national center on educational outcomes (nceo) nclb implications for assessment and accountability...

National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)

NCLB Implications for Assessment and Accountability

for Students with Disabilities

Martha L. Thurlow

OSEP Strand

Highlights of IDEA Part D Research


Overview of Session

NCEO’s History and Focus

No Child Left Behind Act (and IDEA)

Selected Research Findings and Implications


NCEO’s Background

Funded since 1990 – from outcomes to assessments and accountability (especially with IDEA 97)

Three areas of focus:

Research

Technical Assistance and Dissemination

Collaboration and Other Leadership


Many targeted topics:Accommodations Out-of-Level Testing

Accountability Participation

Alternate Assessment Reporting

Assessment Standards

Graduation Requirements

The importance of these topics was reinforced by IDEA 97, and more recently by No Child Left Behind


No Child Left Behind, the 2001 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, includes students with disabilities as one of several subgroups in its accountability requirements


Stated purpose of NCLB:

“…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”


Key Elements of NCLB State standards for what a child should know

and be able to do in reading and math now, and in science by 2005-06

Tests of every student’s progress toward the reading and math standards in grades 3-8 plus once in high school beginning in 2005-06, and toward science standards in elementary, middle, and high school beginning in 2007-08


Key Elements of NCLB

Criteria of adequate yearly progress (AYP) for each state, district, and school – for all students and for subgroups

School and district performance publicly reported in district and state report cards

Consequences for districts or schools that continually fail to make AYP


NCLB builds on IDEA concepts of best practice in the large-scale assessment of students with disabilities

Assessment Participation

Accommodations

Alternate Assessment

Reporting

and adds concepts consistent with IDEA, such as:

Accountability Universal Design


NCEO has research, technical assistance activities, and other leadership activities in all of these areas.

http://education.umn.edu/NCEO

Today – highlight work on just a few topics: state participation and accommodation policies, public reporting practices, universal design


Analyses of Written State Policies (2002)

Study ProceduresNCEO

1. Requested newest policy from all 50 states

2. Completed grids for all states and all accommodations (with notations)

3. Sent data to state for verification

4. Made changes only with written documentation

[Collected policies through Sept 2001]


Participation Policies

Additional Testing Options*

AvailableAvailable, Not

AggregatedNot

Allowed

Out-of-Level Test 9 12 8

Partial Participation 21 0 4

Multiple Alternates 9 0 0


0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of States

Non-Pursuit of Standard Diploma

Parent/Guardian Involvement

Curricular Validity

IEP Team Decides

Participation Policy Variables



0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of States

Student Needs &Characteristics

Other Variables

Maintains Validity

Used for Instruction

IEP Team Determined

Decision-Making Criteria Used Without Restrictions

Assessment Accommodation Policies


0 10 20 30 40 50

Number of States

Percent Time Receiving Services

Category of Disability

Decision-Making Criteria Prohibited

Assessment Accommodation Policies


Distinctions between “okay” and “not okay” accommodations are usually evident in terms used in policies

States with different terms 37

States with single term 13

“Accommodation” Terminology


Terms Used to Indicate “Not Okay” Testing Changes

Modification* 17 states

Non-Standard 7 states

Not Allowed 5 states

Not Permitted 3 states

Not Aggregatable 2 states

Non Valid/Impact Score1 state each

*One state uses this term for “okay”test change


Besides IEP, 504, and ELLs

Colorado

Kansas

Oregon

Rhode Island

Wyoming

Eligible Groups

All for All Students

Minnesota

Washington

Some for All Students

New York

All for Some Students

Kentucky Maryland Mississippi

Maine Massachusetts North Dakota

“All” Under Special Circumstances


A better look at the accommodation policies of states

60% of states

Presentation

Equipment

Response

Scheduling/Timing

Setting


Accommodations Most Often Allowed (With & Without Restrictions)

Presentation AccommodationsNumber of States Allowing: Without With

Large Print 46 3

Braille 35 14

Read Aloud* 5 41

Sign Language Interpretation 37 8

Read/Re-read/Clarify Directions* 29 10*One state prohibits use



“Equipment” AccommodationsNumber of States Allowing: Without With

Magnification 40 0

Amplification 34 0

Light/Acoustics 32 0

Calculator* 14 23

Templates/Graph Paper 32 0*One state prohibits use



Response Accommodations

Number of States Allowing: Without With

Proctor/Scribe 31 17

Write in Test Booklet 37 2

Computer or Machine* 30 9

Communication Device 27 8

*One state prohibits use


Prohibited Accommodations

Top Five # of States

Spell Checker/Assistance 11

Extended Time 3

Audio/Video Cassette 2

Over Multiple Days 2

Others* 1

*Others include:

