National Profile on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards PDF Download

Author: Renee Cameto
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 297

View

Book Description
This study is examining student eligibility for and participation in alternate assessments, the technical quality of the alternate assessment instruments and implementation procedures, the alignment of assessments with content and achievement standards, and the use and effectiveness of alternate assessments in measuring student outcomes. The report describes individual state approaches to designing and administering alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, key features of individual state alternate assessments, and student participation and performance data for each state for the 2006-2007 school year. The NSAA is a comprehensive, integrated study that is organized around three central objectives related to alternate assessments that are based on alternative achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities: (1) Develop state and national profiles of the 50 states' and the District of Columbia's alternate assessment policies and practices; (2) Conduct in-depth case studies and report on selected states' approaches to alternate assessment; and (3) Conduct quantitative analyses of data related to alternate assessment. Two appendices are included: (1) Methodology; and (2) Data Tables. (Contains 62 figures and 2 footnotes.) (State Profiles on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: A Report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments. NCSER 2009-3013, see ED506078).

Author: Renee Cameto
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 371

View

Book Description
The National Study on Alternate Assessments (NSAA) was mandated by the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). Specifically, the law called for a "Study on Ensuring Accountability for Students Who Are Held to Alternative Achievement Standards" to examine: (1) the criteria that states use to determine eligibility for alternate assessments; and the number and type of children who take those assessments and are held accountable to alternative achievement standards; (2) the validity and reliability of alternate assessment instruments and procedures; (3) the alignment of alternate assessments and alternative achievement standards to state academic content standards in reading, mathematics, and science; and (4) the use and effectiveness of alternate assessments in appropriately measuring student progress and outcomes specific to individualized instructional need. This report presents data summaries in the form of individual state profiles for the 2006-07 school year for each of the 50 states and the District of Columbia. The NSAA State Profiles describe individual state approaches to designing and administering alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, key features of individual state alternate assessments, and student participation and performance data for each state. Two appendices are included: (1) Methodology; and (2) Explanation of Item Codes. (Contains 3 figures, 1 table, 5 footnotes. Individual profiles are footnoted separately.) [For "National Profile on Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards: A Report from the National Study on Alternate Assessments. NCSER 2009-3014", see ED506073.].

Author: William D. Schafer
Publisher: Paul H Brookes Publishing
ISBN: 9781598570373
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 0

View

Book Description
Discover what really works in alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. This book gathers cutting-edge knowledge and best practices in seven states to help readers work toward accurate assessment of students with severe disabilities.

Author: Rachel Quenemoen
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 38

View

Book Description
This synthesis report provides a historical look back over the past 15 years of alternate assessment, from the early 1990s through the mid 2000s, as reported by state directors of special education on the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) state surveys, and augmented by other research and policy reports published by NCEO and related organizations during that time frame. It is meant to be a resource to state and federal policymakers and staff, researchers, test companies, and the public to help us understand why and where we have come from and where we may be going in the challenging of work of alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The work of the National Alternate Assessment Center and related projects and centers has focused on a validity framework as a heuristic for state practice, and that work is described here. The report ends with four recommendations to guide state practices at this point. Because of the number of uncertainties still in play, we need: (Transparency) We need to know what varying practices and targets yield for student outcomes, and the only way to build that knowledge base is to ensure that assessment development, implementation, and results are transparent and open to scrutiny; (Integrity) Building on the need for transparency is the need for integrity. The amount of flexibility needed to ensure that all students can demonstrate what they know and can do is higher in alternate assessments for this group of students than in more typical student populations. Flexibility can mask issues of teaching and learning unless it is carefully structured and controlled. Similarly, standardization as a solution risks reducing the integrity of the assessment results when the methods do not match the population being assessed and how that population demonstrates competence in the academic domains; (Validity Studies) Building on the issues of transparency and integrity, we have an obligation to monitor carefully the effects of alternate assessments over time, as well as to ensure the claims we are making for the use of the results are defensible; and (Planned Improvement over Time) In building a validity argument, we study whether the interpretations and uses of the test are defensible, and whether consequences that are hoped for and those that are to be avoided are in fact falling into their respective places. An important part of validity studies is the ongoing day-to-day oversight of the assessment development, implementation, and use of testing results, and high quality data collection and continuous improvement based on the data are absolutely necessary for these assessments. (Contains 4 tables and 2 figures.) [This report is an adaptation from a paper first presented at the Maryland Assessment Research Center for Education Success (MARCES) conference (College Park, Maryland, October 2007).].

