MI-Access Assessments: The Next Generation

1. MI-Access Assessments: The Next Generation Vincent J. Dean, Ph.D. Assessment Consultant for Students with Disabilities Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability

2. Guidelines for Participation in State Assessment Team Primary Charges to the team • Update the 2003 Draft Guidelines for Determining Participation in State Assessments for Students with Disabilities to include all students and components of the Michigan Educational Assessment System (MEAS), and the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP). • Develop the Assessment Accommodations Summary Table (Approved by the SBE in June 2005).

3. Draft Guidelines Document • Chapter 1: Foundations of Participation in State Assessments • Chapter 2: Participation for All Students • Chapter 3: English Language Learners • Chapter 4: NAEP • Chapter 5: Accommodations • Chapter 6: Resources

4. Foundations of Participation in State Assessments. • NCLB requires the inclusion of all students with disabilities in state assessment systems and that the results for all students (and students in specific subgroups, including students with disabilities and students with limited English proficiency) are used in calculating Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for the school, the Local Education Agency (LEA) and the State.

5. Foundations of Participation in State Assessments. • IDEA 2004 mandates that States and local education agencies ensure: • §612.(16)(A) IN GENERAL.-All children with disabilities are included in all general State and districtwide assessment programs, including assessments described under section 1111of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, with appropriate accommodations and alternate assessments where necessary and as indicated in their respective individualized education programs.

6. Foundations of Participation in State Assessments. State Board of Education Policy • Adopted in October of 2001, The State Board of Education adopted a broad policy regarding state-wide assessment which reads: It shall be the policy of the State Board of Education that each local and intermediate school district, and public school academy, will ensure the participation of all students in the Michigan Educational Assessment System.

7. The MEAS • The Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) was initiated by the State Board of Education in 1969 and is funded through the Michigan Legislature through Public Act 307 of 1969 (Section 14). The 2004-05 MEAP Coordinator Handbook noted that a primary purpose of the MEAP is to provide a common denominator to measure Michigan student skills and knowledge in a consistent way at the same time. • MI-Access, Michigan’s Alternate Assessment Program, is designed to assess students with disabilities, whose Individualized Education Program (IEP) team has decided that it is inappropriate for the student to participate in the MEAP, even with accommodations. There are three levels to MI-Access, in order to appropriately assess students with a wide range of disabilities. These levels are Functional Independence, Supported Independence, and Participation. • The English Language Proficiency Assessment (ELPA) is designed to assess student proficiency in English as required by the NCLB Act.

9. Participation for All Students • The vast majority of students will participate in the MEAP. Students who participate fully in the general education curriculum without identified disabilities or special circumstances will participate in the MEAP without accommodations. • Most students with disabilities will be able to participate in the MEAP when provided with standard, appropriate accommodations. • The IEP team may designate ANY accommodations it deems necessary, however, it must be made known to the parent and student involved that certain, nonstandard accommodations may prevent the student from being eligible for the Michigan Merit Award.

10. Participation for All Students • Students eligible to receive special education services must have Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams who are responsible for making decisions about their educational programming and determining how each student will participate in the MEAS. This team will decide which assessment is appropriate, as well as what accommodations are needed for the student to demonstrate his or her skills and knowledge.

11. Participation for All Students Full Independence • Full Independence students are those with physical, emotional, or learning disabilities who function in the normal range of intelligence. These students are capable of becoming fully independent as adults. They are also able to apply their knowledge to any task, problem, or activity they may confront in life. Full Independence students have the cognitive abilities necessary to be successful in traditional educational settings. Although daily living and adult functioning may be included as part of their educational program, the primary educational emphasis for these students will be on academic or technical subjects. They also are likely to be successful in post-secondary education areas specific to their aptitudes and interests.

12. Participation for All Students Functional Independence • Functional Independence addresses the educational needs of students who have, or function as if they have, mild cognitive impairment. These students are capable of meeting their own needs and living successfully in their communities with minimal support from others. With this assistance, students should be able to assess their personal strengths and limitations, and access resources, strategies, supports, and linkages that help them maximize their potential effectiveness. The instructional approach for these students must include concrete/authentic experiences in the settings in which the student is expected to function. Their instruction will most likely be balanced between functional academic skills and functional daily living skills.

13. Participation for All Students Supported Independence • Supported Independence addresses the educational needs of students who have, or function as if they have, moderate cognitive impairment. These students will require ongoing support in major life roles. They may also have both cognitive and physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning; however, they usually can follow learned routines and demonstrate independent living skills. The instructional approach for these students must be direct, in context, and targeted toward specific, essential independent living skills. The focus of their instruction is on completing tasks and activities of daily living, enhancing quality of life, and maximizing personal effectiveness. All of these require the student to follow previously learned routines and demonstrate an acceptable level of independent living.

14. Participation for All Students Participation • Participation addresses the educational needs of students who have, or function as if they have, severe or profound cognitive impairment. These students are expected to require extensive ongoing support in adulthood. They may also have both significant cognitive and physical impairments that limit their ability to generalize or transfer learning, and thus make determining their actual ability and skills difficult. Their impairments cause them to be dependent on others for most, if not all, of their daily living needs and will impact any future involvement in major life roles. The instructional approach for these students targets opportunities for them to participate, even partially, in age-appropriate tasks and activities. The focus of their instruction is on participating, to the maximum extent possible for each individual student, in tasks and activities related to daily living skills.

15. Resources • The following links to MI-Access information and materials can be very useful in helping to determine in which state assessment a student should participate. Both sites contain links to past issues of The Assist newsletter and other documents that have been disseminated with this purpose in mind. www.michigan.gov/mi-access or www.mi-access.info • The MEAP Web site contains information about Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE) that can give an indication of what types of standards the assessment is based upon, that may be useful as school and IEP teams work to determine the appropriate assessment for students with disabilities or accommodation needs.www.michigan.gov/meap

16. MI-Access Assessment Table

17. What are Extended GLCEs? Learning expectations or TARGETS. . . • based on the Michigan Curriculum Framework Mathematics Content Standards and Benchmarks • aligned to and extended from Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE) • designed to guide curriculum development and inform instruction • used to drive grade level MI-Access assessments for the next several years

18. MI-AccessAssessments • Measure ExtendedGrade Level Content Expectations (EGLCE) at Grades 3-8 and Extended benchmarks (EB) at Grade 11. The EGLCE and EB reflect similar content and skills as the GLCE and benchmarks, but they have been reduced in depth, breadth, and cognitive complexity.

19. Assessment Development • Items developed with consideration for: • Wide variety of student academic skill in navigating and responding to the assessment • Measuring knowledge of mathematical concepts as opposed to reading/writing skills • Universal design principles applied to reduce need for accommodations

20. Assessment Development Process • Assessment Plan Writing Teams (APWT) charged with: • Determining appropriate content expectations for each population • Extending the Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCE) • Comprised of general and special education teachers, parents, and administrators

21. Assessment Development Process • From the APWT work, items are written and edited by contractors based on committee and OEAA specs. • These items are presented to Content Advisory Committees (CAC) to determine if they reflect the intentions of the APWT, and are appropriate for the population • Difficulty and Accuracy • Reading Level • Link to Content Standards

22. Assessment Development Process • Items also shown to Sensitivity Review Committees (SRC) • Eliminating Biasing Elements or Stereotypes • Occupational Roles (e.g., female nurses) • Personality Traits (e.g., Asian people are great at math) • Under-representation (e.g., omission of people with disabilities from everyday activities)

23. Assessment Development Process • CAC and SRC eliminate inappropriate items or make suggestions on how to revise. • After a suitable pool of items developed, they are piloted to determine student performance.

24. Assessment Development Process • CAC and SRC members are trained on how to interpret data from the pilot and use it to review items for: • Percent of students who correctly answered each item • Male/female bias • Black/white bias

25. Assessment Development Process

26. Assessment Development Process • After this round of item review, contractor content specialists review CAC and SRC comments and finalize the pool of items for operational forms. • Forms then constructed and proofed by contractor and OEAA staff according to detailed proofing and editing guidelines.

27. Assessment Development-Participation and Supported Independence (P/SI) ELA & Mathematics • Functional Independence assessments operational for Language Arts and Mathematics Fall 2005, based on EGLCE. • EGLCE needed further extension (i.e. reduction in breadth, depth, and complexity) for P/SI populations.

28. Assessment Development-Participation and Supported Independence (P/SI) ELA & Mathematics • APWT formed for this task. Extension process completed through several meetings over Summer and Fall 2005. • Field trip to Wing Lake to learn more about the P/SI populations • Looking for the mathematics and English language arts in the everyday activities of the students

29. Assessment Development-Participation and Supported Independence (P/SI) ELA & Mathematics • Item development timeline extended due to budget constraints, will be initiated again in Fall 2006 • Items written by the contractor then reviewed by CAC and SRC

30. Assessment Development Participation, Supported Independence (P/SI), Functional Independence (FI) Science • NCLB requires operational State administered Science assessments in place for 2007-08 school year. • Just as for ELA and Mathematics an alternate assessment system must be prepared for Science that is linked to general education content standards.

31. Assessment Development Participation, Supported Independence (P/SI), Functional Independence (FI) Science • Beginning from the Beginning-No EGLCE • General education Science Content Standards and Benchmarks first extended for the FI population • Learning about the FI population • Becoming familiar with the Benchmarks • Deciding what are the ‘key concepts’ within each strand/standard

32. Assessment Development Participation, Supported Independence (P/SI), Functional Independence (FI) Science • Following extension of the Benchmarks for the FI population, further extension for P/SI • Field trip to Wing Lake • Many general education teachers on APWT; had worked with FI, but not P or SI students • Science observable in rainforest activities

33. Assessment Development Participation, Supported Independence (P/SI), Functional Independence (FI) Science • January and March APWT meetings to finalize extended benchmarks for FI, P/SI. • Item writing, CAC and SRC reviews commencing over Summer and into Fall 2006.

34. MI-Access Assessment Table

35. Useful Websites and Contact Information • Michigan Department of Education: www.mi.gov/mde • MI-Access Information Center: www.mi-access.info • MI-Access Web Page: www.mi.gov/mi-access • Peggy Dutcher, Coordinator, Students with Disabilities Program: dutcherp@mi.gov • MI-Access Hotline and E-mail Address: 1-888-382-4246 mi-access@tasa.com

36. CAC Recruitment • Late summer 2006, CAC will be formed to review Science items for FI, P/SI. • Nomination forms will be posted on the MI-Access Info Center Web page, and the MDE MI-Access site. • The more input we have from individuals familiar with the populations and/or with expertise in Science, the stronger and more appropriate the assessments.