No Child Left Behind

1
2005 WASA Fall Workshop
Federal Changes / Updates

• No Child Left Behind
• IDEiA

Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel Deputy State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
2
AWSP 2005 Principal Conference
Federal Changes / Updates

• No Child Left Behind
• IDEiA / 2195 SpEd

Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel Deputy State
Superintendent of Public Instruction
3
Background
Review

• NCLB of 2001 implementation is complex- still
  evolving in 2005!
• Congress will now consider changes in the
  Reauthorization of NCLB 2007
• US Department of Education (DOE) continuing
  consideration of flexibility within the
  regulations
• Changes to state accountability systems through
  DOE that have been approved will be used for 2005
  reporting

4
NCLB AYP Elements
Review

• ALL students proficient by 2014
• Separate, measurable goals in reading and
  mathematics -- State Uniform Bars
• Separate, measurable objectives/disaggregated
  data and goals for
• All Children
• Racial/Ethnic Groups
• Students with Disabilities (Special Education)
• Students with Limited English Proficiency (ELL)
• Students from Low-Income Families

5
Other NCLB AYP Elements
Review

• Must include at least one other indicator
• Graduation rates, for high schools 66
• Attendance (unexcused absences) for
  elementary/middle schools K-8 1
• 95 of students in each group must be tested
• Groups make AYP if there is a 10 percent
  reduction in those not reaching proficiency --
  Safe Harbor
• Determination of personally identifiable and
  statistically reliable number(s)
• Personally identifiable 10
• Statistical reliable 30

6
Full Academic Year Requirement
Review

• Full academic year October 1st
• all students whose enrollment is continuous and
  uninterrupted on or before October 1st in the
  school year through the date the assessment is
  administered
• Determines which students are to be included in
  decisions about Adequate Yearly Progress
• Applies To
• Enrolled Full Academic Year in School
• Enrolled Full Academic Year in District
• Enrolled Full Academic Year in State

7
AYP Matrix (37 categories)
8
AYP TIMELINE FOR SCHOOLS (Consequences apply only
to schools receiving Title I funds) District
Responsibility
Implement
Plan

For
AYP
AYP
Alternative

Governance
WASL Results
WASL Results

1
2
AYP
AYP
AYP
AYP
AYP


1
2
3
4
5
Step
Step
Step
Step
Step
Identified for School Improvement
9
AYP TIMELINE FOR DISTRICTS (Consequences apply
only to districts receiving Title I funds) State
Responsibility
District
District
AYP
AYP
Improvement Plan
Improvement Plan

State Offers
State

Technical Assistance
MUST
Take


WASL Results
WASL Results
and MAY takeCorrective Action
Corrective Action


AYP
AYP
1
2
1
2

Step
Step



Identified for District Improvement
10
AYP TIMELINE FOR STATES (Consequences apply only
to states receiving Title I funds)
State
Improvement Plan
AYP
AYP
U.S. Department of Education
Offers Technical Assistance
WASL Results
WASL Results
AYP
1
2



1
Step
Identified for State Improvement
11
ORIGINAL GRADE 4 YEARLY TARGETS
AYP can be made if the percent meeting standard
is below the yearly target either via safe harbor
or when the standard error is included in the
total.
(Increments are rounded)
12
(No Transcript)
13
ORIGINAL GRADE 7 YEARLY TARGETS
14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
Reading
Mathematics
17
(No Transcript)
18
ONE District AYP Matrix
19
Elementary Schools
State 2004 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
October 13
State made adequate yearly progress at the
elementary level in 36 of 37 categories (97)
Made AYP by making significant improvement (safe
harbor)
20
Middle Schools
State 2004 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
State made adequate yearly progress at the middle
school level in 33 of 37 categories (89.2).
Made significant improvement but did not meet the
unexcused absence goal. Average of 2003 and
2004 rate.
21
High Schools
State 2004 Results Adequate Yearly Progress
State made adequate yearly progress at the high
school level in 27 of 37 categories (73.0).
Made significant improvement but did not meet the
graduation rate goal. Average of 2003 and 2004
rate.
22
2005 Approved Accountability Changes for
Washington State

• Graduation Rate Modify graduation rate using 66
  goal
• with gradual increase over time to 85 in 2013-14
• 2-point increase from previous year now required
  if below the state graduation goal
• REPORT on required 4-year on time graduation
  rate but include ALL students successfully
  obtaining a HS diploma in determination of AYP
  graduation rates
• Allow more than 4 years for ELL and migrant
  students to graduate (on case-by-case basis
  need appeal)

