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<\/i>, <\/i>that presents the findings and lessons learned from 14 projects involving 26 states.<\/p>\n
The projects highlighted in the Lessons Learned <\/i>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.<\/p>\n
The entire report can be downloaded as well as individual chapters:<\/p>\n
Entire report:<\/strong><\/p>\n Lessons Learned in Federally Funded Projects that Can Improve the Instruction and Assessment of Low Performing Students with Disabilities<\/i><\/a><\/p>\n Individual chapters:<\/strong><\/p>\n Introduction<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Struggling Learners, Policies, and Research on Alternate Assessments Based on Modified Achievement Standards<\/a> (Sue Bechard, Sheryl S. Lazarus, and Martha L. Thurlow)<\/p>\n The Students<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Chapter 1: Adapting Reading Test Items: Decreasing Cognitive Load to Increase Access for Students with Disabilities<\/a> (Caroline E. Parker, Joanna Gorin, and Sue Bechard)<\/p>\n Chapter 2: Understanding Low-Performing Students with Disabilities and Their Barriers to Success on Traditional Assessments: A Southern Tale<\/a> (Marianne Perie, Melissa Fincher, John Payne, and Suzanne Swaffield)<\/p>\n Chapter 3: Modified Alternate Assessment Participation Screening Consortium: Lessons<\/a> Chapter 4: Lessons Learned Through Diverse Approaches to Addressing Students Not Reaching Proficiency on Regular State Assessments<\/a> (Sheryl S. Lazarus and Martha L. Thurlow)<\/p>\n Test Development<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Chapter 5: Consortium for Modified Alternate Assessment Development and Implementation: Lessons Learned<\/a> (Stephen N. Elliott, Michael C. Rodriguez, Andrew T. Roach, Peter A. Beddow, Ryan J. Kettler, and Alexander Kurz)<\/p>\n Chapter 6: Test Development: Item Modifications <\/a>(Dale J. Cohen, Lou Danielson, Wendy Stoica, Werner Wothke, and Jin Zhang)<\/p>\n Chapter 7: Maryland\u2019s Approach to Designing Modified Assessments<\/a> (Trinell Bowman)<\/p>\n Technology-enhanced Assessment<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Chapter 8: Lessons Learned About Technology-Enhanced Assessments for AA-MAS<\/a> (Sue Bechard)<\/p>\n Chapter 9: Michigan\u2019s Approach to the AA-MAS Grant Opportunity: Lessons Learned and Implications for Computer Adaptive Testing<\/a> (Vincent Dean and Marilyn Roberts)<\/p>\n Chapter 10: Virginia Modified Achievement Standards Test (VMAST): Lessons Learned <\/a>(Shelley Loving-Ryder and Sharon Siler)<\/p>\n System Implications<\/i><\/strong><\/p>\n Chapter 11: Lessons Learned from AA-MAS: The Oklahoma Modified Alternate Assessment<\/a>
\n Learned<\/a> (Stephen N. Elliott, Ryan J. Kettler, Naomi Zigmond, and Alexander Kurz)<\/p>\n
\n Program (OMAAP)<\/a> (Katherine Nagle and Renee Cameto)<\/p>\n