The “2%” Assessment:Implications for Teachers and Teacher Educators

OSEP Project Director’s ConferenceMargaret J. McLaughlinNaomi ZigmondJuly 16, 2007

“The roles of teachers have changed and are continuing to change. The special education teacher is now the prime advocate, a coordinator of assessment, a coordinator of remediation, a troubleshooter, the hub of a team of professionals and the person responsible for [implementation] of the IEP”(Bureau of Education for the Handicapped, 1978)

“ Regular educators have little knowledge of, or experience in special education. They need an overview of issues and especially how to manage their classrooms when handicapped students are included. Until these matters are under control, regular educators do not find training in the more detailed aspects of teaching handicapped students to be useful.” (Evaluation of Inservice Training to Prepare General Educators to Work with Handicapped Students, 1982)

“ There are four challenges facing teachers in school restructuring…the challenge of new [standards-driven] curriculum and instruction; the challenge of greater diversity; the challenge of site based management; the challenge of collaboration.”(McLaughlin, 1993)

“ Administrators expressed concerns about the ability of teachers to meet the ambitious goals set for students with disabilities. [They] were acutely concerned about the quantity and quality of special education teachers …and were faced with the need for well qualified general education teachers who knew their subject matter and can teach it to diverse groups of children”(Profiles of Reform, Educational Policy Reform Research Institute, March 2007)

The more things change, the more they stay the same

The capacity of our school personnel to address the changes in general and special education policy has been a persistent and significant concern to administrators and policymakers

The major issues continue to be: teacher knowledge and skill in subject matter content and the ability to teach that content to diverse learners

Assumptions Underlying Standards-Driven Accountability

Student achievement in specific subject matter content is the key or most important goal of education and therefore accountability should be focused on achievement indices

Universal standards are essential for equity

The school is the unit of improvement

Assumptions, continued

Student performance can be accurately and reliably measured

Consequences are necessary to motivate educators and students to get the intended results of improved teaching AND will result in improved learning

Unintended consequences will be minimal

Core Policies Conform to Assumptions

Universal academic content standards

Grade level achievement standards

School, district and state accountability

Consequences for non-performance

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP)

Students do not make AYP Students achieve proficiency or do not achieve proficiency

Schools or districts make AYP I.e., make progress in getting more and more kids (a higher and higher percentage of the kids) to proficiency

The AYP calculation does not consider whether kids made progress that year It only considers how many kids met the requirements to be called ‘Proficient’

The Accountability Question The question (currently) being asked:

How many students meet the grade-level standard? Or

What % of students are “Proficient or Advanced” on grade-level standards

NOT How much does each student know? How much has each student learned?

Analogy: How many 10-year-olds can jump 3’7”?

Not: How high can the average 10-year-old jump Not: What is the range of jumping capacity among 10-year olds?

Not: How much higher can this child jump this year compared to last year?

The calculation is:

Number Proficient+

All Students in that Grade

= Percent Proficient+

If the question is how many…

Everyone needs to be included in the count! Logically

Or the results are misleading Philosophically

Because to not count some group means they are not important

Legally Because if benefits accrue to being counted, then discrimination is prohibited by several federal laws

If the question is how many…

Students with disabilities must be given the opportunity to demonstrate whether they do, or do not meet the grade level standard

What Motivated the Addition of a “2% Assessment”?

“Belief” that “85 percent of students receiving special education services have the cognitive ability to work at grade level with their peers.” *

Reports of “emotional trauma” associated with test-taking in students with disabilities

Concern for the “gap” children Research estimate that 2%-5% of students will

probably fail to learn to read adequately in an RtI model (Francis, et al)

Reports of “scape-goating” Blaming students with disabilities for schools not

making AYP Fact that students with disabilities challenge

many of the underlying assumptions of statewide accountability assessments

*Separating Fact From Fiction: Special Education Students and NCLBNCLD Briefing Announcement, June 2007

Reality

Few students with disabilities achieve proficiency on statewide assessments

From most recent report 2003-2004* ~30% PROFICIENT IN READING ~30% PROFICIENT IN MATH

Data from SEELS and NLTS2 indicate that most students with disabilities score at or below 25th percentile on standardized tests of reading and math

*NCEO Annual Performance Report 2003-2004 State Assessment Data, June 2006

0

5

10

15

20

>50% 40%-49.9%

30%-30.9%

20%-20.9%

10%-19.9%

0%-9.9%

States Reporting Proficient Rates in Reading

Elementary Middle School High School

0

5

10

15

20

>50% 40%-49.9%

30%-30.9%

20%-20.9%

10%-19.9%

0%-9.9%

States Reporting Proficient Rates in Mathematics

Elementary Middle School High School

Why do Students with Disabilities Fail to Score at Proficient Level?

Possible reasons: Students actually know the material but can’t

demonstrate it on the test Students don’t know how to take tests Tests are not sufficiently “accessible”

Students could learn the material if it were only taught it in the right way and/or by the right person

Proficiency levels are unattainable

Possible Solution: 1

Students don’t know how to take tests Assumption

Students would demonstrate proficiency if they were better at “test-taking”

Solution Increase each LD student’s opportunity to demonstrate what he/she has learned by teaching “strategies”

How to learn How to study How to write in a variety of genres How to perform well on different kinds of tests

Implications for Teachers and Teacher Educators

Possible Solution: 2

Tests are not sufficiently accessible Assumption:

Students would demonstrate proficiency if the test were more accessible

Solution: Provide better, more appropriate accommodations

Develop better assessments Implications for Teachers and Teacher Educators

Possible Solution: 3

Students haven’t been taught the content Assumption

Students will learn grade level content with instruction delivered by a highly qualified content teacher with co-teaching

Solution Instruction by general educators with special education support

Special education teachers who are highly qualified in content areas

Implications for Teachers and Teacher Educators

Alternate Solution: 4 Students have not had the right content instruction

Assumption Students will learn grade level content with a skilled teacher providing more, intensive, and focused instruction

The time there is to learn it!

Start lower; Work hard to maintain pace; Achieve less.

All

t he r

e i s

to

lear

n

Students with persistent academic difficultiesLearn slower and less, and can’t catch up despite…

Most Students

But if there were more time????

Start lower; Work hard to maintain pace; Achieve less.

All

t he r

e i s

to

lear

n

Most Students

Students with persistent academic difficultiesLearn slower and less, and can’t catch up despite…

The Experiment Has Been Done

Work harder and longer than other people

1 hour before school2 periods per day2 hours after schoolSaturdaysWinter breakSpring breakSummer school

QuickTime™ and aH.263 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

And when the going gets tough,

Nevergiveup

QuickTime™ and aH.263 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

And See What Happens…

QuickTime™ and aH.263 decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

Alternate Solution: 4 Students have not had the right content instruction

Assumption Students will learn grade level content with a skilled teacher providing more, intensive, and focused instruction

Solution Find more time for intensive, relentless instruction in literacy and numeracy

Requires individual or small group instruction..probably in pull out settings

Implications for Teachers and Teacher Educators

Solution: 5 (The 2% Solution)

• Change the definition of proficiency

• Assumption:• Proficiency levels are unattainable

“Gap” students cannot be expected to reach grade level proficiency no matter how hard they and their teachers work

Solution Modify standards for proficiency by reducing expectations for depth and breadth of content mastery

The time there is to learn it!

Start lower; Work hard to maintain pace; Achieve less.

All

t he r

e i s

to

lear

n

Students with persistent academic difficultiesLearn slower and less, and can’t catch up despite…

Most Students

BUT

Out-of-level testing is not an option Because it doesn’t measure attainment of grade-level content

It doesn’t provide score that fits into the formula: number proficient on grade level

contentall students in that grade level

The Grade Level Content Curriculum

What a few will learn

“Proficient” What many will learn

What all will learn

Grade Level Content

Modified Achievement Standards

“Proficient”

Content Reduced in Breadth

Content to be mastered to be proficient

Modified Achievement Standards

“Proficient”

Content Reduced Also in Depth

Content to be mastered to be proficient

Implications of the 2% Solution

For special education teachers Who to recommend for the modified/alternate assessment?

How to focus teaching time? Perform curriculum “triage”….what should be left in and what can be left out!

Implications of the 2% Solution

For teacher educators What should special educators be prepared to teach?

Should all special educators be dually certified content specialists?

What about all the special stuff students need to learn? Is that the responsibility of the special education teacher?

Implications of the 2% Solution

For researchers: We need a lot of answers before we can proceed from a research base What are the cumulative effects of yearly reductions in grade

level content depth and breadth in skill subjects and in content subjects?

How to manage differential expectations (in terms of depth and breadth) in inclusive settings?

How will the changes in expectations for some play out for the other 70+% of SWD?

Will "giving away" 2% reduce the stress associated with the accountability assessment?

Does accountability testing wield the same power if it doesn’t happen every year?

Should the accountability question be changed to measure growth not status?