1. IEP Team Decision-Making Eligibility Tool
Background of tool and history.
In January, 2009, the Education Advocacy Coalition for Students with Disabilities (EAC), a statewide group of organizations and individuals with an interest in special education issues affecting students with disabilities across the state of Maryland, shared with the Maryland State Department of Education (MSDE), Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services (DSE/EIS) issues related to the decision making process for the Alternate Maryland School Assessment (Alt-MSA).  Specifically, the EAC noted its perception that: there are students who are not among the most severely cognitively impaired who are inappropriately identified as eligible for the Alt-MSA, that there are students taking the Alt-MSA who are unnecessarily segregated into separate placements, and that parents do not always understand that participation in the Alt-MSA means that their children will receive a Certificate of Program Completion, not a Maryland High School Diploma. 
In response to these issues, the MSDE, DSE/EIS established an Alternate Assessment Eligibility Workgroup, charged with the following:  Provide clarification to IEP teams regarding the criteria and the process the IEP teams shall use to determine the eligibility for the Maryland Alternate (Alt-MSA) and Modified Assessments (Mod-MSA) for student with disabilities.  The members of the group consisted of representatives from local school systems, specifically Alt-MSA facilitators and Mod-facilitators, nonpublic schools as well as advocacy and community members from organizations with an interest in special education in the State of Maryland.  The documents were vetted through the Alt-MSA facilitator group and Alt-MSA Stakeholder Advisory Committee.  The final report was accepted by Carol Ann Heath in November The TA Bulletin #17 and Tool were developed by MSDE based on the recommendations of the Alt-MSA Criteria Eligibility Workgroup.
Alt-MSA Eligibility

2. Why Complete this Tool?
The IEP Team is required to determine assessment participation
Parental guardian involvement is documented
The tool provides a guide for the IEP Team’s decision-making process
As part of the IEP Process, the IEP team is required to plan for the student’s participation in the assessment(s) to be administered during the term of the current IEP.
The student’s IEP team, which includes the parent/guardian, determines how the student will participate in Maryland’s assessment program.
This tool has been developed for IEP teams to guide them in the decision making process for determining if Alt-MSA is an appropriate assessment for a student.
The tool allows the IEP team to review and answer questions about each of the participation criteria. The tool uses criteria descriptors and additional requirements, which provides additional guidance to IEP teams in understanding the criteria for Alt-MSA.

3. Why Complete this Tool?
The IEP Team is encouraged to use the Alt-MSA IEP Team Decision-Making Process Eligibility Tool for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to determine if the Alt-MSA is the appropriate assessment
The tool uses multiple sources of information to document the assessment decision
The tool provides documentation for the Alt-MSA Monitoring Process
This tool ensures that IEP teams will review and discuss multiple sources of information, including psychological assessments, classroom observations, formal and informal assessment data, and curricular content for evidence of a significant cognitive disability and the participation criteria for Alt-MSA.
The Alt-MSA tool may assist in the Alt-MSA monitoring process to ensure the appropriate identification of students participating in the Alt-MSA.  Without the tool, the results of the MSDE audit may not fully represent the process. If a system does not appropriately  document eligibility during this year’s audit, the tool will be required as part of a corrective action.

4. Alt-MSA Monitoring Process
In January 2010, MSDE will be conducting an audit of each student identified as participating in the Alternate Maryland School Assessment (Alt-MSA)
In each of the local school systems that are implementing the Maryland Online IEP, the monitoring process is conducted as a desk monitoring process since the DSE/EIS has full access to the data included in the Maryland Online IEP
Local school systems not using the Maryland Online IEP, the DSE/EIS provides the Local school systems with several options to share the monitoring documentation with MSDE
Options to share the monitoring documentation with MSDE, if you are not a school system on the MD IEP Online system.
Scan the IEPs to PDF and send them electronically to be posted to the secure server (in the SSIS/To MSDE folder)
Send hard copies of each student’s IEP to the DSE/EIS at MSDE
Schedule a date and time for MSDE to visit each school system to review IEPs
Provide MSDE with a username and password to access your local school system’s online IEP system

5. Alt-MSA Monitoring Process
A team of experienced consultants review the IEPs for compliance on meeting the eligibility requirements for participation in the Alt-MSA
The Alt-MSA tool may assist in the Alt-MSA monitoring process to ensure the appropriate identification of students participating in the Alt-MSA.  Without the tool, the results of the audit may not fully represent the process
If a system does not appropriately  document eligibility during this year’s audit, the tool will be required as part of a corrective action

6. Getting Started Complete Demographic Page
LSS Number: Local School System
SASID#: State Assigned Student Identification Number
IEP Team Chairperson will sign the document once it is completed.
It will be up to the local school system to  determine what portions of the tool will assist IEP teams in identifying the appropriate assessment for a student.  When using the tool, the IEP Team may also refer to any information that may already be located in the IEP. 

