Search

The National Governors Association, Council of Chief State School Officers, and the National Association of State Boards of Education jointly devised recommendations in 11 areas in order to achieve America's education goals for every student since the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001. These recommendations included giving states and schools the flexibility to use "growth models" to gain credit for increasing student achievement; creating rewards and differentiating consequences; supporting meaningful, long-term school reform; and ensuring fair testing of special populations. Recommendations also ask that the reauthorization include a renewed state-federal partnership that will provide states the flexibility to ensure the law works effectively in each state. The recommendations are made in an effort to improve the academic achievement of all students to ensure they are prepared for postsecondary education, work, and lifelong learning in the 21st century. These recommendations represent the major issues Congress will face in reauthorizing NCLB. The Governors (National Governors Association), chief state school officers (Council of Chief State School Officers), and state boards of education members (National Association of State Boards of Education) also recommend additional amendments to the law as outlined in their respective NCLB and Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) policies.

English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities struggle with reading and the reasons for their struggles are not well understood owing to little knowledge about the impact of disability on language development in either the first or second language (Klingner et al., 2006). Nevertheless, this difficulty in reading achievement historically has been a marker for students with learning disabilities (Bender, 2003). It may be challenging for ELLs with disabilities to learn in large general education classes (Vaughn, Klingner, & Bryant, 2001). Vaughn and her colleagues indicate that because students with the most severe reading difficulties need intense reading strategy instruction, they must have additional support services in a special education setting where there are sufficient time and resources to address student's specific learning needs. Thus, it seems apparent that an important area of research attention is to examine the benefits of instruction in the specialized settings where small group or individualized services are provided to English language learners with disabilities. Moreover, because of the need to adapt learning situations to the specific needs of these students, it seems imperative that any examination of individualized instruction should also examine the degree to which adjustments to instruction should be made. It should also examine how different approaches to the instruction of these learners may affect learner outcomes. To add to this limited, but growing knowledge base, this report provides details about a series of single-subject research studies. The studies examine how an instructional reading strategy identified by classroom teachers could be used to improve grade-level standards-based reading achievement among English language learners with learning disabilities in individualized instructional settings. A companion report (Barrera, Liu, Yan, Chamberlain, & Thurlow, 2006) examines a similar series of studies with a mathematics instructional strategy. Appended is: Protocol for Chunking and Questioning Aloud Strategy. (Contains 4 figures and 4 tables.)

This report summarizes requests submitted by states in 2005-06 to amend their educational accountability plans under the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) of 2001 as well as the related decisions of the U.S. Department of Education (ED). This fourth installment of the Council of Chief State School Officers' (CCSSO's) annual review of changes to States' accountability plans traces a policy path that has been more obscure and convoluted than in past years. The basic structure of this paper parallels that of its predecessors, but emerging inconsistencies in ED's decisions across States and over time have undermined a fundamental assumption underlying the first three reviews. That is, previous amendment decisions no longer represent trustworthy precedents. As with the previous three papers, this paper is primarily based on information provided voluntarily by States to CCSSO. The major issues that formed the 2005-06 accountability context are described in the Introduction. States' amendment requests and, to the extent that they have been detected, ED's responses to these requests are described in Section II of this paper. Brief comments regarding these decisions are provided in Section III along with some conclusions and speculations about what may lie ahead. A timeline of significant events related to state accountability plans under NCLB is included in this report. The following are appended: (1) Acronyms Used in This Paper; and (2) State Educational Accountability Workbook Decisions by the U. S. Department of Education That Changed between 2002 and 2006. (Contains 21 footnotes.) [Funding support for this paper was entirely from member states of the Accountability Systems and Reporting State Collaborative.]

English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities are two groups specifically targeted in NCLB for which schools must demonstrate "adequate yearly progress." However, ELLs with disabilities, a category where these two groups overlap, are not specifically mentioned in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Students with "high-incidence" learning-related disabilities (e.g., speech and language impairments, learning disabilities, and emotional/behavioral disabilities) in particular exhibit unique educational needs likely to place them at risk as schools strive to improve academic outcomes across the range of students specifically targeted in NCLB. With the rapid growth of the population of ELLs in the U.S., schools have an urgent need for research-based information on how to instruct ELLs with disabilities in grade-level content. This report describes a series of single-subject studies conducted to examine the effect of a mathematics instructional strategy, teacher-directed "think-aloud," on the standards-based academic achievement of Latino and Hmong ELLs with disabilities attending middle or junior high school. The study targeted students with disabilities participating in mainstream content classes using standards-based curriculum. Protocol strategies are appended. (Contains 4 figures and 2 tables.)

Research support for providing a read-aloud accommodation (i.e., having an individual read test items and directions aloud) to students with disabilities has been somewhat limited, particularly when merely examining effects of the accommodation on overall test scores for general groups of students with disabilities. The authors examined data on accommodated and non-accommodated performances of students with specific reading disabilities on various math test items anticipated to be highly sensitive to accommodation effects. Analyses were conducted across three consecutive years of data from an elementary and middle school statewide assessment program. Within the fourth grade dataset, items classified as reading-hard (RH) and those classified as mathematically easy but difficult to read (ME/RH) were positively affected by the accommodation. Marginally significant findings were obtained for the ME/RH item set at the eighth grade level. Limitations and implications of the study are discussed. (Contains 8 tables.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and other recent changes in federal legislation have placed greater emphasis on accountability in large-scale testing. Included in this emphasis are regulations that require assessments to be accessible. States are accountable for the success of all students, and tests should be designed in a way that provides all students an opportunity to demonstrate their knowledge and skills. With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004, states are required for the first time to incorporate universal design principles in developing and administering tests, to the extent feasible. Applying the concept of universal design to statewide assessment means that assessments are designed from the beginning and continually refined to result in more valid inferences about performance of students with diverse characteristics. There are many elements involved in creating universally designed assessments. They include making sure that students with disabilities are part of field testing, for example. A major focus of universal design in assessments is making sure that the items included in the assessment are appropriate. There are several methods for selecting items to ensure that they optimize the characteristics of universal design. The purpose of this "Policy Directions" is to provide an overview of these item selection methods, and to suggest that a combination of the methods will produce the better result. Each method has strengths and weaknesses, may lead to different results, and is in different stages of current practice. Although each method has merits, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) recommends states employ all methods systematically and in conjunction with each other. A brief list of additional resources is also included. (Contains 4 tables.)

