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, Michigans 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.

8
(No Transcript)
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
Grade Current Current Current Current Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Future Development Future Development Future Development
P SI FI-ELA FI-M SI-ELA SI-M P-ELA P-M P Science SI Science FI Science P-SS SI-SS FI-SS
3 X X X X U U U U
4 X X X X U U U U
5 X X X X U U U U U U U
6 X X X X U U U U F F F
7 X X X X U U U U
8 X X X X U U U U U U U
9 F F F
11 X X X X U U U U U U U F F F
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 Extended Grade 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
Grade Current Current Current Current Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Under Development Future Development Future Development Future Development
P SI FI-ELA FI-M SI-ELA SI-M P-ELA P-M P Science SI Science FI Science P-SS SI-SS FI-SS
3 X X X X U U U U
4 X X X X U U U U
5 X X X X U U U U U U U
6 X X X X U U U U F F F
7 X X X X U U U U
8 X X X X U U U U U U U
9 F F F
11 X X X X U U U U U U U F F F
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_at_mi.gov
• MI-Access Hotline and E-mail Address
• 1-888-382-4246
• mi-access_at_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.