Cross-Study Comparisons of Findings Related to States AA -MAS: - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

SUE RIG NEY , DISCUSSANT

N A T I O N A L C O N F E R E N C E O N S T U D E N T A S S E S S M E N T D E T R O I T 2 0 1 0

Cross-Study Comparisons of Findings Related to States’ AA-MAS: Implications for Practice and Policy

Good News

These MAS research projects…

 Address dozens of issues  Represent thousands of students  Employed diverse data collection methods

So, new projects have a research foundation available.

The Other News

Regarding optimal test development for persistently low performing students (PLP) – no clear patterns or conclusions. Studies focused on item/test design examined hundreds of variations:

 Item appearance (white space, bold type, graphics)  Item/test format (reduced distractors, online administration,

scaffolding or chunking)

 Item/test content content (shorter passages, use of math

manipulatives)

Research

 Methods included data analysis, teacher survey,

student think aloud

 The 2% membership cuts across disability subgroups

– tentative patterns identified but they are matters of degree and are tied to prior instructional experience.

 Control group needed

 GA: “Overall, no meaningful differences in item performance

• f PLP students with vs without a disability.”

Policy

 Who are the students? Consistent patterns here

suggest that the issue may not be identification but prior instruction. (Only half of PLP are SWD)

 Future of 2% uncertain in ESEA reauthorization  Growth for AYP - may eliminate need for 2%  Tolerable risk: school identification vs low

expectations for students?

Practice

Assessment practice

 How to make the test easier/more accessible without changing the construct or

going off-grade? (DOK, vocabulary, administration conditions)

 Vocabulary: a problem for students (a test design issue or an instructional

issue?)

 AND practitioners (technical vocabulary still not uniform e.g. access-

accessibility, modification) Instructional practice

 NCEO multi-state project:

1.

“Results suggest that the accommodations decisions that IEP teams make may have implications for student performance.”

2.

“Some low performing students may not have had access to grade-level content.”

 Effective research-based TA needed for IEP teams, teachers and principals.  Curriculum? IEP?

Asking the Right Questions

 How does this assessment provide a more accurate measure of the

knowledge and skills of the participants compared with the general assessment?

 How does development of an AA-MAS yield better inferences about the

students than other assessment approaches, such as improved general assessment design, appropriate accommodations, or development of AA- GLAS?

 What are the potential costs and benefits of competing uses of resources,

including targeted staff development on instructional and curricular interventions for teachers of struggling learners instead of assessment development and implementation?

 How will the inclusion of the AA-MAS as part of the state’s assessment

system lead to better instructional and curricular opportunities for these participating students?

 Other questions identified by policymakers and stakeholders. (Source: Perie, 2008)

What’s Next?

Given what you have learned from summarizing these projects from your point of view, what would you design as the next step? (Be concrete, practical.)