National Center and State Collaborative General Supervision Enhancement Grant (NCSC GSEG) Kick-off Meeting Washington, DC December 17, 2010 The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (PR/Award #: H373X100002, Project Officer, However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education and no assumption of endorsement by the Federal government should be made.

National Center and State Collaborative Building an assessment system based on research-based understanding of: - technical quality of AA-AAS design - formative and interim uses of assessment data - summative assessments - academic curriculum and instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities - student learning characteristics and communication - effective professional development NCSC GSEG9/3/20152

NCSC Partners Centers National Center on Educational Outcomes National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment University of Kentucky University of North Carolina-Charlotte edCount, LLC States AlaskaArizona ConnecticutDistrict of Columbia FloridaGeorgia IndianaLouisiana MassachusettsNevada New YorkNorth Dakota Pacific Assessment Consortium (PAC-6) Pennsylvania Rhode IslandSouth Carolina South DakotaTennessee Wyoming NCSC GSEG9/3/20153

A Comprehensive Model All partners share a commitment to the research-to-practice focus of the project and the development of a comprehensive model of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and supportive professional development. NCSC GSEG9/3/20154

HISTORY AND CONTEXT OF THE PROJECT DESIGN Overview 5

Shift to Inclusion NCEO research on outcomes for ALL students with disabilities leading to OSEP Technical Assistance Center (21 years) 1990s work in Kentucky and Maryland Range of participation from 0 – 85% Separate systems for assessment, separate systems for curriculum, separate systems for instruction Very poor outcomes for students with disabilities, although range was wide NCSC GSEG9/3/20156

Key Reports Along the Way Testing, Teaching, and Learning – Elmore and Rothman (1999) Committee on Title I Testing and Assessment – NRC – Theory of Action in SBR based 1994 ESEA reauthorization: Set standards, build assessments, hold accountable = Increased achievement – Evidence emerged– to get increased achievement, actually had to intervene on curriculum and instruction – Professional Development, Pre- and Inservice – Quenemoen, Lehr, Thurlow, and Massanari (2001) Implications of theory underlying reform for students with disabilities NCSC GSEG9/3/20157

Building Assessments – But Worrying About Curriculum and Instruction Knowing What Students Know – Pellegrino, Chudowsky, and Glaser (2001) Committee on Assessment – NRC New Hampshire Enhanced Assessment Initiative (NHEAI) National Alternate Assessment Center (NAAC) Triangle off the triangle CIA/KWSK Poking around the C and the I while working on the A NCSC GSEG9/3/20158

NCSC GSEG9/3/20159

Ten Challenges Identified by Partners and States College and career readiness Learning progressions Formative and interim uses of assessment data Instruction and curriculum tools – concrete supports Differences within the 1% population – communicative competence 70-30? ? Teacher capacity issues Flexibility and standardization balance Growth Technology Comparability Costs NCSC GSEG9/3/201510

Key Ideas for Building the Foundation Articulating CCR Defining the construct Instructional models – Principle of Uncertainty; Least Dangerous Assumption Communicative competence Delivering PD, building capacity Validity argument NCSC GSEG9/3/201511

Theory of Action Long-term goal: To ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post-secondary options. A well-designed summative assessment alone is insufficient. To achieve this goal, an AA-AAS system also requires:  Curricular & instructional frameworks  Teacher resources and professional development NCSC GSEG9/3/201512

Students respond to tasks/prompts as intended Students get greater exposure to grade- level academic curriculum Teachers have the resources and supports necessary to administer a standards-aligned AA-AAS AA-AAS scores appropriately reflect student knowledge and skills The content assessed by the AA-AAS is appropriately rigorous and aligned with grade level content standards Teachers provide instruction aligned with the grade- level content standards and academic expectations assessed The AA-AAS has been designed to allow students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills in relation to prioritized common core standards AA-AAS scores provide information that is useful for teachers in building and maintaining instruction aligned with academic expectations Negative consequences are minimized Students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes Instructional material is aligned to common core state standards Teachers are given resources for and training on instruction in academic material needed for college and career readiness Students with significant cognitive disabilities leave high school ready for college and careers Curricular & Instructional Frameworks Summative assessment design Short term outcomes AA-AAS scores provide information that allows educators and parents to track student progress toward college and career readiness Long term outcomes Appropriate communication methods/ resources are recognized and made available to the student and teacher A wide range of communication methods are available for the AA- AAS The appropriate students are identified for AA- AAS 9/3/201513

Validity Evaluation Determining that the C, I, and A strategies are effective, implemented as intended, and producing desired results. NCSC GSEG9/3/201514

NCSC Organizational Structure States participate in one or more work groups Each work group nominates one or more states to serve on the management team Work groups interact and collaborate as appropriate The management team and Technical Advisory Committee oversee the work of all four groups NCSC GSEG9/3/201515

Perie/Domaleski Technical Issues Quenemoen PI / Proj. Director Kearns PD/Training Forte Validity Evaluation Work Group 1Work Group 2 Partner Organizations NCIEAUNCCUKY Hess Content Wakeman C&I Towles-Reeves Process Evaluation edCount RI Work Group 3Work Group 4 Project Management Team NY LAFLAK SCNV NDINGACT Project Management Thurlow PI/TAC Lead TNSDWY NCEO Work Groups Lead State Representative annually selected from each Work Group to serve on the Project Management Team; each State committed to no less than 1 Work Group, but can be involved in as many as they choose AZDC PA Derek Briggs George Engelhard Mike Kolen Suzanne Lane Jim Pellegrino TAC MA PAC 6 9/3/201516

