1

Enhancing State Assessment Validity forEnglish Language Learners with Disabilities

Kristi Kline Liu, Linda Goldstone, Martha Thurlow, Laurene Christensen, and Jenna Ward

National Center on Educational Outcomes – University of Minnesota

2

IVARED: Improving the Validity of Assessment Results for English Language Learners with Disabilities

• Who? When? Where?– 3 yr. Enhanced Assessment grant– MN Dept. of ED, AZ, ME, MI, WA– National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO)

• What? Why? How?– Growing student population– Test validity: test design, data reporting– Inclusion on state tests: challenging– NCEO’s Surveys of State Assessment Directors–www.ivared.info/reports

3

Special Education Students Ages 6-21 Receiving ELL Services (Fall’09)

From IDEAdata.org

Maine Michigan Minnesota Washington Arizona0

20

40

60

80

100

2.8 3.98.3 9.1 10

Perc

enta

ge o

f stu

dent

s with

dis

abil-

ities

4

Data Collection Activities

Delphi Expert Principles

• n = 11• multi-disciplines• anonymous• internet• geographically

dispersed

Online Focus Groups

• n = 232• 5-8 educators/group; • 5 states (MN, ME, MI,

AZ, WA)• multi-disciplines• anonymous• internet• geographically dispersed

5

Principles Compared to Focus Group Themes

Content Standards

Alignment

Teaching practices

Test & item development

Student background

Language level

Access

Individual participation

decisions.

Inclusion

Constraints

Individual accommodations

decisions

Implem

entation

Policy needs

Reporting formats &

content

Data uses

Format

6

Principle: Content standards are the same for all students

• Implementation• Alignment– team approach– specific intervention programs with regular

classroom assessment– frequent classroom assessments in small groups

• Misalignment– instruction below grade level standards

7

• Teaching Practices– test preparation

• Professional development– General ed: differentiating instruction– Constraints: funding; specific to ELLs with

disabilities

Principle cont.

8

Principle: Assessment participation decisions are made on an individual

student basis by an informed IEP team.

• IEP team inclusion– ESL/Bilingual– caregivers

• Training constraints– funding– time

9

Principle: Accommodations for both English language proficiency and content assessments are assigned by an IEP team knowledgeable about the individual student’s needs.• Policy needs– clear– ELLs with disabilities

• Implementation difficulties– consistency– time constraints– collaboration

10

Implications• School staff understanding– Team decision-making–Assessment accommodations

• Understanding needs– English learners with disabilities–Assessment policy– Federal assessment requirements

11

cont. Implications

• Teachers’ support needs:–Alignment of instruction and grade-

level standards–Complexity of students’ needs–Students’ content needs

12

cont. Implications

• IEP team decision-making challenges:– Inclusion of ESL/Bilingual teachers– Logistical constraints–Assessment knowledge–Knowledge of student needs– Separate decision processes ESL/Bilingual

vs. Special Education

13

In conclusion

• Administrators could support good decision-making by looking at practical ways to increase involvement of all key staff and caregivers in the IEP team.

14

Thank you!www.ivared.info/reports