NCEO Tool 2

Data Analysis and Use Planning Tool for Examining AA-AAAS Participation: Addressing the Percentage of Students Participating in the Alternate Assessment

Cesar D’Agord, Tony Ruggiero, Kathy Strunk, and Martha Thurlow

A publication of:
NATIONAL CENTER ON EDUCATIONAL OUTCOMES

In collaboration with
NCEO’s 2019 1.0% Peer Learning Group (PLG 1)

The Center is supported through a Cooperative Agreement (#H326G160001) with the Research to Practice Division, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. The Center is affiliated with the Institute on Community Integration at the College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota. The contents of this report were developed under the Cooperative Agreement from the U.S. Department of Education, but does not necessarily represent the policy or opinions of the U.S. Department of Education or Offices within it. Readers should not assume endorsement by the federal government.

Project Officer: David Egnor

All rights reserved. Any or all portions of this document may be reproduced and distributed without prior permission, provided the source is cited as:

D’Agord, C., Ruggiero, T., Strunk, K., & Thurlow, M. L. (2019). Data analysis and use planning tool for examining AA-AAAS participation: Addressing the percentage of students participating in the alternate assessment. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at www.nceo.info.

Acknowledgments

This Data Analysis and Use Planning Guide was developed through the work of the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) 1.0% 2019 Peer Learning Group (PLG) 1, Digging into Your Data: Building a 1% Data Analysis and Use Plan, which took place from February – May, 2019.1

In addition to the authors of this document, it took a team to ensure that PLG 1 was successful. Members of this team included, in addition to the authors (in alphabetical order): Anthea Brady, Duane Brown, Maureen Hawes, Susan Hayes, Sheryl Lazarus, Judy Lee, Kate Nagle, Travis Peterson, Tanner Petry, Chris Rogers, Stephen Ruffini, and Mari Shikuzawa.

Staff from 32 states participated in the PLG 1 webinar calls. The participating states are listed here. This Guide would not exist had it not been for their active participation in PLG 1.

1 This tool was inspired by the resource, “Essential Elements of Comprehensive Data Literacy,” currently in development by the National Center on Systemic Improvement (NCSI), the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO), IDEA Data Center (IDC), and the Center for the Integration of IDEA Data (CIID).

The 2015 reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, known as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), includes a 1.0% cap on state-level participation rates in the alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). No limit was placed on district or school rates, but districts must provide justifications if they expect their rate to be above the 1.0% threshold. In addition, states are to provide oversight to districts.

These requirements mean that states, districts, schools, and Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams need to think carefully about which students should be included in the AA-AAAS. Further, districts should examine their data frequently to ensure that state guidelines are being followed and that appropriate decisions are being made for individual students. Having a data analysis and use plan is essential to being able to examine and discuss data in ways that inform how states and districts act on their data.

Purpose of this Data Analysis and Use Planning Tool

This Data Analysis and Use Planning Tool is designed to help states and districts develop a plan for analyzing and using their AA-AAAS data. It presents a four-step data analysis framework that is intended to serve as an example and a starting point for states and districts. It is expected that states and districts may have their own information to enter into each step.

This guide is one of three developed by states and technical assistance centers working together in NCEO’s 2019 1.0% Peer Learning Group 1. The two other documents that were developed can support the data analysis and use planning tool presented here. They include:

• AA-AAAS Data Display Templates. Several templates are provided as ways to organize data to allow for thoughtful examination of data. These templates might be a second step toward the use of the Dialogue Guide.
• District Dialogue Guide. This guide includes procedures, topics, and questions to guide discussions within districts. Use of this guide might be a final step in the process of digging into data.

In addition, other NCEO tools will be helpful in the implementation of this Planning Guide. Specifically:

• Guidance for Examining District Alternate Assessment Participation Rates. This brief, published in October 2018, provides data analysis guidance related to the 1.0% cap requirements.
• Guidance for Examining Disproportionality of Student Group Participation in Alternate Assessments. This brief, published in August 2019, provides data analysis guidance related to the requirement to examine disproportionality in participation on the AA-AAAS.

Federal Law

Alternate assessments were first developed in response to the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), which required that all states and districts develop, by the year 2000, alternate assessments for those students with disabilities unable to participate in regular assessments even with accommodations. IDEA did not define who the students were who could participate in an alternate assessment, nor did it use the term “significant cognitive disability.” In 2003, regulations added to the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) allowed states to count as proficient those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who participated in the alternate assessment and met rigorous alternate achievement standards set by the state.

In 2015, Congress reauthorized the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 as the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA). ESSA reaffirmed that an AA-AAAS is the appropriate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. ESSA placed a 1.0% cap on the state participation rate for each subject, based on the total number of all students in the state assessed in the subject (34 CFR 200.6(c)(2)). ESSA specified that states cannot place a cap on the participation rates of local education agencies (LEAs) in any subject (34 CFR 200.6(c)(3)(i)). This means that LEAs can exceed the 1.0% participation threshold on an AA-AAAS in a given subject, but the state as a whole cannot exceed the 1.0% threshold in any subject. ESSA required LEAs that exceed the 1.0% participation threshold to submit information justifying the need to exceed the threshold; in addition, the state must provide oversight and monitoring of those LEAs (34 CFR 200.6(c)(3)(ii-iii)).

Data Analysis and Use Planning Tool Overview

Data analysis and use involves four steps, as shown in Figure 1. Each step is provided in more detail in the next several pages.

Figure 1. Steps in the Data Analysis and Use Planning Tool

Sample of Filled-In Data Analysis Plan

In this section, we present each step of the data analysis plan, with sample questions included. As a state or district develops a data analysis plan for its own purposes, it likely will want to insert its own questions in addition to some of those in this sample plan. (See a blank data analysis plan in the next section.)

Blank Data Analysis Plan

This is a blank data analysis plan for use by states and districts. Questions may be pulled in from the sample data analysis plan presented above, as well as questions generated by the team developing the data analysis plan.

Top of page