1% and Reallocation Applications

1
1 and Reallocation Applications What are They?

• Peggy Dutcher
• Michigan Department of Education
• Assessment for Students with Disabilities Program
• Sessions 41 47

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 States 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
150
100
100
100
100
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
150
100
100
100
100
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
  CI CI CI SLD SLD SLD EI EI EI OHI OHI OHI HI HI HI VI VI VI
  FI SI P FI SI P FI SI P FI SI P FI SI P FI SI P
Grade                                    
3                                    
4                                    
5                                    
6 7 3 1 2                            
7   2 1 1                            
8 5 2 1 2                            
11                                    
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
  administrators 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

51
Reallocation of FI Suppressed Scores

• Review Process-Common Problems
• evidence cut and pasted for multiple students
• student name on application not matching name in
  evidence
• reallocation needed for both content areas, but
  evidence submitted for only one
• student designated CI in SRSD

52
Example of Poor Evidence

• Present Level of Academic and Functional
  Performance
• The student scored 35 out of 45 earned points in
  total. The scale score 2522 had the performance
  level of surpassed. The student shows limited
  development with insufficient details and/or
  examples. In mathematics, the student scored 23
  out of 30. The scale score 2518 had the
  performance level of surpassed.
• MI-Access performance the only evidence submitted!

53
Example of Good Evidence

• Present Level of Academic Achievement and
  Functional Performance

• Based upon the re-evaluation given in February
  2005, the students hearing impairment affects
  her involvement and progress in the general
  education curriculum in the area of language
  arts, reading, and math. Based on the Kaufman
  Test of Educational Achievement II, her full
  scale IQ is a 66, and is achieving right where
  she would be expected to achieve in the areas of
  reading and math. This puts her in the cognitive
  impaired range academically although it is
  important to be cautious when assessing her
  cognitive abilities as her hearing impairment
  impacts the way she respond.

54
Example of Good Evidence, cont.

• Reading
• Student is currently at a reading comprehension
  RIT of 184, which is at a high second grade
  level. She was given a DRA level 40 which is a
  4th grade reading level and scored a 100
  accuracy and a level 6 (Very Little
  Comprehension) the lowest you can score is a 6
  and the highest is a 24. The student struggles
  with retelling short stories, identifying the
  main ideas, and making inferences. She can answer
  questions after she has read out a piece orally
  and then can answer a question at that point.

55
Example of Good Evidence, cont.

• Language
• The student struggles in the area of expressive
  language with the use of descriptors when she
  needs to describe something, explain something or
  write descriptive information. She has carried
  over previously learned language skills to other
  academics. She is stimulable to improve her word
  finding and vocabulary. This in turn will allow
  her to express her self and information more
  clearly and with more description. Based on her
  ability to generalize learned skills, if she
  learns to use more descriptor words when
  explaining or expressing a thought, then she
  should carry this over to her written work. She
  may also increase her verbal participation in
  class discussions and social conversations.

56
Example of Good Evidence, cont.

• Her math is currently scoring at a 202 RIT in
  math which is at mid 4th grade level. At this
  time she has difficulty with and without a
  remainder when dividing and using short division
  skills.
• Hearing Impairment
• The student is a thirteen year old girl with an
  educationally significant hearing loss which
  requires bilateral hearing aids. According to an
  assessment completed 10-05-06, She has a moderate
  bilateral sensor neural hearing loss. These
  results have not changed since her previous
  examination.

57
Example of Good Evidence, cont.

• She is utilizing a personal FM system. She
  continues to take responsibility for the daily
  maintenance of the system and calls the HI
  Consultant weekly to report problems. The FM
  continues to provide additional listening support
  and it is recommended that she continue to use
  it.

58
Resources

• Download the applications at www.michigan.gov/mi-a
  ccess
• Guide to Reading School Report Cards
• www.michigan.gov/edyes

59
(No Transcript)
60
Contact Information

• Peggy Dutcher
• dutcherp_at_mi.gov
• Vince Dean
• deanv_at_mi.gov
• Or call
• 517-241-4416