All students participate in state accountability systems.
Most students with disabilities participate in the regular
assessment, with or without accommodations. Students with more
significant cognitive disabilities participate in the Alternate
Assessment based on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS). A
few states also have an Alternate Assessment Based on
Grade-level Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS) for students with
disabilities who need testing formats or procedures that are not
included in the regular assessment and are not addressed with
the use of accommodations. In 2007, federal regulations gave
states the option of developing an Alternate Assessment based on
Modified Academic Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). States are not
required to provide this assessment option.
Tennessee developed an AA-MAS called the Tennessee
Comprehensive Assessment Program-Modified Academic Achievement
Standards (TCAP-MAAS). It was first administered in 2010. This
report presents the results of a survey of Tennessee special
education teachers regarding this assessment option. We sought
to learn more about their perceptions of student experiences and
outcomes with the TCAP-MAAS. We asked questions about how the
teachers received training about this assessment and sought to
measure the extent that information about the new TCAP-MAAS had
reached teachers across the state. We also asked questions about
accommodations selection and implementation for instruction and
assessment. One section of the survey contained a knowledge quiz
that was designed to assess teachers' knowledge of the
TCAP-MAAS.
The perceptions of teachers whose students took the TCAP-MAAS
can provide insights into what is working well and where there
were challenges. The results of this study also suggest that
special education teachers may have some gaps in their knowledge
about the TCAP-MAAS and need additional training.
Overview
The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 2004 and
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by
the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, require that all students
participate in statewide assessments used for accountability
purposes. Most students with disabilities participate in the
regular test with or without accommodations. A few with the most
significant disabilities participate in an alternate assessment
based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). A few states
also have an Alternate Assessment based on Grade-level
Achievement Standards (AA-GLAS) for students with disabilities
who need testing formats or procedures that are not included in
the regular assessment and are not addressed with the use of
accommodations.
In 2007, federal regulations allowed states to develop another
assessment, an Alternate Assessment based on Modified Academic
Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). Students who participate in this
test may be from any disability category. They must have access
to grade-level content but be unlikely to achieve grade-level
proficiency within the time period covered by their
Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). For accountability
purposes states may count the proficient and advanced scores of
students with disabilities participating in an AA-MAS subject to
a two percent cap of all students enrolled in the tested grades.
This test is optional, and states are not required to offer it
(U.S. Department of Education, 2007).
During the 2010-11 school year 14 states had an operational
AA-MAS (Price, Hodgson, Lazarus, & Thurlow, 2011). Since Spring
2010 the state of Tennessee has had an operational AA-MAS called
the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program-Modified Academic
Achievement Standards (TCAP-MAAS). The Tennessee Department of
Education provided training to teachers in the state on how to
make and implement participation and accommodations decisions
for the TCAP-MAAS assessments. They also provided training on
test administration.
Following the first year of implementing the TCAP-MAAS, the
state wanted to learn more about teacher perceptions of the
assessment, including what worked well and what challenges they
observed. The state had questions such as: Do teachers
understand the selection criteria and requirements as they
decide which of their students will be tested on the TCAP-MAAS?
And, do they understand how to prepare for and administer the
new test, including seamlessly incorporating accommodations into
the testing situation?
Teachers' knowledge, beliefs, and decisions set the tone for
how students participate in a test (Altman, Cormier, & Crone,
2010; Ketterlin-Geller, Alonzo, Braun-Monegan, & Tindal, 2007).
As state departments of education initiate new policies,
activities, or decisions that affect instruction and assessment
in classrooms, it can be a challenge to reach the entire state's
population of educators with information vital to a new
initiative. Previous studies (Altman, Cormier, Lazarus, et al.,
2010; Lazarus, Thompson, & Thurlow, 2006) explored teachers'
accommodations decision making and use in other states. This
report presents the results of a survey of Tennessee educators
intended to measure their experience with the TCAP-MAAS that was
recently implemented in the state. We also (a) asked questions
about how the teachers received training on this assessment, (b)
sought to measure the extent that information about the new
TCAP-MAAS had reached teachers across the state, and (c)
measured accommodations decision making.
The Tennessee State Department of Education, with support
from the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO),
conducted the survey of special education teachers in Tennessee
in summer 2010 following the state's first use of the TCAP-MAAS.
Specifically, the survey was conducted to answer the following
three questions:
- How effective was the teacher training on
the TCAP-MAAS?
- Are there differences in teachers'
perceptions of teacher and student experiences
between the new TCAP-MAAS and the regular
assessment taken by the student the previous
year?
