1. A presentation of methods and selected results 1

2. Policy, Validity Framework, Study Design 2

3. 3  “Has the State ascertained that the decisions based on the results of its assessments are consistent with the purposes for which the assessments were designed?”  “Has the State ascertained whether the assessment produces intended and unintended consequences?”

4. State the intended consequences Define the evidence that supports each consequence Collect data to ascertain the intended consequences Collect data to ascertain the unintended consequences 4

5. 1. Teacher and administrator motivation and effort will be evident. 2. Professional development support will be provided. 3. Instruction and curriculum will be adapted. 4. Student motivation and effort will be evident. 5. Performance will improve and be related to the changes above. 5

6. 6. Access to augmentative and alternative communication will be improved. 7. Parental involvement in student’s academic career will be increased. 6

7. Teacher Surveys Classroom Observation Administrator Surveys 7

8. Arguments Stakeholders Design Stratify Random Cluster Sample Pilot Version 1 Version 2 Collect Data 8

9. CFA Rasch Scaling Prepare Data Descriptive Logistic Regression Analyze Evidence of Consequential Validity Conclude? 9

10. Teaching IEP Development Student Profile Identify Elements Modified NAAC Observation Tool Observe Does Classroom Observation align with survey results? Evaluate 10

11. Student Performance (Slope of Change) Contextual Variables (Relatively Stable) Evidential Variables (Slope of Change) 11

12. CONTEXTUAL VARIABLESEVIDENTIAL VARIABLES  Gender  Race  SES  Grade/Age  School Size  LEP  Teacher* familiarity  Teacher attitudes and beliefs  Professional development  Instruction in content areas  Access to AAC  Parent involvement 12 *Includes administrators

13. GENERAL EDUCATIONSPECIAL EDUCATION  A history of assessment  Adequate psychometric methods to construct and evaluate assessments  Academic instruction is the foundation of education  In the absence of disability, opportunity to learn and do well on the assessment  Assessment is relatively new  Limited psychometric methods to construct and evaluate assessments  Academic instruction is special education reform  Limited opportunity to learn 13

14. Background, Structure, Future 14

15. Marilyn Roberts Michigan Department of Education Lynda Balmer-Lupp Pennsylvania Department of Education Sandra Berndt & Eva Kubinski Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction

16. Michigan’s Alternate Assessment Program 16

17. 17  A 3 tiered approach to AA-AAS  2002 – Development and Administration of Participation (P) and Supported Independence (SI) levels of Mi-Access  2005 – Development and Administration of Functional Independence (FI) levels of the Mi-Access  2007-2008 – Administered First FI Science Assessment  2007 – 2008 – Mi-Access revised to align with MI content standards

18.  Type of Assessment:  Subjects Assessed:  Grades Administered :  Administration:  Response formats:  Scoring: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science (R, M) 3 – 8, 11; (S) 5, 8, 11 Individual Multiple choice & constructed response Video Tape, Primary & Shadow Scorers 18

19.  Common Core Alignment  Learning Progressions or Other Structure?  State Consortia?

20. Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment 20

21. 21  A 3 tiered approach to AA-AAS  2000 – PASA Reading & Math Administered to grades 5, 8, & 11  2002 - 2005 – Grades 3, 4, 6, & 7 Added  2005– PASA scores counted toward AYP  2007 – PASA Science Administered to grades 4, 8, & 11

22.  Type of Assessment:  Subjects Assessed:  Grades Administered :  Administration:  Response formats:  Scoring: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science (R, M) 3 – 8, 11; (S) 4, 8, 11 Individual Multiple choice & constructed response Video Tape, Scoring Conference 22

23.  PA has adopted the Common Core Standards  PA has incorporated Learning Progressions into the Standards Aligned System  PA is participating in a Consortia for the 1%-Alternate Assessment

24. Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities 24

25.  1998 - Alternate Performance Indicators (APIs)  Original WAA-SwD based on APIs  2006 WAA-SwD does not pass peer review  April 2007 – Development of Extended Grade Band Standards  January 2008 – Revised WAA-SwD Administered, an on-demand, performance-based AA-AAS 25

26.  Type of Assessment:  Subjects Assessed:  Grades Administered :  Administration:  Response formats: Performance Based Reading, Math, Science 3 – 8, 10 (R, M); 4, 8, 10 (S) Individual Multiple choice & constructed response 26

27.  Common Core Alignment  Learning Progressions or Other Structure?  State Consortia?

28. Descriptive Data and Frequency Counts 28

29. Teachers are familiar with the assessment 29

30. 30

31. 31

32. What are attitudes and beliefs toward the assessment? 32

33. 33 *Results are similar for math & science

34. 34

35. 35

36. From a list generated from the pilot study 36

37. 37

38. Professional development opportunities are being provided 38

39. 39

40. Curriculum is aligned with the State’s Alternate Academic Standards 40

41. 41 * Results are similar for math & science

42. READINGSCIENCE 42

43. READINGSCIENCE 43

44. Students are motivated to learn the material and do well on the assessment 44

45. 45

46. Student scores are improving as a result of these factors 46

47. 47

48. DIRECTOR OF C & ISUPERINTENDENT 48

49. PRINCIPALDIRECTOR OF SPECIAL ED 49

50. Marilyn Roberts Michigan Department of Education Lynda Balmer-Lupp Pennsylvania Department of Education Sandra Berndt & Eva Kubinski Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction