1 / 60

Understanding 1% Regulation and Reallocations in Assessment for Students with Disabilities

Learn about 1% regulation, alternate achievement standards, and the impact on assessments for students with disabilities. Explore exceptions to the 1% cap and guidelines for determining eligibility.

rubyhamilton
Télécharger la présentation

Understanding 1% Regulation and Reallocations in Assessment for Students 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. 1% and Reallocation Applications – What are They? Peggy Dutcher Michigan Department of Education Assessment for Students with Disabilities Program Sessions 41 & 47 1

  2. Confused?

  3. 1% Regulation Quiz 1. What percent of students with disabilities should be included in the state assessment system? A. 75% B. 95% C. 100%

  4. 1% Regulation Quiz 2. What happens if a student uses nonstandard accommodations that cause the test to be invalid? A. the student is considered as participating B. the student is considered not assessed C. the student needs to retest

  5. 1% Regulation Quiz 3. What are alternate achievement standards? A. different content standards B. different complexity for performance standards C. different assessment

  6. 1% Regulation Quiz 4. Who is eligible to participate in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards? A. only students with significant cognitive disabilities B. only students with the eligibility category of cognitively impaired C. only students with severe cognitive impairment

  7. 1% Regulation Quiz 5. How does the Title 1 regulation authorizing alternate achievement standards affect the IEP Team decisions about appropriate assessments? A. responsibility is unchanged B. responsibility is modified C. responsibility is changed

  8. 1% Regulation Quiz 6. The 1% cap is 1% of what student population enrolled in the grades assessed? A. Special education B. General education C. Both A and B

  9. 1% Regulation Quiz 7. Does the 1% cap limit access of the students with disabilities to alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards? A. Yes B. No

  10. 1% Regulation Quiz 8. Does the 1% cap apply to each school building? A. Yes B. No

  11. 1% Regulation Quiz 9. Can a state grant an exception to an LEA/ISD to exceed the 1% cap? A. No B. Yes

  12. 1% Regulation Quiz 10. Does the 1% cap put specialized and small schools at a disadvantage? A. Yes B. No

  13. 1% Regulation Quiz 11. If an LEA receives an exception, how often must it reapply for that exception? A. every year B. every two years C. it depends

  14. 1% Regulation Quiz 12. Does the state have a 1% cap? A. Yes B. No

  15. 1% Regulation Quiz 13. Does the 1% cap apply only to LEAs in which the “students with disabilities: subgroup exceeds the State’s minimum group size? A. Yes B. No

  16. 1% Regulation Quiz 14. What additional responsibilities does an LEA have in connection with the use of alternate achievement standards? A. managing its IEP Teams decisions B. making sure schools limit the number of students taking alternate assessments C. none, it is an IEP Team decision

  17. 1% Regulation Quiz 15. What is used to calculate NCLB participation rates? A. number of students enrolled in the district for a full academic year B. number of students enrolled during the assessment window C. number of students taking MEAP and MI-Access

  18. 1% Regulation Quiz 16. What is used to calculate NCLB proficiency rates for AYP? A. number of students enrolled in the district for a full academic year B. number of students enrolled during the assessment window C. number of students taking MEAP and MI-Access

  19. Computing the District 1% Cap 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 3rd 100 100 100 100 100 150 11th Total Number of Students enrolled in grades assessed = 750 100

  20. Computing the District 1% Cap 750 x 1% = 7.5 District 1% cap is 7

  21. Applying the 1% Cap 4th 5th 6th 7th 8th 3rd 100 100 100 100 100 150 District Cap = 6 students for elementary and middle school

  22. Applying the 1% Cap 11th District Cap = 1 student for grade 11 100 If all 6 students are not needed for grades 3-8, the balance can be applied to grade 11.

  23. Exception to the 1% Cap 2007 District Application for an Exception to the 1% Cap on Students Proficient Using Alternate Achievement Standards (Grades 3-8 and 11)

  24. Exception to the 1% Cap All of the current MI-Access assessments (Participation, Supported Independence, and Functional Independence) are based on alternate achievement standards and therefore fall under the 1% cap regulation.

  25. Exception to the 1% Cap • NCLB Alternate Achievement Standards for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities - Non Regulatory Guidance • 7 safeguards to ensure proper inclusion of students with significant cognitive impairment in state assessment

  26. Exception to the 1% Cap • Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. • Data showing incidence rate of students who were administered the MI-Access assessments.

  27. Example Data for Question 2

  28. Exception to the 1% Cap • Please describe 1) the guidelines used by IEP teams to determine when a child should be administered the MI-Access assessments, which are based on alternate achievement standards and 2) how IEP Teams were trained to apply the guidelines.

  29. Exception to the 1% Cap • Describe how parents are informed that their child will be assessed based on alternate achievement standards, including information about the implications of participation in the alternate assessment if the district has identified consequences for students based on assessment results (e.g., passing an assessment is a requirement for graduation).

