Understanding how to instruct and assess low-performing students, both with and without disabilities, remains a challenge. National experts recently conducted a number of studies that can help answer key questions about instructing and assessing these students. NCEO published a white paper, Lessons Learned in Federally Funded Projects that Can Improve the Instruction and Assessment of Low Performing Students with Disabilities, that presents the findings and lessons learned from 14 projects involving 26 states.
The projects highlighted in the Lessons Learned report were funded to look at issues related to the Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS). Students who might be candidates for an AA-MAS are low-performing students with disabilities. Both states transitioning away from an AA-MAS and other states that want to improve the assessment of low-performing students will find the information in this report helpful.
The entire report can be downloaded as well as individual chapters:
Entire report:
Individual chapters:
Introduction
Struggling Learners, Policies, and Research on Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Achievement Standards (Sue Bechard, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow)
The Students
Chapter 1: Adapting Reading Test Items: Decreasing Cognitive Load to Increase Access for Students with Disabilities (Caroline E. Parker, Joanna Gorin, and Sue Bechard)
Chapter 2: Understanding Low-Performing Students with Disabilities and Their Barriers to Success on Traditional Assessments: A Southern Tale (Marianne Perie, Melissa Fincher, John Payne, and Suzanne Swaffield)
Chapter 3: Modified Alternate Assessment Participation Screening Consortium: Lessons
Learned (Stephen N. Elliott, Ryan J. Kettler, Naomi Zigmond, and Alexander Kurz)
Chapter 4: Lessons Learned Through Diverse Approaches to Addressing Students Not Reaching Proficiency on Regular State Assessments (Sheryl S. Lazarus and Martha L. Thurlow)
Test Development
Chapter 5: Consortium for Modified Alternate Assessment Development and Implementation: Lessons Learned (Stephen N. Elliott, Michael C. Rodriguez, Andrew T. Roach, Peter A. Beddow, Ryan J. Kettler, and Alexander Kurz)
Chapter 6: Test Development: Item Modifications (Dale J. Cohen, Lou Danielson, Wendy Stoica, Werner Wothke, and Jin Zhang)
Chapter 7: Maryland’s Approach to Designing Modified Assessments (Trinell Bowman)
Technology-enhanced Assessment
Chapter 8: Lessons Learned About Technology-Enhanced Assessments for AA-MAS (Sue Bechard)
Chapter 9: Michigan’s Approach to the AA-MAS Grant Opportunity: Lessons Learned and Implications for Computer Adaptive Testing (Vincent Dean and Marilyn Roberts)
Chapter 10: Virginia Modified Achievement Standards Test (VMAST): Lessons Learned (Shelley Loving-Ryder and Sharon Siler)
System Implications
Chapter 11: Lessons Learned from AA-MAS: The Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment
Program (OMAAP) (Katherine Nagle and Renee Cameto)
Chapter 12: AA-MAS in Pennsylvania: Defining the Population; Tracking their Performance (Naomi Zigmond, Amanda Kloo, Christopher Lemons, and Linda Lupp)
Summary and Conclusions
Lessons Learned Across Projects for Instruction and Assessment (Sue Bechard, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow)