Forum 2000 Appendix C

Alaska’s Department of Education and Early Development has developed an alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities that is

Independent raters will use a numerical rating system to score the portfolio of evidence. Proficiency scores will be based on the following dimensions:

Based on the above scores, an overall numerical score will be derived which rates the student at one of four proficiency levels (not proficient, below proficient, proficient, advanced). These proficiency levels correspond to the levels that the state will use to report student performance on statewide assessments for all students. (The rubric is attached.)

In addition to the student’s proficiency level (not proficient, below proficient, proficient, advanced), teachers and parents will receive information on their student’s performance on each of the four scoring dimensions listed above. At this time, the state plans to report scores on the alternate assessment separately from scores on the regular statewide assessments. Due to the small school student populations in many of Alaska’s school districts and the small percentage of students participating in the alternate assessment, it is expected that scores on the alternate assessment will be reported mainly at the district and state level.

A pilot study was completed in February 2000. A statewide field-test is scheduled for the 2000-2001 school year.

Dimension	Proficiency Level
	Not Proficient (1)	Below Proficient (2)	Proficient (3)	Advanced (4)
Skill (rated for each indicator)	Does not perform the target skill¹	Unclear that the student has learned the skill or the skill appears to be emerging	Performs the specifically targeted skill when presented	Initiates and performs the skill when appropriate and self-corrects if necessary
Support (rated for each indicator)	Performs with maximum physical support, such as hand-over-hand assistance	Performs with direct oral prompting, modeling, or some physical support.	Performs when natural supports are provided or in response to an indirect cue.	Initiates the use of natural supports or performs independently
Generalization (rated only once, across indicators, for an Alternate Performance Standard)	Performance is limited to a single setting or situation.	Performs in two settings or situations.	Performs in three natural settings or situations.	Performs in four or more natural settings or situations.
Appropriateness (rated only once, across indicators, for an Alternate Performance Standard)	Targeted skill and activities meet only one of these criteria: age-appropriate, challenging, authentic. OR A parent has submitted written disagreement with the submission.	Targeted skill and activities meet two of these criteria: age-appropriate, challenging, authentic.	Targeted skill and activities are age-appropriate, challenging, and authentic.	Targeted skill and activities are age-appropriate, challenging, authentic, and meaningful to the student.

1. Overview of approach: A task force was set up using a superintendent, as the chairperson, higher education personnel, general education teachers from Mathematics and Language Arts, special education supervisors and teachers, supervisors and teachers of LEP students and resource persons. The objective of the group was to recommend the development of an alternate assessment process that will document student achievement based on reading, writing and mathematics standards as outlined in the Arkansas Frameworks.

2. Process used to develop approach: The process began with a large group discussion of the needs of students who cannot be placed in the large-scale state assessment program. This included the needs of special education students as well as the limited English-speaking students. The task force then broke into two groups to discuss the individual needs for special education students and limited English speaking students. After research of the rules and regulations for both groups, discussion by small and large groups, and questions answered by experts for Special Education and LEP students, the consensus from both groups was a portfolio system since a standardized test is not appropriate for this population of students. This portfolio system for the Alternate Assessment System is for eligible students with disabilities and/or limited English proficiency. It is intended that this recommendation fully meets the requirements of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 and Title I and Title VI.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: The purpose of this group was to provide a purposeful and systematic way of collecting student work that reflects accomplishments relative to specific instructional content standards of the state frameworks. Mathematics and Language Arts teachers along with Special Education specialists and LEP specialists matched the Arkansas Frameworks with appropriate Strands with Content Standards and Sample Tasks for the students of each group. Teachers could use these as examples of the kind of work that could be placed in the portfolio for the alternate assessment. The LEP work will be more grade/level academic while Special Education work may be more life skill oriented.

4. Methods of gathering data: The Arkansas Department of Education Portfolio Pilot Sub-Committee acknowledges the students as sole creators, authors, and owners of their work. Teachers serve as colleagues, coaches, mentors, and critics. This work will be collected and placed in a portfolio. It may be in written form, audio/video tape, or computerized CD or diskette. The student may have assistance in providing items for the portfolio if the IEP or disability requires it.

5. Methods of scoring data: The portfolios will be scored using scoring guides, developed by Arkansas teachers, administrators and specialists that use the same scoring levels of performance that are already being used by the State for Standard Assessment. However, the scores will be based on the student’s ability as established by the student’s IEP committee or the student’s Limited English Proficiency rating. A testing company already contracted by ADE will do the scoring.

6. Reporting methods: Methods of reporting will be similar to the reports that are already used by ADE to report the CRT. This is still in the developmental stages.

7. Training process: There will be a two step training process for everyone involved in the use of the alternate assessment program. The first step will be to train facilitators, testing coordinators and administrators, and develop a training or facilitators manual. The training for the Special Education facilitators will be on a different day than the training for the facilitators for LEP students. A parent handbook is also being worked on at this time for the pilot year of 2000-2001. The second step will be to train classroom teachers by videoconference with on site facilitators. The training for Special Education teachers will be on a different day than for the teachers for LEP students. There will be quarterly follow-up sessions to be conducted by the 15 Coops located throughout the state.

8. Use of information in accountability system: The recommendation to the State Board ensures that the overall state accountability system for student performance includes the integration of the Alternate Assessment System data. The specific formula of how this is going to be done is still a work in progress at this time.

The California Department of Education views inclusion in assessment is part of a broader movement to include all students with disabilities in standards-based reform. California’s reform has three key features: (1) Development of statewide content and performance standards in English language arts, mathematics, science, and history/social science that specify what students should know and be able to do. (2) Statewide assessment in grades 2-11 and accountability policies and programs that align with the standards. (3) Decision-making by local districts about the specific curricular and instructional approaches they will use to attain the standards.

California’s Standardized Testing and Reporting (STAR) program requires participation of all students in grades 2-11. However, IEP teams may exempt students with disabilities from participation in statewide assessment. Students with more significant disabilities, who cannot participate in the regular assessment even with accommodations, should receive an IEP exemption, and must participate in the state’s alternate assessment program.

An estimated 10-20% of students with disabilities (one to two percent of the general student population) can not take part in the STAR Program even with accommodations and must receive an alternate assessment. In general, the curriculum should determine whether a student participates in the general statewide assessment or the alternate assessment.

The IEP team should consider: (1) whether the student participates in an academic or functional curriculum; (2) the types of instructional modifications used with the student; (3) whether the student is working toward a regular high school diploma; (4) the preference of the parent and where applicable, the student; and (5) input from other involved agencies. The decision should not be influenced by the student’s social, cultural or economic background, attendance, or by previous record of achievement.

California’s "content standards" are defined as "the specific academic knowledge, skills, and abilities that all public schools are expected to teach and all pupils expected to learn in each of the core curriculum areas, at each grade level." The State Board of Education has adopted content standards for Mathematics and English Language Arts, Science, and History/Social Science, focused on preparation for careers and post-secondary study.

While California’s rigorous academic standards are appropriate for most students with mild or moderate disabilities, they have little in common with the functional curriculum provided to the one to two percent of all students who will likely require an alternate assessment. Instructional programs for students with severe disabilities generally focus on non-academic content areas.

Given the academic rigor embodied in California’s current standards, districts may consider developing broader standards. These broader standards could embody both core academic and non-academic content relevant to all students, including those with severe disabilities. Despite the lack of official extended or broadened California content standards, it is necessary to develop and implement an alternate assessment program for these students.

For an alternate assessment to serve large-scale assessment purposes, comparable results must be obtained and aggregated to produce an overall estimate of performance. A necessary condition of comparability is that the assessment measure a common content. Despite the individualized nature of special education, certain content areas may be thought of as constituting a common curriculum. Some of the most common areas include:

Most IEP goals for students with severe disabilities fall within one or more of these seven areas. Of course, IEP teams are responsible for specifying an individualized education program that reflects a student’s unique educational needs. They may thus focus on goals that do not fall within these particular areas. However, the content areas listed above provide a minimal basis for comparable measurement and aggregation of results.

