Designing and Using Assessment and AYP Reports for Improved Achievement at State and Local Levels

1. Designing and Using Assessment and AYP Reports for Improved Achievement at State and Local Levels Martha L. Thurlow, NCEO Hilda Ives Wiley, NCEO Daniel Wiener, Department of Education, Massachusetts William Henderson, Patrick O’Hearn School

2. Both IDEA and NCLB have made public reporting a very important activity IDEA requires that the assessment participation and performance of students with disabilities be reported with the same frequency and in the same way as that of non-disabled students NCLB requires that participation and assessment results be reported for all students and for each subgroup at the school, LEA, and State levels

3. Despite the increase in importance of reporting, there has been relatively little attention to it in the literature NCEO has documented over the years the slow but steady increase in states reporting on the participation and performance of students with disabilities in states assessments. But, there is a need now to think about the purposes of reporting . . . . A few quotes:

4. While it is widely suggested that state and district assessments, and the reporting of their results, has an impact on teaching and learning (Elmore & Rothman, 1999), reporting data is not enough.

5. The purpose of disaggregation is to gauge whether specific subgroups of students perform at different levels than other subgroups (i.e., whether there is an “achievement gap”) so that interventions can be designed and implemented if needed. Disaggregation is also useful in informing the public about how well a school or district is doing in helping all students to reach state standards (p.11). Vincent & Schenck (2001)

6. Student performance data must be made available to teachers and the public in ways that spark creative responses. Ruiz-de-Velasco & Fix, 2000

7. National Perspective • NCEO study of 2001-2002 public reporting of assessment data. • We examined: • If participation and performance is reported. • Ways in which participation is reported • Ways in which performance is reported

8. States Publicly Reporting Data for the 2001-2002 General Assessment

9. States Publicly Reporting Data for the 2001-2002 Alternate Assessment

10. Approaches to Reporting Participation Data for General Assessments • Out of 85 assessments: • Most gave only a count (n=62) • Only 21 gave the percent tested • 7 more gave the percent not tested • Rate more meaningful than number tested • 12 states had clear rates • Students with disabilities was denominator • Broken down by grade and/or subject

11. Approaches to Reporting Participation Data for Alternate Assessments • Variability across states • Not broken down by grade or content • If the 26 Alternates that gave participation data: • 14 gave the number tested • 9 gave the number tested and the percent tested • 3 gave only the percent tested

12. Accessibility of Data: Quality Issues • Word on Homepage • Good: Testing, Accountability, Assessment, Test Name • Bad: Statistics, Administrators, Programs & Services • Number of clicks from Homepage to Data • Median was 3; Some as many a 8 • Proximity of “special ed” data to “all students” • Definition of proficiency • Printability

13. Recommendations for Reporting • Report not only the number of students with disabilities assessed, but also the percentage • Ensure that web-based assessment information is dated and able to be printed • Report results for the Alternate Assessment • Report the number and percent of students with disabilities using accommodations