NCSC Work Group Structure Management Team Lead: NCEO and State Representatives Assessment Design Work Group Lead: NCIEA and State Representatives Assessment Design Work Group Lead: NCIEA and State Representatives Professional Development Work Group Lead: UKY and State Representatives Professional Development Work Group Lead: UKY and State Representatives Curriculum & Instruction Work Group Lead: UNCC and State Representatives Curriculum & Instruction Work Group Lead: UNCC and State Representatives Evaluation Work Group Lead: edCount, LLC and State Representatives Evaluation Work Group Lead: edCount, LLC and State Representatives NCSC GSEG9/3/201517

ASSESSMENT DESIGN Work Group 1 18

Assessment Design: Major Goals Articulate college- and career-readiness Establish construct definitions Design assessment frameworks Develop/field-test assessment items and draft PLDs Establish technology platform Develop reporting system Establish operational assessment system NCSC GSEG9/3/201519

Assessment Design: Key Ideas Assessment Triangle (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001) College- and career-readiness for SSCD Evidence-centered design Balancing standardization and flexibility (Gong & Marion, 2006) NCSC GSEG9/3/201520

Technology (1) Proposed development of a comprehensive system to support instruction and assessment to include: – Facilitating summative assessment that is enhanced by appropriate assistive technology – Providing support for formative assessment tools and strategies, and supporting interim uses of assessment data – Supporting professional development and providing instructional resources to include curriculum modules – Enabling flexible, dynamic reporting of student performance NCSC GSEG9/3/201521

Technology (2) Currently exploring partnership with DLM GSEG (Kansas) for technology solution – An Ad Hoc Technology Committee is currently investigating the possibility of collaboration with DLM GSEG – The committee will provide a recommendation by mid-January, /3/2015NCSC GSEG22

CURRICULUM & INSTRUCTION Work Group 2 23

Curriculum & Instruction: Major Goals Validate the learning progressions frameworks and entry points Develop skill sequences within each learning progression Develop generalizable skill sequences for each content area Pilot and validate formative assessments and interim uses of assessment data Develop content support for special ed teachers Partner with WG 1 to develop test blueprint aligned to the CCSS NCSC GSEG9/3/201524

Curriculum & Instruction: Key Ideas Learning progressions Big ideas/enduring understandings and prioritization of content Entry points Alignment Curricular modules NCSC GSEG9/3/201525

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT Work Group 3 26

Professional Development: Major Goals Establish state PD communities of practice (COPs) Implement Common Core State Standards Communication Triage K-8 Develop assessment administration and assessment results trainings Develop teacher/principal evaluation tools NCSC GSEG9/3/201527

Professional Development: Key Ideas Communities of Practice Scaling up use of CCSS-aligned academic curriculum Communication by Kindergarten/ Communication Triage Technology and training Teacher/principal effectiveness NCSC GSEG9/3/201528

EVALUATION Work Group 4 29

Evaluation: Major Goals Establish the project Theory of Action and Interpretive Argument Prioritize issues and develop study designs Implement validity studies Synthesize results and produce reports NCSC GSEG9/3/201530

Evaluation: Key Ideas Argument-based approach (Kane, 2006) Theory of Action Validity evaluation and process evaluation External evaluation NCSC GSEG9/3/201531

State Commitments Agree to the Theory of Action in principle and practice Active participation in one or more topical area Work Groups Involvement of state stakeholders in development processes (e.g., item review, standard-setting) Active participation in pilot and field testing of all components of the systems Participation in validity and evaluative studies Provision of communication and practice linkages to existing RTTA funded consortia. NCSC GSEG32

Project Management Management team coordinates and oversees work groups Each work group annually selects one or more states to represent them on the management team Ongoing process evaluation to identify challenges and opportunities, bring to management team for action One-on-one quarterly state transition planning TAC meetings Other expert advisory roles NCSC GSEG9/3/201533

Management Team Purpose Monitor and evaluate attainment of goals, objectives, and timelines Identify barriers and solutions to problems encountered by work groups or individual collaborative members Ensure that the research-to-practice efforts honor the contributions, insights, needs, and unique concerns of all collaborative members 9/3/2015NCSC GSEG34

Management Team Process Meet via phone/web monthly, with one face- to-face annual meeting each year, in conjunction with a full project team/state annual face-to-face meeting Full project team/states will meet 2-4 times per year via distance technology as well Support cross-GSEG and RTTA project collaboration 9/3/2015NCSC GSEG35

Developing a system of assessments supported by curriculum, instruction, and professional development to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post-secondary options. For more information, contact Project Director Rachel Quenemoen at or The contents of this presentation were developed under a grant from the Department of Education (PR/Award #: H373X100002, Project Officer, However, the contents do not necessarily represent the policy of the Department of Education and no assumption of endorsement by the Federal government should be 9/3/2015NCSC GSEG36 NCSC GSEG