Completed by a team that knows the student’s strengths and needs, the IEP contains information regarding progress and performance on specific, measurable goals and objectives. Since completed IEPs contain information regarding the student’s mastery of specific goals, California’s alternate assessment involves an examination of completed IEPs. This examination entails sorting each student’s IEP goals into one of the areas listed above, or into an "other" category. Each goal is then rated according to the following rubric:

Scoring should be conducted by a credentialed employee of the district who knows the student, typically the teacher. Raters should discuss and reach consensus on uniform application of mastery standards in order to assure fairness and reliability of scores.

To assure fairness and reliability, a 20% random sample of the total number of students participating in the alternate assessment should be scored a second time by another credentialed employee of the district who knows the student and who has not participated in the first scoring the student’s IEP. Discrepancies in scoring suggest that different raters are applying different mastery standards. Districts should resolve discrepancies through additional training of raters to a common mastery standard.

The results of the alternate assessment are to be reported annually in conjunction with local agency reporting for the California Special Education Management Information System (CASEMIS).

In addition to participating in the state’s IEP-based alternate assessment, local education agencies may also wish to use other measures to create a more comprehensive picture of students’ educational experiences and outcomes. Depending on the availability of resources and feasibility, one or more of the following options can be considered:

Contact Person: Terri Rogers Connolly
Phone 303-866-6702
Fax: 303-866-6811
E-mail: t_connolly@ceo.cudenver.edu

1. Overview of approach: The CSAP-A will follow the same content areas as the general state assessments: reading, writing, math, science. A new piece of legislation passed in April 2000 will change the assessment schedule for the general CSAP, requiring annual testing in these domain areas (except for science). The CSAP-A pilot, conducted in February 2000 with approximately 105 students, included third & fourth graders in reading & writing and was based on a literacy matrix that was previously tested in a small study. Eighty-six indicators emerged to form the basis for four literacy-related activities, two scoring rubrics, and suggestions for adaptations that give students access to the activities with different ways to demonstrate their learning. Additionally, Colorado is developing guidelines for LEAs to use in gathering a Body of Evidence for use in a district alternate process.

2. Process used to develop approach: An advisory group consisting of teachers, directors of special education and district assessment coordinators assisted an internal SEA group in the development of the state alternate. Indicators had been developed by a task force over the last two years, with validation coming through a small study and the pilot. The advisory will continue to provide assistance in the decisions to be made about the assessment as it becomes more aligned with new legislation in the state. They are also working to develop the guidelines for the district alternate Body of Evidence.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: The standards upon which the CSAP-A is based are identical to those applied to general education. However, benchmarks for performance have been expanded to the most basic levels of literacy. The process to expand the benchmarks involves looking at key components of the standards and the access skills necessary to learn them. The CSAP-A incorporates these same key components/access skills in the indicators that are being measured.

4. Methods of gathering data: Administration of the CSAP-A requires direct observation by the teacher as well as an observation scoring rubric (2). As a part of the Body of Evidence (district alternate), teachers will be involved in multiple measures of performance, possibly including interviews, surveys, eligibility assessment, performance assessments along with the review of progress towards IEP goals and objectives.

5. Scoring methods: The Levels of Independence Scoring Guide and the Teacher Perception Rubric are two methods for scoring the CSAP-A. The first tool provides a description of how much support a student may need to be successful on this performance assessment. The second tool gives teachers a way of clustering the skills demonstrated for the purpose of looking at progress along a continuum.

6. Reporting methods: The results of CSAP-A will be reported separately. The scores of students with IEPs who take the general CSAP are included with all other students who take the test.

7. Training processes: Training for the actual administration of the pilot CSAP-A was conducted in January 2000. It is expected that next year, when the CSAP-A will be administered officially for the first time, that administration training will be conducted on a regional basis for approximately 500-600 teachers. Additionally, training will need to be available to assure that teachers are aligning instruction with standards so that students have opportunities to progress in the general education curriculum and assessment on the state alternate measures what they are being taught.

8. Use of information in accountability system: It has not been determined how scores for this population will impact the accountability system (which is under the process of much change!) However, the percentage of students with disabilities participating in the general assessment and the CSAP-A will be reviewed as part of the continuous improvement monitoring process. Additionally, the new school academic achievement report card will display the scores from the alternate assessment as well as the general assessment.

Contact Person: Mary Ann Mieczkowski
Phone: 302-739-4667
Fax: 302-739-2388
E-mail: mmieczkowski@state.de.us

1. Overview of the approach: The Department of Education, with technical assistance provided by the Center for Disabilities Studies, has designed and implemented an assessment process for students who are enrolled in functional programs. These are students who, even with appropriate accommodations, would not be able to participate in the regular administration of the Delaware Student Testing Program (DSTP). For this small group of students with moderate to severe cognitive disabilities, an alternate process of assessment is needed. The Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment (DAPA) takes the form of a portfolio, which is a collection of the student’s best work. In order to facilitate the design and implementation of the DAPA, an increasing spiral of stakeholder involvement was established.

2. Process used to develop approach: The Design Group was the first working group established. Charged with conceptual leadership for the project, the Design Group began meeting in September of 1997. Membership includes teachers, administrators, faculty of the University of Delaware, staff from the Center for Disabilities Studies and the Department of Education. They developed the philosophy and assumptions of the DAPA, clarified the purpose of the assessment, created eligibility guidelines, and developed The Standards for Functional Life Skills Curriculum. A group of teachers, parents, and related service personnel developed the performance indicators for these Standards.

The second group established was the Advisory Committee. This large group of representatives from across the state meets on a regular basis to review project progress and participate in the decision-making process. Membership included principals of all special schools and programs, regular education administrators, special and regular education teachers, related service personnel, parents and parent advocates, representatives from The Delaware Disabilities Planning Council, and Governor’s Advisory Council for Exceptional Citizens. The design of the DPA has been viewed as a Four Phase process leading to full implementation during the 2000-2001 school year.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: The Standards for Functional Life Skills Curriculum that form the framework for the Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment have been designed to reflect the performance of students who are enrolled in a functional life skills curriculum. Because Delaware is developing one accountability system that includes all students, it is important that the DAPA link to the academic content standards. Fourteen of the 38 Content Standards have been found pertinent to students in functional life skills programs, and these 14 standards have either been adopted outright (i.e. Academic Content Standard) or modified by changing the wording (i.e. Bridged Standard). In addition, 18 Functional Standards were developed to reflect those areas/domains that are explicit goals of a functional life skills curriculum.

4. Methods of gathering data: The DAPA takes the form of a portfolio or collection of a student’s best work. It is widely recognized that portfolios allow for flexible, dynamic, and objective documentation of student performance. Portfolios developed for the purpose of the alternate assessment are able to effectively recognize the wide diversity of capabilities and abilities of students for whom they are designed. The DAPA reflects the various levels of achievement and development that students may be expected to accomplish across curriculum domains and settings. The portfolio system documents student progress by compiling, in a professional and orderly fashion, work samples, teacher/parent/peer reports, self-reports, program data, captioned photographs, or videotapes/audiotapes.

5. Methods of scoring data: The structure of the Delaware Alternate Portfolio can be thought of as having two types of required components: elements that are not scored and entries that are scored. The five non-scored portfolio elements consist of the following: Eligibility Guidelines, Table of Contents, IEP Goals and Objectives, Student Letter to the Reviewer, and Parent Validation Letter. The non-scored components provide a context and verification for the scored entries. The scoreable entries consist of evidence organized into five domain areas: Communication, Personal Management, Social, Career/Vocational, and Applied Academics. Each domain area score is based on the following five dimensions: Activity, Choice, Supports, Settings, and Interactions. For each domain area, dimension scores are based on a four-point rubric, whereby a four represents the highest score. Therefore, the total possible score for each domain entry ranges from five to 20 and a total score for the portfolio ranges from 25 to 100.

