mi-access assessment overview and...

MI-AccessAssessment Overview and Updates

M I C H I G A N S C H O O L T E S T I N G C O N F E R E N C E

F E B R UA RY 1 4 , 2 0 1 8

J O H N JAQ U I T HDA N E VA N S

O F F I C E O F E D U C AT I O N A L A S S E S S M E N T A N D A C C O U N TA B I L I T Y

MI-Access Changes for 2018

What’s New (or Not So New) This Year!!¡ Student pre-Identification (pre-ID) will be used to level

the initial material orders this year for schools.

¡ Districts will have a choice to ship-direct to schools or district (default). This includes returning materials as well.

¡ Two MI-Access manuals developed and posted to webpage (www.michigan.gov/mi-access) for:

÷ Functional Independence (FI) and

÷ Supported Independence and Participation (P/SI)

÷ Each cover the paper and online testing modes

÷ Electronic only - None will be printed and shipped

MI-Access Changes for 2018

¡ The P/SI Scoring Documents have been revised to mirror the online answer document and make score entry easier

¡ List of Important dates are posted on webpage (Handout)

MI-Access – WHO?

� MI-Access is designed for students with the mostsignificant cognitive disabilities, who are working toward alternatecontent expectations.

� Within this population of students, MI-Access is further broken down into three levels by student population:

� Functional Independence

� Supported Independence

� Participation

MI- Access

Func

tiona

l Ind

epen

denc

e

� Students who have or function as if they have a significant, yet more mild cognitive impairment (within the "universe" of students with significant cognitive impairment)

� Functional Independence assessments are for students whose IEP goals and objectives and course of instruction targets and most closely aligns with the “high” range of complexity of the Essential Elements or Extended Grade Level Content Expectations/Benchmarks.

� Students at this level can typically, often with help initially, assess their personal strengths and limitations and can access resources, strategies, and supports to help them maximize their independence. However, these are students who, based on his/her disability, are not able to work toward the general content expectations.

MI- Access

Supp

orte

d In

depe

nden

ce� Supported Independence assessments are for those

students who have, or function as if they have a significant cognitive impairment that is more in the "moderate" range.

� Supported Independence assessments are for students whose IEP goals and objectives and course of instruction targets and most closely aligns with the “middle” range of complexity of the Essential Elements or Extended Grade Level Content Expectations/Benchmarks.

� Students at this level require ongoing support in major life roles and may have cognitive and/or physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning. The instructional approach taken is usually direct, in context, and targeted toward specific, essential independent living and academic skills.

MI- Access

Participa

tion

� Participation assessments are for those students who have, or function as if they have a significant, severe cognitive impairment

� Participation assessments are for students whose IEP goals and objectives and course of instruction targets and most closely aligns with the “low” range of complexity of the Essential Elements or Extended Grade Level Content Expectations/Benchmarks.

� Students at this level are expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood and may have significant cognitive and/or physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning. They are typically dependent on others for most, if not all, daily living needs. The instructional approach for these students targets opportunities for them to integrate into age-appropriate tasks, activities related to daily living skills, and academic content.

Standards

� English/Language Arts and Mathematics

¡ Essential Elements with Michigan Range of Complexity

� Science¡ Extended Benchmarks¡ Future Changes based on adoption

of new general Science Content Expectations

� Social Studies¡ FI Level Only: Extended

Grade-Level ContentExpectations and Extended High School Content Expectations

MI- Access

FI A

dmin

istra

tion

Rem

inde

rsFI ELA: Expressing Ideas

Ø Paper version for ALL students (regardless of mode for “Accessing Print and Using Language)

Ø Student should respond to both prompts

Ø Student may answer with writing, drawing or a combination of the two

Ø Scribe and other supports and accommodations available, please refer to the Supports and Accommodations Table for more information and specifications for each

Online Paper

� Students interact directly with online platform

� Answers indicated by clicking on correct answer

� 2 “parts” for every subject area (student should take both parts). There will be 2 test tickets persubject area

� Students interact directly with test booklet

� Answers indicated by circling answer in booklet (assessment administrator transfers to answer document)

� Flexibility to break administrationinto more than one session.

