Assessing

1
Assessing Students in the Gap in Colorado

• Report from the HB 05-1246 Study Committee
• December, 2005

2
Members

• Tri-Chairs
• Mary Sires, St Vrain Valley Schools
• Representative Judy Solano
• Senator Suzanne Williams
• Representative Matt Knoedler, Senator Ed Jones
• Terri Rayburn Davis, parent
• Menda Warne, parent and executive director,
  Access and Ability
• Lindy Crawford, University of Colorado, Colorado
  springs
• Mary McGlone, President, Littleton Public School
  Board
• Linda Murray, Assistant superintendent and former
  Director of Special Education
• Janet Filbin, Assessment Research, Jeffco
  Public Schools
• Mary West, High School Special Education Teacher,
  Montrose RE-1J School District
• Alyssa Pearson, Consolidated Federal Programs,
  CDE
• Facilitators
• Terri Rogers Connolly, Jason Glass,
  Exceptional Student Services, CDE

3
Rationale

• Federal and state statute require all students to
  participate in statewide assessment and that
  students including those with disabilities (SWD)
  are provided access to the general education
  curriculum and meet state standards.
• In Colorado, SWD participate in the Colorado
  Student Assessment Program (CSAP) or through the
  CSAP Alternate.
• Some students known as Students in the Gap are
  not served well by Colorados current assessment
  system in that they score poorly and fail to
  demonstrate longitudinal growth, and thus these
  tests may not be the best way to measure their
  knowledge of state content standards.
• The passage of HB 05-1246 created a committee to
  examine and evaluate the impact of the
  assessments on these Students in the Gap.

4
Charge The Department in Conjunction with a
Study Committee will study

• The effects of assessments on students in the
  gap
• The appropriateness of off-level testing
• Accountability for state content standards
• The effect of including or excluding the scores
  of students in the gap in accountability
  calculations
• Assessments for students in the gap in other
  states and
• The legal, regulatory, and constitutional issues
  related to testing students in the gap.

5
Guiding Principals

• Make data-driven decisions
• Keep the focus of the recommendations specific to
  students in the gap
• Maintain high content standards and expectations
  for students in the gap
• Focus on best practices and assessments for
  students in the gap
• Consider the parameters of what is permitted by
  state and federal law and
• Consider state and federal funding implications.

6
Who are the Students in the Gap?

• Initially, the group reviewed the scores of
  students with IEPs who score in the lowest
  one-third of scale scores on the CSAP the
  definition of Students in the Gap was further
  refined to include students in this group who do
  not make growth over time.
• Students who make a perfect score (5s on every
  indicator) on the CSAPA
• There were 1637 students with IEPs who scored in
  the lowest 1/3 of Unsatisfactory in Reading and
  4332 in Math there were 117 students who made
  perfect scores on CSAPA in Reading/Writing and 16
  in Math.
• However.

7
Only a Small Number of Students with IEPs Do Not
Make Longitudinal Growth on the CSAP

• On the CSAP Reading Test, there were 250 students
  (of 444,407) across grade levels that were
  determined to be Students in the Gap.
• On the CSAP Math Test, there were 658 students
  (of 444,910) that were determined to be Students
  in the Gap.
• In total, this group represents fewer than 1000
  students and the group felt that CSAP as
  currently administered may not reflect their
  academic achievements however, if appropriate
  accommodations and more intensive instruction
  were provided, these students too may make more
  gains.

8
Not All Students Who Score in the Bottom 1/3 of
Scale Scores are Students with IEPs
9
Other Findings

• Students who score in the bottom one third of
  scale scores on CSAP are almost twice as likely
  to be Black or Hispanic as students scoring
  higher of other ethnicities.
• Only 60 of students with IEPs scoring at lowest
  possible scale scores were able to be matched
  with a test the following year (Reading,
  2004-2005) thus, they may be more mobile than
  their counterparts who score at higher levels.
• For those students scoring in the bottom
  one-third of scale scores, and where a match the
  following year was able to be made, it was found
  that these students did make substantial
  longitudinal growth.

10
Considerations Not Recommended

• Administer off-grade level testing-while there
  are some benefits, they are outweighed by the
  concerns and additionally would not be permitted
  under recent guidance established in NCLB.
• Create an additional assessment-for such a small
  number of students, committee felt it would be an
  excessive and inefficient use of resources.
• Adopt a modified assessment from a different
  state-the ability to find another states
  assessment which aligns with Colorado Standards
  is unlikely at this time.
• Remove students with disabilities from
  accountability calculations-the committee felt
  this would not be in the best interest of these
  students and additionally would violate state and
  federal laws.

11
RECOMMENDATIONS Endorsed by the Entire Committee

• Expand the eligibility for and the difficulty of
  the current CSAPA. Given that Colorado currently
  has .85 of students taking the CSAPA, there may
  be more students who could participate if items
  are added to increase its difficulty (in
  progress) as long as they meet the criteria of
  having a significant cognitive disability.
• Increase the use of standardized accommodations.
  The lack of accommodations provided in
  administration, particularly at higher grade
  levels, impacts the achievement of many students.
• Provide an allowable non-standard
  accommodation/modification process for the CSAP
  for Students in the Gap. If a student uses a
  non-standard accommodation when taking the test,
  the scores are currently invalidated if scores
  were used in SAR and AYP calculations for the 2
  of students currently allowed under federal
  guidance, these calculations could improve.
• Promote intensive, targeted, research-based
  instruction for all students, using approaches
  proven highly effective for literacy and math
  improvement.

12
RECOMMENDATIONS Endorsed by the Entire Committee
(continued)

• Investigate accountability measurements that
  could account for longitudinal growth. Current
  performance categories do not recognize
  longitudinal growth, particularly for those
  students in Unsatisfactory. Growth and reporting
  systems needs further study to find ways to
  appropriately recognize growth.
• Investigate the effect of presenting the CSAP in
  its entirety to students in smaller sections over
  a longer period of days. This may allow these
  students to better demonstrate their abilities.
• The state should investigate abbreviating the
  CSAP, while preserving validity and reliability.
  If the test could be reduced in total number of
  items, thus also reducing the length of time
  required to take the test, students may
  demonstrate improved achievement.