State

DLM

NCSC

Not in a consortium when application approved

Mentioned in application

Member at time of approval, but not mentioned in application

Mentioned in application

Member at time of approval, but not mentioned in application

Alabama

X

Alaska

X1

Arizona

X

Arkansas

X

Colorado

X3

Connecticut

X

Delaware

X

District of Columbia

X

Florida

X

Georgia

X1

Hawaii

X

Idaho

X

Illinois

X

Indiana

X

Kansas

X

Kentucky

X

Louisiana

X

Maine

X

Maryland

X

Massachusetts

X

Michigan

X

Minnesota

X

Mississippi

X

Missouri

X

Nevada

X1

New Hampshire

X

New Jersey

X

New Mexico

X2

New York

X

North Carolina

X

Ohio

X

Oklahoma

X

Oregon

X

Pennsylvania

X1

Puerto Rico

X2

Rhode Island

X

South Carolina

X

South Dakota

X

Tennessee

X

Texas

X

Utah

X

Virginia

X

Washington

X3

West Virginia

X

Wisconsin

X

No. of States

8

5

17

2

13

State

Consortia Specifications and Descriptions

Alaska

NCSC: Strategies that focus on the needs of specific groups of students are planned. To address the needs of students with disabilities, Alaska has joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) consortium, which is developing a new system of supports including assessment, curriculum, instruction and professional development to help students with disabilities graduate high school ready for postsecondary options. NCSC will create a framework that uses scaffolded learning progressions to bring these students toward an understanding of the Alaska new standards. There results with be reviewed with the state’s special education directors at the annual special education director’s training.

EED will continue to analyze the learning and accommodation factors necessary to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to access learning content aligned with Alaska’s new standards. EED makes it a priority to help all teachers understand their responsibility to serve these students and to empower teachers by embedding differentiated strategies that benefit students with disabilities, as well as all other students (p. 35).

Alaska has joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) consortium to address the needs of students with severe cognitive disabilities. Alaska has participated in the Curriculum and Instruction workgroup, the Technology workgroup, and in regularly scheduled Community of Practice meetings with NCSC leadership. Alaska has addressed the following key factors in its work with the NCSC: articulating college and career readiness; defining the construct relative to the Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards and the students it serves; developing communicative competence; delivery of professional development; building capacity to deliver professional development; and developing a strong argument for validity. Alaska will continue to coordinate with its qualified mentors, qualified assessors, and school district test coordinators to ensure that expectations are well-understood for students with severe cognitive disabilities as Alaska transitions to the college- and career-ready standards (p. 46).

Arizona

NCSC: ADE staff with expertise in Special Education is also engaged in the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) which is an assessment consortium for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Three staff members are on the NCSC work groups (Assessment, Curriculum and Instruction, Professional Development) and one serves on the management team. Arizona is on target for meeting the Year 1 goal by identifying 33 Community of Practice (COP) members who have begun to receive training on the CCSS, the relationship among content and achievement standards, curriculum, assessment, and access to the general curriculum. The COPs will be asked to implement model curricula and assist ADE in providing continued trainings across the state to teachers serving students with significant intellectual disabilities (p. 25).

Connecticut

NCSC: In addition to joining SBAC, the CSDE has joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) to develop a multistate comprehensive assessment system for students with significant cognitive disabilities. This consortium applies current research-based lessons for alternate assessment based upon alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) (p. 65).

District of Columbia

NCSC: The DC OSSE has joined the assessment consortium with the NCSC and is a member of the Workgroup One Community of Practice. Through this partnership, the DC OSSE will continue to develop performance-level descriptors, claims, focal knowledge, skills, and abilities for mathematics to provide information and guidance about the CCSS. The goal of NCSC is to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve higher academic outcomes to prepare them for post-secondary options. The DC OSSE believes in this goal and is excited to be involved with this work (p. 33).

Florida

NCSC: Florida also is planning to analyze the learning factors necessary to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities have access to the Common Core State Standards at reduced levels of complexity. To accomplish this, Florida is participating with the National Center and State Collaborative General Supervision Enhancement Grant (NCSC GSEG) to define college and career-ready for this population of students and to identify Core Content Connectors to the Common Core State Standards. Florida is currently a partner with 18 other states and four research centers to develop Core Content Connectors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Once released, curriculum guides and other materials will be provided that will serve as the foundation for classroom instruction (p. 23).

Idaho

NCSC: Idaho's involvement in the NCSC as a Tier II state participant, allows Idaho teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities access to the Common Core State Standards aligned professional development, curriculum and instructional resources pilot tested and refined by the Tier 1 states. Idaho will have access to all NCSC products and materials before broad dissemination by 2015. Specifically, Idaho's
involvement as a Tier II state is to provide feedback on usability and outcomes of
NCSC provided tools and protocols. Idaho will look to recruit a minimum of one to
two cohorts, consisting of two to three teachers of students with significant cognitive
disabilities who administer the ISAT-Alt, in each of our six state regions.
Idaho will also look to recruit individual districts which can support district-wide
collaboration regarding the NCSC professional development, curricular, instructional and assessment tools provided. Participating cohorts and/or districts will also be
asked for input on alternate assessment decisions and will be utilized in delivering
regional trainings once the NCSC alternate assessment has been developed (p. 47-48).

Illinois

DLM: Participation in PARCC & DLM Field Test.

Kansas

DLM: Kansas is a member of the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Project (DLM), one of the two consortiums awarded a GSEG grant to develop an alternate assessment in reading and math for students who have significant cognitive disabilities based on the Common Core State Standards (CCSS). Kansas has been a member of this consortium since the group was awarded the grant. Teachers from member states have been involved in developing new Essential Elements (Extended Standards) Achievement Level Descriptors in reading and math. The Common Core Essential Elements (CCSS) are specific statements of the content and skills that are linked to the CCSS grade level specific expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities (p. 45).

Louisiana

NCSC: Louisiana joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC), a project led by five centers and 19 states to build an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In addition to the development of an alternate assessment, NCSC is developing curriculum, instruction, and professional development support for teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities. The project also involves identifying effective communication strategies for students, the development of material at varying levels of complexity to meet students’ unique learning needs, and accommodation policies appropriate for this population. Louisiana has established a Community of Practice comprised of teachers and district and school administrators who work with this population of students. The group reviews materials and provides feedback as they are developed. The goal of the NCSC project is to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post-secondary options (p. 37).

Maine

NCSC: Maine is a Tier II Affiliated state in The National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC), a consortium of states developing a new alternate assessment tool for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. In addition to developing an assessment, NCSC is developing aligned curriculum, instruction and professional development for teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities.  As a Tier II state, Maine will have access to curriculum, instruction and professional development opportunities provided by NCSC, as well as providing beta-testing of the assessment instrument (p. 31).

Massachusetts

NCSC: We have also been working to analyze and implement the learning and accommodation factors necessary to ensure that students with disabilities will have the opportunity to meet and exceed the college- and career-ready standards. In 2006, ESE published Guides to the Curriculum Frameworks in ELA, Mathematics, Science and Technology/Engineering, and History/Social Science for Students with Disabilities. These will be updated in 2012 to align to the new Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks for ELA/Literacy and Mathematics. This alignment project will be conducted with other states and university research centers through the alternate assessment consortium, the National Center State and Collaborative (NCSC), and will serve as a resource for other states throughout the country (p. 16).

Michigan

DLM: Michigan offers assessment alternatives for students with disabilities. MI‐Access is Michigan's alternate assessment system, designed for students with severe cognitive impairments whose IEP (Individualized Educational Program) Team has determined that MEAP or MEAP‐Access assessment, even with accommodations, would not be appropriate. MI‐Access satisfies federal law requiring that all students with disabilities be assessed at the state level. Looking ahead to assessments based on the CCSS, Michigan has joined the Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium which is developing an assessment based on the Common Core Essential Elements (CCEEs). The CCEEs were created by the member states in the DLM Consortium. Special education teachers are currently transitioning from Michigan’s extended grade level expectations to the CCEEs (p. 38).

Mississippi

DLM: Mississippi is a governing member of The Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Alternate Assessment System Consortium. DLM is a multi-state consortium awarded a grant by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) to develop a new alternative assessment system. DLM is led by The Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE) and includes experts from a wide range of assessment fields as well as key partners, such as The Arc, the University of Kansas, Center for Literacy and Disability Studies at the University of North Carolina-Chapel Hill, and Edvantia (p. 45).

Nevada

NCSC: Nevada’s students with significant cognitive disabilities need increased support to meet the rigorous expectations of the CCSS. To facilitate this outcome, Nevada has joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG). The NCSC GSEG is a multi-state project drawing on a ten-year research base. Its long-term goal is to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post‐secondary options. The NCSC is developing a full system intended to support educators in implementing college- and career-ready standards among students with disabilities. The system will include a summative assessment, curriculum resources and Scripted Lessons aligned to the CCSS, as well as formative assessment tools and strategies, professional development on appropriate interim uses of data for progress monitoring, and management systems to ease the burdens of administration and documentation (p. 34). For the development of Alternate Assessments aligned to Alternate Achievement Standards (AAAAS) aligned to the CCSS, Nevada is a member of the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG). Assessments designed under the work of this consortium will serve as alternate assessments to the SBAC, with Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) as a partner in the AA-AAS project. The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment System Consortium (DLM) is a group of 13 states dedicated to the development of an alternative assessment system. The consortium includes the States of Iowa, Kansas, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, New Jersey, North Carolina, Oklahoma, Utah, Virginia, Washington, West Virginia, and Wisconsin. DLM is led by the Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation (CETE).The primary purpose of the NCSG-GSEG consortium is to build an assessment system based on research-based understanding of:
- technical quality of AA-AAS design
- formative and interim uses of assessment data
- summative assessments
- academic curriculum and instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities
- student learning characteristics and communication
- effective professional development
As with the general education assessments, Nevada is preparing for the administration of a full census field test of the NCSC-GSEG assessments in 2013-2014 and live testing in 2014-2015. Additionally, Nevada will participate in SBAC’s Students with Disabilities Advisory Committee (SWDAC). The SWDAC will assist the work groups and other Consortium efforts by providing guidance on how to develop accessible assessments for all students. The committee will be managed under a contract with Dr. Martha Thurlow, Director of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) at the University of Minnesota and a leading expert on the assessment of students with disabilities (p. 39-40).

New York

NCSC: For students with disabilities who take New York State's Alternate Assessment (NYSAA), new Alternate Achievement Standards are under development and will be introduced in conjunction with the new assessments. New York State is also one of 19 state partners in the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) Project, which is working to develop a comprehensive assessment system for students with significant cognitive disabilities by 2014-15. An initial part of this process was an analysis of the Common Core to determine the skills required by students with cognitive disabilities. Based on this analysis, NCSC is building a comprehensive system that will include curriculum and instructional modules, comprehensive professional development and an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) that were developed from the best practice-oriented and psychometric research available. Statewide implementation is pending Board of Regents approval. Since NCSC's Alternate Assessment will not be developed until 2014-15, the state is using this process to inform an alignment of our current Alternate Assessment with the new Common Core aligned Alternate Achievement Standards. The new Alternate Achievement Standards are under development and will be introduced in conjunction with the new assessments. The new Alternate Assessments will be implemented on a rolling schedule, with each series of content area assessments to be implemented one year after the general education equivalent (p. 35-36).

Oklahoma

DLM: Oklahoma is also participating in the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM), a consortium funded to assist states in developing assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The DLM consortium is in the process of developing alternate academic achievement standards to align with CCSS (p. 28).

Oregon

NCSC: Oregon has recently partnered with the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) in the development of an alternate assessment. Each of these consortia is dedicated not only to developing a fully accessible assessment based in CCSS, but also to developing an array of formative assessment tools and approaches intended to improve instruction and ensure that students are accessing the content (p. 39).

Pennsylvania

NCSC: For students with significant cognitive disabilities, Pennsylvania participates in National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC). As a NCSC state partner, Pennsylvania is in the process of implementing the materials and resources developed by NCSC as an instructional model, aligned to Common Core. These resources will support educators as they design and implement appropriate instruction that address content and skill expectation aligned to PA Common Core Standards. All NCSC curriculum and instruction assets will be posted in SAS; this includes content modules and element cards, curriculum resource guides, instructional units and scripted lessons, and core content connectors. Although currently complete for Mathematics, English Language Arts—when available - will also be posted and available on the SAS portal. These high quality materials will help to prepare students with the most cognitive disabilities for college and career ready opportunities post high school (p. 25).

Puerto Rico

No Consortia specified: Unlike other States, PRDE’s language of instruction is Spanish so we cannot simply join one of the major consortia; although they may be including some Spanish language versions of tests, these are (a) designed as accommodations rather than core tests and (b) unlikely to reflect the linguistic and cultural considerations that are key to valid assessment of content knowledge in Puerto Rico. Thus, we must continue to develop PRDE’s own assessments that maintain a link with common notions of college and career readiness yet also allow PRDE’s students to demonstrate what they know and can do. At the June TAC meeting we will discuss: PRDE’s next generation of assessments, changes to current assessments to increase rigor and prepare students and teachers for the next generation of assessments, best assessment alternatives to measure learning gains for students with significant cognitive impairments, the evaluation of non-tested grades, and the development and implementation of formative evaluation for non-tested subjects among other issues. The expected outcome of the meeting is to establish a work agenda to develop the next generation of assessments and alternative assessments in line with ESEA Flexibility guidelines (p. 63).

Alternative Assessments: Furthermore, PRDE is considering adopting the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) alternate assessment system that is currently being developed by the University of Minnesota under a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs at the Department. This would further enrich our approach to ensuring that all students are held to a common set of high academic expectations.
The system includes curriculum resources aligned with the Common Core State Standards.

This system is not presently being developed in Spanish. PRDE recognizes that there is significant cost associated with the translation of the NCSC assessment into Spanish and does not have the fiscal resources to cover the full expense. However, PRDE’s experience with the WIDA SALSA grant suggests to PRDE that other NCSC states will be interested in creating a Spanish-language version of this system and we could mutually-benefit from collaboration with other entities on Spanish versions of the assessment and the curriculum. Additionally, PRDE will consider the possibility of contributing some of its 1116 funds to this endeavor in the near future and look to States such as California and New Mexico to identify effective strategies for transitioning to this new assessment.

PRDE’s adoption of the NCSC alternate assessment system will, thus, be contingent on 1) the degree to which the NCSC assessment is proven to be a valid assessment of PRDE’s enacted curriculum [describe when PRDE would conduct such an analysis], 2) the availability of a validated Spanish version of the assessment, and 3) the availability of funds to support implementation. While Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Education has the authority to execute the formal adoption of the NCSC alternate assessments, this process involves various stakeholders for successful adoption and implementation
(including the Governor, the Office of the Undersecretary of Academic Affairs, the Standards and Assessment Unit, the Associate Secretary for Special Education, teachers and their representatives, school directors, and families and advocates of students with special needs). Thus, stakeholder engagement will be central to the potential adoption of the NCSC alternate assessments. PRDE expects to make a final determination regarding the potential adoption of NCSC alternate assessment
system by December 2013.

If PRDE decides not to adopt this assessment, it realizes that it will need to either develop its own alternate assessment or keep its current assessment. PRDE believes that the most realistic option will be to maintain its current process of using a portfolio. The portfolio will be based on the new college and career ready standards that will be adopted. The processes used to revise the PPEA would be modeled after the successful practices PRDE has used in the past (see pages 46, 58 and 60 for additional detail about the current PPEA).

PRDE’s goal is to maximize these students access to the general curriculum by providing them with a high quality standard based instruction linked to the 2007 content standards and grade-level expectations and ensure that students will graduate from high school ready for college and careers. All students with disabilities must have access to the same curriculum as their peers, age appropriate materials, and an engaging academic experience (pp. 45-46).

Rhode Island

NCSC: Finally, as part of our Comprehensive Assessment System, Rhode Island is participating in several national consortia, which are or will implement common summative assessments. Rhode Island is a governing member in the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC) consortium, a member of the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) consortium, and a member of the World-Class Instructional Design and Assessment (WIDA) Consortium. Rhode Island is taking an active role in each consortium to ensure that the assessments are rigorous, of high quality, and valid and reliable measurements of the student population the assessment is designed to assess. The NCSC is developing a comprehensive system that addresses the curriculum, instruction, and assessment needs of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The NCSC is developing a summative assessment in English language arts and Mathematics in grades 3 through 8 and in one grade level in high school. The NCSC is designing this summative assessment to support valid inferences about student achievement on the assessed domains. The NCSC will use technology to deliver assessments with appropriate accommodations, to score, and to report on the assessments. In addition, the NCSC is developing curriculum and instruction tools, and the NCSC is developing state-level communities of practice. These resources will support educators as they design and implement appropriate instruction that addresses content and skill expectations aligned with the Common Core State Standards (CCSS); these resources will also help prepare students with the most significant cognitive disabilities for postsecondary life (p. 29-30).

South Carolina

NCSC: South Carolina is working with the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) to develop an alternative assessment on alternate achievement standards aligned to the CCSS. South Carolina is a partner state in the NCSC, a consortia funded by the US Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs General Supervision Enhancement Grant to develop a system of support, including assessment, curriculum, instruction, and professional development, to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities graduate from high school ready for post-secondary options (p. 29).

South Dakota

NCSC: Several secondary strategies that focus on the needs of specific groups of students are also under way or planned. To address the needs of students with disabilities, South Dakota has joined the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC), a consortium of 19 states which intends to develop a new system of supports including assessment, curriculum, instruction and professional development to help students with disabilities graduate high school ready for postsecondary options. NCSC will create a framework aligned with the Common Core standards that uses scaffolded learning progressions to bring these students towards an understanding of the Common Core concepts. The basis of these scaffolded learning progressions, known as Common Core Connectors, will be made available to states for the 2012-13 school year, and will be followed by lesson plans on key Common Core concepts. As a partner state, South Dakota has convened a 30-member community of practitioners—including LEA special education supervisors, special education teachers, SD DOE staff, and other stakeholders (e.g. advocacy groups)—which participates in the NCSC work group focusing on professional development. Additionally, the state will have access to the work done by other states in the areas of assessment, curriculum and instruction. After NCSC completes its work by the 2014-15 school year, South Dakota will adopt the new assessment system and related materials (p. 21).

For students with significant cognitive disabilities who require an alternate assessment, South Dakota is a member of the National Center and State Collaborative General Supervision Enhancement Grant consortium. Through the grant project, an alternate assessment aligned to the Common Core State Standards will be developed for a census pilot and administered in the 2013-2014 school year. South Dakota plans to use this assessment for accountability purposes in grades 3-8 and 11. Until that time, the state will continue to use its Dakota STEP-A assessment at grades 3-8 and 11 (p. 30).

Tennessee

NCSC: To that end, Tennessee has joined, along with 18 other states, the National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC; see http://www.ncscpartners.org), a consortium which intends to develop a new system of supports—including assessment, curriculum, instruction, and PD to help them graduate high school ready for postsecondary options (p. 24).

Washington

DLM: Washington will move to an alternate assessment of the Common Core State Standards in 2014–15. Washington is an active participant in the Dynamic Learning Maps assessment consortium and likely will utilize the DLM assessments for Mathematics and English Language Arts for implementation in 2014–15. As with the general assessment, the ELA consortia assessment will mean Washington will eliminate the Writing WAAS-Portfolio. Science will continue to be assessed through the WAAS-Portfolio until the Next Generation Science Standards are available and a new assessment is developed to assess those standards (p. 118).

