TCAP-Alt PA K-2 Scoring Training

1. TCAP-Alt PA K-2 Scoring Training Section 4: Guide (G-4 Jayne Ayers, G-5 Brandi Pippin)

2. Before We Start For this portion of the training, you will need the following documents: • TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Guide 2012-2013 • TCAP-Alt PA Regular Scoring Rubric • TCAP-Alt PA Content Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators Document (API document) • TCAP-Alt PA Scoring-at-a-Glance Chart • TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Notes • TCAP-Alt PA Settings and Supports Chart • TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Checklist If you do not have these documents, please pause the presentation until you have retrieved them.

3. Guide: G-4 Jayne Ayers • Ready to move on to our fourth student? Jayne Ayers, on page G4-C. • She’s in grade 7, so we look at the APIs for grade level cluster 6-8.

4. Jayne – Set 1: Content First, Content: Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes. 11/23.

5. Check it off.

6. What is the content standard? Life Science, so we write LS on the checklist. LS

7. Is there a valid API for that grade level? Yes, it’s LS.4B.2, followed by a description. The number and description don’t match, but both of them are valid for this grade level. The activity should tell us which one to use. This is why we ask for both the number and the description—so that if there’s a mistake, we have something to fall back on. Activity will tell us which to use.

8. We have to look through all the Life Science APIs until we either find that description or determine that it’s not there. But it is there, in the appropriate column, so we can use it if it matches the activity.

9. Is there an acceptable activity that is related to the API? First, can we tell which API it goes with? • Yes, it goes with the description, which is LS.2B.4: Demonstrate the use of the senses to explore the environment.

10. Since the activity matches the description, LS.2B.4, that’s what we write on the checklist. LS LS.2B.4

11. Is this a good activity? • There’s no food or toileting involved, so let’s see if we have all three components. Is it related to the API? Yes. Can we tell what she’s doing? Yes. Do we know enough about what materials were used to know how she performed the activity? Yes.

12. Check it off. LS LS.2B.4

13. Is this an appropriate graph (meaning a line graph or a graph of dots)? Yes. Does the graph have at least fifteen data points large enough to see and centered in the box? Yes. Does it show progress (at least three days on which the student did two increments better than the lowest point, with no more than five days in a row at the same level of success)? No. The lowest point is 0% on September 30. There’s only one day where Jayne does two increments better than that. Lowest Point 1 15 dots

14. Since we don’t have a complete set here, we don’t circle it. Since the only thing keeping us from having a set is “no progress,” we write NP (for “no progress”) on the checklist so we can remember that this is eligible for that special score of 20 in Content. That means the only thing keeping us from having a complete set is a graph with too few points or a graph with no progress. LS LS.2B.4 NP

15. Jayne – Set 1: Choice • Now let’s look back at the evidence sheet, page G4-C, for Choice. • Since we gave credit to the activity, we can look for a choice. Is there a valid choice on the evidence sheet (type of choice indicated, two options offered, student’s choice marked or a note explaining that the student refused to choose)? Yes, it’s a choice of rewards, with two appropriate options and a note explaining that the choice was offered but that Jayne would not choose.

16. According to the evidence sheet, Jayne was given a choice of reward. Does it match the choice code given for that day on the graph? Yes, it matches.

17. Put the code for “reward” on the checklist. LS LS.2B.4 NP #

18. Because the evidence sheet has a valid choice, we can look for more choices on the graph. Are there additional occurrences of different typesof choice on the graph? Yes, we also have “who to work with.”

19. Put the code for “who to work with” on the checklist. LS LS.2B.4 NP # ?

20. Jayne – Set 1: Settings • Is there an inclusive setting in which the API could legitimately be taught? Yes, PE and Art. • Is there an appropriate signature, title, and code? Yes, in both cases.

21. How many times can it count: multiple times (for a “Big 4” classroom) or once (for a specialty area or other inclusive setting)? They’re both specialty areas, and we can count them each once. LS LS.2B.4 NP # ? PE A

22. Jayne – Set 1: Supports • The next dimension is Supports.Since we have an acceptable activity, we we can look for supports. • For each setting we gave credit to, we can look for a support. In this case, we have PE and Art. • Since we gave credit for these settings, we know we must have had an appropriate signature, title, and code.

23. How many times can each one count? Since they’re teachers, and these are their classes, they count as many times as they appear. In this case, we can use each of these teachers once. LS LS.2B.4 NP # ? PE A PE A

24. Jayne – Set 1: Peer Interactions • The last dimension is Peer Interactions. Since we had a valid API, we can look for a peer interaction. If the API were no good, the most we could look for would be “evidence of peer interaction.” • Do we have a peer interaction on the evidence sheet or graph page? Yes, there’s one on the evidence sheet. Let’s hope it’s good, because we don’t have one on the graph page to fall back on.