- Which accommodations are used most often and
which factors influence decision making and
implementation?
Top of Page |
Table of Contents
Procedure
Survey Development
The Tennessee State Department of Education, with support
from NCEO, developed a survey for special education teachers in
Tennessee. We aimed the survey specifically at teachers of one
or more students who took the TCAP-MAAS in spring 2010. The
purpose of the survey was to gain information about teacher
perceptions of the new state assessment option, the TCAP-MAAS.
Specifically we sought to learn whether teachers perceived that
the assessment improved student educational outcomes on key
indicators. Several questions were also asked about
accommodations decision making. See Appendix A for a copy of the
survey.
Data Collection
The survey was made available online through a survey tool,
and was disseminated to teachers through administrators of local
education agencies via e-mail. The state provided a list of
e-mail addresses of special education coordinators/directors for
each district. An e-mail was sent to each of these contacts. The
contact was asked to forward a message containing the link to
the survey to all special educators in the district. It should
be noted that some special educators did not teach a student who
took the TCAP-MAAS and therefore were unable to participate in
the survey. There were 191 respondents to the survey; 133
respondents completed the entire survey and 58 indicated that
they did not have any students who participated in the
TCAP-MAAS. Those who did not have any students were thanked,
directed out of the survey, and did not complete the remaining
questions.
The survey contained 10 true-false questions that were
designed to assess teacher knowledge of the TCAP-MAAS (see Table
1). Summary scores were created for teachers based on the number
of correct responses out of a possible ten points.
Table 1. True-False Questions in the Teacher
Knowledge Section of the Survey
- The
TCAP-MAAS is an
assessment that
measures
achievement in
the general
education
curriculum, but
the standard or
level of
achievement has
been modified.
[true]
- The
TCAP-MAAS is a
test that has
questions that
are less
difficult than
the regular TCAP
achievement
assessment.
[true]
- The
TCAP-MAAS has
the same number
of test items as
the regular TCAP
assessment.
[false]
- A child's
teacher is the
only person who
can make the
recommendation
for a child to
take the
TCAP-MAAS.
[false]
- Parents must
give permission
for their child
to take the
TCAP-MAAS.
[true]
- Students
taking the
TCAP-MAAS must
be learning the
general
education
curriculum.
[true]
- Students
taking the
TCAP-MAAS cannot
receive a
regular high
school diploma.
[false]
- A student
who takes the
TCAP-MAAS must
have IEP goals
based on the
curriculum
standards for
her/his grade.
[true]
- On the
TCAP-MAAS
students may use
all of the
accommodations
used on the
regular TCAP.
[true]
- The
TCAP-MAAS can
only be given to
students with
IEPs. [true]
|
Top of Page |
Table of Contents
Results
Research Question #1: How effective was the teacher training on the
TCAP-MAAS?
Teachers obtained a range of scores on the teacher knowledge
portion of the survey. As shown in Table 2, 133 teachers
completed the survey. Scores ranged from zero (the respondent
answered "I don't know" to each question) to ten correct answers
out of a possible ten, with three teachers answering every
question correctly. The most difficult question was "The
TCAP-MAAS has the same number of test items as the regular TCAP
assessment." Only 33 of the 133 teachers provided a correct
answer. The easiest item, which 127 of the 133 respondents
answered "true" correctly, was "On the TCAP-MAAS students may
use all of the accommodations used on the regular TCAP."
Educators received training on the new TCAP-MAAS through a
number of channels during the 2009-2010 school year and summer
prior to the first year's live testing using this assessment.
Participants were asked how they received this training (e.g.,
state staff, district-level training, training by school
administrator, online training, self-training from independent
source, other). As seen in Table 2, there does not appear to be
a relationship between number of training sources accessed and
teacher scores on the knowledge assessment.
Figure 1 shows the relationship between teacher experience
and teacher knowledge on the TCAP-MAAS. Teachers were divided
into two experience groups-less than 10 years of experience (n =
52), and 10 years or more of experience (n = 79). The results
were similar for both of these groups. Fifty-two percent of the
teachers with less than 10 years of experience scored in the low
or moderate knowledge range (i.e., 10% in the low range plus 42%
in the moderate range), whereas 51% of the teachers with ten or
more years of experience scored at the low or moderate level
(i.e., 8% in the low range plus 43% in the moderate range).
Figure 1. Teacher Knowledge Levels by Years of Teaching
Experience
Note: Two respondents who completed the
knowledge question section of the survey did not indicate how
many years of teaching experience they had, and are not included
in the results presented in this figure.