West Virginia

DLM: We also provide plans to continue and accelerate our involvement as a governing state on the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium and as a member of the Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Consortium to prepare for full
administration of the new assessments by the 2014-15 school year (p. 13). With respect to the future of assessment, West Virginia is a member of the Smarter Balanced and Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) consortia developing assessments aligned to CCSS. Accessibility is a core principal of both consortia which will provide computer adaptive assessments for all students in West Virginia beginning school year 2014-15. Participation in these consortia will provide both opportunities and
consequences for teachers of students with disabilities as we implement a comprehensive assessment system that will include formative, interim assessment and summative assessments. These assessments provide an opportunity to obtain immediate results that will provide an opportunity for data-based differentiated instruction (p. 19-20). As noted earlier, the Alternate Task Performance Assessment (APTA) is West Virginia’s Alternate Assessment Based upon Alternate Academic Achievement Standards (AA-AAS). It is administered in mathematics and reading/language arts in grades 3-11 and in science in grades 4-6 and 10. As a member of the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) assessment consortium, West Virginia has plans to transition to the new DLM assessment by 2014-15 (p. 60).

Wisconsin

DLM: One component of the Every Child a Graduate vision (http://dpi.wi.gov/sprntdnt
/index.html) involves two questions directly related to DPI’s planning. The first, ―What and how should students learn? relates directly to the CCSS and CCEE and development of higher standards for Wisconsin’s students as well as providing guidance for educators in what great instruction of the CCSS and CCEE looks like (the Wisconsin SIA Center). The second question points to transitions in the world of assessment, which is, after all, a key component of high-quality instructional practices. That question―How do we know if they’ve learned it?—along with specific recommendations from the Next Generation Assessment Task Force, convened in 2009, guide Wisconsin’s participation in three, next generation assessment consortia: the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium, Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) Consortium, and ASSETS Consortium. . These consortia, while developing assessments for different populations of students, share a common goal of developing innovative, informative, rigorous assessments to replace the current statewide assessment system, assessments that provide students varying opportunities to demonstrate what they know and can do through a combination of assessment types (formative strategies, benchmark, and summative) as well as item types (including performance tasks and technology enhanced items) (p. 39).

State

Criteria

Alabama

X

X

X

X

X

Alaska

X

X

X

X

X

Arizona

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Arkansas

X

X

X

Colorado

X

X

X

X

X

Connecticut

X

X

X

District of Columbia

X

X

Delaware

X

X

X

X

X

X

Florida

X

X

X

Georgia

X

Hawaii

X

Idaho

X

X

X

X

Illinois

X

Indiana

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Kansas

X

X

X

X

X

Kentucky

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Louisiana

X

X

X

X

Maine

X

X

Maryland

X

X

X

Massachusetts

X

X

Michigan

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

Minnesota

X

X

X

X

X

X

Mississippi

X

X

X

X

X

Missouri

X

X

X

Nevada

X

X

X

X

New Hampshire

X

X

New Jersey

New Mexico

X

X

X

X

X

New York

X

X

X

X

North Carolina

X

X

X

X

Ohio

X

X

X

X

Oklahoma

X

X

X

X

X

X

Oregon

X

Pennsylvania

X

X

X

X

X

X

Puerto Rico

X

X

X

X

X

X

Rhode Island

X

X

X

X

South Carolina

X

X

X

South Dakota

X

X

Tennessee

X

X

X

Texas

X

X

X

X

X

Utah

X

X

X

X

Virginia

X

X

X

Washington

X

X

X

X

West Virginia

X

X

X

X

X

X

Wisconsin

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

X

No. of States

33

24

21

21

19

18

17

7

3

20

State

Criteria Specifications and Descriptions

Alabama

Technical assistance: Teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities will receive regional training on the new Alabama Extended Standards once they are released (p. 32).

Professional Development for New ELA and Math Extended Standards (p. 47).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support:  Determination of Torchbearer Reward Schools, Fall of 2013: Must be among the top 20% band of the state using proficiency of ARMT+, AHSGE, and Alabama Alternate Assessment from 2012-13 for Level III and for Level IV (p. 73).

Accountability reporting: The AAA will continue to be used in the accountability model for the applicable grades and subjects (p. 47-48).

Alternate or extended standards: The Alabama Extended Standards for students taking the Alabama Alternate Assessment are currently under revision to align with the new general education standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts (p. 32)

ALSDE staff members from assessment and special education are working to revise the Alabama Extended Standards and the Alabama Alternate Assessment (AAA). Plans are to have the Alabama Extended Standards for mathematics and ELA developed by the spring of 2013 for optional implementation during 2013-14 and required implementation of the standards for both mathematics and ELA during 2014-15. Since the general education science standards are currently under revision and due to be adopted in March 2013 with implementation in fall of 2015, extended standards for science will begin revision immediately following the March 2013 adoption of general standards with implementation of extended standards beginning 2015-2016 with optional implementation for 2014-2015, just as the regular standards are scheduled to be implemented.

The Alabama Alternate Assessment will be revised to reflect the new Alabama Extended Standards in ELA and mathematics for implementation in the spring of 2015. Science will follow with implementation in the spring of 2016. New assessments will be as follows:

• Since the new assessments in Grades 3-8 will include English, reading, writing, math, and science, alternates will be developed in those grades and subjects.
• Since the ACT assessments given in Grades 8, 10, and 11 will include English, reading, math, and science, alternates will be developed in those grades and subjects. Writing will also be developed for Grade 11 since writing will be a part of the ACT.
• An alternate assessment will be developed in Grade 9 in English, reading, math, and science. This will give consistency across Grades 3-12.
• Since WorkKeys, scheduled to be given in Grade 12, will include Applied Mathematics, Locating Information, and Reading for Information, alternates will be developed in reading (to include locating information) and mathematics. (p. 46)

Other: In addition, Alternate ACCESS for ELLs will be administered in Alabama for the first time this school year. This assessment was developed through an Enhanced Assessment Grant (EAG) and is administered to the most severely, cognitively disabled EL students (p. 45).
All students, including students with disabilities and English learners, will participate in the end-of-course testing program for the courses in which the students are enrolled. Students with disabilities and English learners will participate either with or without accommodations. The only exceptions are for those special education students who are significantly cognitively disabled and whose IEP Team determines that these students will be taught the Alabama Extended Standards and will participate in the Alabama Alternate Assessment (p. 49).

Alaska

Technical assistance: With the development of the new college- and career-ready standards, the current assessment measures for student with disabilities may require additional supports and considerations. The State’s current assessment procedures have very specific guidelines for accommodations, modifications, and alternate assessments. EED (Alaska Department of Education & Early Development) makes available to school districts training and support to all teachers and administrators to ensure students have appropriate measures in place for assessment under the college- and career-ready standards (p. 28).

EED will continue to analyze the learning and accommodation factors necessary to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to access learning content aligned with Alaska’s new standards. EED makes it a priority to help all teachers understand their responsibility to serve these students and to empower teachers by embedding differentiated strategies that benefit students with disabilities, as well as all other students (p. 35).

Alaska will continue to coordinate with its qualified mentors, qualified assessors, and school district test coordinators to ensure that expectations are well-understood for students with severe cognitive disabilities as Alaska transitions to the college- and career-ready standards (p. 46).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: In addition, schools are still required to set and meet AMOs for each subgroup. Whether a school has met its AMOs for subgroups will be included as a factor in determining whether a school is a focus or a priority school. This is further evidence that the system is designed to close achievement gaps (p. 36).

Because Alaska has chosen to waive the requirement to report schools as making Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP), the following requirements in the currently approved Accountability Workbook will apply to reporting whether schools meet the AMO targets: 1% cap for students with disabilities who take the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards will still apply (p. 74).

Accountability reporting: The new recognition, accountability, and support system proposed by this application will significantly increase the focus and attention on the issue of subgroup performance over what was occurring under Annual Yearly Progress (AYP). This is because the high-stakes nature of AYP required that we have a minimum N and a confidence interval regarding whether a school or district met AYP for that subgroup. In contrast, inclusion of a point value in an index is not itself a high-stakes matter, even though the overall index point value is high stakes. This allows Alaska to relax the minimum N for inclusion of subgroups into the index to five. The impact of this change will be significant because many of our schools were small to medium- sized schools that were affected by the minimum N/confidence interval for subgroups. In reviewing the proposed Alaska School Performance Index (ASPI) model, the Governor’s Council on Disabilities and Special Education provided comment in favor of the increased accountability that the minimum N of five will bring to the students with disabilities subgroup. Furthermore, in order to maintain high accountability for subgroups, Alaska has resisted requests to consider a super subgroup or to eliminate duplication for students in more than one subgroup. Thus, the system is designed to close achievement gaps (p. 35-36).

Involving stakeholders: As a NCSC partner state, Alaska has convened stakeholders—including district special education supervisors, special education teachers, EED staff, and advocacy groups—to participate in the focus on professional development. Additionally, Alaska will have access to work done by other states in assessment, curriculum and instruction (p. 35).

Other: WIDA and EED worked collaboratively to provide live webinars to be recorded and posted to WIDA’s website (all are posted here: http://www.wida.us/downloadLibrary.aspx). The specific webinars are listed below: Alternate ACCESS for ELLs live webinar—December 18, 2012. (p. 32-33)

Alaska recognizes the role of teacher preparation programs in developing the next generation of educators. Alaska has taken specific steps to bring higher education into the transition to Alaska’s new standards. Representatives from Alaska’s public universities’ teacher preparation programs are engaged in a standards professional development series for teachers. These instructors will incorporate the standards and associated instructional approaches into their pre-service programs (p. 36).

Arizona

Technical assistance: Arizona is on target for meeting the Year 1 goal by identifying 33 Community of Practice (COP) members who have begun to receive training on the CCSS, the relationship among content and achievement standards, curriculum, assessment, and access to the general curriculum. The COPs will be asked to implement model curricula and assist ADE in providing continued trainings across the state to teachers serving students with significant intellectual disabilities (p. 25). Our long-term goal is to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post-secondary options. A well-designed summative assessment alone is insufficient to achieve that goal. Thus, NCSC is developing a full system intended to support educators, which includes formative assessment tools and strategies, professional development on appropriate interim uses of data for progress monitoring, and management systems to ease the burdens of administration and documentation. All partners share a commitment to the research-to-practice focus of the project and the development of a comprehensive model of curriculum, instruction, assessment, and supportive professional development. These supports will improve the alignment of the entire system and strengthen the validity of inferences of the system of assessments (p. 195).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take the alternate assessment (AIMS A) will
also be included in the composite portion of the A-F Letter Grade models starting in the 2011-2012 school year. Students participating in AIMS A, who have demonstrated proficiency (i.e., meets or exceed) in the current year, will be accounted for in the percent passing calculation. As illustrated in the formula below, the school-wide percent passing is calculated by adding the number of students proficient on AIMS with the number of students proficient on AIMS A and dividing that sum by the total number of students tested. To stay consistent with federal guidelines that require a 1 percent cap at the LEA and state level on the number of AIMS A scores counted toward proficiency, LEAs will have this additional rule regarding the percentage of AIMS A students included in the LEA A-F Letter Grade (p. 43).

Accountability reporting: Arizona will incorporate the same process used under IDEA to identify any LEA who exceeds the 1.0 percent cap into the state's A-F Letter Grade System. LEAs will be notified if they have exceeded the 1.0 percent cap and which proficient scores will count as non-proficient at schools in the LEA. This determination is based on the additional data collected regarding the eligibility determination process for student(s) assessed with AIMS A (IEP and MET). ADE will assist any LEA who meets the criteria in 34 CFR Sect 200.13(c)(5)(1) (i.e., small LEA, LEA with special schools) in filing an appeal for an exception to the 1.0 percent cap
(p. 43).

Alternate or Extended Standards: Arizona is the funding state agency for Project Longitudinal Examination of Alternate Assessment Progressions (LEAAP). LEAAP is an analysis of curricular progressions and student performance across grades on states' alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS) for students with significant cognitive disabilities. LEAAP will allow states to examine student progress over time - in both performance and skills assessed. Western Carolina University manages all project activities with oversight by the ADE and the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. This project also includes partners from Maryland, South Dakota, and Wyoming. LEAAP will inform states' future improvements in AA-AAAS systems, including accessibility and validity. The results of the analysis will provide detailed information about Arizona's current Arizona's Instrument to Measure Standards Alternate (AIMS A) and the relationship between the Common Core Standards and Arizona alternate academic standards. The results will further provide guidance on how to further support teacher's transition from using the alternate standards to the Common Core standards for instructional purposes. (p. 25)

Involving stakeholders: We are writing in support of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) collaborative proposal for the General Supervision Enhancement Grants: Alternate Academic Achievement Standards. We look forward to working with our colleagues in many states and the organizational partners at NCEO, the National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment (NCIEA), the Universities of Kentucky (UKY) and North Carolina, Charlotte (UNCC), and edCount LLC on this important topic. The Theory of Action underlying the proposed work plan is consistent with the goals and purposes of our state assessment system, and we believe our joint efforts will increase the achievement and quality of outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities in Arizona. You and your collaborative partners clearly have a long history of working effectively with states on inclusive assessment and accountability systems. In this project, Arizona will commit to our joint work in the following ways:
• active participation in one or more topical area work groups, varying from year to year depending on the stage of design and development;
• identify and support involvement of state stakeholders in development processes (e.g., item review, standard-setting);
• active participation in pilot and field test of all components of the systems;
• participation in validity and evaluative studies;
• provide communication and practice linkages to existing RTT funded consortia (p.194).

Curricular/Instructional materials: The COPs will be asked to implement model curricula and assist ADE in providing continued trainings across the state to teachers serving students with significant intellectual disabilities (p. 25).

Item Development: Finally, information related to the accessibility of items will also be included in the final analysis of AIMS A items (p. 25).

Arkansas

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The annual school performance data from the Arkansas assessments required under section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA for literacy and mathematics, as well as the 2010 and 2011 graduation rates for Arkansas high schools were used to identify Focus Schools. Calculations were based on the size of the gap in proficiency levels from Arkansas CRTs in 2009, 2010 and 2011 for Grades 3 through 8 and high school for math and literacy End of Course Exams, and included all students completing a full academic year, as well as significantly cognitively disabled students completing an alternate assessment. Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates from 2010 and 2011 were also used as an additional indicator in identifying high schools as Focus Schools (p. 98); Calculations for Priority Schools were based on performance levels from Arkansas criterion referenced assessments in 2009, 2010 and 2011 for Grades 3 through 8, Algebra and Geometry End of Course Exams, and Grade 11 Literacy Exams. Percentages included all students completing a full academic year, as well as students completing an alternate assessment (p. 87).

Accountability reporting: Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in the required assessments by completing an alternate portfolio assessment approved by USDE for use in NCLB accountability. Arkansas’
approved Adequate Yearly Progress Workbook specifies the use of math and literacy exams in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for identifying schools’ and districts’ School Improvement status. Arkansas will transition to full implementation of PARCC assessments for reading/language arts and mathematics by 2014-2015 as indicated in the timeline. Additional subject area exams will be considered for inclusion in accountability determinations as the PARCC assessments evolve and additional subject areas become available (p. 73).

Other: Arkansas’s Comprehensive Testing, Assessment and Accountability Program (ACTAAP) includes criterion referenced tests (CRTs) for all students in math and literacy at Grades 3 through 8 and Grades 5 and 7 for science. At the high school level, Arkansas requires all students to complete End of Course Exams in Algebra, Geometry and Biology, as well as a Grade 11 Literacy Exam. SWD and ELs participate in these required assessments with or without accommodations as specified in their Individual Education Plans (IEP) or English Language Acquisition Plans (ELAP). Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participate in the required assessments by completing an alternate portfolio assessment approved by USDE for use in NCLB accountability. Arkansas’s approved Adequate Yearly Progress Workbook specifies the use of math and literacy exams in Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations for identifying schools’ and districts’ School Improvement status (p. 40).

Colorado

Technical assistance: CDE provides online classes, professional development, and instructional tools that target the needs of students with disabilities. To help build local capacity, most utilize a trainer of trainer model. Below is a listing of some of the professional development opportunities. All of the following are intended for both general education and special education teachers (p. 37). Regional development of model autism and significant support needs programs.This project is a collaborative effort to implement the RtI process to build quality programs for students with SSN and ASD. Using both SSN and Autism Quality Indicators as guidelines and to collect data measuring current program practices, baselines and target goals will be set. We began with 2 administrative units across the state in various settings. Year 1 (09-10) SSN sites include Adams 12 (Metro) and Mountain BOCES (Western Region). For Year 2 (10-11) we will expand the project in these AUs to include preschool and MS programs and bringing on 2 more AUs to develop model elementary programs (p. 38).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The Achievement indicator on the School and District Performance Framework reports reflect how a school/district’s students are doing at meeting the state’s proficiency goal: the percentage of students proficient or advanced on Colorado’s standardized assessments. (Note that for AYP purposes, Colorado is approved to use partially proficient, proficient and advanced scores. The state system raises the bar to only include proficient and advanced). Academic Achievement indicators include results from CSAP (reading, math and writing given in grades 3-10; science given in grades 5, 8, 10), CSAPA (the alternate CSAP given to students with the most significant cognitive disabilities), and CSAP Lectura/Escritura (the Spanish versions of the reading and writing CSAP, for which English Language Learners in grades 3 and 4 may be eligible) (p. 57).

Alternate or extended standards: Additionally, CDE has designed and adopted alternate achievement standards in mathematics, science, social studies, and reading, writing, and communicating for students with significant cognitive disabilities under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. (p. 26).

Growth models: The state’s alternate assessment (CSAPA) and the third and fourth grade Spanish version (Escritura) are used only in Academic Achievement, as the state does not calculate growth on the alternate assessment.(p. 71).

Other: Additionally, CDE has designed and adopted alternate achievement standards in mathematics, science, social studies, and reading, writing, and communicating
for students with significant cognitive disabilities under section 602(3) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (p. 25). Colorado already has a rigorous high school assessment capable of measuring college readiness, including a college-preparatory assessment. The current assessments are already aligned to that level of rigor, as demonstrated in the paragraphs below. Colorado continues to administer the ACT statewide to all 11th graders as part of its assessment system, except for those with the most significant cognitive disabilities (p. 41).

Connecticut

Technical Assistance: The CSDE’s Bureau of Assessment content area experts work directly with consortium management through monthly conference calls and webinars. They also participate in one of the work groups to develop professional development associated with the project. Activities have included the following:
• Creation of a NCSC Community of Practice (CoP), which includes 25 members from various districts, grade levels, and areas of expertise;
• Participation in the first CoP meeting with NCSC team leadership and Connecticut CoP members;
• Participation in the first of six CoP webinars (p. 65).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Students participating in the CMT/CAPT MAS or the Skills Checklist will be included in the SPI, DPI, and CPI. Students who score at the Independent level on the Skills Checklist will be factored into the SPI as 1.0, students who score at the Proficient level will be assigned 0.67, and the students who score Basic will be assigned 0.33 (pp. 95-96).

