Published by the National
Center on Educational Outcomes
May, 2004
Teams from 38 states participated in the April 26th teleconference on alternate achievement standards, moderated by Ken Olsen from the Mid-South Regional Resource Center and Rachel Quenemoen from the National Center on Educational Outcomes. Jan Sheinker, assessment and account-ability systems consultant, presented a framework for development of achievement standards. David Malouf and Cynthia Bryant with OSEP and Sue Rigney from Title I were the Federal panelists.
Alternate achievement standards define what proficiency means for a small
population of students with significant cognitive disabilities. They provide
states with the means to define the effects of good teaching and learning for
the purposes of Adequate Yearly Progress.
Jan Sheinker began by clarifying the distinction between content standards and
achievement standards (formerly known as performance standards). Content
standards define what students should know and be able to do. Achievement
standards define expectations for student achievement on the content, bridging
the content standards with achievement and instruction. Achievement standards
include achievement levels, descriptors, exemplars and cut scores.
Jan Sheinker described the process for developing alternate achievement standards. States should begin with the state academic content standards at grade level. These are usually adapted or extended to reflect access skills and challenging content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The assessment process then should be designed to provide evidence of student learning on the adapted or extended grade level academic content. This will allow the assessment results to be used to set achievement standards, which is typically accomplished by a standard-setting panel of stakeholders, based on actual student performance on the assessment. The stakeholder panel should consist of people with student, content, and assessment expertise.
Jan Sheinker noted that it is important to develop proposed achievement descriptors before the assessment is administered and scored, knowing that these descriptors will be refined through the standard-setting process after administration of the assessment. Alternate achievement standards should standardize the meaning of proficiency for students with significant cognitive disabilities, create consistency in expected performance, and emphasize extensions of, or links to, grade level content standards. They do not create a “one size fits all” approach, specify a single expression of a content learning, or function as the IEP.
The importance of technical quality was emphasized. Achievement standards must be aligned to content extended from state grade level content standards. There should be a structured assessment design, consistency across scorers in the application of scoring criteria, and comparability in analysis and reporting. It is critical to document the technical adequacy of the assessment approach and the standard-setting process, including measures of reliability and validity.
Sue Rigney observed that the new regulations represent a shift in thinking that requires us to distinguish between alternate (different) achievement standards and grade level (same) achievement standards. The panelists addressed the difference between alternate assessments that are appropriate for a small group of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, and “same as” alternate assessments, which allow students to demonstrate grade level proficiency in a different manner from the general assessment. These grade level alternate assessments may use different assessment procedures but they measure the same content and achievement standards as the general assessment
Dave Malouf and Cynthia Bryant stressed the importance of the basic values and principles of access to and progress in the general curriculum for all students regardless of what assessment is used. Alternate achievement standards can be defined differently from grade level achievement standards, but they must be aligned to grade level state content standards through coherent content extension or expansion methodology. Student work must incorporate age-appropriate activities and access to grade level curriculum to the maximum extent possible.
Jan Sheinker’s presentation slides and other relevant readings are posted on the NCEO Web site at http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/Presentations/tele8.htm. The tele-conference message board linked from that web page is open for additional questions and discussion.
A pre-conference session on this topic is being held prior to the CCSSO Large-Scale Assessment Conference in Boston, June 19, at the Boston Marriott Copley Place, 8:00 am-noon. The session features keynoter Kevin McGrew and representatives from OESE and Title I. Participants will focus on the essential foundations of alternate achievement standards in two areas: access/alignment to the challenging curriculum at grade level; and achievement definitions that support appropriate challenge for students as they move through the grade levels. All work will be in the context of the Title I Peer Review Guidance to ensure a coherent system of inclusive assessment and accountability. For information and registration go to the teleconference Web site (http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/Presentations/tele8.htm) and scroll down to the bottom for a registration form, or contact the Western Regional Resource Center for more information, atomlano@uoregon.edu.
NCEO is holding its annual clinic prior to the CCSSO Large-Scale Assessment Conference on Saturday June 19, 2-5 pm. The topic is accommodations, and the theme is “Under the Big Top: Accommodating Assessments for ALL Students!”
Assessment accommodations policies at the state and local levels and the mechanics of implementation can result in a circus-like atmosphere in schools the day of the test. Is testing day in your state like a highly skilled and coordinated trapeze act with smooth transitions, handoffs, and thrills? Or is it a three ring circus, with side shows and barkers, and more than a few lions, tigers, and bears? Careful design at the state level and focused policy implementation strategies, training, and resources can help turn the side show into a big tent success.
There is no fee for participation, but registration is required. Participants should come prepared to critique and contribute new ideas as we work together to think through the issues of accommodating assessments for all students. Contact Dorene Scott for a registration form (Scott027@umn.edu or 612-624-4073).
NCEO just released a new report (Technical Report 38) that explores how broad or limiting states’ reading standards are in coverage and whether they limit options for students to use multiple methods of interaction with print. The report includes a study of state standards in reading, a review of alternative modes of interaction with print, and an analysis of the correspondence between the reading standard requirements and the modes of interaction with print. This report is a first step in exploring the different modes of accessing print for students with disabilities.
Technical Report 38 is available at http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical38.htm.