Search

The Federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) both emphasize the need for students with disabilities to have appropriate instructional and statewide assessment accommodations to ensure access to the general curriculum and to be included in school, district, and state accountabilities systems. However, initial research indicates that teams making decisions about instructional and statewide assessment accommodations and teachers implementing these accommodations are ill prepared to do so. In the 2002-2003 school year, a study group of the special education State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS) undertook a two-part research effort to address this issue. They surveyed 22 former and current members of the SCASS regarding the extent and focus of state level training and gathered and analyzed accommodations training resources. The results reflect a paucity of in-depth state staff development to help local school personnel and parents understand the need for and implications of instructional and statewide assessment accommodations. States reported more training in accommodations fro statewide assessment than for instruction. However, a number of promising resources were identified and indexed for SCASS adaptation and use. Recommendations are provided for the states regarding: (1) how they might approach accommodations training for both instruction and statewide assessment; (2) the potential content of the instruction; and (3) resources that might be adopted or adapted for these purposes. Appendixes contain the survey and information about the responses. (Contains 10 references.) (SLD)

This paper highlights eight states that have implemented alternate assessments for children with disabilities who cannot participate in their state and district-wide assessment programs. The alternate assessment systems in Delaware, Florida, Georgia, Indiana, Minnesota, North Dakota, Utah, and West Virginia are briefly described, along with their development status and how the states are handling and using the data from their alternate assessments. Results from the study indicate there are many scoring, reporting, and use decisions yet to be made. Yet, generally, these states have advanced training and staff development systems established and, with the exception of Minnesota, states have taken remarkably similar approaches to staff development for teachers implementing the alternate assessments. Initially, draft training manuals and other materials were prepared and small groups of teachers were convened to hear how the assessment process would work. These field test participants implemented the systems for a short period and returned to provide feedback, which was used to refine the materials before a larger pilot test was implemented. The study also found that most states used a portfolio approach to alternate assessments and chose to base their alternate assessments on a pool of standards drawn from their state general education standards. (CR)

This paper discusses the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 amendments that require states to develop alternate assessments and reviews state practices in Delaware, Idaho, Indiana, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, North Carolina, and Tennessee. These states were selected because they had either been implementing, were piloting, or had made decisions about the type of alternate assessment instrument to be used. Results of the review found that seven of the states have selected some form of portfolio as their primary assessment instrument. Most of the states using portfolios indicate that they chose the portfolio system because it afforded the opportunity to document not only student performance but also the supports provided by the school to promote student achievement. Six of the states surveyed are using parent surveys/interviews either as validation measures of student performance in portfolio entries or as evidence that skills learned in school are transferred outside the classroom to the home and community. Four states have chosen direct observation as the mode of assessment and two of these include on-demand tasks. Individualized Education Program and other record reviews are included as a part of the assessment or included in portfolios in five states. (Contains 11 references.) (CR)

This paper discusses the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 amendments that require states or local education agencies to develop guidelines for participation in alternate assessments for those children with disabilities who cannot participate in state and district-wide assessment programs. The policies and guidelines of 12 states were reviewed to ascertain criteria being used for participation in the alternate assessments. Results found that: (1) individual decisions are made for each student by Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams with documentation of why the student cannot participate in the general assessment and how that student is to be assessed in an alternate assessment; (2) decisions should be carefully considered by analyzing extensive supportive data collected over a period of time; (3) a student for whom the alternate assessment is appropriate is generally a student for whom the standard assessment would be inappropriate because the student is not engaged with the general curriculum; (4) states are attempting to make the concept of cognitive disability operational by emphasizing the inability to transfer skills; and (5) a determination of whether or not a particular student will participate in an alternate assessment is not based primarily on categorical labels. (CR)