6. Reporting methods: A score report will be generated for each domain within the portfolio. The information contained on this report will include performance levels as reported by the Delaware Student Testing Program: Distinguished, Exceeds the Standard, Meets the Standard, Below the Standard, and Well Below the Standard. Each report will also include score comparisons and instructional needs based on evidence stated within the portfolio.

7. Training processes: Each teacher takes part in an initial six-hour training session and is provided a Teacher’s Training Manual. Update meeting and monthly workshops are held in each county surrounding topics relating to the dimensions of the rubric: Functional and Age Appropriate, Choice and Independence, Supports, Settings, and Interactions with typical peers. In addition, eleven teachers serve as District Consultants to answer questions and provide technical assistance on a daily basis for the participating teachers and team members. Several parent nights are also held throughout the state to share information regarding the DAPA.

8. Use of information in accountability system: The scores of the Delaware Alternate Portfolio Assessment will be included in the school accountability system. Discussions are currently being held; however, final decisions have not been made.

Carol Allman, Ph.D.
Program Director
Exceptional Student Education Programs
Florida Department of Education
325 W. Gaines Street, Suite 614
Tallahassee, FL 32399-0400
Phone: 850-488-1106
E-mail: allmanc@mail.doe.state.fl.us

1. Overview of approach: Florida has focused on teacher training in performance based assessment and has not developed ONE alternate assessment instrument for state use. Schools and districts can choose the alternate assessment procedure that matches the student’s curriculum and learning. From the state level, we have provided massive technical assistance and guidance through products, web-sites, federal project money, and training.

2. Process used to develop approach: Beginning in 1993 standards were revised, performance based procedures were developed and refined, and training of teachers began. All activities included the involvement of teachers, administrators, and parents. Federal monies have been made available to schools and districts to implement these activities since 1993 and will continue into the future.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: Sunshine State Standards for Special Diploma are a supplemental set of standards to our general curriculum standards (Sunshine State Standards). They are designed to address the functional outcome needs of a small percentage of students with disabilities (15-20% of special education population) and address the other educational needs of all students with disabilities.

4. Methods of gathering data: Teachers are trained to collect performance based assessment data throughout the school year and then complete a rating scale at the end of the school year. This is not a state requirement but is an initiative of the accountability/assessment project that provides monies to districts for the implementation of alternate assessment. The state has advised districts to collect data at the local level for IEP writing, instructional planning, and program evaluation.

5. Methods of scoring data: Teachers using performance-based assessment are trained to use scoring rubrics that are specific to each instructional/assessment activity. Scoring reflects the assistance and modifications needed by students to complete activities.

6. Reporting methods: Alternate assessment results are reported at the local level to parents through report cards or other special reporting formats developed at the local level.

7. Training processes: Training has been the most critical aspect of Florida’s system and began with the use of outside consultants (Disability Research Systems, Inc. of Michigan). Teacher training now continues with teachers being the trainers. We have teachers throughout the state who have successfully used alternate assessment strategies and are training other teachers.

8. Use of information in accountability system: Florida’s state accountability system continues to change with each legislative session. Currently alternate assessment results are used for accountability at the local level to write IEPs, plan instruction, and evaluate programs. From the state level, alternate assessment procedures are monitored through the required state monitoring cycle, through district completion of a special programs and procedures document that includes a section on participation of students with disabilities in assessment, and through participation in the ongoing Accountability and Assessment Project that funds alternate assessment activities and implementation.

Contact person: Nancy E. Elliott
Division for Exceptional Students
1870 Twin Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Phone: 404-657-9959
Fax: 404-651-6457
E-mail: nelliott@doe.k12.ga.us

Contact person: Dr. Sharron Hunt
Division for Research, Evaluation and Testing
1754 Twin Towers East
Atlanta, Georgia 30334
Phone: 404-657-0311
Fax: 404-656-5976
E-mail: shunt@doe.k12.ga.us

1. Overview of approach: The alternate assessment in Georgia is an IEP based assessment. It is used for students who are not able to participate in the regular assessments in Georgia, even with maximum accommodations. The IEP team decides, using state guidelines, which students need an alternate assessment. The alternate assessment is based on measuring progress on one IEP objective/goal in each of five curriculum areas (five of eight) and converting actual student progress to a rating level. The alternate assessment is a process of reporting progress on key or critical objectives. The alternate assessment process matches the implementation dates of the IEP.

2. Process used to develop approach: To implement all of IDEA 97, Georgia developed an advisory group of approximately 70 stakeholders. Represented on the advisory group were parents, college/university personnel, other state agencies, local special education directors, general education teachers, special education teachers, superintendents, local school administrators, school psychologists, state advisory panel members and others. From this large group, a subcommittee on assessment was developed and co-chaired by the division for Exceptional students and the Division for Research, Evaluation and Testing. For two years this group worked to develop guidelines for participating in regular assessments and the alternate and then developed the alternate assessment process.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: The alternate assessment is only for those students who are studying a functional curriculum than the Georgia Quality Core Curriculum (QCC). Those students who participate in the QCC, or a modified QCC are to participate in the regular assessments.

4. Methods of gathering data: The data is gathered by the classroom teacher through the process of instruction and measurement of objectives and data collection.

5. Methods of scoring data: The teacher who is responsible for the student’s IEP is the person who scores the data and converts the progress to a rating level.

6. Reporting methods: There is an individual report created for the parents of each student. Additionally for state required grade levels, the number of students participating in alternate assessment is generated and reported by school, system and state. Also the number of students in each of the four rating levels can be reported by school, system and state for each of the curriculum categories. Local systems have been instructed to also do similar reports for the locally required grade levels.

7. Training processes: Georgia conducted extensive training throughout the state during the 99-00 school term using a "train the trainer" model. Teams of six people were created from each local system. The teams were composed of curriculum directors, testing coordinators, special education directors, principals, general education and special education teachers. Each team was trained by the state department of education and then the team had the responsibility to go back to the local system and develop and implement a training plan to ensure that all personnel were provided the information they needed. Systems are reporting the information on number of personnel trained in the categories of administrators, special education teachers, general education teachers and others. Each person attending the training received a handout to go with the training program and also a manual on "including students with disabilities in the assessment program." Teams were also given a notebook(s) with transparencies, handouts, copies of the law and rules and forms to use as they implemented training in their system. They had no need to create additional materials. Also available was an electronic version of the training program for those who wanted to use PowerPoint.

8. Use of information in accountability system: The results of alternate assessment are not used in the current accountability system. Georgia is currently in the process of developing and implementing a new accountability system. Use of data and results may change in the next several years as the new system is implemented. Students who participate in the regular assessments are included (both aggregated and disaggregated) in the state, system and building reports.

What are the purposes of IASEP? The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997 requires all students to be included in statewide assessment and accountability systems by the year 2000. All states are required to develop an alternate assessment system. IASEP is the alternate assessment that will be used in Indiana.

IASEP honors the belief that all students have value, can learn with appropriate supports, and can be expected to make measurable gains. It is being used to improve the content and quality of education by documenting student progress from year to year. Information will be gathered to document individual student growth. It will not be used to compare students or classes.

IASEP will be used to assess students who have moderate to severe disabilities. Participation in IASEP is for students who are not working toward a high school diploma and whose curricula may include domains of personal adjustment, social adjustment, recreation and leisure, and vocational experience in addition to academics. This system can, however, be used along with other assessment instruments to document achievement for any student.

How will student performance be assessed? Information on the student will be collected from several sources. These include samples of a student’s work, information about the support systems that are in place for a student, interviews, rating surveys completed by a student’s teacher or family members, photos, audio clips, video tape, observations, or other documents that show student performance in a variety of areas. These samples of student progress will be used to support ratings of student abilities made by the classroom teacher.

What are assessment ratings? IASEP is an alternate assessment system that provides an assessment of student achievement through ratings of essential skills and academic standards. Skills are identified in subdomains within the broad domains of information acquisition and use, personal adjustment, social adjustment, recreation and leisure, and vocational experience. Documentation in the form of audio clips, scanned images, video clips, or text entries support the ratings.