23
Graduation Rates and AYP
24
State ONLY SubgroupGraduation Rate Goals
25
2005 Approved Accountability Changes for
Washington State

• Unusual High Schools Use annual dropout rate
  instead of graduation rate as the other indicator
  if school does not have capability to graduate
  students(lt 7 or a reduction from previous year)
• Early Testing Results for a 9th grader taking
  10th grade WASL early will not count if not
  meeting standard (not considered the first test
  for AYP), but it will count if they meet standard
  (score applied when reaching grade 10)
• Rounding Normal rounding rules apply to safe
  harbor, graduation rate, participation rate

26
2005 Approved Accountability Changes for
Washington State

• Sanction Change Districts will no longer be
  required to set aside 20 of their Title I
  funding to fund school choice and supplemental
  educational services. Instead, the district is
  able to reserve Title I, Part A funds as are
  reasonable and necessary to meet the need for
  choice and supplemental services.
• AYP For Grades 3, 5, 6, 8 2005-06 Baseline Year
  -State Uniform Bars established 2006-07 AYP
  Accountability
• Language Arts AYP New OPTION to use IF AYP is
  not reached in reading
• Results from writing averaged with reading
  Language Arts goal beginning 2005

27
READING/WRITING STATE UNIFORM BAR GOALSBASELINE
BASED ON 3-YEAR AVERAGE 20TH PERCENTILE
(2000-2002)
28
2005 Approved Accountability Changes for
Washington State

• Identification of District Step of Improvement
  Not move to next step unless all tested grades
  do not make AYP in the same column of matrix
• Safe Harbor If less than 10 in one year,
  reduction on average of 10 per year over 2-3
  years (19 in 2 years, 27 in 3 years) use
  appeal
• Clarification Safe Harbor CAN be accessed as
  long as the subgroups that did not make AYP make
  a 10 reduction in the percentage of students not
  meeting standard and meet the other indicator

29
School Improvement Status in 2005
100
86
90
81
33 schools Made AYP but continue in Step 1
80
4 schools Made AYP and continue in Step 2
12 schools Missed AYP but continue in Step 2
70
65 schools Missed AYP and entered Step 2
60
Number of schools
3 schools Made AYP but continue in Step 3
15 schools Missed AYP and continue in Step 1
50
3 schools Missed AYP and continue in Step 3
40
38 schools Missed AYP and entered Step 1
30
4 schools Missed AYP and entered Step 3
20
10
8
10
6 schools
All missed AYP and entered Step 4
0
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Exiting School Improvement
30
School Improvement Status 2004 vs. 2005
120
120
110
100
86
90
81
80
2004 (156 schools)
70
2005 (185 schools)
60
Number of schools
50
AYP Year 1
40
30
21
15
20
10
AYP Year 2
8
10
0
Step 1
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
31
District Improvement Status in 2005
50
40
AYP Year 1
30
27
4 districts Made AYP but continue in Step 1
Number of districts
23 districts Missed AYP and continue in Step 1
20
2 districts Missed AYP and entered Step 2
AYP Year 2
10
2
0
Step 2
Step 1
32
District Improvement Status 2004 vs. 2005
50
40
AYP Year 1
29
2004
30
27
2005
Number of districts
20
AYP Year 2
10
2
0
Step 2
Step 1
33
High Priority Changes Commitment To Continue
on Behalf of Washington State

• Continuous Growth Model 3-year goals for every
  school, district, and the state (Unique Uniform
  Bars)
• Appropriate Program Measure English Language
  Learners Accountability for Language
  Proficiency for AYP 3-years
• Identification of Improvement Two years same
  category / same subgroup

34
High Priority Changes

• Funding
• Professional Development needs
• Assessment system requirements, data collection
  and reporting requirements, and professional
  development / school and district improvement
  needs
• 13 State Consortium
• Ongoing Data Analysis and Reporting
• Legislative Support

35
Title I and Title III Accountability Models

• BOTH Title I and Title III require accountability
  requirements be fulfilled for BOTH of these
  Department of Education grants. However, each
  grant has its own separate accountability system.
• Title I AYP academic calculations and possible
  school improvement designation with consequences
  are completely separate from Title III Annual
  Measurement Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
  English proficiency calculations and its possible
  requirement to inform ELL parents and make ELL
  program adjustments.

36
Title I and Title III Accountability Models
Title III Requirements
Title I Requirements
English Language Proficiency Standards (WLPT and
OLPT)
Academic Content Standards (WASL)
Increase English Language Proficiency Academic
Achievement
Annual Measurable Achievement Objectives (AMAOs)
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)
37
School, District and the State Report Cards

• In addition to the current state reporting,
  schools, districts and the state must provide
  annual performance reports that include
• Student achievement at each proficiency level
• Assessment data by all demographic subgroups
  (statistically significant, not personally
  identifiable WA 10)
• Comparison of student achievement to district and
  state results
• Numbers and names of schools and districts that
  are identified for improvement
• Professional qualifications of the district
  teaching staff.
• Other Indicators - Elementary (Unexcused Absence
  Rates)
• Graduation rates Secondary (standard
  number of years)
• OSPI has provided school, district, and the state
  report card on-line as an option for schools and
  districts to use to meet this requirement.
• www.k12.wa.us

38
(No Transcript)
39
(No Transcript)
40
Seattle
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Rewards and Recognition

• Congratulatory letters and plaques for reaching
  state goals and monthly visits to schools by the
  Governor and our State Superintendent.
• NEW Criteria for rewards and recognition
  consistent with Washingtons Continuous Growth
  Model improved student achievement
• Statewide Plaque Project State and Federal
• NEW 750,000 in monetary awards presented to 55
  schools and 12 districts for making noteworthy
  academic improvements and helping narrow the
  achievement gap among their student ethnic groups

44
District
Improvement
Support
System
Instructional Leadership
Building an Aligned Educational System
45
School Improvement
Is An Ongoing Process
Nine Characteristics Of High Performing Schools

Based on Research
46
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act (IDEiA) P.L. 108-446
47
Individuals with Disabilities Education
Improvement Act of 2004

• H.R. 1350 (445 pages) can be accessed
  http//thomas.loc.gov
• Passed by Congress on November 19, 2004
• Bill signed into law by President Bush on
  December 3, 2004
• Effective July 1, 2005

Highlights . . .
48

• Early Intervention and
• Pre-referral Funding
• H.R. 1350 allows up to 15 of local district
  flow-thru grant to be used for scientifically
  based early and pre intervention efforts for
  students not yet eligible for special education
  services.
• Districts may also use the early intervention and
  pre intervention funding to contribute to risk
  management pools or cost sharing consortia.

49

• Eligibility Determination
• Eligibility determination in special education
  cannot be based on a lack of appropriate
  instruction in reading (including the essential
  components of reading instruction as defined in
  NCLB), a lack of instruction in mathematics, or
  limited English proficiency
• Local districts are not required to use a severe
  discrepancy between IQ and achievement as a basis
  for determining a specific learning disability

50

• Focus on Compliance AND Outcomes
• Annual performance goals for states
• Baseline indicators, AYP, disproportionate
  enrollments
• IEP revisions
• National procedural safeguards
• National IEP forms
• IEP team attendance options
• 3-year IEP pilot
• 15 state paperwork reduction pilot

51

• Annual Performance Goals for States in Special
  Education
• H.R.1350 establishes annual performance
  indicators similar to the Adequate Yearly
  Progress (AYP) reporting in NCLB
• Baseline indicators such as academic performance
  on statewide tests, drop out rate and high school
  graduation rate are mandatory and consistent with
  annual NCLB reporting
• Goals for addressing disproportionate enrollments
  in special education by racial and ethnic
  minorities are required

52

• IEP Revisions
• Nothing may be required in an IEP beyond what is
  specifically outlined in the bill, and the IEP
  team is not required to include duplicative
  information the IEP
• The Department of Education is required to
  develop national procedural safeguards, a prior
  written notice form and an IEP/IFSP form
• IEP team attendance is also modified to allow IEP
  team member excusals with parent consent
• The Department is required to develop proposals
  for up to 15 states to pilot up to 3-year IEPs
  designed to coincide with natural transition
  points for the student (transition from preschool
  to elementary elementary to middle middle to
  high school and high school to post school
  outcomes.

53

• Funding
• High need reimbursement and risk pool management
  programs safety net / cost sharing models
• H.R 1350 does not provide mandatory full funding
  of IDEA, but does establish a discretionary six
  year glide path to 40 of excess costs funding
  by 2011

54

• Maintenance of Effort
• H.R. 1350 maintains the MOE exception language
  from the prior law
• Adjusts the MOE provisions in IDEA by allowing
  50 (currently 20) of the increase in federal
  funds from previous year to be treated as local
  funds

55

• Discipline Provisions
• H. R. 1350 affirms that a students right to a
  free appropriate public education (FAPE) cannot
  be terminated as a result of behavior that is a
  manifestation of their disability
• School personnel may remove a student to an
  interim alternative educational setting for not
  more than 45 days without regard to the manifest
  determination if the student (a) carries or
  possesses a weapon, (b) knowingly possesses or
  uses illegal drugs, or (c) has inflicted serious
  bodily injury to another person

56
ESEA/NCLB/IDEA HIGHLY QUALIFIED

• Definition
• Applies only to teachers of core academic
  subjects.
• Differentiates between new and veteran teachers.
• Differentiates between teachers teaching
  elementary level and middle/high school level.
• Applies only to those special education teachers
  who teach core subjects.

57
IDEA REQUIREMENTS FOR ALLSPECIAL EDUCATION
TEACHERS

• All special education teachers must
• Hold at least a bachelors degree.
• Obtain full state special education
  certification/licensure (endorsement).
• Cannot hold an emergency, temporary or
  provisional certificate and be deemed highly
  qualified.

58
HIGHLY QUALIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER
UNDER IDEA

• New or veteran teachers teaching core academic
  subjects exclusively to students who are assessed
  against alternate achievement standards (most
  severely cognitively disabled)
• Elementary General requirements and demonstrate
  subject competence through
• Meeting applicable ESEA/NCLB standards, or
• Complete HOUSSE process.

59
HIGHLY QUALIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER
UNDER IDEA

• Middle/High School General requirements and
  demonstrate subject competence through
• Meeting applicable ESEA/NCLB standards, or
• Completing HOUSSE process, or
• Demonstrating subject matter knowledge
  appropriate to the level of instruction provided
  as determined by the state, needed to effectively
  teach to those standards.

60
MEANS TO DEMONSTRATE COMPETENCY

• National Board Certification in Core Academic
  Subject, or
• Praxis II, or
• Major, Endorsement or Degree in subject(s)
  taught, or
• Equivalent of a major (45 quarter hours, 30
  semester hours) OR
• Highly Objective Uniform State Standard of
  Evaluation (HOUSSE)

61
WASHINGTON STATE HOUSSE

• Teachers who hold certificates
• Prior to 1987--Satisfactory annual evaluation in
  each core academic subject assigned to teach.
• After 1987 (endorsed certificate holders)--Plan
  of Assistance as described in WAC 180-82-110.

62
THE HOUSSE PLAN OF ASSISTANCE

• A district representative and the teacher
  will mutually develop a written plan which
  provides for necessary assistance to the teacher,
  and which provides for a reasonable amount of
  planning and study time associated specifically
  with the out-of-endorsement assignment.
• (WAC 180-82-110)

63
HIGHLY QUALIFIED SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHER
UNDER IDEA

• Consultative teacher whose sole responsibility is
  to provide consultative services
• Will meet general requirement.
• Are considered highly qualified with a special
  education endorsement/degree as long as
  assignment does not change.
• Are not required to demonstrate content expertise.

64

• Special Education Research
• Title II creates a national center on special
  education research. Topics range from identifying
  scientifically based educational practices to
  examining the excess costs of educating a child
  with a disability
• A national assessment of special education to
  determine the effectiveness of the reauthorized
  IDEA is required to be carried out by the
  Director of the Institute of Education Sciences
  by 2009, which is prior to the next scheduled
  reauthorization

65

• Statewide Testing
• H.R. 1350 continues to include special education
  students in statewide testing efforts
• Incorporates current language in NCLB which
  refers to alternate assessment state standards,
  2 significant cognitive disability and
  continues 1 limitation on alternate assessments
  for AYP purposes

66
Special Education 2 Persistent Academic
Disabilities

• Guidance for IEP Teams Identify special
  education students with persistent academic
  disabilities
• Developmentally Appropriate WASLs Identify the
  EALRs and GLEs that best match the students
  present levels of performance and match
  assessments against established state standards
• 2 in Addition to the 1 AYP state and district
  caps ONLY
• 1 severe/profound (portfolio) remains 2
  additional new category

67
Special Education 2 Persistent Academic
Disabilities

• Performance Expectations IEP teams determine the
  appropriate level on proficiency expected for the
  special education student to achieve
• Advanced WASL Level 4 and WAAS Level 4
• Proficient WASL Level 3 and WAAS Level 3
• Basic WASL Level 2 and WAAS Level 2
• Below Basic WASL Level 1 and WAAS Level 1

68
Certificate of Academic Achievement
(CAA)Certificate of Individual Achievement
(CIA)

• Attainment of a CAA or CIA is a prerequisite for
  obtaining a high school diploma.
• CAA A student is awarded a CAA when he or she
  meets content standards in reading, writing
  math on the high school assessment (10th grade
  WASL).
• Retakes are permitted
• OSPI is developing recommendations for
  alternative measures to demonstrate knowledge of
  high school standards for reading, writing and
  math.
• CIA A student eligible for special education may
  obtain a CIA if he or she is not appropriately
  assessed by the high school Washington Assessment
  system.
• Students may obtain a CIA through the use of
  multiple ways to demonstrate skills abilities
  commensurate with their IEP.

69
Special Education Students
One of the goals of the Special Education
guideline development
IEP Team Decision
G r a d e L e v e l E x p e c t a t i o n s
K 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
70
One of the goals of the Special Education
guideline development
10th Grade
IEP Team Decision
G r a d e L e v e l E x p e c t a t i o n s
K 1 2 3 4
5 6 7 8
9 10
WAAS Portfolio
WAAS Developmentally Appropriate
WASL with/without accommodations
WASL with/without accommodations
CAA
10th grade only
71
Eligible Special Education StudentsParticipation
in State Wide Assessments
IEP Team Determination for each content area

• Instructional Program
• Progress Monitoring
• Statewide Assessment
• Normative Assessment
• Anticipated Post School
• Outcome

NO
Significant Cognitive Disability or Persistent
Academic Disabilities
YES
WASL With or without accommodations
OR
WAAS (Alternate Assessment System) DAW
WAAS (Alternate Assessment System) Portfolio
WAAS Washington Alternate Assessment System DAW
Developmentally Appropriate WASL IEP
Individualized Education Program
72
HB2195 CAA/CIA High School Graduation
Requirements Students Receiving Special
Education Draft June 2005
IEP Team Determination
If participation in either the WASL or WAAS is
not appropriate, a re-determination by the IEP
team should be done.
WASL With or without accommodations
Portfolio
YES
YES
NO
NO
DAW
Multiple Ways (2195 Only)
CAA
CIA
Retakes
YES
NO
Alternative Objective Measures
Retakes
YES
NO
YES
NO
Appeals
Appeals
YES
YES
NO
NO
No CIA
No CAA
CAA Certificate of Academic Achievement CIA
Certificate of Individual Achievement DAW
Developmentally Appropriate WASL IEP
Individualized Education Program WASL
Washington Assessment of Student Learning WAAS
Washington Alternate Assessment System HB2195
House Bill Number 2195 State law addressing high
school graduation requirements
73
2195 Task-Force

• Purpose
• Establish a developmentally appropriate alternate
  to the WASL for eligible special education
  students, including options for obtaining a CAA
  or CIA
• Develop guidelines for IEP teams on the use of
  the alternate assessments
• Integrate guidelines for developmentally
  appropriate alternate assessments into currently
  existing guidelines for statewide assessment
  options.
• Timelines
• Complete work during the 2004-2005 school year
• Options available for 2005-2006 school year
• Membership
• OSPI, WEA, school districts, SEAC, and members
  from the advocacy community

74
New Options for IEP teams

• Guidance for IEP Teams Identify special
  education students with persistent academic
  disabilities or significant cognitive
  disabilities
• Developmentally Appropriate WASLs Identify the
  EALRs and GLEs that best match the students
  present levels of performance and match
  assessments against established state standards
• Performance Expectations-IEP can determine Level
  2(Basic) on the Grade level WASL is the
  appropriate level of proficiency for a special
  education student. This option is available only
  on the grade appropriate WASL and not at
  different (below grade level) WASL.

75
Making Sound Decisions about Statewide Assessment
Options

• Performance Expectations for all Special
  Education students are high.
• The students Individualized Instructional
  program is based on comprehensive evaluation
  data.
• Classroom performance data and instructional
  progress data are increasingly important to allow
  IEP teams to make good decisions about statewide
  assessment option.

76
Case Study 1WASL with or without Accommodations
Option Guidelines for DeterminationThis
determination is made in each IEP content area

• Instructional Program The student is in an
  individualized program guided by the Essential
  Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and Grade
  Level Expectations (GLEs) in the content area
  with or without accommodations, and is working on
  benchmarks at or near grade level.
• Progress monitoring and/or Curriculum Based
  Measurements (CBM) are below grade level
  expectations in the IEP program area but are
  expected to intersect GLEs within a reasonable
  amount of time. The student is able to take a
  paper-and-pencil test under routine conditions.
• Statewide Assessment The student has been
  basic, or proficient (level 2 or 3) on prior WASL
  administrations.
• District wide assessment The student in the IEP
  content area with or without accommodations, is
  performing at or near grade level.
• Normative Assessment
• 1) Achievement skills on multiple measures
  indicate student performance has been on or below
  the students grade level.
• 2) The student has been below the mean on one or
  more measures of general functioning. These
  measures would include the following measures
  of cognitive ability, adaptive skills,
  social-emotional skills, and/or language
  development.
• Post-secondary outcomes are anticipated to
  include some combination of a four year college,
  community college or vocational training with
  competitive employment and independent living.

77
Case Study 3Portfolio Option Guidelines for
DeterminationThis determination is made in each
IEP content area

• Instructional Program
• 1) The student is performing in IEP content
  areas that are substantially below any Grade
  Level Expectations (GLEs) and may be focused on
  Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALR)
  extensions due to the nature and severity of the
  students disability or disabilities such that
• These disabilities severely limit the students
  understanding of the EALRs and or GLEs even
  with program modifications and adaptations and
• The student requires intensive, individualized
  instruction with multiple opportunities in order
  to acquire knowledge and to accomplish the
  transfer and generalization of skills in this
  content area to school, work, home and community.
• Progress monitoring and/or Curriculum Based
  Measurements (CBM) are consistently and
  substantially below grade or are collected on
  developmentally based measures. The student is
  generally unable to demonstrate knowledge on a
  paper-and-pencil test, even with accommodations.
• Statewide Assessment
• Student is not able to participate in the WASL
  or Developmentally Appropriate WASL (DAW) even
  with accommodations.
• Districtwide Assessment
• The student in the IEP content area is
  performing consistently and substantially below
  grade level.
• Normative Assessment
• 1)Achievement skills on multiple measures
  indicate student performance has been
  consistently and substantially below the
  students grade level.
• 2) The student has significant cognitive
  disabilities as evidenced by their performance on
  various measures. The student performs at least 2
  standard deviations below the mean on multiple
  measures of general functioning. These measures
  would include the following measures of
  cognitive ability, adaptive skills,
  social-emotional development skills and/or
  language development.
• Post-secondary outcomes are more likely to
  include some combination of vocational training
  with supportive employment-supported living.

78
Selection Criteria for DeterminingAppropriate
Instructional/Developmental Assessments and
Proficiency Level(Developmentally Appropriate
WASL)

• In determining which grade level WASL is the most
  appropriate assessment option for the student,
  IEP teams should review the students current
  instructional/developmental level by using the
  following areas
• Instructional Program
• Progress Monitoring/Curriculum Based Measurements
• Statewide Assessments
• Districtwide Assessments
• Normative Assessments
• Post-School Outcomes
• Summary Instructional/Developmental Alignment
• Once IEP teams have used the above areas to
  identify the students instructional/developmental
  level in each content area on the IEP, the team
  can determine an appropriate DAW match. Any
  developmentally appropriate WASL should align
  with the students IEP, current instructional
  program and other available data.

79
Selection Criteria for DeterminingAppropriate
Instructional/Developmental Assessments and
Proficiency Level(Developmentally Appropriate
WASL)Continued

• In addition , IEP teams will need to to determine
  if assigning the basic level (Level 2) on the
  grade appropriate WASL might be the most
  appropriate assessment option. This option will
  allow IEP teams to use the grade level WASL but
  to set Level 2 as the proficient level instead of
  the state mandated Level 3. Beginning in the
  2005-2006 school year, IEP teams will have the
  following DAW options Grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8,
  10 in reading and math grades 4, 7, 10 in
  writing and grades 5, 8, 10 in science.

80
Scenario 1

• 10th grade special education student
• IEP Content areareading
• Instructional Program-IEP goals-oral reading
  fluency and reading comprehension, using GLEs-
• Progress Monitoring- ORF 130-has made progress in
  ORF-Expected to make progress towards ORF of 155
• Statewide Assessment-7th grade WASLLevel 2,
  scale score of 390
• District Assessment-ORF 130 is within grade level
  expectations for 10th
• Normative Assessment-IQ score95, Read.score90,
  GE9.5
• Post School OutcomesPlan is for competitive
  employment and community college
• Significant Cognitive Disability or Persistent
  Academic Disabilities?
• If so Washington Alternative Assessment System

81
Discussion Scenario 1

• This student does not appear to be a student with
  either a Persistent Academic Disability or
  Significant Cognitive Disability
• The student is working near grade level
• The students oral reading fluency (ORF) is
  expected to intersect the GLEs
• Prior statewide assessment results are just below
  proficiency
• The post school outcome plan calls for
  competitive employment
• The grade level WASL with or without
  accommodations would appear to be the most
  appropriate assessment option

82
Scenario 2

• 10th grade special education student
• IEP Content areareading, math, writing
• Instructional Program-IEP goals-oral reading
  fluency and reading comprehension, math facts,
  and basic writing fluency. IEP goals reflect GLEs
  below grade level
• Progress Monitoring- ORF 100-has made some
  progress in ORF-Not expected to intersect grade
  level target of 155.
• Statewide Assessment-7th grade WASLLevel 2,
  scale score of 375
• District Assessment-ORF 100 is below expectations
  for 10th
• Normative Assessment-IQ score85, Read.score80,
  Math score75 writing80 GE8.5
• Post School OutcomesPlan is for competitive
  employment
• Significant Cognitive Disability or Persistent
  Academic Disabilities?
• If so Washington Alternative Assessment System

83
Discussion Scenario 2

• This student does appear to be a student with
  Persistent Academic Disability but potentially
  could be at the Level 2, (basic level) on the
  grade appropriate WASL
• The student is working below grade level. However
  not significantly below. This student is working
  on some GLEs that are near the appropriate grade
  level.
• The students oral reading fluency (ORF) is not
  expected to intersect the GLEs
• Normative assessment results are at least 1.0 or
  more standard deviations below the mean
• Prior statewide assessment results below
  proficiency
• The post school outcome plan calls for some
  combination of community college or vocational
  education with competitive employment and
  independent living.
• The grade appropriate WASL at Level 2 (Basic)
  appears to be the most appropriate assessment
  option.

84
Scenario 3

• 10th grade special education student
• IEP Content areareading, math, writing
• Instructional Program-IEP goals-oral reading
  fluency and reading comprehension, math facts,
  and basic writing fluency. IEP goals reflect GLEs
  substantially below grade level
• Progress Monitoring- ORF 80-has made some
  progress in ORF-Not expected to intersect grade
  level target of 155.
• Statewide Assessment-7th grade WASLLevel 2,
  scale score of 357
• District Assessment-ORF 80 is substantially below
  expectations for 10th
• Normative Assessment-IQ score85, Read.score80,
  Math score75 writing80 GE5.0
• Post School OutcomesPlan is for vocational
  training
• Significant Cognitive Disability or Persistent
  Academic Disabilities?
• If so Washington Alternative Assessment System

85
Discussion Scenario 3

• This student does appear to be a student with
  Persistent Academic Disability
• The student is working substantially below grade
  level.
• The students oral reading fluency (ORF) is not
  expected to intersect the GLEs
• Normative assessment results are at least 1.0 or
  more standard deviations below the mean
• Prior statewide assessment results significantly
  below proficiency
• The post school outcome plan calls for some
  combination of community college or vocational
  education with competitive employment and
  independent living.
• The developmentally appropriate WASL at a
  different(below) grade level would appear to be
  the most appropriate assessment option

86
Scenario 4

• 10th grade special education student
• IEP Content areafunctional skills, daily living,
  basic communication
• Instructional Program-IEP goals-See above-working
  on EALR extensions, limited involvement with
  general education curriculum
• Progress Monitoring- Data being collected on
  basic communication
• Statewide Assessment-7th grade WAAS-Portfolio
• District Assessment-Not formally assessed on
  district assessments
• Normative Assessment-IQ score60, Read.score45,
  Math score40 writing60 Adaptive Behavior50
  AE4-5
• Post School OutcomesPlan is for supported
  employment and supported living
• Significant Cognitive Disability or Persistent
  Academic Disabilities?
• If so Washington Alternative Assessment System

87
Discussion Scenario 4

• This student does appear to be a student with
  aSignificant Cognitive Disability
• The student is working substantially below grade
  level and the IEP is focused on functional skills
  and EALR extensions.
• Normative assessment results are at least 2.0
  standard deviations below the mean
• Prior statewide assessment results indicated
  results on the WAAS Portfolio
• The post school outcome plan calls for supported
  employment and supported living
• The Portfolio assessment would appear to be the
  most appropriate assessment option.

88
2195 Pilot Study Methods

• Record test scores for Grade 10 Special Education
  students (30 at each site)
• Interview teachers re best large scale testing
  option for students
• Compare test scores across testing options

89
Study Sample

• Four sites (N120)
• Auburn (N30)
• Lake Washington (N30)
• West Valley (N30)
• White River (N30)
• Students by test type
• WASL without accommodations (N7)
• WASL with accommodations (N23)
• Developmental WASL (N78)
• WAAS Portfolio (N12)

90
Performance Variables

• Test Scores
• Adaptive
• IQ
• Social/Emotional
• Language
• Reading Achievement
• Math Achievement
• Written Expression

91
Test Type

• Teachers judged most appropriate testing option
• WASL without accommodations
• WASL with accommodations
• Developmental WASL
• WAAS portfolio

92
Students in Sample and State (age 16) by
Disability Category
(Percent)
State (age 16)
(Percent)
Sample
Disability Category
(2)
156
(3)
3
Autism
(6)
482
(6)
7
EBD
(23)
1,740
(28)
33
HI
(3)
238
(2)
2
MH
(7)
500
(9)
11
MR
(56)
4,261
(53)
64
SLD
(4)
278
(0)
0
Other
(100)
7,655
(100)
120
Total
93
(No Transcript)
94
Number and Percent of Students in Sample
by Testing Option
Number of Students
Percent of Total Sample
Testing Option
6
7
WASL without accommodations
19
23
WASL with accommodations
65
78
Developmentally Appropriate WASL
10
12
WAAS Portfolio
95
(No Transcript)
96
(No Transcript)
97
(No Transcript)
98
(No Transcript)
99
(No Transcript)
100
Case Study 2Developmentally Appropriate WASL
(DAW) OptionGuidelines for DeterminationThis
determination is made in each IEP content area

• Instructional Program
• 1) The student is engaged in an individualized
  instructional program guided by the Essential
  Academic Learning Requirements (EALRS) and Grade
  Level Expectations (GLEs) and in despite of
  specially designed instruction in the content
  area, with or without accommodations, performance
  continues to be substantially below grade level.
• Progress monitoring
• Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM) are
  substantially below level in the IEP content area
  and are not expected to intersect GLEs within a
  reasonable time.
• Statewide Assessment
• The student has not met standard (level 3) on
  statewide assessments. WASL scores are often in
  the high level 1 or low level 2 area, (scale
  range of 357-382) Students who perform in the
  level 2 range but have scaled scores above 382
  may be more appropriately assessed by the WASL.
• District wide Assessment
• The student in the IEP content area is performing
  with or without accommodations substantially
  below grade level assessments.
• Normative Assessment
• 1)The student has persistent academic
  disabilities. Achievement skills on multiple
  measures indicate student performance has been
  substantially below the students grade level.
• 2) The student has been at least 1.0 or more
  standard deviations below the mean on two or more
  measures of general functioning. Students with
  skills that are 2.0 or more standard deviations
  below the mean may be more appropriately assessed
  using the Portfolio option. These measures would
  include the following measures of cognitive
  ability, adaptive skills, social-emotional skills
  and language development.
• Post-secondary outcomes
• are anticipated to more likely include some
  combination of community college or vocational
  education with competitive employment and
  independent living.

101
We Can Make A Difference
TOGETHER