7. Team Members
It is an IEP Team decision when determining the appropriate assessment for a student
IEP Team members should sign the tool to indicated their participation in the IEP decision-making process
If during the IEP team meeting, the team will be reviewing assessment results, the local school system needs to designate who is the individual(s) qualified to interpret and discuss those assessment results
A student’s IEP Team will make the decision as to which assessment a student will take by reviewing each assessment’s participation guidelines as developed by the state
A student’s disability or placement must not determine which assessment the student will take
There is no limit on the number of students taking any particular assessment
IEP teams must:
Know the differences between the MSA, Mod-MSA or Mod-HSA, Alt-MSA .
It is important for all team members to be familiar with assessments when making assessment decisions. The IEP Team must know the eligibility criteria for each state assessment.

8. Characteristics of Assessment
Review Maryland’s Differences Among Assessment Handout
In the 2007 federal non-regulatory guidance for modified academic achievement standards, IEP teams must be provided with a clear explanation of the differences between the general grade-level assessments, and assessments based on Modified Academic Achievement Standards (Mod-MSA or Mod-HSA), and Alternate Achievement Standards (Alt-MSA).
The MSDE developed a document titled, “Maryland’s Differences Among Assessments Chart for Students Receiving Special Education Services.” The chart outlines the differences between the Maryland School Assessments and High School Assessments (MSA/HSA); Modified Assessments (Mod-MSA/Mod-HSA); and Alternate Assessments (Alt-MSA).
The MSDE has requested that local school systems disseminate the chart to each school in the school system, stressing the necessity of using this valuable resource to support assessment decisions that are made during the IEP team process. Check to make sure each participant has seen this chart.
This chart should be a handout for this training.

9. Parent Understanding
Fully inform parents of the impact this decision would make or have on their child’s progress toward earning a Maryland High School Diploma
Parents are informed that the decision is made annually for the assessed year
If the parent/guardian does not attend the IEP meeting, they must be informed that the meeting was held and the decisions made
Give several examples of annual review dates and participation throughout the year. For example, annual review is October of 2nd grade year.
The parent and team need to make sure that they understand the impact of the decision as far as the child receiving a diploma.
When a student is determined eligible to participate in the Alt-MSA, the student will be eligible for a Maryland Certificate of Program Completion. If a student continues to participate in the Alt-MSA, he/she will likely not be eligible for a high school diploma because his/her educational program will not prepare him/her to meet the requirements for a high school diploma.
Students pursuing a Maryland High School Diploma shall complete the requirements for graduation, including enrollment, credits, service learning, additional local requirements, if applicable, and assessments. [COMAR 13A B] The decision to award a student with disabilities a Maryland High School Certificate of Program Completion will not be made until after the beginning of the student’s last year in high school unless the student is participating in the alternative Maryland School Assessment Program (Alt-MSA). [COMAR 13A D (3)]
Refer to TA Bulletin #17, Question #11 for additional information.

10. Significant Cognitive Disability
The Alt-MSA Decision-Making Process

11. Significant Cognitive Disability
IDEA defines intellectual disability, formerly mental retardation, as
". . . significantly sub-average general intellectual functioning, existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behavior and manifested during the developmental period, that adversely affects a child's educational performance." [34 Code of Federal Regulations §300.8(c)(6)]
When making this determination, the IEP team should review all information available pertaining to the cognitive and adaptive skills of the student.

12. Significant Cognitive Disability
Intellectual functioning, or IQ, is usually measured by a test called an IQ test. The average score is 100. Those students who have scores below 70 to 75 are thought to have an intellectual disability
Therefore, those students with the most significant cognitive disability may have scores at or significantly below the 70 IQ range
The IEP team must determine the impact of the cognitive disability on the student’s academic performance

13. Significant Cognitive Disability
Intellectual Disability 
IQ level
Mild
50-55 to approximately 70 to 75
Moderate   
  35-40 to 50-55
Severe  
20-25 to 35-40
Profound
below 20-25
Keep in mind that a student with a score of 70 to 75 would be a rare case. The exception not the rule! Consider describing a case of a TBI student as an example.

14. Significant Cognitive Disability
MSDE has not identified a specific IQ score for this group, in TA Bulletin #17 guidance is given on what a score might be when an IEP team is looking at multiple sources of information.  
An IQ score is only one of the sources used to make the determination as to whether a student is a student with a significant cognitive disability. The determination is not made by one specific test score or source, but an IEP team should take into consideration multiple sources of information, including adaptive skills, when determining a student with the most significant cognitive disability. 

15. Significant Cognitive Disability
Students who may have variable results on IQ tests, may be determined a student with the most significant cognitive disability when multiple sources are reviewed.  
Teams should not use a categorical determination when determining a “significant cognitive delay”
Define a categorical determination for the audience.
A student evaluated and determined by an IEP team to be a student with a disability , who, because of the disability requires special education and related services:
Autism,
Deaf-blindness,
Deafness,
Developmental delay1
Emotional disturbance,
Hearing impairment,
Intellectual disability,
Multiple disabilities,2
Orthopedic impairment,
Other health impairment,
Specific learning disability,
Speech or language impairment,
Traumatic brain injury, or
Visual impairment, including blindness
Therefore, a team would not indicate that because a student is a student with autism, they will take the Alt-MSA. Or, because a student is a student with orthopedic impairments, the student will take the Alt-MSA. The determination of a significant cognitive disability requires the IEP Team to look at multiple sources of data.

16. The Alt-MSA Decision-Making Process
Eligibility Criteria
The Alt-MSA Decision-Making Process

17. Eligibility Criteria
IEP Chairperson needs to assure all necessary multiple sources of information are available to guide the decision making process
What are multiple sources of information?
Sources of information that document academic achievement to guide the decision making process. Those sources may include the following:
Current IEP
Results from informal and formal assessments
Data gathered from classroom assessments
Information from parent/student

18. Eligibility Criteria
The process begins by reviewing the criteria for eligibility, the IEP Team first needs to determine if the student has a significant cognitive disability
Descriptor:
Review of student’s school records indicate that he/she has a moderate, severe, profound disability that significantly impact cognitive function and behavior or multiple disabilities that significantly impact cognitive function and adaptive behavior.

19. Eligibility Criteria The IEP Team needs to consider the following:
The term significant cognitive disability is a designation given to a small number of Maryland students with disabilities for purposes of their participation in the statewide assessment program
The IEP team must review and discuss multiple sources of information, including psychological assessments, assessments of adaptive skills, classroom observations, formal and informal assessment data, curricular content for evidence of a significant cognitive disability

20. Eligibility Criteria Individual Cognitive Ability Test
The IEP Team will need to document the evaluation review of cognitive/adaptive ability when making this determination
Individual Cognitive Ability Test
Adaptive Behavior Skills Assessment
An IEP Team can choose to complete this section of the tool by copying the information from the IEP or note on this tool the page(s) the IEP Team can refer to in order to locate the information in the IEP.
The IEP Team must review all Total Scores and Component Scores. Provide Standard Scores Only when completing the tool.
If documentation in one of the requested areas is not available, a detailed explanation is required in the space provided.
Include any medical or other information that may have prevented administration of the assessment in the requested areas.

21. Eligibility Criteria The IEP Team must answer yes to all criteria
If the IEP Team disagrees/answers no, the team
must using this eligibility tool and consider if the student is eligible for participation in the regular MSA or HSA with accommodations or use the IEP Team Decision-Making Process Eligibility Tool for determining participation in the Modified MSA/HSA
Elaborate on your districts interpretation of disagree .
The Team must come to consensus.
Any disagreements can and should be documented in the space provided on the last page of the tool.

22. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #1
The student is learning (at emerging, readiness, or functional literacy levels) extended Maryland reading, extended Maryland mathematics, and extended Maryland science content standards
Look at multiple data points in order to consider if a student is eligible to be considered Alt-MSA under this criteria.
educational history
Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance
IEP goals and objectives
curriculum based assessments
types of supports/strategies/interventions the student was exposed to
documentation of use of research/evidenced based intervention
Define evidence/research based assessments and give examples
Research-Based is based on multiple, systematic investigations, testing, and evaluation, designed to develop or contribute to generalizable knowledge.
Evidenced-Based is an instructional program or collection of practices that have been tested and shown to have a record of success. That is, reliable, trustworthy, and valid evidence indicates that when that program or set of practices is used, students can be expected to make adequate gains in academic achievement.

23. Eligibility Criteria #1 Descriptor
All students access the Maryland State Curriculum (SC) or Core Learning Goals (CLG). There are no separate extended content standards in Maryland
The content learning objectives and expected outcomes for the student are extended to focus on the emerging, readiness (prerequisite) and/or functional (real life) application of the general curriculum
The student is substantially below grade level expectations even with documented participation in research-based interventions over multiple years in all content standard areas
The team should refer to the IEP and explain how the IEP goals and objectives are often back mapped from a state standard.
Show examples of grade level expectation and student’s current functioning level.

