Use data for policy decisions, report results to the public, do a root-cause analysis, and re-direct resources.
Ensure all students are reading at or above grade level by grade 3; increase professional development with K-12 special education as well as K-3 teachers.
Improve performance of students with disabilities by refocusing quality assurance and monitoring on program effectiveness and improving results, as well as through other strategies.
Improve performance of English language learners.
After brief comments from our Federal partners, Cesar D’Agord from the Great Lakes Regional Resource Center introduced new technical assistance and dissemination partners – the Access Center and the National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum (NCAC). Judy Shanley with the Access Center (http://www.k8accesscenter.org) noted that it assists states and districts to learn about research and evidence-based programs, practices, and tools that can help students with disabilities access and learn in the general education curriculum (grades K-8). Chuck Hitchcock with NCAC (http://www.cast.org/ncac) indicated that it provides a vision of how new curricula, teaching practices, and policies can be woven together to create practical approaches for improved access to, participation in, and progress within the general curriculum by students with disabilities.
Next Teleconference(s)
Our next call in this series, planned for February, will shift to looking at
data that NCEO and others are collecting on students with disabilities in AYP
reporting. We will see what those data show us and have state presentations on
how we can respond to what we are seeing.
We anticipate that there will also be a teleconference on the NCLB regulations in the interim, on short notice, after the final rule on NCLB accountability is released. We will hear directly from our Federal partners on immediate implications and actions. Watch your e-mail for a notice of this call should it be scheduled between now and February.
One of NCEO’s newest synthesis reports examines in depth the scoring criteria used in five states’ alternate assessments. The states use different alternate assessment approaches, including portfolio assessment, performance assessment, IEP linked body of evidence, and traditional test formats. Despite the differences in formats and apparent surface differences in the scoring criteria, many similarities emerged on closer examination. Six scoring criteria were found in all of the states’ approaches, either articulated or assumed: content standards linkage, independence, generalization, appropriateness, IEP linkage, and performance. Criteria found in only some of the states included measures of mastery, progress, and whether the system or the student was emphasized.
Scoring criteria should reflect the assumptions and values of the state education system for the student population being assessed. Because alternate assessments are new, states are encouraged to engage in a careful examination of their criteria, and to ask what each scoring criterion means and how it is important to each student’s success. The report provides questions and recommendations that may be helpful to states in ensuring that the alternate assessment reflects what the state believes are successful outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
Synthesis Report 50, Measuring Academic Achievement of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Building Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria, is available at http://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.