The Mid-South RRC has developed these guides to assist states in developing improvement activities using their parent survey data in response to Indicator 8 of the Part B State Performance Plan (SPP) and Indicator 4 of the Part C State Performance Plan (SPP). The purpose of these guides is the help states use the findings of their surveys to improve services, no matter what survey instrument (e.g., NCSEAM or state-developed for Part B; and NCSEAM, ECO, or state-developed for Part C) is used. The intent is to answer the questions, "What do the results mean?" and "How can we use this information to improve services?" Posted 12/09

PART B Parent Survey Guide

PDF Version

---

PART C Parent Survey Guide

PDF Version

Research to Practice: Culturally Responsive Resource Manual -- An Annotated Bibliography (September 2009)

PDF Version

This manual contains resources and information that will assist state department personnel, administrators and teachers in their work with culturally diverse students. Surveys and interviews in two MSRRC states indicated that teachers are aware of their need for more information about students' cultural values that may be different from theirs. School personnel can use this manual to design professional development activities which increase awareness of different cultural values and illustrate how cultural values impact learning and influence a child's behavior in the classroom. State Departments of Education can use this manual to reduce inappropriate referrals to special education and to close the achievement gap between students.

This document is designed to be used as an assessment of State systems by State Part B and Part C staff and their stakeholders. It provides a detailed process for State Education Agencies (SEA) and Lead Agencies (LA) to follow that will guide improvement efforts relative to the APR indicators and other statewide initiatives. Its purpose is to assist states in:

1. Implementing a systematic approach to designing and refining improvement activities,
2. Aligning improvement activities with state priorities
3. Allocating funding and human resources to State improvement efforts which are most effective, and
4. Implementing, tracking, documenting and evaluating improvement efforts designed to achieve or maintain compliance and improve performance that lead to better results.

The framework comprises three major components and their related subcomponents and practices. Woven throughout the framework are evaluation practices to ensure SEA and LA staff have the information needed to determine the effectiveness of their improvement efforts and enhance their systems and processes. Posted 2/09

The Work Plan is a planning tool supplement to the State Systems Improvement Self Assessment. It is designed for documenting the sequential action steps for each priority action relative to overall systems improvement or improving practices specific to an indicator or a set of related indicators. Posted 2/09

State TA Planning & Documentation (October 2008)

States with a Needs Assistance determination for two consecutive years (NA 2 states) are required to report in the next APR, the TA sources used to address improvement and what actions were taken by the state as a result of the TA. All states are encouraged to document TA as well. The chart below provides states a format to gather the data to report on the NA 2 states' requirement, but also provides an opportunity for all states to collect additional useful data about TA for planning and reporting purposes. This chart format organizes the TA around Priority Needs (both OSEP and state) and five methods for provision of TA. The chart can be used as a whole document for TA documentation and planning and can also be divided into sections pertaining to specific indicators when reporting in the APR. Posted 2/09

• State TA Planning & Documentation: Overview Power Point Presentation
  
• State TA Planning & Documentation Chart
• State TA Planning & Documentation Chart: Part B Example
• State TA Planning & Documentation Chart: Part C Example
  

2% Modified Achievement Standards (March 2008)

The three documents below were produced for Tennessee for guidance, accommodations and usage of their developing 2% of AA-MAS system. They were developed by Edvanita staff, including support from Greg Anderson, an Edvantia staff member and subcontractor of Mid-South RRC. Posted 2-18-09

• Guidance on AA-MAS for IEP Teams
• Accommodations for AA-MAS
• Using Assessment Results to Improve Teaching and Learning

Has alternate assessment helped revamp special education services and practice for students with significant cognitive impairments? This paper includes true stories from teachers and state level staff who have seen improvements in both the education system and lives of individuals with significant cognitive impairments. While challenges exist with alternate assessment, these stories support emerging research in demonstrating the positive effects it can have on attitudes, practices and student outcomes.

Has alternate assessment helped revamp special education services and practice for students with significant cognitive impairments? This paper includes true stories from teachers and state level staff who have seen improvements in both the education system and lives of individuals with significant cognitive impairments. While challenges exist with alternate assessment, these stories support emerging research in demonstrating the positive effects it can have on attitudes, practices and student outcomes.