When will scores be reported? Student performance on IASEP must be reportable by July 1, 2000. Scores will be reported only if doing so would not result in the disclosure of results identifiable to individual children. Information collected through IASEP will remain confidential as part of the student’s education records.

Who is being trained on the system? It is the intent that every teacher of students with moderate to severe disabilities be trained in IASEP during the 1999-2000 school year. Twenty-eight regional training sessions will be held at the Educational Service Centers throughout the 1999-2000 school year and will be offered for school districts’ teachers, support staff, and administrators. INSOURCE trainings will be held in order to provide information to parents. A parent brochure will be disseminated as a resource to parents as well. Follow-up trainings for teachers will occur throughout the school year in order to support statewide implementation of IASEP.

Contact Person: Dan Wiener
Phone: 781-338-6264
Fax: 781-338-3630
E-mail: dwiener@doe.mass.edu

1. Overview of approach: The Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS)-Alternate Assessment will assess the achievement of students with significant disabilities who cannot take standard MCAS tests. This component of MCAS directs educators to compile individual student portfolios in order to document student achievement based on Massachusetts Curriculum Framework learning standards. During the past two years, the Department has worked with its contractor, Measured Progress (Advanced Systems), subcontractors ILSSA and NCEO, and a statewide advisory committee to develop the alternate assessment in Massachusetts. A field test of the new alternate assessment was recently completed (June 2000); statewide implementation is scheduled for fall 2000.

2. Process used to develop approach: The Department identified representatives of key constituencies and stakeholders to comprise a statewide alternate assessment advisory committee. Working sub-groups of this advisory committee to date have:

The Department conducted a three-month Field Test of the new system during spring 2000. Feedback from the field test is being analyzed and materials are being revised.

3. Relationship of general education content and performance standards: The Massachusetts Curriculum Frameworks learning standards provide an outline of concepts, skills, and information important in the instruction of every publicly-funded student in Massachusetts. However, many educators and parents have had difficulty understanding and accepting the applicability of these standards in the educational programs of students with significant disabilities. Recently (summer 1999), panels of educators and assessment experts met together to define the "essence" (key concepts and information) of each Massachusetts learning standard, and to identify examples of "entry points" based on these standards that would assist educators to design instruction for this population. Because ability levels of this population vary so widely, entry points were identified in a continuum to show examples of this access at relatively low, medium, and high levels of complexity. Instructional ideas and assessment strategies were also identified for each learning standard and compiled, along with "essence" and "entry points" in a Resource Guide to the Curriculum Frameworks for students who will take alternate assessments.

4. Methods of gathering data: Data on student achievement will be collected by teachers over a period of eight to nine months, and may consist of any of the following:

Evidence is selected and compiled in a student portfolio in one or more of the following subject areas:

Teachers also will prepare descriptions of the work, a parent survey, and a student introduction describing themselves as a learner.

5. Methods of scoring data: Using a scoring rubric, individual portfolio entries will be scored by pairs of teachers selected by the Department for this purpose, and will arrive at a score total that corresponds with a performance level for reporting purposes.

6. Reporting methods: Because IDEA-97 requires reporting of aggregated, as well as disaggregated, results for alternate assessments, the Department anticipates it will report these scores along with results of those who take standard MCAS tests. The majority will most likely be in the "Failing" performance level. Since this approach is not likely to satisfy educators and parents who will want more definitive (and positive) feedback, the Department is examining alternative reporting approaches that provide more meaningful feedback to schools and parents about a student’s performance and the quality of instruction they are receiving.

7. Training process: DOE provides regional awareness and training activities to educators and parents at least twice each year. A steady flow of mailings, internet postings, and public meetings have made local educators and administrators aware of the requirement to include all students with disabilities in the state assessment system, including the use of test accommodations when necessary, and alternate assessments. As the statewide alternate assessment is introduced across Massachusetts this fall (2000), training will be provided in a variety of venues and formats (e.g., face-to-face, internet, satellite centers, regional teacher leaders).

Awareness materials such as newsletters, frequently-asked questions, an MCAS Participation Requirements publication (updated annually), and a downloadable PowerPoint presentation have been developed for the public over the last two years. A training manual and curriculum guide for the state's alternate assessment have been developed and was used recently in the field test of the MCAS Alternate Assessment

8. Use of information in accountability system: We anticipate that results will be used to assist teams in developing IEP goals and objectives and in designing individual instructional programs; to assist schools and districts in making program and placement decisions; and to provide information to the public on how schools and districts are providing access for all students to the general curriculum.

It is also anticipated that a very small number of students taking alternate assessments will try to satisfy the graduation requirement in this way (those with unique and complex disabilities; or those for whom the test format or accommodations do not allow them to demonstrate knowledge and skills on standard MCAS tests). Therefore, results of these students will be used to enable them to demonstrate required levels of performance through an alternate assessment in order to meet the state’s graduation requirement.

1. Overview of the approach: Four AA were completed. Three (reading, writing, math) are developmental in nature and are aligned with statewide assessment. The fourth is focused on a functional curriculum. Each of the AA are teacher-rating scales. Depending on the student’s situation, one or more of the AA may be completed.

2. Process used to develop approach: An advisory committee developed a set of guiding principle statements (Meet the law; provide good data; nonabusive to students, teachers, parents; easy to use and explain to parents, etc.). Teams of teachers, regular and special education, constructed the AA. The teacher groups used the principle statements to guide their work. The teams broke each area (reading, writing, math, functional) into basic attributes and then developed indicators under each attribute. Teachers completing the AA rate the student on a 1-7 scale on each attribute. The indicators provide guidance on what to consider when ranking the student.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: Three developmental AA are aligned with statewide testing in 3rd, 5th, 8th, and 10th grades. The functional AA is not aligned and has limited preacademic emphasis.

4. Methods of gathering data: Once the decision to exempt has been made, the special education teacher/s who best knows the students skill level (reading, writing, math, functional) completes the attribute ranking. This may mean more than one teacher completes an AA (e.g., one in math, one in reading, etc.). All data is submitted over the Internet through the director of special education.

6. Reporting methods: Data will be available by district or cooperative as appropriate. It will be disaggregated by disability, etc. However, no data will be broken down to the extent an individual student will be identified. In very low incidence areas this may mean regional or state level data. It will be sent to each district and available on the Internet.

7. Training processes: Directors have been provided inservice and other selected groups. However, based on feedback no regional workshops or training tapes were developed. The last statewide accountability test was March 15, 2000. As of now we have received less than 15 questions about how to do AA.

8. Use of information in accountability system: Besides being available as indicated above, it is being worked into each district/cooperative overall report. The specifics are being worked out summer 2000.

Missouri Assessment Program – Alternate (MAP-A)
Contact person: Melodie Friedebach
E-mail: MFriedeb@mail.dese.state.mo.us

In 1993, the Missouri legislature passed the Outstanding Schools Act (OSA) which called for the development of a performance based assessment program that would assess the knowledge and skills of Missouri students. The Missouri Assessment Program (MAP) is based upon 73 Show Me Standards which include 40 academic standards grouped into six curricular areas and 33 process standards grouped under four broad goals.

The 1997 Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires states to develop an alternate assessment for students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the standard statewide assessments. Missouri Department of Education special education and assessment staff, in collaboration with educators and parents, convened several meetings to conceptualize what would become the MAP-A. The alternate assessment is based upon the same purposes as the MAP: 1) increased student achievement, 2) monitor the educational system, 3) empower student and families to improve the educational process, and 4) to support teachers and the learning process.

The IEP team determines if a student with a disability will participate in the MAP content area assessments under standard conditions, with accommodations, or in the MAP-A. It is estimated one to two percent of the general education population will participate in the MAP-A or approximately 600-1200 students at each of the three age levels.

The MAP-A was piloted during the 1998-1999 school year. During the current "voluntary participation" year 1999-2000, approximately 350 teacher and students have prepared a portfolio that demonstrates the student’s performance and progress on selected IEP goals that are related to the Show Me Standards, the application of the student skills in a variety of settings and the student’s use of supports, including decision-making skills. The voluntary administration provided an opportunity to pilot the concepts and procedures for the MAP-A. Schools have provided advice on how to improve the MAP-A process which has resulted in an alternate assessment mechanism that will include all Missouri students in the MAP and meet the purposes of the MAP program.

