State Alternate Assessments: Status as IDEA Alternate Assessment Requirements Take Effect

NCEO Synthesis Report 35

Published by the National Center on Educational Outcomes

Prepared by:

Sandra J. Thompson • Martha L. Thurlow

June 2000

This document has been archived by NCEO because some of the information it contains is out of date.

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

Thompson, S. J., & Thurlow, M. L.. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report No. 35). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [today's date], from the World Wide Web: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis35.html

Executive Summary

The phrase “alternate assessment” appears in the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act and is required to be in place in all states by July 1, 2000. Alternate assessments are for the small number of students with disabilities who cannot participate in state and district-wide assessment programs. To provide a continuously updated source of information about what states are doing, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) developed an on-line survey on the development of alternate assessments. Nearly two years after the survey’s initial design, responses have been received from all 50 states, with 47 states updating their information between March and June 2000. In addition, five educational units that receive IDEA Part B funds (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Marshall Islands, Virgin Islands, and Washington DC) have completed the survey. Guidelines, procedures, and training—all are progressing at a feverish pace as this document goes to print. Among the major findings are:

•     There is a divergence in who is involved in the development of alternate assessments that is reflected in the nature of the standards and the approach taken by states. While many states included state and local special and general educators in the design of their alternate assessment systems, a small number viewed alternate assessment development as a special education initiative.

•     The most prevalent alternate assessment approach is a collection of a body of evidence that assesses functional indicators of progress toward state standards using a variety of performance-based assessment strategies. Nine states plan to base their alternate assessment on separate standards or skill sets that are not linked to general education standards.

•  Although only a few states are actually implementing their alternate assessments statewide, most states are close to being ready to do so.

•     Areas of greatest need for development are scoring procedures and how data will be reported.

•  Fifteen states currently have information about their alternate assessments on their Web sites, with several others in draft form.

 

Alternate assessments have evolved over the past two years of development, and may be expected to continue this evolution as states implement them and determine what works best. While the presentation in this report of all the approaches states are taking does not imply endorsement of any specific state alternate assessment practices, it does indicate that states are still moving in many directions despite regulations suggesting directions for development.

Acknowledgments

A synthesis report of this magnitude is only as good as the quality of information gathered. To this end, we at NCEO extend our appreciation to each person who took the time to complete and then update the on-line survey on alternate assessment.

This survey was originally intended to serve only as a continuously updated on-line source of information, but we have found it important to take a “slice” of that information periodically and to do a careful analysis of the status of alternate assessments through these stages of rapid development. We appreciate the respondents’ willingness to allow to appear in print information that quickly goes “out-of-date” or is “not quite ready.” To stay up-to-date, we encourage readers to visit our Web site at http://education.umn.edu/NCEO to view current information and to check their state’s status.

Overview

The countdown is on. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act require states to have alternate assessment systems in place by July 1, 2000. This report presents an examination of the status of alternate assessments across states as of June 1, 2000, just a month from the deadline. What do the alternate assessment systems look like? Who is involved in their development? Who will participate in these alternate assessment systems? These and other important questions and issues are addressed in this report.

The phrase “alternate assessment” appears in the reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (see Appendix A):

As appropriate, the State or local agency (i) develops guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs; and (ii) develops and, beginning not later than July 1, 2000, conducts those alternate assessments.  PL 105-17, Section 612 (a)(17)

IDEA does not provide specific direction to states about what an alternate assessment is, what it should look like, or how it should be scored or reported, nor does it specify the type or number of alternate assessment participants. It does clarify in its “Analysis of Comments and Changes” that accompany the final regulations that:

If IEP teams properly make individualized decisions about the participation of each child with a disability in general State or district-wide assessments, including the use of appropriate accommodations, and modifications in administration (including individual modifications, as appropriate), it should be necessary to use alternate assessments for a relatively small percentage of children with disabilities.

Most states estimate the number to range from less than one-half of one percent to no more than two percent of the total student population.

When IDEA was enacted in 1997, Kentucky was the only state with an operational alternate assessment system. Maryland was piloting a system and a few other states were in initial stages of development. As this report shows, nearly all states are now progressing through stages of development, pilot testing, and implementation of their alternate assessments.

Several states began their process of developing alternate assessments by establishing their purpose and guiding principles. A principle that has guided development in several states is that students with significant disabilities need opportunities to access a state’s educational standards (Burgess & Kennedy, 1998).

For example, the foundation for Kentucky’s Alternate Portfolio Assessment was the mandate for a totally inclusive assessment, with the same academic expectations for all students and a zero exemption rule. With this principle as a guide, Kentucky developed:

•  shared content standards;

•  scoring rubrics modeled on regular assessment;

•  shared assessment language for teachers, administrators, parents, and the community;

•    a formula to integrate scores within a school’s accountability index;

•  district and school reports listing all student scores; and

•  tracking procedures so that Alternate Portfolio scores are sent back to the student’s neighborhood school to promote ownership for student learning.