Read Aloud

Re-read, Clarify Directions

Calculator

Abacus

Computer

Student’s Home


• More options are available in states that just the usual three (same way as other students take test, with accommodations, alternate)

• Policies have become more specific over time

Generalizations



• Few states completely prohibit accommodations

• Policies are really complex, with clarifications about type of test, specific skills assessed, and certain student characteristics

Generalizations

Accommodation Policies


Analyses of Public Education Reports (2003)

Study ProceduresNCEO

1. Searched Web sites of all 50 states

2. Summarized findings and sent to states to verify

3. States sent additional public reports

4. Changes made only if reports were available to the public

[Collected reports through May 2002]


Previous Findings:

AK

HI

CA

NV

AZ

OR

WAMT

WY

UT CO

TX

OK

LA

AR

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

MIIA

MO

IL

MS AL

FL

GA

TN

IN

KY

OH

WV

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

MD

DE

NJ

CT RI

NH

VT

MA

ID

NM

States Reporting Disaggregated Data for

Students with Disabilities

No disaggregated data

Performance data only

Performance and Participation

1998 Study

Participation data only

11 states reported disaggregated participation data

13 states reported disaggregated performance data

1998 Study

General Assessments


Previous Findings:

AK

HI

CA

NV

AZ

OR

WAMT

WY

UT CO

TX

OK

LA

AR

KS

NE

SD

ND

MN

WI

MIIA

MO

IL

MS AL

FL

GA

TN

IN

KY

OH

WV

SC

NC

VA

PA

NY

ME

MD

DE

NJ

CT RI

NH

VT

MA

ID

NM

States Reporting Disaggregated Data for Students with Disabilities

No disaggregated data

Performance data only for some tests

Performance and Participation data for some tests

2000 Study

Performance data only for all tests

Performance and Participation data for all tests

14 states reported disaggregated participation data

17 states reported disaggregated performance data

2000 Study

General Assessments


WA MT ND

OR

NV

CA

ID WY

UT

AZ

CO

NM

SD

NE

KS

TX

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

OH

KY

MS

TN

FL

ALGA

SCNC

VA

PA

NY

ME

WV

AK HI

VTNH

CTNJ

DEMD

IN

MA

RI

No disaggregated data (n=6)

Performance data only for some tests (n=2)

Performance and Participation data for some tests (n=10)

Performance data only for all tests (n=4)

Performance and Participation data for all tests (n=28)

New Findings:2002 Study

General Assessments


WA MT ND

OR

NV

CA

ID WY

UT

AZZ

CO

NM

SD

NE

KS

TX

OK

MN

IA

MO

AR

LA

WI

IL

MI

OH

KY

MS

TN

FL

ALGA

SCNC

VA

PA

NY

ME

WV

AK HI

VT NH

CTNJ

DEMD

IN

MARI

No disaggregated data (n=25)

Participation data only (n=10)

Performance data only (n=2)

Participation and Performance data (n=13)

New Findings:2002 Study

Alternate Assessments


Universally Designed Assessments:

are designed from the beginning to be accessible and valid for the widest range of students

provide optimal standard assessment conditions


Elements of UD Assessments

Inclusive assessment population

Precisely defined constructs

Accessible, non-biased items

Amenable to accommodations


Elements of UD Assessments Simple, clear, and intuitive

instructions and procedures

Maximum readability and comprehensibility

Maximum legibility


More things to look for:

Results from ongoing survey of state directors of special education

Searchable bibliography of research on effects of accommodations

Universal design research

In-depth study of alternate assessments


More things to look for:

Principles of inclusive assessments and accountability systems

Self study guide to inclusive assessments and accountability systems

Visit the NCEO Web site for these and more . . . .


Join Many Others! education.umn.edu/nceo

Hits on NCEO Web Site

57,814

92,573

292,670

87658,000

230,861

388,517

360,437355,426

272,333

0

50,000

100,000

150,000

200,000

250,000

300,000

350,000

400,000

450,000

Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2 Q3 Q4 Q1 Q2

Nu

mb

er

of

Hit

s

2000-2001 2001-2002 2002-2003

national center on educational outcomes (nceo) nclb implications for assessment and accountability...

Documents

national center

leadership slide

ayp slide

state participation

d research slide

study procedures nceo

accountability requirements

students progress