slide 1 national center on educational outcomes (nceo) states’ data-based responses to low...

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)

Slide 1

States’ Data-Based Responses to Low

Achieving Students on State AssessmentsMartha L. ThurlowNational Center on Educational

OutcomesOSEP Project Directors Conference

July-August, 2006


Slide 2

97

80 8569

4555

30

7783 87

94 97

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Grade 10Test

Retest 1 Retest 2 Retest 3 Retest 4+5 Retest 6

Perc

ent w

ith C

D

Students with DisabilitiesRegular Education

Percent of Students who earned a Competency Determination - Class of 2003

47 %pts

38 %pts

32 %pts

25 %pts

17 %pts

12 %pts


Slide 3Percent of Special Education Students Attaining the Competency Determination

(through the May 2004 MCAS)

8580

69

5545

3032

5867

75

84

46

60

71

50

0102030405060708090

100

Grade 10Test

Retest 1 Retest 2 Retest 3 Retest 4 + 5 Retest 6

Class of 2003Class of 2004Class of 2005Class of 2006


Slide 4

Student Performance on Alternate Assessments is Improving

2001 2002 2003 20042005

12%34%

61%

Portfolios that scored “Progressing”

MCAS-Alternate Assessment

76% 68%


Slide 5

States Ask QuestionsExamples of Actual State Questions

Are special education students the state’s low performing students?

Are most low performing students in special education?

What do we know about the characteristics of students “in the gap”?

What are the implications of all of these – for assessments and instruction?


Slide 6

From Marion, Gong, and Simpson, 2005


Slide 7

Are special education students the state’s low performing students?No – special education students are represented at all scale scores in the distribution

Are most low performing students in special education?No – many general education students are found in the lowest scoring three percent of students


Slide 8

State Study of Low Performing Students

Some students known as “Students in the Gap” are not served well by Colorado’s current assessment system in that they score poorly and fail to demonstrate longitudinal growth, and thus these tests may not be the best way to measure their knowledge of state content standards.

The passage of HB 05-1246 created a committee to examine and evaluate the impact of the assessments on these “Students in the Gap.”

The outcomes of the study were revealing –


Slide 9

1637 IEP students scored in the lowest 1/3 of Unsatisfactory in Reading and 4332 in Math.

117 IEP students earned perfect scores on CSAPA in Reading/Writing and 16 in Math.

Low Performance

Not Low Performance


Slide 10

250 students (of 444,407) across grade levels were determined to be “students in the gap” on the CSAP Reading Test.

659 students (of 444,910) across grade levels were determined to be “students in the gap” on the CSAP Math Test.

This group represents fewer than 1000 students; the group believed that CSAP as currently administered may not reflect these students’ academic achievements; however, if appropriate accommodations and more intensive instruction were provided, these students too might make more gains.


Slide 11

Other Findings:• Bottom 1/3 of scale scores on CSAP is almost

twice as likely to be Black or Hispanic students as students scoring higher.

• For IEP students scoring in bottom one-third of scale scores, and where a match the following year was able to be made (only 60%), substantial longitudinal growth occurred from one year to the next.


Slide 12

Evidence-Based PracticesDonahue Institute Study

(University of Massachusetts)

Study identified urban districts and schools that demonstrated better than expected MCAS achievement among students with special needs


Slide 13

Donahue Institute StudyPractices identified as central to the success of urban districts and schools for special education students1. Pervasive emphasis on

curriculum alignment with the MA frameworks

2. Effective systems to support curriculum alignment

3. Emphasis on inclusion and access to the curriculum


Slide 14

Donahue Institute StudyPractices central to the success of urban districts and schools4. Culture and practices that support

high standards and student achievement

5. Well disciplined academic and social environment

6. Use of student assessment data to inform decision making


Slide 15

Donahue Institute StudyPractices central to the success of urban districts and schools7. Unified practice supported by

targeted professional development

8. Access to resources to support key initiatives

9. Effective staff recruitment, retention, and deployment


Slide 16

Donohue Institute StudyPractices central to the success of urban districts and schools10.Flexible leaders and staff that

work effectively in a dynamic environment

11.Effective leadership is essential to success

slide 1 national center on educational outcomes (nceo) states’ data-based responses to low...

Documents