The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) requires the reporting of participation in assessments overall and by subgroup, including students with disabilities. As states and school districts strive to meet the goals for adequate yearly progress required by NCLB, the use of individual accommodations continues to be scrutinized for effectiveness, threats to test validity, and score comparability. This report summarizes 49 empirical research studies completed on test accommodations between 2002 and 2004, and provides direction in the design of critically needed future research on accommodations. NCEO found that studies during this three-year period had the following characteristics: (1) Purpose: The primary purpose of the 2002-2004 accommodations research was to determine the effects of accommodations use on the large-scale test scores of students with disabilities; (2) Types of assessment, content areas, and accommodations: The majority of the studies tested students using norm-referenced or criterion-referenced tests, on math or reading/language arts; (3) Participants: Equal numbers of research studies involved between 1-100 participants, 100-1,000 participants, and more than 1,000 participants of multiple age categories. Participants were varying percentages of students without disabilities and students with disabilities. Students with learning disabilities were studied most frequently among students who receive special education services; (4) Findings: Findings shared no common theme, with various accommodations shown to have both a positive and non-positive effect on scores. Individual accommodations showed either differential item functioning or no differential item functioning depending on the study. The lack of consistent findings points to a need for further research; and (5) Limitations: Most often, authors noted that studies were too narrow in scope, involved a small sample size, or provided confounding factors. These limitations and other considerations led researchers to recommend investigating the characteristics of accommodations in further detail. Important overall observations from the NCEO analysis include a need in future research for a clear definition of the constructs tested, a reduction in confounding factors, increased study of institutional factors affecting accommodations judgment, and exploration of the desirability and perceived usefulness of accommodations by students themselves. Future research should focus on improvement in these areas but also on the positive effects of field-testing potential items in accommodated formats in addition to standard formats. The following are appended: (1) Summary of Research Purpose; (2) Summary of Type of Assessment; (3) Subject Area Studied (by Author); (4) Type of Accommodation Studied (by Author); (5) Summary of Participants; (6) Summary of Research Results; (7) Summary of Limitations Cited by Researchers; and (8) Summary of Suggestions for Future Research (as recommended by authors). (Contains 13 tables.)

Individual Education Plans (IEPs) and 504 Plans often recommend the use of accommodations to facilitate the learning of classroom material by students with disabilities. Since the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1997, students with disabilities are expected to participate in state and district-wide assessments, using appropriate accommodations. Large-scale assessment assumes the use of standardized testing conditions to allow for comparability of test scores; however, some students with disabilities are better able to demonstrate their knowledge when allowed to use accommodations that offset the effect of their disability on the construct tested. For these students, de-standardizing the test conditions is the only meaningful way to obtain an accurate estimate of achievement. In 1999 the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SEELS) began to examine the experience of elementary age students in schools, and pertinent to this report, their experience in testing situations, particularly the use of accommodations. In this paper, using data from SEELS, the authors examine accommodation use across different educational conditions, comparing IEP and 504 Plan accommodations to what students reportedly received in the classroom and on standardized tests. Results suggest a lack of alignment in accommodation use among IEP/504 plans, classroom conditions, and state testing situations. Additionally, there is some variability in what happens for students with different categorical labels. Since the data for this report was obtained from an early administration of the SEELS (Wave 2), monitoring of the alignment issue should continue. (Contains 11 figures and 1 table.)

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has been tracking and analyzing state policies on assessment participation and accommodations since 1992. The purpose of the current analysis is to update information on these policies that was last reported by NCEO in 2005 (based on 2003 data). The current analysis of states' 2005 participation and accommodation policies found that state policies on participation and accommodation continue to evolve, and that they have become more detailed and specific than in previous years. Key findings from this analysis include: (1) Most states now have Web sites where users can access their policies; (2) Clarifications and specifications attached to specific participation policy variables and to specific accommodations (e.g., what tests accommodations can be used on) are increasing; (3) The "read aloud questions," "sign interpret questions," and "calculator" accommodations continue to be controversial; (4) The "spell checker" accommodation, though it continues to be controversial, appears to be more widely accepted than in the past; and (5) Most states now permit the use of extended time with no restriction, though fewer states permit the "testing over multiple days" accommodation than in the past. This analysis did not attempt to determine the degree to which state policies complied with federal requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 or Title I of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. Instead, it is a descriptive analysis of the written policies that states have for the participation of students with disabilities in assessments and the use of accommodations during their assessments. Appended are: (1) State Documents Used in Analysis of Participation and Accommodation Policies; and (2) Participation and Accommodation Guidelines by State. (Contains 38 tables and 10 figures.)

This document contains the framework and a set of recommendations for the NAEP 2007 mathematics assessment, which will assess student achievement nationally and state-by-state, as well as in select urban districts, in grades 4 and 8. It includes descriptions of the mathematical content of the test, the types of test questions, and recommendations for administration of the test. The 2007 mathematics framework focuses on mathematical content and cognitive demand. By considering these two dimensions for each item in the assessment, the framework ensures that NAEP assesses an appropriate balance of content along with a variety of ways of knowing and doing mathematics. The framework describes five mathematics content areas: (1) Number properties and operations; (2) Measurement; (3) Geometry; (4) Data analysis and probability; and (5) Algebra. Certain aspects of mathematics, such as computation, occur in all content areas. A second dimension, mathematical complexity, attempts to focus on the cognitive demands of the assessment question. Mathematical complexity is categorized as low, moderate, or high, and each level of complexity includes aspects of knowing and doing mathematics, such as reasoning, performing procedures, understanding concepts, or solving problems. The levels of complexity form an ordered description of the demands an item may make on a student. Items at the low level of complexity, for example, may ask a student to recall a property. At the moderate level, an item may ask the student to make a connection between two properties; at the high level, an item may ask a student to analyze the assumptions made in a mathematical model. This is an example of the distinctions made in item complexity to provide balance in the assessment. The ordering is not intended to imply that mathematics is learned or should be taught in such an ordered way. The complexity dimension builds on the dimensions of mathematical ability (conceptual understanding, procedural knowledge, and problem solving) and mathematical power (reasoning, connections, and communication) that were used in previous mathematics frameworks. (Contains 1 table.) [For 2005 Mathematics Framework, see ED486473.]