FI Administration Reminders

FI P/SI

Administration Flowcharts (Paper/Online)Handout

P/SI Administration Reminders

� Booklets are for Assessment Administrators,NOT for students

� Selected Response Items:¡ Students will be presented with picture cards

÷ Option to used actual objects or comparable picture cards is allowable, provided these are objects or picture cards the student is used to seeing during instruction.

� Activity Based Observation Items¡ Assessment administrator is given an activity and scoring focus, and

in most cases, an example of what they can do with the student to assess the scoring focus.

P/SI Example of Selected Response

Item presented to student with picture cards

Sample Item (assessment administrator sees):

P/SI Example of Selected Response

Item presented to student with picture cards (student sees):

P/SI Assessment Administration

Activity Based Observation Items

Sample Item (assessment administrator sees):

Participation and Supported Independence Scoring Rubrics

P/SI Online Answer Document for 2018*NEW*

P/SI Scoring Rubric

� The link to this program can also be found on the MI-Access Web Page: www.Michigan.gov/mi-access

Example of Selected Score ResponseSupported Independence- Correct

MI-Access FI test configuration is not changing for 2018¡ FI ELA

÷ Accessing Print and Using Language¢ Vocabulary, Language, Research/Inquiry, Listening, Understanding Text¢ 2 parts for online

÷ Expressing Ideas (constructed Response)÷ BOTH are required to get a valid ELA Score

¡ FI Mathematics and FI Science÷ 2 parts for online for each content area

¡ FI Social Studies÷ 2 parts for online

÷ Part 1: Independent Items; Part 2: context –based items� MI-Access test configuration for Supported Independence and Participation is not changing for

2018¡ ELA, Mathematics, Science

¡ Selected Response

÷ With Picture Cards (or objects, customization of materials is allowable)¡ Activity Based Observation

Assessment Updates for 2018

New Science Assessment (2018 and 2019)- M-STEP� New standards = deeper rigor and depth� Statewide (required) Field Test � Grades 5, 8, 11� Items are “clustered” around a stimuli exemplifying phenomena� Combination of MC, TE, CR item types� Online with paper-pencil option� Federal and State Accountability - Participation� Limited Reporting

¡ Aggregate level (ISD, District, xxx) ¡ By domain


2018 Science Assessment

� MI-Access Grade Levels are not changing for now

� MI-Access Science is assessed at grades 4, 7, and 11


ESSA and 1% Assessment

� Up until the passage of ESSA, 1% referred to the percentage of proficient scores that counted towards accountability calculations that could come from an alternate assessment.

� It did not affect the number of students who could take the assessment

� Under ESSA, the proficiency cap no longer applies, but the statute sets a state level cap of students who can take/participate in an alternate assessment at no more than 1% of all students assessed in a content area overall

1% Assessment

• The 1% cap is at the state level• Decisions regarding what assessment student takes rests with the

IEP team and:• Must meet the assessment selection guidance criteria• May not be overridden by administrative, district or ISD

personnel at the student level• LEAs contributing to the state exceeding the 1% cap must submit

justification to the ISD who will submit ISD comprehensive information to the state• Justification form:

http://www.michigan.gov/documents/mde/1PctCap_Justification_Form_Final_609993_7.pdf

• The state and ISD must provide technical assistance to LEAs that exceed 1% participation in the alternate assessment• Center Based Programs are included

1% Assessment – cap comes from ESSA

In addition to the cap, ESSA specifically has indicated in the statute the following (not new, but now in statute):

¡ Abolishes alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (Michigan used MEAP-Access)

¡ Requires that for students for whom the alternate assessment is selected, the school informs parents:÷ Of the standards to which the student will be assessed÷ Any implications on student eventually meeting requirements for a regular high

school diploma (not a grade 11 task…think about the path)

¡ States must ensure that local education agencies are implementing the state guidelines for assessment selection (Should My Student Take the Alternate Assessment document)

Michigan’s approach to the 1% rule

� Calculation¡ The 1% cap is calculated separately by content area:

÷ Total students in grades 3-8 and 11 tested using an alternate assessment____________________________________________________________

÷ Total students tested at state level in grades 3-8 and 11

� Baseline¡ Michigan’s rate is currently approximately 2.3% participating in the alternate

assessment*

* This was calculated for ELA and mathematics and both rounded to 2.3%. Data provided to ISDs include ELA, mathematics and science.