25. Can we tell what the student and peer are doing together that is related to the API? No. We don’t know how the peer was helping, what they did together, or whether it was related to the API. • Since there are no creditable peer interactions for this evidence sheet/graph pair, do we have at least one peer signature, appropriate grade level, and date that corresponds to a date on the graph? Yes.

26. We put an X on the checklist and write EV so we’ll remember to give a score of 4 (for “evidence of peer interaction”) if we end up with no valid peer interactions. LS LS.2B.4 NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

27. We’ve gotten all we can from this evidence sheet/graph pair. Let’s move on to the next pair on pages G4-E and G4-F. This is still Jayne, so it’s still grade 6.

28. Jayne – Set 2: Content Let’s look at Content: Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes.

29. Check it off. LS LS.2B.4 NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

30. What is the content standard? Earth Science. Write it on the checklist. Is it a different one? Yes. LS ES LS.2B.4 NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

31. Is there a valid API for that grade level and subject? Yes, it’s ES.3A.1, followed by a description from the correct column of the API document.

32. Write ES.3A.1 on the checklist. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

33. Is there an acceptable activity that is related to the API? • There’s no food and no toileting, so let’s see if we have all three components. Is it related to the API? Yes, this will help her learn the difference between land and water. Can we tell what she’s doing? Yes. Do we know enough about what materials were used to know how she performed the activity? Yes.

34. Check off the activity. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

35. 1 2 3 4 5 6 Is this an appropriate graph (meaning a line graph or a graph of dots)? Yes. Does the graph have at least fifteen data points? Yes. Does it show progress (at least three days on which the student did two increments better than the lowest point, with no more than five days in a row at the same level of success)? No. October 26 is the fifth day in a row at the same level of progress. On day 6, November 1, something should have changed: the line needed to go down (since it can’t go up), or the teacher needed to change APIs by drawing a thick red line between those dates and noting that she changed to a more advanced API, or there should have been a note detailing how instruction was made more difficult. This graph flatlines for more than five days in a row, so it’s considered a graph with no progress. Day 6: Something needs to change

36. Again, we write NP on the checklist. We still don’t have a complete set. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP NP # ? PE A EV X PE A

37. Jayne – Set 2: Choice • Let’s look back at the evidence sheet, page G4-E, for Choice. Since we have an acceptable activity, we can look for choices. • Is there a valid choice on the evidence sheet (type of choice indicated, two options offered, student’s choice marked or a note explaining that the student refused to choose)? Yes, it’s a choice of who to work with.

38. Does a choice of who to work with match the choice code given for that day on the graph? Yes, it matches.

39. Because the evidence sheet has a valid choice, we can look for more choices on the graph. Are there additional occurrences of different typesof choice on the graph? No. Although there are several choices shown, they are all the same type. We still just have “reward” and “who to work with.”

40. Jayne – Set 2: Settings • Now, Settings: Is instruction occurring in one or more inclusive settings? Yes, the graph shows Music and general education Science. • Is the setting appropriate for the API? Yes, in both cases. • Is there an appropriate signature, title, and code? Yes, for both.

41. How many times can it count: multiple times (for a “Big 4” classroom) or once (for a specialty area or other inclusive setting)? We could use Music once and Science twice. That gives us all we need, plus a spare. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP NP # ? PE A MU SC EV X PE A

42. Jayne – Set 2: Supports • Now, Supports. Since we had a good activity, we can look for supports. • Is there an inclusive setting in which the API could legitimately be taught? Yes, Science and Music. • Since we gave credit to these settings, we know we have a signature for the Natural Support person, an appropriate title, and a code that explains which setting should be attached to the signature.

43. How many times does each one count? Since these are both teachers and these are their classes, they count as many times as their classes appear. That’s twice for Science and once for Music, giving us more than enough. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP NP # ? PE A MU SC EV X PE A SC

44. Note that Jack Harmon did not receive credit on an earlier evidence sheet/graph pair because the title and code were missing. The title and code are good only for the evidence sheet/graph pair in which they appear. We cannot carry them over to other pairs.

45. Jayne – Set 2: Peer Interactions • Now let’s see what we have for Peer Interactions. We had a valid API, so we can look for peer interactions. • Is there a peer interaction on either the evidence sheet or graph page? Yes, there’s one on the evidence sheet.

46. Can we tell what the student and peer are doing together that is related to the API? Yes. • Is there a peer signature, an appropriate grade level, date, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph? No. There’s no grade level. We have nothing on the graph page to fall back on, so no credit for this peer interaction. We have “evidence of peer interaction,” but we don’t need another one. Missing grade level

47. Again, we put an X for this peer interaction. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP NP # ? PE A MU SC EV X X PE A SC

48. We’ve gotten all we can from this evidence sheet/graph pair. Let’s move on to the last pair on pages G4-G and G4-H. This is still Jayne, so it’s still grade 7.

49. Jayne – Set 3: Content Let’s look at Content: Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes.

50. Check it off. LS ES LS.2B.4 ES.3A.1 NP NP # ? PE A MU SC EV X X PE A SC