For the purpose of accountability, at the district level, the number of students who score at the Independent level on the CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist shall not exceed 1% of all students in the grades tested. Additionally, the number of student who score at the Goal level on the CMT/CAPT MAS shall not exceed 2% percent of all students in the grades tested unless scores on the CMT/CAPT Skills Checklist at the Independent level do not reach the 1% cap. The scores of the students who exceed the percentage cap, at the district level, will be factored into the DPI as Basic (p. 96).

Involving stakeholders: The CSDE’s Bureau of Student Assessment content area experts participated in the CCSSO SCASS Assessing Special Education Students (ASES) group. The work groups and discussions have focused on the implementation of the CCSS for students with special needs. One of the outcomes of these discussions was a summit for students with disabilities and Common Core college and career readiness held in December 2011. Steering committee members for both ASES and the summit included one CSDE content area expert.

Participation in these activities has provided opportunities for the CSDE’s Bureau of Assessment content area experts, in conjunction with the CSDE’s stakeholders, to make informed decisions and to influence the development of the new assessment system for students with significant cognitive disabilities (p. 65).

Delaware

Technical assistance: Professional development related to the Grade Band Extensions (GBEs) began in the fall of 2011 for educators, related service personnel, and administrators serving students with significant cognitive disabilities. Three phases of training are scheduled across the 2011- 2012 school year. Phase I includes an overview of the ELA and Mathematics GBEs and is available in-person or on-line. Phase II provides a more in-depth workshop on use of the GBEs for instruction targeting academics and embedding life skills, vocational training and other access skills as needed by individual students. Phase III professional development utilizes the coaching model to provide individualized support to teachers and school staff to meaningfully apply the GBEs in lessons and create adapted materials to provide access to the general education curriculum. Delaware is committed to providing the supports necessary for all school staff to successfully implement the CCSS including the GBEs (p. 26). Phase III professional development utilizes the coaching model to provide individualized support to teachers and school staff to meaningfully apply the GBEs in lessons and create adapted materials to provide access to the general education curriculum (p. 26). Delaware is a strong proponent of Universal Design for Learning and is partnering with the Delaware Assistive Technology Initiative (DATI) from the University of Delaware to offer professional development (p. 39). The Development Coach spends three or more hours a week in each building to which he or she is assigned working with the school leader in activities such as reviewing formative assessments, co-observing and debriefing observations, observing and providing feedback after pre and post conferences, conducting walk-throughs, and examining artifacts of practice. The Development Coach will also work with LEA level staff to ensure collaboration and alignment with LEA goals and initiatives. A specially designated Development Coach has been identified to work with Administrators in special schools with the most significantly challenged students (students taking the DCASAlt) (p. 124).

Accountability reporting: The DCAS—Alt1 is designed to measure the performance of a small subpopulation of students with significant cognitive disabilities against the Delaware Content Standards Grade Band Extensions (approximately 1% of the total student population and 10% of the total number of students with disabilities). Delaware has consistently had rigorous participation criteria and has been able to keep the total percent of students participating in this alternate assessment below 1%.
The test was designed to assist educators, parents, and related service providers with
determining the level of academic skill the students have attained up to the point of
assessment. Reading and Mathematics will be assessed twice a year (fall and spring) for students in grades 3 through 10. Second graders will only be assessed in the spring. Science (grades 5, 8, 10) and Social Studies (grades 4, 7) will be assessed once in the spring (p. 39).

Alternate or Extended Standards: The DCAS—Alt1 is designed to measure the performance of a small subpopulation of students with significant cognitive disabilities against the Delaware Content Standards Grade Band Extensions (approximately 1% of the total student population and 10% of the total number of students with disabilities).

After the CCSS were adopted in August 2010, Delaware began the work of creating Grade Band Extensions (GBEs) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participating in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The GBEs were developed through collaboration of special educators, general educators, and related service personnel. In addition, multiple review panels including school administrators, content specialists as well as family and community members reviewed and recommended revisions prior to the State Board adoption of the extensions. English Language Arts and Mathematics GBEs aligned to the CCSS were adopted in May 2011 and Science and Social Studies GBEs aligned to the Delaware Recommended Curriculum were adopted in February 2012. The GBEs provide rigorous standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and are the basis for the new DCAS-Alt1 assessment (p. 25). The DCAS-Alt1 (Delaware’s Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards) conducted standard setting during the summer of 2011. The goals of DCAS-Alt1 are to (1) provide valid and reliable scores for student’s achievement toward the Grade Band Extensions (based on Common Core State Standards) and (2) set targets that are as rigorous of those for their non-disabled peers. Because there is not a national assessment in which to align scores to for the DCAS-Alt1, educators and community members on the Standard Setting Panels reviewed the Achievement Standards established for the DCAS to assist in the decision making process for the DCAS-Atl1. In August of 2011 the State Board approved the equally rigorous Achievement Standards established by the Standard Setting panels (p. 48).

Involving stakeholders: After the CCSS were adopted in August 2010, Delaware began the work of creating Grade Band Extensions (GBEs) for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities participating in the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The GBEs were developed through collaboration of special educators, general educators, and related service personnel (p. 48).

Curricular/instructional materials: The purpose of the Delaware Comprehensive Assessment System Alternate Assessment (DCAS-Alt1) is to maximize access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities, ensure that all students with disabilities are included in Delaware’s statewide assessment and accountability programs, and direct instruction in the classroom by providing important pedagogical expectations and data that guide classroom decisions. The DCAS—Alt1 is only for those students with documented significant cognitive disabilities and adaptive behavior deficits who require extensive support across multiple settings (such as home, school, and community) (p. 39).

Other: There has been a great deal of work on the Student Improvement (Component 5) of the evaluation system. The following provides highlights around this component. The new regulations that were adopted in January 2010 for 106A and 107A require that Component 5 of the DPAS II evaluation system have “multiple” measures that are rigorous and comparable across schools, LEAs, or the state.

These measures could include student’s score on the Delaware Comprehensive
Assessment System (DCAS). The DCAS assesses the ESEA required grades and content. A comparable system of external and internal rubrics were developed using a common strand of eight principles (i.e., standards-based) to ensure that both internal and external measures are comparable and rigorous. Last year (2010-11), over 400 teachers identified “external” assessments that they believed would meet this requirement. Those measures are now being reviewed by the Delaware Technical Advisory Group (DETAG) for validity, reliability, and rigor. Once approved, they will be recommended to the Secretary of Education who has final approval. At that point, they will be released for use by the LEAs. That was just the beginning of the work. Those were “external” measures. The work that the Delaware Department of Education (DDOE) is now undertaking is developing “internal” measures. These are measures that are developed by teachers, align with specific state standards, and correlate with classroom instruction. The challenge around this work is that these assessment measures must also be rigorous and comparable across schools, LEAs, or the state. In order to accomplish that task in such a tight timeframe, the DDOE hired Research in Action (RIA) to assist with this project. Research in Action developed a process which is guiding Cohorts 1, 2, 3, and 4 through the work. Cohort 1 includes: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies, and World Languages. Cohort 2 includes: English as a Second Language, Health, Physical Education, Music, and Visual & Performing Arts. Cohort 3 includes: Family & Consumer Science; Business, Finance & Marketing; Technology Education; Health Sciences; Agriculture; and Skilled & Technical Sciences. Cohort 4 includes: Counselors, Librarians, Educational Diagnosticians, Physical & Occupational Therapists, Psychologists, Speech/Language Pathologists, Social Workers, Visiting Teachers, Nurses, Pre-school, and Special Education teachers working with students who participate in the DCAS Alt1 (Delaware’s Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards). Each group complete five (5) full-day workshops which have been designed by Research in Action (RIA). The DDOE Facilitators are responsible for guiding each group through these Modules. The Modules follow a rigid sequence of activities, that once complete will allow each content area to develop a pre/post assessment for each grade level. These assessments will then be submitted to the Delaware Technical Advisory Group for review. This is the first step in developing the multiple measures needed for Component 5 of the DPAS II evaluation system. As part of this process, the educators in Cohorts 1-3 are producing six deliverables, as follows: test specifications, test blueprints, pre-tests, post-tests, scoring guides and administrative guides. Educators in Cohort 4, non-graded and non-subject areas, are developing growth goals to measure within year performance using standard metrics and measurement data. DDOE intends to create a menu of at least 15 growth goals per area, five of which will be used statewide, and five of the remaining ten will be selected by LEAs (pp. 116-117).

District of Columbia

Technical assistance: Once New Century Learning Consortiums (NCLC) releases the Learning Progressions, the DC OSSE will work to adopt these progressions; it also plans to facilitate teacher and educator professional development that will show IEP teams how to link curriculum and intervention resources to ensure standards progression throughout the school year for all students. Additionally, through this consortium, the DC OSSE is examining how the definition of college- and career-readiness applies to special-needs populations. The District of Columbia currently has a Learning Progressions Community of Practice (LPCoP) consisting of approximately 20 individuals. They include general and special education teachers as well as technical assistance providers to ensure that curricular, instructional, and professional development modules developed by NCSC are practical and feasible. The LPCoP receives training on the CCSS, the relationship between content and achievement standards, curriculum, assessment, and universal access to the general curriculum.
The LPCoP will implement model curricula and help to refine and clarify materials and resources (p. 33).

Curricular/instructional materials: The DC OSSE has and will continue to analyze the factors needing to be addressed to prepare teachers of students with disabilities participating in the alternate assessment with the goal of successfully preparing these students for participation in assessments aligned to CCSS. For special education students in the 1 percent group (students taking the DC CAS Alternate test), it is most important that current entry points are aligned to the CCSS so that teachers can differentiate instruction according to an individual student’s starting point and allow students to set challenging but achievable academic goals. These entry points are used to guide the evidence-based portfolio assessment the DC OSSE uses for these students. The DC OSSE has currently aligned the DC CAS Alt Entry Points to the CCSS for ELA in preparation for this year’s administration (p. 32-33).

Florida

Technical assistance: Florida is currently a partner with 18 other states and four
research centers to develop Core Content Connectors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Once released, curriculum guides and other materials will be provided that will serve as the foundation for classroom instruction (p. 23).

Alternate or extended standards: Florida also is planning to analyze the learning factors necessary to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities have access to the Common Core State Standards at reduced levels of complexity. To accomplish this, Florida is participating with the National Center and State Collaborative General Supervision Enhancement Grant (NCSC GSEG) to define college and career-ready for this population of students and to identify Core Content Connectors to the Common Core State Standards. Florida is currently a partner with 18 other states and four research centers to develop Core Content Connectors for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Once released, curriculum guides and other materials will be provided that will serve as the foundation for classroom instruction. Again, these activities will begin at primary grade levels so that all students will be accessing the standards on the same schedule (see below) (p. 23-24).

Curricular/instructional materials: Access Courses are for students with significant cognitive disabilities that receive instruction on Next Generation Sunshine State Standards Access Points (p. 30).

Georgia

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: At the school level, aggregate achievement results for all subgroups based on 2010-2011 assessment data for all End-of-Course Tests (EOCTs), all Criterion Referenced Competency Tests (CRCTs), all Criterion Referenced Competency Tests - Modified (CRCT-M), and all Georgia Alternate Assessments (GAAs). For a group (All Students as well as the remaining nine (9) traditional subgroups) to be considered in the calculations, the group must meet the minimum N size of 30 where each member of the group has a valid assessment for each content area (p. 79).

Hawaii

Growth Models: The small subset of students with the most severe cognitive disabilities that take the Hawaii State Alternate Assessment are not included in the growth model calculation, as the score scales are not comparable (p. 63).

Idaho

Technical assistance: Idaho will also look to recruit individual districts which can support district-wide collaboration regarding the NCSC professional development, curricular, instructional and assessment tools provided. Participating cohorts and/or districts will also be asked for input on alternate assessment decisions and will be utilized in delivering regional trainings once the NCSC alternate assessment has been developed (p. 47-48). For students with disabilities (SWDs), ISDE provides training and coaching regarding how to best support these students. The ISDE makes sure schools and districts have the support and expertise they need to best meet the needs of their students. For example, if a school in the OneStar category needs support with SWDs, the Idaho Building Capacity Project targets Capacity Builders whose area of expertise is in Special Education for that school. Or, for example, if training in such things as secondary transitions, identification of specific learning disabilities, or supporting the instructional needs of students with significant cognitive impairments is needed, schools are connected with experts at ISDE or institutions of higher
education who can provide that training (p. 118).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The achievement metric measures school and district performance toward the academic standards assessed on the Idaho Standards Achievement Tests (ISAT) and alternate (ISAT-Alt) in reading, language usage, and mathematics. The determination is based on the percentage of
students at the proficient or advanced category. Points are given on a scale indicating higher points for a performance at proficient or advanced (p. 74).

Involving stakeholders: Specifically, Idaho's involvement as a Tier II state is to provide feedback on usability and outcomes of NCSC provided tools and protocols. Idaho will look to recruit a minimum of one to two cohorts, consisting of two to three teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities who administer the ISAT-Alt, in each of our six state regions (p. 47); SDE will use NCSC professional development,
curriculum, instruction and assessment resources and tools and provide
required feedback on usability and outcomes. ISDE will collect input from
cohorts/districts for alternate assessment decisions in Idaho (p. 53).

Curricular/instructional materials: Idaho will also look to recruit individual districts which can support district-wide collaboration regarding the NCSC professional development, curricular, instructional and assessment tools provided (p. 47-48).

Illinois

Other: Throughout this transition period, ISBE also remains committed to its participation in PARCC, new ELL assessments through the WIDA consortium, a new alternate assessment aligned to the Common Core State Standards, and the Next Generation Science Standards (and subsequent assessment development). As such, Illinois will better prepare students for college and careers as these changes will drive instructional decisions; educators, students, and parents will be equipped with valuable information about student performance and readiness for college and careers; and schools and school districts will be held accountable for their preparation of students for college and careers.

Indiana

Technical assistance: For students who are assessed against alternate achievement standards, Indiana will utilize the National Alternate Assessment Center's framework for professional development and guidance on the assessment and instruction of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (p. 25-26).

Finally, Indiana is committed to ensuring that students who take the alternate assessment are being transitioned to college and career readiness. IDOE has a unique and powerful resource focused on secondary transition. This resource center works directly with all LEAs to ensure students with disabilities have good transition goals and assist students with transition.

For all students with disabilities who are either age 14 or in 9th grade, their IEPs must contain post secondary goals. These goals must include, but are not limited to, postsecondary education; vocational education or training, or both; integrated employment, including supported employment; continuing and adult education; adult services; independent living; or community participation. The creation of these IEPs is monitored through the Office of Special Education, and districts struggling to support this group of learners can access support through the Secondary Transition Resource Center. For students who are participating in Indiana's alternate assessment and are likely to go into the workforce or into an alternate post secondary educational environment, their post secondary goals drive their secondary services and planning.

As these students can be more challenging to measure in terms of growth, the Office of Special Education is working collaboratively with IDOE's Office of Student Assessment as well as the Secondary Transition Resource Center and the Effective and Compliant IEP Resource Center to investigate ways in which to have data guide the work of teachers to ensure that students are meeting their post secondary goals. The Secondary Transition Resource Center has partnered with Vocational Rehabilitation to ensure that students with more severe disabilities transitioning to post secondary settings have the necessary skills to obtain meaningful employment as well as independent living opportunities. The Effective and Compliant IEP Resource Center works with all LEAs to ensure that teachers identify appropriate post secondary goals and that there are transition services in place that will allow the student to be college and career ready. The Office of Special Education and the Office of Student Assessment are working to determine what types of data can be obtained from Indiana's alternate assessment that can help drive instruction in order to ensure that all students leave their secondary experience college and career ready;

The Office of Special Education is working to identify ways to utilize the progress monitoring information that teachers of record are required to collect to examine growth and achievement of students participating in the alternate assessment, and to draw correlations to career readiness skills. Currently, Indiana has a state sponsored IEP tool (IndianaIEP). For the 2011-2012 school year, approximately 95% of Indiana LEAs utilized IndianaIEP. Because all teachers of record must complete progress monitoring within the IEP system, the potential is there to compile progress monitoring information from formal assessments as well as informal assessments statewide, and to provide information to LEAs regarding student progress on assessments statewide, and to provide information to LEAs regarding student progress on goals. The Office of Special Education is currently working with the vendor who created IndianaIEP to determine what types of reports could be generated for students who are participating in Indiana's alternate assessment so that instruction may be better informed, as well as ensuring that instruction being provided will meet the student's post secondary goals.

For students who are participating in Indiana's alternate assessment and whose case conference committee team determines they will take the general assessment (ISTEP+), those students would participate in the plan for the predictive Acuity testing to determine if their current interventions are effectively addressing their instructional needs. Instruction would need to be modified based on the acuity results as well as the progress monitoring that is required. It is intended that the same investigation of progress monitoring that will be utilized for students who participate in Indiana's alternate assessment could be completed for students with disabilities who are participating in the general assessment (pp. 26-28).

Indiana participates in the General Supervision Enhancement Grant (GSEG) through the National Alternate Assessment Center. This grant is focused on creating a new alternate assessment to replace Indiana’s current ISTAR alternate assessment. In 2012, IDOE will explore utilization options for the new assessment. The new assessment will measure students on the alternate standards based on the CCSS.
The GSEG grant requires a specific work group dedicated to substantive professional development, which will focus on how to appropriately and effectively teach students with cognitive impairment. It centers on how to provide appropriate instruction in English/Language Arts, Mathematics, and all academic subjects. The professional development will involve the curriculum, the standards of which will be the “core connections” to the CCSS (pp. 35-36).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: To measure progress, P.L. 221 places Indiana schools (both public and accredited non-public) into one of five categories (A, B, C, D, or F) based upon student performance and growth data from the state’s mandatory ISTEP+ and End-o-Course Assessments (ECAs), graduation rates, and college and career readiness indicators. Student performance and improvement on Indiana’s alternative assessments, ISTAR and IMAST, are also included in the calculations of school and LEA results (p. 60).

Accountability reporting: It is important to note, however, that all students are calculated in the proficiency component of the new accountability model (ISTEP + IMAST + ISTAR). The proficiency side of the model remains the primary tool of the model while growth serves as a supplement that is utilized to reward schools for showing significant student improvement or to penalize schools that allow students to fall behind their peers (p. 48).

Alternate or Extended Standards: For students who are assessed against alternate achievement standards, Indiana will utilize the National Alternate Assessment Center's framework for professional development and guidance on the assessment and instruction of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Involving stakeholders: Additionally, Indiana's Office of Special Education is working collaboratively with parent advocacy groups (the Arc of Indiana and IN*SOURCE) and Indiana's Effective Evaluation Resource Center (based at the Blumber Center at Indiana State University), to develop guidance for districts regarding the potential change in assessment options. Through these collaborations, IDOE will develop a tool for LEAs to make appropriate assessment decisions within the case conference committee process and we will encourage parents to be an integral part of the decision-making process. These supports will ensure that case conference committees across the state consider consistent information when making student assessment decisions, and they will ensure that with the phasing out of Indiana's modified assessment (IMAST), students are not unjustifiably shifted to the alternate assessment (p. 26).