Research Question #2: Are there differences in teachers'
perceptions of teacher and student experiences between the new
TCAP-MAAS and the regular assessment taken by the student the
previous year?
Since the TCAP-MAAS test was a new option in the state of
Tennessee, we wanted to learn more about whether teachers
thought the test would lead to improved instructional practices
for students with disabilities who participated in this
assessment option. The survey asked questions designed to learn
more about whether respondents associated the new TCAP-MAAS with
changes in the instructional preparation of the participating
students. As seen in Figure 2, the majority of teachers
indicated that students had about the same level of opportunity
to learn grade-level content when compared to the previous year.
Depending on the content area, 27% to 35% of the teachers
indicated that students either had "more" or "much more"
opportunity to learn grade-level content. Approximately 6% of
all respondents indicated that they did not know whether there
was any change in instruction for the students taking the new
assessment.
Figure 2. Teacher Reported Student Opportunity to
Learn Grade-Level Content Compared to Previous Year
We also wanted to determine whether teachers perceived a
change in student motivation to take the test as compared to
their experiences in previous years taking the regular TCAP. As
shown in Figure 3, only about 23% of respondents thought
students were "more" or "much more" motivated to take the math
and reading assessments when then took the TCAP-MAAS. Across all
content areas (i.e., reading, math, science, social studies),
more than 60% of the teachers thought that student motivation
was about "the same" as the previous year when they took the
regular assessment. Approximately one in ten participants
responded "I don't know" across these survey items.
Figure 3. Teacher Reported Level of Student
Motivation to Take the TCAP-MAAS Compared to Previous Year's
Regular Test by Content Area
Table 3. Teachers' Perceived Experiences with the
TCAP-MAAS Compared to Their Previous Experiences
Survey Item |
Percentage of Responses by
Response Category |
Much Less
|
Less |
The Same
|
More |
Much More
|
I Don't Know |
Was
TCAP-MAAS testing a
more or
less positive experience
for students this year as
compared to regular TCAP testing
the previous year? |
0% |
2% |
7% |
46% |
39% |
6% |
Were
TCAP-MAAS students
more or
less involved in making
decisions about their education
this year as compared to the
previous year? |
0% |
6% |
56% |
22% |
8% |
8% |
Was it
more or
less difficult to select
accommodations for the TCAP-MAAS
as compared to the regular TCAP? |
2% |
14% |
62% |
11% |
6% |
5% |
Was it
more or
less difficult to match
accommodations for instruction
with TCAP-MAAS assessment
accommodations as compared to
the regular TCAP? |
2% |
17% |
62% |
10% |
6% |
4% |
Was it
more or
less difficult to provide
accommodations on test day for
the TCAP-MAAS as compared to the
regular TCAP? |
2% |
12% |
61% |
14% |
8% |
2% |
Figure 4 shows the respondents' perceptions of parent and
student involvement and experiences related to the TCAP-MAAS.
Almost 60% believed that parent involvement in the
decision-making process should be about "the same" when students
take the TCAP-MAAS as when they take the TCAP. Seventy-one
percent indicated the level of instructional support remained "the same" when students took the TCAP-MAAS; 69% said the level
of assessment support was "the same."
Figure 4. Teachers' Perceptions of Parent and Student
Experiences with the TCAP-MAAS
Table 4 shows that about 58% of respondents said they thought
the TCAP-MAAS increased the likelihood of graduation for the
students who participated in it, while 36% said that the
likelihood was "the same." More than three-quarters of the
educators indicated that the TCAP-MAAS was a valuable addition
to the assessment system. About the same percentage of teachers
believed that more students should be assessed with the
TCAP-MAAS.
Table 4. Responses to Various Components Related to
the TCAP-MAAS
Survey Item |
Percentage of Responses by
Response Category |
Much Less
|
Less |
The Same
|
More |
Much More
|
I Don't Know |
Do you think
that students now taking the
TCAP-MAAS will be more or less
likely to graduate with their
classmates as compared to when
they were taking the regular
TCAP? |
1% |
2% |
36% |
42% |
16% |
3% |
Do you think
the TCAP-MAAS is a more or less
valuable addition to the testing
system as compared to your
thoughts before the testing
season began? |
1% |
4% |
14% |
44% |
34% |
4% |
Do you think
that more or less students
should be assessed with the
TCAP-MAAS? |
2% |
3% |
15% |
40% |
38% |
3% |
Research Question #3: Which accommodations are used most
often and which factors influence decision making and
implementation?