In July of 2000, the portfolios will be scored by teachers who have completed a training and qualification process. MAP-A scores will not be aggregated with the content area assessments of the MAP. The MAP-A scores will be provided to parents and districts and be reviewed as part of the school accreditation and special education monitoring process.

Contact person: Keith H. Gustafson
Phone: 701-228-3743
Fax: 701-228-3365
E-mail: pgss@ndak.net

1. Overview of approach: The development of the alternate assessment process provides procedures for the collection of a ‘body of evidence’ aligned with State Content Standards. The design process is based on the Essential Steps identified for the development of an alternate assessment and is aligned with the protocols for the development of the state performance assessments. It is based on a continuous improvement–professional development model. The capacity of classroom teachers will increase in three areas: their understanding of content standards, their development of valid and reliable authentic performance assessment, and their use of data to improve assessment development and scoring design. A group of educators were involved in the design, field testing, and revisions of the State Alternate Assessment. At the end of two years of piloting the alternate assessment, the State will have valid and reliable alternate assessment process for students with significant disabilities, which is aligned to the State Content Standards.

2. Process used to develop approach: Please refer to the paper, Plan of Operation, for detailed information about the development process.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: Real-World Performance Indicators and Essential Learning Skills are embedded within the North Dakota Content and Performance Standards in the areas of English/Language Arts, math, Social Studies, and Science. Teachers are provided with a grid that facilitates the review of the standards for referencing identified outcomes.

4. Methods of gathering data: Teachers are asked to identify outcomes for the students that relate to the state content and performance standards, real world activities, or essential learning skills. Each outcome contains a data-collection procedure designed to document base-line performance level and progress made over time. Teachers compile the evidence in portfolios that are submitted concurrent with the administration of required standardized assessments in the schools.

5. Methods of scoring data: Rubrics designed to measure various parameters of the behavioral outcomes will be used to score the entries in all four areas of the content and performance standards. The portfolios will be scored utilizing a peer-scoring paradigm where all teachers participating in the process will be brought together, receive training in the rubrics criteria, and score the completed portfolios developed by their peers. The inservice paradigm is consistent with that used for the scoring of the North Dakota Content and Performance Standards Assessment.

6. Reporting methods: The scorers will be reported to the school districts annually by the Department of Public Instruction. The method and timeline for reporting the scores have yet to be determined.

7. Training processes: A statewide training session is being held in August. The content of the training will include the legal mandate, the development process, and the procedures for completing the alternate assessment portfolios. Technical assistance supports will be available on an annual basis for teachers who are required to complete alternate assessment for students. A series of eight, one-semester hour courses have also been developed and will be available through Minot State University. Each module or course is designed to provide additional skills to supplement any skill deficits that will be required to complete alternate assessment. The courses will be available through the Internet.

8. Use of information in accountability systems: North Dakota utilizes the data from the statewide assessment of content and performance standards to drive the State School Improvement Process required for school accreditation.

In Ohio, the process for conducting an alternate assessment is aligned with general curriculum as reflected in the competency domains assessed by Ohio Proficiency Test series and uses the Individual Education Program (IEP) to structure an assessment of a student’s progress in his or her program of individual instruction.

In developing an alternate assessment process, numerous and often competing factors have argued for and directed the primary structuring of an evaluation model. In Ohio, our accountability system addresses both individual student and system performance. Individual students either pass or fail respective sections of the Ohio Proficiency Test (OPT) series (student outcome). Then, aggregate data on student performance becomes an aspect of accountability at the school building and school district level (systems outcome). Similarly, we have tried for an alternate assessment model that yields source information for gauging both student and system performance. Further, for alternate assessment to have utility in defining system level accountability issues, a degree of comparability in performance data is required.

More specifically, a metric had to be established that supported aggregation of data at the minimum levels required for comparisons on effectiveness and change (improvement) over time. Owing to the diversity among students who will be selected for alternate assessment, establishing such a metric has been one of the central problems complicating implementation of the federal mandate. In fact, it would appear that many of the presumptions that underlie and enable "large scale assessment" may not apply when working with a highly diverse population. Although it may be possible to establish normative standards, it is unlikely that current technologies will allow a fair or accurate assessment of individual student progress against these standards, or one which results in any acceptable level of comparability of data on individual student performance.

Largely because of this, the education of students who have disabilities, particularly students who have severe or complex disabilities, has long been directed by the Individual Education Program (IEP) with its associated components of individual goal setting and individual performance evaluation. In a fashion, it could be argued that establishing an IEP goal for a student who has a severe disability is in effect setting an individual learning standard for the student, and assessing goal attainment is evaluating accomplishment of the standard.

The model we have developed for alternate assessment is connected to the IEP process and uses outcome data common to all IEPs. The essential assessment question at the student level is, "To what extent has this student succeeded in attaining his or her IEP goals?" There are numerous advantages associated with alternate assessment rooted in this direct question. It accommodates the diversity among students who will be selected for alternate assessment by maintaining primacy of the IEP and the IEP process (people who know most about the student). It underscores the importance of both individual goal setting and individual progress monitoring as central to educating a child who has a disability. In addition, this model allows us to incorporate much of the available valid assessment data generated during the development and revision of the IEP. However, basing alternate assessment entirely on IEP goal attainment poses several technical and quality assurance questions. Central is the concern that goal attainment may not, in fact, reflect acquisition of meaningful skills. In order to reduce this concern, other features of our model examine the processes that underlie the development of each IEP. Here, we ask evaluation questions directed at the processes used to: 1) establish individual performance standards for the student that connect to recognized hierarchies of skill acquisition (External Indicators), and 2) ensure that data on goal attainment is maintained and available for alternate assessment (Valid Measurement). Alternate assessment for each student will gather data in response to the question: "Describe the methods used to assess student progress and determine goal attainment". It is anticipated that the information generated by this question will become a rich resource with practical application for improved IEP quality.

In conducting the alternate assessment, the IEP team completes a review of the student’s progress toward attaining IEP goals. This review incorporates the following activities:

The areas in which the alternate assessment will be conducted align with the five curriculum domains of academic competency assessed by the OPT (Writing, Reading, Math, Science and Citizenship). However, in addition to the content knowledge assessed, i.e. competency in mathematical operations, assessment extends into "curriculum access skills" and the "practical application" of knowledge commonly associated with the five curriculum domains. As an example, if a student does not take the OPT Reading test, the student instead participates in an alternate assessment of "receptive communication". Here, the focus is on those goals that represent progress in "access skills" associated with literacy, or on those goals that represent the "practical application" of reading. To clarify further: an IEP that does not contain a specific goal in Reading, may instead include goals in "attending to instruction" or "listening comprehension". These goal areas are generally considered to be "access skills" related to literacy development, and for the purpose of conducting alternate assessment, would be used to evaluate student progress in "receptive communication". The following guidelines assist teams in aligning "access skill" and "practical application" level IEP goals with the five learner outcome areas:

During the 2000-2001 we will implement for the first time a large scale assessment program for student’s who have disability conditions that prevent participation in the existing state and district-wide assessments. The model we will use to conduct this assessment is aligned with the competency domains assessed by our proficiency test series and uses the IEP to structure assessment and supply data about student progress.

Oregon Department of Education
Bob Siewert
Pat Almond
Greg Harpole
Colleen Mileham
Project Phone: 503.725.4255
E-mail: extendedclras@pdx.edu

The appropriate and accurate assessment of students with disabilities is a major concern in the implementation of educational reform in the state of Oregon. During the 1998-99 school year, the Oregon Department of Education (ODE) committed to the development of an initial alternate assessment system to primarily serve students with moderate to severe disabilities. The alternate assessment was developed to be a component of the comprehensive assessment system and to complement and support CIM and CAM assessments. Thus, the alternate assessment was aligned to the state of Oregon’s Common Curriculum Goals (CCG) and CAM Career-Related Standards. It was also developed to meet federal requirements of IDEA-97 for alternate assessment.