Curricular/instructional materials: For students who are assessed against alternate achievement standards, Indiana will utilize the National Alternate Assessment Center's framework for professional development and guidance on the assessment and instruction of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The objective of this guidance will be to assess and align grade level content for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, to identify instructional activities that relate to CCSS for this population of students embedding communication, motor, and social skills into curriculum, and the identification of appropriate supports to ensure success (p. 25-26). The Office of Special Education is currently working with the vendor who created Indiana IEP to determine what types of reports could be generated for students who are participating in Indiana's alternate assessment so that instruction may be better informed, as well as ensuring that instruction being provided will meet the student's post secondary goals (p. 28).

Growth models: Given the way ISTAR and IMAST are scaled it is simply not possible to calculate growth from one year to the next on these assessment. Of note, however, is that 97% of special education students in Indiana take the ISTEP+ for accountability purposes and therefore have growth model results and are included in the growth calculations (p. 48).

Kansas

Technical Assistance: The 2013 Summer Academy will be a hands-on training for teachers to integrate the formative assessment process in instruction. We have begun spreading the seeds of this information by including this topic in our KSDE Annual Conferences. In 2011, Dr. Jim Popham professor emeritus at the University of California at Los Angeles and a former test maker, noted expert on educational testing, and author of many books including TransFormative Assessment, presented at our preconference on the theory of formative assessment. Dr. Margaret Heritage, chair of the Formative Assessment for Students and Teachers (FAST) who will help put theory into practice will be featured at this year’s pre-conference. We know that by next summer, teachers will be anxious about the Common Core assessments for accountability; therefore, we will include in the 2013 Summer Academy information on the 2014-2015 Smarter Balanced Assessments, assessments for students with severe disabilities, the DLM and the ELP assessments. As in previous years, after the academies are completed, our TOT will be trained on what was shared with the field during the summer academies so that they may in turn assist us in providing support to schools (p. 42).

Kansas continues its analysis of the learning and accommodation factors necessary to ensure that students with disabilities have the opportunity to achieve the Common Core State Standards. KSDE continues to guarantee that all activities related to the Common Core State Standards, such as dissemination, outreach, and professional learning addresses the needs of students with disabilities. Two live meetings19 were provided to the field and recorded for future reference; the first one on the “Common Core and its impact on students with disabilities”, and the second on DLM. KSDE is very fortunate to have as part of its state initiatives both the Multi-Tier System of Supports (MTSS) and the Kansas Technical Assistance System Network (TASN). MTSS is implemented in effective Kansas schools for continuous improvement to ensure that every student will be challenged and achieving to high standards both academically and behaviorally. TASN provides technical assistance to support Kansas school districts’ systematic implementation of evidence-based practices in order to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Both of these initiatives provide support to schools with the implementation of KCC (p. 46).

Kansas is also a member of the Dynamic Learning Maps consortium and will be piloting the new alternate assessments that will change how students with disabilities are assessed and taught. Guidance documents and professional development are being prepared to help with the transition to this new assessment process (p. 61).

Alternate or extended standards: Teachers from member states have been involved in developing new Essential Elements (Extended Standards) Achievement Level Descriptors in reading and math. The Common Core Essential Elements (CCSS) are specific statements of the content and skills that are linked to the CCSS grade level specific expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities (p. 45).

Involving stakeholders: Teachers from member states have been involved in developing new Essential Elements (Extended Standards) Achievement Level Descriptors in reading and math (p. 45).

Item development: The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment Project is guided by the core belief that all students should have access to challenging grade-level content. DLM will allow students with significant cognitive disabilities to show what they know in ways that traditional multiple-choice tests cannot. The DLM system is designed to map a student’s learning throughout the year. The system will use items and tasks that are embedded in day-to-day instruction. In this way, testing happens as part of instruction, which both informs teaching and benefits students. An end of the year assessment will be created for states that want to include a summative test in addition to the instructionally embedded system. The standards utilized in the DLM are the Common Core State Standards (p. 44).

Kentucky

Technical assistance: Over the past year, in preparation for the Alternate K-PREP (formerly Kentucky Alternate Assessment Program) Standards rolled-out recently to teachers across the state, KDE has worked with the state’s Special Education Cooperatives and institutions of higher education to produce instructional and curriculum supports for the new reading, writing, and math standards. These materials are all based on the Common Core State Standards. The materials include: podcasts, training materials and instructional tools to assist teachers as they implement the new common core standards with students with disabilities. KDE’s goal for development of training and supports for teachers of students who participate in the Alternate K-PREP was to mirror the curriculum planning process used in the general curriculum as much as possible. Also, this work is aligned to the general educator peers’ professional development focused on improving instructional practices through the characteristics of highly effective teaching and learning (CHETL). Additional materials appear on the KDE website’s Low Incidence page at: http://www.education.ky.gov/KDE/Instructional
+Resources/Exceptional+Children/Low+Incidence/ (p. 26).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Kentucky’s alternate assessment students will be included in each component of the system. How alternate assessment students are included in the Next-Generation Learner categories of achievement, gap, growth, college/career readiness and graduation rate is described in the following paragraph (p. 39).

Accountability reporting: Alternate assessment students complete attainment tasks for reading, mathematics, science, social studies and writing. Alternate assessment student performance levels—Novice, Apprentice, Proficient and Distinguished—describe student results. These performance levels are used to include alternate assessment students in achievement and gap calculations. Growth is based on a student growth percentile (p. 39-40).

Alternate or extended standards: Over the past year, in preparation for the Alternate K-PREP (formerly Kentucky Alternate Assessment Program) Standards rolled-out recently to teachers across the state, KDE has worked with the state’s Special Education Cooperatives and institutions of higher education to produce instructional and curriculum supports for the new reading, writing, and math standards (p. 26).

Curricular/instructional materials: Over the past year, in preparation for the Alternate K-PREP (formerly Kentucky Alternate Assessment Program) Standards rolled-out recently to teachers across the state, KDE has worked with the state’s Special Education Cooperatives and institutions of higher education to produce instructional and curriculum supports for the new reading, writing, and math standards. These materials are all based on the Common Core State Standards. The materials include: podcasts, training materials and instructional tools to assist teachers as they implement the new common core standards with students with disabilities (p. 26).

KDE’s goal for development of training and supports for teachers of students who participate in the Alternate K-PREP was to mirror the curriculum planning process used in the general curriculum as much as possible. Also, this work is aligned to the general educator peers’ professional development focused on improving instructional practices through the characteristics of highly effective teaching and learning (CHETL; p. 26).

Growth models: Growth is based on a student growth percentile. Psychometric staff is currently working to generate a student growth percentile for alternate assessment students (p. 40).

Other: In the area of college and career readiness, a checklist called the Transition Attainment Record (TAR) is used as the alternate for EXPLORE, PLAN and the ACT. A standard setting process will establish a cut on the TAR as a career measure for alternate assessment students. Alternate assessment students receive a certificate of attainment instead of a standard diploma. Kentucky follows the federal guidance on the calculation of graduation rate and alternate assessment students; the certificates of attainment do not count as graduates in the graduation rate formula (p. 40).

Louisiana

Technical Assistance: The LDOE’s Literacy Office plays an important role in supporting the performance of students with disabilities, offering state and regional professional development and on-site school support on using data and effectively differentiating instruction. In 2011, the office hosted Regional Data Summits for district academic and special education supervisors and school teams of general and special education teachers. The event focused on the use of data to improve the performance of students with disabilities. The office also hosted a statewide Differentiated Instruction Institute in which national experts provided training to gifted, regular education, and special education teachers, speech therapists, administrators, interventionists, literacy coaches, facilitators, and educational diagnosticians. In partnership with the Louisiana Council for Exceptional Children through its annual conference, Literacy Office staff has also provided professional development in using data, co-teaching, and serving students with mild, moderate, and significant disabilities (p. 34).

In addition to the development of an alternate assessment, NCSC is developing curriculum, instruction, and professional development support for teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities. The project also involves identifying effective communication strategies for students, the development of material at varying levels of complexity to meet students’ unique learning needs, and accommodation policies appropriate for this population. Louisiana has established a Community of Practice comprised of teachers and district and school administrators who work with this population of students. The group reviews materials and provides feedback as they are developed. The goal of the NCSC project is to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities achieve increasingly higher academic outcomes and leave high school ready for post-secondary options (p. 37).

Accountability reporting: Proficient scores on the alternate assessments, LAA 1 and LAA 2, are included at the appropriate grade levels. Percentages are calculated at the elementary, middle, and high school level as the number of proficient scores from all tests divided by the total number of tests (p. 71).

Involving stakeholders: Louisiana has established a Community of Practice comprised of teachers and district and school administrators who work with this population of students. The group reviews materials and provides feedback as they are developed (p. 37).

The rigorous standards and strong accountability system that Louisiana has put into place are only meaningful if accompanied by efforts to support high-quality instruction and continuous improvement of Louisiana’s educators. LDOE's teacher and leader evaluation and support system, known as Compass, will provide educators with important information about their instructional practice and impacts on student performance. Compass has clear guidelines designed with high-quality evaluation and continual improvement of instruction and leadership in mind, and is aligned with Louisiana’s Race to the Top application (p. 139).

A critical component in the development of Compass has been and continues to be input and recommendations from stakeholders. Beginning in October 2010, teachers, principals, LEA administrators, board members, legislators, parents, students, community advocates and representatives of education organizations participated in workgroups, focus groups, webinars, surveys, pilots, and/or served on the Advisory Committee on Educator Evaluation (ACEE) (See Table 3.B). To effectively reach as many stakeholders as possible, Louisiana implemented an aggressive communication campaign via the web (e.g., LDOE and Act 54 webpages), monthly superintendents’ conference calls, and educator and professional organization list serves. To ensure accessibility and representation across the state, events were held locally, regionally, and via webinar.

These stakeholder engagement sessions were organized to gather input on the following topics:
• Teacher and leader competencies and performance standards
• Educators’ perspective on identifying effective teaching practices in the classroom
• Measures of student growth using the value-added model and for non-tested-grades and subjects
• Policy development
• Parent and community feedback on educator effectiveness reforms
• Compass Pilot

Stakeholders at various levels provided input on these topics. These stakeholders included:
• National experts on educator effectiveness and evaluation
• Superintendents
• Deans and professors of colleges of education
• Teachers
• Exceptional Student Services representatives, included Inclusion, English Language Learners (ELL), Gifted & Talented, and Profound Disabilities
• Central office supervisors
• Professional organizations
• Parents and students (pp. 140-141).

Curricular/Instructional Materials: As the Louisiana Department of Education (LDOE) works to revise the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum to align with the CCSS, it will also align and expand resources available on the nationally recognized Access Guide, a comprehensive website serving educators and families of students with disabilities. The LDOE has contracted with Sparkhound, a local media development business, to revise its current Access Guide website to reflect the CCSS implementation. The Access Guide is a web-based companion to the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum that provides over 3,000 resources and tools for educators and families to use in supporting student access and progress in the general curriculum. A link to the Access Guide is included with each unit of the Louisiana Comprehensive Curriculum, making it very easy for teachers to access appropriate resources to provide students every opportunity to achieve the rigorous goals of CCSS. The website also addresses the needs of struggling learners, students who need added rigor, advanced learners, and those with the most significant disabilities. Access Guide State Leadership Teams comprised of Louisiana educators and special education professionals review and make recommendations to the LDOE on resources to add to the Access Guide that will reflect the CCSS. These teams are focused on the identification of resources primarily for students with mild and moderate disabilities, significant disabilities, speech-language impairments, as well as students who are gifted or talented. Included at the site are strategies related to differentiated instruction and assessment, use of assistive technology, accessible instructional materials, and development of Individualized Education Plans. The Access Guide is available at http://accessguide.doe.louisiana.gov (p. 33).

Maine

Technical assistance: As a Tier II state, Maine will have access to curriculum, instruction and professional development opportunities provided by NCSC, as well as providing beta-testing of the assessment instrument (p. 31).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Maine will use the following types of analysis to differentiate among schools to ensure that our recognition, accountability, and support will be directed to the appropriate schools:

School achievement and progress on state assessments 
This analysis looks at rates of student proficiency in math and reading as measured by the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) assessments in grades 3-8; the Maine High School Assessment (MHSA) in Grade 11 and the Personalized Alternate Assessment Portfolio (PAAP). To target the greatest amount of assistance to schools with the greatest need, we will identify schools with the lowest 3-year-average student proficiency for the “Whole School” group as “Priority” schools. However, to recognize that some schools with the lowest proficiency rates are already taking steps to improve performance, schools with above-average rates of growth in proficiency will be removed from the Priority category and reviewed for placement in other categories (p. 49).

Maryland

Accountability reporting: The IEP teams must avoid an increase in students identified as eligible to participate in the Alternate Maryland School Assessment (Alt-MSA) as a result of the elimination of the Mod-MSA in grades 3 through 8. IEP teams must know the difference between the Mod-MSA and Alt-MSA; and the six eligibility criteria for students to participate in the Alt-MSA, which can be found in the Maryland Accommodations Manual and on the MSDE website (p. 29).

Achievement is based on the percentage of the students in the “all students” group scoring proficient or advanced in Mathematics, Reading, and Science for each elementary and middle school. The performance percent for each school and content (values highlighted in blue in the achievement section) is the combined result of all three elementary / middle test types (Alt-MSA, Mod-MSA, and MSA) and is calculated for the current and baseline (prior) school year (p. 88).

Growth model: Growth is based on the percentage of students in the “all students” group demonstrating growth in Mathematics or Reading performance over the previous year for each elementary and middle school. The growth percent for each school and content (values highlighted in blue in the growth section) is the combined result of all three elementary / middle test types (Alt-MSA, Mod-MSA, and MSA) and is calculated for the current and baseline (prior) school year.

The following steps are taken to determine the growth percentage by content:
• Determine a student’s scale score cut for the current and prior school year. The scale score cut is derived from a standardized table and ranges from 1 to 9 with 9 being the highest. Each proficiency level is broken into three ranges:
- 1 - 3 for basic scale scores
- 4 - 6 for proficient scale scores
- 7 - 9 for advanced scale scores.
• Determine a student’s growth score by subtracting the prior year scale score cut from the current year scale score cut. The growth score ranges from -8 to 8 with 8 being the highest.
• For a growth score to be calculated for a student, the student must have matching test types in both the prior and current school year, and the student’s grade must progress by a one grade increment (i.e., if a student was in grade 3 in the prior year then they must be in grade 4 in the current year).
• The student will then be placed into one of the following three categories based on their growth score

• Decline: Growth Score: -8 to -1
• Same: Growth Score: 0
• Improve: Growth Score: 1 to 8

• Sum the students by school and content for the same and improve categories, which become the number of students demonstrating growth.
• Sum the students by school and content for the decline, same, and improve categories, which becomes the number of test takers.
• The growth percent by content is then the number of students demonstrating growth divided by the number of test takers.
• The current year growth percent is determined by looking at changes from SY2010-11 to SY2011-12. The baseline year growth percent is determined by looking at changes from SY2009-10 to SY2010-11 (pp. 88-89).

Other: The Maryland Assessment Program includes the Maryland School Assessment (MSA), the Alternate Maryland School Assessment (Alt-MSA), and the High School Assessment (HSA). In addition, the Modified High School Assessment (Mod-HSA) will continue to be an assessment instrument. The student’s IEP Team, which includes the parent, will make the recommendation for each student’s participation in the appropriate assessment measure based on the individual needs of the student (p. 32).  

Massachusetts

Technical assistance: Part VII is scheduled for publication in July 2012. It will contain guidance for districts on identifying and using district determined measures of student learning, growth and achievement, and determining ratings of high, moderate, or low for educator impact on student learning. Other subjects to be included in this guidance will be recommended processes for roster verification and attribution, the elements of high quality assessments, and exemplars linked to educator profiles for assessing growth, particularly in non-tested areas, for English Language Learners, and students with disabilities (including significant cognitive disabilities). ESE
is working closely with AIR/Learning points and their national experts on assessment in developing this guidance (p. 87).

Teacher evaluation: Massachusetts developed MCAS alternate assessments for students with significant disabilities (including significant cognitive disabilities) that incorporate evidence of student learning in required subjects as part of a student portfolio. In preparing this guidance on district-determined measures, ESE is also
reviewing approaches for using the portfolio assessment to ensure that all students are appropriately included in measuring the impact of classroom teachers and specialists on their students’ learning, growth, and achievement (p. 90).

Michigan

Technical assistance: Currently students with disabilities in Michigan have multiple choices of assessments to demonstrate what that know and can do. It is expected that the majority of students with disabilities will be assessed on the general assessment and that only a small percentage of SWDs be assessed on an alternate assessment. Therefore, teachers of SWDs will be required to understand the CCSSs and CCEEs in order to ensure that all students are progressing on their individual goals and meet the state proficiency standards. In the past, special educators were not invited to the robust curriculum professional development opportunities. With the new teacher effectiveness requirements and clear expectations, special educators need to be active participants in curricular PD activities. MDE will be supporting teachers to not only understand the standards but be able to teach to the standards through PD activities provided through the ISDs, professional development modules offered through Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM), and the Michigan Online Professional Learning System (MOPLS; p. 39); Federal IDEA funds are being used to complete the Michigan Online Professional Learning System (MOPLS)—an online, interactive, user‐driven program available to all Michigan educators who want high‐quality professional learning options. MOPLS supports teachers as they deliver content and instruction aligned to the Common Core State Standards, and offers ways to engage students who struggle with key concepts in ELA and mathematics. A resource section is offered in both content areas so that educators can extend their understanding of key concepts and methodologies. These resources have been carefully reviewed and selected so that they align to the Common Core. The instructional examples provided through MOPLS were created to provide teachers alternate ways to teach the core content to students who are struggling, specifically students with disabilities (p. 41-42).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: MDE has committed to produce interim guidelines to help districts in their decisions and system development until the statewide evaluation system is available, and these guidelines will include recommendations about when and for whom the state‐provided growth data can be used in evaluations. Michigan’s available growth data will expand with the adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessments and the Dynamic Learning Maps, as well as with interim benchmark exams, and at that time, we will provide additional guidance on using those assessments to measure growth and to evaluate all teachers, including those who teach students with disabilities and ELLs (p. 59)

Accountability reporting: Michigan’s plan to develop an alternate assessment in social studies allows us to have a functional assessment available by 2013‐2014. In the interim two years (2011‐2012 and 2012‐2013), Michigan has begun requiring districts and schools to indicate whether or not students who take the MI‐Access assessment in other subjects have participated in a locally administered social studies
assessment. These students will be part of the 95% participation requirement in the accountability system starting in the 2012‐2013 school year. Prior to that, this information on student participation in a locally administered social studies alternate assessment will be collected and reported in the 2011‐ 2012 school year (but only for informational purposes in order to give the field appropriate time to adjust). Districts and schools are also asked to provide information on what type of assessment the district gave to the student. MDE will enhance their compliance monitoring in the 2011‐2012 and 2012‐ 2013 school years and will audit a sample of districts that reported student participation in alternate social studies assessment. The state will review local documentation, the information provided to the state and ensure an assessment was administered. MDE will publicize these enhanced monitoring plans widely, so that even those schools who are not selected are aware of the potential for this monitoring (p. 100-101).

Involving stakeholders: Michigan already has AA‐AAS assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics and science that have received full approval by the USED as meeting all ESEA requirements. The state will develop an AA‐AAS assessment in social studies that contains the same level of technical adequacy, stakeholder involvement, and content alignment as its alternate assessments in the other content areas (p. 100).