Here are examples of guiding principles from four states. Note that the first three states focus on high expectations for student learning (Olsen, 1998). The fourth state focuses on meeting the mandate with as little disruption to the status quo as possible.

State #1

•  All children can learn.

•  All children are full participants in the school experience.

•  All children will participate in the statewide assessment system.

State #2

•  Expectations for all students should be high, regardless of the existence of any disability.

•  The goals for an educated student must be applicable to all students, regardless of disability.

•  Special education programs must be an extension and adaptation of general education programs rather than an alternate or separate system.

State #3

•  All children have value, can learn and are expected to be full participants in the school experience.

•  School personnel, parents, local and state policymakers, and the students themselves are responsible for ensuring this full participation.

•  The Standard Course of Study is the foundation for all students, including students with unique learning needs.

State #4

•  Meet the law.

•  Nonabusive to students, staff, parents.

•  Inexpensive.

•  Easy to do and takes little time.

Guidelines, procedures, training—all are being developed at a feverish pace as this document goes to print. Some states responded to requests to update their survey with “Oh, please, couldn’t we wait just a few more weeks? Our committee will be making several decisions in the next month.” As an example of how new all of this is, one state published its “Guide for Participation in Statewide Alternate Assessments” on its Web site just a few weeks before the completion of this report. We have heard about several other guides that are in draft form, with publication dates expected by the time school starts in September.

 

Procedures for Collecting Information

The information used in the development of this report was compiled from an ongoing, on-line survey developed and maintained by the National Center on Educational Outcomes at the University of Minnesota. In the fall of 1997, NCEO began to examine the status of states in the development of alternate assessments. States wanted up-to-date information about what other states were doing in the development of their alternate assessments. The survey was placed on-line early in 1998, when most states were just beginning to consider the development of the alternate assessments required by IDEA 97. Most states updated their earliest responses in the winter of 1999, when the first status report on the development of alternate assessments was completed (Thompson, Erickson, Thurlow, Ysseldyke, & Callender, 1999). States were invited to complete another round of survey updates between March and June 2000.

The information reported here was compiled from the on-line survey as of June 1, 2000. This date is important to note, since the development of alternate assessments is on a fast track, with the status of states changing daily. All 50 states, plus other educational units receiving federal special education funding (American Samoa, Bureau of Indian Affairs, Micronesia, Guam, Marshall Islands, Mariana Islands, Palau, Puerto Rico, Virgin Islands, and Washington DC), were invited to complete the survey. A print copy of the survey is included in Appendix B. Supplemental information was gathered from written material about alternate assessments that states have posted on their Web sites, from personal communication with state officials, and from previously published reports (i.e., Burgess & Kennedy, 1998; Olsen, 1998; Thompson et al., 1999; Warlick, & Olsen, 1999).

State department personnel who are assigned the task of facilitating the development of alternate assessments completed the on-line survey. Respondents included both special education and assessment personnel. The respondents’ names can be found on the surveys, along with their e-mail addresses. They can be contacted directly for further information. Although survey questions could only be answered when a password given to each assigned respondent was used, the on-line survey was designed so that anyone could view any state’s responses, or the responses of all states to a single question. Respondents were able to update their survey responses at any time.

As of June 1, 2000, all 50 states and five other educational units completed the survey at least once, with 47 states and two educational units providing updates within the past three months. Multiple requests for updates were solicited from each state via e-mail, mail, fax, phone, and personal communication. The anecdotal data gathered through the surveys, personal communication, and other written documentation have provided us with a rich base of information to use in the compilation of this report. While the presentation of information on states’ alternate assessments is not meant as an endorsement of the approaches taken, the information should be useful as statewide implementation of these important assessments begins in earnest.

Survey Results

The NCEO on-line survey addressed a variety of components of alternate assessments, including: identification of stakeholders, participation guidelines, alignment with state standards, approaches to gathering data, determination of proficiency measures, reporting results, inclusion in high stakes systems, and statewide training. Survey results from all states are summarized in Table 1. Results from the other educational units are summarized in Appendix C.

As shown in Figure 1, there has been a great deal of activity over the past year, with many more states addressing each component of their alternate assessment systems than in 1999.    

 

Table 1. Summary of Alternate Assessment Features Addressed by States

 

 

State

 

Stake-holders

 

Participation

Guidelines

Alignment with State Standardsa

 

 

Approach

 

Proficiency Measuresb

 

 

Reportingc

 

High Stakesd

 

 

Training

Alabama

X

X

Subset

X

X

X

 

X

Alaska

X

X

Different

X

Same

X

Student

X

Arizona

X

X

Additions

X

X

X

Student

X

Arkansas

X

X

Subset

X

Different

X

 

X

California

X

X

Different

X

Different

X

Both

X

Colorado

X

X

Same

X

Different

Separate

System

X

Connecticut

X

X

Additions

X

 

X

Both

X

Delaware

X

X

Additions

X

X

X

System

X

Florida

X

 

Subset

X

Different

X

System

X

Georgia

X

X

Different

X

X

X

 

X

Hawaii

X

X

Same

X

X

X

 