There were two main goals for the Oregon Department of Education’s project during the 1998-1999 school year. The first goal was for Project SUPPORT staff at PSU to work with the ODE and the special education community in Oregon to develop a strong initial alternate assessment process. The second goal was to pilot-test the process with teachers and students in several elementary and secondary schools. One of the objectives for the new alternate assessment system was to extend the existing Career and Life Role CCG below the third grade benchmark by defining new benchmarks as needed. Thus, meaningful information could be gathered to assess progress and current needs of students who were not yet able to function at the third grade level regardless of their age. A team of researchers from the University of Oregon also lead a complementary ODE project to extend existing CIM content standards below the third grade benchmark level. Thus, due to the complementary research projects, alternate assessments will be available for both the career and life roles and academic content standards.

The assessment system developed by Portland State University takes a functional approach to assessment and matches content areas to the Career and Life Role education standards of the Oregon Certificate of Advanced Mastery (CAM). This system will "extend" the current Career and Life Role standards and assess skills appropriate for students with moderate to severe disabilities.

The following table identifies the content areas assessed in the CAM assessment and how the Extended Career and Life Role Assessment System (Extended CLRAS) matches the content standards.

Note: Assessment of Daily Routines will be conducted using a combination of teacher rating and performance assessment. Assessment of related skills will be conducted while students are engaged in Daily Routines. Specific related skills will be determined for each student by the IEP team.

²The content areas were defined by reviewing current literature in the field, consulting with special education instructors, and reviewing curriculum and assessment materials for students with moderate/severe disabilities.

Students who participate in the Extended CLRAS will be assessed on their ability to perform typical daily "routines" while incorporating essential "related skills" for living. A routine is defined as a detailed course of action with core steps important for daily living that involve a beginning, middle and end. Concurrent with the evaluation of routines, students will be assessed on specific related skills identified from the students’ IEP goals and objectives. These skills enhance students’ abilities to engage in life in an independent fashion. Students are assessed in the natural environment of typical settings.

To be eligible for the Extended CLRAS, a student needs to meet the following three criteria:

The functional routines assessed by the Extended Career and Life Role Assessment System have been identified and developed by reviewing current literature, curriculum materials, and by collaborating with professionals in the field of education. Numerous advisory meetings were held in Portland, Oregon with special education instructors, administrators, and Portland State University Project SUPPORT staff to identify and prioritize essential routines based on the potential to contribute to a fully functioning life. After identifying and developing routines, the Extended Career and Life Role Extended Assessment System was pilot tested in the Spring 1999. Thirty-three teachers, assessing 114 students, utilized the system and provided feedback on how to improve the system for students and instructors. Modifications were made and a field test was implemented with teachers assessing significantly more students during the 1999-2000 academic year.

Accountability through assessment systems provides equity in program and educational opportunities for all students. Alternate Assessment, as part of the state assessment program, ensures unified system, program, and student accountability linked to the common core of learning within the general curriculum.

This statement was developed by the Rhode Island Alternate Assessment Advisory Committee in response to IDEA 1997 that requires, "The State has established goals for the performance of children with disabilities in the state that ... are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for children established by the state." It is toward fulfillment of this requirement that the alternate assessment was based on a subset of standards taken from the English Language Arts, Mathematics and Health Literacy Frameworks. All students in Rhode Island will be moving toward the same general curriculum. The inclusion of students with disabilities in the assessment and accountability system is critical to ensure appropriate allocation of resources and learning opportunities for these students. The alternate assessment was designed for the estimated less than two percent of the population for whom traditional assessments, even with accommodations, would be an inappropriate measure of their progress. Completion of an alternate assessment accomplishes the following results:

Rhode Island’s Alternate Assessment represents a multi-disciplinary approach to student learning and progress. Portfolios showcase student work, where learning across life domain areas can be assessed in a comprehensive way. The philosophy of performance-based assessments such as portfolios support a method of student evaluation that:

In effective learning environments, assessment and instruction are fundamentally linked. High quality assessment practices provide information upon which to base ongoing development of curriculum that is responsive to student needs. Aside from the use of a portfolio to capture student learning, an extension of this philosophy also considers that students with severe or multiple disabilities are valued and contributing members of their schools and communities. The performance-based assessment promotes a vision of enhancing capacities and integrated life opportunities for students who experience severe disabilities. Positive results are expected from these students, including living, working and contributing in their communities, upon completion of schooling.

The alternate assessment was developed to reflect the application of Rhode Island’s Curriculum Frameworks for students with moderate to severe and profound cognitive disabilities. Participation by all students includes those in "ungraded" programs. The student’s IEP team determines and verifies in the student’s Individual Education Program (IEP) that the student meets all of the participation criteria for the alternate assessment. The initial consideration for participation in the alternate assessment should be during the spring of 2nd grade or any time after. Documents in writing placed the student’s educational record are the basis for the decision, and include current and longitudinal data.

Members of the IEP team must agree that the student meets all the criteria for the Rhode Island Alternate Assessment. Students who might qualify have several characteristics. A student who participates in the alternate assessment must have:

The IEP team should not consider students solely because of excessive absences, visual or auditory disabilities, emotional-behavioral disabilities, specific learning disabilities, or social, culture, and economic differences. Those students with disabilities that do not qualify for the alternate assessment would need to participate in the regular portion of the state assessment with appropriate accommodations.

Participation in the Rhode Island Alternate Assessment must be documented on the IEP.

The IEP team should reconsider the documentation each year to ensure that the student has an opportunity to participate in the most appropriate assessment. Participation Criteria checklists and any documentation should be placed in the student’s educational record.

The Alternate Assessment Advisory Committee, charged with the task of identifying the standards to be assessed within the alternate assessment, looked at the critical functions of each of Rhode Island’s standards. The committee’s examination and the extent to which each standard could be evidenced for children who participate in the alternate assessment produced a prioritized subset of 27 standards from across the English/Language Arts, Mathematics and Health Literacy content areas. In addition to these 27 standards, three more were developed in the life domain areas of mobility, recreation/leisure and vocational. Through a process of reconciling student activity schedules and evidencing performance, these 30 standards were selected as critical to maintaining the integrity of functional programming for students participating in this assessment process. Students participating in this assessment are not limited to only these standards.

Critical functions may serve as a starting point for some students with significant disabilities, but should not be considered as the highest expectations for a student with disabilities. Skill instruction on the critical function of each standard may incorporate different levels of support from a variety of sources.

The basic building block of every portfolio is the student’s work. Authentic performance-based assessment as evidenced by student performances in everyday activities/instruction can be a valuable tool in evaluating a student’s progress on targeted skills (IEP goals/objectives) and the strengths and weaknesses of the instructional program.

Each of the six entries in the portfolio will document components of the dimensions of the Scoring Guide/Rubric. These dimensions include the elements that make up a quality program for students with moderate to severe disabilities. The evidence should show the extent to which a student’s portfolio:

While the student and special education teacher will be major contributors, all members of the instructional team should be accountable for the development of portfolio products / entries, as well. As a reflection of daily instruction, portfolio development is ongoing without a definitive beginning or end. "Working" portfolios should be kept throughout a student’s school career.

Portfolio entries submitted for the assessment may contain items such as; samples of student work, peer work, captioned pictures, scripted videotape and teacher data with graphing. For confidentiality purposes, written parent permission must be obtained and retained on file for pictures and videotaping of students. Portfolio entries should fit into no larger than a two-inch ring binder, with identifying information on the front.

The discussions, meetings, and planning sessions of the Advisory Committee (including policymakers, parents, teachers, special education administrators, state education personnel, and colleges/universities) have led to new ideas about how to assess what students have learned and to find out if students can really apply their learning. As a result, the Rhode Island Alternate Portfolio Assessment has been developed as part of the overall educational assessment process within the state. The portfolio is a continuous journal that can show in pictures, words, products, and activities what a student is learning.