Curricular/instructional materials: MOPLS supports teachers as they deliver Content and instruction aligned to the Common Core State Standards, and offers ways to engage students who struggle with key concepts in ELA and mathematics. A resource section is offered in both content areas so that educators can extend their understanding of key concepts and methodologies. These resources have been carefully reviewed and selected so that they align to the Common Core. The instructional examples provided through MOPLS were created to provide teachers alternate ways to teach the core content to students who are struggling, specifically students with disabilities (p. 41-42).

Growth models: At the present, however, we have growth data available in reading and math for one of our alternate assessments (Functional Independence, which is used by the majority of our students with disabilities who take the alternate assessment). We also have growth data in reading and mathematics in grades 3‐7 for students who take the MEAP, which includes students with disabilities and ELLs who take the MEAP with accommodations. Michigan is providing these growth data back to districts, linked to their teacher of record, for their use in their local evaluation system. Until 2013‐2014, each district will have its own local evaluation system. MDE has committed to produce interim guidelines to help districts in their decisions and system development until the statewide evaluation system is available, and these guidelines will include recommendations about when and for whom the state‐provided growth data can be used in evaluations. Michigan’s available growth data will expand with the adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessments and the Dynamic Learning Maps, as well as with interim benchmark exams, and at that time, we will provide additional guidance on using those assessments to measure growth and to evaluate all teachers, including those who teach students with disabilities and ELLs (p. 198-199).

Teacher evaluation: Michigan’s available growth data will expand with the adoption of the Smarter Balanced Assessments and the Dynamic Learning Maps, as well as with interim benchmark exams, and at that time, we will provide additional guidance on using those assessments to measure growth and to evaluate all teachers, including those who teach students with disabilities and ELLs (p. 59).

Other: Michigan will continue to include science and social studies in the state’s system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support as it has in the past two years. In order to ensure that all students have the opportunity to be appropriately included in this system, the state is developing an Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA‐AAS) for social studies. Michigan already has AA‐AAS assessments in reading/language arts, mathematics and science that have received full approval by the USED as meeting all ESEA requirements. The state will develop an AA‐AAS assessment in social studies that contains the same level of technical adequacy, stakeholder involvement, and content alignment as its alternate assessments in the other content areas. This will ensure access for students with significant cognitive impairment to Michigan’s assessment continuum and enable schools and teachers to calculate valid and reliable individual student growth in a consistent manner for all content areas. Currently, Michigan has social studies assessment results on approximately 350,000 students, obtained from our MEAP and MME assessments, including the vast majority of our students with disabilities. Nearly 40,000 of Michigan’s students with disabilities participate in the general assessment with accommodations. We only lack data from approximately 9,000 students who take the MI‐Access alternate assessment in other subject areas but are not assessed in social studies on a state‐delivered assessment. Michigan feels it is in the best interest of students and schools to use currently available social studies assessment results while we are implementing our plan to develop and implement an alternate assessment in social studies. Michigan’s plan to develop an alternate assessment in social studies allows us to have a functional assessment available by 2013‐2014. In the interim two years (2011‐2012 and 2012‐2013), Michigan has begun requiring districts and schools to indicate whether or not students who take the MI‐Access assessment in other subjects have participated in a locally administered social studies
assessment. These students will be part of the 95% participation requirement in the accountability system starting in the 2012‐2013 school year. Prior to that, this information on student participation in a locally administered social studies alternate assessment will be collected and reported in the 2011‐ 2012 school year (but only for informational purposes in order to give the field appropriate time to adjust). Districts and schools are also asked to provide information on what type of assessment the district gave to the student. MDE will enhance their compliance monitoring in the 2011‐2012 and 2012‐ 2013 school years and will audit a sample of districts that reported student participation in alternate social studies assessment. The state will review local documentation, the information provided to the state and ensure an assessment was administered. MDE will publicize these enhanced monitoring plans widely, so that even those schools who are not selected are aware of the potential for this monitoring (p. 100-101).

Minnesota

Technical assistance: MN provided the guidelines for IEP teams to use in deciding which assessment is to be administered. Evidence: Document 2.3.2.1-Alternate Assessment Eligibility Requirements (Including MCA- Modified and MTAS alternate); Document 2.3.2.2­ Alternate Assessment Eligibility Training for IEP Teams (p. 8); Standards-based IEPS: MDE has developed a number of web-based professional development modules to support the implementation of standards-based IEPs, including promoting understanding of the grade-level content standards. MDE is currently field testing these materials and supplementing them with field-generated case studies. In addition, this content is being integrated into other special education professional development initiatives. Discussions are currently underway on how this process and these materials would be adapted to benefit teachers of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Learning Progressions: MDE has been working with a number of field practitioners,
representatives from across MDE Divisions and Dr. Heritage from UCLA to articulate the essential understandings necessary to achieve proficiency in grade level standards. The outcome is that all teachers of students with disabilities will be able to map an instructional pathway, using learning progressions, from a student’s present levels of performance to the enrolled grade level standard. This content, once pilot tested, will be embedded within the standards-based IEP training. In addition to this, plans are underway to develop training materials on formative assessment of the learning progressions (p. 46-47).

Alternate or extended standards: The Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS), an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards, was developed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The MTAS consists of performance tasks that the test administrator scores with the use of a script and a task-specific scoring rubric. The MTAS serves a number of purposes:
It meets the requirements of NCLB by providing Minnesota students who meet the eligibility guidelines for the MTAS with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards that are aligned with grade-level academic standards (p. 18).

Growth model: Minnesota's Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) has reviewed the
Minnesota Growth methodology and found it appropriate. Even though Minnesota has developed a vertical scale for reporting purposes, it does not include students with special needs who took the Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (alternate assessment); nor does it accommodate standard setting changes. Members of the TAC agreed that updated Minnesota Growth Model methodology is inclusive and flexible. Additionally, they felt that Minnesota's growth methodology would yield results that are comparable to those from the student growth percentile and value-added methodologies implemented in other states. The local TAC member participated fully in the stakeholder advisory meetings that helped shape Minnesota's ESEA Flexibility request (pp. 68-69).

Item development: The Minnesota Test of Academic Skills (MTAS), an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards, was developed for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The MTAS consists of performance tasks that the test administrator scores with the use of a script and a task-specific scoring rubric. The MTAS serves a number of purposes:
• It meets the requirements of NCLB by providing Minnesota students who meet the eligibility guidelines for the MTAS with an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards that are aligned with grade-level academic standards.
• It promotes access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities, as required by both NCLB and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
• It provides educators with a tool for measuring the progress students are making toward proficiency on academic standards in mathematics.
• It provides results that can be used to inform instruction at the classroom level.
The MTAS has nine operational tasks, with each task scored 0 to 3. The following table provides the scoring rubric for MTAS tasks (p. 18).

Teacher evaluation: As outlined in Principle 2, student growth will play a larger role in Minnesota’s new accountability system. The teacher evaluation model will lean on the growth score used in the Multiple Measurements Rating (MMR). This score is based on the average individual student growth achieved by students in each school. Students who test with the main assessments as well as alternate assessments are included in the MMR. Student growth is measured on a normative basis by predicting second-year student scores based on the first-year scores and measuring a student’s growth based on their actual performance relative to that prediction. Predicted student growth is established by finding the mean scores of students at each score point using two cohorts of students. In the MMR, student growth is used to measure schools’ ability to achieve high student growth. The same principle can be applied to teacher evaluation systems that measure a teacher’s ability to achieve high student growth (170-171).

Other: Minnesota Test of Academic Skills—Series III. An alternate assessment given in Minnesota for Special Education students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Begun in 2011, only offered for grades 3-8 in Math (p. 6).

Mississippi

Technical assistance: MDE Offices of Special Education and Student Assessment have collaborated to provide regional and statewide high-quality technical assistance and training for district and school staff on Mississippi’s current alternate assessment. Participants, including special education directors, district test coordinators, building principals, and classroom teachers, have received written guidance, manuals, and suggested forms for quality implementation, as well as a series of webinars for on-going support. MDE Offices of Special Education and Student Assessment will continue to collaborate to provide training and assistance as the state transitions to the common core (p. 45).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Assurance 6 of the ESEA Request is checked, and as it indicates, MDE proposes to include student achievement on science assessments (currently Biology I and 5th and 8th grade Science) in addition to reading/language arts and mathematics in its differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system. The achievement on all the assessments will be used to identify Priority, Focus, and Reward schools, and MDE has technical documentation, which can be made available to the Department upon request, demonstrating that the assessments are administered statewide; include all students, by providing appropriate accommodations for ELs and students with disabilities, as well as alternate assessments based on grade level academic achievement standards or alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.6(a)(2); and are valid and reliable for use in the SEA’s differentiated recognition, accountability, and support system (p. 64).

Accountability reporting: The proposed amendment to the state’s AYP model includes an algorithm (similar to that used in the state’s currently approved AYP model) that ensures that proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) based on alternate academic achievement standards included for AYP proficiency calculations do not exceed 1% of all students in the grades assessed within a district (p. 52).

Applying the “1% Rule” in the Amended AYP Model

The proposed amended AYP model complies with 34 CFR §200.13(c)(4) that requires that the proficient and advanced scores of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) based on alternate academic achievement standards included for AYP proficiency calculations do not exceed 1% of all students in the grades assessed within a district.

The procedure developed for implementing the rule (beginning with the AYP model run in 2004) uses a simple computer algorithm that applies an apportioning constant to each proficiency flag from the state’s alternate assessment for SCD students. The apportioning constant is calculated for each district based on the degree to which the district exceeds the 1% cap. For example, if the number of SCD students with alternate assessment scores in the proficient and advanced level is twice that allowed, the calculated apportioning constant is 0.5. The algorithm applies the apportioning constant to the each student’s proficiency flag (1.0 = proficient) causing the student
to count as “half of a proficient student” within the AYP proficiency index calculations.

The algorithm worked equally well when ‘partial credit’ was allowed in the NCLB AYP model (in 2005). In the hypothetical case above, a partially proficient alternate assessment score (proficiency flag=0.5) would be adjusted to 0.25. The student would count as ‘one quarter of a proficient student.’

The computer algorithm used in the proposed amended AYP model accomplishes the same task. Since the student proficiency measures used in the amended AYP model represent full range performance distributions (not crude dichotomous proficiency classifications), the algorithm operates somewhat differently.

For any SCD alternate assessment score in the proficient or advanced levels, the proficiency flag for the assigned proficiency level (1.0) is multiplied by the district apportioning constant. In the hypothetical example above, the flag becomes 0.5 and the student counts as ‘one half of a proficient student.’ A separate value (calculated as 1 minus the district apportioning constant) is then assigned within the “not-proficient” portion of the full range performance distribution. In the case of a district with an apportioning constant of 0.75, the student would count as 75% (1.0 X 0.75) proficient and 25% (0.0 + [1.0—0.75] = 0.0 + 0.25) not-proficient. QDI values calculated
using the adjusted distribution reflect the appropriate percentages of proficient and nonproficient students in compliance with the 1% rule (p. 301).

Second, DLM-AAS provides an instructionally embedded assessment
integrated into the teaching process, thus allowing the teacher to know what
students can do and make adjustments to instruction in real time. A standalone
summative assessment will also be available. (p. 45)

Alternate or extended standards: The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment (DLM-AAS) differs from the current alternate assessments in several ways. First, DLM-AAS will be based on learning maps. Learning maps allow students to demonstrate their knowledge, even when they take alternate pathways to achieve that knowledge. These alternate pathways give students more opportunities to
show that they can learn challenging content linked to the CCSS (p. 45).

Include all students, by providing appropriate accommodations for ELs and students with disabilities, as well as alternate assessments based on grade level academic achievement standards or alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.6(a)(2) (p.64).

Item development: The Dynamic Learning Maps Alternate Assessment (DLM-AAS) differs from the current alternate assessments in several ways. First, DLM-AAS will be based on learning maps. Learning maps allow students to demonstrate their knowledge, even when they take alternate pathways to achieve that knowledge. These alternate pathways give students more opportunities to show that they can learn challenging content linked to the CCSS. Second, DLM-AAS provides an instructionally embedded assessment integrated into the teaching process, thus allowing the teacher to know what students can do and make adjustments to instruction in real time. A standalone summative assessment will also be available.

Third, DLM-AAS will incorporate instructionally relevant item types. These items will be similar to what students actually do during instruction. These item types will also utilize technology tools such as drag-and-drop, hot spots, keyword lists, numerical responses, as well as other types to be assessment to be aligned with the CCSS. There are two types of assessments that are being developed for DLM. The first is a stand-alone adaptive, summative assessment, to be given in the spring of the year to assess the knowledge and skills learned throughout the year. The second is an instructionally embedded assessment that will take place throughout the year. Regardless of which assessment is used, students, parents, and teachers will be given detailed information to help guide learning. The timeline for administration is currently aligned with the PARCC implementation (pp.45-46).

Missouri

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Table 13 progress scores. Academic Achievement. English language arts: Inclusive of Grades 3-8 MAP, MAP-Alternate, Eng II; Mathematics: Inclusive of Grades 3-8 MAP, MAP-Alternate, Alg I and II (p. 56).

Accountability reporting: MPI Example Calculation. Achievement levels are provided by the testing companies for the total number of reportable students in each subject area. In the following example of a grade 6-8 building, achievement levels generated through the grade-level MAP, the MAP-Alternate, and the end-of-course assessments may be utilized. To generate the MPI, the number of Advanced are multiplied by 5, Proficient by 4, Basic by 3, and Below Basic by 1. These products are then summed, divided by the total number of reportable and multiplied by 100 to produce the MPI which ranges from 100-500 (p. 50).

Growth scores: Table 15 growth scores. Academic Achievement. English language arts: Inclusive of Grades 3-8 MAP, MAP-Alternate, Eng II; Mathematics: Inclusive of Grades 3-8 MAP, MAP-Alternate, Alg I and II (p. 57).

Nevada

Technical assistance: Nevada’s membership in the NCSC GSEG also provides professional development opportunities through Nevada’s Teacher Community of Practice, for teachers who educate Nevada’s students with the most severe cognitive disabilities. Nevada is developing an online Teacher Community of Practice to disseminate information, share lesson plans, address issues of differentiated instruction, promote successful practices, and support access to links for established journals and videos. The site will be open to all Nevada teachers in anticipation of developing collaborative instructional practices for use with students who have disabilities as well as their non-disabled peers. While a small focused core group of teachers are currently official members of the Community of Practice, the NDE has opened up participation for non-members to allow opportunities for all teachers to participate in the webinars and have exposure to the professional
development materials (curriculum resources, practice lessons, unwrapped standards, etc.) (p. 34).

Accountability reporting: In order to ensure that as many students as possible factor into the Nevada School Performance Framework (NSPF), assessment data include the State’s Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRT), High School Proficiency Examination (HSPE) and the Nevada Alternate Assessment (NAA) as appropriate (p. 56).

Curricular/instructional materials: Nevada is developing an online Teacher Community of Practice to disseminate information, share lesson plans, address issues of differentiated instruction, promote successful practices, and support access to links for established journals and videos (p. 34).

Other: By collaborating with state consortia such as SBAC, WIDA, and NCSC-GSEG and with Nevada partners such as NSHE, the RPDPs, and with district administrators and teachers, Nevada is carefully and thoughtfully moving toward full implementation of the SBAC assessment in 2014-2015. This well-planned process will provide an effective transition for students and educators as the SBAC assessment moves into center stage as a measure of college- and career-readiness outcomes (p. 40).

New Hampshire

Alternate or extended standards: New Hampshire Alternate Learning Progressions (ALPs)—implemented based on the required academic performance assessment on alternate achievement standards for those students who face the most severe cognitive challenges (Educators and administrators from across the state, as well as nationally recognized leaders assisted in defining and establishing the achievement standards for the New Hampshire ALPs.) (p. 64).
                             
Other: Two other national consortia have developed alternative assessments: the Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium and the National Center and State Collaborative. Given the costs of aligning NH-ALPS to college and career ready standards by 2014, the NHDOE will review all options. Care will be taken to honor New Hampshire’s tradition around the creation of NH-ALPS, along with cost effectiveness and the alignment to our comprehensive assessment model (p. 46)

Finally, for the last three years, the NHDOE has developed the NH Alternative Learning Progressions Assessment (NH-ALPS). This past year, over 1,300 students who have been unable to access the New England Common Assessment Program (NECAP) from grades 3 through 8, 10 and 11 have participating in the NH-ALPS, tested in mathematics, reading, science, and writing. The portfolio assessment process was developed by Measured Progress of Dover, New Hampshire, in conjunction with the NHDOE and the University of New Hampshire, Institute on Disabilities, along with other national partners.

In 2012, the full validation process including a videotaping process was completed and approved by the US ED. As part of NHDOE’s multiple assessment strategy, the department will maintain the NH-ALPS for at least two more years. As the state prepares for the juncture of the general assessment moving to the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium platform, consideration will be given to the future of NH-ALPS (p. 64).

New Mexico

Technical assistance: Discuss collaboration with Delaware and other interested states in developing CCSS aligned extended grade band expectations(EGBEs) for students with significant cognitive disabilities (January 2012)…Plan design of 2015 NMAPA Assessment for full CCSS alignment (Summer 2014) (p. 132).

Alternate or extended standards: Discuss collaboration with Delaware and other interested states in developing CCSS aligned extended grade band expectations(EGBEs) for students with significant cognitive disabilities (p. 132).

Involving stakeholders: “Conduct item content and bias reviews for shared items using statewide teacher committees for 2013 field test items (July 2014) (p. 132).

Item development: Signed agreement with Delaware to share CCSS aligned NMAPA items in exchange for newly developed CCSS alternate assessment items (November 2011)…. Publicize 2014 assessment blueprint and release items using innovative technology (August 2012) (p. 132).

Other: NMAPA Work Plan. Although it is important to prepare teachers and students with significant cognitive disabilities over time for the demands of a testing system that is more sophisticated and more exacting than the one with which they are familiar, there is an added benefit to the locally developed assessment process that is described below. In implementing the CCSS, teachers must ensure that students are grasping concepts at a deep level and able to apply them in other contexts and experiences. They must have the ability to develop and deliver their own assessments and to analyze their results to improve student achievement (p. 132).

New York

Technical assistance: Based on this analysis, NCSC is building a comprehensive system that will include curriculum and instructional modules, comprehensive professional development and an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) that were developed from the best practice-oriented and psychometric research available. Statewide implementation is pending Board of Regents approval (p. 35).

Alternate or extended standards: For students with disabilities who take New York State's Alternate Assessment (NYSAA), new Alternate Achievement Standards are under development and will be introduced in conjunction with the new assessments (p. 35).

Curricular/instructional materials: Based on this analysis, NCSC is building a comprehensive system that will include curriculum and instructional modules, comprehensive professional development and an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) that were developed from the best practice-oriented and psychometric research available. Statewide implementation is pending Board of Regents approval (p. 35).

Growth Models: The State will construct and provide, for the 2011-2012 school year, a State-determined measure of each educator's contribution to student learning, as measured by growth on State assessments in grades 4-8 ELA and mathematics. Over time, we expect to be able to provide these results for additional grades and subjects including our alternate assessment for the 1 percent of students with severe cognitive disabilities. We also plan to analyze how best to include growth on the test of English language proficiency, the NYSESLAT (p. 148).

