Accessibility and Accommodations Workgroup

Wendy CarverUtah Department of Education

Deborah MatthewsKansas State Department of Education

2

• To develop a set of comprehensive and innovative assessments for grades 3-8 and high school in English language arts and mathematics aligned to the Common Core State Standards

• Students leave high school prepared for postsecondary success in college or a career through increased student learning and improved teaching

• The assessments shall be operational across Consortium states in the 2014-15 school year

3

5

Co-Chairs Tony Alpert (OR)Judy Park (UT)

Executive Director Joe Willhoft

Executive Committee Dan Hupp (ME); Joseph Martineau (MI); Carissa Miller (ID); Lynette Russell (WI); Mike Middleton (WA);Charles Lenth (Higher Education Representative)

Project Management Partner WestEd

Policy Coordinator Sue Gendron

Senior Research Advisor Linda Darling-HammondLast Modified November 8,2010

6

Consortium has established 10 work groups

• Work group engagement of 80 state-level staff:o Each work group: 2 co-chairs and 6 members from

states; 1 liaison from the Executive Committee; 1-2 WestEd partners

• Work group responsibilities:o Define scope and time line for work in its area

o Develop a work plan and resource requirements

o Determine and monitor the allocated budget

o Oversee Consortium work in its area, including identification and direction of vendors

7

1. Transition to Common Core State Standards

2. Technology Approach

3. Assessment Design: Item Development

4. Assessment Design: Performance Tasks

5. Assessment Design: Test Design

6. Assessment Design: Test Administration

7. Reporting

8. Formative Processes and Tools/Professional Development

9. Accessibility and Accommodations

10. Research and Evaluation

8

Jamal Abedi

UC Davis/CRESST

Randy Bennett

ETS

Derek Briggs

University of Colorado

Greg Cizek

University of North Carolina

David Conley

University of Oregon

Linda Darling-Hammond

Stanford University

Brian Gong

The Center for Assessment

Ed Haertel

Stanford University

Joan Herman

UCLA/CRESST

Jim Pellegrino

University of Illinois, Chicago

W. James Popham

UCLA, Emeritus

Joe Ryan

Arizona State University

Martha Thurlow

University of Minnesota/NCEO

Accessibilityand

AccommodationsWorkgroup

10

• Co-Chairs: Deborah Matthews (KS) and Michael Hock (VT)

• Executive Committee member: Carissa Miller (ID)• Workgroup members:• Wendy St. Michell (ID)• Doreen Strode (ND)• Gaye Fedorchak (NH)• Robert Romero (NM)• Dianna Carrizales (OR)• Wendy Carver (UT)• Project management partners: Eric Haas, Edynn Sato,

Greg Hill Jr.• Whole workgroup meets every other week• Leadership team meets every other week

11

Purpose • ensure the SBAC Assessment System is

maximally accessible to the broadest range of students through

• identifying, recommending, and evaluating strategies, tools, and technologies, thereby

• providing information and guidance that will positively impact critical aspects of assessment design and development

12

• New paradigm that focuses on the student first, not the test items.

• Addresses accessibility issues as part of item development, not as an afterthought.

13

• Computer based assessment allows technology to open many doors for students because accessibility is built into the assessments.

• The necessity of accommodations is reduced. Accommodations that are allowed are more targeted.

14

In both policy and practice, SBAC will • include the broadest range of students • by facilitating each student’s ability to

demonstrate as fully as possible what they know and can do

• on the targeted constructs being measured

• in a manner that is equitable and reliable, and yields valid interpretations of results.

15

1. Create policies that reflect current research, best practices, and future possibilities related to accessibility and accommodationsa) Conduct State Review

16

2. Create assessments that are free from bias and sensitivity issues leveraging new technologies, including interoperability while preserving test constructs

a. Conduct State of the Field Reviewo Across modalities (expression, reception, internal

process needs)o Across types of student needs (e.g., ELL, SWD,

Other)

b. Create Policy and Strategy Recommendationsc. Create A & A Frameworkd. Develop Item Coding Guidelines

17

3. Create accessible and accommodated assessments that will yield valid and reliable results

a. Develop a vision statement b. Determine operational definitions for

the key groups of students (e.g., ELL, SWD, 504 and low- and high-performing students)

18

3. Create accessible and accommodated assessments that will yield valid and reliable results (cont’d)

c. Define key elements of content, constructs and modalities to ensure specific accessibility and accommodation options are offered without violating the construct to be measured

d. Develop a common set of participation policies and procedures for ELL, SWD, 504 and low- and high-performing students

19

4. Ensure accessibility and accommodations practice and policy are implemented with fidelity

a. Common accommodations policies and procedures are vetted and adopted by SBAC stakeholders

b. Assist in the development of sustainable processes to evaluate and ensure on-going fidelity in application of accessibility and accommodations guidelines

20

5. Develop useful reporting and presentation guidelines that include information on accessibility and accommodations actions in the aggregate and at the individual student level for

a. Improving curricula, teaching practices and individual learning activitieso that are meaningful and useful to a wide

audience (e.g., teachers, policy makers, parents)

b. Improving the testing system itself

21

• Input from member states

• Input from national disability organizations

• Input from national English learner originations

• Input from CCSSO - ASES and ELL SCASS