|
|
|
||
|
AEP Online |
Blaschke on Federal FundingStates Seeking USED Approval for Exceeding the One Percent Cap on Alternative AssessmentsUSED regulations and Non-Regulatory Guidance published in December 2003 and March of this year allowed states to apply for "exemptions" for the number of "proficient" cognitively-impaired students above the one percent cap on alternative state assessments. Recent state applications, if approved, would allow a significantly greater number of students to take the alternative tests, suggesting opportunities for firms with curriculum-aligned assessments or other assessments, which could be used as state-approved alternative tests. According to Education Daily, Ohio has sought a 1.3 percent cap for this school year because the state expects more than one percent of these students to achieve proficiency. Montana has requested a permanent exemption to the one percent rule; state officials argue that 369 of the 439 districts have enrollments of less than 100 students, in which case these school districts would not be able to count any students with disabilities who participate in alternative testing as being proficient. Perhaps the biggest change has been proposed by Texas, which would increase the one percent cap to seven percent for 2004-05 school year and six percent for 2005-06. For this current year, Texas has requested that it be "held harmless" from the one percent cap. TEA officials have argued that nine percent of students already take the alternative state reading assessment and eight percent take the alternative math assessment. In any event, next year the legislature will have to approve any changes to state assessment policies. In addition to the obvious, two important other considerations surround the Texas proposed plan: (a) while Governor, President Bush approved "hundreds of waivers" from districts related to state accountability and assessment according to veteran district officials; and (b) Texas was one of the first Ed Flex states (along with Florida and North Carolina) which have generally greater authority than other states in providing waivers of Federal regulations for districts. Minnesota is seeking a 1.5 percent cap. The state has yet to define the "most significantly cognitively disabled" students who are eligible to take the assessment nor has it provided guidance to districts who, in turn, must provide guidance to IEP teams as to how to select the appropriate tests for each special education student. Similar to Texas, Minnesota will also be using new tests for the first time in the 7th, 10th, and 11th grades this year and there will likely be a need for some adjustments in their curriculum alignment. Virginia has proposed a 3.5 percent cap for the next three years as it includes cognitively impaired students and "gap kids," who can’t take grade level assessments even with accommodations but are not eligible to be held to alternative standards. As we noted in previous TURNKEY reports, states and districts have definite incentives to increase the number of students taking alternative assessments with alternative proficiency levels, especially if USED officially provides guidance on the "strategic assignment" of students who achieve proficiency on alternative tests and standards beyond the one percent cap. Districts can then strategically assign these scores to schools to reduce the number of schools identified for improvement. More and more Title I directors are becoming aware of such "strategic assignment" of scores, which has been communicated verbally by USED officials. Moreover, as has been the case in the above states, additional states can be expected to request exemptions to increase the cap beyond the one percent limitation, which is not in the Law but reflects a decision on the part of USED. As there is no deadline for applications, states will likely be submitting their proposals with justifications as soon as possible because such approvals must occur three months prior to states identifying schools for improvement. As we have recommended in the past, firms with embedded mastery items that could be considered as alternative assessments for certain types of special education students, or firms with adaptive assessments, should consider seriously approaching states for possible adoption. Currently there are several states that have more than one alternative state assessment in place and at least one state has eight alternative approved instruments and procedures.
Questions, ideas, or in need of more information? Please contact Stacey Pusey at 856-241-7772. |
||
|
©
2008 The Association of Educational
Publishers
|
|||