Finding ways to improve the design of large-scale tests is a timely issue. Recent changes in Federal legislation (including the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001) have placed greater emphasis on accountability via large-scale tests. Students who have previously been exempted from large-scale assessments, including students with disabilities and English language learners, are now expected to reach achievement levels comparable to their non-disabled or English proficient peers. Schools are held accountable for their performance, and their scores are reported publicly. With such high stakes placed on large-scale assessment, there is a critical need for states to have valid information about how the design of assessments affects student test performance. This report provides information on the use of "think aloud methods" to detect design issues in large-scale assessments. Various design problems may introduce construct-irrelevant variance or hinder students from showing what they know on assessments. Research included a variety of students, including students with learning disabilities, students with hearing impairments, students with cognitive disabilities, English language learners, and students without disabilities who were proficient in English. In this project, the authors asked students to "think out loud" when solving mathematics large-scale assessment items. The sentences that students uttered produced data that led the authors to believe that think aloud methods, under certain circumstances, can successfully detect design issues. Specifically, they found issues related to unclearly defined constructs, inaccessibility of items, unclear instructions, incomprehensible language, and illegible text and graphics. To this end, think aloud methods appear to be a useful strategy in the design and refinement of large-scale assessments. Think aloud methods, as the authors designed them, were not effective for students with cognitive disabilities. This population had great difficulty in producing the language needed to explain problem-solving processes and may require additional research accommodations to help them participate in think aloud research. All other groups sufficiently participated in research activities. Think aloud methods also did not produce informative data for very difficult mathematics items because students had difficulty verbalizing their thoughts while solving problems. Despite shortcomings found in this study, the think aloud method appears to be an effective way to determine the effects of item design for a wide variety of students (with the exception of students with cognitive disabilities) and for items with low to moderate difficulty levels. (Contains 6 tables and 2 figures.)

The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are two of the nation's most important federal laws relating to the education of children. While NCLB seeks to improve the education of all children--with an emphasis on children from low-income families--IDEA focuses on the individual child and seeks to ensure specialized services for children with disabilities so that they may benefit from education. Lately, these two laws have taken on new importance to parents of students with disabilities. NCLB provisions apply to all students, including those whose disabilities require special education. So it is important that parents understand the requirements of NCLB. IDEA, in its latest update by Congress, has been more closely aligned with NCLB, making it equally important that parents become familiar with the ways the two laws have been positioned to work together to improve academic achievement of students with disabilities. This brief guide provides information for parents about the meaning of NCLB; the meaning of IDEA; how NCLB and IDEA work together; academic content and achievement standards; annual assessments; school accountability; and highly qualified teachers. Sections providing answers to frequently asked questions; a glossary; and a list of additional resources conclude the guide.

This study was designed, in part, to clarify some of the issues that surround including English language learners in states' large-scale assessment programs. More specifically, the authors gathered practical information at the local school level to understand these students' large-scale assessment experiences from a variety of perspectives, to describe the characteristics of English language learners with disabilities as well as the characteristics of their schools, and to make known the level of awareness that students and their families have about large-scale assessments. Two broad research questions were addressed in this study: (1) What perceptions do educators, parents, and students have about the experiences of English language learners with disabilities who participate in large-scale assessments? and (2) What are the characteristics of schools that test English language learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments? The case study research design, in which one school is defined as a case, used a mixed method approach to collect quantitative and qualitative data from four sources of data. Data were collected on site in three schools and one alternative school program in a large urban school district located in a large western state. The findings from the document review, written survey, and face-to-face interviews are each presented in different formats, allowing the researchers to highlight the most interesting and useful findings from each data collection activity. To discern the useful information that emerged from the findings, the authors compared school level and sample subgroup results for a discussion that concludes this report. While the findings cannot be directly generalized to other school sites due to the nature of the case study research design for this project, they do indicate noticeable school characteristics, policies, and procedures that are important considerations for policymakers, administrators, and practitioners who strive to better include English language learners with disabilities in states' large-scale assessment and accountability programs. Seven such important considerations are identified and explored herein. The following are appended: (1) research instruments; and (2) Tabled Results by Written Survey Item. (Contains 10 tables and 37 figures.)

This present study examined the intended and unintended consequences of Minnesota's high stakes graduation exam on students with disabilities. Historically, little empirical data have been collected and the scant data available suggest some significant unintended consequences for educational accountability systems (e.g., the retention of students and increased referrals to special education). Fifty-two parents of students with disabilities and 39 special educators from six schools in two large urban and suburban school districts participated in focus groups. The author also conducted a focus group with the Minnesota Association of Educational Assessment and Evaluation (MAEAE) as well as 15 interviews with building administrators, school district representatives, and a state representative. The results show that the Minnesota Basic Standards Tests have had some very positive and negative consequences for students with disabilities, including increased exposure to the curriculum, increased participation in testing, raised expectations, high levels of anxiety and frustration, and drop-out concerns. There did not seem to be any retention as perceived by the consumers nor an increase in special education referrals, although many times the referral data were not collected in a systematic manner. Further studies are needed to document empirically whether these consequences are occurring for students with disabilities. (Contains 4 tables and 1 figure.)

The National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) has for the past four years conducted research on large-scale assessment and instructional issues for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities, but neither NCEO's research nor any other research study has yet described large-scale assessment experiences at the local school level for English language learners with disabilities. This study was designed, in part, to clarify some of the issues that surround including English language learners in states' large-scale assessment programs. Specifically, the authors gathered practical information at the local school level to understand these students' large-scale assessment experiences from a variety of perspectives, to describe the characteristics of ELLs with disabilities as well as the characteristics of their schools, and to make known the level of awareness that students and their families have about large-scale assessments. Four research questions guided this study: (1) What perceptions do educators, parents, and students have about the experiences of English language learners with disabilities who participate in large-scale assessments? (2) How are English language learners with disabilities performing in large-scale assessments? (3) How are participation decisions made to test English language learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments? and (4) What are the characteristics of schools that test English language learners with disabilities in large-scale assessments? A number of striking trends emerged highlighting important aspects of these students' inclusion in large-scale assessments. Each trend, along with supporting evidence, is presented. The survey instruments are appended. (Contains 8 tables and 7 figures.)

