Enhancing State Assessment Validity for English Language Learners

Enhancing State Assessment Validity for English Language Learners with Disabilities Kristi Kline Liu, Linda Goldstone, Martha Thurlow, Laurene Christensen, and Jenna Ward National Center on Educational Outcomes – University of Minnesota 1

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 2

Special Education Students Ages 6 -21 Receiving ELL Services (Fall’ 09) Percentage of students with disabilities 100 80 60 40 20 0 2, 8 3, 9 Maine Michigan 8, 3 9, 1 10 Minnesota Washington Arizona From IDEAdata. org 3

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 4

Principles Compared to Focus Group Themes Content Standards Individual participation decisions. Individual accommodations decisions Test & item development Reporting formats & content Format Data uses Access Language level Student background Policy needs Implementation Constraints Inclusion Teaching practices Alignment 5

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 6

Principle cont. • Teaching Practices – test preparation • Professional development – General ed: differentiating instruction – Constraints: funding; specific to ELLs with disabilities 7

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 8

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 9

Implications • School staff understanding – Team decision-making – Assessment accommodations • Understanding needs – English learners with disabilities – Assessment policy – Federal assessment requirements 10

cont. Implications • Teachers’ support needs: – Alignment of instruction and gradelevel standards – Complexity of students’ needs – Students’ content needs 11

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 12

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. 13

Thank you! www. ivared. info/reports 14