Students with severe disabilities take New York State's Alternate Assessment (NYSAA). Teachers of these students will be required, by 2012-13, to set one Student Learning Objective based on student growth on NYSAA performance tasks. Additional SLOs are also set that are based on subject area taught. One criterion for any new iterations of New York's alternate assessment will be suitability for use in our State growth models (p. 152).

North Carolina

Technical assistance: The Exceptional Children Division has conducted professional development to support teachers in their understanding of college- and career-ready, Common Core State Standards and extended content standards (p. 27).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The assessments used to determine each school’s Proficiency Score—R/M include the State’s assessments in English/language arts and mathematics, and include the State’s general assessments, alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, and alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards in those subjects (p. 67).

Alternate or extended standards: In addition to supporting SWD accessing the Common Core State Standards, extensive work has been conducted to address the college- and career-readiness standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The North Carolina Extended Common Core and Essential Standards were developed to be consistent with the general content standards for the purpose of ensuring that the education of all students, including those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, is uniform with content standards and clarifying objectives as established by the North Carolina State Board of Education (NC SBE). Furthermore, North Carolina is required to develop an alternate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who cannot participate in regular state and district assessments, even with accommodations. In keeping with this requirement, the extended content standards serve as the basis for the development of the North Carolina Alternate Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards (NCEXTEND1) (p. 27).

Curricular/instructional materials: In addition, literacy and mathematics modules (i.e., the ACT Project) have been developed to support teachers in their understanding of curriculum development and instruction addressing the following goals:
1. To help professionals recognize literacy and mathematical development in typically developing students and students with significant cognitive disabilities.
2. To address the components of the North Carolina Extended Content Standards as they relate to literacy and mathematical learning for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
3. To introduce theoretical models and processes of literacy and mathematics and their relationship to students with significant cognitive disabilities.
4. To help professionals collect and use data to organize, plan, and set goals, and use a variety of assessment data throughout the year to evaluate progress.
5. To familiarize participants with a range of technologies, and a variety of materials and classroom modifications, that support literacy and mathematics learning and use by students with significant cognitive disabilities.
6. To share a range of resources and strategies for continuing self-education as well as parent and professional support (pp. 27-28).

Ohio

Technical assistance: Ohio has always been committed to providing support to students with disabilities and including teachers who work with students with disabilities in the professional development and resources opportunities available by the state. Currently, Ohio administers the Alternate Assessment for Students With Disabilities (AASWD) for 1% of the students with disabilities population. With the adoption and transition to the Common Core State Standards, ODE is providing increased support to teachers who work with students with disabilities, to ensure their students have access to the CCSS.

Differentiated Instruction Staff: Within the Office of Exceptional Children, staff including an Assistant Director and educational consultants will be devoted to providing professional development, resources, technical assistance and support to educators of diverse learners, specifically students with disabilities and students identified as gifted on the transition to the common core state standards.

Professional Development and Resources: In the coming months, ODE's Division of Learning will develop modules for informational, instructional and training purposes that will represent different content areas as well as different student cognitive levels. These modules will cover both using the common core and the extended standards within in instruction and administering the new Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (AASWD).

The regional network of SSTs will provide professional development to school-based teams on awareness of the common core, the extended standards, documentation on the Individualized Education Program (IEP) and how to incorporate the common core and extended standards into curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities beginning in fall 2012.

In addition, teachers of Students with disabilities are members of the pilot sites for the formative assessment and performance-based assessment initiatives. Teachers of Students with disabilities participate in the development of portfolios of formative assessment strategies and performance based assessments that will be accessible by students with disabilities.

Online modules for teachers who work with Students with disabilities will be developed to provide support and guidance to teachers on the common core standards and their alignment to the new Extended standards.

Webcasts/webinars will also be provided for teachers who work with students with disabilities, on topics such as access to common core standards and the Extended standards, instructional design, and universal design for learning (pp. 34-35).

Alternate or extended standards: Extended standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities. In June 2010, Ohio adopted the CCSS for English language arts and mathematics as well as revisions to the Ohio science and social studies standards. Recognizing the need to make the Common Core state standards accessible for all students, Ohio has seized this opportunity to develop extensions to both the Common Core and its state revised standards for social studies and science. The extended standards are designed to assist teachers in providing meaningful access to the state academic content standards for instruction of students with significant cognitive disabilities, while concurrently allowing the development of an adaptive on-demand, performance-based alternate assessment. The extended standards help to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities receive access to multiple means of learning and opportunities to demonstrate knowledge, but retain the high expectations of the Common Core and State Revised Standards.

The extended academic content standards were developed in grade bands. The grade bands were identified as K-2, 3-5, 6-8 and high school. By developing the strands into grade bands, they could more readily be reduced in breadth and complexity.

The Ohio Academic Content Standards-Extended (OACS-E) are designed to assist teachers in providing access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Students receiving instruction based on the grade band Extensions total approximately one percent of Ohio's student population and are assessed using the Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (AASCD). These Extensions are not meant to replace the CCSS for English language arts, but to serve as a complement to them. The Extensions will be the first resource teachers should use when designing instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Extensions have been written and designed to provide a continuum of entry points related to the English Language Arts Standards. However, this document has been designed so that the reader can reference the CCSS for each grade level on the left hand page with Extensions displayed on the right hand page. There may be times when the instructor may want to further supplement the Extensions with the CCSS listed on the left hand page. This was the intent of the design of this document; to further enhance curricular content for students with significant cognitive disabilities.” (pp. 34-35).

“New Alternate Assessment: The Common Core State Standards and the Extended Standards are the foundation for the development of assessment tasks for new performance-based Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (AASWD). The extended standards allow the development of high-quality tasks that comply with the federal requirements that the alternate assessment is linked to the grade-level content standards, although at less complex skill levels. Since ODE will have the extended standards available to the field by this spring (2012) with professional development for teachers, the tasks development can be completed in time to allow the new AASWD to be operational during the 2012-2013 school year. This new assessment will provide better measurement information for these students and allow for the measurement of student growth not available with our current portfolio assessment system. The Ohio Department of Education modified its website to omit dated efforts (e.g., modified assessments) related to students with disabilities and provided updated information on the alternate assessment (pp. 35-36).

Involving stakeholders: Furthermore, ODE staff met with individuals representing the SWD community who expressed concerns about transparency of data, 1% cap for students using alternate assessments, minimum N size, funding, and impact with IDEA regarding assessments and identification of special needs students. ODE gave great consideration to these comments and Ohio's request demonstrates a strong commitment to disaggregated reporting and developing more rigorous standards and assessment for all students. Ohio's request will not impact the 1% cap issue or the minimum N size that was mentioned by the SWD community (p. 17).

Growth Models: This new assessment will provide better measurement information for these students and allow for the measurement of student growth not available with our current portfolio assessment system (p. 36).

Oklahoma

Technical assistance: The SEA provides training and support to educators and parents in developing Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) based on grade level standards to improve student outcomes. The SEA has recently launched an online option for LEAs to submit IEPs for statewide, district, and site data analysis. This will assist in further data analysis of student IEP goals, the environments in which students receive instruction, accommodations and modifications, types of assessment, and assessment results. This will assist educators in understanding patterns of students who take the general assessments, OMAAP assessments, and alternate assessments and in providing transitional interventions that will lead students toward higher achievement on PARCC assessments and alternate assessments in the future. Supports, personnel, accommodations, and modifications are used in general and special education classes, along with differentiated instruction, to provide access to the curriculum for all students. Additionally, an accommodation manual specific to Oklahoma assists district personnel in selecting appropriate accommodations to be utilized for student assessments. The SEA provides resources, training, and professional development from national experts to ensure educators have the tools needed to assist with this population. The SEA partners with outside agencies to support access to the curriculum, even for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Annual professional development is offered to all educators in areas such as collaborative teaching, accommodations and modifications, Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS), and Response to Intervention (Rti). In addition, training will be provided to districts regarding a multi-tiered system of academic and behavior supports (blending PBIS and Rti).

Oklahoma has implemented an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities as well as a modified assessment based on grade-level achievement standards for students who require modifications to the general assessment. Educators are also provided a criteria checklist for the identification of the appropriate assessment and curriculum access resource guides to assist all educators with suggestions and activities to implement appropriate instruction for students with disabilities. In preparation for the PARCC assessments, which do not include an assessment based on modified achievement standards, Oklahoma is updating curriculum access resource guides to provide suggestions and activities aligned to the CCSS (p. 27-28).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The results of the Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program (OAAP), the Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment Program (OMAAP), and the Oklahoma Core Curriculum Tests (OCCT) are combined and included in the calculation of the Annual Measureable Objectives (AMO's), and in the identification of the Priority Schools, the Focus Schools, the Targeted Intervention Schools, and the Reward Schools. The use of the performance levels in the calculations for each accountability system allowed for the results of all three tests to be used together. Therefore, the scores of Special Education students who take the portfolio assessment (OAAP) and of Special Education students who take the modified assessment (OMAAP) are included in the accountability system calculations. As a result, all of Oklahoma's students are reflected in the AMOs and the identification of Priority, Focus, Targeted Intervention and Reward schools (p. 51).

Accountability reporting: Therefore, the scores of Special Education students who take the portfolio assessment (OAAP) and of Special Education students who take the modified assessment (OMAAP) are included in the accountability system calculations. As a result, all of Oklahoma's students are reflected in the AMOs and the identification of Priority, Focus, Targeted Intervention and Reward schools. Note: Oklahoma will continue to use all current processes for determining what percentage of all students tested can count as proficient based on results from the OAAP and OMAPP, including the general rule as defined in the Accountability Workbook that only 1% of all students assessed may count as proficient on the OAAP and only 2% of all students assessed may count as proficient on the OMAAP. As explained in Oklahoma's approved Accountability Workbook, the 1% and 2% calculations will be made at a district level and applied proportionally to all schools within the district (p. 51).

Alternate or extended standards: The DLM consortium is in the process of developing alternate academic achievement standards to align with CCSS.

Involving stakeholders: The SEA partners with outside agencies to support access to the curriculum, even for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (p. 27).

Other: Students with Disabilities: Accelerating learning of students with disabilities and closing the achievement gap is an Oklahoma priority. The SEA developed the 2011 Oklahoma State Personnel Development Grant (OK SPDG) for the purpose of accelerating student learning experiences so that all students with disabilities, including those who have been participating in the Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment Program (OMAAP) or the Oklahoma Alternate Assessment Program (OAAP), are able to meet the expectations of the Common Core State Standards (p. 26).

Oregon

Growth Models: Extended assessments, which are provided to the most severely cognitively disabled students, are on a different scale and therefore not included in the growth model (p. 70).

Pennsylvania

Technical assistance: Use of PA/NCSC (National Center and State Collaborative) Resources http://www.ncscpartners.org/; Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (students eligible for the alternate assessment) and Struggling Learners (for example: ELL, socio-economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities who do not qualify for the alternate assessment) will be supported in several ways:

• Professional Development 2013-14: These resources are in process of being embedded with the professional development associated with the RtI initiative and Tier 3 Interventions. The Reading and Math initiatives have committed to inserting professional development in regard to instruction, the core content connectors and the NCSC resources within their initiatives for 2013-14. Pennsylvania is also looking  to expand this learning within the autism initiative and Project Max (p. 80-81).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Closing the Achievement Gap: All Students—The achievement gap is determined by comparing the percent of students who are proficient or advanced in the 2012-13 baseline year with 100% proficiency. The benchmark for closing the achievement gap is that 50% of the gap will be closed over a six-year period. All Students is defined as all students enrolled for a full academic year taking the PSSA, Keystone Exams, or the Pennsylvania Alternate System of Assessment (p. 28).

Accountability reporting: Participation Rate: Participation rate will be calculated as approved currently for AYP accountability for the PSSA assessments (p. 52).

Curricular/instructional materials: For students with significant cognitive disabilities, Pennsylvania participates in National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC). As a NCSC state partner, Pennsylvania is in the process of implementing the materials and resources developed by NCSC as an instructional model, aligned to Common Core. These resources will support educators as they design and implement appropriate instruction that address content and skill expectation aligned to PA Common Core Standards. All NCSC curriculum and instruction assets will be posted in SAS; this includes content modules and element cards, curriculum resource guides, instructional units and scripted lessons, and core content connectors. Although currently complete for Mathematics, English Language Arts—when available—will also be posted and available on the SAS portal. These high quality materials will help to prepare students with the most cognitive disabilities for college and career ready opportunities post high school (p. 25).

Use of PA/NCSC (National Center and State Collaborative) Resources http://www.ncscpartners.org/; Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (students eligible for the alternate assessment) and Struggling Learners (for example: ELL, socio-economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities who do not qualify for the alternate assessment) will be supported in several ways:

• NCSC Resources with PA Alignment: Instructional resources have been a priority with NCSC. As a result, instructional resources to support instruction that targets learning aligned to the core content connectors have been developed in math and continue to be developed in ELA. These resources are currently being reviewed and aligned to the practices and content representing PA initiatives. Before release, they will all be customized to reflect alignment with PA content through the PA core content connectors. These resources will provide teachers knowledge about what to teach and suggestions in regard to how to teach and assess the content. Some, if not all, of these resources will be available through the SAS portal.

- Curriculum Resource Guides
- Content Modules
- Instructional Families
- Element Cards
- UDL Units
- Math and Language Arts Scripted (MASSI) and Systematic Instruction (LASSIs)
- Instructional Resource Guide (p. 80-81).
Growth Models: PVAAS does not include students taking the PASA, alternate assessment for the 1% of students with complex needs. These assessment data cannot be included in PVAAS as there are not enough students in PA taking the PASA by district, school, grade, and subject to yield value-added measures. This issue of value-added modeling for this group of students is a national issue. Pennsylvania is one of several states participating in a federal grant to research this issue of growth of students with complex needs (p. 52).

Other:  Implementation of National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) Material and Resources—Aligned to PA Common Core, these nationally developed resources will support students eligible for alternate assessments as well as provide a “ramp” for students with disabilities and at-risk students in the general population (p. 19).

The Pennsylvania Alternate State Assessment (PASA) for reading and math, designed for the one-percent population of students with significant cognitive disabilities, is in redesign to align with the PA Common Core Standards. Scheduled for field testing in 2013-2014, these assessments will be operational in 2014-2015 (p. 21).

Use of PA/NCSC (National Center and State Collaborative) Resources http://www.ncscpartners.org/; Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities (students eligible for the alternate assessment) and Struggling Learners (for example: ELL, socio-economically disadvantaged, students with disabilities who do not qualify for the alternate assessment) will be supported in several ways:

• PA Core Content Connectors in Math and ELA: Originally developed by NCSC as bridges to the Common Core for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Some are directly linked; others represent a link to practices that support learning of core content (similar to skills necessary for application of the long term transfer goals). They represent chunks of the content parsed into finite measureable pieces. The core content connectors exemplify a reduced depth and breadth of the full content. These have been aligned to PA Common Core Standards using content experts and are to be prioritized as eligible content to be aligned with the PA Alternate Assessment (p. 80-81).

Puerto Rico

Technical assistance: PRDE is committed to developing special education teachers’ skills to ensure that all students with disabilities, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, have access to and make progress in the general curriculum. In addition to the curriculum implementation and professional development supports described earlier in this section, every year PRDE provides in-depth training to districts and regional personnel to become thoroughly familiar with the procedures for developing the PPEA assessment portfolio, and providing students with sound instruction. PRDE also provide with professional development opportunities in areas such as content delivery and establishing academic goals in IEPs. In addition, teachers receive continuous support from their district’s special education and academic facilitators. Special education facilitators conduct classroom visits and provide recommendations for teachers on strategies to improve their instruction and other areas of need. These classroom visits are a vehicle to provide one-on-one support and usually inform professional development for these teachers.

Professional Development. In PRDE’s continuing efforts to provide teachers with resources and supports necessary to deliver high quality standard-based instruction to students with significant cognitive disabilities, during spring 2011 we developed a series of modules to support the PPEA assessment training process and provide
teachers with a tool to further incorporate best practices on the alignment of standards, instruction, and assessment. PPEA assessment training is provided annually. PRDE’s main goal with these modules is to increase understanding of effective ways to provide instruction to students with significant cognitive disabilities to promote progress in all academic areas.

Teachers of students with disabilities receive direct support on academic content and instructional strategies from the Special Education Academic Facilitators. Regional and School District Units and the Associate Secretary for Special Education monitor all schools to ensure compliance with students with disabilities including attending to their educational, social and emotional needs.

Transition Planning. PRDE is working with district academic facilitators and teachers to set high expectation for students with disabilities in order to prepare them for college or work. PRDE’s transition program at the school level provides orientation to teachers and students about services available in the community to help students with disabilities for the transition to postsecondary studies or work (for example, partners who work with students to help them transition via apprenticeships). Teachers impacting students with disabilities who are 16 and older are also annually trained in the transition process to adult living. Training includes: Academic Skills, Independent Living, Employment and Training Experiences. Teachers meet with each student’s Programming and Placement Committee (COMPU in Spanish)—composed of the student, his/her parents/guardian, regular and special education teachers, school director, the social worker and a representative of the Vocational Rehabilitation Program—to develop an individualized educational plan. Each individualized plan takes into account the student’s Psychological and Impairment Evaluations together with the results of their Vocational Interest Inventory administered by the school counselors. Those students deemed eligible are then referred to the Vocational Rehabilitation Program for additional college- or career-related support. Additionally, the Associate Secretary for Special Education is revising the guidelines for Independent Living and Occupational Skill Development programs to adjust them to contemporary challenges facing today’s students (pp. 46-47).

Accountability reporting: As indicated above, PRDE’s proposed AMOs are based on the 2011-2012 data for the entire island. These scores include the performance of students using either Puerto Rico’s general or alternate assessment.  The participation rate on the assessment system was well over the required 95%, so these baseline results are representative of island-wide student performance by subgroup. 

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The proficiency and gap calculations include general assessment and PPEA (alternate assessments) results for SLA, Math, and ESL in grades 3-8 and results for SLA and Math in grade 11.

Curricular/instructional materials: PRDE’s goal is to maximize these students access to the general curriculum by providing them with a high quality standard based instruction linked to the 2007 content standards and grade-level expectations and ensure that students will graduate from high school ready for college and careers.
All students with disabilities must have access to the same curriculum as their peers, age appropriate materials, and an engaging academic experience.

PRDE believes it must set high expectations for performance for our students with significant cognitive disabilities (approximately 1%) and they must have access to the curriculum based on the same content standards as their same grade peers. PRDE’s alternate achievement standards reflect rigorous definitions of the knowledge and skills that students with significant cognitive disabilities must demonstrate to be considered proficient in academic domains for each grade level. PRDE’s goal
is to ensure that students develop depth and complexity in skills and knowledge as they move through successive grade levels. PRDE set the expectations that students with significant cognitive disabilities will become proficient with successively more challenging content over time (p. 46).