This study addresses three questions: First, considering the full group of students and the special education subgroup, what is the likely effect of minimum cell size and confidence interval size on school-level Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determinations? Second, what effects do the changing minimum cell sizes have on inclusion of special education students, especially for schools that are declared as "meeting AYP"? Third, with the NCLB requirement that schools assess grade levels 3-8 in their AYP calculations beginning in the 2005-2006 academic year, what is the likely effect of including these additional students in school-level AYP determinations? To address these questions, data from five states were used to model confidence interval and cell-size combinations. The study used a single year of elementary/middle school mathematics and reading achievement test data from five states, modeling selected minimum cell sizes from 10 to 100, and confidence interval sizes from 70% to 99%. Increases in minimum cell sizes for the special education subgroup were associated with a large increase in the number of schools meeting AYP targets for each of the five states assessed. Increased confidence interval sizes were also associated with an increase in pass rates, but a much smaller increase. While raising the minimum-n is an effective means of increasing the passing rates of schools, it does so at a considerable cost to special education students in terms of being excluded from the accountability system. When the data were modeled to reflect testing in all grades 3-8, many more special education students' results are included in the accountability system, assuming that states will not increase the minimum-n. If the implicit theory of action guiding NCLB accountability requirements is to improve instruction and thus outcomes for all students, schools and districts must be accountable for all subgroups in order to ensure that these students are appropriately served. The effect of increasing the minimum-n to exclude substantial portions of special education students must be considered a threat to the validity of the accountability system.

Dealing with flexibility--or its converse, the extent of standardization--is fundamental to alignment, assessment design, and interpretation of results in fully inclusive assessment systems. Highly standardized tests make it easier to compare (performances, students, and schools) across time and to common standards because certain conditions are met that (ostensibly) reduce the irrelevant variation and support stronger inferences for interpretation. Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards--and the corresponding instruction for these students--have come from a highly individualized tradition in which comparisons among students and data aggregation have not been the focus. Alternate assessment and instruction is moving more firmly into a standards-based accountability world, due in large part to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This document presents an analysis, by assessment system component, of where flexibility is typically allowed and where it tends to be controlled (standardized) in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. One of the greatest challenges in either aggregating data or evaluating technical quality for many forms of alternate assessments results from the intended flexibility allowed in student learning (and assessment) goals. On the other hand, the present analysis indicates that there are many choice points for state policymakers and assessment leaders regarding the degree of flexibility or standardization they might choose to design into their alternate assessment systems. Of course, these choices are contingent on the values of the state regarding the primary purposes of the alternate assessment system. This report provides a useful framework to inform discussion about flexibility in assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities that will: (1) permit clarification of values and goals so fundamental policy decisions can be made regarding desired comparability; (2) support research and development work to improve assessment for this population of students, with the long-term goal that such assessment will support improved achievement; (3) help the discussion of alternate assessment approaches move beyond simply using nominal labels of familiar assessment formats (e.g., portfolio, performance, checklist or rating scales) and recognize that most alternate assessments are a blend of multiple formats with varying degrees of flexibility for different components of the system; and (4) assist in the evaluation of the technical quality of alternate assessment systems. Appended are: (1) Information excerpted from Quenemoen, Thompson, and Thurlow (2003) to help provide additional background material regarding the various types of alternate assessment; and (2) Inclusive Assessment System Options by Degree of Standardization/Flexibility. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.)

The current study, an online survey about instructional strategies for English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities, was designed to build on the findings of the previous study about educator perceptions of instructional strategies. Although the current study did not use consensus building methods, it was similarly designed to obtain educators' perspectives about instructional strategies for reading, mathematics, and science. This survey, in contrast to the previous study, included a broader range than only middle school level educators. Because of the study design, the authors opened participation to any educator of ELLs with disabilities in reading, mathematics, and science across special education, ESL/bilingual education, and general education settings. It is one study of a project designed to identify and test effective instructional strategies for ELLs with disabilities. For this survey, the goal was to use an online environment to learn more about the influences shaping educators' use of certain strategies in the classroom (e.g., state or district mandates, professional development training, etc.). Among the influences that were explored were student and setting characteristics. The primary research question that was addressed centered around discerning the instructional practices that teachers recommend for delivering grade-level, standards-based instruction to English language learners with disabilities. Additionally, there were two other research questions: How do educators who report working with ELLs with disabilities rate the importance and use of strategies; and what do educators report as being the most influential factor in their choice of strategies overall? Finally, the authors gathered other supporting interpretive information about the respondents' familiarity with standards, educator demographics, and reported student characteristics. (Contains 11 tables and 5 figures.)

Alternate assessment acts as a mechanism for inclusion in large-scale educational assessments for those students with disabilities who cannot participate in regular state and district assessments, even with accommodations and modifications. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), and subsequent regulations reinforce the requirement that states develop alternate assessments for students who need them in order to be appropriately included in assessment and accountability systems. To ensure full participation in assessment and accountability systems, whether for NCLB accountability purposes or for graduation or promotion, students with disabilities unable to take statewide paper-and-pencil tests may require alternate assessments. Some of these students have significant cognitive disabilities and are working substantially below the performance expectations of other students in their grade. Sometimes, though, the nature of the student's primary disability is not cognitive, though still complex and significant enough to require an alternate assessment, for example a student with cerebral palsy or an intensive emotional disability. This latter group of students may be working at or close to a performance level comparable with typical peers, but cannot take the on-demand paper-and-pencil test, even with accommodations, due to their disability. The alternate assessments taken by these students must be able to measure their performance against grade-level achievement standards, rather than the alternate achievement standards normally associated with students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The focus of this discussion is on those students who require alternate assessments based on grade-level achievement standards, and how such alternate assessments can reliably measure their achievement in a manner that is equivalent to students who are taking the regular state assessment for that grade. The Massachusetts Department of Education (the "Department") has developed an alternate assessment based on grade-level achievement standards consisting of a structured portfolio of student work collected over a period of time, and reviewed by experts in the content area. This option can be used for two purposes: (1) to ensure appropriate participation for all students in system accountability for NCLB purposes; and (2) to ensure appropriate assessments for all students for the purpose of competency determination for a diploma. In this paper, the "competency portfolio" is discussed, including how the model was developed and validated, and how a small but growing number of students are using this format as an alternative pathway to participate in the Massachusetts Comprehensive Assessment System (MCAS) and, ultimately, satisfy the state's graduation requirement. Appended is: MCAS-Alt Grade 10 "Competency Portfolio" Requirements in ELA [English language arts] and Math. (Contains 2 figures.)