X

Idaho

X

X

Same

X

X

X

 

X

Illinois

X

X

Subset

X

Different

X

 

X

Indiana

X

X

Additions

X

Different

Separate

 

X

Iowa

X

X

Different

X

X

X

 

X

Kansas

X

X

Subset

X

X

Both

 

X

Kentucky

X

X

Subset

X

Same

Aggregated

System

X

Louisiana

X

X

Same

X

Different

X

Student

X

Maine

X

X

Same

X

Same

X

 

X

Maryland

X

X

Additions

X

Different

Separate

Both

X

Massachusetts

X

X

Same

X

Same

X

Student

X

Michigan

X

X

Different

X

X

X

System

X

Minnesota

X

X

Different

X

Different

X

Student

X

Mississippi

X

 

Uncertain

X

 

 

 

 

Missouri

X

X

Same

X

Same

X

 

X

Montana

X

 

Uncertain

 

 

 

 

 

Nebraska

X

X

Different

X

Same

X

 

X

Nevada

X

X

Subset

X

X

X

 

X

New Hampshire

X

X

Subset

X

X

X

 

X

New Jersey

X

X

Subset

X

 

X

Both

X

New Mexico

X

X

Subset

X

Different

Separate

Both

X

New York

X

X

Same

X

X

 

 

X

North Carolina

X

X

Different

X

Different

X

Student

X

North Dakota

X

X

Same

X

X

X

 

X

Ohio

X

X

Uncertain

X

 

X

Student

 

Oklahoma

X

X

Additions

X

Different

X

System

X

Oregon

X

X

Same

X

Same

X

 

X

Pennsylvania

X

X

Subset

X

 

X

 

 

Rhode Island

X

X

Subset

X

Same

 

 

X

South Carolina

X

X

Subset

X

Same

 

 

X

South Dakota

X

X

Subset

X

Same

X

 

X

Tennessee

X

X

Subset

X

Same

Both

 

X

Texas

X

X

Additions

X

Same

X

 

X

Utah

X

X

Subset

X

 

Separate

 

X

Vermont

X

X

Subset

X

Same

X

System

X

Virginia

X

X

Subset

X

Same

X

 

X

Washington

 

X

Subset

X

 

 

 

 

West Virginia

X

X

Subset

X

Different

X

 

X

Wisconsin

X

 

Subset

X

 

Separate

 

X

Wyoming

X

X

Same

X

Different

Separate

 

X

TOTAL

49

46

47

49

40

43

18

44

 

* aligned with state standards: same = alternate assesses general education standards; subset = alternate assesses a subset of general education standards; additions = alternate assesses standards in addition to general education standards; different = alternate assesses different standards from general education

** proficiency levels: same = alternate has same measures of proficiency as general assessment; different = alternate has different measures of proficiency than general assessment; X = this area has been addressed but decisions have not been made or were not reported on the survey

*** reporting: aggregated = alternate results are aggregated with general assessment results; separate = alternate results are reported separately from general assessment results; both = alternate results both aggregated and reported separately from general assessment results; X = this area has been addressed but decisions have not been made or were not reported on the survey

**** high stakes: alternate assessment implications have been addressed within: student = state with high stakes for students; system = state with high stakes for schools/districts; both = state with high stakes for both students and systems

Figure 1. Alternate Assessment Features Addressed by States

Alternate assessment features addressed by states

Stakeholders

States were asked to identify the stakeholders involved in decisions about the development of their alternate assessment systems. Forty-nine states responded that they involved a variety of stakeholders in several ways. Many states included state and local special and general educators in the design of their alternate assessment systems. In some states, assessment personnel represented general education, while other states also included both state and local general education content specialists (i.e., math teacher or language arts consultant).

In contrast, some states viewed the development of an alternate assessment as a special education initiative only. They did not perceive a need to include general educators. As evident later in this report, many of these states designed alternate assessments based on special education standards or skill sets—without considering a connection to general education standards or curricula.

NCEO staff have had opportunities to participate in several stakeholder meetings across the country. We have continually been impressed by the depth of involvement of people who really know the students for whom the alternate assessments are being designed, and advocate passionately for the inclusion of these students in state assessment and accountability systems. For many special educators, this was the first general education initiative they had ever been invited to participate in—and the first time their students would actually be counted with everyone else. These stakeholders are determined to design assessment systems that include EVERYONE, no matter what.

Stakeholder groups were used in a variety of ways, from actually participating in the design of an alternate assessment, to developing principles that would then guide the design, to providing feedback on drafts of alternate assessments, to serving as pilot study implementers. State officials developed some alternate assessment systems with the assistance of a contractor, university personnel, or other consultants. These states often solicited input from a broader stakeholder group of parents, teachers, and advocates to give feedback on the system, or to pilot the system. None of the states reported using students in the design of their alternate assessment systems, except as initial participants in the pilot phase. Table 2 describes the involvement of stakeholders in the development of alternate assessment systems across the 48 states that responded to this item on the survey.

 

Table 2. Identification of Stakeholders

Alabama

A task force is working on the design of our system.

