1. What Impacts Alternate Assessment Scores Presented by Diane M. Browder, PhD UNC Charlotte Ginevra Courtade-Little Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

2. Authors: Diane M. Browder Meagan Karvonen Stephanie Davis University of North Carolina at Charlotte Kathy Fallin Ginevra Courtade-Little Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools

3. Background IDEA 1997, NCLB Alternate assessment process may be used to improve educational programs (Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, et. al., 2003) Limited research that focuses on the relationship between educational programs and alternate assessment outcomes Teachers of students with significant disabilities may feel pressure to improve alternate assessment scores without knowing how to do so The need exists to develop training that relates directly to the requirements of AA and to evaluate this training in the context of real school programs

4. Purpose To determine if training teachers would improve students’ outcome scores on alternate assessments

5. Hypothesis Training teachers on three instructional variables that influence outcomes (curriculum access, data collection, and instructional effectiveness) would increase the alternate assessment scores A manual was developed and used for teacher training that summarized current research on: how to select skills for students with significant disabilities how to develop data collection systems how to improve instruction if students do not make adequate progress

6. Research Questions Does training in curriculum, data collection, and data-based decisions increase alternate assessment scores? Is there evidence the teachers used the instructional skills trained? Is there evidence the students learned new skills? How did the teachers and parents perceive gains made?

7. Method-Setting Charlotte-Mecklenburg Schools Large urban consolidated city-county district served 112,500 students (grades pK-12) 75% of those students were in grades that required testing 294 students participated in the NCAAP (.3% of the assessed population)

8. Method Teachers 27 initially nominated by a school system administrator 93% female 81% Caucasian, 19% African American Experience (0-24ys, M=10yrs) 5 lateral entry teachers Pool was comparable to district as a whole Students Initially 29 selected by teacher and parent nominations 24% female 60% Caucasian, 34% African American, 3% Hispanic, 3% Asian 21% with severe/profound disabilities, 36% with autism, 39% with moderate mental disabilities, 4% with multiple disabilities

9. Method-Intervention North Carolina Alternate Assessment Portfolio Portfolio of evidence collected to demonstrate mastery and generalization of 5 teacher selected IEP goals related to state standard Instructional implications addressed in training Selecting appropriate objectives consistent with state standards Creating data sheets that met state requirements for baseline data and ongoing student performance data Developing instruction that would promote generalization and mastery of the objectives by the turn in deadline

10. Method-Intervention Instructional Components Training Curriculum-Guidelines for reviewing IEP to determine if it provided access to the curricular domains required by the state Data collection-how to develop data collection systems (models provided) Guidelines for making data based decisions

11. Method-Intervention Method of teacher training Teacher training manual Five group inservice days Introduction of project One day devoted to each instructional component Evaluation of the project 3 site visits by project staff to answer questions and model data based decision making process

12. Method-Instrumentation Primary DV-score on the NCAAP assigned by NCDPI Student scores obtained for year prior to intervention and intervention year Scores obtained for comparison group of students in CMS and state To obtain a proficient score Below mastery during baseline At criteria for mastery by the end of the year Maintained criteria for most of the last days of the school year Generalized across people and settings Initiated (unprompted correct or used skill in response to natural cues)

13. Method-Instrumentation Additional variables measured NCAAP portfolio quality score Teacher use of instructional components Data collected on curriculum, data sheets, data based decisions Teacher survey to identify resources used Behavioral data on IEP goals Reliability of teacher data Percentage of growth on skills to determine if criteria was set at an appropriate level Stakeholder Perception Surveys To determine if teachers and parents considered gains made on portfolio objectives important

14. Method-Design Quasi-experimental pretest-posttest design Pretest-scores from year prior to the intervention Post-test scores from intervention year Scores from the students in the school system whose teachers did not participate in the project were used as comparison group to apply a pretest-posttest control group design

15. Results-Impact of Teacher Training on NCAAP scores

16. 2002

17. Results 20012002 nProportion proficient φn φDifference in proportion proficient (02-01) Margin of error h (effect size) Participants83.22.97112.762.12.54.121.15 Comparison group 1198.16.811140.351.28.20.03.47 Did teacher training positively influence the state alternate assessment scores?

18. Results-Teachers’ Use of Instructional Components 92% of teachers mastered the curriculum component 96% mastered the data sheets component 84% mastered the data based decisions component All teachers reported using the training manual and data collection sheets

19. Results-Portfolio quality score Students with teachers in the model 2001-67% adequate or superior 2002-96% adequate or superior Comparison group 2001-42% adequate or superior 2002-71% adequate or superior

20. Results-Meaningful Growth on IEP objectives Median average growth 68.7% Range from 16%-171%

21. Results-Teacher and Parent Perceptions of Gains 84% of teacher respondents reported students made more progress as a result of being in the project 80% of teacher respondents thought that their students had better IEPs because of the project Parents had overall strong, positive impressions of their students’ participating in the project

22. Discussion Provides evidence that AA scores can be improved by training teachers in instructional variables Students in the project had significantly higher scores than the previous year High rates of proficiency were supported by behavioral data

23. Generalizability of Findings Generalizable to a wide range of students with severe disabilities due to teacher training overriding the influence of student characteristics Generalizable to any AA system with a primary focus on student acquisition of skills

24. Limitation of findings Use of quasiexperimental design with all students in the Charlotte region not in the project serving as the control group Possible selection bias Instrumentation used to document student progress and performance (changes in way portfolios were scored from year to year)

25. Recommendations for Future Research Teacher training to meet changing curricular demands (assessment of students on specific LA and math standards) Teacher buy in to AA process Validation that AA outcomes reflect educationally significant student learning

26. Recommendations for Practice Use of collected data to make instructional decisions Training in : Data collection How to enhance student gains How to teach and assess language arts, math, and science