This document provides a guide for the development of the 2006 National Assessment of Education Progress (NAEP) U.S. History Assessment. NAEP measures the U.S. history knowledge and skills of students in grades 4, 8, and 12. According to the NAEP U.S. history framework, the assessment should be organized around three dimensions: historical themes, chronological periods, and ways of knowing and thinking about U.S. history. Four historical themes, intended to cover all major branches of historical study are the core organizing structure of the framework: (1) Change and continuity in American democracy: ideas, institutions, events, key figures, and controversies; (2) Gathering and interactions of peoples, cultures, and ideas; (3) Economic and technological changes and their relation to society, ideas, and the environment; and (4) America's changing role in the world. Eight at-times overlapping chronological periods were used in developing the assessment, focusing attention on several major eras of U.S. history: (1) Beginnings to 1607; (2) Colonization, settlement, and communities (1607 to 1763); (3) Revolution and the new nation (1763 to 1815); (4) Expansion and reform (1801 to 1861); (5) Crisis of the Union: Civil War and Reconstruction (1850 to 1877); (6) Development of modern America (1865 to 1920);(7) Modern America and the World Wars (1914 to 1945); and (8) Contemporary America (1945 to present). Two cognitive domains of knowing and thinking were used as a guide to develop questions: (1) Historical knowledge and perspective: includes knowing and understanding people, events, concepts, themes, movements, contexts, and historical sources; sequencing events; recognizing multiple perspectives and seeing an era or movement through the eyes of different groups; and developing a general conceptualization of U.S. history; and (2) Historical analysis and interpretation: includes explaining issues, identifying historical patterns; establishing cause-and-effect relationships; finding value statements; establishing significance; applying historical knowledge; weighing evidence to draw sound conclusions; making defensible generalizations; and rendering insightful accounts of the past. The report contains 2 appendixes: (1) NAEP U.S. History Framework Project; and (2) Released Items from the NAEP U.S. History Assessment. (Contains 5 tables.) [Developed for the National Assessment Governing Board by the Council of Chief State School Officers with the American Historical Association, American Institutes for Research, National Council for History Education, and National Council for the Social Studies.]

This document provides a guide for the development of the 2006 National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) Economics Assessment. The framework is designed to assess the outcomes of student education in and understanding of economics in grade 12 as part of NAEP. Economic literacy is defined as the ability to identify, analyze, and evaluate the consequences of individual decisions and public policy and includes an understanding of: (1) Fundamental constraints imposed by limited resources, the resulting choices people have to make, and the trade-offs they face; (2) How economies and markets work and how people function within them; and (3) Benefits and costs of economic interaction and interdependence among people and nations. The content of the framework is grouped into three areas: Market Economy (relevance of limited resources; how individuals and institutions make and evaluate decisions; role of incentives; how buyers and sellers interact to create markets; how markets allocate resource; economic role of government in a market economy); National Economy (concepts, terminology, and data used to identify and describe inflation, unemployment, output, and growth; factors that cause changes in those conditions; role of money and interest rates in an economy; mechanics and the appropriate uses of Federal Reserve monetary policies and federal government fiscal policies); and International Economy (reasons for individuals and businesses to specialize and trade; rationale for specialization and trade across international borders; comparison of the benefits and costs of that specialization and resulting trade for consumers, producers, and governments). Within each content area, questions are designed to assess economics in three cognitive categories: (1)Knowing; (2) Applying; and (3) Reasoning. The following are appended: (1) References; (2) NAEP Economics Framework Project; (3) Steering Committee Charge to the Planning Committee; (4) Sample items (Market Economy; National Economy; International Economy); (5) Framework Development Process; and (6) Acknowledgments. (Contains 2 tables.) [Assessment and Item Specifications: NAEP 2006 Economics is a companion document to this framework.]

In December, 2004, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) hosted one of its series of national telephone conferences on the topic of access and alignment to the grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Dan Wiener from the Massachusetts Department of Education was the practitioner presenter. Dan Wiener's presentation was a powerful case study of why and how one state, Massachusetts, ensures that ALL children have access to the grade level curriculum, and achieve at high levels. This publication is in response to many requests for his story. He presents a model for using grade level content standards for developing instruction and assessments aligned with the requirements of NCLB for students who will be assessed in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. A case study is described in which the State of Massachusetts equipped its special educators with the same content knowledge that general educators have, so they could put their considerable skills to work adapting and modifying that curriculum, because that is what special educators already do well. The State of Massachusetts provided those special educators who work with students who are the most difficult to include in the curriculum with a roadmap to make it possible for them to grasp, at a conceptual level, what is expected of all students (the standards), and to understand the process for customizing that curriculum for each student. Then they were shown how to collect data and to document a student's progress learning targeted skills in the student's portfolio that gets used in the school, and later submitted to the state as an alternate assessment. A key ingredient to the State of Massachusetts' success has been a coordinated message about alternate assessment from a unified state leadership. The "1% rule" has given schools an even greater incentive to educate these students in their local schools, and to take the alternate assessment seriously.

For several years, states have listed accommodations allowed on state assessments. States soon found that the definitions of these accommodations varied not only across states, but also within states and even in schools. Over the past few years, states have made greater attempts to define each accommodation and to decide whether the accommodation provided valid test results. During that time, the National Center on Educational Outcomes has recorded accommodations used by states and their definitions and decisions about validity. As the authors studied accommodations use, they found that there are accommodations that require human assistance in order to administer, but that rarely came with instructions about how they were to be delivered or qualifications of the human assistants. They decided to delve deeper and look for state guidelines for these individuals, who they are now calling "access assistants." Guidelines from state education department Web sites were searched, letters sent, and phone calls made to all 50 states to find out what existed for access assistants. They found 22 states with guidelines for one or more of the access assistants that were the focus of their study--scribes, readers, and sign language interpreters. Variations across state guidelines extended from breadth and depth to format and ease of access. They also found 14 states with guidelines describing the qualifications or characteristics of scribes, readers, or sign language interpreters. The report concludes with a description of several challenges to the development of state guidelines for access assistants, and recommendations for meeting those challenges. The following are appended: (1) State Documents Containing Guidelines for Access Assistants; (2) Examples from State Guidelines for Access Assistants; and (3) Examples from State Guidelines Specifying Qualifications and Characteristics of Access Assistants. (Contains 2 tables.)