Author: Jennifer R. Hodgson
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 46

View

Book Description
All students, including students with disabilities, participate in state accountability systems. Many students participate in the regular assessment, with or without accommodations, but some students may require participation in an alternate assessment to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. Students with more significant cognitive disabilities may be eligible for the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). In 2007, federal regulations introduced another assessment option--the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Eligible students may be from any disability category, but they must have Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals based on grade-level content standards. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking the characteristics of state's AA-MAS since 2007. According to the 2008 NCEO update on test characteristics, nine states had developed what they considered to be an AA-MAS, and only one state (Texas) had received federal approval. The current report found 13 states that by the 2009-10 school year had developed, or were developing, what they considered to be an AA-MAS, and two additional states (Kansas and Louisiana) had received federal approval. In comparison to Albus et al. (2009), the current report found that more states were using constructed response items and fewer states were using performance task items. The current report also tracked test design changes between the AA-MAS and regular assessment. Over half of the states incorporated the following test design changes: distractor removed, fewer items, fewer items per page, key text underlined or bolded, larger font size, shorter passages, and simplified language. In the current analysis three test design changes tracked previously (manipulatives, read-aloud questions and answers, and scribe) were not found for any states. Five test design changes (e.g., additional graphics, graphic organizers, simplified graphics, different typeface, one column format), which were not tracked in previous reports, were included in the current study. This study also tracked whether states' AA-MAS were computer-based and whether the states' documents included considerations for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities. Four of the thirteen states had a computer-based test. Documents from six states suggested that the needs of ELL students participating in the AA-MAS were considered. Appendices include: (1) State Documents Used in Analysis; and (2) AA-MAS Characteristics by State. (Contains 4 figures and 8 tables.).

Author: Lynn M. Price
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 78

View

Book Description
All students, including students with disabilities, participate in state accountability systems. Most students with disabilities participate in the regular assessment, with or without accommodations. Students with more significant cognitive disabilities participate in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). A few states also have an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards (AA-GLAS) for students with disabilities who need testing formats or procedures that are not included in the regular assessment and are not addressed with the use of accommodations. In 2007, federal regulations introduced another assessment option--the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Eligible students may be from any disability category, and they must be considered unlikely to achieve grade-level proficiency within the time period covered by their Individualized Education Program (IEP) and must have IEP goals based on grade-level content standards. The AA-MAS is an optional assessment. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking the characteristics of states' AA-MAS since 2007. According to the 2009 NCEO update on test characteristics, 13 states had developed what they considered to be an AA-MAS, and three states (Texas, Kansas, and Louisiana) had received federal approval. The current report found 17 states that by the 2010-11 academic school year had developed, or were developing, what they considered to be an AA-MAS, and one additional state (North Carolina) had received federal approval. All states' AA-MAS contained multiple-choice items with fewer states using constructed response items and performance task items. The current report also tracked test design changes between the AA-MAS and regular assessment. At least half of the states incorporated the following test design changes: "additional graphics", "additional white space", "distractor removed", "fewer items", "fewer items/page", "key text underlined/bolded/bulleted", "larger font size", "one column format", "segmenting of passages", "shorter passages", "simplified graphics", and "simplified language". This study also tracked whether states' AA-MAS were computer-based, whether states with computer-based tests (CBTs) included tutorial and practice test opportunities, and whether states' documents included considerations for English Language Learners (ELLs) with disabilities. Six of the seventeen states had a computer-based test--four also provided tutorials and five provided practice tests. Documents from nine states suggested that the needs of ELL students participating in the AA-MAS were considered. Appended are: (1) State Documents Used in Analysis; and (2) AA-MAS Characteristics by State. (Contains 5 figures and 9 tables.).