� Waiver¡ States may apply for a waiver of the 1% participation rate, but it is

not an ongoing waiver. Michigan is planning to apply for a waiver, which will require that the state will:÷ provide assurances that LEAs exceeding 1% followed the state

assessment selection guidance÷ address disproportionality in the percentage of any subgroup

taking the alternate assessment÷ provide a plan and timeline for coming into compliance with the

1% cap÷ submit the waiver in advance of any testing window÷ demonstrate that at least 95% of all students have been assessed

at the state level in the previous year

Michigan’s approach to the 1% rule

Sample ISD Data set: Percentages Overall

Sample ISD Data set: Count ELA

Sample Question for Exploration

� For the students we serve…¡ Does this data make sense?¡ If we are over the 1%, is there a reason why?

÷ For example, what are the characteristics of students that attend our center based programs?

¡ Is there data that doesn’t make sense?÷ Percentages of 3% or higher where students with

significant cognitive impairment are not enrolled¡ Do staff need additional training on assessment selection

guidelines?¡ Is our percentage being affected by math?

÷ For example, 10 students in the entire LEA were assessed in ELA and 1 took the alternate assessment, making our participation rate 10%

� Why?¡ Our alternate content standards need to align with the

general content standards in any content area.¡ Has anything been done already?

÷ Feedback from Standard Setting participants¢ Summaries from roughly 70 educators in the summer of 2017

÷ Link to application for participants will be coming out in the Spotlight, likely in February. Panels to begin in August.

Developing New Alternate Content Standards in Science

� Educator Panels� DRC Facilitates educator groups (10 to a group)

¡ Groups: K-2; 3-5; Middle School; High School¡ Each group: 3 GE Science teachers, 6 SE teachers (2 FI, 2 SI, 2 P) 1 “Other” SE

� Phase I: Understanding the Michigan K-12 Science Standards and Developing Domain Topics for alternate content standards¡ Meeting times: 2 days

� Phase II: Develop Alternate Performance Expectations for Science.¡ Meeting times: 3 days

� Phase III: Develop “Range of Complexity” (High, Medium, Low)¡ Meeting times: 1-2 days per month, 3 different months

Developing New Alternate Content Standards in ScienceDraft Process

� Exemplars from state of Washington and DLM

� Proposed layout:

Developing New Alternate Content Standards in Science

Assessment Selection


Typically who should NOT take MI-Access?¡ Students without an IEP¡ Students with a 504 plan¡ Students who only receive EL services¡ Students participating in Tier I or Tier II MTSS interventions¡ Students with disabilities that may impact academics, but generally

do not affect adaptive functioning (including most students with specific learning disabilities, speech/language impairments, physical disabilities alone, some health impairments, students who are blind/VI, deaf/HI that are working toward general content expectations)

¡ Students with cognitive impairments who are working toward the general content standards in regular classes with accommodations

Where are the alternate content expectations found?

Step 1:www.Michigan.gov/mi-access


Step 2:


Step 3:Explore the page for the standards you are looking for

Case Studies

For Each Case study assigned, your group should address all three questions:

¡ 1. Based on the limited information given, what assessment would you assume this student would take and why (content area, assessment and level if appropriate)?

¡ 2. What additional information do you/the IEP team really need in this case to make a complete recommendation/decision?

¡ 3. Is there anything that bothers you about this case study?


Case Study #1¡ 13-year-old boy lives with grandmother;¡ Eligible for services as a student with a specific learning disability;¡ 8th grade student receiving instruction in regular classes in ELA, Mathematics, Science and

Social Studies and receives supplemental instruction in ELA with a concentration on reading, which is estimated to be two to three years behind grade level;÷ Current grades: ELA: D, Mathematics: C, Social Studies D, Science C-, PE A, Study Skills

(Resource Room) B+¡ Can complete most math assignments if given a calculator and visual representations of

formulas. He can usually explain verbally how he arrived at the answer to a math question;

¡ When reading is required, he accesses printed material by having it read to him. He has an electronic version of each textbook and uses a text-to-speech function to access the material;

¡ He has an interest in computers and wants to attend a local community college and transfer to a 4-year school to complete a bachelor’s degree in information technology, but plans to take longer than 4 years to complete the degree; and

¡ He has several friends and participates in the spring drama production and has participated in couple of service projects sponsored by the school over the course of middle school.