Alaska

We’re using a vendor and a committee of stakeholders. We have a small subcommittee of Dept. Sp. Ed. Staff and district Sp Ed experts who are writing specific performance standards for our alternate assessment. Stakeholders have been involved in all committees and subcommittees.

Arizona

The task force that is developing the alternate assessment involves a small, diverse group. Their work has been widely distributed and public input requested. The field, including parents, has been very helpful in construction and reconstructing their work.

Arkansas

We have a task force made up of state special ed. and assessment personnel, district special ed and general ed administrators, coordinators and teachers, and parents. A district superintendent chairs the task force.

California

The Special Education Unit identified and recruited stakeholders for its workgroup to produce the statewide guidelines. The workgroup includes state and local agencies, general education and special education, service providers, parents, and assessment experts.

Colorado

Stakeholders have been identified through a variety of sources: Local directors of special education and assessment, the Institutions of Higher Education Forum, the Colorado Special Education Advisory Committee, the PEAK Parent Center, and interested persons we meet at conferences, workshops, on sites and grant projects. In addition, we surveyed colleagues with content area curriculum and instruction expertise for task force participants in those content areas.

Connecticut

A committee comprised of Department personnel from the assessment unit and special education unit as well as representatives from local school district, regional education programs, and college and university personnel has been working on the development of the assessment instrument for Alternate Assessment.
Various stakeholder groups have been identified and have participated in activities related to the development of the Alternate Assessment. These activities include, but are not limited to the following: Focus Groups comprised of district personnel to provide information of a formative nature. Focus Groups comprised of instructional personnel to comment on proposals under consideration by internal Department committee. Department sponsorship of representatives of Parent Assistance Center at national conference on alternate assessment. Workshops offered by Department personnel to parents/advocates interested in understanding the regulatory requirements of alternate assessment. Ad hoc and standing committees were established to participate in decisions about the development of the Alternate Assessments.

Delaware

The Alternate Assessment Advisory Committee was formed at the beginning of the process (Fall 1997), which includes parents, administrators, coordinated agencies, teachers and related services personnel.

Florida

Stakeholders and parents have been involved throughout the process.

Georgia

We have a committee on alternate assessment that is ongoing and meets about once a month. The committee is composed of local system teachers and administrators, college/university staff, school psychologists, parents, and state department staff.

Idaho

The Alternate Assessment Task Force is representative of our state's geographical regions, and includes parents, and school and state personnel who represent a variety of positions, including special ed. teachers, administrators, testing coordinators, curriculum directors and higher education representatives. Some of their roles are overlapping, e.g. three members were actually parents of students with disabilities although only one represented that perspective alone. An expanded workgroup including several teachers of students with significant needs will be completing the process.

Illinois

The Alternate Assessment Task Force consists of various stakeholders.

Indiana

A stakeholder committee representing a wide variety of interests and expertise has been active since fall of 1997 and continues to provide ongoing advice related to IASEP. Parents are an integral part of this taskforce, as are other constituencies.

Iowa

A stakeholder committee consisting of parents, regular and special education teachers, administrators, higher education personnel and area education agency consultants are working on our alternate assessment system.

Kansas

Kansas has two committees working on the various components of the alternate assessment and the extended standards. The committees contain: SPED teachers, parents, general ed. administrators, special school staff, school psychologists, technology consultant, and curriculum adaptations specialists. The University of Kansas Center for Educational Testing and Evaluation is developing the Kansas Alternate Assessment.

Kentucky

We have an advisory board consisting of teachers (regular and special), university personnel, parents, and state department representatives (divisions of assessment and exceptional children) which meets for 3 days every summer to discuss refinements and revisions. This board then sometimes meets for one day during the school year.

Louisiana

A large task force comprised of people from across the state is supported by a small focus group. A contracted facilitator guides both groups. This group will be called to participate in a test review after the field test. A contractor is producing the document and provides technical assistance.

Maine

We have an advisory committee – Learning System Assessment Team – that is guiding the process. We currently have a collaborative work group and an advisory group that includes parents – no students with disabilities.

Maryland

Our standards were chosen by an expert panel and reviewed for content validity. Our advisory committee has been meeting on an annual basis to review procedures and results as well as to make necessary adjustments as appropriate. Parents, advocates, school personnel, test personnel and others are included on the advisory committee.

Massachusetts

Statewide Alternate Assessment Advisory Committee has met regularly since December 1998, and is working on development of the system. In 1999, panels of special educators and content specialists reviewed the state learning standards.

Michigan

Michigan’s Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services are developing the alternate assessment. Michigan has many years of experience in the development of assessments with extensive involvement of Michigan educators and parents. Numerous committees, comprised of Michigan stakeholders, are intimately involved with various aspects of developing the alternate assessment instruments.

Minnesota

The advisory committee is a major source of parental involvement by involving various advocacy groups. They developed a set of principle statements that guided alternate assessment development. In addition, we have a State Special Education Advisory Committee (this has parental representation) that has been involved. A task force that worked on previously determined state sp. ed. goals developed assessments for reading, writing, and math.

