How do we keep kids from being
stuck in our gap?
A frame, a series of discussion
questions, and some possible
answers
Panelist: Rachel Quenemoen,
NCEO
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Purpose of No Child Left Behind
“…to ensure that all children have a fair, equal,
and significant opportunity to obtain a high-
quality education and reach, at a minimum,
proficiency on challenging State academic
achievement standards and state academic
assessments”
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Purpose of Assessment
Requirements of IDEA
• Improve results for student with disabilities
through improved teaching and learning
• Raise expectations for students with
disabilities
• Increase access to the general curriculum
• Provide parents information about their
child’s achievement in relationship to the
performance of other children in their school
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Issues in both NCLB and IDEA
• Students with disabilities previously
exempted from assessment and accountability
system
• Students with disabilities previously received
instruction in separate curriculum
• Change from low to high expectations for
students with disabilities
• State leadership in fostering school and
district accountability
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Assessment Options
• General assessment
• General assessment with accommodations (or
modifications)
• Alternate assessment on grade level achievement
standards – students have mastered the grade-level
content, but can’t show it on general assessment
• Alternate assessment on alternate achievement
standards – assuming best instruction and access,
there is compelling evidence the students learn
grade-level content differently
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Observation Interpretation
The assessment
triangle
(Pellegrino et
al., 2001)
Cognition
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
HOW these students learn and show
what they know
Assumption:
Students affected by “gap” issues generally
learn and show what they know MORE
like students in the general assessment
than like students in the alternate
assessment for students with MOST
significant challenges
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
WHO are the students who are
affected by a gap of some kind?
Common question: How many “can”
achieve at grade level, with the best
instruction and access?
Kevin McGrew studies:
http://www.iapsych.com/index.htm
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Alternative question: How many
schools currently ensure every child
has the services, supports, and
specialized instruction necessary to
succeed in the grade-level
curriculum?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
How has the IEP process been
traditionally construed?
• Identify the services, supports, and specialized
instruction necessary so that the student can be
successful in the grade level curriculum
OR
• Negotiate what the school can offer and the
parents will accept to avoid conflict – define
how to lower expectations for this student
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
WHAT should these students
know and be able to do?
What does “access to, participation and
progress in the general curriculum”
mean?
What has it meant in your schools and
districts?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Assumption: Many of these students have
been failed by our system – the policy goal is
first and foremost to correct that situation.
Assumption: Some (unknown number) will
not achieve to proficiency at grade level by
high school, even with the best possible
instruction and instruction, but we don’t
know which ones.
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
HOW WELL students must
perform to be “proficient”
Assumption: We need to transition students in the
first category out of the gap – and really push
practice to make that occur as quickly as possible!
Assumption: All students, including those in the
second category, have the right to be taught as if
they can succeed, even if they do not ultimately
achieve proficiency in all areas.
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
What are the “other” questions?
• Concern about AYP? Safe harbor provisions, played
out, provide flexibility that means in 2014 you may
have @75% of a subgroup at proficiency, and NEVER
miss AYP
• Concern about cost of teaching to grade level? Then
let’s have that discussion
• Concern about lawsuits? Case law already makes you
vulnerable (reread Rowley in the context of standards-
based reform) – what can give you and families
common understanding?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
What can we do in our assessment
and accountability policies and
practices to move MOST students
into general assessment, and to
ensure all students achieve at the
highest level possible?
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
One part of the answer:
Progress Monitoring in an
Inclusive Standards-based
Assessment and Accountability
System
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
PM AS BROADLY CONCEIVED
• (1) Curriculum-Based Measurement;
• (2) Classroom assessments (system or teacher-
developed);
• (3) Adaptive assessments constrained to grade
level; and
• (4) Grade-level large-scale assessments used
during the year to monitor growth of
individual students and groups of students
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
CAUTION!!!!!!
• Aligned to GRADE LEVEL content -
CONSTRAINED to grade level
• The “myth” of below grade level
instruction
• Blind trust in statistical magic – black
box faith
• Remediation vs. acceleration
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Challenges
• Strategies for scoring, analyzing, and tracking
data.
Quick turn-around of scores necessary to
provide feedback for instruction.
• INTENSIVE training on deriving meaning from
the data to develop effective improvement plans.
Many (most?) teachers, school psychologists, IEP
team members do NOT know how to do this!
• Needed: New models for classroom integrated
assessments on grade level content for this
purpose (Pellegrino et al., 2001).
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004
Resources Available
• National Center on Student Progress Monitoring:
Improving Proven Practices in the Elementary
Grades
• phone: 202.944.5300 | fax: 202.944.5454
• TTY: 877.334.3499
• e-mail: studentprogress@air.org
• http://www.studentprogress.org
• Research Institute on Progress Monitoring
• Phone: 612.626.7220 fax: 612.625.6619
• e-mail: walla001@umn.edu
• NCEO http://nceo.info quene003@umn.edu
National Center on Educational Outcomes June, 2004