Ensure that programs will be based on best practice research in offering integrated settings, age-appropriate materials, functionality, assistive technology, and opportunities for choices.

Contact Person: Ann Sanders
Special Education Assessment Coordinator
Tennessee State Department of Education
(Terry Long from Vanderbilt did the presentation)
Phone: 615-741-7811
Fax: 615-532-9412
E-mail: asanders@mail.state.tn.us

1. Overview of approach: Tennessee has elected to use a portfolio assessment process, the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program–Alternate Portfolio Assessment (TCAP-Alt). Best evidence from students’ work and programming are selected at four data points during the school year and compiled into a portfolio format.

2. Process used to develop approach: Beginning in April 1998, the Tennessee State Department of Education, Division of Special Education contacted a group of stakeholders from across the state to form the Alternate Assessment Steering Committee. This committee is composed of 31individuals including: parents and teachers of students with significant disabilities, general educators, special education supervisors, educators from institutions of higher education, and advocacy groups.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: A subset of the essential standards (reading/language arts, math, science, and social studies) from the Tennessee State Curriculum Frameworks has been incorporated into the Tennessee Curriculum Framework: Extensions and Adaptations (TCF:EA), a framework of "essential learnings" for those students who meet the participation guidelines for alternate assessment. TCF:EA contains "real world," functional performance skills used to demonstrate Tennessee’s learning expectations and performance standards.

4. Methods of gathering data: Data may be gathered by various individuals involved in students’ daily educational program including: special education teachers, general education teachers, educational assistants, peers, parents, and others. Types of data gathered may include student work samples, teacher data sheets, information recorded by peers, photographs, and video or audio tapes.

5. Methods of scoring data: All portfolios will be scored by trained scoring teams at eight regional sites across the state. Each portfolio will receive two scores from each of two scoring team members. Consensus must be reached by the two scoring team members. The portfolio will then be scored by a second scoring team, and assigned a second score. If the two scores match, that score then becomes the official score for the portfolio. If the two scores do not match, then the portfolio is sent to a third scoring team. In such cases, the most frequent score becomes the official score for the portfolio.

6. Reporting methods: The TCAP-Alt scores will be aggregated with the Tennessee Comprehensive Assessment Program (TCAP) Achievement Test scores and reported at the system, school, and student levels, if doing so does not breach student confidentiality. The Individual Student Report forms used will be very similar in appearance to those used for reporting TCAP Achievement Test scores. The same student demographic information recording forms will be used for both TCAP-Alt and TCAP.

7. Training processes: Regional trainings will be offered on a regular basis. Technical assistance is also made available to school systems on an on-going basis. Plans are in place for all portfolio development training materials and scoring team training materials to be made available through the Tennessee Department of Education internet web site and in a CD-ROM format.

8. Use of information in accountability system: Because TCAP-Alt scores will be aggregated and reported with TCAP scores, the accountability system will also operate in a similar manner, with the data being used in on-going classroom, school, and system improvement plans. Currently, no plans are in place to use data from the TCAP-Alt as part of Tennessee’s Value-Added Assessment System (TVAAS), which is designed to measure students’ academic gains over time by comparing each individual student’s past performance on TCAP tests to their TCAP test performance in a given year.

Contact Person: Mary Pat Farrell
Office of Special Education
West Virginia Department of Education
Building 6, Room 304
1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, WV 25305
Phone: (304)558-2696
Fax: (304)558-3741
E-mail: mfarrell@access.k12.wv.us

The West Virginia Alternate Assessment Skill Inventory, being piloted with selected school districts, uses performance demonstrations to assess a student’s skill level on selected Instructional Goals and Objectives (IGO’s) for West Virginia Schools in areas that parallel the areas tested in the statewide achievement test: English Language Arts, Mathematics, Science, Social Studies and Process/ Workplace Skills. The Skill Inventory comprises 35 IGO’s at the Early Childhood Education programmatic level and 63 IGO’s at the Middle/Adolescent Education programmatic level (including 35 Early Childhood IGO’s). For each selected core IGO, performance demonstrations are provided for each programmatic level.

The core IGO’s do not form the total curriculum for students with severe disabilities, because students will have individual needs beyond the selected curriculum areas. Rather, they represent entry points for students’ access to the general education curriculum and are intended to promote teachers’ use of varied natural environments to teach and assess functional skills and to increase students’ participation in school and community settings beyond the special education classroom.

Throughout the school year, the teacher arranges and observes performance demonstrations to assess individual students on the core IGO’s and records data describing the student’s performance on each demonstration. The data forms and additional documentation are collected in a datafolio for each student. At the end of the year, the student’s datafolio is rated by the teacher using the Skill Inventory rubric. The accumulated demonstrations relative to each IGO are rated as follows: awareness, progressing, competent, generalized. One rating for each IGO is recorded on a Skill Inventory record form and is submitted to the West Virginia Department of Education, Office of Student Services and Assessment for reporting.

An internal team within the West Virginia Department of Education developed the beliefs upon which the assessment system is based and the criteria for determining whether a student receives the statewide achievement test or the alternate assessment. Within these beliefs, assessment for all students is intended to improve planning, instruction and learning for each student and to increase accountability at the school, district and state level based on educational results of all students. Alternate assessment, for students whose education is focused on functional life skills, is intended to measure individual student progress in the attainment of functional skills based on the IGO’s.

A work team of teachers, a parent, administrators and state staff, with assistance from Mid-South Regional Resource Center, developed West Virginia’s Alternate Assessment Framework by selecting IGO’s from the general curriculum and linking them to the American Association of Mental Retardation’s ten adaptive skill areas. Age appropriate Real World Performance Skills were developed for each selected IGO to illustrate how students with severe disabilities might demonstrate meaningful progress in attainment of skills from the general curriculum. All IGO’s are to be taught with appropriate modifications, accommodations and age appropriate materials.

Input was obtained from a management team appointed by the State Superintendent of Schools, which reviewed various approaches for alternate assessment and the work team’s proposals. This team included local and regional administrators and staff, state advisory council representation and state staff.

The work team selected a subset of IGO’s from the Alternate Assessment Framework to be included in the West Virginia Alternate Assessment Skill Inventory. For each of the core IGO’s, the team developed performance demonstrations at the Early Childhood, Middle Childhood and Adolescent levels. These demonstrations form the basis of instruction and data collection to document a student’s performance and skill level on the Skill Inventory IGO’s. Additionally, this group provided direction for the basic components of the assessment process and the rubric.

IGO’s in the Skill Inventory are a subset of the Instructional Goals and Objectives for West Virginia Schools, the state board adopted curriculum for all students.

The teacher gathers data on performance demonstrations for each selected IGO and documents the performance by describing it on a form and attaching other documentation as appropriate. Documentation is collected in a datafolio.

At the end of the year, the teacher rates the accumulated performance demonstration data for each IGO and assigns one rating per IGO (awareness, progressing, competent, generalized). IGO’s are divided by programmatic level (Early Childhood, Middle Childhood/Adolescent). The rating for each IGO is recorded on a Skill Inventory record sheet. A parent conference to explain and verify performance levels is conducted.

Skill Inventory record sheets are submitted to the West Virginia Department of Education. Frequency and percentage of students in each skill level are reported by programmatic level.

Participation rates of students with and without disabilities in the Statewide Assessment Program, including participation in the statewide achievement test under standard and nonstandard conditions and the number of students not participating in the achievement test, that is, those expected to be participating in the alternate assessment, are reported annually for each school district. Performance on the Stanford Achievement Test Ninth Edition is reported annually as follows: 1) total basic skills scores are reported by quartile for each district for students taking the test under standard conditions, with special education and general education students aggregated and disaggregated; and 2) mean percentiles for total basic skills, language, total reading and total mathematics are reported, aggregated and disaggregated.

Initial training for pilot sites included a one day overview with follow-up training and support by the Regional Education Service Agency and/or school district administrator. Preliminary results of the pilot evaluation indicate more extensive training with follow-up and support from state staff and selected trainers will be required to change the assessment paradigm and promote consistent implementation of the process.

