A New Series of Briefs for the Race to the Top (RTTT) Assessment Consortia Including Students with Disabilities in Common Non-Summative AssessmentsInclusive large-scale assessments have become the norm in states across the U.S. Participation rates of students with disabilities in these assessments have increased dramatically since the mid-1990s. As consortia of states move toward the development and implementation of assessment systems that include both non-summative assessments and summative assessments, ensuring that all assessments in the system appropriately include all students is a priority. Non-summative assessments, as used in this Brief, include interim, benchmark, diagnostic, and formative assessments. Both the Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Career (PARCC) and the SMARTER Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) are developing assessment systems with innovative features such as multiple point in time administrations, technology-delivered assessments, and optional non-summative assessments.1 These innovations will allow the Consortia to assess student learning, growth, and achievement toward College and Career Readiness standards by supplementing a single annual administration of large-scale tests of student achievement with additional information from other assessments. The Consortia will need to take care not to subtract from the progress that has been made in the inclusiveness of large-scale assessments as they develop and implement their non-summative assessments. Critical considerations as non-summative assessments are developed and implemented include:
1 PARCC refers to Optional Early and Mid-Year Assessments. SBAC refers to Optional Interim Assessments. Universal Design Principles
Principles of universal design can be
used to improve access to learning and
assessment. Universal Design for
Learning (UDL) provides a guide for
creating instructional goals, methods,
materials, and assessments that work for
all students.2
Classroom-based measures provide a means
for teachers to improve instruction by
enabling them to compare the
effectiveness of different instructional
strategies and identify where students
are having difficulty. 2 Instructional goals, methods, materials, and assessment are the four components of UDL identified by the National Center on Universal Design for Learning.
* Based on Universal Design Online Manual, 2006 (see Resources). Participation
It is important for the Consortia to
ensure that even though their
non-summative assessments are
optional, they do not
disproportionately exclude students
with disabilities. Students with
disabilities should be included in
non-summative assessments to the
same extent that other students are
included in them. The Consortia
should consider the principles of
inclusive assessment systems (see
Table 2) as they develop
participation guidelines for their
non-summative assessments.
* Adapted from A Principled Approach to Accountability Assessments for Students with Disabilities, 2008 (see Resources). AccommodationsConsortia will also have to address accommodations for their non-summative assessments. Given the computerized delivery of the Consortia non-summative assessments, attention should be given to the ways in which innovative assessment design allows for embedded features that provide access for students with disabilities as well as other students. The Consortia also should anticipate the common accommodations that will be needed, and provide guidance to educators through clear policies and guidelines. Consideration should be given to whether the accommodations are selected ahead of time by the teacher or IEP team, or whether the student may be the one to decide when and which accommodations to use. Concluding Thoughts
Non-summative assessments, whether
they be interim assessments or
formative assessments, are an
important part of the assessment
systems that the Consortia are
developing. Ensuring that these
assessments carry through the
inclusiveness of the summative
assessments is critical. To do this,
the Consortia must not forget the
essential importance of maintaining
the progress that has been made in
appropriately including students
with disabilities in assessments.
ResourcesA Principled
Approach to Accountability Assessments
for Students with Disabilities
(Synthesis Report 70). Thurlow, M.L.,
Quenemoen, R.F., Lazarus, S.S., Moen,
R.E., Johnstone, C.J., Liu, K.,
Christensen, L.L., Albus, D.A., &
Altman, J. Minneapolis, MN: University
of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. A State Guide
to the Development of Universally
Designed Assessments. (2006).
Johnstone, C., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M.
Minneapolis, MN: University of
Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Don’t Forget Accommodations! Five Questions to Ask When Moving to Technology-based Assessments (NCEO Brief #1). (2011). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. www.nceo.info/OnlinePubs/briefs/brief01/default.htm Factors to Consider in the Design of Inclusive Online Assessments. (2006). Thompson, S.J., Quenemoen, R.F., & Thurlow, M.L. In M. Hricko & S.L. Howell (Eds), Online assessment and measurement: Foundations and challenges (pp. 102-117). Hershey, PA: Information Science Publishing. Universal Design Online Manual. (2006). Johnstone , C., Altman, J., Thurlow, M., & Moore, M. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. www.nceo.info/UDmanual/default.html
|