24. Activity
Show examples of grade level expectation and student’s current functioning level.
The presenter(s) can use copy this screen into other portions of the power point when wanting to have an activity included.

25. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #2
The student requires explicit and ongoing instruction in functional skills.
Define functional skills-
Skills that are used in everyday life, in various environments. Functional skills focus on different areas such as personal management/self help/grooming/health, community involvement, recreation/leisure, career/employment/vocational, communication/decision making/interpersonal skills.
Review IEP for evidence that student has received or is receiving instruction/support in functional skills.
Give examples of where to find this information in the IEP such as-Present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, goals & objectives and/or Supplementary Aides and Services/Program Modifications

26. Eligibility Criteria #2 Descriptor
The student has substantial deficits in adaptive behavior*, such that the student has difficulty demonstrating independence in everyday living skills, including interpersonal and social interactions across multiple settings
*Adaptive Behavior is defined as essential for someone to live independently and to function safely in daily life. Adaptive behaviors include “real” life skills such as grooming, dressing, safety, ability to work, money management, and social and personal responsibility
Explain that a student’s confidential file contains assessments in regard to adaptive behavior.

27. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #3
The student requires extensive and substantial modification (e.g., reduced complexity of objectives and learning materials, and more time to learn) of general education curriculum Curriculum activities differ significantly from that of their non-disabled peers. They learn different materials, and may participate in different learning activities
The classroom structure and presentation of instruction for a student who may participate in Alt-MSA different.
The students typically require extensive supports including the use of concrete object representation, picture communication symbols or extensive assistive technology support for symbol use in order to participate and access classroom instruction. Students typically use key words, pictures, and auditory cues embedded in adapted or controlled text, or need a text reader to use these clues.
They may also require motivation through choice making to express responses. The classroom lesson pacing is different as is the pacing for individual students through classroom differentiation.
Their response method is most often through minimal writing or use of a bingo marker or markings made on a paper, pointing to pictures, manipulation of objects, activation of a switch, eye gaze or blinking to demonstrate what they know.
Site how activities the student may be participating in may look as opposed to grade level activities.

28. Eligibility Criteria #3 Descriptor
The modifications needed by the student to participate in the regular assessment would compromise the validity of the test
The objectives written for the student in the designated content areas(s) are significantly less complex than the grade level expectation, the curriculum is significantly modified and instructional pacing is significantly reduced, making the regular MSA/HSA or Modified MSA/HSA, even with accommodations, inappropriate for the student
The assessment artifact differs from a grade level performance task, usually based on a very limited sample of content that is linked to but does not fully represent grade level content. This content may be the prerequisite skills needed to ensure access to the grade level content.

29. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #4
The student requires intensive instruction and may require extensive supports, including physical prompts, to learn, apply, and transfer or generalize knowledge and skills across multiple settings
When reviewing this criteria, consider the following questions:
What prompt system is being used for instruction? If necessary for audience background knowledge, review prompt system for instructional use as defined in Alt-MSA handbook.
How does the student access information? Augmentative Communication, Switches, etc.
What are extensive supports being used for the student?

30. Eligibility Criteria #4 Descriptor
The student requires substantial, repeated, individualized instruction with extensive supports such as substantially adapted and modified materials, instructional prompting systems, individualized methods of accessing information in alternative ways such as tactile, visual, auditory, and multi-sensory, across multiple settings to acquire, maintain, generalize and demonstrate performance of skills
What is substantially adapted? Group Discussion
Give or have audience give concrete examples of classroom work and transfer skills to another class or community:
The student is working on number recognition and counting in the classroom, however, when the student gets to his/her motor development /gym class they have difficulty transferring that skill when participating in their motor/gym activity.
Student learns to count change to $1 in classroom, but can not transfer the task when in the store.

31. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #5
The student requires extensive support to perform and participate meaningfully and productively in daily activities in school, home, community, and work environments
Include parental input when discussing criteria #5. Talk about the strengths and weaknesses of the student in these areas. The team should discuss in depth the multiple settings that a student participates in on a daily, weekly, monthly basis and the amount of support required
Activity –scenarios to understand

32. Eligibility Criteria #5 Descriptor
The student requires intensive systematic instruction across multiple settings with tasks broken into small steps for all learning outcomes
The student is dependent on others, for some or all daily activities with the expectation that the student will require extensive ongoing support in adulthood
Discussion with examples on what is intensive systematic instruction
Discussion with examples of extensive ongoing supports in adulthood

33. Eligibility Criteria Did the IEP Team answer YES to ALL the criteria?
If YES, then proceed to the
Additional Requirements on the Tool.
If NO, then using this form and consider the student eligible for participation in the regular MSA/Mod-MSA or HSA/Mod-HSA with accommodations.