Performance goals and indicators for student participation in the Statewide Assessment Program, including appropriate participation in the Alternate Assessment, are included in West Virginia’s State Improvement Plan. School districts will assess their progress on the indicators through a self-evaluation process that is a required component of the West Virginia Continuous Improvement Monitoring Process for special education. Data then will be used in cyclical monitoring of school districts conducted by the Office of Special Education. In addition, use of participation rates and student results in the educational accountability system will be coordinated with the Office of Educational Performance Audits, which conducts accreditation reviews for all schools and districts regarding state board requirements for both general and special education.

Additional information: Contact Mary Pat Farrell and Sandra McQuain at the Office of Special Education, (304)558-2696, and Beth Cipoletti at the Office of Student Services and Assessment, (304)558-2546.

Contact Person: Cheryl Pulley
Phone: 307-777-5847
Fax: 307-777-6234
E-mail: cpulle@educ.state.wy.us

1. Overview of approach: Wyoming used the state standards in Language Arts and Mathematics for all students and expanded them to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities. Districts will use Real Life Performance Indicators and gather a "body of evidence" (data) over a lengthened period of time. Performance levels are then assigned to the "body of evidence" and are reported to the state.

2. Process used to develop approach: The Wyoming Department of Education Special Programs Unit identified six school districts and two Board of Cooperative Education Services (BOCES) schools to participate in our pilot year of the Wyoming alternate assessment. This pilot group in collaboration with the National Center for Educational Outcomes (NCEO) developed a pilot version of the WyCAS-Alternate Assessment. The Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) then held training for our pilot group. The assessment was implemented in Spring of 2000 and then evaluated by the WDE and the pilot participants. We are now in the final planning stages for our initial state wide training and will implement the Wyoming Comprehensive Assessment System Alternate Assessment statewide this year, Spring 2001.

3. Relationship to general education content and performance standards: The same standards are used and expanded to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities.

4. Methods of gathering data: Each district must use two methods to gather data on the four identified Expanded Standards for each student. They may choose from the following:

5. Methods of scoring data: Districts will use "body of evidence" from data collection and determine Performance Levels of Language Arts and Mathematics Expanded Standards. The levels of performance are Skilled, Partially Skilled, or Beginner with specific criteria for each.

6. Reporting methods: The "body of evidence" is collected and retained by the districts and will be used by teachers for program improvement. The WDE requires submission of a completed reporting form for each student participating in the WyCAS-Alt.

7. Training processes: An initial training in September on the overview of the WyCAS-Alt, Wyoming Expanded Standards and Real World Performance Indicators, and data collection. We will have a follow up training in on scoring and reporting.

8. Use of information in accountability system: Data from all test takers will be included in performance reports. State accountability reports will include testing information on all students who take the WyCAS and on all students in WyCAS-Alt. Data from WyCAS-Alt and the WyCAS will be reported separately within the same accountability report. Rates of nonparticipation of students with disabilities and the reason for nonparticipation will be included in the report.

Participation Criteria: While Michigan’s alternate assessment instruments are under development, Michigan’s Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) has interim guidelines in place. These guidelines indicate that until the State has its alternate assessment in place the specified method of alternate assessment may be individually determined by the Individualized Education Plan Team until further guidance is available from the (OSE/EIS). The report on the progress on the annual goals may be used as an alternate assessment.

The OSE/EIS is in the process of forming a committee comprised of Michigan special educators, general educators, and parents to draft the final guidelines for participation in assessment for students with disabilities. This committee will have its initial meeting during the fall of 2000.

Standards: Michigan State Board of Education (SBE) has adopted the Model Content Standards contained in the Michigan Curriculum Framework as the performance indicators for assessing progress toward achieving goals and standards for student in the state of Michigan.

In addition, the SBE approved the use of Addressing the Unique Educational Needs of Students with Disabilities (AUEN 3.0) performance standards in the development of a proposed model for instruction and an alternate assessment tool. The AUEN materials are non-categorical and are organized around four levels of independence in adult life roles that students with varying levels of cognitive functioning can realistically be expected to achieve. The AUEN is not a separate set of standards, but a model of how to operationalize the Model Content Standards for various functioning levels of students with disabilities.

Assessment Method: Observation by school staff of a standardized set of assessment activities, which typically occur during instruction.

Scoring Criteria/Procedures: A scoring guide (rubric) has been developed for each assessment activity that the teacher/staff will use when observing the students.

Reporting Procedures: Tentatively, the current plan is to report the results of the alternate assessment annually at the same time the state reports the scores for the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). The goal is to have technically sound data to be able to have state level reports. There are also plans to have individual student reports and district summary reports produced and provided to the school districts.

Accountability Procedures: One of the goals of Michigan’s accountability system is to have all students assessed. The proposed accountability system will be asking if a student has been assessed either by the MEAP or by Michigan’s alternate assessment. Therefore, students taking the alternate assessment will be counted when calculating the percentage of students being assessed by the states assessment program.

Current Stage of Development: Michigan’s alternate assessment instruments are being developed in two phases. Phase 1 development is for students with moderate and severe cognitive deficit. Assessment instruments for students with severe cognitive deficit are based on AUEN level 1—Performance Expectations for Achieving Participation in Major Life Roles. Assessment instruments for students with moderate cognitive deficit are based on AUEN level 2—Performance Expectations for Achieving Supported Independence in Major Life Roles.

Tryouts for Phase 1 were conducted during the spring of 1999. The results of the tryouts were reviewed and revisions were made to the assessment instruments during the 1999-2000 school year. Phase 1 will be implemented in a selected number of schools during the winter of 2001. In addition, professional development workshops on the AUEN are taking place regionally around the state. Regional workshops, specifically on Michigan’s alternate assessment, are planned for the 2000-2001 school year.

Phase 2 will address students with mild cognitive deficits. The Phase 2 assessment instruments will be based on AUEN Level 3—Performance Expectations for Achieving Functional Independence in Major Life Roles. Phase 2 development began during the spring of 2000 and will continue during the 2000-2001 school year.

Plans for Research/Evaluation: Michigan’s alternate assessment project lends itself to many exciting research and evaluation possibilities. There are many issues related to the observation format of the assessment that needs evaluation, such as standardization, rater reliability, the aggregation of scores for state level reporting, and the long range impact on instruction and on the performance of students who take the alternate assessment.

The alternate assessment project has a Technical Advisory Committee (TAC) comprised of assessment experts who are providing advise related to the research and evaluation of these issues. In addition to the TAC, the OSE/EIS is also in the process of releasing a Request For Proposal to partner with a vender with assessment expertise to assist with the technical issues and the logistics of administering, scoring and reporting of Michigan’s alternate assessment.

Resources/Web site addresses: The home page for the Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services is http://www.mde.state.mi.us/off/sped. For information specifically related to Michigan’s assessment of students with disabilities click on the "Online Library" and go to the "Assessment and Evaluation" folder.

Copies of the AUEN materials may be obtained through the Center for Educational Networking (CEN). The CEN phone number is 800-593-9146.

	1 Beginning	2 Transitional	3 Intermediate	4 Competent
Level of Progress/Mastery (with respect to the specific goal)	No progress.	Partial progress (met 1-49% of the criteria).	Substantial progress (met 50-99% of the criteria).	Goal met or exceeded.

Career and Life Role Strands (CAM Areas)	Corresponding Content Areas Assessed by the Extended Career and Life Role Assessment System²
	DAILY ROUTINES
Personal Management	Functional Daily Routines: · Daily School Routines · Daily Leisure Routines · Community Routines · Self-care skills (incorporated) · Health & safety skills (incorporated)
Career Development	Career & Vocational Skills · School Vocational Routines · Community Vocational Routines · Career Development Routines
	RELATED SKILLS
Communication	Communication · Expressive Communication · Receptive Communication
Problem Solving	Problem Solving
Team Work	Social Skills/Team Work
Employment Foundations	Employment Foundations (Functional Academics)
Motor Skills (not a CAM area- but important for Extended Assessment)	Motor Skills