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.
Recommended