This paper discusses the new Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 1997 amendments that require states to develop guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments who cannot participate in state and district-wide assessment programs. It describes and analyzes the efforts of 7 early starting states to define what they variously call assumptions, premises, rationale, beliefs, values, principles, parameters, or philosophies for alternate assessment. The foundations for the Kentucky, Maryland, and Michigan approaches are described first, because their work has influenced later work to a great extent. Next, foundation statements are included from Colorado, North Carolina, Tennessee, and West Virginia. The paper concludes by summarizing the effects that different orientations might have on alternate assessments. Results of the review indicate that Kentucky is the only state that fully includes all students within its statewide educational assessment and accountability system, and that state foundation statements are directing state efforts in the area of alternate assessment. The review also found that each assessment approach has its foundation in different philosophies that form the basis for the development of the alternate assessment. (Contains 10 references.) (CR)

This report discusses the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act that require states to develop alternate assessments for students with disabilities who cannot participate in large-scale assessment programs. The report also profiles five state alternate assessment practices that have been developed or are emerging and defines seven issues that must be addressed in developing an alternate assessment, including: why assess, who to assess, what to assess, when to assess, how to assess and score, how to report and use data, and how to engage in development and training. Practices in Colorado, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, and Missouri are described. As appropriate to its stage of alternate assessment development, each state report describes background and context, foundations, eligibility, content standards, assessment procedures, scoring, reporting and use, professional development, development and management, and effects. Findings indicate that most states are attempting to develop the alternate assessment as an extension of the general assessment system, with an emphasis on both accountability and program improvement. Eligibility criteria are still evolving, but it was found the alternate assessments are intended for students who have the most significant disabilities. (CR)

This report discusses alternate assessments that are to be used in accounting for the performance and progress of students with disabilities who do not participate in typical state assessments. Alternate assessments are data collection procedures used in place of the typical assessment when students cannot take standard forms of assessment. Four information-gathering procedures that might be used in alternate assessments and the application of these procedures to collect data in broader outcome areas are highlighted in the report. Overall, these approaches and those of states currently developing alternate assessments suggest four assumptions that are the foundation of alternate assessment: (1) alternate assessments should focus on authentic skills and on assessing experience in community and other real life environments; (2) alternate assessment should measure integrated skills across domains; (3) if at all possible, alternate assessment systems should use continuous documentation methods; and (4) alternate assessment systems should include as critical criteria the extent to which the system provides the needed supports and adaptations, and trains the student to use them. Four approaches are described that can be used to collect data for alternate assessments of student performance: observation, recollection (via interview or rating scale), record review, and tests. (Contains 43 references.) (CR)

The passage of the No Child Left Behind Act and subsequent regulations have challenged state education agencies (SEAs) in many ways and ensuring the appropriate inclusion of students with disabilities has been a unique challenge. The recent publication of regulations on alternate assessments with alternate achievement standards (34 CFR Part 200) reinforce and extend the regulations under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) dealing with alternate assessments (see 34 CFR section 300.138 (b). Under the new regulation, states have special requirements regarding: (1) Standards; (2) Guidelines; (3) 1 per cent cap; (4) Exceptions; and (5) Score Distribution. Determining how to fairly and consistently distribute proficient and advanced scores over the cap non proficient and include those scores in each applicable subgroup is one of the challenges of implementing the 1 per cent rule. This paper outlines the pros and cons of four potential methods for distribution of such scores. These methods, summarized in Table 1, were gleaned from conversations with Federal and State personnel and from assessment experts. They are presented as illustrations, not as a comprehensive menu. Most importantly, these options are based on the assumption that all appropriate exceptions have been sought and granted. This paper has outlined only four possible ways of distributing scores when an approved cap (usually 1%) has been exceeded. Although pros and cons were suggested for each method, these were only speculative and they might not hold up to scrutiny. Experience and research will be essential in order to assess actual effects. Also, these are by no means the only possible ways to deal with the distribution of scores. States are encouraged to find the method that works best for them while meeting the Federal requirements. [Report published by the Alliance for Systems Change.]

Defines alternate assessments, describes methods used to collect data, and describes domains in which data should be collected. The results of a focus group study in which teachers delineated ways in which data might be collected using each of the methods in each of the domains is reported. (Author/CR)