I. O
.1
2,
.

. ,
h 3.33 .1
.r: uﬂmTUIianr 1.. En. Mud“ L
9.4;“. ﬁhihmmsﬁn: awn ‘
ﬂ ,
w a.“ hr ..
. , Elia
'-

.itlo
la..l.i£!a.d..ﬂn
, I’m. a< .
to.
it.

 

9,)...-
0.5.1:
Uzi-Iv...

.05.): u ..

 

Eankr/J—anauw. I. a A m‘rn.....nl ..

 

THESIS LIBRARY
“4 Michigan State
£29051 University

This is to certify that the
dissertation entitled

THE MICHIGAN MI-ACCESS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT
PROGRAM: PROCESS EVALUATION OF A STATE ALTERNATE
ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

presented by
Angela L. Dalhoe

has been accepted towards fulﬁllment

of the requirements for the
PhD. degree in Counseling, Educational
Psychology, and Special
Education

 

 

/ Major’ Professof's Signature
/ /, 94) ., 05’

Date

 

MSU is an aﬂinnative-action, equal-opportunity employer

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

5/08 Kthrolecc8Pres/ClRC/DateDue.indd

 

 

THE MICHIGAN MT-ACCESS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: PROCESS
EVALUATION OF A STATE ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

By

Angela L. Dalhoe

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan Sate University

In partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
For the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Counseling, Educational Psychology, and Special Education

2008

ABSTRACT

THE MICHIGAN MI-ACCESS ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT PROGRAM: PROCESS
EVALUATION OF A STATE ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

By
Angela L. Dalhoe

The implementation of alternate assessments for students with disabilities is one
of the most prominent changes in special education in recent history (Browder, F allin,
Davis, & Karvonen, 2003). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)
originally mandated alternate assessments in 1997. Two more pieces of legislation, the
No Child Left Behind Act (N CLB) of 2002 and the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004,
supported the importance of assessment and accountability for all students, including
those with signiﬁcant disabilities. Prior to NCLB and IDEA, many students with
signiﬁcant disabilities were excluded from assessment and accountability systems
(Ysseldyke & Olsen, 1997). These legal mandates affect approximately eleven percent of
the 5.5 million students receiving services under IDEA. Therefore, approximately
610,000 students in the United States are affected by the recent changes in the assessment
process for students with signiﬁcant disabilities (Golden Gate, 2006).

This evaluative study examined the process surrounding the MI-Access alternate
assessment program used in Michigan through a web-based survey sent to all MI-Access
District Coordinators (N = 786). The survey focused on the utilization of data and
resources in the implementation of MI—Access, communication and collaboration within

and between key stakeholders in the alternate assessment process, and District

Coordinators’ perceptions of the MI-Access Program for students with signiﬁcant

disabilities. The research questions guiding this study include:

0 To what extent are Michigan School Districts utilizing the MI-Access
resources (6. g. assessment data and results and Extended Grade Level Content
Expectations) provided by the Michigan Department of Education to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments?

0 To what extent are Michigan School Districts communicating and
collaborating to successfully implement and coordinate the MI-Access
Program for students with cognitive impairments?

0 What are District Coordinators’ perceptions regarding the MI-Access Program
(i.e. personal role, Assessment Administer training, and perceived strengths
and weaknesses of the MI-Access Program)?

Participants completed 23 Likert scale survey items and four open-ended response
questions. Descriptive statistics were used to analyze data and report results for each
research question. In addition, open-ended responses were coded, categorized, and
reported according to frequency and percent of respondents. An overall return rate of
64.4% was achieved with 506 District Coordinators participating in this study.

Overall, ﬁndings from this study indicated that alternate assessment data, results,
and resources appear to be underutilized by MI-Access District Coordinators. In addition,
differences in the level of agreement regarding the alternate assessment process were
identiﬁed between the Administration and Practitioner subgroups. Speciﬁcally, the

Administration group reported more agreement in most survey categories.

This work is dedicated to my family:
My husband, Rick for his never-ending encouragement and patience.

My parents, Swede and Rose for a lifetime of support and guidance.

Thank you.

iv

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

First, and most importantly, I would like to thank my advisor, Dr. Troy Mariage,
for his patience, understanding, and sincere commitment to my education. In addition, I
would like to acknowledge:
o my committee members, Dr. Susan Peters, Dr. Summer Ferreri, and Dr. Peter
Youngs for their time and commitment to this research;
0 my husband, Rick, for his willingness to change the course of our lives and
relocate to Michigan;
0 my family and ﬁiends for supporting this change;
0 my colleagues at the Michigan Department of Education,
0 and all of the MI-Access District Coordinators who took the time to be part of

this study.

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .......................................................................................................... xiii
CHAPTER 1 INTRODUCTION ......................................................................................... 1
Introduction to the Study ............................................................................. 1
Statement of the Problem ............................................................................ 4
Signiﬁcance of Process Evaluation ............................................................. 4
Purpose of the Study .................................................................................... 5
Signiﬁcance of the Study ............................................................................. 7
CHAPTER 2 REVIEW OF LITERATURE ........................................................................ 9
What are Alternate Assessments? .............................................................. 10
The Alternate Assessment Process and Educational Improvements ......... 11
Perceived Advantages of Alternate Assessments ...................................... 13
Perceived Disadvantages of Alternate Assessments .................................. 20
The Change Process and Teacher Attitudes ............................................... 26
Policy Implementation ............................................................................... 27
MI-Access ................................................................................................. 31
Michigan School Improvement Framework .............................................. 34
Conclusion ................................................................................................. 35
CHAPTER 3 METHODOLOGY ...................................................................................... 37
Methodological Rationale ......................................................................... 37
Participants ................................................................................................. 38
Role of MI-Access District Coordinator .................................................... 39
Procedure ................................................................................................... 40
Survey Development............................... ................................................... 41
Survey Instrument ...................................................................................... 42
Pilot Survey ................................................................................................ 49
Data Collection .......................................................................................... 50
CHAPTER 4 RESULTS .................................................................................................... 54
Demographic Data .................................................................................... 54
Research Question One: Utilization of Resources .................................... 61
Research Question Two: Communication and Collaboration ................... 68
Research Question Three: District Coordinators’ Perceptions .................. 71
Data by Strands ﬁom Michigan School Improvement Framework ........... 77
Data by Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components ................. 78
Open Ended Questions — MI-Access Strengths and Weaknesses ............ 79
CHAPTER 5 DISCUSSION .............................................................................................. 84
Demographic Information ......................................................................... 84
Demographic Data—Inclusion of all Students in Alternate Assessments
Systems .......................................................................................... 87
Research Question One: Utilization of Resources ..................................... 95

vi

Research Question Two: Communication and Collaboration ................. 100

Research Question Three: District Coordinators’ Perceptions ................ 103
Open Ended Questions — MI-Access Strengths and Weaknesses .......... 105
Ml School Improvement Framework and Essential AA Process
Components ................................................................................. 11]
Limitations .............................................................................................. 1 12
Future Research ....................................................................................... 113
Conclusion .............................................................................................. 1 16
APPENDIXES ................................................................................................................. l 17
Appendix A Overview of MI-Access Student Populations .................... 118
Appendix B MI-Access Scoring Rubric ................................................. 119
Appendix C Sample of Extended Grade Level Content
Expectations ................................................................................. 120
Appendix D Survey ................................................................................. 121
Appendix E Sample Coding of Open-Ended Questions — Strengths ...... 128

Appendix F Sample Coding of Open-Ended Questions — Weaknesses..129

REFERENCES ................................................................................................................ 130

vii

Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Table 9
Table 10
Table 11
Table 12
Table 13
Table 14
Table 15
Table 16
Table 17
Table 18
Table 19
Table 20
Table 21

Table 22

LIST OF TABLES

District Coordinators’ Major Tasks ........................................................... 40
Survey Items — Teaching for Learning ...................................................... 45
Survey Items - Leadership ......................................................................... 46
Survey Items — Personnel and Professional Learning ................................ 47
Survey Items — Essential Alternate Assessment Components ................... 48
Weekly Response Rate .............................................................................. 56
Participant’s Role ....................................................................................... 57
Geographic Location .................................................................................. 59
Exceptions to Assessing all Students with Cl ............................................ 61
Assessment Data and Results ..................................................................... 65
Utilization of Resources ............................................................................. 68
Communication and Collaboration ............................................................ 71
DC Perceptions of Personal Role ............................................................... 74
DC Perceptions of AA Training and Ability ............................................. 76
MI School Improvement Framework Strand Scores ................................. 78
Essential Alternate Assessment Component Scores .................................. 79
Responses to Open-Ended Question: MI-Access Strengths ...................... 81
Responses to Open-Ended Question: MI-Access Weaknesses .................. 82
Summary of Data by Essential AA Components ....................................... 83
Recommendations -— Demographic Information ........................................ 93
Recommendations —- Research Question One ............................................ 99
Recommendations — Research Question Two ......................................... 103

viii

Table 23 Recommendations — Research Question Three ....................................... 110

ix

CHAPTER 1
IN TRODUCTION
Introduction to the Study

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) originally mandated
alternate assessments in 1997. States and districts use these assessments for students who,
due to the severity of their disability, are unable to participate in the regular state
assessment even if provided the appropriate accommodations (CCSSO, 2003). The need
for alternate assessments was further addressed in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002
and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act in 2004. These
regulations stipulate that states must develop alternate assessments that align with grade
level standards. While they are not required to do so, many states develop their alternate
assessments ﬁ'om a set of alternate achievement standards. According to the US
Department of Education, these standards must align with the state’s academic content
standards, promote access to the general education curriculum, and reﬂect professional
judgment of the highest learning standards possible for students with the most signiﬁcant
disabilities (CCSSO, 2003). The creation of these alternate standards and assessments has
increased the participation of students with signiﬁcant disabilities in state testing and
accountability systems.

The process of assessing students with disabilities and including them in
accountability systems is important for students, educators, and families. In the school
setting, alternate assessments have the potential to promote high expectations for students
with disabilities as well as provide access to the general education curriculum (Thurlow,

Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2003). In addition, families and educators can beneﬁt from the

information provided by alternate assessments to determine academic achievement for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities. Results from alternate assessments may also
determine whether existing academic programs are meeting the needs of students with
signiﬁcant disabilities. Overall, these assessments have the potential to increase
opportunities for students with disabilities and improve educational outcomes (Kleinert &
Kearns, 2001)

Early in the process of large-scale assessments, not all students were participating
in accountability systems. Originally, students with mild disabilities began to participate
and then the movement shifted to include all students. “Special education could no longer
focus only on access to and compliance with the educational process, but rather it had to
Shift to looking at outcomes for students” (Kleinert & Kearns, 2001, p. 3). These students
included those with signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities.

There are numerous reasons for having all students, including those with
Signiﬁcant disabilities, participate in assessment and accountability systems. These
SyStems have the potential to increase leaning expectations and improve access to the
general education curriculum for students with disabilities (Thurlow et al., 2003). In
addition, by including students with signiﬁcant disabilities in standardized assessments,

this population becomes part of national accountability systems such as NCLB’s
Adequate Yearly Progress (NCLB 2002).
However, there are also challenges and concerns regarding alternate assessments
for Students with signiﬁcant disabilities. Proper administration of alternate assessments
requires a considerable commitment of time and resources. Teachers consistently report a

lack of instructional and preparation time as an issue in education. This problem is

intensiﬁed by the new requirements of alternate assessments. In addition, teachers report
needing more resources such as release time, computer access, or assistive technology to
meet the demands of alternate assessments (Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, &
Spooner, 2005). Schools and districts will need to provide staff training and professional
development opportunities to increase understanding of the alternate assessment process
if they are going to demonstrate appropriate assessment administration (Browder, F allin,
Davis, & Karvonen, 2003). Considering the time and resources necessary to implement
alternate assessments, some educators are concerned that instruction and curriculum for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities may be negatively affected. Speciﬁcally, there is
concern that narrowing of the curriculum could potentially reduce the focus on functional
and transition skills (Flowers et al., 2005).

There are many new accountability requirements outlined in IDEA 04 and NCLB
that impact special education. This new legislation creates challenges for schools as they
work with teachers to improve the educational outcomes for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities. Considering the shortage of teachers who work with this population, the
struggles are confounded by the fact that many teachers may be learning to work with
these students as well as trying to master the components of alternate assessments
(Browder, Karvonen, Davis, F allin, & Courtade-Little, 2005). Organizations such as the
Council for Exceptional Children —- Developmental Disabilities Division support the
inclusion of all students into effective assessment systems, but are concerned with how
states “develop and implement assessments that affect students with disabilities” (Pemer,

2007,p.243)

Statement of Problem

The introduction of alternate assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities
is a recent addition to the ﬁeld of special education. The Michigan Department of
Education administered the ﬁrst MI-Access Alternate Assessments in 2002. At this time,
there were two levels of alternate assessments titled Participation and Supported
Independence. The Participation assessment is administered to students who have, or
function as if they have, severe cognitive impairments. The Supported Independence
assessment is developed for students who have, or function as if they have, moderate
cognitive impairments (MDE-PSI Assessment Plan, 2007). The Functional Independence
assessment was introduced during the 2005/2006 school year and administered to
students who have, or function as if they have, mild cognitive impairments (MDE-FI
Assessment Plan, 2005).

Statewide, there are approximately 3,000 students in each assessment grade (3
through 8, and 11) participating in the MI-Access Program for a total of approximately
21,000 students statewide (MDE-Technical Report, 2007). However, because all three
levels of the MI-Access Program have only been operational for two academic years,
there has been little research conducted to evaluate this alternate assessment process.
Signiﬁcance of Process Evaluation

The use of alternate assessments is a new development for most states as they
work to meet the federal mandates of NCLB and IDEA. According to NCLB, states have
the option to choose an alternate assessment format and develop their own assessments.
Currently, about half of states use a portfolio—based assessment to measure academic

achievement for students who do not participate in state standardized assessment. Other

states utilize a variety of formats including checklists, IEP analysis, and other
performance based models for their alternate assessments (Pemer, 2007).

The alternate assessment process in Michigan is relatively unique. In the MI-
Access Program, students take an “on—demand” performance based assessment format
with items developed speciﬁcally for each student population (Participation, Supported
Independence, and Functional Independence level). While the assessment administrator
has ﬂexibility in the presentation of an assessment item, all items in the assessment
booklets are the same throughout the state.

The “on-demand” performance based alternate assessment format also creates a
unique assessment process where there are multiple levels of material distribution and
communication. According to Gong and Marion (2006), “alternate assessment and
instruction is moving more ﬁrmly into a standards-based accountability world” (p. 1).
This research will evaluate the process of the MI-Access Program as an example of a
standardized alternate assessment system.