The survey investigated issues related to accommodations
decision making for the TCAP-MAAS and the regular TCAP, the
frequency of use of specific accommodations, and common issues
in carrying out accommodations decisions on test day for both
assessments. Figure 5 shows that more than 80% of respondents
indicated that they considered the following factors to be of
equal importance when making decisions for the TCAP and the
TCAP-MAAS: parental input, feasibility of providing the
accommodation, student input, state policies and guidelines, and
teacher input. Almost two-thirds of the respondents indicated
that it was more important to consider whether an accommodation
improved the student's chances of passing the test on the
TCAP-MAAS than for the regular TCAP. Thirteen percent indicated
that students were less likely to be fully included in the
general education setting when they took the TCAP-MAAS.
Figure 5. Comparison Between the TCAP-MAAS and the TCAP on the
Importance of Selected Accommodations Decision-Making Factors
The survey also asked teachers about which specific
accommodations their students used. We asked respondents to rate
their frequency of use for a number of accommodations from never
to always (including rarely, occasionally, and frequently). As
shown in Table 5, most teachers indicated that they
"frequently," or "always" selected Read Aloud Instructions,
Read Aloud Items, Calculator, and Flexible Setting
for use by their students. More than three-quarters of the
teachers indicated that their students never used Braille
or Sign Instruction Verbatim.
Table 5. Frequency of Accommodation Use by Accommodation Type
Accommodation |
Percentage of Responses by
Response Category |
Never |
Rarely |
Occasionally
|
Frequently
|
Always |
Read Aloud
Instructions |
1% |
1% |
1% |
32% |
65% |
Read Aloud
Items |
2% |
1% |
1% |
36% |
61% |
Calculator
|
2% |
2% |
2% |
34% |
60% |
Flexible
Setting |
2% |
2% |
7% |
35% |
54% |
Flexible
Time of Day |
8% |
14% |
23% |
28% |
27% |
Student
Reads Aloud |
39% |
21% |
10% |
12% |
18% |
Multiple
Testing Sessions Within Day |
20% |
22% |
24% |
22% |
12% |
Student
Answers in Test Booklet |
21% |
22% |
28% |
18% |
11% |
Student
Answers on a Separate Sheet of
Paper |
53% |
19% |
14% |
6% |
8% |
Visual/Tactile Aids |
62% |
17% |
6% |
9% |
6% |
Sign Oral
Instructions Verbatim |
79% |
11% |
2% |
2% |
5% |
Auditory
Aids |
69% |
17% |
7% |
3% |
4% |
Scribe
(Excluding Writing Assessments)
|
42% |
27% |
20% |
7% |
3% |
Braille |
86% |
12% |
1% |
0% |
2% |
Large Print
|
52% |
29% |
15% |
2% |
2% |
Colored
Overlay |
74% |
15% |
8% |
2% |
1% |
Magnifying
Equipment |
72% |
18% |
8% |
1% |
1% |
Making quality decisions about which accommodations to use on
statewide assessments and providing the necessary documentation
does not always ensure that the test will be carried out in the
intended manner on assessment day. Figure 6 presents responses
to a survey question that asked teachers to identify test day
issues that they may have encountered. Ten percent of the
respondents indicated that the lack of staff availability
determined the accommodations provided, and seven percent stated
that accommodations that required a special test booklet were
sometimes not provided. The most commonly selected response to
this question was "other" suggesting that there is a great deal
of variability in the issues teachers and other test
administrators face on test day.
Figure 6. Test Day Issues Experienced by Teachers based on a
List of Possible Responses
Top of Page |
Table of Contents
Discussion
The perceptions of teachers whose students took the TCAP-MAAS
provide insights into teacher and student experiences with this
assessment option. The results of this study provide preliminary
evidence that teachers thought that the TCAP-MAAS has sometimes led
to improved student or teacher experiences. Eighty-five percent of
the respondents believed that the TCAP-MAAS was either a more
positive or much more positive testing experience for students
compared to the students' testing experience the previous year.
About 20% of respondents indicated that student motivation increased
as a result of participation in the TCAP-MAAS, and more than half
thought that long-term outcomes such as high school graduation could
be positively influenced by a student's inclusion in the population
tested with the new assessment.
The majority of respondents only scored at the low or
moderate levels on a quiz of knowledge about the TCAP-MAAS. To
make appropriate decisions for students who participate in this
assessment, teachers must be knowledgeable about the TCAP-MAAS.