Mississippi

A Task Force has been approved by the State Board of Education and is addressing alternate assessment issues.

Missouri

The Alternate Assessment Committee represented elementary, middle, and secondary teachers of students with significant disabilities, and parents and college faculty from nine regions across the state. The participants had agreed, as part of this experience, to return to their region and conduct a meeting to share the results of the initial meeting with other teachers, local district administrators, and parents. Over 500 additional stakeholders participated in nine regional meetings and provided structured feedback. The Alternate Assessment Committee then reviewed input from the regional meetings.

Montana

OPI/Sped has been working in concert with the OPI School Improvement group as it develops standards. They are also involved with special ed activities.

Nebraska

A statewide taskforce designed Nebraska’s alternate assessment framework. Members include parents, special education teachers, state department personnel, and higher education personnel. They have been working together since the fall of 1998.

Nevada

We have identified a stakeholder group.

New Hampshire

The New Hampshire Advisory Task Force was established in 1998 with various stakeholders represented.

New Jersey

Stakeholders have been involved in the development of the Core Curriculum Content Standards and progress indicators for Students with Severe Disabilities. We have expanded our stakeholder group in the final review of the document and will continue to involve them in all aspects of test development and decision-making.

New Mexico

We have a state task force, designated as the Alternate Assessment Design Team, comprised of special education teachers, assessment specialists, parent, university special education faculty, and state department of education personnel.

New York

NYSED has a Task Force of educators, parents, advocates, etc. who are assisting in test development and piloting. The NYS Education Department is collaborating with a statewide Taskforce along with the state’s testing contractor team.

North Carolina

The Exceptional Children Division and the Accountability Services Division of the NC Department of Public Instruction designed the portfolio. The Alternate Assessment Committee gave much input. Teachers, administrators, etc. participated on the committee.

North Dakota

“Key Informants” (special educators, general educators, parents, administrators, university personnel and North Dakota Dept. of Public Instruction representatives) were brought together to review the issues related to the creation of the alternate assessment and prepare written recommendations regarding this aspect of accountability for results of the education process. We have assembled writing teams (general educators – content area, and special educators) to review the content standards and identify how the content standards and benchmarks will be revised to address the needs of all students.

Ohio

Cross-departmental discussion regarding state model curricula. Interagency discussions on assessment of severely handicapped children and youth. We have had an ongoing work group, and will share materials and process with larger groups of stakeholders as a part of the field-testing.

Oklahoma

Task force includes parents; utilizes IDEA Advisory Panel which also includes parents and individuals with disabilities.

Oregon

Teachers have been the designers of our assessment system in partnership with the Oregon Department of Education. The advisory committees for the Office of Assessment and the Office of Special Education act as advisory to extended assessment efforts.

Pennsylvania

PA has established an alternate assessment work group to address alternate assessment. Bureau of Special Education personnel, Bureau Division of Evaluation personnel, Regional Instructional Support Center personnel, and Special Education Advisory Panel designees represent this group.

Rhode Island

Regular and special educators, university staff, parents, and Department staff.

South Carolina

Regular and special educators, university staff, parents, administrators, and Department staff.

South Dakota

The alternate assessment was developed by two separate workgroups of educators and administrators, including educators from schools of higher education. One of the workgroups developed the assessment instrument and the other workgroup developed the implementation guide, supporting documentation and the field test of the alternate assessment. The groups worked independently and periodically met as one group during the past year. This served as a system of checks and balances. The result was an alternate assessment device that was exposed to many storms and was rewritten several times before both workgroups were comfortable with the results.

Tennessee

A Task Force was formed in May 1998.

Texas

The selection and appointment of the national and state level steering committee membership involved several divisions of the Texas Education Agency, Accountability, Student Assessment, and Special Education. The stakeholder steering committee meets regularly and is involved in reviewing the work of the test developers, reviewing and providing input and oversight for the field trials and field activities, input on item selection, item design, scope of content, format, every aspect of the development, and implementation of the assessment system. Also policy and guideline development and training design. The Division of Special Education is involved in a supportive, advisory capacity. The division of Student Assessment is responsible for the production of assessment instrument that comply with the requirements specified in state law. Steering committees, and national and state advisory groups provide technical expertise for development of the general specification in the contract that is offered to test developers for bid. Various stakeholders are included in the statewide steering committee that works with the selected test developer in the actual production and development of the assessment instrument.

Utah

The steering committee for the development of the alternate assessment included special education teachers, a school psychologist, a physical therapist, a speech and language pathologist, and assessment specialists from the state office of education.

Vermont

Assessment Workgroup involves many different stakeholders including state dept. of ed consultants, university faculty, special education administrators, parent reps, and teachers.

Virginia

We have a steering committee comprised of teachers, administrators, parents, higher education representatives, and technical assistance providers. We also have three active subcommittees for performance indicators, communication and assessment strategies.

West Virginia

Various stakeholders, including general and special education teachers, county and regional education service agencies, special education administrators, parents, general education administrators, representatives of higher education, and WVDE staff have been involved in the development/implementation process.