Purpose of the Study

The purpose of this study was to conduct evaluative research of the MI-Access
Alternate Assessment Program from the perspective of one critical stakeholder, the MI-
Access District Coordinator. Guided by the CIPP Model developed by Daniel L.
Stufﬂebeam, this research evaluated the implementation process of the MI-Access
Alternate Assessment Program. The CIPP Evaluation Model is a “comprehensive
framework for guiding evaluations of programs, projects, personnel, products,
institutions, and systems” (Stufﬂebeam, 2007). This model focuses on the Context, Input,

Process, and Product of a program. For the purpose of this study, research focused on the

Process of the MI-Access Program. By surveying all MI-Access District Coordinators in
Michigan, this research study evaluated the MI-Access Program based on the perceptions
of these participants. This evaluation includes the utilization of program resources and
data, communication and collaboration, professional development and training, and
general knowledge of the MI-Access process.

In addition, this research examined the MI Access Program in relation to the
Michigan School Improvement Framework. Speciﬁcally, survey questions were
categorized into: (1) Strand I -— Teaching for Learning, (2) Strand II — Leadership, and (3)
Strand III — Personnel and Professional Learning (MDE-School Improvement
Framework, 2006).

Overall, the purpose of this study was twofold. First, it evaluated the
implementation of the MI-Access Alternate Assessment Program by surveying 506 Ml-
Aocess District Coordinators throughout the state. This provided detailed information as
to the implementation process of the MI-Access Program in Michigan school districts.
This information was obtained through Likert scale survey questions to determine the
utilization of program resources, communication and collaboration, and professional
development during the implementation process.

The second purpose of this study was to allow District Coordinator to provide
detailed feedback regarding their experience with the MI-Access Program. This
information was collected through open-ended survey questions focusing on the strengths

and weaknesses of Michigan’s alternate assessment system.

The research questions guiding this study include:
0 To what extent are Michigan School Districts utilizing the MI-Access
resources (e.g. assessment data and results, released item booklets, and
EGLCEs) provided by the Michigan Department of Education to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments? — Focusing on the
Teaching for Learning component of the Michigan School Improvement
Framework
0 To what extent are Michigan School Districts communicating and
collaborating to successfully implement and coordinate the MI-Access
Program for students with cognitive impairments? - Focusing on the
Leadership and Personnel/Professional learning components of the Michigan
School Improvement Framework
0 What are District Coordinators’ perceptions regarding the MI-Access Program
(i.e., personal role, Assessment Administer training, and perceived strengths
and weaknesses of the MI-Access Program)?
Significance of Study
This evaluative research was designed to provide insight into the MI-Access
Alternate Assessment Program. There are 57 intermediate school districts in Michigan
containing more than 550 public school districts and approximately 125,000 students per
grade. Of the 125,000 per grade, approximately 3,000 students per grade participate in
the Mi-Access Program. In addition, charter schools and students participating in home
schooling must be assessed based on state standards (MDE-Technical Report, 2007). An

evaluation of the MI-Access Program may provide information to improve the

assessment process for students with signiﬁcant disabilities both in Michigan as well as
in other states.

Referring to the CIPP Model Checklist components for Process Evaluation, this
research evaluated, documented, and assessed program activities. Speciﬁcally, these
components included (a) “using the process evaluation ﬁndings to coordinate and
strengthen staff activities,” (b) “using the process evaluation ﬁndings to strengthen the
program design,” and (c) “using the process evaluation ﬁndings to report on the
program’s progress to the program’s ﬁnancial sponsor, policy board, community
members, other developers, etc” (Stufflebeam, 2007). Results from this research may
inﬂuence multiple stakeholders involved with the MI-Access Program and provide

information to improve the alternate assessment process.

CHAPTER 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

This chapter is designed to review the literature related to the process of alternate
assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. The ﬁrst section focuses on the
deﬁnition and types of alternate assessments followed by the rationale for developing and
implementing alternate assessments systems. The next two sections address the perceived
advantages and disadvantages of alternate assessments at the student, teacher, and district
level. The ﬁfth and sixth sections discuss the change process and policy implementation
regarding alternate assessments. The ﬁnal sections focus speciﬁcally on the development
and purpose of the Michigan MI-Access Program as well as a brief overview of the
Michigan School Improvement Framework including its purpose and relevance to the
assessment process.

The implementation of alternate assessments for students with disabilities is one
of the most prominent changes in special education in recent history (Browder, Fallin, et
al., 2003). The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) originally mandated
alternate assessments in 1997. Two more pieces of legislation, the No Child Left Behind
(NCLB) act of 2002 and the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, supported the importance
of assessment and accountability for all students, including those with signiﬁcant
disabilities. Prior to NCLB and IDEA, many students with signiﬁcant disabilities were
excluded from assessment and accountability systems (Ysseldyke & Olsen, 1997). These
legal mandates affect approximately eleven percent of the 5.5 million students receiving

services under IDEA. Therefore, approximately 610,000 students in the United States are

affected by the recent changes in the assessment process for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities (Golden Gate, 2006).
What are Alternate Assessments?

In the US. government publication, Title I — Improving the Academic
Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule (2003 ), the Department of Education
deﬁnes alternate assessments as:

An assessment designed for the small number of students with disabilities who are

unable to participate in the regular State assessment, even with appropriate

accommodations. An alternate assessment may include materials collected under

several circumstances, including (1) teacher observation of the student, (2)

samples of student work produced during regular classroom instruction that

demonstrate mastery of speciﬁc instructional strategies in place of performance
on a computer-scored multiple-choice test covering the same content and skills, or

(3) standardized performance tasks produced in an “on-demand” setting, such as

completion of an assigned task on test day. To serve the purposes of assessment

under title I, an alternate assessment must be aligned with the State's content
standards, must yield results separately in both reading/language arts and
mathematics, and must be designed and implemented in a manner that supports
use of the results as an indicator of AYP.
Types of A lternate Assessments. There are three main types of alternate
assessments including portfolio, checklists, and performance-based formats. Portfolio
assessments consist of a collection of student work that represents their performance on

designated skills or academic content. Checklist assessments use a predetermined list of

10

performance activities that represent speciﬁc skills or academic content. An individual
who is familiar with the student then scores their performance based on a predetermined
scale. The third type of alternate assessment is a performance-based model. Performance-
based models consist of a set of items or activities, which are the same for all students
taking the assessment. Assessment administrators score the students based on their
performance or response to each item (Flowers et al., 2005).

The Alternate Assessment Process and Educational Improvements

Why Use Alternate Assessments? Under IDEA, all states were required to
implement an alternate Assessment by July 1, 2000. In addition, The Ofﬁce of
Elementary and Secondary Education notiﬁed all states in the spring of 2000 to inform
them of the Title 1 assessment requirements. This included the requirement that all
students with disabilities participate in statewide assessment and accountability systems
with modiﬁcations to the general assessment, or by taking an alternate assessment. Since
that time, states have been required to include the scores of all students with disabilities
in their assessment reporting for district and public purposes (U .S. Department of
Education - Title I, 2003).

The primary purpose of alternate assessments, as well as large-scale assessments
for the general education population, is accountability. As with other State administered
assessments, alternate assessments provide results that reﬂect the state content standards
and demonstrate educational performance for students, schools, and states (Quenemoen,
Rigney, & Thurlow, 2002). Including students with signiﬁcant disabilities in

accountability systems through meaningful alternate assessments is widely supported by

11

teachers, parents and educational associations such as the Council for Exceptional
Children (Pemer, 2007).

Thurlow et a1. (2003) identify several speciﬁc reasons for including all students in
educational accountability systems. These include:

1. To obtain an accurate picture of education. Students with disabilities make up a
signiﬁcant portion of the student population. In order to better understand and interpret
student performance, all students must be included in school, district, and state
accountability systems.

2. To allow students with disabilities to beneﬁt from reform. Educational reforms
are often based on the results from accountability systems. If students with signiﬁcant
disabilities are not included in these systems, the reform process may overlook their
individual needs.

3. To make accurate comparisons. Within states, there is considerable variation in
the number of students with disabilities who participate in assessment systems. Ifstates
include all students, regardless of ability level, it would increase the accuracy of
comparisons regarding educational achievement.

4. To promote high expectations and access to the general education curriculum.
By including students with disabilities in accountability systems, educators are sending a
message that all students can learn and beneﬁt from academic standards. In order to do
this, students with disabilities will need to have access to, not just participation in, the
general education curriculum. According to Mcgrew and Evans (2004), “The silent,
subjective shifting [toward lower] evidentiary academic standards [for students with

disabilities] represents a subtle, yet potentially potent force operating against the goal of

12

‘leaving no child behind’” (p. 22). Access to the general education curriculum and
participation in standardized assessments has the potential to slow this shift toward low
academic standards.

Hehir (2005) suggests several “policy imperatives” for improving the outcomes
for students with disabilities including the support of standards based reform and holding
states accountable for improving educational results for students with disabilities.
However, there also needs to be continued research focusing on how to teach academic
skills to students with signiﬁcant, complex, or multiple disabilities. Research can be
important in determining the most effective methods for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities to demonstrate learning in academic content as well as progress on state
content standards (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003).

Perceived Advantages of A lternate Assessments

High Expectations for All Students. This can seem like an overwhelming or
“unrealistic” task for students with the most severe disabilities. However, it is important
to not underestimate or assume the academic capabilities of students with signiﬁcant
disabilities (Browder, Fallin, et al., 2003). Thomas Hehir (2005) states that many
disability advocates view standards-based reforms as “holding great promise to help
eradicate the most insidious ableist assumption: that people with disabilities are no
intellectually capable” (p. 112). By excluding students from assessment systems, the
status quo of low expectations is perpetuated. Now that all students are required by law to
participate, there is evidence indicating that students with disabilities are having more

educational success. This includes not only higher expectations for learning, but also

13

improved instruction and increased collaboration between special and general education
teachers (Hehir, 2005).

The most common ableist assumption is that individuals with disabilities are not
intellectually capable of leaning. For this reason, many advocates feel that standards
based reform will be beneﬁcial for this population. By including these students in
accountability and assessment programs, more focus is placed on quality programming
(Hehir, 2005). In addition, with the introduction of alternate assessments, the ﬁeld of
special education is focusing more on curriculum than it has in the past. This change has
required special education teachers to increase their collaboration with professionals in
the general education setting. This change assists in setting high expectations for students
with signiﬁcant disabilities as they work toward state standards (Jackson, 2005).

Schools are now accountable for the learning of all students and are required to
include their results into district and state accountability measures. With the
implementation of recent accountability legislation, the IEP now determines how the
student will participate in assessment systems rather than if they will participate
Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2007). By including these students in school achievement
measures, it has brought about a new understanding of what they can achieve with the
proper educational opportunities. “It is important for students with the most signiﬁcant
cognitive disabilities to be included in statewide assessments and accountability. The
scores of these students make a difference. These students count” (Quenemoen &
Thurlow, p. 9)

Access to Grade-Level General Education Curriculum. Throughout history, the

educational opportunities for students with signiﬁcant disabilities have been improving.

14

In the 19805, functional and life skill curriculum showed increased levels of
independence with home and community living. In the 19903, inclusion with non-
disabled peers brought to light the importance of communication and social interaction
for this population (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, et al., 2003). More recently,
through the implementation of new legislation, teachers have again realized the
possibilities for these students by guaranteeing them access to the general education
curriculum. Students with signiﬁcant disabilities are now using curriculum and
assessments that are aligned to age-appropriate content standards (Quenemoen &
Thurlow, 2007).

IDEA requires that students with disabilities be allowed to participate and make
progress in the general education curriculum. These requirements focus on the inclusion
of students with disabilities into general education as well as raising the expectations for
their learning. Historically, expectations for students with signiﬁcant disabilities have
demonstrated a low standard, which makes this change one of signiﬁcance (Agran, Alper,
& Wehmeyer, 2002). Unfortunately, the resources available for students with disabilities
to access the general education curriculum can vary widely based on geographic location.
This in turn may inﬂuence the outcomes of alternate assessments. According to Jackson
(2005), “access to, participation in, and progress within the general curriculum is a tall
order indeed, further exacerbated by ambiguity in the deﬁnition of the general
curriculum” (p. 37).

The process of providing access to the general education curriculum recognizes
that students with signiﬁcant disabilities can beneﬁt and learn from both functional as

well as academic instruction (Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005). In addition, the process

15

and implementation of alternate assessments does not require a shift from “functional” to
“general” curriculum for students with signiﬁcant disabilities (Browder et al., 2004). In
reality, the expansion of grade level content standards allows numerous “entry points”
where students with varying degrees of ability can access and learn from the general
education curriculum. Furthermore, progress on IEP goals or functional skill assessments
are not legal measures of achievement under NCLB accountability systems. The
measures implemented by IDEA and NCLB regarding participation in assessment
systems make schools accountable for the academic achievement of all students,
regardless of their disability (Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2007).

It is important to address the role of teachers in the implementation of access to
the general education curriculum. Their attitudes and beliefs regarding accountability
systems for students with disabilities can inﬂuence the process and outcomes of alternate
assessments. A study conducted by Agran et a1. (2002) focused on Iowa teachers certiﬁed
in the instruction of students who had moderate, severe, and profound disabilities. This
research found that the majority of students with disabilities were regularly participating
in general education but little effort was made to provide access to the general education
curriculum. In addition, the majority of teachers in this study agreed that access to the
general education curriculum would increase learning expectations even though they
were not currently providing this opportunity

The Agran et a1. (2002) study also found that most of the teachers did not believe
accessing the general education curriculum was appropriate for students with severe
disabilities (it was more appropriate for students with mild disabilities). Based on this

belief, teachers also reported that this student population should not be held to the same

16

standards as their non-disabled peers. Despite the legislation to ensure participation and
access to the general education curriculum for all students, those with severe disabilities
are often not considered to beneﬁt ﬁom this commitment (Agran et al., 2002).

Often, characteristics of a student’s disability become the focus of their education
rather than access to the curriculum (Hehir, 2005). The purpose of all students having
access to the general education curriculum is to ensure that students with disabilities are
held to high expectations, have an education based on a challenging curriculum, and are
included in assessment and accountability systems (Agran et al., 2002). However, it is
unlikely that students with signiﬁcant disabilities will beneﬁt from access to the general
education curriculum unless it is made a part of their regular instruction (Browder, Fallin,
et al., 2003).

The Standards Based Individualized Education Program (IEP). As stated
previously, the IEP team decides how, not if, the student will participate in state
assessments. In addition, the IEP is an important tool to reach academic achievement as
well as assessment proﬁciency. While the methods of alternate assessment vary between
states, each model offers students with signiﬁcant disabilities the right to participate in
state accountability systems as well as demonstrate their level of educational achievement
in academic content areas (Quenemoen & Thurlow, 2007). A well aligned IEP, which is
one that is aligned with state standards and assessments, can promote meaningful and
effective academic instruction for students with signiﬁcant disabilities (Courtade-Little &
Browder, 2005).

There is relatively little research and literature in the area of standards based IEPs

(Ahearn, 2006). Recent legislation is increasing the need for alignment in instruction,

17

curriculum and assessment (Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005). The 1997 amendments to
IDEA demonstrated the movement toward higher expectations for students with
disabilities through access to the general education curriculum and standards. The
legislation stated, “over 20 years of research and experience has demonstrated that the
education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by having high
expectations for such children and ensuring their access to the general curriculum to the
maximum extent possible” (IDEA 1997). The 2004 amendments to IDEA added “in the
regular classroom” to this statement further supporting the need for access to the general
education curriculum (IDEIA 2004). NCLB (2002) provided more support to the idea of
aligning the IEP to state standards by requiring that students with disabilities be included
in state accountability systems.