34. Additional Requirements
Adjust this part of the presentation based on your locals decision to use this portion of the tool.
Discuss why this next section is important, MSDE has found that there are students identified for Alt-MSA based on these requirements. Share any trends found in your local regarding students being inappropriately identified for Alt-MSA based on any one of these additional requirements.
The Alt-MSA Decision-Making Process

35. Additional Requirements
If an IEP Team responded YES to All the criteria listed in the tool, then the IEP Team must also answer YES to ALL of the additional requirements, in order for the student to be appropriately identified as student to participate in Alt-MSA.
Typically, you don’t see documents written with “Yes- it is not” –when you read this section think about it this way “ Do you agree with this statement?”

36. Additional Requirements
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is not based on a specific categorical label and/or educational placement.
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is an IEP team decision, and the decision is NOT being made for administrative purposes and/or anticipated impact on local school system and/or school performance scores.

37. Additional Requirements
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is NOT based on deafness/blindness, visual, auditory, physical and/or emotional behavioral disabilities
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is NOT based on language, social, cultural, or economic differences
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is NOT based solely on the fact that the student’s instructional reading level is below the grade level of the regular MSA/HSA or Modified MSA/HSA to be administered

38. Additional Requirements
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is NOT based on the fact that the student is expected to perform poorly on the regular MSA/HSA or Modified MSA /HSA
The decision for participating in the Alt-MSA is NOT based on the fact that the student is expected to experience significant test anxiety under regular testing conditions, even with the provision of accommodations or based on the high probability that the student will demonstrate disruptive behaviors during the regular MSA/HSA or Modified MSA/HSA as a result of this significant test anxiety

39. Eligibility Criteria
If the student meets or exceeds the standards on previous alternate assessments, the IEP Team should consider participation in the MSA or Mod-MSA or HSA or Mod-HSA with accommodations
Talk about what this statement means-an advanced score on the Alt-MSA one year, doesn’t mean you can’t continue to be eligible for Alt-MSA the next year, if the student continues to meet the six eligibility criteria.
Although a student may be proficient/advanced on previous assessments, the team needs to consider current functioning on classroom instruction and assessments.

40. Eligibility Criteria Criteria #6 YES/Agree NO/Disagree
As documented through the eligibility criteria and additional requirements listed above, the student cannot participate in the regular MSA/HSA or Modified MSA/HSA even with accommodations
YES/Agree
NO/Disagree
Reference that this is the 6th criteria as found in the handbook. On this form, it has been placed after the first five criteria and additional requirements have been considered.

41. Additional Requirements
If any or all criteria or additional requirements are identified as “NO” using the form!
The student does not meet the eligibility criteria for the Alt-MSA participation. The student will not participate in this assessment

42. Eligibility Decision
If the IEP Team determines that all eligibility criteria and additional requirement statements are identified as “YES”, then the student is eligible to participate in the Alt-MSA

43. IEP Team Decision
Ensure that the IEP Team has documented the decision on this form and in the IEP
Document disagreement by any team member.
If parent disagrees, provide copy of the Parental Rights Handbook and inform of due process rights

44. Documenting the appropriate assessment in the IEP
IEP Teams need to indicate YES or NO to all applicable Statewide assessments, in which the student will participate, including the applicable content areas on the student’s IEP

45. Maryland’s Statewide Online
This is where you document the appropriate assessment
A required text field for an IEP team to provide additional information to document the basis of the IEP team’s decision. If addressed properly, documentation will meet requirements of prior written notice (PWN), in accordance with 34 C.F.R. § and COMAR 13A , PWN includes:
A description of the action proposed or refused;
An explanation of why the public agency proposes or refuses to take the action;
A description of the options the public agency considered and the reason the options were rejected;
A description of each assessment procedure, test, record, or report the public agency uses as a basis for the proposal or refusal;
A description of any other factors relevant to the proposed or refused action;
A list of sources a parent may contact to obtain assistance in understanding the provisions of IDEA; and
If an action proposed by a public agency also requires parental consent, a public agency may provide notice at the same time it requests consent.
[20 U.S.C §1415; 34 C.F.R. § ; COMAR 13A ]
This is where you document why the assessment was determined appropriate