Wisconsin

The Wisconsin Special Education Council has been involved in the process from the beginning. Teams of educators throughout the state met and developed sample alternate performance indicators.

Wyoming

The Expanded Standards Task Force includes state special ed. and assessment personnel, local special and general education teachers and administrators, parents and advocates. Educators from several districts have been involved in a pilot this year.

 

Participants

IDEA states that IEP teams must determine how each student will participate in large-scale assessments and, if not participating in the general assessment, how the student will be assessed. Many states have written participation guidelines and decision-making processes that can be used by IEP teams at the local level. States base alternate assessment participation decisions on several criteria, including the extent to which a student participates in the general education curriculum, whether a student is expected to graduate with a diploma, what type of skills a student is working on, and how much support a student needs. States have found that decisions about participation affect their approach to alternate assessment development, scoring, and reporting.

Some states have adopted their alternate assessment guidelines as state policy, while others make it clear that their guidelines are meant only as examples to be used at the local level. For example, Florida’s guidelines state, “This assessment system is provided to school districts as a choice of alternate assessment. It is not required.” In another example, Iowa’s guidelines state, “These guidelines are not state policy, but can be used by Area Education Agencies as they go about developing their policies.”

When alternate assessments were in initial stages of development, state personnel discussed who would “take them.” As development progressed, many states decided that the word “take” might be incorrect. Many alternate assessments consist not of a single “test” or “event,” but rather of a compilation of evidence that is collected over an extended period of time. Thus, the terminology has changed to reflect this approach, and now states talk about students who will “participate” in the state’s alternate assessment system. Table 3 shows examples of the process two states have used in developing their participation guidelines.

Early in 1999, 34 states reported that they were establishing eligibility guidelines to assist in determining which students would participate in alternate assessments. The most recent update shows an increase to 46 states that reported establishing participation guidelines for their alternate assessments. Table 4 describes examples of guidelines from 11 states.

 

 Table 3. Examples of the Process of Developing Participation Guidelines in Two States

Colorado

Some of Colorado's guidelines for eligibility began with statute or state school board policy. Other elements came from task forces specifically charged with determining how the IEP team would make decisions. Colorado passed legislation in 1993 instituting standards and assessments. The statute required that state and district assessment results are disaggregated and reported by separate disability category, among other variables. The Standards and Assessment Development and Implementation Council (SADI) recommended a reporting policy to the State Board of Education. The policy required 100% of students in each district to be used as the denominator in calculating the percent of students who perform at the state assessment’s four proficiency levels and for the category of "no scores" (not tested). The SADI Council also recommended that the participation decision be made during the IEP process, rather than by applying categorical or numerical criteria determined at the state level. In Spring 1997, Colorado Student Assessment Program participation guidelines were published with general descriptions of students for whom the assessment may be inappropriate, “a very small number of students with IEPs” who are “working on individualized standards rather than on the district-adopted standards.” Teachers were encouraged to provide appropriate accommodations and allow students to attempt the assessment. Over 80% of students in special education were accounted for on the first CSAP test. By June 1998, guidelines for non-participation were refined. Criteria included consideration of the alignment of the student's program of instruction and the assessments. The most recent state assessment results (Spring 1999), indicated that 1% to 2% of the total student population did not participate in the general assessments due to IEP team decisions. These students will be eligible for alternate assessments.

Texas

The guidelines were developed when Texas started accountability assessment, in the mid 1980s. They were disseminated in training activities conducted for special education personnel and for personnel responsible for accountability assessment. The guidelines were developed with personnel and stakeholders from student assessment and from special education divisions of TEA. The guidelines require the IEP Team to consider the student's requirements for instructional content and requirements for accommodations in instruction and testing for FAPE. These requirements are compared to the objective specifications of the accountability assessment and to the allowable accommodations for administration of the state accountability test. The IEP committee must make a determination about the appropriateness of the state accountability assessment instruction, for each student in special education on a case-by-case basis. The guidelines for determining whether the state test is appropriate were developed jointly by the Division of Student Accountability and the Division of Special Education and are disseminated through training activities for regional and district level test coordinator training activities. They are also available on the Texas Education Agency web site. Until the state's alternate assessment instrument field test is completed in the spring of 2000, the IEP committee must select an alternate assessment that is appropriate when a student is exempted from the state accountability test.

 

Table 4. Examples of Participation Guidelines

Alaska

It is expected that a small (less than 2%) number of all students will participate in alternate assessments. These will be students whose disabilities are so significant that they are not involved in a standard course of study leading to a high school diploma. When a student’s IEP calls for alternate assessments, the reasons must be documented on the IEP. All IEP meeting participants must understand that alternate assessments do not lead to a high school diploma. In deciding that a student should participate in alternate assessments, an IEP team must ensure that: 1. The student’s cognitive ability and adaptive skill levels prevent completing the standard academic curricula, even with modifications and accommodations. 2. The student requires extensive direct instruction in multiple settings to apply and transfer skills. 3. The student is involved in a functional, basic-skills education program. 4. The student’s inability to complete the standard academic curricula is not the result of extended absences; visual, auditory, or physical disabilities; emotional-behavioral disabilities; specific learning disabilities; or social, cultural, or economic differences.