English language learners (ELLs) with disabilities, especially Hmong, Latinos, and Somalis, exhibit the lowest academic performance and participation rates on statewide tests of academic achievement required by No Child Left Behind (NCLB). These challenges are even more acute for learners with disabilities among these groups and likely reflect the combined effect of limited proficiency in English and the specific disability-related characteristics with which these students may be identified. Unfortunately, ways to address the needs of English-challenged learners with disabilities have received limited attention in educational research despite recent growth in interest in this topic. The research project described in this report examines how parents were engaged to review and comment on the reading instruction of teachers working with English language learners identified with disabilities. Two related research questions were addressed: (1) What is an effective way to involve parents in school and classroom-based instructional issues? and (2) What instructionally relevant information can Latino, Hmong, and Somali parents of English language learners with disabilities provide about standards-based instructional strategies in the classroom? The methodology presented in this paper serves the dual purposes of explaining the authors' procedures and exemplifying how their procedures can be used to involve parents in examining classroom activity and informing instructional practice. Results and discussion are presented together. The following are appended: (1) Hmong Parent Interview Written in English; (2) Hmong Parent Interview Written in Hmong; and (3) Hmong Parent Interview Format.

Universal design is an approach to educational assessment based on principles of accessibility for a wide variety of end users. Elements of universal design include inclusive test population; precisely defined constructs; accessible, non-biased items; tests that are amenable to accommodations; simple, clear and intuitive procedures; maximum readability and comprehensibility; and maximum legibility. This report describes the development of a "considerations of universally designed assessments" form based on Thompson et al.'s original elements. The report summarizes the process of developing and refining a list of considerations for the universal design of statewide assessments for all students, including students with disabilities and English language learners, provides the original list of considerations from Thompson et al., then describes a validation process, whereby assessment and content area experts participated in a Delphi study. The Delphi method is a structured process of using a series of questionnaires to gather the combined input from a group of persons with expertise related to a specific area or population. The Delphi study illuminated expert consensus on some considerations and disagreement on others. All expert commentary is captured in the text of this paper and in Appendix C (in tabular form), and a revised list of considerations is found in Appendix D. Although the goal of this process was to find design strategies that maximize the accessibility of tests and test items, a larger goal was to create an instrument to guide careful consideration of the elements of test design in order to discover issues in items that may be problematic. Based on the comprehensive work represented in this report, eight recommendations are presented for the use of the considerations of universal design at all stages of test development: (1) Incorporate elements of universal design in the early stages of test development; (2) Include disability, technology, and language acquisition experts in item reviews; (3) Provide professional development for item developers and reviewers on use of the considerations for universal design; (4) Present the items being reviewed in the format in which they will appear on the test; (5) Include standards being tested with the items being reviewed; (6) Try out items with students; (7) Field test items in accommodated formats; and (8) Review computer-based items on computers. (Contains 3 tables.)

The rapid increase of culturally diverse populations with special needs in the United States has important implications for delivering grade-level, standards-based instruction to English language learners with Individualized Education Programs (ELL/IEP students). One of the major challenges in both special education and bilingual education is the dearth of research on ELL/IEP students' needs. To be consistent with federal education law requirements, there is a need to focus on content in at least three areas--reading, mathematics, and science. The present study builds on earlier work in which educators of ELL/IEP students were asked about instructional strategies (Thurlow, Albus, Shyyan, Liu, & Barrera, 2004). Specifically, educators generated and weighted the importance, feasibility, and use of content areas and instructional strategies for delivering grade-level, standards-based instruction to ELL/IEP students. Although initial strategies included in the research were from Gersten, Baker, and Marks (1998), 30 educators added strategies to that list. The final list of instructional strategies included 27 reading strategies, 19 mathematics strategies, and 23 science strategies. This study was undertaken to obtain students' input on the instructional strategies generated by educators. The following questions served as the focus of this study: (1) What instructional strategies do ELL/IEP students consider important in reading, mathematics, and science standards-based instruction? (2) What instructional strategies are feasible, as perceived by ELL students with disabilities? and (3) What instructional strategies are employed in the instruction of ELL students with disabilities? Appended are: (1) Instructional Strategies; and (2) Content Area and Instructional Strategy Weightings. (Contains 5 tables and 7 figures.)

This report examines this state-level knowledge base to determine the challenges that state educational agencies face when including English language learners with disabilities in statewide assessments and the solutions they have identified. To do this telephone interviews were conducted with state department personnel in the areas of assessment, English language learner programs, and special education in 14 states. The interviews tapped the knowledge of state policymakers on the assessment of English language learners with disabilities and how they were included in assessments, how decisions were made about their inclusion, and how their test scores were reported and used to improve the educational system. This report focuses on the unique challenges that state officials observed to the inclusion of this group of students in statewide accountability systems and some of the solutions they were working on to overcome these challenges. Interview questions are appended.

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) partnered with Andrew Porter and John Smithson of Wisconsin Center for Education Research (WCER) to develop an advanced, in depth approach to collecting and reporting data on the "enacted curriculum" in K-12 math and science, i.e. the actual subject content and instructional practices experienced by students in classrooms. The set of tools are called the Surveys of Enacted Curriculum (SEC). They have conducted research and testing of enacted curriculum survey tools with schools and teachers. As a result, they are now able to offer the survey tools and a range of related data services to states and districts. The two organizations are collaborating with the Learning Point Associates and The Surveys of Enacted Curriculum, TERC Regional Alliance to disseminate the SEC tools and services to education systems and to assist schools, districts, and states in using these new tools for improving K-12 education. The Surveys are designed to provide reliable, comparable data that are collected at the classroom level with teachers and students. They are available for English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. The SEC data analysis and reporting tools are intended to assist teachers, administrators, and policymakers with planning for instructional improvement in several ways: (1) align curriculum with standards and system-wide assessments; (2) monitor indicators of instruction and relationship to student achievement; (3) analyze differences in instruction and content across schools and classes; identify improvement strategies through school leadership teams; and (4) evaluate effects of initiatives, such as professional development, in changing math and science practices. The SEC tools and services have been developed with assistance from many educators and researchers. The data collection instruments were field-tested in several hundred schools. [Prepared by CCSSO SEC Collaborative Project which also includes partners: State Departments of Education; and Learning Point Associates.]

