1. Prepared by Jan Sheinker, Ed.D Points of view or opinions expressed in the paper are not necessarily those of the U.S. Department of Education, or Offices within it.

2. General Education Achievement Standards systemA system that operationalizes and further defines content standards by how wellwhat connecting them to information that describes “how well” students are doing in learning “what” content standards specify standards and our judgments of student success in achieving them.A Bridge between grade-level content standards and our judgments of student success in achieving them.

3. FROM: Handbook for Professional Development in Assessment Literacy, Jan Sheinker and Doris Redfield

6. “Same as” Alternate Assessments for students with disabilities For NCLB at least reading/language arts and mathematics “Same” state grade-level content Substantially the “Same” state grade-level achievement descriptors “Same” level of proficiency as regular assessment for the same grade. Different assessment procedures, BUT  Evidence of comparability  Results aggregable with results from regular assessment

7. “Extended from” Alternate Assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities For NCLB at least reading/language arts and mathematics Achievement standards are substantially different but not wholly independent of the State grade- level academic content standards  Clearly related to grade-level content BUT  Reduced in scope or complexity OR modified to reflect pre-requisite skills

8. “Same as”“extended from” What’s the difference? “Same as” versus “extended from” What’s the difference? Content Standards General Assessment Cut Scores  Achievement Labels & Descriptors “Same as” Alternate Assessment Cut Scores Extended Content Standards  Achievement Labels & Descriptors Cut Scores

9.  Aligned with the State’s challenging content standards  At least two levels of high performance  A third level of performance to provide complete information on the progress of lower- performing students. General Achievement Levels  “Same as” alternate = same levels as general assessment  “Extended from” alternate = At least two levels for  Proficient  Not proficient Alternate Achievement Levels

10. Elements of the Development Process for Alternate Achievement Standards Begin from state academic content standards for grade in which student is enrolled Adapt or extend standards to reflect teaching and learning for students with significant cognitive disabilities Draft proposed achievement descriptors Assess students and score results against draft achievement descriptors and preliminary scoring criteria Set achievement standards

11. ALTERNATE ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS Standardize meaning Create consistency in expected performance Emphasis extensions of/links to content Ground alternate assessments Create “one size fits all” Specify a single expression of content learning Function as the IEP DO DO NOT

12. BROAD PARTICIPATION State standard-setting panel reflects the diversity of the state’s population –Educators –Special populations Public input and comment Formal State approval

13. Using Exemplars Evidence of student performance –What evidence is acceptable to substantiate level of achievement? Decision rules and weighting –What are the rules for categorizing student achievement? –What is the relative value of various performances? Categorizing student responses rather than items into achievement levels –Variability of content tasks –Degree of independence and generalization across settings

14. Key Requirements Differentiate content from achievement standards Differentiate proficiency by age/grade to depict escalating expectations Structured assessment design Content link Technical Quality requirements

15. Technical Quality in Alternate Assessment Achievement standards –aligned to extended content standards or –extended from grade level content standards Structured assessment design Comparability/consistency –Across scorers –In application of scoring criteria –In analysis and reporting Documented validity and reliability

16. RESOURCES Designing and Implementing Standards-Based Accountability Systems. (1998) ECS: Denver, CO. Hansche, Linda (1998). Handbook for the Development of Performance Standards: Meeting the Requirements of Title I. USDE and CCSSO: Washington, D.C. Linn, Robert L. & Herman, Joan L. (1997). A Policymaker’s Guide to Standards-Led Assessment. CRESST and ECS: Denver, CO. Jaeger, Richard M. & Tucker, Charlene G. (1998). Analyzing, Disaggregating, Reporting, and Interpreting Students' Achievement Test Results: A Guide to Practice for Title I and Beyond. Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, D.C. Sheinker, Jan M. & Redfield, Doris (2001). Handbook for Professional Development on Assessment Literacy. Council of Chief State School Officers: Washington, D.C.