Current practices are moving toward the alignment of the IEP to state standards in
order to meet the requirements of IDEA and NCLB. However, there is no deﬁnition of
either ‘general education curriculum’ or ‘accessing curriculum’ in either piece of
legislation. All states are responsible for developing methods for IEP development as
well as guidelines as to how students with signiﬁcant disabilities will receive access to
the general education curriculum (Ahearn, 2006).

The idea of access to the general education curriculum for students with
signiﬁcant disabilities is not attempting to bypass the IEP goals, but rather to align the
IEP goals to the standards of the general education curriculum (Agran et al., 2002). The
introduction of alternate assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities has
inﬂuenced the development of the IEP. In the past, the IEP may have focused on an

entirely different set of skills or curriculum than that used in the general education

18

setting. However, with the current changes in accountability and assessment systems, the
IEP should now include goals that align to state standards. By focusing on a standards
based IEP, students with signiﬁcant disabilities will have more access to the general
education curriculum and improved outcomes on state assessments (Courtade-Little &
Browder, 2005).

For students with signiﬁcant disabilities, these IEP goals will most likely be
derived ﬁom an alternate set of content standards or expectations. Alternate content
standards reﬂect the grade level content standards through a reduction in depth, breadth,
and complexity. In Michigan, the Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs) are
reduced in density to create the Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs).
Students with signiﬁcant disabilities are assessed based on the EGLCEs for their grade
level (MDE - Technical Report, 2007). From these EGLCEs, educators can create a
standards based IEP.

In a study conducted by Ahearn (2006), researchers interviewed special education
representatives ﬁorn 18 different states. Overall, there was strong agreement for
continued professional development regarding the use of state standards in the IEP. In
addition, it was noted that general education should also be involved in the process as
they represent the content areas and can assist with the goals and expectations. One state,
Alabama, noted in its training materials that “developing an effective standards-based
IEP is the cornerstone of access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities”
(Ahearn, p. 11).

Beneﬁts from the process of standards based IEP development include the

elimination of separate curriculum for students with disabilities, higher than anticipated

l9

levels of achievement for this population, and more recognizable goals for parents and
general education teachers (Ahearn, 2006). Towles-Reeves and Kleinert (2007) also
concluded from a study examining the impact of alternate assessments on instruction and
[EP development that alternate assessments positively inﬂuenced instruction and, to a
lesser degree, IEP development. However, every state addresses standards-based IEPs
differently and there is no established method for implementation (Ahearn, 2006).
Perceived Disadvantages of A lternate Assessments

Time and Resources Needed for Administration The introduction of alternate
assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities has created a resource demand on
teachers and school districts. Teachers have expressed ﬁ'ustration over the amount of time
needed to administer alternate assessments (Browder, Fallin, et al., 2003). The lack of
instructional and preparation time has been reported as an issue for teachers in the past,
and it has been intensiﬁed by the new requirements of alternate assessments. In addition,
teachers need more resources available in order to meet the demands of alternate
assessments such as release time, computer access, or assistive technology for this unique
population of students (Flowers et al., 2005).

In order to meet the requirements of appropriate assessment administration,
schools and districts will need to provide additional staff training and professional
development opportunities to increase understanding of the alternate assessment process.
This is especially important due to the impact of instruction and curriculum on the
outcomes of alternate assessments. In addition, if teachers are not properly prepared or if

they are confused as to the connection between assessment, instruction, and the standards

20

as outlined in the IEP, the administration of alternate assessments may be compromised
(Browder, Fallin, et al., 2003).

Proﬁciency and Adequate Yearly Progress. As well as a reduction of instructional
time, the possibility of meaningless results is also considered a disadvantage of alternate
assessments. Early in the alternate assessment process, states may experience low levels
of assessment proﬁciency for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. This can potentially
lead to lower achievement expectations for students with disabilities and negative attitude
toward the alternate assessment process (Browder, F allin, et al., 2003).

NCLB requires all students to meet the same proﬁciency level of 100% by the
year 2014 regardless of the previous level of functioning and or social factors. While
students with signiﬁcant disabilities are allowed to participate in alternate assessments,
the same expectation for proﬁciency applies based on alternate achievement standards
(U .S. Department of Education - Alternate Achievement Standards, 2005). This can be
challenging due to the complexities of this student population. Within the label of
“cognitively impaired” or “mental retardation”, students can have IQs of below 20
(profound CI) to almost 70 (mild CI) (Ainsworth & Baker, 2004). For students with
profound mental retardation, changes in academic performance may be minimal to
nonexistent. By the NCLB deﬁnition, these students would be failing to meet Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) solely because of their disability.

NCLB also stipulates that all states report student scores in the areas of English
Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science for the calculation of AYP. No matter what the
outcome of these assessments, only 1% of all student enrollment for tested grades can be

counted as “proﬁcient” using alternate assessments. This factor can have negative

21

implications on proﬁciency reporting under NCLB. For example, if a district has more
than 1% of their students taking alternate assessments, any number over the 1% cannot be
counted as “proﬁcient” in district reporting even if they receive that score on the alternate
assessment. While these students would be considered assessed, they would not count
toward AYP (Flowers et al., 2005). Because of this stipulation, it is possible that some
individuals may feel as though students with signiﬁcant disabilities are “bringing down”
the level of performance within a district.

The regulations set by NCLB have created challenges in determining the
appropriate inclusion for students with disabilities. All scores from alternate assessments
(up to 1%) must be included in AYP reporting. Unless an exception has been granted,
any proﬁcient scores that exceed the 1% cap must be counted as non-proﬁcient against
grade-level standards. Determining how to distribute the scores that are over the 1% cap
and separating them among subgroups can be a challenging and time-consuming task
(Martinez & Olsen, 2004). In addition, the fact that some proﬁcient scores will be
reported as failing is often seen as unfair and irresponsible. In the Golden Gate
University Law Review "No Child Leﬁ Behind" In need of a New ‘IDEA (2006), the
author noted that “NCLB-required assessments arguably violate the equal protection
rights of students with disabilities” and undermines the principles of equal protection that
were put in place by IDEA” (p. 176).

The Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers (CCSSO) provided the following
information regarding the 1% cap in their Summary and Analysis of the US. Department
of Educations Final Regulations on Alternate Assessment Standards and Alternate

Assessments under the No Child Leﬁ Behind Act of 2001 (2003):

22

For students taking alternate assessments aligned to alternate achievement
standards, the ﬁnal regulations establish a 1.0 percent cap on the number of
proﬁcient and advanced scores that may count toward AYP. This cap applies to
AYP determinations for States and districts, but does not apply at the school level.
This cap also does not affect the number of students who may be administered
alternate assessments. (Decisions regarding whether students with disabilities are
to be assessed with alternate assessments remain with IEP teams based on State
criteria.) The 1.0 percent cap may be exceeded in cases where States and districts
can provide appropriate justiﬁcations
Process. The federal requirements for alternate assessments are extensive. The
most recent reauthorization of IDEA (2004) reﬂected the federal governments’ intentions
of aligning this legislation with the existing requirements of NCLB. IDEA requires that
states develop alternate assessments, but provides little guidance for the process. This
creates confusion as to how states will receive funding under this legislation. In addition,
the goals of NCLB and IDEA may be viewed as contradictory. NCLB clearly stipulates
high expectations for all students and assessments based on grade-level content standards.
However, IDEA requires schools to provide education in the Least Restrictive
Environment (LRE) and to personalize the educational programs for students with
disabilities via an Individualized Educational Program (IEP). This contradiction creates
confusion at the state and school level regarding the needs of the students and the
mandates of the law. “Ultimately, the Department of Education levies penalties against

states as they attempt to hit a moving federal target” (Golden Gate, 2006, p. 164).

23

In April 2005, the U.S. Department of Education added the 2% policy related to
modiﬁed achievement standards to NCLB. This created more uncertainty and conﬁrsion
regarding states’ role in the development of federally approved assessments. There are
continued requirements enforced by threats of peer reviews and penalties. Many states
and districts challenge NCLB because they are required to implement this legislation
without adequate support or guidance. NCLB requires alternate assessments, but does not
deﬁne them. This legislation also fails to deﬁne the students who make up the 1% and
2% testing groups (Golden Gate, 2006).

Changing Curriculum and Philosophies. The change in curriculum ﬁ'om
“function ” to an “access to the general education” approach may be seen as having both
positive and negative implications for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. In order for
students to make progress on state standards and alternate assessments, they need to have
instruction that is based on the general education curriculum (Browder, F allin, et al.,
2003). However, some professionals believe there are negative consequences of alternate
assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities including a narrowing of the
curriculum that could potentially reduce the focus on ﬁrnctional and transition skills
(Flowers et al., 2005).

The current educational focus on “access to the general education curriculum” for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities represents both an instructional and philosophical
change. Prior to this movement, and still very common in classrooms around the country,
students with signiﬁcant disabilities were provided functional curriculum with the
addition of social inclusion opportunities (Browder et al., 2003). This type of curriculum

and instruction practice has been in place since the early 1980’s when Lou Brown deﬁned

24

functional skills as the “variety of skills that are ﬁequently demanded in natural domestic,
vocational, and community environments” and nonfunctional skills as those that have
very little chance of being used in daily activities. Brown also emphasized the importance
of determining how often a skill is used in natural environments and whether in
contributes to the students’ independent functioning (Brown et al., 1979). This
instructional philosophy set the standard for the education of students with signiﬁcant
disabilities. The change to an academic, or access to the general education curriculum
model, may be very difﬁcult for some teachers.

While change is often a positive, the process can create confusion and anxiety.
Michael Fullan notes that educational change is multidimensional and needs to be
considered as such. There are at least three components involved with any
instructional/educational innovation. They include changes in materials, teaching
approaches, and beliefs, which together comprise a change in practice (Fullan, 2001). The
recent change in educational practices for students with signiﬁcant disabilities represents
a substantial philosophical shift. This could have negative consequences for schools
when considering the effort needed for this type of reform. According to F ullan’s
requirements for a change, teachers would have to deal with several issues. In order to
provide access to the general education curriculum, teachers would need to work with
new materials (general education content and standards), apply new teaching approaches
(collaborating with general education teachers), and change beliefs (the shift from
functional skill philosophy to academic curriculum).

Finally, it can be difﬁcult to track the educational progress of students with

signiﬁcant disabilities on state standards, which can make the “access to general

25

education model” even more challenging to teachers. In addition, assessments that are
performance based may not provide an accurate picture of the student’s academic
capability because some students with signiﬁcant disabilities face many risk factors that
can affect their performance on alternate assessments. These include variations in
behavior and multiple health conditions that have the potential to vary dramatically from
day to day (Browder, F allin, et al., 2003). These additional factors may make the recent
changes in curriculum and assessment for students with signiﬁcant disabilities seem
inappropriate to many teachers in the ﬁeld.
The Change Process and Teacher Attitudes

Teachers’ attitudes regarding student ability (and disability) can inﬂuence the
quality of education they receive (Hehir, 2005). This inﬂuence can in turn affect
instruction and the outcomes of assessments. Research has shown that teachers’ attitudes
regarding alternate assessments and student ability are conﬂicting. For example, Flowers
et al. (2005) conducted a study involving multiple states (11 = 5) and the use of alternate
assessments. In this study, half of the teachers felt that it was appropriate to have students
with signiﬁcant disabilities included in accountability systems, but only a small percent
believed that these students receive an overall better education because of this
requirement. In addition, the responses indicated that teachers did not feel as though
alternate assessments were meeting the original intentions for students, teachers, and
schools as outlined in IDEA 1997. More than half of the teachers in this study reported
that their states had set high expectations for students with signiﬁcant disabilities, but less

agreed that their students could meet these requirements (Flowers et al., 2005)

26

There is signiﬁcant variation within the disability label of “cognitive impairment”
or “mental retardation” (Ainsworth & Baker, 2004). The severity of the disability may
also play a role in how teachers acknowledge, instruct, and assess students with
signiﬁcant disabilities. McGrew & Evans (2004) noted that the Attribution Theory
demonstrates teachers’ tendencies “to attribute success or failure for an individual (e. g.
students) to one of two different characteristics - ability or effort.” Students with lower
ability levels tend to elicit pity ﬁ'om teachers, which increases the expectation of future
failure. Teachers who viewed their students as having lower ability levels were more
likely to expect continued failure as opposed to teachers who believed that the failure was
caused by lack of effort. This type of “expectation of failure” has the potential to impact
the implementation of standards based reform and the alternate assessment process for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities.

In addition, ability can be viewed from a “trait-orien ” or “process-orien ”
system. The trait-oriented system believes that student ability is relatively ﬁxed whereas
the process-oriented system views ability as something that can be increased with
increased effort and learning strategies. Teachers who view ability as ﬁxed can display
attitudes that have a negative impact on student learning (Mcgrew & Evans, 2004). When
administering alternate assessments to students with signiﬁcant disabilities, some
teachers believe that this method demonstrates more of the teachers ability that that of
their students (Flowers et al., 2005).

Policy Implementation and Evaluation
The implementation of educational policy has a direct affect on school districts.

Without proper policy implementation, many schools may feel “adrift among the

27

tumultuous waves of change and reform” (Masci, Cuddapah, & Pujack, p. 57, 2008). A
conceptual framework for pro gram or practice implementation was outlined in a recent
National Implementation Research Network (NIRN) publication. This publication, titled
Implementation of Research: A Synthesis of the Literature, focused on the research
surrounding this important element of program change. The framework included ﬁve
components in the implementation process: (a) a source, (b) a destination, (c) a
communication link, (d) a feedback mechanism, and (d) a sphere of inﬂuence for
operation (N IRN , 2008). When considering alternate assessments, the source of
implementation comes from the State Departments of Education. The ﬁnal destination is
at the school level with services being provided to students with signiﬁcant disabilities.
The Communication link, speciﬁcally in MI-Access, is the District Coordinators who are
responsible for the reliable implementation of the alternate assessment program. Finally,
the feedback mechanism focuses on colleting information about the implementation from
those who play an integral part of the process (i.e. District Coordinators and Assessment
Administrators). According to the conceptual framework outlined by the NIRN, all of this
exists within a sphere of inﬂuence, which in the case of alternate assessments, is the
legislative policy of NCLB and IDEA that surround the implementation.

This evaluative research study focused on the feedback mechanism component in
the policy implementation of MI-Access, which represents a major shift in educational
policy through the reauthorizations of IDEA (1997 and 2004). This change in policy also
represents a change in learning expectations. Schools are not only expected to provide
access to education for students with disabilities, but this access must create

improvements in academic outcomes based on the general education curriculum

28

(Hardman & Dawson, 2008). While students with disabilities have always been assessed
in some capacity, their inclusion into high stakes accountability systems is a new addition
to the ﬁeld of Special Education.

