1 / 14

Enhancing State Assessment Validity for English Language Learners with Disabilities

Enhancing State Assessment Validity for English Language Learners with Disabilities. Kristi Kline Liu, Linda Goldstone, Martha Thurlow, Laurene Christensen, and Jenna Ward National Center on Educational Outcomes – University of Minnesota.

alodie
Télécharger la présentation

Enhancing State Assessment Validity for English Language Learners with Disabilities

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Enhancing State Assessment Validity forEnglish Language Learners with Disabilities Kristi Kline Liu, Linda Goldstone, Martha Thurlow, Laurene Christensen, and Jenna Ward National Center on Educational Outcomes – University of Minnesota

  2. IVARED: Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities • Who? When? Where? • 3 yr. Enhanced Assessment grant • MN Dept. of ED, AZ, ME, MI, WA • National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) • What? Why? How? • Growing student population • Test validity: test design, data reporting • Inclusion on state tests: challenging • NCEO’s Surveys of State Assessment Directors • www.ivared.info/reports

  3. Special Education Students Ages 6-21 Receiving ELL Services (Fall’09) From IDEAdata.org

  4. Data Collection Activities Delphi Expert Principles Online Focus Groups n = 232 5-8 educators/group; 5 states (MN, ME, MI, AZ, WA) multi-disciplines anonymous internet geographically dispersed • n = 11 • multi-disciplines • anonymous • internet • geographically dispersed

  5. Principles Compared to Focus Group Themes

  6. Principle: Content standards are the same for all students • Implementation • Alignment • team approach • specific intervention programs with regular classroom assessment • frequent classroom assessments in small groups • Misalignment • instruction below grade level standards

  7. Principle cont. • Teaching Practices • test preparation • Professional development • General ed: differentiating instruction • Constraints: funding; specific to ELLs with disabilities

  8. Principle: Assessment participation decisions are made on an individual student basis by an informed IEP team. • IEP team inclusion • ESL/Bilingual • caregivers • Training constraints • funding • time

  9. Principle: Accommodations for both English language proficiency and content assessments are assigned by an IEP team knowledgeable about the individual student’s needs. • Policy needs • clear • ELLs with disabilities • Implementation difficulties • consistency • time constraints • collaboration

  10. Implications • School staff understanding • Team decision-making • Assessment accommodations • Understanding needs • English learners with disabilities • Assessment policy • Federal assessment requirements

  11. cont. Implications • Teachers’ support needs: • Alignment of instruction and grade-level standards • Complexity of students’ needs • Students’ content needs

  12. cont. Implications • IEP team decision-making challenges: • Inclusion of ESL/Bilingual teachers • Logistical constraints • Assessment knowledge • Knowledge of student needs • Separate decision processes ESL/Bilingual vs. Special Education

  13. In conclusion • Administrators could support good decision-making by looking at practical ways to increase involvement of all key staff and caregivers in the IEP team.

  14. Thank you! www.ivared.info/reports

More Related