Author: Gregory J. Cizek
Publisher: Routledge
ISBN: 1136946721
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 599

View

Book Description
Setting standards of performance is a ubiquitous task in education licensure, certification, and credentialling. It is found in elementary schooling, the professions, commercial applications, and governmental and private organizations. It is one of the most complex, controversial, and vexing issues facing specialists and policy makers today. This second edition solidifies Setting Performance Standards as the only book providing a comprehensive profile of both the issues and the "how-to" methods that define this thorny field. Four chapters have been removed; 11 chapters have been added; 2 chapters have major revisions; and all chapters have been updated. Comprehensive – Part I provides a conceptual overview of standard setting and its overarching issues; Part II provides practical (how-to) information on the newest standard setting methods; Part III provides information and advice on persistent and potential challenges in standard setting. Practical – Part II (the heart of the book) reviews 16 of the newest standard setting methods, far more than any other book. Expertise – Most of the well-known authors from the 1st edition return, with authors of equal stature contributing new chapters.

Author: Michael Russell
Publisher: IAP
ISBN: 1617353167
Category : Education
Languages : en
Pages : 493

View

Book Description
The importance of student assessment, particularly for summative purposes, has increased greatly over the past thirty years. At the same time, emphasis on including all students in assessment programs has also increased. Assessment programs, whether they are large-scale, district-based, or teacher developed, have traditionally attempted to assess students using a single instrument administered to students under the same conditions. Educators and test developers, however, are increasingly acknowledging that this practice does not result in valid information, inferences, and decisions for all students. This problem is particularly true for students in the margins, whose characteristics and needs differ from what the public thinks of as the general population of students. Increasingly, educators, educational leaders, and test developers are seeking strategies, techniques, policies, and guidelines for assessing students for whom standard assessment instruments do not function well. Whether used for high-stakes decisions or classroom-based formative decisions, the most critical element of any educational assessment is validity. Developing and administering assessment instruments that provide valid measures and allow for valid inferences and decisions for all groups of students presents a major challenge for today’s assessment programs. Over the past few decades, several national policies have sparked research and development efforts that aim to increase test validity for students in the margins. This book explores recent developments and efforts in three important areas. The first section focuses on strategies for improving test validity through the provision of test accommodations. The second section focuses on alternate and modified assessments. Federal policies now allow testing programs to develop and administer alternate assessments for students who have not been exposed to grade-level content, and thus are not expected to demonstrate proficiency on grade-level assessments. A separate policy allows testing programs to develop modified assessments that will provided more useful information about achievement for a small percentage of students who are exposed to grade-level content but for whom the standard form of the grade-level test does not provide a valid measure of achievement. These policies are complex and can be confusing for educators who are not familiar with their details. The chapters in the second section unpack these policies and explore the implications these policies have for test design. The third and final section of the book examines how principles of Universal Design can be applied to improve test validity for all students. Collectively, this volume presents a comprehensive examination of the several issues that present challenges for assessing the achievement of all students. While our understanding of how to overcome these challenges continues to evolve, the lessons, strategies, and avenues for future research explored in this book empower educators, test developers, and testing programs with a deeper understanding of how we can improve assessments for students in the margins.

Author: Deb Albus
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category : Educational tests and measurements
Languages : en
Pages : 0

View

Book Description

Author: Sheryl S. Lazarus
Publisher:
ISBN:
Category :
Languages : en
Pages : 146

View

Book Description
All students, including students with disabilities, must be included in state accountability systems as required by law. In April 2007, federal regulations provided states the flexibility to offer another assessment option--an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS) for some students with disabilities. The AA-MAS is an optional assessment. The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has annually compiled, analyzed, and summarized states' participation guidelines for the AA-MAS since 2007. The purpose of this report is to update information in previous reports. As of October 2009, 14 states (Arizona, California, Connecticut, Indiana, Kansas, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Tennessee, and Texas) had publicly available participation guidelines for an assessment they considered to be an AA-MAS. As of November 2009 only one state--Texas--had successfully completed the U.S. Department of Education's peer review process that determines whether the assessment fulfills the necessary requirements for the state to receive federal funds. Results from this study suggest that states are continuing to develop or update their participation guidelines. A majority of states included flowcharts, decision trees, or checklists in addition to text-based description of guidelines. Over half of the states in the current study required that parent notification and implications for graduation be considered as part of the decision-making process. The participation guidelines differed across states, but all states required that the student must have a current IEP. Additionally over two-thirds of states included the following criteria: consideration of previous performance on multiple measures, learning grade-level content, and not progressing at rate expected to reach grade level proficiency within school year covered by IEP. Appendices include: (1) Participation Guidelines Characteristics by State; (2) State Documents Used in Analysis; and (3) 2009 Participation Guidelines. (Contains 4 figures.).