The policy regarding alternate assessments for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities and its implementation affects many areas of special education. IDEA (2004)
identiﬁes that the education for students with disabilities will be more effective “by
ensuring their access to the general education curriculum in the regular classroom, to the
maximum extent possible.” This represents a change in instructional philosophy,
curriculum, and ultimately assessment for this student population. Masci et a1. (2008)
note that the extensiveness, pace, and “top-down imposition” of educational change can
lead to cynicism and resistance from many teachers. According to F ullan (2001),
implementation is affected by how a change process is introduced and the extent to which
it is carried out. Therefore, the role districts play in the process of policy implementation
can have an effect on the overall outcomes.

Change at this level is systemic in the sense that it completely alters the
assessment process for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. It also affects the educational
philosophy surrounding the instruction of this student population. In order for this type of
change to be successful and the policy to be implemented correctly, those involved in the
process must “buy into” the change and the outcomes it represents (Duffy, 2008; NIRN,
2008). When considering alternate assessments, one of the main stakeholders in the
process is the classroom teacher. The policy requirements ﬁ'om IDEA (2004) and NCLB
(2002) require access to the general education curriculum for this population in addition

to the introduction of alternate assessments. The classroom teacher plays a signiﬁcant

29

role in both of these actives. However, the teachers’ perspective is often missing from the
area of educational research and change (Ohi, 2008) making it more of a mandated, than
self-created process. Louis, Febey, and Schroeder (2005) noted that when educators
encounter a new policy, their understanding of its purpose and goals will determine the
type of change that follows the implementation. It appears logical to assume that self-
created vs. mandated change would create more understanding and in turn, more
motivation for change.

This exclusion of teachers in policy implementation can create negative
implications. It is important that education policies “empower teachers to teach and
students to learn” (Kelly, 2007) which requires the involvement of the classroom teacher
to improve success. However, amidst the increasing policy mandates surrounding
assessment and accountability systems, Reeves (2006) noted that “educators are
drowning under the weight of initiative fatigue - attempting to use the same amount of
time, money, and emotional energy to accomplish more and more
objectives. . .eventually, each initiative added to the pile creates a dramatic decline in
organizational effectiveness” (pg. 89). The policies surrounding assessment and
accountability for students with disabilities continue to be enforced and monitored under
IDEA and NCLB. The manner in which states and school districts implement these
policies will undoubtedly affect the role of the classroom teacher as well as other
professionals who are responsible for improving the educational outcomes for students

with disabilities.

30

MI-Access

Prior to the creation of MI-Access, the only assessment option in Michigan was
the Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP). This assessment was created
for the general education population and addresses Michigan’s Grade Level Content
Expectations (GLCEs). Even with accommodations, the MEAP is not appropriate for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities (MDE — Technical Report, 2007).

Currently, the state of Michigan uses an alternate assessment system titled MI-
Access. MI-Access is a performance-based alternate assessment for students who have, or
function as if they have cognitive impairments. The IEP team is responsible for
determining which MI-Access Assessment 3 student should take. The MI-Access
Program uses a standardized set of assessment instruments that assess the areas of
English Language Arts, Mathematics, and Science. Within each content area, students are
given a performance level of surpassed the performance standard, attained the
performance standard or emerging toward the performance standard (MDE - Technical
Report, 2007).

Michigan implemented MI-Access statewide in 2002 and it currently consists of
three separate assessments that address the varying ability levels of students with
signiﬁcant disabilities (see Appendix A). MI-Access refers to the ﬁrst assessment as
Functional Independence. This assessment is administered to students who have, or
function as if they have, mild cognitive impairments. The second assessment is
Supported Independence and is appropriate for students who have, or function as if they

have, moderate cognitive impairments. The third and ﬁnal MI-Access assessment is

31

referred to as Participation and this assessment is speciﬁcally for students who have, or
function as if they have, severe cognitive impairments (MDE - Technical Report, 2007).

Even though Michigan has administered the MI-Access Participation and
Supported Independence assessments (P/SI) statewide since 2002, the U.S. Department
of Education notiﬁed the Michigan Department of Education (MDE) in June 2006 that
the assessments were not meeting the requirements of NCLB. Speciﬁcally, the P/SI
assessments did not explicitly measure Michigan's English language arts (ELA) and
mathematics content standards and/or report scores separately by content area (MDE -
Technical Report, 2007). Due to the recommendations ﬁ'om the U.S. Department of
Education, Michigan piloted a new alternate assessment during the Fall of 2006 for
operational use in the spring of 2007. The WE referred to this new assessment as the
MI-A ccess Participation and Supported Independence v1.5 (P/SI v1.5) Mathematics and
English Language Arts Pilot Assessment. While the title of this pilot assessment
combines Participation and Supported Independence, it actually consists of two unique
assessments that are administered to separate student populations. As discussed earlier,
the MDE developed the Participation assessment for students with severe cognitive
impairments while the Supported Independence assessment is appropriate for students
who have moderate cognitive impairments.

Prior to the P/SI v1.5 assessment, Michigan students with moderate and severe
cognitive impairments were administered assessments that measured their level of
participation in a particular task. For example, an assessment item may include: “The
student will participate in a reading activity ” or “The student will participate in a group

activity with peers This type of assessment item was open to interpretation by the

32

assessment administrator and allowed ﬂexibility to connect the assessment item to
classroom instruction. If the student actively “participated” in the assessment activity, the
item was scored as correct. However, NCLB has mandated that states measure progress
for all students, including those with signiﬁcant disabilities, in the academic content areas
of English Language arts, mathematics, and science (Browder et al., 2005). In Michigan,
the new alternate assessments required assessment administrators to present the student
with a speciﬁc test item that represents an academic content expectation. They also
require a correct answer to each item and do not allow “the student participated” as an
scoring option (see Appendix B for scoring rubric).

The MI-Access P/SI v1.5 alternate assessments also introduced a new question
format for students with moderate and severe cognitive impairments. As required by
NCLB, these new assessments reﬂected Michigan’s Grade Level Content Expectations
(GLCEs) and High School Benchmarks. For students with cognitive impairments, these
GLCEs and Benchmarks were “extended” to reﬂect the learning styles and abilities of
this population. The MDE created this document by reducing the depth, breadth, and
complexity of the general education content standards for students with cognitive
impairments (see Appendix C for sample page). The result was a set of Extended Grade
Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs) and Extended Benchmarks (EBs) that are guided
by the same learning expectations that Michigan has in place for the general education
population (MDE - Technical Report, 2007). From these EGLCEs and E88, the
Michigan Department of Education — Ofﬁce of Education Assessment and Accountability

(MDE-OEAA) and Assessment Plan Writing Teams (APWT) worked to develop the

33

current P/SI assessment items that speciﬁcally reﬂect the Extended Grade Level Content
Expectations in the areas of ELA and mathematics.
Michigan School Improvement Framework

In 2003, The Michigan Department of Education established the Ofﬁce of School
Improvement (081) to “promote student learning and achievement by providing
statewide leadership, guidance and support over a wide range of programs that directly
impact teaching and learning, school leadership and continous [sic] school improvemen ”
(MDE-OSI, 2007). Michigan’s 081 has worked with specialists and educators to develop
the Michigan School Improvement Framework. This framework is based on best practices
and research in the improvement of school and district educational systems.

Every year, schools and districts take time to review their policies and practices
with the hope of improving student achievement (MDE - School Improvement
Framework, 2006). Speciﬁcally, the Michigan School Improvement Framework,
v.1.6.06, (2006) states:

This process, commonly referred to as the school improvement process, is deeply

embedded in building, district and state planning and accountability systems, and

has become an integral and necessary part of school and system reform. While
this type of planning has existed for many years, recent state and federal mandates
including annual testing directives and increased accountability have intensiﬁed
the importance of this process and its outcomes. . .Schools and districts use these
plans as a blueprint to establish goals and objectives that will guide teaching for

learning, resource allocation, staff development, data management and

34

assessment. They also use it to measure their ability to meet the goals and

objectives established in the plan.

The Michigan School Improvement Framework presents a strong focus on
assessment and references the term in three of the ﬁve Strands. In addition, the Revised
School Code of Michigan, Act 451 of 1976 Section 380.1277 referencing the School
Improvement Plan, states that “development of alternative measures of assessment that
will provide authentic assessment of pupils achievements, skills, and competencies” (Act
451, 1997). The F rarnework represents current research and best practice to support
continuous school improvement. The emphasis placed on assessment (i.e., utilization of
data, knowledge of process, stakeholder communication, and resource allocation) was
integral in developing the survey questions for this evaluative study.

Conclusion

Alternate assessments have a signiﬁcant impact on the education for students with
disabilities and research in this area continues to advance (Flowers et al., 2005). The
focus on standards-based reform has highlighted the issues of academic content
standards, access to the general education curriculum, and appropriate assessments for
students with disabilities for the ﬁeld of special education (Keams, Lewis, Hall, &
Kleinert, 2007). However, there needs to be increased research on the process,
effectiveness, and outcomes of these assessments in order to ensure that all students,
including those with signiﬁcant disabilities, can beneﬁt ﬁom the recent changes in
education (Browder, Fallin, et al., 2003).

The purpose of this study was to conduct evaluative research focusing on the MI-

Access Alternate Assessment Program from the perspective of one critical stakeholder,

35

the MI-Access District Coordinator. By surveying all MI-Access District Coordinators in
Michigan, this research study evaluated the MI-Access Program based on the perceptions
of these participants. This evaluation included the utilization of program resources and
data, communication and collaboration, professional development and training, and
knowledge of the MI-Access process.

In addition, this study examined the process of the MI-Access Program in relation
to the Michigan School Improvement Framework. Speciﬁcally, the three Strands that
address assessment including: (1) Strand I -— Teaching for Learning, (2) Strand II -
Leadership, and (3) Strand HI — Personnel and Professional Learning. (MDE - School
Improvement Framework, 2006). The purpose of this Framework is to “promote student
learning and achievement by providing statewide leadership” (MDE-OS], 2007). In
addition, the Revised School Code of Michigan, Act 451 of 1976 Section 380.1277
referencing the School Improvement Plan, states that “development of alternative
measures of assessment that will provide authentic assessment of pupils achievements,
skills, and competencies” (Act 451, 1997). However, because there is no reference to
alternate assessments or Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCES) in the
Michigan School Improvement Framework, and because of the limited research in this
developing area, this study provides important information in understanding the alternate

assessment process for students with signiﬁcant disabilities.

36

CHAPTER 3

METHODOLOGY

This evaluative study was designed to examine the process of the MI-Access
Alternate Assessment Program used in Michigan. Program evaluation is intended to
examine existing programs in order to “make recommendations for programmatic
reﬁnement and success” (Spaulding, 2008, pg.5). This study utilized a web—based survey
tool to investigate MI-Access District Coordinators’ responses regarding this process.
District Coordinators play an important role in the alternate assessment process and their
feedback was the basis for this research. This chapter presents the methodological
rationale, participants, survey development, survey instrument, pilot survey, data
collection, and data analysis.

Methodological Rationale

Guba and Lincoln (1989) noted, “evaluation is an investment in pe0ple and in
progress” (p.3). The purpose in selecting an evaluative research methodology was to
focus on the process of the MI-Access Program as it functions within the organizational
context of Michigans’ school districts. Evaluative research examines the practice of a
program and has the potential to identify possible improvements or changes in the
implementation process (IAR, 2007). According to Quenemoen et al. (2002), “we have
had at least a half a century to ﬁne-tune how to assess ‘average’ students, but only a few
years to devote to a similar development process for students with complex disabilities”
(p. 2). By examining the process of Michigan’s MI-Access Program, this study will add

to a limited research base in the area of alternate assessments.

37

It is important to reiterate that the methodological approach of evaluative research
in this study will assess the process of the MI Access alternate assessment rather than the
assessment content. By deﬁnition, evaluation “is the systematic acquisition and
assessment of information to provide useful feedback about some object” (Trochim,
2006). In this deﬁnition, Trochim uses the term “object” to refer to any type of policy,
program, activity, etc. This study collected information from MI-Access District
Coordinators with the intention of providing “useful feedback” to better understand and
possibly improve the alternate assessment system used in Michigan.

As discussed earlier, NCLB (2002) and the reauthorization of IDEA (2004)
address the need for alternate assessments in order to include all students in state
accountability systems. These assessments represent one of the most prominent changes
in special education in recent history (Browder, F allin, et al., 2003). This change creates a
continuing need to examine the alternate assessment process and the manner in which it
delivers services to students with signiﬁcant disabilities. Evaluative studies are a useful
approach to educational research. Results from theses studies have the potential to
enhance the “process of reﬂection and learning in action” for stakeholders involved in the
evaluation (Beals, 2003).

Participants

Participants in this study included all (approximately 800) MI—Access District
Coordinators in the state of Michigan. According to the MI-A ccess Coordinator and
Assessment Administrator Manual (2007/2008), each district must designate one
individual as the District MI-Access Coordinator. Districts have the option to utilize their

Michigan Educational Assessment Program (MEAP) Coordinator as their MI-Access

38

Coordinator or designate a different individual for the role. The position of MI-Access
District Coordinator may include Special Education Directors, School Psychologists, or
experienced teachers. However, educational support staff or administration assistants
should not be designated as District Coordinators (MDE - Administrator Manual,
2007/2008).
Role of MI—Access District Coordinator

District Coordinators were selected as the focus of this study because they play an
essential role in the MI-Access Program. They represent the link between the Michigan
Department of Education and Assessment Administrators in the MI-Access Program.
Their involvement includes tasks before, during, and after the alternate assessment
process (see Table 1). Each of these tasks represents an important step in the successful

implementation of the MI-Access assessments.

39

Table 1

District Coordinators ’ Major Tasks

 

 

 

Before Assessment During Assessment After Assessment
Inventory materials Assist school Review returned
received coordinators and assessment materials
Complete M—Access assessment for accuracy
Security Compliance administrators as needed Complete District
Form Be available to answer Identiﬁcation Sheet
Begin ﬁlling out questions Prepare used and
District Identification Relay questions to the unused materials for
Sheet MI-Access Hotline or return shipment
Check preprinted OEAA staff as needed (except manuals and
student information/ Ensure that ethical rulers)

barcode labels against assessment Ship materials to
Pre-ID School Rosters administration practices Questar Assessment,
Afﬁx Pre-ID student are followed Inc.

barcode labels to Complete online
student answer survey

documents (if

applicable)

Prepare materials for

distribution to schools

Establish internal

district return date

Distribute materials to

schools

 

 

 

 

Note: Information represents abbreviated list obtained from the 2007/2008 Coordinator
and Assessment Administrator Manual
Procedure

The number of participants for this study represented the 57 Intermediate School
Districts (ISDs) in Michigan, which contain more than 550 public school districts. In
addition, there are approximately 190 charter schools in Michigan. These schools are also
required to offer MI—Access assessments to eligible students (MDE - Technical Report,

2007). For the purpose of this study, the Michigan Department of Education provided a

40

list including the names and emails of all acting District Coordinators. With duplicate
names and emails removed, the list consisted of 800 MI-Access District Coordinators.
Some districts choose to utilize more than one MI-Access District Coordinator making
the list larger than the actual number of schools and districts in Michigan. The email
addresses of all District Coordinators were uploaded into a secure contact list within
SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool.
Survey Development

According to Kuter and Ylimaz (2001 ), “survey research is one of the most
important areas of measurement in applied social research” (p.9). As part of survey
development, the researcher communicated with MI-Access Assessment Administrators
and District Coordinators to develop a list of common concerns and issues surrounding
the MI-Access program. These conversations took place during the Michigan Department
of Education - Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability Fall Conferences.
The researcher presented at conferences in Battle Creek, Thompsonville, Sterling
Heights, Lansing, and Novi, MI. After presentations, the researcher engaged in
discussions regarding the MI-Access Program with a variety of stakeholders from around
the state. From these informal discussions, the researcher was able to identify ﬁve
Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components including: (1) utilization of program
resources, (2) utilization of assessment data and results (3) communication and
collaboration in the alternate assessment process, (4) professional development and
training for effective implementation, and (5) knowledge of the MI-Access process.

