NCEO StateLinks

The Fall Inclusive Seminars (Denver and Alexandria) were attended by 132 state department personnel, comprehensive centers, technical assistance providers, test vendors, and federal staff representing 33 states as participants or presenters.

The seminars provided participants with a framework and tools for helping states conceptualize the evaluation of technical quality of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards, including individualized consultation for individual state situations. The framework was developed through a partnership of the National Alternate Assessment Center and the New Hampshire Enhanced Assessment Initiative, and built on the conceptual framework set forth in the National Research Council’s book Knowing What Students Know (Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001). In the past two years, the two projects convened an expert panel of measurement, curriculum, and special education experts that worked with four partner states (NH, CO, CT, NH) to use the framework to identify issues and strategies in documenting multiple approaches to alternate assessment. The seminars featured the work done through this partnership.

Seminar materials are available on the Web site at http://www.nceo .info/tools/.

Thirty-eight states participated in the September Teleconference. Presenters were Jim Shriner, Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Illinois; Sharon Hall, Section Chief in the Division of Special Education/Early Intervention Services, Maryland Department of Education; and Susan Kennedy, Education Manager, NCLB Office, Connecticut Department of Education.

Jim Shriner presented IEP/accommodation data and case study data from two federally funded research projects, Project PAR and Project IEP-D. Findings so far showed that decisions are often isolated IEP events with limited tracking of accommodations plans or use, and limited involvement of general education teachers.

The research suggests that accommodation monitoring forms can be helpful tools for gathering data on under- and over-use of accommodations and for ongoing decision-making. Possible action points included investigating how to improve accommodation decisions by looking at how IEP teams can discern between accommodations decisions that yield valid and invalid results consistent with state policies.

Sharon Hall highlighted the ASES SCASS Accommodation Training Materials, which are in the OSEP Toolkit. The materials include a manual on how to select, administer, and evaluate the use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities. Five key steps were outlined addressing expectations, accommodations used in instruction and assessment, selecting accommodations, administration, and evaluation and improvement of their use. Additional guiding questions focused on evaluating accommodation use at the school or district level such as: Are students receiving accommodations as documented in their IEP and 504 plans? Are there procedures in place to ensure test administrators adhere to directions for the administration of accommodations?

Susan Kennedy presented Connecticut’s comprehensive system of monitoring the use of accommodations in testing. She reviewed the six components of the state’s system describing the populations included in the electronic data entry system, the types of trainings offered (e.g., district level and annual ongoing trainings), state mandated IEP forms used, how the state tracks testing irregularities, and the Bureau of Special Education (BSE) monitoring required under IDEA.

Teleconference PowerPoints and related resources are available on the NCEO Web site, http://education .umn.edu/nceo/Teleconferences/.

Using Systematic Item Selection Methods to Improve Universal Design of Assessments (Policy Directions Number 18)

This Policy Directions provides a brief background on applying universal design to statewide assessments and describes methods to consider when selecting and revising items. Three methods (i.e., expert review, statistical analyses, and think-aloud protocols) are presented, each with their pros and cons and ideas for improving their current use. For example, although statistical methods can be used for understanding which items may be biased, they may be less valid for small populations and are not able to address why an item may be biased. For such questions, the expert review and think aloud methods may be more useful. Having students verbalize as they try out items potentially can provide rich specifics on what is problematic for a student about an item. The authors recommend that developers use all three methods because any one method may not yield sufficient information on the accessibility of an item.

This publication walks parents of students with disabilities through the NCLB and IDEA laws. Topics covered include: academic content and achievement standards, annual assessments, school accountability, and highly qualified teachers. Throughout the booklet, the essentials are presented clearly in sections on what a parent should "know" and "do." Specific information is provided on accommodations, alternate assessments, and other testing choices.

The booklet has been distributed to all Parent and Training Information Centers across the nation. It is available on NCEO’s Web site, and print-ready files can be requested by states that want to make multiple copies.

The purpose of this guide is to provide states with strategies for designing tests that are as accessible as possible, while ensuring that the tests are accurate measures of the knowledge and skills of those assessed. The guide leads readers through the steps of designing assessments from conceptualization to evaluation, emphasizing the iterative nature of universal design. Elements of universal design addressed are inclusive test population; precisely defined constructs; accessible, non-biased items; tests that will work well with accommodations; simple, clear, and intuitive instructions and procedures; maximum readability and comprehensibility; and maximum legibility. This guide has an online companion at www.nceo.info/ UDmanual which provides links to supplementary resources.

This report about ELLs with disabilities in large-scale assessments includes the perspectives of students, their parents, special and general education teachers, and administrators. Some key practices identified in the case study for including ELLs in assessments were fully inclusive testing policies supported by wide dissemination in multiple formats, with all stakeholder groups understanding the use of test accommodations.

These publications are available at www.nceo.info.