Involving stakeholders: PRDE’s adoption of the NCSC alternate assessment system will, thus, be contingent on 1) the degree to which the NCSC assessment is proven to be a valid assessment of PRDE’s enacted curriculum [describe when PRDE would conduct such an analysis], 2) the availability of a validated Spanish version of the assessment, and 3) the availability of funds to support implementation. While Puerto Rico’s Secretary of Education has the authority to execute the formal adoption of the NCSC alternate assessments, this process involves various stakeholders for successful adoption and implementation (including the Governor, the Office of the Undersecretary of Academic Affairs, the Standards and Assessment Unit, the Associate Secretary for Special Education, teachers and their representatives, school directors, and families and advocates of students with special needs). Thus, stakeholder engagement will be central to the potential adoption of the NCSC alternate assessments. PRDE expects to make a final determination regarding the potential adoption of NCSC alternate assessment system by December 2013 (pp. 45-46).

Alternate or extended standards: PRDE’s goal is to maximize these students access to the general curriculum by providing them with a high quality standard based instruction linked to the 2007 content standards and grade-level expectations and ensure that students will graduate from high school ready for college and careers.
All students with disabilities must have access to the same curriculum as their peers, age appropriate materials, and an engaging academic experience.

PRDE believes it must set high expectations for performance for our students with significant cognitive disabilities (approximately 1%) and they must have access to the curriculum based on the same content standards as their same grade peers. PRDE’s alternate achievement standards reflect rigorous definitions of the knowledge and skills that students with significant cognitive disabilities must demonstrate to be considered proficient in academic domains for each grade level. PRDE’s goal
is to ensure that students develop depth and complexity in skills and knowledge as they move through successive grade levels. PRDE set the expectations that students with significant cognitive disabilities will become proficient with successively more challenging content over time (p. 46).

Rhode Island

Technical assistance: Our plan to transition to the Common Core, as we have described above, includes providing professional development, resources, and systems that include specific connections to address the needs of students with disabilities, English Learners, and students who are low achieving.

As a member of the National Center and State Collaborative, we will be developing resources to support educators to design and implement appropriate instruction that addresses content and skill expectations aligned to the Common Core for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to prepare them for postsecondary life. Curriculum resource guides for focus content within mathematics and ELA will provide information on instruction within the general education setting, differentiation through Universal Design for Learning, and teaching and applying skills in meaningful content areas. Online professional development modules will help special educators gain an understanding of the prioritized academic content within learning progressions that describe a curricular sequence for how students develop understanding in each content area over time. Finally, formative and interim tools will be developed as part of comprehensive curriculum, instruction, and assessment resources that can be used by educators throughout the school year to monitor student progress (p. 33-34).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Our current accountability system allows many schools—particularly in our suburbs—to mask the poor performance of our most vulnerable students; those with disabilities and English Learners. This phenomenon occurs because many of our schools do not meet the minimum n size of 45 for each subgroup. Concurrently, many of our urban schools report small performance gaps because overall performance is so low at the school level. To account for these two issues, we propose to collapse all reported subgroups into three subgroups and to lower then size to twenty students for component analysis…Consolidated Program Subgroup: This subgroup includes English Learners (ELs) including former English Learners that are being monitored and students with disabilities (including students who take the alternate assessment). The decision was made to consolidate both programs after exploring other options to ensure that as many students as possible were informing the accountability data for each school and district (p. 50).

Accountability reporting: From these assessments, students receive scale scores (between 0- 80 points) and one of four accompanying proficiency levels. Approximately one percent of Rhode Island students participate in the Alternate Assessment, our assessment for students with disabilities. Results from these two assessments are combined to determine the absolute percent proficient metric. Our assessments achievement levels are outlined in the table below (p. 55).

“All students with disabilities participate fully in the statewide assessments (sometimes with testing accommodations) or they are tested using the Alternate Assessment system if they meet the eligibility criteria. Less than 1 percent of all students are eligible to participate in the Rhode Island Alternate Assessment system. Thus, all students with disabilities are included in the state accountability system (p. 68).

Curricular/instructional materials: Curriculum resource guides for focus content within mathematics and ELA will provide information on instruction within the general education setting, differentiation through Universal Design for Learning, and teaching and applying skills in meaningful content areas (p. 33).

South Carolina

Technical assistance: The SCDE also plans to analyze the learning factors necessary to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities have access to the CCSS at reduced levels of complexity.

Currently, staff in the SCDE’s Office of Assessment and Office of Exceptional Children (within the Division of Accountability) are participating with the NCSC to analyze the learning and accommodation factors necessary to ensure that students with significant cognitive disabilities will have the opportunity to achieve the CCSS in ELA and mathematics. This work includes developing linkages to the CCSS in ELA and mathematics, known as Common Core Connectors, which will be the basis of instruction and assessment for students who participate in the alternate assessment aligned to the CCSS (p. 29).

Involving stakeholders: The SCDE has established a 30-member community of practitioners, which includes special educators and other stakeholders, to support implementation of professional development related to instruction based on the CCSS for students with significant cognitive disabilities (p. 29).

Other: Following a timeline that coincides with the full implementation of the CCSS in South Carolina, the NCSC member states will use the Common Core Connectors to guide instruction by the 2013−14 school year, field test assessment items aligned to the CCSS through the Common Core Connectors, and fully implement the alternate assessment aligned to the CCSS by the 2014−15 school year (p.29).

South Dakota

Technical assistance: As a partner state, South Dakota has convened a 30-member community of practitioners—including LEA special education supervisors, special education teachers, SD DOE staff, and other stakeholders (e.g., advocacy groups)—which participates in the NCSC work group focusing on professional development. Additionally, the state will have access to the work done by other states in the areas of assessment, curriculum and instruction. After NCSC completes its work by the 2014-15 school year, South Dakota will adopt the new assessment system and related materials (p. 21).

Involving stakeholders:
As a partner state, South Dakota has convened a 30-member community of practitioners—including LEA special education supervisors, special education teachers, SD DOE staff, and other stakeholders (e.g. advocacy groups)—which participates in the NCSC work group focusing on professional development (p. 21).

Tennessee

Accountability reporting: All educators, including full-time classroom teachers who provide instructional services to English Learners and students with disabilities and teachers of students taking the alternate assessment, are assessed 50 percent on quantitative measures (35 percent by student growth, and 15 percent by student achievement) and 50 percent on qualitative measures, as required by statute. Fulltime teachers of students with disabilities currently use school-level student growth data, either overall data, or numeracy (math and science) or literacy (reading and writing) data, at the discretion of the district. We are piloting the use of Student Learning Objectives (SLOs) as a growth measure for this group, in which teachers set individual student learning objectives each year, monitor progress, and eventually rate their achievement of these objectives on a 1 to 5 scale. For the 15 percent based on student achievement data, all teachers, including full-time teachers of English learners and students with disabilities, choose from a menu of approved options in a decision made with their evaluator based on their specific context (see Appendix 18).

The alternative assessment for students with disabilities, the Modified Academic Achievement Standards (MAAS) is included in all school-wide student achievement scores and growth data.

On the qualitative side, all teachers, including full-time teachers of English Learners and students with disabilities, are assessed using an approved instructional rubric, whether TEAM or one of the three approved alternative models currently in use in certain LEAs (pp. 84-85).

Involving stakeholders: As a partner state, Tennessee has convened a 30-member community of practitioners—including LEA special education supervisors, special education teachers, TDOE staff, and other stakeholders (e.g., advocacy groups)—which participates in the NCSC work group focusing on PD; however, the state will have access to the work done by other states in assessment, curriculum, and instruction. After NCSC completes its work by the 2014-15 school year, the community of practitioners will advise TDOE on whether to adopt the new assessment system and related materials (p. 24).

Growth Models: Tennessee will continue to permit LEAs to exceed the 1 percent cap on the number of proficient and advanced scores based on the alternate achievement standards that can be included in AYP calculations if the LEA establishes that the incidence of students with the most significant disabilities, as defined by the State, exceeds the limit and if the LEA documents circumstances that explain the higher percentage. Without approval requesting the extension of the 1 percent cap, proficient scores exceeding this cap must be changed to below proficient for accountability purposes (pp. 50-51).

Texas

Technical assistance: In additional to local, and regional evaluation systems used to determine the effectiveness of professional development/training opportunities, the Texas Education Agency will analyze the following data sets:
- 2013-14 STAAR performance information (across all three state assessments—STAAR, STAAR-Modified and STAAR-Alt); …
This analysis will be used to determine the effectiveness of the professional development/training, and whether additional/specific efforts need to be developed/made available to educators, for the 2014-15 school year, regarding TEKS content instruction for students with disabilities (p. 21).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The table provided in Section 2.B shows the disaggregated safeguard measures and federal targets or annual measurable objectives (AMOs). Performance rates, participation rates, graduation rates, and limits on use of STAAR Alternate and STAAR Modified are calculated to meet federal requirements and federal targets have been set for these indicators (p. 39).

Accountability reporting: Accountability System Safeguards include participation rates, graduation rates, and limits on the use of alternate assessments. These have been calculated to meet federal requirements and federal targets. Results will be reported for any subgroup that meets accountability minimum size criteria as described previously. Failure to meet the safeguard target for any reported cell must be addressed in the campus or district improvement plan. Campuses will be encouraged to work with the regional Education Service Center Turnaround Teams if they have areas of underperformance within the system safeguards. Based on the modeling assumptions described above, the estimated percentage of campuses that will not meet one or more of the federal accountability targets for performance rates, participation rates, or federal graduation rates more than 50% in 2013 (p. 47).

Alternate or extended standards: STAAR Alternate is based on alternate academic achievement standards and is designed for students with significant cognitive disabilities receiving special education services who meet the participation requirements for the program. This assessment is not a traditional paper or multiple-choice test. Instead, it requires teachers to observe students as they complete state-developed assessment tasks linked to the grade-level TEKS. Teachers then evaluate student performance based on the dimensions of the STAAR Alternate rubric and submit results through an online instrument. The STAAR Alternate assessments reflect the same increased rigor and focus of the general and modified assessments (p.27).

Growth models: The STAAR progress measure provides information about the amount of improvement or growth that a student has made from year to year. For STAAR, progress is measured as a student’s gain score, the difference between the score a student achieved in the prior year and the score a student achieved in the current year. Individual student progress is then categorized as Did Not Meet, Met, or Exceeded. The progress measure results are then aggregated in a manner that gives districts and campuses one point credit for tests that Met the progress target and two point credit for tests that Exceeded the progress target.
Additional Information on calculating the progress measure:
Step 1. Determine if the student should receive a STAAR progress measure.
In order to receive a progress measure, a student must meet ALL of the following criteria within the same content area (reading, mathematics, or writing):
• Have a valid score from the prior year and the current year
• Have tested in successive grade levels or end of course (EOC) tests in the prior year and the current year. Students who took the same grade-level or EOC test in the prior year and the current year will not receive a progress measure. Students who skipped a grade level between the prior year and the current year, with the exception of grade 7 mathematics to Algebra I, will not receive a progress measure.
• Have taken the same version or type of test in the prior year and the current year (i.e., STAAR, STAAR Modified, or STAAR Alternate)
• Have taken tests in the same language in the prior year and the current year (i.e., English or Spanish)

Additional documentation for STAAR Modified and STAAR Alternate progress measures will be posted in fall 2013 (p. 45).

Utah

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Example 12 specifies the steps for incorporating the UAA progress scores with the growth scores generated from the SGP approach. In Example 12, the first step considers all UAA progress scores with the growth score of all students. The second step entails incorporating the UAA progress scores of below proficient students with the growth score of all below proficient students at the school. The final step entails adding up the growth points earned by both groups of students to compute the final growth points for the school and to assign a grade to growth (p. 161).

Accountability reporting: Annual Measureable Objectives (AMOs) will be based on the percent of students achieving proficiency on the states Criterion-Referenced Tests (CRTs) separately in English language arts and mathematics.
• ELA: CRT results in grades 3-8 and 10 are used to determine the percent of students proficient.
• Mathematics: results are based on CRTs in grades 3-6 and in the course appropriate CRT thereafter which includes math 7, algebra, or geometry for grades 7 and 8. High schools will be determined by calculating the percent of 10th grade students who scored proficient on the Algebra I CRT in l0th grade year or a prior year.
• Results from the Utah Alternative Assessment (UAA) are included for students with significant cognitive disabilities approved to participate in this assessment (p. 46).

Growth Models: Evaluating UAA Growth Performance. To evaluate growth for students with significant cognitive disabilities who take the Utah Alternate Assessment (UAA), the scores for these students are evaluated using a value table approach, and then the points earned from the value table are transformed for inclusion to the growth scores:
• Growth for UAA students is first calculated separately from growth for all other students using a value table (see Figure 3).
• A direct transformation can then be made to convert the progress scores into the scale of the SGP rubric.
• The mean is then taken across transformed scores and combined with the SGP generated growth scores at the non-proficient and whole school level.

Example 12 specifies the steps for incorporating the UAA progress scores with the growth scores generated from the SGP approach. In Example 12, the first step considers all UAA progress scores with the growth score of all students. The second step entails incorporating the UAA progress scores of below proficient students with the growth score of all below proficient students at the school. The final step entails adding up the growth points earned by both groups of students to compute the final growth points for the school and to assign a grade to growth.

Example 12:
Step 1: Incorporating UAA scores in the whole school growth score
Three students in a school of 100 have UAA scores. One student advances from lb to 3 (375 pts), the second declines from 3 to 2b (100 pts), and the third stays at 2b between Year 1 and 2 (175 points).
• Take the average points across all UAA scores. The average of the three scores = 216.7
• Transform this average into the SGP rubric scale for all students (200 points) as follows: 216.7 points out of 400 = .542 or 54.2%.
54.2% out of200 points= 108
• The 108.4 points from the UAA scores can then be combined with the schools growth score by attributing the proper weight to the score relative to the proportion of students taking all tests as follows:
Growth score based on 97 students taking CRT= 175 points
Growth score for 2 students taking UAA = 108 points
Total growth points earned= 175 x (.97) + 108 x (.03) = 173 points

Step 2: Incorporating UAA scores in the below proficient growth score
Continuing with the same example, out of the three students with UAA scores, two of those students would be included with the below proficient group: the student who advanced from lb to 3 and the student who stayed at 2b in both years. The same process described to incorporate these UAA scores into the whole school growth score apply but the progress scores in this case are rescaled to the 100 point scale attributed to below proficient growth. The following outlines the specific steps taken to incorporate the below proficient UAA scores with the below proficient group score.
• Take the average points across the two UAA scores. The average of the two scores= 237.5.
• Transform this average into the SGP rubric scale for all students (100 points) as follows: 237.5 points out of 400 = .592 or 59.3%. 59.3% out of 100 points= 59.3 points
• The rescaled U AA points of 59.3 points can then be combined with the below proficient growth score by attributing the proper weight to the score relative to the proportion of below proficient students taking the regular CRT tests as follows:
Growth score based on 48 students taking CRT= 75 points
Growth score for 2 students taking UAA = 59.3 points
Total growth points earned= 75 x (.96) + 59.3 x (.04) = 74.4 points

Step 3: Calculating the school's growth score
The final step of calculating the school's growth score requires summing the points computed for the below proficient students and the points computed for all students.
• In this example, the school's overall growth points earned= 74.4 + 173 or 247.4. Example 13: In the event that there are no below proficient scores available for either UAA or all other students, the UAA scores would be re-scaled to 300 points. The exact same steps described for transforming and incorporating the UAA scores in Example 12 apply. In this example, an elementary school has 30 students with either UAA growth or SGPs.
• Out of the 30 students, 6 have UAA growth scores. Those scores were: 100, 150, 200, 200, 400, and 325.
• The mean across those 6 scores =229 .2
• Transform this average into the 300 point rubric scale as follows: 229.2 out of 400 points= .573 or 57.3% 57.3% out of300 points= 171.9 points
• The rescaled U AA points of 171.9 points can then be combined with the growth score earned by all other students by attributing the proper weight to the UAA score relative to the proportion of all other students taking the regular CRT tests as follows:
Growth score based on 24 students taking CRT = 225 points
Growth score for 6 students with UAA scores= 171.9 points
Total growth score earned= 225 (.8) + 171.9 (.2) = 214.38 points (pp 161-162).

Other: Performance standards have been established for all CRTs. Performance standards are also approved for the Utah Alternate Assessment (UAA) intended for qualifying students with significant cognitive disabilities. Establishing appropriately challenging performance standards for each assessment allows the state to hold all students accountable for academic performance, including students with significant cognitive disabilities that do not take the Core CRTs in standard or accommodated conditions (p. 37).

Virginia

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: Continue to identify subgroups, disaggregate data by subgroups, and maintain high expectations for students with disabilities, but be mindful of alternate assessments (p.150).

Alternate or extended standards: Students with disabilities in Virginia are expected to achieve the same standards as their non-disabled peers, through the Virginia Standards of Learning. A small number of students with significant cognitive disabilities participate in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards as provided for in NCLB. The assessments are based on Aligned Standards of Learning (p. 23).

Other: For students with disabilities who have the most intensive support needs, there are two model initiatives supported by the Virginia Department of Education: Project SEARCH and the Post-High School Community College Program. Project SEARCH, a business-led model, is a collaborative between school divisions and local businesses that provide employability skills training and workplace internships that occur entirely in the workplace. The Post-High School Community College Program is a supported education model that provides individualized supports to students with significant disabilities seeking postsecondary education to enhance their skills for employment, in an age-appropriate setting. The Department of Education provides support and technical assistance to increase the number of partnerships between school divisions and institutions of higher education (p. 23).

Washington

Technical assistance: Thus, professional development and other supports provided to educators at the state and local levels will build capacity for implementing a variety of strategies to ensure their students have access and opportunity both to learn to high expectations and to be able to demonstrate that learning.

With regard to the assessment system, as a member of the Dynamic Learning Map (DLM) consortium with 10 other states, Washington is poised to consider how the products developed can be used with educators in Washington. While much of the focus of the DLM work is on building the 1% assessment, there are several other major tasks that hold promise for supporting Washington educators in their work with students with disabilities. The Consortium plans to develop multiple tasks (p. 39).

July 2013 - Develop training plan for teachers of students with significant cognitive challenges and their administrators for DLM tools (p. 59).

Some students with significant cognitive challenges will require substantial supports and accommodations to have meaningful access to both instruction and assessment, that are based on their unique communication and academic needs. These supports and accommodations should ensure that students receive access to multiple means of learning and opportunities to demonstrate knowledge, but retain the rigor and high expectations associated with the Common Core State Standards. Thus, professional development and other supports provided to educators at the state and local levels will build capacity for implementing a variety of strategies to ensure their students have access and opportunity both to learn to high expectations and to be able to demonstrate that learning (p. 39).

Involving stakeholders: Family engagement and dissemination (p. 40).

Curricular/Instructional Materials: In recent years, the increased use of computer-based test administration systems has led to a proliferation of innovative item types. Unfortunately, most of the innovations have little connection with students’ daily instruction. In order to overcome the disconnect between the assessment and daily instruction, DLM task developers are working to create instructionally relevant item types that will be the kinds of activities that master teachers and related service providers use for instruction. Instructionally relevant item types will be items and tasks that are intended to be embedded in day-to-day instruction throughout the year to help map a student’s learning. Under this model, students may take up to 30 small assessments integrated into their regular instruction by the end of the year, rather than one single large assessment. An optional summative assessment will also be developed as a supplement to the instructionally embedded system (p. 40).