These components guided the creation of survey items for this study.

41

In addition to the Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components, three
strands of the Michigan School Improvement Framework that address issues of
assessment were utilized in the organization of survey items. These strands included
“Teaching for Learning,” “Leadership,” and Personnel and Professional Learning.” By
identifying the Framework goals related to alternate assessments, the researcher
organized the survey items into one of the three strands.

Survey Instrument

As stated in the Introduction, the research questions guiding this study include:
(1) To what extent are Michigan School Districts utilizing the MI—Access resources (e. g.
assessment data and results, released item booklets, and EGLCEs) provided by the
Michigan Department of Education to improve instruction for students with cognitive
impairments? This question addresses the Teaching for Learning component of the
Michigan School Improvement Framework. (2) To what extent are Michigan School
Districts communicating and collaborating to successfully implement and coordinate the
MI-Access Program for students with cognitive impairments? This question addresses the
Leadership and Personnel/Professional Learning components of the Michigan School
Improvement Framework. (3) What are District Coordinators’ perceptions regarding the
MI-Access program? This question focuses on both the personal role of the District
coordinator as well as the training of MI-Access assessment administrators within their
districts. In addition, District Coordinators were asked to provide feedback regarding the
strengths and weaknesses of the MI-Access process.

The researcher developed an online survey for the speciﬁc purpose of evaluating

the MI-Access Program through the research questions listed above (see Appendix D).

42

This survey consists of ﬁve sections: (1) demographic information, (2) Teaching for
Learning -- Strand I from the Michigan School Improvement Framework, (3) Leadership
— Strand H from the Michigan School Improvement Framework, (4) Personnel and
Professional Learning —— Strand II from the Michigan School Improvement Framework,
and (5) a set of four open-ended questions.

The ﬁrst section, Demographic Information, included eight questions related to
District Coordinator demographics. These questions addressed the amount of time
participants have been District Coordinators, their oﬁicial role within in the district,
whether they administered the assessment, if they received any compensation for their
involvement in MI-Access, and the amount of time needed for successful
implementation. In addition, general demographic questions were included on the survey
such as, geographic location, student population, and familiarity with the Extended Grade
Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs). The last question in the demographic section
addressed District Coordinators’ philosophical standpoints regarding alternate
assessments. Below is a list of the questions presented to District Coordinators in the
Demographic section. Each question has a brief selection of answers and participants
were asked to select only one response (see Appendix D for complete survey).

Demographic Questions:

1. How long have you been a MI-Access District Coordinator?

2. What is your ofﬁcial role in the district where you are coordinator?

3. Do you currently administer the MI-Access Assessments?

4. Do you receive any compensation for your role as a MI-Access District

Coordinator?

43

5. If you were to estimate the time you spend on combined tasks (e.g., receiving,

delivering, packaging, and returning materials) during one assessment window, how

many hours are needed to successfully complete your requirements as a MI-Access

District Coordinator?

6. How would you describe the geographic location of your district?

7. What is the approximate student population in your district?

8. How familiar are you with the Michigan School Improvement Framework?

9. Do you agree that all students who have cognitive impairments should be

administered alternate state assessments based on Extended Grade Level Content

Expectations (EGLCEs)?

The second section, Teaching for Learning, consisted of questions aligned to
Strand I in the Michigan School Improvement Framework. Strand I requires that
“assessments used are aligned to curricular content and are used to guide instructional
decisions and monitor student learning” (MDE - School Improvement Framework, 2006).
Proper alignment of educational components is an important part of the alternate
assessment process. This includes aligning instruction with alternate assessments as well
as aligning alternate assessments with state content standards (Courtade-Little &
Browder, 2005). This section addressed the process of using assessment resources such as
the Extended Grade Level Contents Expectations (EGLCEs) as well as assessment data

and results in the MI-Access Program (see Table 2).

Table 2

 

 

Teaching for Learning
1 2 3 4 5
As a District My district My district My district My district
Coordinator, I adequately regularly utilizes the utilizes the
am familiar disseminates requests Michigan Item Analysis
with the M1- the MI-Access information Extended Grade Reports
Access data data and results from Level Content provided by
and results to Assessment Assessment Expectations the MDE to
provided to Administrators Administrators (EGLCEs) to improve
my district by to use for as to how the align instruction for
the Michigan instructional MI-Access data instruction for students with
Department of purposes. and results are students with cognitive
Education being used to cognitive impairments.
(MDE). improve impairments
instruction in with the State
the classroom. Grade Level
Content
Expectations
(GLCEs).

 

 

 

 

 

 

The third section, Leadership, consisted of questions aligned to Strand II in the

Michigan School Improvement Framework. Strand H requires that “school leaders create

a school environment where everyone contributes to a cumulative, purposeful and

positive effect on student learning” (MDE - School Improvement Framework, 2006).

This section addressed knowledge of assessment and data as well as the utilization of

time and resources in the alternate assessment process (see Table 3).

45

 

Table 3

 

 

Leadership
1 2 3 4 5
As a District Assessment My district My district My district
Coordinator, I Administrators provides an utilizes the designates MI-
consider in my district adequate Released Item Access
myself effectively amount of Booklets Coordinators
knowledgeable complete their release time to provided by the for each
regarding the tasks in the MI- Assessment MDE to building to
coordination Access Administrators improve organize the
and successful Program to participate in instruction for dissemination,
implementation process (e.g., professional students with administration,
process of the receiving, development cognitive and collection
MI-Access administering, related to the impairments. of the MI-
Program in my and returning MI-Access Access
district. assessment Program. Assessments.
materials).

 

 

 

 

 

 

The fourth Section, Personnel and Professional Learning consisted of questions

aligned to Strand III in the Michigan School Improvement Framework. Strand III

requires that “the school has highly qualiﬁed personnel who continually acquire and use

skills, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs necessary to create a culture with high levels of

learning for all” (MDE - School Improvement Framework, 2006). This section focused

on personal qualiﬁcations, communication, and collaboration in the alternate assessment

process (see Table 4).

46

 

Table 4

Personnel and Professional Learning

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

1 2 3 4 5
As a District My district In my district, As a District In my district,
Coordinator, 1 provides Assessment Coordinator, I Assessment
believe I have adequate Administrators communicate Administrators
the training to contact me with with the MI- regularly
background Assessment questions Access collaborate
necessary Administrators and/or Program with each
(e. g., regarding the concerns Developers other to
assessment administration regarding the to answer improve the
and/or special of MI-Access MI-Access questions and alternate
education Assessments. Program. clarify assessment
training) to assessment administration
successfully issues (e. g., process.
coordinate and calling the MI-
manage the Access Hotline
process of the or the MDE-
MI-Access ASWDP
Assessment ofﬁces).
Program.

 

Each of these three sections consisted of ﬁve Likert scale questions. All questions

were presented in a four-point rating scale format including Strongly Agree, Agree,

Disagree, and Strongly Disagree. Each choice was assigned a point value from 4 to 1

respectively. In addition, there was an option for “Don’t Know/Not Sure.” This option

was given a point value of zero. This type of survey design offers clear choices and is

familiar to most participants (Brace, 2004).

Within the survey, items appeared under the three headings ﬁom the Michigan

School Improvement Framework. However, all survey items were further categorized

into the ﬁve Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components created by the

researcher for future data analysis (see Table 5).

47

 

Table 5

Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Utilization of Utilization of Communication Professional Knowledge of
Resources Data and Results and Development Assessment
Collaboration and Traingg Process
My district As a District In my district, My district As a District
utilizes the Coordinator, I Assessment provides Coordinator, I
Released Item am familiar with Administrators adequate training consider myself
Booklets the MI-Access contact me with to Assessment knowledgeable
provided by the data and results questions and/or Administrators regarding the
MDE to provided to my concerns regarding the coordination
improve district by the regarding the administration of and successful
instruction for Michigan MI-Access Ml-Access implementation
students with Department of Program. Assessments. process of the
cognitive Education MI—Access
impairments. (MDE). Program in my
district.
My district My district As a District My district As a District
utilizes the adequately Coordinator, I provides an Coordinator, I
Michigan disseminates the communicate adequate amount believe I have
Extended Grade MI-Access data with the ML of release time to the background
Level Content and results to Access Program Assessment necessary (e.g.,
Expectations Assessment Developers Administrators to assessment
(EGLCEs) to Administrators to to answer participate in and/or special
align instruction use for questions and professional education
for students instructional clarify development training) to
with cognitive purposes assessment related to the MI- successfully
impairments issues (e.g., Access coordinate and
with the State calling the MI- Program. manage the
Grade Level Access Hotline process of the
Content or the MDE- MI-Access
Expectations ASWDP ofﬁces). Assessment
(GLCEs). Program.
My district My district In my district, Assessment My district
utilizes the Item regularly Assessment Administrators in designates MI-
Analysis requests Administrators my district Access
Reports information from regularly effectively Coordinators
provided by the Assessment collaborate complete their for each
MDE to Administrators improve the tasks in the MI- building to
improve as to alternate Access organize the
instruction for how the MI- assessment Program process dissemination,
students with Access data and administration (e.g., receiving, administration,
cognitive results are being process administering, and collection
impairments. used to improve and returning of the MI-
instruction in the assessment Access
classroom. materials). Assessments

 

48

 

The ﬁnal section of the survey consisted of four open-ended questions. These
questions addressed the MI-Access assessment process in relation to improvement,
implementation, strengths, and weaknesses. The open-ended questions included:

1. Are there changes that could help improve the implementation process of the

MIAccess Program (e.g., before, during, and aﬁer the assessment)?

2. Considering your response to the previous question, what is the most effective
way for your recommendations to be implemented?
3. What do you consider the most signiﬁcant strengths of the MI-Access Assessment

Program?

4. What do you consider the most signiﬁcant weaknesses of the MI-Access

Assessment Program?

Pilot Survey

It is crucial in survey development that a pilot survey be conducted to ensure there
are no errors in the instrument that could reduce the return rate (Spaulding, 2008). For
this study, 20 MDE employees and MSU colleagues were asked to pilot the online survey
and offer feedback regarding format, structure, clarity of questions, and amount of time
for completion. The pilot participants received the survey through the online survey tool,
SurveyMonkey. This ensmed that the pilot participants would view the survey in the
same format as the MI-Access District Coordinators.

Feedback from the pilot survey revealed that participants were able to complete
the survey in less than twenty minutes. This included brief responses to the four open-
ended questions. Several of the pilot participants indicated a desire to know their progress

as they completed the survey. Using a design tool in SurveyMonkey, a “progress bar”

49

was added to accommodate this request. This tool allowed participants to view the
“percent complet ” and the “percent remaining” on the survey as they addressed each
item.

Overall, feedback from the pilot survey was positive and participants agreed that
the online format was simple to navigate. There were no comments regarding the clarity
of the survey questions.

Data Collection

This evaluative study collected data using SurveyMonkey, an online survey tool.
The email addresses of 800 MI-Access District Coordinators were uploaded into a secure
contact list. After the Spring MI-Access assessment window closed on March 28, 2008,
an email with a link to the survey was sent to all District Coordinators on March 31 . Due
to this study’s focus on the process of the MI-Access Program, the researcher
purposefully selected this date for survey distribution. By sending the survey immediately
following the assessment window, the researcher hoped to collect more speciﬁc and
relevant feedback regarding the alternate assessment process.

The survey window remained open for three weeks. During that time, responses
were monitored and follow-up email requests were sent weekly to District Coordinators
who had not responded. This is considered a beneﬁcial aspect of online surveys and can
potentially increase response rates up to 25% (Sheehan, 2001).

Data Analysis

In evaluative research, the major goal should be to “inﬂuence decision-making or

policy formulation through the provision of empirically-driven feedback” (Trochim,

2006). Data analysis in this study focused on ﬁnding the strengths and weaknesses

50

surrounding the process of Michigan’s alternate assessment program as expressed by MI-
Access District Coordinators. Descriptive statistics from both Likert scale questions and
open-ended questions were compiled and analyzed to evaluate this speciﬁc alternate
assessment system.

All data from selected response survey items were reported as an overall score
and as disaggregated scores for two groups of District Coordinators. The ﬁrst group
consisted of participants who function in an Administration position within the education
system while the second group consisted of participants working as Practitioners. For the
purposes of this study, Administration refers to participants who identiﬁed themselves as
either Special Education Directors or Principals and Practitioners are those participants
who identiﬁed themselves as Teachers, Guidance Counselors, School Psychologists, or
Other. The purpose behind creating these subgroups was to identify potential variations
in District Coordinators’ responses based on their primary role within the district. During
data analysis, signiﬁcant differences were observed between the groups in the area of
assessment administration. Therefore, all analyses were conducted with an overall mean
score for total participants as well as the subgroups of Administration and Practitioner. In
addition, a t-test for signiﬁcance between means was conducted for the two groups. This
created the opportunity to identify and address potential response differences based on
the role of the District Coordinator.

Analysis of quantitative data (Likert scale items) was conducted within each of
the research questions to address the speciﬁc area of inquiry. In addition, demographic

data was analyzed and presented by both frequency (responses) and percent

5]

(respondents). This data provided background information that was used throughout the
results section to better understand District Coordinators’ responses to survey items.

All survey items were also analyzed within the Strands of the Michigan School
Improvement Framework including “Teaching for Learning,” “Leadership,” and
“Personnel and Professional Learning.” Similar quantitative analysis focused on
responses within each of the Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components
developed by the researcher. These included: (1) utilization of program resources, (2)
utilization of assessment data and results (3) communication and collaboration in the
alternate assessment process, (4) professional development and training for effective
implementation, and (5) knowledge of the MI-Access process.

For each of the three research questions, School Improvement Framework
Strands, and Essential Alternate Assessment Components, descriptive statistics, including
means and standard deviations, were calculated (based on the assigned point values of 1-
4). Mean scores were rank ordered and comparisons were made within Strands and
Components to identify areas of strengths and weakness in the MI—Access alternate
assessment process. Samples of participant responses form the comment section
following each question will be presented in support of quantitative responses.

