Special Topic Area:
Alternate Assessments for Students with
Disabilities
Frequently Asked Questions
1. Why provide alternate assessments?
- To ensure educational accountability. Alternate assessments are
necessary in order to achieve educational accountability for all
students. Students who are excluded from the state assessment and
reporting of results are not considered when decisions are made about
how to improve programs, and they may be denied educational
opportunities available to other students.
- Requirements of federal legislation. The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) first identified alternate
assessments as an option for some students. The No Child Left Behind Act
of 2001 (NCLB) specifies that each state, district, and school must be
held accountable for the achievement of all students. Alternate
assessments are intended to provide the missing piece that makes it
possible to include all students with disabilities in state and district
assessments.
2. Who should participate in alternate assessments?
In general, alternate assessment participants are those students with
disabilities who are unable to participate in regular assessments even with
accommodations. Some of these students may have significant cognitive
disabilities and can be assessed using alternate formats aligned to the
grade-level content, but based on alternate achievement standards that
define proficiency differently from the general assessment. Other students
may require alternate assessments aligned to grade-level content that is
based on grade-level achievement standards, or the same definition of
proficiency as the general assessment.
New regulations in April
2007 add an additional option. According to the Department of
Education Fact Sheet (see links below): “Modified achievement
standards are intended for a small group of students whose
disability has prevented them from achieving grade-level
proficiency and who likely will not reach grade-level
achievement in the same timeframe as other students. Currently,
these students must take either the grade-level assessment,
which is often too difficult, or an alternate assessment for
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, which
is too easy. Neither of these options provides an accurate
assessment of what these students know and can do. Alternate
assessments based on modified academic achievement standards
will provide a more appropriate measure of these students'
achievement of grade-level content, and give teachers and
parents information that can be used to better inform
instruction.”
3. What are some sample guidelines?
Who should participate in alternate assessments on alternate
achievement standards?
Guidelines might include the following: A student with a significant
cognitive disability:
- who requires substantial modifications, adaptations, or supports to
meaningfully access the grade-level content,
- who requires intensive individualized instruction in order to
acquire and generalize knowledge, and
- who is unable to demonstrate achievement of academic content
standards on a paper and pencil test, even with accommodations.
Who should participate in alternate assessments on grade-level
achievement standards?
Guidelines might include the following: A student with a disability :
- who requires accommodations that are not available on the general
assessment to demonstrate skill and knowledge on the grade-level content
and grade-level achievement standards, and
- who demonstrates achievement in different formats or contexts than
are provided by the general assessment.
States
will be investigating options for alternate assessments based on
modified achievement standards over the next years. Please refer
to the official documents linked below for more information.
4. What should be included in an alternate assessment?
All assessments for NCLB accountability purposes should measure student
achievement on the grade-level content. How these assessments reflect the
depth and breadth of the grade-level content depends on whether the
alternate assessment is based on grade-level achievement standards or
alternate achievement standards. For alternate assessments based on
grade-level achievement standards, the depth and breadth of assessed content
should be the same as on the general assessment in order to draw accurate
inferences of student proficiency.
Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards must also
assess student achievement on the grade-level content. In states with
checklists and performance tasks, stakeholders typically have prioritized
content to be covered for students with significant cognitive disabilities.
States that use portfolio or body of evidence approaches may permit IEP
teams to select a limited number of grade-level content standards and
benchmarks to assess; or the state may require specific content standards or
benchmarks for each tested grade. In portfolio or body-of-evidence states
that require specific content coverage, stakeholders have generally
prioritized specific content for that purpose.
Many states that had earlier identified one set of prioritized content
standards across all grade levels for their alternate assessment students
now require grade-level content alignment. This reflects NCLB regulations
and guidance requirements that all assessments must be aligned to the
grade-level definitions of content for the enrolled grade of the student
being assessed.
States will be
investigating options for alternate assessments based on modified
achievement standards over the next years. Please refer to the official
documents linked below for more information.
5. What do alternate assessments look like?
States use a variety of approaches in the design of alternate
assessments. Definitions of the most common types of alternate assessment
approaches are listed below.
Definitions
(based on Roeber, 2002; see
http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis42.html)
- Portfolio: Student portfolios are a purposeful and systematic
collection of student work that is evaluated and measured against
predetermined scoring criteria.
- Performance Assessment: These assessments are direct measures
of a skill, usually in a one-on-one assessment. These can range from
highly structured one-on-one assessments similar to traditional
pencil/paper test, to a more flexible approach that can be adjusted
based on student needs.
- Checklist: This method relies on teachers to remember whether
students are able to carry out certain activities. Scores reported are
usually based on the number of skills that the student was able to
successfully perform.
States
will be investigating options for alternate assessments based on
modified achievement standards over the next years. Please refer
to the official documents linked below for more information.
6. How should alternate assessments be incorporated into the
accountability system?
States typically report the assessment results from their assessment
programs by achievement levels, also known as proficiency or performance
levels. Terms such as “novice,” “basic,” “proficient,” “meeting the
standard,” “advanced,” or “exceeding the standard” may be used to describe
the achievement level of each student. Achievement standards include labels
for the various achievement levels, descriptions of competencies associated
with each achievement level, and assessment scores (‘’cut scores’’) that
differentiate among the achievement levels. Achievement standards must be
defined using a rigorous process and must be aligned with academic content
standards.
The December 9, 2003 NCLB Regulations permit states to develop alternate
assessments based on grade-level achievement standards, and alternate
assessments for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
based on alternate achievement standards. The process of setting achievement
standards (i.e. describing various levels of proficiency and identifying
cut-scores) is required for both options. Achievement standards for
alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards must be
equivalent to those on the general assessment. Setting alternate achievement
standards based on grade-level content standards is a challenging but
rewarding process, and requires the active participation of test company
partners, measurement experts, curriculum and special education state
leadership, as well as educators, parents, and higher education
standard-setting panelists.
According to the December 9, 2003 NCLB Regulations, once achievement
standards have been set, all scores determined to be “proficient” are
included as proficient in accountability indices whether they are on
alternate achievement standards or on grade-level achievement standards,
provided that the number of proficient and advanced scores based on the
alternate achievement standards does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students
in the grades tested at the State or LEA level, unless a special exception
has been granted. For further information about the conditions under which
alternate achievement standards may be used, please refer to the December 9,
2003 regulation published in the Federal Register
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2003-4/120903a.html
FR Doc 03-30092 [Federal Register: December 9, 2003 (Volume 68,
Number 236)]
[Rules and Regulations][Page 68697-68708]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr09de03-27]
States
will be investigating options for alternate assessments based on
modified achievement standards over the next years. Please refer
to the official documents linked below for more information.
Department of Education
Resources:
Federal Register April 9, 2007 Regulations: Title I—Improving
the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals With
Disabilities Education Act (IDEA); Final Rule
Fact Sheet:
Measuring the Achievement of Students with Disabilities What
families and schools need to know about modified academic
achievement standards
Non-Regulatory Guidance: Modified Academic Achievement
Standards-Draft
Related NCEO Publications:
Top of
page
|