Developmental Learning Maps Consortium

Washington’s work with the Developmental Learning Maps (DLM) Consortium will enhance the assessment efforts by identifying specific pre-requisite skills, accommodations and universal design protocols associated with a new set of state learning standards. Fifteen additional states are engaged in this project, so there will be multiple opportunities to learn from the experiences in other states that have also adopted the CCSS. Pre-requisite skills identified through the project will serve as the basis for incorporating definable skills into Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for students eligible for special education services. While there is no specific curriculum for special education per se, there are appropriate entry points into the general education curriculum as represented by the learning maps through the DLM project and the subsequent state learning standards. The learning maps are aligned with the CCSS and will serve as references for IEP teams when selecting measurable annual goals in a variety of content areas.

In addition to incorporating definable skills into IEPs, the CCSS can also be used as reference points for the required evaluations/re-evaluations for students eligible for special education. This enables teachers to pinpoint a baseline for the provision of specially designed instruction.

In short, the adoption of CCSS, identification and verification of prerequisite skills through the DLM project, and incorporation of a progression of skill development into eligibility evaluations and IEPs represent a unified approach to successfully integrate and improve student outcomes for students with disabilities, including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Washington is currently working to catalog, categorize, establish criteria for, and vet all of its professional development efforts in
special education (p. 79).

Item development: With regard to the assessment system, as a member of the Dynamic Learning Map (DLM) consortium with 10 other states, Washington is poised to consider how the products developed can be used with educators in Washington. While much of the focus of the DLM work is on building the 1% assessment, there are several other major tasks that hold promise for supporting Washington educators in their work with students with disabilities. The Consortium plans to develop multiple tasks. Bolded tasks hold particular promise for work with this population):
• Common Core Essential Elements and creating ALDs
• Development and validation of learning maps
• Creation of instructionally relevant item types*
• Technology development
• Item and assessment development
• Standard setting
• Professional development
• Instructional consequences
• Family engagement and dissemination
*In recent years, the increased use of computer-based test administration systems has led to a proliferation of innovative item types. Unfortunately, most of the innovations have little connection with students’ daily instruction. In order to overcome the disconnect between the assessment and daily instruction, DLM task developers are working to create instructionally relevant item types that will be the kinds of activities that master teachers and related service providers use for instruction.

Instructionally relevant item types will be items and tasks that are intended to be embedded in day-to-day instruction throughout the year to help map a student’s learning. Under this model, students may take up to 30 small assessments integrated into their regular instruction by the end of the year, rather than one single large assessment. An optional summative assessment will also be developed as a supplement to the instructionally embedded system (pp. 39-40).

West Virginia

Technical assistance: Teaching and Technology for Students with Significant Disabilities

Anticipating the coming changes in standards and assessment, the WVDE’s Office of Special Programs and Office of Assessment and Accountability have embarked on a three-year project, Teaching and Technology for Students with Significant Disabilities (the T1 project), to support the teachers of students who take the APTA. Based upon needs assessments conducted with these teachers, the Office of Special Programs and Office of Assessment and Accountability have developed and begun conducting professional development sessions to prepare teachers to use formative assessments that align with the CCEE and to prepare their students for an online summative assessment based upon those standards in 2014-15.

Additionally, a survey of teachers revealed that students with significant cognitive disabilities have not been receiving the instructional benefits of assistive and instructional technology to access the standards because teachers lack the requisite knowledge and expertise in technology. Since 2009-10, mentor teachers and district leaders have participated in a professional development program that highlights evidence-based instructional practices in formative assessment and technology integration. This will prepare them to train teachers in their home regions. During the second year, training occurred throughout all eight Regional Education Service Agency areas with 53 of the state’s 55 county school systems participating. These
training events addressed communication and literacy strategies for students with severe cognitive disabilities, the use of interim/diagnostic assessment items for the alternate achievement standards, and the use of software to modify and create computer-based interactive learning activities and assessments for students. These trainings were provided at no cost to the districts.

The professional development culminated in a T1 Statewide Conference in July 2011. Keynotes for the conference were delivered by the state Superintendent of Schools and Dr. Karen Erickson of the Center for Literacy and Disabilities Studies at the University of North Carolina. The agenda included Apple accessibility, Bookshare, Acuity, Don Johnston Literacy Tools, interactive whiteboards, the West Virginia
Assistive Technology System, and other technology trainings that addressed scripted stories, schedule development, and prevention of impeding behaviors. District leaders met with teams to develop yearlong professional development plans for their districts. To begin the rollout of the CCEE, the second T1 Statewide Conference, held in August 2012, addressed the CCEE and the Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) assessment—the state’s future AA-AAS, which will be implemented in 2014-15. Teachers and district leaders also took part in sessions demonstrating ways to utilize assistive technology and effective technology integration practices.

Beginning in September 2012, the WVDE’s Office of Special Programs and Office of Assessment and Accountability will offer additional professional development regarding the CCEE rollout. Statewide training will be provided during the special education administrators and county test coordinators meetings in fall 2012. Regional trainings for each school district will be conducted during 2012-13 to help teachers
learn more about the CCEE, how the CCEE will link with the WV Next Generation CSOs and the CCSS, appropriate instructional strategies, and the DLM assessment.

For more information about tasks related to assessing learning and accommodation factors for students with disabilities see Table 1-3 in Appendix 1 (p 26).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: The index will comprise the following performance indicators: Proficiency rates in mathematics and reading/language arts for the state’s general and alternate assessments. Achievement gaps of subgroups in mathematics and reading/language arts for the state’s general and alternate assessments (p. 70).

West Virginia will identify a number of Priority schools equal to at least the number represented by the bottom 5% of Title I schools using proficiency rates for the prior 3-years with the greatest emphasis on the most recent year’s data. Priority Schools will be those schools with the lowest performance on the state’s general and alternate assessments (p. 87).

Alternate or extended standards: Students with significant cognitive disabilities access the existing content standards through WVBE Policy 2520.16 (West Virginia Extended Content Standards and Performance Descriptors). This policy links the WV 21st century CSOS in ELA and mathematics with the extended standards and includes performance descriptors aligned with the extended standards. These extended standards and performance descriptors are applicable for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities—those who are instructed upon alternate academic achievement standards and who are assessed with the West Virginia Alternate Performance Task Assessment (APTA), the state’s alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). The policy provides a framework for teachers of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to teach the skills and competencies essential for independent living, employment, and postsecondary education. The standards were developed with input from teachers, and formative assessment items were developed within the Acuity platform (West Virginia’s interim/diagnostic assessment aligned to the general assessment) to support ongoing assessment for these students (p. 25).

In 2011-12, West Virginia began to identify challenges facing students with significant cognitive disabilities as the state transitions to the CCSS and the CCEE. Teachers and content specialists were invited to participate in an in-depth analysis of the differences in the current extended standards and the CCEE. This work was facilitated by the WVDE’s Office of Special Programs and Office of Assessment and Accountability. The group developed crosswalks for the current extended standards and the CCEE and for the CCSS in ELA and mathematics. These crosswalks will help teachers understand the increased rigor and depth of the CCSS and the CCEE and the changes regarding when specific learning concepts should be introduced to students. Instructional guides that build on this work will be developed in 2012-13 (p. 25).

Involving stakeholders: In 2011-12, West Virginia began to identify challenges facing students with significant cognitive disabilities as the state transitions to the CCSS and the CCEE. Teachers and content specialists were invited to participate in an in-depth analysis of the differences in the current extended standards and the CCEE. This work was facilitated by the WVDE’s Office of Special Programs and Office of Assessment and Accountability. The group developed crosswalks for the current extended standards and the CCEE and for the CCSS in ELA and mathematics. These crosswalks will help teachers understand the increased rigor and depth of the CCSS and the CCEE and the changes regarding when specific learning concepts should be introduced to students. Instructional guides that build on this work will be developed in 2012-13 (p. 25).

Curricular/instructional materials: The special educator’s purpose is to be as knowledgeable as she or he can be about what social and academic skills a student needs to access, or perform successfully in, the general curriculum. The challenge for the field is to do everything possible to make sure every special educator feels confident that she or he can achieve that purpose. As the programming for students with more significant needs has moved toward more integrated settings, the delivery of life-skills training has become less common. The Office of Special Programs is preparing a guidance document, Common Core Functional Elements, as a companion to the Common Core Essential Elements. It will focus on life skills and career and technical skills for students with more significant needs. Professional development on the essential and functional elements will be provided in July and August 2013 (p. 25).

Other: FACTORS TO BE ADDRESSED IN PREPARING TEACHERS OF STUDENTS WITH DISABILITIES WHO PARTICIPATE IN THE STATE’S ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT BASED ON MODIFIED ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS (AA-AAS)

Virginia does not currently employ an AA-MAAS; however, the WVDE acknowledges the need to prepare teachers of students with disabilities, who should ideally be instructed on modified academic achievement standards to utilize the Next Generation CSOs. In 2009, Measurement Inc., under contract with the WVDE, studied the issue in West Virginia schools and determined the target student characteristics for a potential AA-MAAS; however, West Virginia has no plans for an AA-MAAS:

• The target student group functions significantly below grade and/or age level, and the achievement gap does not close over grade levels.
• Progress for these students does not consistently match expectations given their scale score loss/gain statuses on general or alternate assessments—as measured by their IEP Narrative Description, Progress Ratings on IEP Goal/Short Term Objectives, and Report Card grades.
• No typical student profile adequately captures the range of social, emotional, cognitive, and behavioral strengths and weaknesses of these students (e.g., some students might be described as hard workers, while others lack motivation; some might be described as disruptive, while others seem polite).
• The target students remain at the Novice level in reading/language arts on general assessments because of the gaps between their skill levels and the difficulty of the test.
• The target students instructed on alternate academic achievement standards remain indefinitely at the Above Mastery level on the reading/language arts subtest of the alternate assessment due to the lack of a more appropriate test on which they could demonstrate progress.
• The representation of males within the population is significantly stronger than females across reading/language arts and mathematics.
• Girls taking the 1% alternate assessment are more likely to move up to the general assessment, and boys are more likely to move down from the general assessment to the alternate.

Additionally, within the randomly selected sample of students who held the same performance levels for three years, the study identified 62% as being mildly mentally impaired.

With respect to instruction, the researchers found the following:

• There were only slight differences in the data on student learning activities, instructional time, and levels of modification for students who exhibited reading gains (RG) and students who exhibited reading losses (RL).
• Accommodations and modifications were used extensively to meet students’ needs. The IEP review conducted as part of this study illustrated broad diversity in this area.
• There was a high variance in the percentage of participation in the special education versus general education environments.
• Formal and informal assessments were being administered to students in classrooms.
• Teachers of the target group, and their administrators, supported inclusion. Teachers of RG and RL students reported similar obstacles. The three most common were:

                        1. insufficient multilevel instructional materials;
                        2. insufficient time in the schedule; and
                        3. general education teachers who were resistant to and inadequately                         prepared for teaching students with disabilities.
With respect to assessment, the researchers found the following:

• Test assignments and reassignments for these students were based on data documenting the severity of students’ needs.
• The reading/language arts subtest of the general assessment measured only a small extent of what the target students know and can do; the alternate assessment’s reading/language arts subset did so to a moderate extent.
• Based on teacher self-reported data, there was a clear mandate to reassign most target students to new, more appropriate assessments if they were available.
• The appropriate new assessment should be less rigorous than the general assessment but more rigorous than the alternate. It should also include modifications that match more closely the accommodations and modifications used for instruction—specifically, shortened text, simpler language, and reduced choices.

The transition to the SBAC assessment and the DLM alternate assessment will expand the WVDE’s ability to measure the target population’s ability—that is, due to its computer-adaptive nature, the SBAC assessment should greatly expand the “floor” of the general assessment and allow a more robust measurement of achievement for these students. Likewise, the DLM assessment will vastly extend the “ceiling” of the current alternate assessment and better measure the ability of students who have significant cognitive disabilities but who currently achieve consistently at the highest levels of performance on APTA (pp. 62-63).

Wisconsin

Technical assistance: The CCEE—which will serve as the new alternate achievement standards—will be the foundation of instruction and assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities, comprising approximately one percent of the total student population, and DPI is playing a key role in the development of those elements (p. 29).

Differentiated recognition, accountability, and support: In an effort to design a system that reflects this vision and holds schools accountable for high-leverage, measurable, fair indicators of student engagement, progress, and performance, DPI has developed an accountability index system that incorporates multiple measures, including student growth. This index system reflects the goals of high attainment and growth as well as other key priorities. In all, the accountability index incorporates four sub-scale areas: Student Achievement; Student Growth; Closing Gaps; and On Track to graduation/Postsecondary Readiness. Schools’ index scores and supporting data will be provided to parents, educators, and the general public through a detailed school report card. Data on school performance toward Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) will be included in addition to accountability index information.

Important Index Miscellany
NAEP-like Scores
Overall accountability index scores are based largely upon student assessment data incorporating the revised NAEP-like Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Exam (WKCE) cut scores described in Principle 1. A cut score change incorporating the one percent of students tested with the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD) could not be implemented, due to the fundamentally different nature of that assessment and its lack of comparability with NAEP; however, these students will continue to be included in determinations of achievement. Raising expectations for all students, including those taking an alternate assessment, is important to DPI and informs Wisconsin’s work with the multi-state Dynamic Learning Maps consortium (pp. 56-57).

Accountability reporting: One of the major systemic issues with No Child Left Behind (NCLB) is that large, diverse schools can miss Adequate Yearly Progress on any one of 64 separate determinations. Balancing an appropriate focus on subgroups—one that does not hide subgroup performance—while acknowledging the importance of performance among all students is crucial to addressing this issue. DPI will continue to incorporate the performance of all students and NCLB-defined subgroups throughout the accountability system as much as possible. In areas where we are currently unable to include all students—such as Student Growth, which cannot be used to evaluate the 1 percent of students taking the alternate assessment—DPI will work toward alternatives that allow inclusion of more students in the future—such as by evaluating growth with the new Dynamic Learning Maps alternate assessment, scheduled to come on-line in two years. For determinations, subgroup performance forms the basis of the Closing Gaps subscale area as well as attendance, test participation calculations, and achievement and graduation rate AMOs. Determinations of Student Achievement and Student Growth will be based upon all students. DPI believes this is a fairer system that appropriately prioritizes subgroup performance within the context of college- and career-readiness for all students. Accountability report cards disaggregate reporting to the full extent possible balancing cell-size considerations (pp. 57-58).

Alternate or extended standards: Throughout the 2011-12 school year, DPI has partnered with Wisconsin’s regional service agencies, special education leaders, institutions of higher education, and general education leaders to develop an implementation timeline and plan for the CCEE A cadre of these representatives guided development of this plan between February and May of 2011 (p. 29).

“Shortly after releasing the state guidelines found in the Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness, DPI assembled workgroups to immediately begin working on rubric development. Workgroup members include a wide variety of education stakeholders. The DPI structured each of the workgroups overseeing rubric development for teacher practice, principal practice and student learning objectives (SLOs) to include a variety of educators. Specifically included in the workgroups are general education and special education teachers, teacher mentors, ELL educators, principals, superintendents, district administrators, school board representatives, and representatives from institutions of higher education. The DPI has been intentional in convening a diverse group of educators to inform the development of this system. DPI strives to include geographic diversity, general and special education, as well as a variety of content area and grade-level educators. The workgroup developing processes for student learning objectives (SLOs) includes special education teachers; this group is specifically considering how SLOs impact students with disabilities. Guidance on SLO development for students taking the alternate assessment will be created as the new standards (Common Core Essential Elements) and assessment in production by the Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, as detailed in Principle 1, are developed” (pp. 132-133).

Involving stakeholders: Throughout the 2011-12 school year, DPI has partnered with Wisconsin’s regional service agencies, special education leaders, institutions of higher education, and general education leaders to develop an implementation timeline and plan for the CCEE A cadre of these representatives guided development of this plan between February and May of 2011 (p. 29).

“Shortly after releasing the state guidelines found in the Wisconsin Framework for Educator Effectiveness, DPI assembled workgroups to immediately begin working on rubric development. Workgroup members include a wide variety of education stakeholders. The DPI structured each of the workgroups overseeing rubric development for teacher practice, principal practice and student learning objectives (SLOs) to include a variety of educators. Specifically included in the workgroups are general education and special education teachers, teacher mentors, ELL educators, principals, superintendents, district administrators, school board representatives, and representatives from institutions of higher education. The DPI has been intentional in convening a diverse group of educators to inform the development of this system. DPI strives to include geographic diversity, general and special education, as well as a variety of content area and grade-level educators. The workgroup developing processes for student learning objectives (SLOs) includes special education teachers; this group is specifically considering how SLOs impact students with disabilities. Guidance on SLO development for students taking the alternate assessment will be created as the new standards (Common Core Essential Elements) and assessment in production by the Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, as detailed in Principle 1, are developed” (pp. 132-133).

Growth Models: DPI is dedicated to raising rigor for all students to ensure multiple pathways to success throughout school and following high school graduation. At this time, DPI does not plan to change cut scores on the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment-Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD). The discussion of growth for students with severe cognitive disabilities is one Wisconsin is engaging in with experts and stakeholders from across the country through work in the Smarter and Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM) consortia. DPI’s decision to delay the transition to higher rigor (through assessment) for Wisconsin’s alternate population is driven by a desire to approach this work thoughtfully, and is sensitive to the fact that increased rigor and expectations for growth must look different for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Instead, DPI’s focus is on development of excellent SwD-focused resources for both educators in both general and special education related to implementation of the Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and the Common Core Essential Elements (CCEE). Creating connections across the general special education areas are integral to further work around raising rigor (pp. 42-43).

Curricular/Instructional materials: Guidance on SLO development for students taking the alternate assessment will be created as the new standards (Common Core Essential Elements) and assessment in production by the Dynamic Learning Maps Consortium, as detailed in Principle 1, are developed (p. 133).

Item development: These consortia, while developing assessments for different populations of students, share a common goal of developing innovative, informative, rigorous assessments to replace the current statewide assessment system, assessments that provide students varying opportunities to demonstrate what they know and can do through a combination of assessment types (formative strategies, benchmark, and summative) as well as item types (including performance tasks and technology enhanced items).

These transitions represent a new day for assessment in Wisconsin, one in which assessments that are used for accountability purposes are also designed in such a way as to provide useful, actionable, and timely data directly to educators to help inform classroom practices in an ongoing manner. Further, these assessment consortia, which are designing assessments using UDL principles, are dedicated to considering accessibility issues before, during, and after assessment development to ensure the assessments provide all students opportunities to demonstrate what they know and can do by removing barriers that interfere with access to learning and content (p. 38).

Other: New Assessment Systems: Proficiency on CCSS will be measured by new assessment systems being developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (replacing the Wisconsin Knowledge and Concepts Examination [WKCE]). Proficiency on the CCEE will be measured by the Dynamic Learning Maps Assessment (replacing the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities [WAA-SwD]). Both assessments will be field tested in 2013-14 and required statewide in 2014-15. Beginning in 2014-15, these state assessments will move from fall to spring, and the high school assessment will move from grade 10 to grade 11. Both assessments will be given in grades 3-8 and 11. These online assessment systems will include end-of-year tests, as well as additional resources to help benchmark student progress throughout the year (p. 259).

Access to Academic Content: Instruction and Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Implementation Timeline- District/Local Education Agency Work (p. 401).