This checklist was designed for use by a state team to conduct a preliminary self-analysis of the state’s system of standards and assessments. In using this checklist, it is essential that reference be made to the full document: Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting the Requirements of NCLB, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, April 28, 2004. PDF and Word versions are available at http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html.

Federal regulations for alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities set a cap on scores to be counted as proficient or advanced for computing adequate yearly progress. If the cap is exceeded, proficient and advanced scores over that cap must be distributed by the state across districts/schools as non-proficient. This paper outlines the pros and cons of four potential methods for distribution of such scores.

This 43-page document provides the text of alternate assessment participation guidelines states have posted on their websites as of February 2004 to ensure that appropriate students participate in alternate assessments, as required by the 1997 amendments of IDEA.

Alternate assessment systems for large-scale assessment within states are just beginning to emerge. Issues with which states must deal include: 1) Why assess? 2) Who should be assessed? 3) What should be assessed? 4) When to assess? 5) How to assess and score? 6) How to report and use data? and 7) How should the state engage in development and training? Alternate assessment development is discussed for eight states that were selected based on their relatively high level of development and implementation as well as their use of innovative ideas. States chose to use either a portfolio method or to show IEP progress. Contrasts are drawn between states whose alternate assessment content is related to state standards or use individual or local district standards. Scoring choices between states are also compared and contrasted related to whose responsibility it is to score, what the scoring process entails, and the scoring criteria focus.

This document was developed by Gerald Tindal and Lynn Fuchs and summarizes the research on test changes to provide an empirical basis for defining accommodations. In this review, a very wide sweep of the literature was made, using many key words to search both electronic databases and educational journals. Although the main focus was on test changes for students with disabilities, the literature was not confined to only studies done with this population. In fact, test accommodations can and should be studied in the context of validity, which implies both measurement and decision-making. Clearly such decision-making occurs in both general and special education. Using the latest amendment to the Individuals with Disabilities Educational Act 1997, the authors consider test changes as part of inclusion and progress in the general education curriculum. The first section addresses Individualized Education Programs (IEPs), using this component as the main vehicle for expressing the need for test accommodations. Then the research is summarized using a taxonomy from the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). The last section addresses issues of validity with primary consideration on using this research to implement sound testing practices and to make appropriate educational decisions.

This document was developed to assist states facing significant challenges in selecting appropriate methods and formats for alternate assessment, not the least of which is having a system operational by July 1, 2000. Issues to address as a state decides how to administer & score alternate assessments are suggested in this document. This paper goes beyond "Alternate Assessment Issues and Practices" (Olsen, 1998), focusing on the issue of how to assess and score specific instruments used and how the results are scored are also discussed.

The 1997 amendments to IDEA have created intensive interest and activity in developing alternate assessments for students with disabilities who cannot participate in large-scale assessment programs. The law states that in order to be eligible for federal funding under IDEA, children with disabilities must be included in general state and district-wide assessment programs with appropriate accommodations when necessary. The purpose of this document is to serve as a resource for state education agencies (and local education agencies when no large-scale assessments are being developed at the state level). The paper defines seven issues that a developer must address and then provides narrative descriptions of five state alternate assessment practices that have been developed or are emerging.  These state practices have been selected to reflect a variety of assessment approaches and contexts. 

This document was compiled jointly by the Mid-South RRC & ILSSA (Inclusive Large Scale Assessment) Project. This two-page chart discusses stakeholder involvement, process, communication, and other optional activities.

This paper was developed to assist states with the challenge of establishing goals for children participating in alternate assessments that are consistent with other goals and standards established by the states. The paper discusses various approaches taken by the states that have accepted the challenge of creating links with the state adopted curriculum framework. The purpose of a curriculum framework is to provide a foundation for teachers to use as a basis for planning instructional programs for students with moderate/severe disabilities. The aim of this paper is to provide state teams with options for committee purposes and representatives, processes for development, and next steps as well as a guide that will help create a foundation for state planning.

This paper is a result of the new IDEA 1997 Amendments relating to alternate assessments for children with disabilities. The paper describes and analyzes efforts of seven early-starting states to define what they variously call assumptions, premises, rationale, beliefs, values, principles, parameters or philosophy for alternate assessment.  The foundations for the Kentucky, Maryland and Michigan approaches are described first, because their work has influenced later work to a great extent. In addition, foundation statements are included from Colorado, North Carolina, Virginia, and West Virginia. The paper ends with comments about the effects the different orientations might have on alternate assessments.