California

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.

Colorado

The participation decision must be based on the following considerations:

  • The unique needs of the individual student, not the specific disability category or program, and
  • The student’s IEP that documents the need for individualized standards in the assessed content area and the student’s inability to participate even with accommodations.

The decision must not be made on:

  • Poor attendance by the student.
  • Ongoing disruptive behavior by the student.
  • Student’s reading level.
  • Expectation of poor performance for the student.

Idaho

Students with disabilities will qualify to take the alternate assessment when it has been determined by the IEP team and documented on the student's IEP that the student meets the state criteria for taking the alternate assessment. This includes all of the following descriptors: 1. The student's demonstrated cognitive ability and adaptive behavior prevents completion of the general academic curriculum even with program modifications AND 2. The student's course of study is primarily functional and living skill oriented AND 3. The student is unable to acquire, maintain, generalize skills and demonstrate performance of those skills without intensive, frequent, and individualized instruction. Students are NOT to be included in the alternate assessment based solely on the fact that: They have an IEP, or they are academically behind due to excessive absences or lack of instruction, or they are unable to complete the general academic curriculum because of social, cultural, or economic differences.

Kentucky

The Alternate Portfolio was designed specifically for those students for whom the regular assessment program is not a meaningful measure of learning. Students whose limitations in cognitive functioning prevent the completion of the regular program of studies (even with program modifications and adaptations), and who require extensive instruction in multiple, community-referenced settings to insure skill acquisition, maintenance, and generalization to real life contexts, are eligible. IEP teams are required to review the participation guidelines checklist yearly, which requires each qualifying statement to be answered "yes" before assessing the student using the Alternate Portfolio. For those students in question, the checklist is reviewed each year to insure the student's proper assessment placement. In the past 7 years, approximately .06% of Kentucky's student population is assessed yearly through the Alternate Portfolio Assessment. Testing is done at the marker years of 4th, 8th, and last year of school for all students.

Maryland

Students not pursuing the Maryland Learning Outcomes are eligible to participate in IMAP. The decision to participate is made by the IEP Team and considers the student's severely cognitively developmental delay, over a period of time that has prevented the student even with modifications, and adaptations from completing the general course of study. By secondary school age the student is anticipated to be pursuing a Maryland High School Certificate.

Nebraska

There are 3 principles guiding participation decisions for or IEP teams: 1. a student’s cognitive ability and adaptive behaviors prevent completion of general ed. curriculum even with accommodations and modifications; 2. a student’ course of study is primarily function and life skills oriented; 3. a student requires intensive, frequent, and individualized instruction to acquire, maintain, and generalize skills. Participation decisions are not based on having an IEP, attendance, behavior, or expectations of poor performance.

Ohio

Advisory panel discussed application of certain ground rules. Does the test provide a meaningful measure? Is the student engaged in instruction in content assessed on current statewide assessments?

Oklahoma

Eligibility will be based upon a determination of the curriculum that a student is receiving, that is, the standard Utah Core Curriculum or the functional curriculum. The IEP team will determine exemptions individually.

Oregon

To be eligible for the CLREAS and Extended CIM measures, a student needs to meet the following criteria. The student is: exempt from the Benchmark 1, 2, 3, and CIM measures; receiving instruction in a functional daily living skills curriculum appropriate for the student; and has a moderate to severe disability (e.g., mental retardation, autism, multiple disabilities).

Utah

Eligibility will be based upon a determination of the curriculum that a student is receiving, that is, the standard Utah Core Curriculum or the functional curriculum. The IEP team will determine exemptions individually.

 

Standards

Several states designed their alternate assessments to assess progress toward general education standards. Some states have designed their alternate assessments to assess basic or functional skills rather than progress toward standards. It is interesting to note that the states designing alternate assessments based on special education skill sets rather than general education standards generally did not include any representatives from general education on their planning, advisory, or stakeholder groups, whereas states that used general education standards as the basis for their alternate assessments usually included general education personnel in these groups.

 The decision about the link between general education standards and those expected of alternate assessment participants may vary as a result of the type of standards a state requires students to meet. Some states focus very narrowly on specific academic standards, while others take a broader approach and include many “functional” or life skills within their standards. States have also looked at whether their general standards could be expanded or adapted to include performance indicators toward which even students with the most significant disabilities might be working.

For some states, even though the content standards assessed by an alternate assessment are the same as those assessed by the general large-scale assessment, the indicators of progress are different—often focusing on functional life skills rather than on academic skills. Performance standards may also be defined differently, in order to differentiate between the types of benchmarks and indicators expected at specific grade levels, and the indicators measured by the alternate assessment. The highly committed stakeholder groups described in the previous section of this report have developed these standards through a long and carefully planned sequence of activities. Table 5 shows examples of that process as it unfolded in three states.

