meeting nclb act: students with disabilities who are caught in the gap martha thurlow ross moen jane...

Meeting NCLB Act: Students with Disabilities Who Are

Caught in the GapMartha Thurlow

Ross MoenJane Minnema

National Center on Educational Outcomeshttp://education.umn.edu/nceo

Sue RigneyU.S. Department of Education

http://www.ed.gov

CCSSO, 2004Boston, MA

Session Plan

• Background – NCLB and the “Gap”

• Out-of-level testing realities

• Current psychometric thinkings

• What IS a state to do?!

• Q & A Session

Purpose

“…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal, and significant opportunity to obtain a high-quality education and reach, at a minimum, proficiency on challenging State academic achievement standards and state academic assessments”

Progress over time

Safe Harbor

AYP combines

TestData

% Proficient + AdvancedAND

95% tested

Progress over time

12 Years to 100% Proficient Intermediate goals

Annual measurable objectives

Within a Content Area

Other Data

States’ “Gap” Problem??

• General assessment without accommodations

• General assessment with accommodations

<<<< Something in between?>>>>

• Alternate assessment (≤ 1 proficient)

States’ Responses Have Been Forms of

Out-of-Level Testing

• Off-Level• Modified

Assessment• Performance Level• Challenge Down• Levels Testing

• Alternate Assessment

• Adaptive Testing• Instructional Level• Functional Level• Alternative

Assessment

Definition Issues

• The administration of a test at a level that is above or below the student’s grade level in school

ASES SCASS (1999)

• Typically, only students with disabilities tested below the grade in which their same-age peers are enrolled

• States continue to use varying definitions!

National Status of Out-of-Level Testing

• For 2002 – 2003, 18 states tested out of level in large-scale assessment programs

New Pattern!• Currently, 8 states have

discontinued or are doing so

One State’s Prevalence Data Prevalence data available for both enrollment grade and grade at which tested.

o Approximately 30% of special education students were tested out of level in reading and math, and approximately 20% in writing

o How far below grade students were tested spread as grade level increased:

Enrolled grade 8: 44% tested gr 6; 40% tested gr 4; 16% tested gr 2

Enrolled grade 4: 68% tested gr 4; 32% tested gr 2

One State’s Data Interpretation

Performance data showed from 5% to 35% of students performed at goal level on the below grade level test – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test

For example:

35% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 2 reading test performed at goal level

5% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 6 math test performed at goal level

One State’s Out-of-Level Test Data Use

• Interpreted as TOO MANY tested at TOO LOW of a test level

• Developed training with specific out-of-level testing focus

• Challenged teachers to raise assessment expectations!

NRT View at 50%8

7

6

5

4

3

Pe

rform

an

ce

Sta

nd

ard

s

3 4 5 6 7 8Content Standards

NRT View at 25%8

7

6

5

4

3

Pe

rform

an

ce

Sta

nd

ard

s

3 4 5 6 7 8Content Standards

Vertical Equating8

7

6

5

4

3

Pe

rform

an

ce

Sta

nd

ard

s

3 4 5 6 7 8Content Standards

Vertical Equating Challenges

• Statistics– Error variance: A score on one test equates

to a range of scores on another test.

• Content– Construct differences: Could predict

mathematics scores from reading scores.

OOLT Alignment Study

• Nine states interviewed in Spring 2003

• Only two relate out-of-level test results to enrolled grade performance– One = psychometric support for single

grade difference– One = human judgment with rubrics

Testing Without Aligning to Enrolled Grade

• Cannot help meet AYP

• Is it a legitimate, humane way to meet 95% participation requirements or a violation of NCLB intent?

• What can be done psychometrically?

8

7

6

5

4

3

Pe

rform

an

ce

Sta

nd

ard

s

3 4 5 6 7 8Content Standards

Standards Based Assessment

8

7

6

5

4

3

Pe

rform

an

ce

Sta

nd

ard

s

3 4 5 6 7 8Content Standards

Universal or Accommodated Standards Based Assessment

Psychometric Limitations

• Psychometric improvements can only remove barriers to seeing which students are proficient

• Changing actual proficiency requires something else

Research Findings Regarding Out-of-Level Testing

• Number of research studies conducted at NCEO on out-of-level testing

• The most recent:– Prevalence Study– Reporting Study– Alignment Study– Case Studies

NCLB and Out-of-Level Testing• “In order to improve instruction and achievement for all

students with disabilities, the Department expects States to assess as many students as possible with academic assessments aligned to regular achievement standards.”

• Out-of-level assessments aligned with alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities may be considered alternate assessments (fall within 1.0 Percent Cap for proficient and advanced scores)

(Federal Register, 2003)

To Reduce the Use of Out-of-Level Tests:

• Provide students access to the general curriculum

• Develop universally designed assessments

• Ensure that all teachers set high expectations for all students and understand the State’s academic content standards

(Federal Register, 2003)

How do NCEO recommendations align with

NCLB regulations?

• Introduce more appropriate assessments (i.e., universal design)

• Advocate for grade-level instruction and high expectations for ALL students

• Clear and thorough reporting of all test results and inclusion in accountability programs

• Call for reduction in out-of-level testing through policy and implementation change

Easy to say …

… but what can we REALLY DO??!!

NCEO’s Responses at End of Out-of-Level Testing Project

#1 – Identify students in “gap”

#2 – Restructure current thinking

#3 – Understand large-scale assessments

#4 – Use of accommodations

#5 – Raise teacher expectations

#6 – Provide high-quality training

#1 - States’ “Gap” Conundrum

• Who are these students?

• Can states identify these students?

• Similar subgroup of students across states?

• Change from year to year?

• Different students by grade, disability category, general vs. special education?

#2 - Re-think at State, District, and School Levels

Not a child issue

More than an assessment issue

An INSTRUCTIONAL issue!

Need to think critically about how to augment instruction!

#3 - Understanding Purpose of Large-Scale Assessments

Commonly used rationale for out-of-level testing is the more precise and accurate use for instructional decision making.

Thurlow & Minnema, 2001

But …

Time for a Test!

NCLB does NOT require student accountability (e.g., graduation exams to get diploma).

NCLB does require SYSTEM level accountability to ensure all students learn to high levels.

#4 - Accommodations Use

Anecdotal evidence of teacher confusion about accommodations

Little use of states’ accommodations policies

Now … real data!

Most Frequently Used in Testing

• Special education teachers said:– Extended (extra) time– Small group or individual administration– Test items read aloud– Directions read aloud– Alternate setting

However …

25% of teachers said they did not know

which accommodations were considered nonstandard in their state.

n = ~ 750

% Not Knowing Standard vs. % Not Knowing Standard vs. Nonstandard by AccommodationNonstandard by Accommodation

• Read aloud (67%)• Calculator (67%)• Spell check or dictionary (46%)• Scribe (32%)• Visual cues on test (20%)• Extended/extra time (17%)

#5 - Raise Instruction AND Assessment Expectations! Counter inconsistencies in practice

Grade of enrollment drove out-of-level testing decision Language arts and math teachers used out-of-level test

criteria differently

Think in terms of entire school systemAdministratorsALL school staffStudentsFamily

#6 - Training, training, training! Content focused on basic, important information

“Our large-scale assessment program is a ‘blip’ on my professional radar screen.” Administrator, large urban school district, April, 2004

Extend participant pool

Don’t rely on “train the trainer” models only

Experiment with new technologies!

Combine general and special education + practitioners + administrators

~ Thought shift happens! ~

SEAs think critically about who these students really are!

Work across SEA divisions (e.g., assessment, special education, English language learning)

Update state policy in practitioner-friendly format