The purpose of this document is to summarize the predominant issues presented by states in their requests to amend their state accountability plans to date. This paper is intended to summarize areas on the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation's accountability requirements where states sought substantive changes to their accountability plans or have sought targeted technical assistance. Section I of this document presents an introduction and develops the background related to this paper. Section II describes the central issues addressed in the amendments proposed by states. Section III offers a set of conclusions reached as a result of the review of states? accountability workbook amendments and ED's responses. Also identified are "unanticipated approvals" and amendment requests awaiting ED decisions. Appendix A provides a summary of ED's State Accountability Workbook Decisions that Changed Between 2002 and 2004. Appendix B explains the 10 principles states were asked by ED to describe in their accountability plans.

This paper resulted from the work of the Study Group on Transitions in Assessments from IASA ("Improving America's Schools Act of 1994") to NCLB ("No Child Left Behind Act of 2001") comprised of state educational specialists and consultants of the Comprehensive Assessment Systems for ESEA ("Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965") Title I (CAS) State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards (SCASS). The purposes of this paper--the first in a series of issue papers--are: (1) to identify implementation issues surrounding the transition of assessments from IASA to NCLB; (2) to provide a framework for thinking about these assessment issues; (3) to provide a tool to guide decisions related to the implementation of NCLB assessment requirements; and (4) to foreshadow issues to be addressed in subsequent papers. It is primarily targeted toward policy "influencers" such as state education agency leaders, particularly directors of assessment and Title I programs, who interact with and influence policymakers and other key decision makers. Appended are: (1) Summary of Key Accountability Requirement Differences Between the 1994 and 2001 ESEA Reauthorizations; (2) NCLB Implementation Timeline; and (3) Within Year Requirements. [Report produced with CAS SCASS Study Group: Transitions in Assessment from IASA to NCLB.]

This document contains the design and rationale for assessing science achievement of students throughout the United States in 2005. This same Framework has been used by NAEP for the 1996 and 2000 science assessments. The Framework provides a general overview of NAEP, describes the NAEP Science Framework adopted by NAGB, and reviews the process by which the Framework was developed. Appended are: (1) NAEP Science Achievement; (2) Fields of Science; (3) Examples of Themes by Grade Level; (4) Science Content Outlines (Excerpts); and (5) Science Committees and Project Staff. A list of selected readings is also provided.

This document contains the framework and a set of recommendations for the 2005 NAEP mathematics assessment. It includes descriptions of the mathematical content of the test, the types of test questions, and recommendations for administration of the test. In broad terms, this framework attempts to answer the question: What mathematics should be assessed in 2005 on NAEP? The answer to this question must necessarily take into account the constraints of a large-scale assessment such as NAEP, with its limitations on time and resources. Of critical importance is the fact that this document does not attempt to answer the question: What mathematics should be taught (or how)? This is an assessment framework, not a curriculum framework. It was developed with the understanding that some concepts, skills, and activities in school mathematics are not suitable to be assessed on NAEP, even though they may be important components of a school curriculum. Appended are: (1) NAEP Mathematics Achievement Level Descriptions; (2) Mathematical Complexity Items Scoring Guide; and (3) NAEP Mathematics Project Staff and Committees.

This report is an accounting of a second case study of large-scale assessment practices in a local educational agency where students with disabilities were administered the state's standards-based tests out of level. The first report (Minnema et al., 2004a) provided the results from the first case study conducted in another school district in another state. The overall purpose of the research project is to describe the specific effects of testing students with disabilities out of level as well as teachers' and students' perceptions of these effects. To study the implementation of an out-of-level testing policy at the local school level, the following research questions were posed: (1) What are the instructional effects on students with disabilities who are tested out of level in statewide assessments? (2) What are teachers' learning expectations for students with disabilities who are tested out of level? (3) How are students with disabilities selected for an out-of-level test? (4) How do students and their parents perceive out of level testing? A mixed methods approach to implementing the case study where a "case" was defined as a school district was employed. Although the school district was relatively large, limited resources constrained the data collection process to a limited number of participating schools. Two district-level personnel, a special education director, and a special education coordinator, selected and recruited two middle schools and two high schools to participate in the study. No elementary schools participated because this state did not administer out-of-level state tests to elementary-aged students. At the school and district levels, narrative and numeric data through interview, survey, and document review data collection techniques were collected. After data collection had been initiated, it was learned that the school district was under a decree from the U.S. Office for Civil Rights to provide instruction to all students at the same pace in every general educational classroom. In other words, all students, including students with disabilities who were tested out of level, progressed in curriculum in all content areas at the same pace whether or not the necessary information had been learned. Rather than collecting interview data to answer the research question about the instructional effects of out-of-level testing, "scenarios" that described typical students in their classrooms based on conversations with general and special education teachers were created. Teachers were also asked to describe special education instruction as it was delivered in their school. These discussions became part of the interviews, so were tape recorded and transcribed. These data were analyzed for information about the instruction and learning of students with disabilities who were tested out of level. Findings are organized according to the three data collection activities employed for this case study. The IEP document review is presented first with the scenario results presented second. Face-to-face interview results are presented third. While conclusions are derived from one school district where data in four schools was collected, discussion is general enough so that educators and policymakers from other school districts and states are challenged to consider whether these findings are true for their circumstances also. (Contains 13 tables.)

Minnesota is one of many states that began development of an English proficiency test before federal requirements were in place to do so. It had decided to put into place a test that would provide the state with a better and more uniform gauge of how its population of English language learners (ELLs) was doing in their acquisition of academic English language skills. Minnesota chose to adapt its test, the Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE), from the Illinois Measure of Academic Growth in English (IMAGE). The TEAE is designed to gauge the growth of emerging academic English language skills across all grades, including three forms spanning grades 3-4, 5-6, and 7-8. The 7-8 form is also designed for use with students above grades 7-8. This report focused on state ELL performance on the TEAE, in comparison to ELL and fluent English student performance on Minnesota's Comprehensive Assessment (MCA) in reading in 3rd and 5th grade, and Minnesota's Basic Skills Test (BST) in reading in 8th grade. The TEAE is designed to measure the basic English proficiency required for pursuing higher-level academic achievement, while the MCA is designed to measure academic achievement toward the state standards. The Basic Skills Test in reading measures the basic skills needed to be able to graduate. Across these comparisons, the guiding research questions were to find out what levels of the TEAE best predicts success on the MCA and BST, and whether the state decision to count as proficient those ELLs who achieve at level 4 on the TEAE has a sound base of support from an assessment perspective. Study 1 addresses the questions related to the TEAE and the MCAs. Study 2 addresses the same questions for the TEAE and the BST. Among the key findings, in Study 1 (TEAE and the MCA), ELLs in TEAE level 4 are likely to do as well as native English speakers on the MCA, recognizing that there is a range of performance among native speakers. Although the specific predictive relationship (i.e., what TEAE score corresponds to what MCA score) can differ, the positive relationship between students' performance on the two tests is stable across years and grades. For students with TEAE scores below about 110, there is less ability to predict MCA scores. Most students in TEAE level 3 fall into MCA levels 2A, 2B, or 3 and therefore although it is likely that many within this group score as proficient (i.e., 2B or 3) others may not (2A). In Study 2 (TEAE and the BST), it was found that TEAE scale scores had moderate predictive power for BST performance. However, the predictability is not as good as for the MCA. To predict that a student would be likely to pass the BST, he or she must score at least 260 (i.e., achieve level 3) on the TEAE. In conclusion, there might be stronger relationships between the MCA and 3rd and 5th grade reading skills on the TEAE because the academic language skills measured on the TEAE fit those elementary grades better. Other factors besides potential discrepancies between secondary grade level skills and basic academic language skills may also account for differences in performance between the tests. (Contains 15 figures and 12 tables.)