Finally, content analysis was conducted on the open-ended questions addressing
the strengths and weakness of the MI-Access program as perceived by District
Coordinators. After analysis of the open-ended questions began, it became apparent that
most respondents approached the ﬁrst question (A re there changes that could help
improve the implementation process of the MI-Access Program (e. g., before, during, and

aﬁer the assessment) ?) as a question regarding weaknesses. In addition, the second

52

question (Considering your response to the previous question, what is the most eﬂlzctive
way for your recommendations to be implemented?) provided responses that were either
unclear, or were simply reiterating the weakness. Therefore, only the questions
speciﬁcally regarding MI-Access strengths and weaknesses (What do you consider the
most significant strengths of the MI-A ccess Assessment Program? and What do you
consider the most significant weaknesses of the MI-A ccess Assessment Program?) were
analyzed. Data from these two questions was coded and categorized based on participant
responses and presented according to frequency of responses and percentage of
respondents. Six categories were identiﬁed for the question focusing on the strengths of
MI-Access and four categories were identiﬁed in relation the perceived weaknesses of the

alternate assessment program.

53

CHAPTER 4

RESULTS

This chapter presents the demographic data of participating MI-Access District
Coordinators including pertinent participant comments that support survey responses. In
addition, each research question is presented with data from corresponding survey items.
The signiﬁcance of the ﬁrst research question was to examine the extent to which
Michigan School Districts utilize the MI-Access data and results as well as additional
alternate assessment resources provided by the Michigan Department of Education to
improve instruction for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. The second research
question addressed the collaboration and communication that takes place druing the MI-
Access alternate assessment process. The third and ﬁnal research question focused on
District Coordinators’ perceptions of the MI-Access program including their personal
role and the training of Assessment Administrators. This research question also included
survey items that were optional and open-ended. These items allowed District
Coordinators an opportunity to express their opinions regarding the strengths and
weaknesses of the MI-Access process. Lastly, summary data is presented to show
responses within the strands of the Michigan School Improvement Framework (see
Tables 2-4) as well as the Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components (see Table
5).

Demographic Data

Response Rate. Three email requests were sent to MI-Access District

Coordinators asking them to complete an online survey through SurveyMonkey, a web

based survey tool. The ﬁrst email was sent on March 31, 2008. A follow up email was

54

sent to District Coordinators who had not responded after one week (April 7) and again
after two weeks (April 14).

During week one, 268 District Coordinators completed the survey. There were 47
surveys that were returned due to “Undeliverable Message” or “Delivery Status Failure”
and eight messages were not delivered because of “Spam Blocking” software. During
week one, 33 of the 47 “Undeliverable Messages” were reconciled and resent on April 7.
The eight “Spam Blocked” messages were resent directly from the researcher’s email
account without further problem. In addition, nine emails were received during week one
from District Coordinators who wanted to participate in the survey, but were unable to
open the document through the link provided. Emails were sent to these participants with
a copy of the survey attached in a word document. All nine surveys were returned during
week two and added to the survey completion totals.

During week two, 523 emails were sent to District Coordinators with 106
completed surveys returned. The same 14 “Undeliverable Messages” that were identiﬁed
in week one appeared again. Attempts to reconcile these addresses were unsuccessful.
The frnal email was sent during week three to 417 District Coordinators. Again, the same
14 “Undeliverable Messages” along with 132 completed surveys were returned to the
researcher. In sum, 506 of the 786 MI-Access District Coordinators who received the
email request completed the online survey for an overall return rate of 64.4% (see Table

6).

55

Table 6

 

Weekly Response Rate

Sent Completed Undeliverable
Week 1 800 268 47
Week 2 532 106 14
Week 3 426 132 14
Total -- 506 14

 

Participants ’ Roles. The majority of District Coordinators who responded to this
survey (76%) had been in the role of Coordinator for more than two years. Twenty-seven
percent identiﬁed themselves as Special Education Directors, 18% as Teachers, 14% as
Principals, 4% as Guidance Counselors, and 2% as School Psychologists. In addition,
35% selected “other” to identify their role within the school district. Other roles identiﬁed
by District Coordinators included Curriculum Directors, Transition Coordinators,
Teacher Consultants, Inclusion Specialists, and District Testing Coordinators.

Interestingly, 71 of the 178 District Coordinators who listed their role as “other”
identiﬁed themselves as some type of Teacher, Principal, or Special Education Director.
It is not clear if this question was misinterpreted or if these participants did not identify
with the choices provided in the survey item. In reevaluating the data with this additional
information, the results indicate that the participants consisted of 29.6% Special
Education Directors, 24.7% Teachers, 19% as Principals, 4% as Guidance Counselors,
and 1.6% as School Psychologists with the category of “other” containing 21.1% of

responses (see Table 7). In addition, twelve survey respondents identiﬁed themselves as

56

Administrative Assistants, Secretaries, or Paraprofessionals. However, the Michigan
Department of Education — Office of Educational Assessment and Accountability
explicitly states that support staff or administrative assistants are not to act as MI-Access
District Coordinators (MDE - Administrator Manual, 2007/2008).

For the purpose of data reporting and analysis, participants in this study were
separated into two groups. District Coordinators in the role of either Special Education
Directors or Principals were identiﬁed as “Administration” and represent 48.6% of
overall participants. The remainder of District Coordinators were identiﬁed as
“Practitioners” and consist of 51.4% of participants.

Table 7

Participant’s role

 

Frequency Percent of Respondents
Special Education Directors 150 29.6
Teachers 125 24.7
Principals 96 19.0
Guidance Counselors 20 4.0
School Psychologists 8 1.6
Other 107 21.1
Total 506 100

 

Frequency and percents represent recalculation including “other” roles that matched
survey choices.

The majority of District Coordinators (60%) indicated that they had never

administered the MI-Access assessment while 40% were either currently administering or

57

had administered the assessment it in the past. However, the percentage of participants
who had administered the assessment varied between groups. Of participating District
Coordinators, 50% of the Practitioner group had administered the assessments while only
15% of the Administration group reported that they had participated in assessment
administration.

For those who had administered the assessment, 49% indicated that they spent ten
hours or less on the assessment process and an additional 32% stated that the process
required between 11 and 20 hours to successfully complete the MI-Access requirements.
Considerably less District Coordinators (15%) reported spending between 20 and 40
hours per assessment window and only 4% reported the process taking more than 40
hours. Overall, only 11% of respondents reported that receive any compensation for their
role as District Coordinators.

Geographically, 36% of participants described their location as “small town/rural”
and 28.5% were “suburban.” The least amount of participants were ﬁom mid-size cities

and urban areas with 7.1% and 3.2% of participants respectively (see Table 8).

58

Table 8

 

Geographic Locations
Frequency Percent of Respondents

Urban 16 3.2
Mid-size City 36 7.1
Suburban 144 28.4
Small Town/Rural 182 36.0
I provide services in a

78 15.4
charter school.
I provide services at the

50 9.9
ISD level.
Total 506 100

 

One of the last questions in the demographic section of the survey focused on

District Coordinators’ familiarity with the Michigan School Improvement Framework. Of

the 506 respondents, 45.1% considered themselves very familiar and 49% felt that they

were somewhat familiar with this document. Only 5.9% indicated that they were not

familiar with the Michigan School Improvement Framework.

Participants ’ Beliefs Regarding Assessment. The ﬁnal question in the

demographic section asked District Coordinators if they agreed that all students who have

cognitive impairments should be administered alternate state assessments based on

Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs). Sixty-nine percent of

participants either strongly agreed or agreed with this statement while 27% disagreed or

59

strongly disagreed. Out of the 506 respondents, 5% did not know or were not sure about
this survey item. District Coordinators who disagreed with this statement were asked, “If
you disagree, what do you believe are the exceptions?” There were 138 participants who
disagreed with this statement with 122 (of the 138) providing comments to support their
response. The Administration and Practitioner groups reported similar opinions regarding
this statement. Sixty-nine percent of the Administration group and 68% of the
Practitioner group either agreed or strongly agreed. Similarly, 30% of the Administration
group and 26% of the Practitioner group disagreed/strongly disagreed. More Practitioners
(6%) than Administration (1%) were unsure how to respond to this statement.

All 122 responses to this question were coded into six categories (see Table 9).
These categories reﬂect both student-centered explanations for exclusion from state
assessments (e. g. medical fragility) as well as instructional or academic rationale (e. g. not

useful in IEP development and negative affects on Adequate Yearly Progress).

60

Table 9

Exceptions to Assessing all Students with C1

 

Frequency

Students are too medically

1 2
fragile
Should be tested on
functional skills, not 36
academics
Alternate assessment have

1 5
negative affect on AYP
Too much variation in

29
student ability
Results are not useﬁrl for

20
IEP or instruction
Response unclear/off topic 10
Total 122

Percent of Respondents

9.8

29.5

12.3

23.8

16.4

8.2

100

 

Research Question One: Utilization of Resources

Research question one stated, “To what extent are Michigan School Districts

utilizing the MI-Access resources (e. g. assessment data and results, released item

booklets, and EGLCEs) provided by the Michigan Department of Education to improve

instruction for students with cognitive impairments?” This research question was divided

into two parts. Part one focused on the use of assessment data and results for improved

61

educational outcomes. Part two of this question focused speciﬁcally on the resources
provided by the Michigan Department of Education and the extent to which they are
utilized by school districts. Within the survey, the following six items addressed this
research question:

Assessment Data and Results:

1. As a District Coordinator, I am familiar with the MI-Access data and results
provided to my district by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE).

2. My district adequately disseminates the MI-Access data and results to Assessment
Administrators to use for instructional purposes.

3. My district regularly requests information from Assessment Administrators as to
how the MI-Access data and results are being used to improve instruction in the
classroom.

Utilization of Resources:

4. My district utilizes the Michigan Extended Grade Level Content Expectations
(EGLCEs) to align instruction for students with cognitive impairments with the
State Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs).

5. My district utilizes the Item Analysis Reports provided by the MDE to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments.

6. My district utilizes the Released Item Booklets provided by the MDE to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments.

Assessment Data and Results. The vast majority of MI-Access District
Coordinators (94%, M = 3.39) either agreed or strongly agreed that they were familiar

with the data and results provided by the MDE. In addition, the majority of Coordinators

62

(80%, M = 3.00) also agreed or strongly agreed that their district adequately disseminated
the data and results to assessment administrators. There was less agreement (3 9%) when
asked if the Coordinators’ districts regularly requested information ﬁom assessment
administrators regarding their use of the MI-Access data and results in the classroom.

F iffy-four percent disagreed or strongly disagreed that this practice was utilized within
their districts to improve instruction for students with cognitive impairments. The mean
score for this item was much lower (2.17) than the other two items in this section of
research question one (see Table 10).

In the area of MI-Access data and results, Practitioners reported similar responses
to Administration (M = 3.42 and 3.34 respectively) regarding familiarity with this
information. However, Practitioners showed less agreement (M = 2.95) when asked if the
data and results were adequately disseminated in their districts. The Administration group
was more likely to agree with this same statement with a mean score of 3.06. In addition,
Practitioners and Administration had similar agreement (M = 2.18 and 2.20 respectively)
that their districts requested information from MI-Access Assessment Administrators
regarding how the data and results were used to improve instruction (see Table 10).

As with all questions on the survey, District Coordinators had the opportrmity to
provide additional information in comment boxes following each survey item. There
were 94 comments from the three items pertaining to MI-Access data and results. These
comments represented a variety of explanations as to how (or if) districts utilized this
information. Examples of comments explaining why District Coordinators were not using

this information included, “There is not much of the data that is actually useful for

63

instructional purposes,” “The results come so late they are not relevant,” “Hard to ﬁnd
time to meet and explain it all,” and “The data is not very informative.”

Other comments in this section expressed an indifference to the data and results
including, “1 disseminate the data but don’t follow up with the staff,” “It is still leﬁ up to
individual building administrators and teachers,” and “The information is distributed
when received. It is not looked at again.” There were also several comments reﬂecting
upon the need to incorporate and utilize the MI-Access data and results such as, “It is
discussed at curriculum meetings but we need to work at it more,” “We are working at
this in our district,” and “I need to get better at this.” Most of the comments shared
information as to why District Coordinators were not utilizing the data and results or
expressed their desire to change this practice. However, the following comment
represents a detailed description of how one District Coordinator was using this
information to improve instruction for students with cognitive impairments:

I meet individually with each assessment administrator to go over results. I meet

with the school administrators as a whole group. I also meet with just the CI

teachers from the district in a small group to help them with interrpreting (sic) the
data and determining how we can provide adequate instruction across
grades/levels. A third meeting is held with ALL of the spec ed teachers at the
secondary level (both Middle School and HS) and the Elementary CI teachers are
included in that as well (again this is to help us provide the best instruction across

the board for these students in grades K through 12).

Table 10

Assessment Data and Results

 

Overall Practitioner SD Administration SD
Mean Mean Mean

DC Familiarity 3.39 3.42 0.568 3.34 0.714
Adequate

3.00 2.95 0.753 3.06 0.743
Dissemination
Requests for

2.17 2.18 0.981 2.20 0.833
Utilization

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0
Note. * p<.01

Utilization of Resources. The mean scores for each item in this section were less
than 3.0 (see Table 11). More than half (66%) of District Coordinators reported that their
districts utilized the Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs) to align
instruction to the state Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs) for students with
cognitive impairments. Twenty-two percent disagreed with this statement and another
12% were not sure if their district was aligning instruction between the EGLCEs and the
GLCEs.

An additional resource provided to Michigan School Districts by the MDE is
referred to as an Item Analysis Report. This report provides information regarding
student performance at the classroom, school, district, and state level for each released
item from the assessment. F if’ty-two percent of MI-Access District Coordinators reported
utilizing this resource to incorporate the data from alternate assessments. The remaining

half of survey participants either disagreed (3 5%) or were not sure (13%) if their districts

65

were utilizing the Item Analysis Reports to improve instruction for students with
cognitive impairments.

In the area of resource utilization, Practitioners reported less agreement on all
three questions than the Administration group. There was a signiﬁcant difference
between the groups regarding the use of EGLCEs to improve instruction (t (504) = 2.77,
p < 0.1) with the Administration group more likely to report that they were be utilized.
Similarly, Practitioners reported lower levels of agreement than the Administration group
regarding the use of Released Item Booklets (M = 2.00 vs. 2.14) as well as the utilization
of Item Analysis Reports (M = 2.23 vs. 2.31) (see Table 11).

District Coordinators had the opportunity to provide comments to each survey
item in the Utilization of Resources section. There were 144 total responses in reference
to the three items presented in this portion of the survey. Comments provided by District
Coordinators represented a variety of familiarity with the MI-Access resources. For
example, there were negative comments such as, “Not at all appropriate for CI” (referring
to EGLCEs), “Information is not very helpful,” “Almost worthless for the MI-Access”
(referring to Item Analysis Reports), and “Most teachers do not ﬁnd them relevant”
(referring to Released Item Booklets).