Forty-nine states have academic content standards (AFT, 1999). Early in 1999, 32 states reported that they were working on identifying the curricular or content standards for which an alternate assessment would be developed. As of June 2000, this number rose to 49. After careful consideration of the standards described by survey respondents, we reorganized state activities into four general groups of standards or skills toward which alternate assessment participants might be working.

Alternate Assessment participants are working toward:

•  General education standards, with a possible reduction in the number required, and with the expansion of benchmarks and/or performance indicators to include functional/access/life skills (28 states).

•     A combination of general education standards and an additional set of functional skills (7 states).

•  Standards or functional skill sets that have been developed exclusively for alternate assessment participants and then linked back to general education standards (3 states).

•  Standards or functional skill sets that have been developed exclusively for alternate assessment participants and are not connected in any way to general education standards (9 states).

•  Uncertain (3 states).

States included in each group are described in Tables 6 through 9.

 

Table 5. Process for Developing Standards and Indicators for Alternate Assessments in Three States

Colorado

The Colorado Student Assessment Program for Expanded Standards (CSAP-ES) will follow the same content area progression as the general state assessments: first reading and writing, then math, then science. The task force, Expanded Linkages, developed a framework for the alternate assessment based on the expanded standards for Reading and Writing. They mapped clusters of skills, and then described indicators of proficiency. This resulted in the identification of twelve strands of skill indicators, progressing across three levels of skill development. This literacy matrix was tested in a small study of 19 students. Data collection forms were developed to gather information on the validity and observability of the performance indicators

Michigan

Michigan has invested a considerable amount of time and training in the development of Outcomes for special education. Outcomes and related assessment materials have been developed for students receiving special education services in all 12 eligibility categories recognized in Michigan. The categorical Outcomes' materials have evolved into a four-level document known as Addressing Unique Educational Needs of Students with Disabilities. The AUEN materials are noncategorical and are organized around four levels of independence in adult life roles that students with varying levels of impairments can realistically be expected to achieve. Michigan State Board of Education approved the use of two of the four levels of AUEN materials in the development of a PROPOSED model for instruction and as a foundation for developing an alternate assessment tool to assess the progress of students with moderate (Achieving Supported Independence in Adult Life Roles) and severe (Achieving Participation in Adult Life Roles) cognitive deficit. These two levels of independence do not, at this time, have a relationship with the Michigan Curriculum Frameworks.

Wisconsin

The fourth grade performance standards in Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies were used in the development of the alternate performance indicators. After reviewing the fourth grade performance standards, teams of educators throughout the state identified the population of students the alternate performance indicators would be used with and determined how the standards would be expressed for this population. They then used the process of “backward mapping” to develop alternate performance indicators. During this process each team first identified the specific skills and knowledge that led to mastery of performance standards from the WMAS (Wisconsin Model Academic Standards). After identifying the fundamental skills leading up to mastery of a fourth grade performance standard, the team identified the knowledge and skills appropriate for the student, based on that student’s present level of educational performance. Finally, the team made a list of questions to consider when evaluating the quality of alternate performance indicators and activities. These are listed below.

Is the Alternate Performance Indicator (API):

1.       Aligned with a Performance and Content Standard from the Wisconsin Model Academic Standards?

2.       Appropriate for the student based on his or her present level of educational performance?

3.       Related to the student’s educational program?

4.       Stated clearly?

5.       Observable and measurable?

6.       Applicable across different instructional contexts and settings?

7.       Applicable to a variety of student activities and tasks?

Are the activities and tasks used to measure each Alternate Performance

Indicator

1.       Consistent with the API?

2.       Descriptive of what the student needs to do?

3.       Engaging and challenging for the student?

4.       Representative of the possible range of student performance?

5.       Sensitive to the unique needs of the student?

6.       Able to be incorporated into the student’s daily instruction?

 

Table 6. STates in Which Alternate Assessment Encompasses General Education Standards

Arizona

We are completing work on the downward extension of our State standards to include skills from birth to the kindergarten level. The areas currently approved by the State Board of Education are: Language Arts, Math, Work Place Skills, and Physical Development. A task force continues to work on the other areas of our standards.

Arkansas

Our standards are an extension of the general education curriculum content standards. They include performance indicators across the functional domains of vocational, community, domestic, and rec/leisure for students participating in Arkansas’ Alternate Portfolio Assessment.

Colorado

The Expanded Standards are derived from the standards used for general education, but expanded to benchmarks beginning at the most functional levels. The process to expand the standards involves looking at the key components of the standards and the access skills necessary to learn them. The combination of key components and access skills can be described separately or in combination within an expanded standard. The Expanded Linkages Task Force developed literacy-related indicators based on the expanded standards for Reading and Writing. These form the basis for a state alternate assessment.

Hawaii

The alternate assessment will be based on standards in language arts and mathematics.

Idaho

Standards are extended downward to their basic and most functional skill requirements. The alternate assessment targets communication skills within the social domain and functional math skills within the vocational domain. Performance levels mirror those used with the direct writing and direct math assessments used within general education.