IDEA and NCLB
Standards-Based Accountability
Sue Rigney, U.S. Department of Education
OSEP 2006 Project Directors’ Conference
NCLB Requirements for
State Assessment System
in 2005-06
• Standards-based, CRT
Reading, Grades 3-8 + HS
Mathematics, Grades 3-8 + HS
• Alternate Assessment
• English Proficiency Test
Peer Review of State Assessment Systems
By spring 2006, each state must submit evidence to ED showing how its system of standards and assessments meet the NCLB requirements.
ED uses a peer review process to examine states’ evidence.
States should NOT submit actual standards or assessment instruments. Rather, they must submit evidence related to the development, implementation, and quality of these systems.
A State may require several review sessions to meet the assessment requirements
Peer Review Process
Team of 3 external experts + Standards Team staff examine evidence submitted by State
Reviewers’ comments + staff recommendations = Decision about status
Structure = Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (April 2004)
Organization of the Peer Review Guidance
Seven Critical Elements
• Academic Content Standards
• Academic Achievement Standards
• Statewide Assessment System
• Technical Quality
• Alignment
• Inclusion
• Reporting
• Overview and rationale
• Questions for state to address
• Examples of acceptable evidence
• Examples of incomplete evidence
Peer Review Results
Approval & Approval with Recommendation (10)
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Approval Expected (4) Approval Pending (36) Non-approved (2)
Notification Letters to States @ www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/
nclbfinalassess/index.html
Dear Secretary Woodruff:I am pleased to approve Delaware's assessment system under Title I of
the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB requirement.
My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Delaware. I have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Delaware's standards and assessment system satisfies the NCLB requirements. Specifically, Delaware's system includes academic content and student achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in those subjects; assessments in each of grades 3 through 10 in reading/language arts and mathematics; assessments in science in three grade spans; and alternate assessments for each subject.
Accordingly, Delaware's system warrants Full Approval with Recommendation. This status means that Delaware's standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements; however, one element of the system could be improved. Delaware's academic achievement standards in science meet the essential requirements of NCLB, but I recommend completion of the activities now underway to create new achievement descriptors.
Consequences “These deficiencies must be addressed in a timely
manner… that is, by the end of the 2006-07 school year.”
“<State> must provide, not later than 25 business days from receipt of this letter, a plan and detailed timeline for how it will meet the remaining requirements… Beginning in September 2006, <State> must also provide bi-monthly reports on its progress… If at any time, <State> does not meet the timeline set forth in its plan, the Department will initiate proceedings to withhold 15 percent of <State’s> fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds…”
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
IDEA & NCLB
Grade-level AchievementStandard
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
IDEA & NCLB
Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS
Grade-level AchievementStandard
AlternateAchievementStandard
Alternate Assessment
Requirements in:
IDEA & NCLB
Regulation (12/9/03) AA-AAS
NPRM AA-MAS (12/15/05)
Grade-level AchievementStandard
AlternateAchievementStandard
Modified AchievementStandard
Alternate Assessments
Aligned with the State’s content standards.
Yield results separately in reading/language arts and math.
Designed and implemented to support use of the results to determine AYP.
Alternate Assessment – Grade Level Standards
NC, MA
Requires evidence of comparability
Content
Achievement standard
Alternate Assessment – Modified Achievement Standard
KS, LA, OR
ED can not review until regs are final
Alternate Assessment – Alternate Achievement StandardsIssues
Alignment with grade level content standards
Technical quality
Report separate scores in reading & mathematics
Not available in all grades/subjects tested
OOLT, not alternate achievement standard
Out-of-Level Assessments
Could only be considered an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards if…
Alternate achievement standards defined through a documented and validated standards-setting process
Proficient results included in the 1% cap
Out-of-Level Assessments
Could only be considered an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards if
Alternate achievement standards defined through a documented and validated standards-setting process
Proficient results included in the 1% cap
Essential Requirements for AA-AAS in Peer Review
Separate results in reading & mathClear guidelines for participation to LEAsDesigned & implemented to support use of
results for AYPEvidence of technical quality Reports consistent with alternate
achievement standards
Additional Requirements
Document that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are, to the extent possible, included in the general curriculum and in assessments aligned with that curriculum
Promote use of appropriate accommodations to increase the number of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are tested against grade-level academic achievement standards
Ensure that regular and special education teachers and other appropriate staff know how to administer assessments, including making appropriate use of accommodations, for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
Monitoring Implementation
States are required to report separately the number and percentage of students taking an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards or on alternate achievement standards.
OESE reviewed the State’s process for developing alternate achievement standards and alternate assessments during peer review and will monitor State completion of remaining work.
OSEP monitors may examine documentation that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are included in the general curriculum and participating in assessments aligned with content standards.
Technical Assistance
Site visitsSharing successful strategies among StatesThe Comprehensive Centers and OSEP
CentersEnhanced Assessment Instruments Grant