  30. Exception to the 1% Cap • Documentation that describes how students administered the MI-Access assessments are included, to the extent possible, in the general curriculum and assessments aligned with that curriculum. • Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations.

  31. Exception to the 1% Cap • Describe efforts taken to ensure teachers and other staff know how to administer assessments, including appropriate use of accommodations, such as professional development or guidance documents used.

  32. Example of Poor Evidence • Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Trainings have been conducted with staff on the extended grade level content expectations and extended benchmarks. Staff have also been trained in all phases of MI-Access. **Accommodations not addressed**

  33. Example of Good Evidence • Describe efforts taken by the district to develop, disseminate information on, and promote use of appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. Our special education service unit provides annual training to ensure all special education teachers know and understand appropriate instructional and assessment accommodations. These accommodations are implemented not only for the State MEAP/MI-Access assessment but in the general education daily instructional practices, as well. In addition, our MEAP/MI-Access director provides additional training prior to the testing window to disseminate and review the test administrator’s manual to ensure understanding of proper procedures and allowable accommodations.

  34. Example of Poor Evidence • Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments. Please describe any center, regional, or special programs that lead to students coming from other districts to attend programs in the district. Please be specific. • Student 1 – moved before the second count day to John Doe Public Schools • Student 2 – Autistic • Student 3 – Autistic • Student 4 – Autistic • Student 5 – EI • Student 6 – EI

  35. Example of Good Evidence • Explanation of circumstances leading to more than 1% of enrolled students being administered the MI-Access assessments…

  36. Example of Good Evidence John Doe Intermediate School District provides center-based classroom options for local districts. Three Early Childhood Special Education classrooms provide programming for students age 3-6. Seven classrooms offer instruction for students age 7-26 with programming aligned with the Supported Independence and Participation curriculums. These classrooms are designed for students who have, or function as if they have a moderate to severe cognitive impairment or multiple impairments. Four classrooms are intended for students whose behavior is so extreme; the general education setting no longer supports their intense aggressive behavioral needs. One classroom is designed to meet the needs of students with hearing impairments.

  37. Exception to the 1% Cap If a district applies for an exception to the 1% cap and the district has a number of students who were administered the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments and had scores suppressed, you ALSO need to complete the 2007 District Application to Request Reallocation of Functional Independence Suppressed Scores.

  38. Example of Good Evidence • If your district only has MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence students ONLY the Exception to the 1% Cap Application needs to be submitted.

  39. Exception to the 1% Cap • If Application for an Exception to the 1% Cap is Approved: • It is not good forever • 1% regulations requires the state to have districts apply periodically

  40. Reallocation Form 2007 District Application to Request Reallocation of Functional Independence Suppressed Scores (Grades 3-8 and 11)

  41. Steps for Determining Preliminary AYP Step 1: The MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence proficient scores are all counted for students who have been in the district FAY (Full Academic Year). If the district did not exceed the 1% cap the proficient Functional Independence score were reviewed.

  42. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores • All students who were administered the Functional Independence assessments will be counted as participants when calculating the NCLB participation rates for the building and district.

  43. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Step 2: The fall 2006 SRSD submission information for grades 3-8 and the spring 2007 SRSD submission information were used by the MDE to suppress proficient Functional Independence scores of students in the following special education categories • Specific Learning Disability (SLD or LD) • Speech and Language Impairment (SLI) • Emotional Impairment (EI) • Physical Impairment (PI) • Otherwise Health Impaired (OHI)

  44. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Step 3: Of the remaining Functional Independence scores, the MDE started with the lowest proficient score and “counted up” until all the eligible Functional Independence proficient scores were used or the 1% cap was reached.

  45. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores • After the three-step process has been applied, the MDE allows flexibility in cases where there is an impact on the school or district making AYP. • For example, districts may request reallocation of the students' proficient scores that were suppressed by the three-step process for buildings within the district.

  46. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores The Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance (PLAFP) from the IEP of each student for whom this application is being submitted is the only piece of required documentation.

  47. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores Examples of additional evidence that may be submitted for review include: • Transition Plans • Standardized Assessment Scores • Adaptive behavior profiles • Individual or district-wide assessment scores

  48. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores • No judgments will be made about the appropriateness of the IEP Team's decision to have the student administered the MI-Access Functional Independence assessments.

  49. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores • The evidence will be examined to determine if a case has been made for having the student's score counted as proficient. • If such a case is not adequately made, the student's score will not be counted as proficient.

  50. Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores • Review Process • OEAA Assessment Consultant reviews every reallocation request (700+ for elementary and middle school alone) • School Psychologist • All questionable ones co-reviewed by OSE/EIS Program Accountability staff

More Related