This includes knowledge of test characteristics and
participation guidelines. The survey results suggest that
teachers in Tennessee may benefit from additional training about
this assessment option.
The federal regulations that permit the use of an AA-MAS
indicate that students who participate in this assessment option
must have access to grade-level content. Most teachers responded
that there was no change in opportunity for students to learn
the grade-level content in core subject areas in the year they
were tested on the TCAP-MAAS for the first time. This suggests,
based on that one criterion, that the students were qualified to
participate in the TCAP-MAAS, and had been receiving instruction
in grade-level content for two consecutive years. However,
approximately 20% of teachers indicated that students had more
access to grade-level content in the first year they
participated in the TCAP-MAAS, which suggests that their
students may not have had the opportunity to learn grade-level
content when they participated in the regular TCAP. This is a
troubling finding because if these students lacked access to
grade-level content when taking the regular test, it is
impossible to tell how they would have performed on the regular
test if educators had provided them with appropriate instruction
and curriculum.
More than two out of three educators who completed the survey
indicated that the increased likelihood of students with
disabilities passing the TCAP-MAAS affected their decision
making related to accommodations. Based on the survey questions,
it was unclear whether students received accommodations on test
day that they had perhaps not successfully used in prior testing
situations or in the classroom. Future research should examine
this phenomenon to ensure that best practices in accommodations
selection and implementation are in place for all assessments.
According to the study results, more than 95% of the teachers
reported that their students used the Calculator, Flexible
Setting, Read Aloud Items, and Read Aloud Instructions
accommodations at least occasionally. These results lead to the
following question: Is the need for the Read Aloud Items or
Calculator accommodation a key factor in TCAP-MAAS participation
decisions? This question cannot be answered with the data
collected from the survey, and future research is needed to
investigate the reasons for the high occurrence of certain
accommodations.
Only special education teachers who had at least one student
who participated in the TCAP-MAAS could participate in this
survey. The survey link was sent to LEA special education
coordinators and they were asked to forward it on to the
appropriate teachers. Tennessee does not disaggregate data in a
way that we can tell what the total population of teachers who
administered the AA-MAS was. There were only 133 respondents,
which suggests that the response rate may have been very low;
unfortunately we are unable to estimate a response rate.
The perceptions of teachers whose students took the TCAP-MAAS
can provide insights into what is working well and where there
were challenges. Other states can learn from Tennessee's
experiences, and states should attend to the challenges
mentioned by the participants in this study to improve student
experiences and outcomes. According to Thurlow (2008) "attending
to the nature of the assessment and to providing a strong
instructional foundation are critical in avoiding unintended
negative consequences (e.g., students falling further behind)
and promoting positive consequences (e.g., improved instruction
and greater progress)" (p. 138).
Top of Page |
Table of Contents
References
Altman, J. R., Cormier, D., & Crone, M. (2010). Large scale
assessment and high stakes decisions: Guidelines for educators.
In A. Canter, L. Paige, & S. Shaw (Eds.), Helping children
at home and school (Third Edition). Bethesda, MD: National
Association of School Psychologists.
Altman, J. R., Cormier, D. C., Lazarus, S. S., Thurlow, M.
L., Holbrook, M., Byers, M., Chambers, D., Moore, M., & Pence,
N. (2010). Accommodations: Results of a survey of Alabama
special education teachers (Synthesis Report 81).
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.
Individuals with Disabilities Act. (2004). Public Law
108-446. Washington, DC: U. S. Government Printing Office.
Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Alonzo, J., Braun-Monegan, J., &
Tindal, G. (2007). Recommendations for accommodations:
Implications of (in) consistency. Remedial and Special
Education, 29(4), 194-206.
Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2006).
How students access accommodations in assessment and
instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers
(Issue Brief 7). College Park MD: University of Maryland,
Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
Price, L. M., Hodgson, J. R., Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M.
L. (2011). Characteristics of states' alternate assessments
based on modified academic achievement standards in 2010-2011
(Synthesis Report 85). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Thurlow, M. L. (2008). Assessment and instructional
implications of the alternate assessment based on modified
academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Journal of
Disability Policy Studies. 19(3), 132-139.
U.S. Department of Education (2007, April 9). Final Rule
34 CFR Parts 200 and 300: Title I-Improving the academic
achievement of the disadvantaged; Individuals with disabilities
education act (IDEA). Federal Register: 72(67), Washington
DC: Author. Retrieved from
http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/2percentR-Eg/FederalRegApril9TwoPercent.pdf
Top of Page |
Table of Contents
Appendix A