English language learners (ELLs) were once expected to learn English before they learned critical content needed to succeed in school, but this is longer true, because now federal education laws require that ELLs be held to the same academic standards as other students. There are, however, requirements to assess and document progress on tests of English language development. This study sought to provide information on the links between academic language, language proficiency tests, and performance on standardized assessments by examining relationships among: (1) two language proficiency measures (e.g., Language Assessment Scale (LAS) and Minnesota's Test of Emerging Academic English (TEAE); (2) teacher ratings of classroom reading and writing samples; and (3) two state achievement tests: Minnesota's Comprehensive Assessments (MCAs) and Minnesota's Basic Skills Test (BSTs). The goal was to describe the role that academic language might play in determining differences among language proficiency tests. The researchers sampled 99 English language learners (ELLs) in grades 3, 5, and 11. In examining the relationship between the LAS and TEAE in this sample of students, the researchers found that the underlying reading skills being measured by the two tests were closely related. indicating that the students who performed one way on one test tended to perform a certain way on the other test. The writing tests for the LAS and TEAE were not related, indicating that the tests are either measuring different skills, or are measuring underlying skills differently. Teachers who were licensed to teach English as a Second Language (ESL) tended to rate students' skills as either the same or higher than the students' content teachers. Both ESL and content teachers tended to rate listening and speaking skills higher than students' skills in reading or writing. Teacher opinions about specific students' chances to succeed in future classes without further language support were related to whether students had achieved passing scores on the Basic Skills Tests and had at least been rated as "achieved" on the Minnesota Comprehensive Assessments. Although certain Language Assessment Scales scores (reading and overall) were significantly correlated with the MCA writing test and BST reading test, there appeared to be stronger correlations between the TEAE reading score and the MCA and BST reading scores. Comparisons of ESL and content teacher ratings of student ability with scores on state achievement tests showed inconsistencies based on whether the teacher was an ESL or content teacher. The comparisons of proficiency test data and state test data showed that certain language proficiency scores (reading and overall) were significantly correlated to the MCA writing test and BST reading test. However, stronger correlations were observed between the TEAE reading score and the MCA and BST reading scores. In comparing student performance on state tests with teacher ratings on a question about students' ability to succeed without further language support, most of the students rated as likely to succeed had achieved passing scores on the BST and had at least been rated as "achieved" on the MCA tests. (Contains 44 tables.)

The vision for the nation's schools is to ensure high standards of performance for every child and prepare each child to succeed as a productive member of a democratic society. Educators throughout the country are striving to achieve this national priority. Yet, how can every child succeed when so many reach the schoolhouse door with physical and mental health challenges that impede their ability to learn and compromise their likelihood of becoming healthy, capable adults? This policy statement calls on the Council membership and their colleagues to recognize the enormous impact that health has on the academic achievement of our nation's youth. The education community must look beyond standards setting and systems of accountability and join with public and private sector mental health, health, and social services providers to address the widespread conditions that interfere with student learning and students' prospects for healthy adulthood. Policies and practices that address the health and developmental needs of young people must be included in any comprehensive strategy for improving academic performance.

When investigators document the consequences of high stakes assessments for students with disabilities, many negative consequences are cited. Both empirical and anecdotal evidence for positive consequences of large-scale high-stakes assessments for students with disabilities were examined for this study. Multiple methodologies were used to gather data on positive consequences: a qualitative media survey; an environmental scan of State Special Education Directors; a focus group; and a national survey on state assessment practices. Four primary positive consequences for students with disabilities were found consistently across all methodologies: (1) increased participation of students with disabilities in testing programs; (2) higher expectations and standards; (3) improved instruction; and (4) improved performance. Secondary findings were found in fewer sources (usually two or three sources) and are as follows: (1) improved assessments; (2) improved diploma options; (3) decreased dropout rates; and (4) increased collaboration and communication between parents and special education and general education teachers. Overall, the findings suggest that large-scale high stakes assessments can have intended and unintended positive consequences for students with disabilities.

The purpose of this paper is to provide a framework for the evaluation of validity for accountability systems. This paper is organized into two parts. Part I provides the foundation for the validation framework by considering the following: (1) a definition of accountability systems; (2) the reasons these systems require validation; (3) a brief overview of validity and validation as represented in assessment; and (4) the accountability system validation framework: application and extension of the assessment validation model for accountability systems. Part II lays out in more detail each component of the validation framework. The following are appended: (1) CCSSO Resources Related to Accountability System Validation; and (2) Standards for Educational Accountability Systems. (Contains 20 tables and 9 figures.)

The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO), through the Immigrant Students and Secondary School Reform project, seeks to strengthen the capacity of state education agencies and districts to improve delivery of educational services to English language learners (ELLs) enrolled in high schools undergoing reform. This compendium was developed as one of the means to achieving this objective. This document highlights research and programs in the education of English language learners (ELLs), based on the work of the Immigrant Students in Secondary School Reform project. Recommendations for best practices in six areas crucial to the successful inclusion of ELLs in secondary school reform are presented. These areas are discussed in six sections of the compendium: (1) Immigrant Students with Limited Formal Schooling; (2) Academic Literacy; (3) Parent Involvement; (4) Summer Programs; (5) Professional Development; and (6) Special Education. This compendium attempts to bring the good work of bilingual/ESL educators and researchers into mainstream discussions of high school reform.