As with comments presented in the previous section, there was a variety of
participant responses that reﬂected an indifference to the MI-Access resources including,
“Some people do it. Some do not. It is not pushed in the district” (referring to the
EGLCEs) and “I let it slip when I get busy” (referring to the Item Analysis Reports). In
addition, there were many comments regarding the Released Item Booklets that reﬂected

the District Coordinator’s lack of awareness regarding this resource. Some of these

66

comments included, “I have not seen these booklets,” “Did not know they existed,”
“Were these available for last year? I am not sure about the dessimination (sic) of this
information” and “As far as I know, teachers do not even get a copy of the released item
booklets.” It is important to note that this resource was available during the 2006-2007
school year and that teachers, administrators and/or parents have free access to all grade
and content level Released Item Booklets through the MI-Access website.

While many comments reﬂected negative opinions or indifference regarding the
MI-Access resources, there were also a variety of comments that shared how Districts
Coordinators utilized (or plan to utilize) these documents to improve instruction for
students with cognitive impairments. For example, “I recently received training on this
through the MEAP/MI-Access OEAA conference and we will be using this information
to align instruction with EGLCEs,” “Individual teachers use this information to guide
instruction for students” (referring to Item Analysis Reports), and “We are working on
getting info ready for our teachers this coming school year” (referring to the Released

Item Booklets).

67

Table 11

Utilization of Resources

 

Overall

Mean
Use of

2.55
EGLCEs
Use of Item

2.27
Analysis
Use of
Released 2.04
Items

Practitioner SD
Mean
244* 1 .224
2.23 1.224
2.00 1.278

Administration
Mean

2.72*

2.31

2.14

SD

1.033

1.033

1.118

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0

Note. * p<.01

Research Question Two: Communication and Collaboration

Research question two focused on the communication and collaboration

surrounding the MI-Access process. Speciﬁcally, this question asked, “To what extent are

Michigan School Districts communicating and collaborating to successfully implement

and coordinate the MI-Access Program for students with cognitive impairments?” Within

the survey, the following three items addressed this research question:

1. In my district, Assessment Administrators contact me with questions and/or

concerns regarding the MI—Access Program.

2. As a District Coordinator, I communicate with the MI-Access Program

Developers to answer questions and clarify assessment issues (e. g., calling the

MI-Access Hotline or the MDE-ASWDP ofﬁces).

68

3. In my district, Assessment Administrators regularly collaborate with each other to
improve the alternate assessment administration process.

Overwhelrningly, District Coordinators agreed or strongly agreed (91%) that
Assessment Administrators in their districts contacted them with question or concerns
regarding the MI-Access program with a mean item score of 3.25. In addition, 88%

(M = 3.09) of participants reported that they communicate with the MI-Access Program
Developers/MDE to answer questions regarding the alternate assessment process (see
Table 12).

There was less agreement by District Coordinators regarding the collaboration
between Assessment Administrators in their districts (M = 2.28). F orty-eight percent
agreed or strongly agreed with this statement while 40% either disagreed or strongly
disagreed that collaboration between Assessment Administrators was taking place in their
districts. There were also 12% of District Coordinators who reported that they did not
know or were not sure if Assessment Administrators were collaborating regarding the
alternate assessment process (see Table 12).

The Administration and Practitioner groups reported similar levels of agreement
regarding whether Assessment Administrators contacted them with questions concerning
the MI-Access Program. In addition, these groups reported similar agreement that, as
District Coordinators, they contact the MI-Access Program Developers to answer
questions and clarify issues related to the alternate assessment program. While responses
were similar in the area of communication, there was less agreement regarding
collaboration. District Coordinators from the Administration group were more likely to

identify that Assessment Administrators in their districts collaborated with each other to

69

improve the implementation of MI-Access (M = 2.38). Participating District
Coordinators from the Practitioner group reported less collaboration between Assessment
Administrators within their districts (M = 2.22) (see Table 12).

There were limited comments provided by District Coordinators regarding the
survey items focusing on communication with 76 comments between the two questions.
Most of these comments simply pointed out that the participant was the only one
administering the assessment so communication was limited. However, there were more
comments regarding the communication process with the MI-Access Program
Developers and/or the MDE. The vast majority of these comments were positive. Some
examples include, “They have been very helpful and timely in responses,” “They’re
always very helpful and can answer my questions,” and “MI-Access personnel have been
extremely helpful and supportive in all areas when I have questions or problems.” Less
than 10% of the comments reﬂected negative experiences. For example, “They never
responded to an email I sent and it is hard to contact by phone.” The other negative
comments reﬂected the same issues regarding lack of response and difﬁculty contacting
MI-Access personnel by phone.

Optional comments provided by District Coordinators regarding collaboration
totaled 50, but there were very few different topics. Many participants noted that they
were the only one administering the MI-Access assessments in their district so
collaboration within the district was not possible. Other comments in this area identiﬁed
the lack of time provided by the district to Assessment Administrators (often referred to

as being teachers) for collaboration on the alternate assessment process.

70

Table 12

Communication and Collaborative

 

Overall Practitioner

Mean Mean
AA Contact with

3.25 3.21
Questions
Communicate

3.09 3.14
with MDE
District

2.28 2.22
Collaboration

SD

0.864

0.872

1.190

Administration

3.31

3.03

2.38

SD

0.799

0.868

0.908

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0

Note. * p<.01

Research Question Three: District Coordinators ’ Perceptions

Research question three consisted of two sub-inquires that addressed the general

question “What are District Coordinators’ Perceptions of the MI-Access Program?” This

question focused on the District Coordinator’s personal role in the process as well as the

training of the Assessment Administrators within their districts. Within the survey, the

following three items addressed District Coordinators’ perceptions of their personal role

in the MI-Access program.

1. As a District Coordinator, I consider myself knowledgeable regarding the

coordination and successful implementation process of the MI-Access Program in

my district.

71

2. As a District Coordinator, I believe I have the background necessary (e.g.,
assessment and/or special education training) to successfully coordinate and
manage the process of the MI-Access Assessment Program.

3. My district designates MI-Access Coordinators for each building to organize the
dissemination, administration, and collection of the MI-Access Assessments.
The second section of research question three addressed the perceptions of

District Coordinators regarding the training and ability of Assessment Administrators in
their districts. The following three items were included in the survey to collect data for
this question:

1. Assessment Administrators in my district effectively complete their tasks in the
MI-Access Program process (e.g., receiving, administering, and returning
assessment materials).

2. My district provides an adequate amount of release time to Assessment
Administrators to participate in professional development related to the MI-
Access Program.

3. My district provides adequate training to Assessment Administrators regarding
the administration of MI-Access Assessments.

District Coordinators ’ Perceptions of Personal Role. The majority (93%) of
District Coordinators reported that they considered themselves knowledgeable in the MI-
Access process with a mean score of 3.26. Similarly, 90% of participants reported that
they also had the background necessary to perform the tasks of Ml-Access District
Coordinator (M = 3.28). The ﬁnal question regarding the role of District Coordinators

focused on the opportunity to delegate tasks through the designation of building

72

coordinators. There was less agreement to this statement with 63% of survey participants
agreeing or strongly agreeing that this is something they practice in their role as MI-
Access District Coordinator (M = 2.68) (see Table 13).

Regarding their personal role in the MI-Access Process, the Practitioner group
reported similar agreement as the Administration group when asked whether they
considered themselves knowledgeable in the coordination and implementation of MI-
Access (M = 3.28 and 3.22 respectively). There was also similar agreement regarding
whether District Coordinators believed they had the necessary backgron to successfully
coordinate the MI-Access program with a mean score of 3.00 for Practitioners and 3.26
for the Administration group. There was a signiﬁcant difference between the groups
regarding the designation of MI-Access Building Coordinators within their districts (t
(504) = 4.69, p < 0.1) with the Practitioner group being more liking to agree (see Table
13).

Again, District Coordinators provided optional comments to the survey items in
this section. There were 24 comments regarding individual knowledge and 26 comments
pertaining to necessary background. The majority of these comments expressed
Coordinators desire to have more training and support in the area of MI-Access in order
to “streamline” the process.

There were 80 comments related to the survey item on designating MI-Access
building coordinators. Most District Coordinators reported that they were the only
personnel involved in the MI-Access process. Due to this stafﬁng arrangement, it was not
necessary to designate MI-Access coordinators or other assistance at the building level.

However, there were also comments that expressed ﬁ'ustration with the process of

73

designating building coordinators due to time and training constraints. Comments in this
area included, “I do everything in my district because it is easier than training others and
listening to them complain about it,” “I would rather take my time and provide
Assessment Administrators directly with the materials than train someone else to
complete this time consuming process,” and “I do EVERYTHING, including
disseminating materials, tracking down/collecting materials to be returned, double
checking counts/materials, etc.”

Table 13

DC Perceptions of Personal Role

 

Overall Practitioner SD Administration SD
Mean Mean Mean
Knowledge 3.26 3.28 0.698 3.22 0.736
Background 3.28 3.30 0.762 3.26 0.761
Assigned
2.68 2.92* 1.051 2.48* 1.060
Coordinators

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with l = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0
Note. * p<.01

District Coordinators’ Perceptions of Assessment Administrators Training and
Ability. In this section of research question three, almost all District Coordinators (95%)
reported that Assessment Administrators in their districts effectively complete their
MI-Access related tasks (M = 3.38). Only 3% disagreed and no participants strongly
disagreed to this statement. While most District Coordinators reported that the MI-Access

assessments were being implemented effectively, fewer believed that Assessment

74

Administrators were allowed an adequate amount of release time for professional
development in the area of MI-Access. Sixty-one percent agreed that the amount of
release time was adequate while 35% either disagreed or strongly disagreed with this
statement (M = 2.56). Similarly, 70% of District Coordinators believed that their districts
provided adequate training to Assessment Administrators while 26% of participants
disagreed and 4% were not sure if the training was adequate (M = 2.74) (see Table 14).

There was a signiﬁcant difference between the groups regarding whether
Assessment Administrators were effectively completing their tasks in the MI-Access
process (t (504) = 2.77, p < 0.1) with the Administration group more likely to agree. The
Administration group was also more likely to report that their districts provided adequate
release time for the alternate assessment process. Both groups reported similar agreement
(M = 2.76 and 2.73) regarding the opportunities for MI-Access training within their
districts (see Table 14).

There were only 22 comments provided by District Coordinators related to the
effectiveness of Assessment Administrators in their districts. Most comments simply
reiterated that there was only one or two Assessment Administrators in the district and
problems in this area were not an issue. However, there were several comments that
addressed the process of returning materials and deadlines. Examples of these comments
included, “Most do. . .some do not read the material and return incorrectly. This requires
additional time on my part for corrections” and “I often have to remind administrators of
deadlines, collect materials, and sometimes administer assessments myself in order to

complete during the assessment window.”

75

There were 36 comments provided on the topic of Assessment Administrator
release time for professional development. Every comment expressed either the lack of
time, money, or interest in the process. For example, “The assessment administrators get
no release time. The teachers have to do this on t0p of everything they do,” “Release time
is not an option as it would take away too much time form (sic) instruction,” and “There
is no release time for training. . .it is considered an added duty.” There were 32 comments
related to adequate training for Assessment Administrators. These comments continued
with the same theme surrounding a lack of time, money, and interest. In addition, there
were six comments related to the need for appropriate training in order to improve ethics
in the area of alternate assessments for students with cognitive impairments.

Table 14

DC Perceptions of AA Training and Ability

 

Overall Practitioner SD Administration SD

Mean Mean Mean
Task

3.38 3.30* 0.717 3.47* 0.662
Completion
Release Time 2.56 2.51 1.015 2.63 0.856
Adequate

2.74 2.76 0.928 2.73 0.849
Training

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0
Note. * p<.01

76

Data by Strands ﬁom Michigan School Improvement Framework

Survey items for this study were guided by the research questions as well as the
Michigan School Improvement Framework. The Framework consists of ﬁve strands,
three of which address assessment and are relevant to the questions presented in this
research. As presented in Tables 24, survey items were divided into the Framework
Strands of “Teaching for Learning,” “Leadership,” and “Personnel & Professional
Learning.” Table 15 presents the means and standard deviations from the District
Coordinators responses within each of the Strands. The survey items from the Personnel
& Professional Learning Strand consisted of the highest level of agreement with a mean
of 2.93. District Coordinators’ responses to the Teaching for Learning Strand represent
the lowest level of agreement with a mean of 2.68 while the Leadership Strand had a
mean of 2.78. Overall, there was a difference of .25 in the means of the three School
Improvement Strands with no differences being signiﬁcant. District Coordinators from
the Administration group were more likely than Practitioners to agree with the statements

from each of the Michigan School Improvement Framework Strands.

77

Table 15

Michigan School Improvement Framework Strand Scores

 

Overall Practitioner SD Administration SD

Mean Mean Mean
Teaching for

2.68 2.64 1.125 2.72 0.971
Learning
Leadership 2.78 2.78 1.088 2.79 1.026
Personnel &
Professional 2.93 2.92 1.014 2.94 0.907
Learning

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0
Note. "' p<01

Data by Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components

Survey items for this study were also categorized into a set of ﬁve Essential
Alternate Assessment Process Components developed by the researcher (see Table 5).
These components were addressed through the research questions discussed above and
each research question subset aligns to an Alternate Assessment Process Component. As
shown in Table 16, District Coordinators had the highest level of agreement on survey
questions from the Professional Development and Training component with a mean score
of 3.08. The lowest level of agreement to the Process Components can be seen in the
Utilization of Data and Resources with a mean score of 2.29. District Coordinators in the
Administration group reported higher levels of agreement than Practitioners in all but one

(Professional Development and Training) of the Essential Alternate Assessment Process

78

Table 16

Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components Scores

 

Mean Practitioner Administration
Mean Mean
. . . 9
Utilization of Resources 2 29 2 22 2 3
Utilization of Data and
2.85 2.85 2.86
Results
Communication and
2.87 2.87 2.91
Collaboration
Professional Development
3.08 3.16 3.00
and Training
Knowledge of Assessment
2.89 2.87 2.94

Process

 

Note. Mean was calculated on a four-point scale with 1 = strongly disagree and 4 =
strongly agree. Responses of “don’t know/not sure” = 0
Note. * p<.01

Open Ended Questions — MI-A ccess Strengths and Weaknesses

For the purposes of this study, two of the four open-ended questions were
analyzed. The research made this decision after the initial analysis of all open-ended
questions began. After closer review, it became apparent that most respondents
approached the ﬁrst question (Are there changes that could help improve the
implementation process of the MI-A ccess Program (e. g., before, during, and after the
assessment) .7) as a question regarding weaknesses. In addition, the second question

(Considering your response to the previous question, what is the most effective way for

79

your recommendations to be implemented?) provided responses that were either unclear,
or were simply reiterating the weakness. Therefore, only the questions speciﬁcally
regarding MI-Access strengths and weaknesses (What do you consider the most
signiﬁcant strengths of the MI-A ccess Assessment Program? and What do you consider
the most signiﬁcant weaknesses of the MI-A ccess Assessment Program?) were analyzed.

These questions were optional and District Coordinators did not have to respond
in order to submit a completed survey. There were 332 responses (65.6% of total
participants) related to the question regarding the strengths of MI-Access and 304
responses (60.1 % of total participants) who addressed the most signiﬁcant weaknesses of
the program. All responses were coded and categorized according to observable themes
(see Appendix E for coding samples).

There were six categories identiﬁed in the area of MI-Access Strengths including
categories of “Off topic” and “Other” (see Table 17). Many District Coordinators used
this question as a forum to voice their frustration or personal experiences with the MI-
Access program which increased the number of “off topic” responses. Open-ended
responses for the second question regarding MI-Access Weakness required fewer
categories for a total of ﬁve including a category of “Off topic” and “Other” (see Table

18).

80

Table 17

Responses to Open-Ended Question: MI-A ccess Strengths

 

Category Frequency Percent

Includes all students in
l 33 40.0

accountability systems

Allows consistent progress

58 17.5
monitoring
MI-Access is well
organized and easily 39 11.8
administered
Makes teachers accountable

25 7.5
for learning
Off topic 54 16.3
Other 23 6.9
Total 332 100

 

81

Table 18

Responses to Open-Ended Question: MI-Access Weaknesses

 

Frequency Percent

Not relevant/appropriate to

155 51.0
students needs
Too time consuming/Too

98 32.2
much paperwork
Does not appropriately

21 6.9
assess Mild CI
Off topic 6 2.0
Other 24 7.9
Total 304 100

 

82

Table 19

Summary of Data by Survey Questions ﬁ'om Essential AA Components

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Assessment Data and Results
Overall Pract. SD Admin. SD
Mean Mean Mean
DC Familiarity 3.39 3.42 0.568 3.34 0.714
Adequate Dissemination 3.00 2.95 0.753 3.06 0.743
Requests for Utilization 2.17 2.18 0.981 2.20 0.833
Utilization of Resources
Overall Pract. SD Admin. SD
Mean Mean Mean
Use of EGLCEs 2.55 2.44“ 1.224 2.72"“ 1.033
Use of Item Analysis 2.27 2.23 1.224 2.31 1.033
Use of Released Items 2.04 2.00 1.278 2.14 1.118
Communication and Collaboration
Overall Pract. SD Admin. SD
Mean Mean Mean
M can?“ “’1‘ 3.25 3.21 0.864 3.31 0.799
Questions
Communicate with MDE 3.09 3.14 0.872 3.03 0.868
District Collaboration 2.28 2.22 1.190 2.38 0.908
DC Perceptions of Personal Role
Overall Pract. SD Admin. SD
Mean Mean Mean
Knowledge 3.26 3.28 0.698 3.22 0.736
Background 3.28 3.30 0.762 3.26 0.761
Assigned Coordinators 2.68 2.92* 1.051 2.48" 1.060
DC Perceptions of AA Training and Ability
Overall Pract. SD Admin. SD
Mean Mean Mean
Task Completion 3.38 3.30“ 0.717 3.47* 0.662
Release Time 2.56 2.51 1.015 2.63 0.856
Adequate Training 2.74 2.76 0.928 2.73 0.849
Note. * p<.01

83

 

CHAPTER 5

DISCUSSION

The purpose of this study was to examine the MI-Access alternate assessment
program used in Michigan. Survey data from approximately 64% of District Coordinators
provided important information regarding the implementation of the State’s alternate
assessment system for students who have, or function as if they have, cognitive
impairments. Evaluation of this data focused on demographic information, utilization of
alternate assessment data and resources, communication and collaboration during the
assessment process, and District Coordinators’ perceptions regarding the MI-Access
program. The results of this evaluative study were presented in Chapter 4. Through
analysis of survey data, several issues and trends in Michigan’s alternate assessment
system were identiﬁed. This chapter presents a discussion of the data with a focus on the
demographic information provided by MI-Access District Coordinators as well as each of
the three research questions guiding this study. Key ﬁndings, interpretations, and
recommendations are presented in table format at the conclusion of each of these
sections. In addition, this chapter will present the limitations, suggested future research in
the area of alternate assessments, and a conclusion of this evaluation.

Demographic Information

The demographic data from this study indicated that the role of District
Coordinator was evenly distributed between participants in the Administration role
(48.6%) and those in the Practitioner role (51.4%). For the purposes of this study, the
Administration group referred to participants who were either Special Education

Directors or Principals. The Practitioner group was comprised of District Coordinators in

84

the role of Teacher, Guidance Counselor, School Psychologist or “other.” Overall, 76.3%
of participants had been serving as District Coordinators for more than two years. While
more participants in the Administration role had acted as District Coordinator for more
than two years (83.3%), there was a sigrniﬁcant amount of Practitioners (71.8%) with
similar experience. However, even with similar experience, 50% of the Practitioner
group had administered the MI-Access assessment while only 15% of the Administration
group reported that they had participated in assessment administration.

The fact that more Practitioners were administering the alternate assessments may
account for their lower levels of agreement surrounding the assessment process (see
Tables 10-16). Almost half of the Practitioner group (48%) identiﬁed themselves as
classroom teachers which means they would be working with students on a daily basis.
Flowers et al., (2005) noted that many teachers feel they lack the necessary resources
needed to successfully administer alternate assessments. Examples of these resources
include those that may be more readily available to District Coordinators in
administrative roles such as clerical support, release time, and computer access.

While the role of the District Coordinator appears to inﬂuence perceptions, the
amount of time involved in coordinating the alternate assessment process does not seem
to affect overall satisfaction. The two groups of participants were quite similar with 79%
of the Administration responses and 83% of Practitioners reporting that their duties as
District Coordinator required less than 20 hours per assessment window. However, there
were 19% of total participants who reported that the process took more than 20 hours per
assessment window. For full time practitioners and administrators, this could represent a

signiﬁcant time burden during the school year. In addition, there are two assessment

85

windows for MI-Access during the academic year, which would mean that any time
commitment reported by District Coordinators represents only half of the time they spend
on the alternate assessment process.

Overall, 45% of participants reported being very familiar with the Michigan
School Improvement Framework while 49% were somewhat familiar and 6% were not
familiar with this document. The School Improvement Framework notes that:

The school improvement process, is deeply embedded in building, district and

state planning and accountability systems, and has become an integral and

necessary part of school and system reform. While this type of planning has
existed for many years, recent state and federal mandates including annual testing
directives and increased accountability have intensiﬁed the importance of this

process and its outcomes (MDE - School Improvement Framework, 2006).

With less than half of District Coordinators being very familiar with this
document, there may be negative affects on school reform in the area of alternate
assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. The School Improvement
Framework outlines the importance of assessment knowledge, alignment of curriculum to
the state standards, and the use of data to inform instruction. These examples are all
relevant and important to the successful implementation of the MI-Access Program. An
increased understanding of the Michigan School Improvement Framework by District
Coordinators may improve the implementation process and educational outcomes for this

student population.

86

Demographic Data — Inclusion of all Students in Alternate Assessments Systems

The ﬁnal question of the demographic section addressed whether District
Coordinators agreed that all students with cognitive impairments should participate in
state assessments based on Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs).
Much like the survey item addressing the amount of time spent on the alternate
assessment process, the Administration and Practitioner groups held similar beliefs
regarding this survey item. This supports the idea that the District Coordinator’s role
within the school affects their perceptions of the MI-Access program more than the
amount of time they spend on the process or their opinions regarding the inclusion of all
students with cognitive impairments in alternate assessment systems.

Regarding whether or not all students should participate in state assessments, 69%
of the Administration goup and 68% of the Practitioner goup either ageed or strongly
ageed, while 30% of the Admirnistration and 26% of the Practitioner disagreed/strongly
disagreed with this assessment philosophy. Interestingly, even though IDEA required all
states to implement some type of alternate assessment by July 1, 2000 (U .S. Department
of Education — Title I, 2003), just over one third (31%) of District Coordinators in
Michigan do not agree that all students who have cognitive impairments should be
administered alternate assessments based on the State’s Extended Grade Level Content
Expectations.

The lack of consensus in the area of alternate assessments continues to be an issue
in the ﬁeld of instruction for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. There are differing
opinions as to whether these students can meet the acaderrnic achievement expectations

created by each state (McGrew & Evens, 2004). Spooner & Browder (2006) stated,

87

“students who have physical and sensory challenges or challenging behavior may be
especially susceptible to being underestimated for their academic potential” (p. 5). From
the results of this survey item, it appears that almost one third of MI-Access District
Coordinators question whether this student population should be part of statewide
accountability systems.

If participants disagreed that all students with cognitive impairments should be
administered alternate assessments, they were asked to provide reasoning for possible
exclusions. The most common response (29.5%) was that students with cognitive
impairments should be tested on functional/daily living skills rather than academic
content. This ﬁnding is similar to a study conducted by Agarn, et al. (2002) which
identiﬁed that many teachers do not believe that accessing the general education
curriculum is important for students with signiﬁcant disabilities.

Focusing on academic curriculum (rather than functional) is a common concern
for educators working with this student population (Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, et al.,
2003). Therefore, it is not surprising that most District Coordinators addressed this issue
as a potential reason for excluding students with cognitive impairments ﬁ'om assessment
systems. However, the U.S. Departrrnent of Education (Title I, 2003) states that “an
alternate assessment must be aligned with the State’s content standards, [and] must yield
results separately in both reading/language arts and mathematics.” This can make
transitioning to alternate assessments and increased accountability systems more difficult
for districts that rely solely on a functional curriculum for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities. Browder, Spooner, Ahlgim-Delzell, et al. (2003) identify ﬁve trends in the

education of students with signiﬁcant disabilities including (a) Developmental Model, (b)

88

Functional Curriculum, (c) Social Inclusion, (d) Self-Determination, and (e) General
Curriculum Access. The General Curriculum Access trend has existed since the 19903
and is currently the focus in the ﬁled of Special Education. From the data collected in this
study, it is evident that this philosophical change is still taking place among MI-Access
District Coordinators.

The results from this speciﬁc survey item support the idea that many professionals
in the ﬁeld of Special Education are hesitant to incorporate academic curriculum into
instruction for fear that functional curriculum will be underutilized (Spooner & Browder,
2006). In addition, research studies focusing on curriculum access for students with
signiﬁcant disabilities reﬂect similar opinions as those expressed by some MI-Access
District Coordinators. Many educators believe that students with disabilities should not
have the same learning expectations as other students. This belief is even more common
when it concerns students with signiﬁcant disabilities (Wehmeyer & Agan, 2006). By
focusing exclusively on functional progarnming, students with cognitive impairments are
not provided access to the general education curriculum. However, with the recent focus
on standards and accountability in education, the “optimal target” for students with
disabilities is to have their educational goals “linked to general education progarn”
(Pugach & Wargner, 2001, p. 194).

The second most common reason (23.8%) identiﬁed by District Coordinators for
not including all students in state assessment systems was due to the extreme variation in
ability with this student population. This is a common opinion regarding the alternate
assessment process. Because the speciﬁc learning objectives for students with signiﬁcant

disabilities are so individualized, utilizing standardized assessments is often viewed as

89

impossible (Gong & Marion, 2006). While there are certainly variations of ability within
the label of “cognitively impaired,” the Michigan Department of Education has attempted
to address this issue by creating three assessment levels within the MI-Access progam.
These assessments address the varying abilities of students who have severe or profound,
moderate, and mild cognitive impairments (Michigan Department of Education -
Technical Report, 2007)

The third most common response from District Coordinators regarding the
inclusion of all students in alternate assessment systems was related to program
development. Sixteen percent of participants reported that results ﬁom the MI-Access
assessment were not useful for IEP Development or instruction and therefore students
with cognitive impairments should not need to participate. Even though this is a concern
for District coordinators, the utilization of standards-based IEPs for students with
cognitive impairments represents an existing shift in the educational progamming for
this student population (Courtade-Little & Brower, 2005). The philosophy of a separate
and functional curriculum for students with cognitive impairments has been the focus for
many years (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgim-Delzell, et al., 2003). These types of responses
may represent the difﬁculty that educators are having as Special Education shifts into a
more standards-based format and away from the physical segregation and separate
curriculum.

Lastly, 12% of responses provided by participating District Coordinators focused
on the issue of Adequate Yearly Progess (AYP) and students with signiﬁcant
disabilities. According to the United States Department of Education (2005) and

following the guidelines of the No Child Left Behind Act (2002), school districts may

90

report up to 1% of proﬁcient assessment scores from alternate assessments. The
comments provided by District Coordinators regarding this reason for excluding some
students from state assessment systems demonstrated possible confusion regardirng the
current federal guidelines. For example, one Coordinator wrote, “It is not fair that only
1% of severe students can take the alternate assessment. What happens if we have more
than 1%? Then they have to take the MEAP? That will mess up our AYP!” and “We are a
“magnet school” for severe cognitive kids so our school does not meet AYP because we
can only have 1%.” From these comments, it is clear that these District Coordinators are
misinformed as to the actual legislation surrounding the “1% cap.” If they were aware of
the guidelines, they would understand that schools are allowed to have more than 1% of
students take the test (however, only 1% total can be counted as proﬁcient) and that
alternate assessments should never be denied to students who need them. According to
the Michigan Department of Education — Office of Educational Assessment and
Accountability (Web Cast Q & A, 2006):

The 1% regulation explicitly states that the regulation does NOT limit the number

of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement

standards. It ONLY limits the number of proﬁcient alternate assessment scores at

the district level to 1%. However, the regulation does recognize that there are

situations where a district may exceed the 1% cap. This is why districts can apply

for an exception to the 1% cap

In addition, these District Coordinators are misinformed that the 1% cap directly
affects their school. The 1% cap is ultimately calculated at the state level (Golden Gate,

2006). Therefore, schools, such as center-based progams for students with signiﬁcant

91

disabilities, are able to apply for waivers to increase their percentage. The Michigan
Department of Education — Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment and Accountability clearly
states on the MI-Access webpage that:

Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) has a cap of 1% at the state level and at the

district level. If a district exceeds the 1% cap, the district may apply for an

exception to the 1% cap. For example, an intermediate school district with a

center progam most likely will exceed the 1% cap at each of the grades assessed.

The ISD can apply for an exception to the 1% cap, using the MDE application,

which will be reviewed by the Michigan Department of Education’s Ofﬁce of

Educational Assessment and Accountability (OEAA) and the Ofﬁce of Special

Education and Early Intervention (OSE-EIS).

It is not surprising that District Coordinators struggle to understand the
requirements surrounding alternate assessments under NCLB. There continues to be
additions and changes in federal policies, which in turn affect those responsible for
assessment administration at the state level (Golden Gate, 2006). Individuals responsible
for administration or coordination in Special Education face complex assessment
legislation. However, it is important that MI-Access District Coordinators do not let
misinterpretations of federal and state policy affect the appropriate inclusion of students
with signiﬁcant disabilities into accountability systems. In addition, school and district
administration need to understand the guidelines surrounding NCLB and accountability
systems in order for students to beneