The Why Report - Recommendation #2
NSBA RECOMMENDATION #2
Students with Disabilities – IEP teams should determine whether alternate assessments are appropriate for individual students (with the parent’s consent). Test scores from alternate assessments such as progress-based measures and out-of-level testing should be counted as proficient toward AYP so long as the number of students counted this way does not exceed 3 percent of all test takers.
STATEMENT OF THE ISSUE
Under the current regulations IEP teams must fit students into highly restrictive categories in order to count their results on alternate assessments for AYP. This narrow concept is driven by the two testing caps allowed by the U.S. Department of Education. Specifically districts and states can count 1 percent of all test takers who score proficient on alternate assessments for AYP if they meet the definition of students with “the most significant cognitive disabilities.” Similarly, another 2 percent can be counted for AYP on “modified assessments” if they meet the definition of having “persistent academic disabilities.”
These two definitions restrict the ability of IEP teams to determine the most appropriate way of assessing the achievement of some students with disabilities who don’t neatly fall within these definitions. Decisions on assessments such as measuring individual student progress or out-of-level testing are best left up to the expertise and evaluation of the IEP team. Currently ED prohibits the use of alternate assessments, such as out-of-level testing, for AYP purposes despite the judgment of the IEP team.
LEGISLATIVE REMEDY
NSBA recommends amending the law to permit states and districts to count toward AYP proficiency up to 3 percent of the test takers based on alternate assessments, including the use of gain scores or out-of-level testing. In doing so, the IEP team will determine, with the parent’s consent, whether the student should take alternate assessments based on the evaluation of such student and the services provided under IDEA.
SUPPORTING DOCUMENTATION
Restricting students with disabilities within the 1 percent or 2 percent definitions for testing purposes does not necessarily serve their best interest. Since individual students’ needs are unique, there is not a specific methodology that can yield a definitive answer of who falls in to which category.
Research from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education found that about 3 percent of all students need to use some type of alternate assessments to measure their performance. NSBA’s recommendation will allow 3 percent of test takers
to count their scores of alternate assessments toward AYP without having to fit under either definition. This will free IEP teams from making restrictive testing decisions at the same time ensuring that only students who are most in need of alternate assessments are being given these assessments for AYP purposes.
The 1 percent policy is problematic because it allows for too much subjectivity in determining eligibility. The criteria for deciding who qualifies for the category vary with each of the 50 states defining their own criteria on what constitutes the most significant cognitive disabilities (National Center on Educational Outcomes 2005). The same students could fall in and out of this category in different states and even in different districts.
Since districts are not permitted to use measures of individual growth or measures that are based on the individual’s performance level for AYP purposes, states must design different standardized tests for the respective 1 percent and 2 percent groups in order to count their scores toward AYP. However, states have been struggling with developing valid and reliable standardized tests for students with disabilities. In July 2006 ED found most of these tests developed by states unacceptable.
Students with disabilities are a diverse group with many unique needs and a wide range of challenges. Assessment and education experts agree that measuring these students’ achievement often requires an individualized approach. States are having difficulty reconciling the need to assess individual students’ achievement -- as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act -- and meet NCLB’s requirements to test all students with standardized assessments (Government Accountability Office 2005).
While NCLB has helped focus attention on the achievement of students with disabilities, its testing requirements must change to focus on appropriately assessing the performance of individual students. NSBA’s recommendation will give local educators the flexibility to make the most appropriate testing decision while making sure they are not overidentifying students who need alternate assessments.
____________________________
This Why Report addresses 1 of 40 provisions contained in NSBA’s bill, No Child Left Behind Improvements Act.
To review other Why Reports on key provisions, go here.