut points for the four LAA 2 Achievement Levels Final Achievement Level Descriptors

????? Questions ?????  Phone:  Phone: