Search

State education agencies (SEAs) play a key role in the determination of how English learner (EL) reclassification (also called EL exit) is shaped. When setting reclassification criteria, state policymakers need to determine where to set cut scores on English language proficiency (ELP) assessments as well as what other measure(s) they might use for reclassification. The cut scores and additional measures that SEAs decide upon have important implications. The level at which states set their ELP assessment cut scores impacts the size of an EL population as well as corresponding EL program services. This mixed-methods study examines the proportional impact of higher EL reclassification cut scores on the population of students in WIDA Consortium states as well as the ways in which SEA staff members interpret, negotiate, and contest their states’ EL reclassification policies. A language policy lens is leveraged as a framework to understand the tensions of EL reclassification for SEA staff members engaged in EL policy work. The analysis of the proportional impact of higher EL reclassification has been conducted using data from states within the WIDA Consortium. The states chosen included those with matching reclassification criteria and individual states involved in qualitative interviews. Qualitative interviews were administered with one staff member from six different SEAs. Two interviews were conducted with each of the six interviewees. The interviews were centered on EL reclassification policy. The quantitative analysis produced findings related to the impact of reclassification cut scores on the EL population of the states analyzed. The qualitative analysis produced findings related to shifts in the Every Student Succeeds Act as well as SEA factors that influence the decision making of SEA staff members. Implications of the study are described at the federal-, SEA-, and local-education-agency-levels.

Objectives. There is no consensus on who might be qualified to conduct ethical analysis in the field of health technology assessment (HTA). Is there a specific expertise or skill set for doing this work? The aim of this article is to (i) clarify the concept of ethics expertise and, based on this, (ii) describe and specify the characteristics of ethics expertise in HTA. Methods. Based on the current literature and experiences in conducting ethical analysis in HTA, a group of members of the Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Interest Group on Ethical Issues in HTA critically analyzed the collected information during two ace-to-face workshops. On the basis of the analysis, working definitions of "ethics expertise" and "core competencies" of ethics experts in HTA were developed. This paper reports the output of the workshop and subsequent revisions and discussions online among the authors. Results. Expertise in a domain consists of both explicit and tacit knowledge and is acquired by formal training and social learning. There is a ubiquitous ethical expertise shared by most people in society; nevertheless, some people acquire specialist ethical expertise. To become an ethics expert in the field of HTA, one needs to acquire general knowledge about ethical issues as well as specific knowledge of the ethical domain in HTA. The core competencies of ethics experts in HTA consist of three fundamental elements: knowledge, skills, and attitudes. Conclusions. The competencies described here can be used by HTA agencies and others involved in HTA to call attention to and strengthen ethical analysis in HTA., Funding Agencies|HTAi

Background: Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, HTA is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments. Methods: A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation. Results: Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the processes of deciding on how to select, frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process. Conclusions: HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HTA

Objectives: Although consideration of ethical issues is recognized as a crucial part of health technology assessment, ethics analysis for HTA is generally perceived as methodologically underdeveloped in comparison to other HTA domains. The aim of our study is (i) to verify existing tools for quality assessment of ethics analyses for HTA, (ii) to consider some arguments for and against the need for quality assessment tools for ethics analyses for HTA, and (iii) to propose a preliminary set of criteria that could be used for assessing the quality of ethics analyses for HTA. Methods: We systematically reviewed the literature, reviewed HTA organizations’ Web sites, and solicited views from thirty-two experts in the field of ethics for HTA. Results: The database and HTA agency Web site searches yielded 420 references (413 from databases, seven from HTA Web sites). No formal instruments for assessing the quality of ethics analyses for HTA purposes were identified. Thirty-two experts in the field of ethics for HTA from ten countries, who were brought together at two workshops held in Edmonton (Canada) and Cologne (Germany) confirmed the findings from the literature. Conclusions: Generating a quality assessment tool for ethics analyses in HTA would confer considerable benefits, including methodological alignment with other areas of HTA, increase in transparency and transferability of ethics analyses, and provision of common language between the various participants in the HTA process. We propose key characteristics of quality assessment tools for this purpose, which can be applied to ethics analyses for HTA purposes.

Background: Although value issues are increasingly addressed in health technology assessment (HTA) reports, HTA is still seen as a scientific endeavor and sometimes contrasted with value judgments, which are considered arbitrary and unscientific. This article aims at illustrating how numerous value judgments are at play in the HTA process, and why it is important to acknowledge and address value judgments. Methods: A panel of experts involved in HTA, including ethicists, scrutinized the HTA process with regard to implicit value judgments. It was analyzed whether these value judgments undermine the accountability of HTA results. The final results were obtained after several rounds of deliberation. Results: Value judgments are identified before the assessment when identifying and selecting health technologies to assess, and as part of assessment. They are at play in the processes of deciding on how to select, frame, present, summarize or synthesize information in systematic reviews. Also, in economic analysis, value judgments are ubiquitous. Addressing the ethical, legal, and social issues of a given health technology involves moral, legal, and social value judgments by definition. So do the appraisal and the decision-making process.Conclusions:HTA by and large is a process of value judgments. However, the preponderance of value judgments does not render HTA biased or flawed. On the contrary they are basic elements of the HTA process. Acknowledging and explicitly addressing value judgments may improve the accountability of HTA.