Case Study #2

¡ 9-year-old student enrolled in a self-contained classroom in a center-based program that is housed in a neighboring district;

¡ Eligible for services as a student with a cognitive impairment;¡ Her instruction in ELA and Mathematics is based on the

medium range of complexity for the 3rd grade Essential Elements, with a few of those goals having crossed into the high range;

¡ She is independent with dressing and using the restroom and can navigate the cafeteria at lunch with a shadow. The paraprofessional needs to provide prompts for this routine early in the year and any time the typical routine changes;

¡ The student requires prompts to start and complete most academic tasks; and

¡ Most instructional activities involve direct instruction/feedback and academics are usually taught within a life-skills and pre-employment context.


Case Study #3¡ 12-year-old student enrolled in his local middle school;¡ Eligible for services under Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD);¡ Has been identified since age 3 and has received special education services since

that time, including speech/language and social work services;¡ He attends the regular 6th grade mathematics class and has earned “A’s” every

marking period. Is Mathematics STAR assessment his GE score in the fall was 7.6 and 8.2 this past winter;

¡ The student has struggled with reading and content that is dependent on written and verbal language. He participates in regular science and social studies classes, but the IEP team has determined that progression in the ELA classroom is not possible and received ELA instruction in the Resource Room;

¡ Instruction in ELA has focused on trying to help the student attaining the essential elements for ELA with high range of complexity. Instruction in the resource room also includes social skills and pre-vocational training; and

¡ Participation in the general education classes is accommodated with the use of a behavior improvement plan (BIP) and the presence of a paraprofessional in science and social studies to assist with written tasks. He participates in mathematics independently with the BIP in place.


Case Study #4¡ 8-year-old student enrolled an elementary self-contained

special education classroom;¡ Is paraplegic, lives at home with parents and requires

assistance with personal care, though he can feed himself basic finger foods with supervision;

¡ Typically, does not interact with peers, but likes attention from caregivers and familiar adults;

¡ Likes to work with items that have switches and buttons;¡ Communicates through a combination of vocalization and use

of an electronic communication device with a limited functional vocabulary;

¡ Can point to familiar objects when prompted to do so;¡ Learning to navigate an electric wheelchair, but still requires a

great deal of assistance; and¡ Cognitive abilities are limited and very hard to assess.


Case Study #5¡ 16-year old student in a self-contained special education classroom in a local

high school;¡ Participates in two regular classes: visual media arts, where the student takes

pictures and creates visual art using the computer, and wood shop, a class that has inspired a potential job interest;

¡ During the May 2017 IEP meeting, the team determined that the student’s instruction should shift from targeting the Medium range of the Essential Elements in ELA and Mathematics to aligning instruction to the high range;

¡ Has a few friends within the special education classroom, friendships that extend beyond the classroom and the school day. The student socially interacts appropriately in elective classes, though is somewhat perceived as socially immature;

¡ In the past, has often needed to practice social situations before they occur and has had success with extensive use of social stories- reliance on this has faded over time;

¡ Will be transitioning to a partial day job training program with a job coach and has had success with independent job tasks involving a routine, where the job coach could be faded back to observer only; and

¡ Wants to attend a community college or trade school and secure a job of his own after high school.


Case Study #6¡ 8-year-old student enrolled in a local elementary school in the 3rd

grade;¡ STAR reading assessment GE in the fall was 1.2 and 1.4 in the winter; ¡ STAR mathematics assessment GE in the fall was 2.1 and 2.5 in the

winter;¡ The student has struggled with reading and math since late first

grade. After mixed results from tier II MTSS interventions, the student was evaluated and found eligible for services at the end of 2nd grade;

¡ Receives primary instruction in her 3rd grade classroom with additional targeted instruction in reading and mathematics from the Resource Room teacher;

¡ Reading is difficult for the student and when the student is required to read information, the result is that she often shuts down and is unable to get started due to the emotional response; and

¡ Has several friends in and out of school and interacts appropriately with both students and adults.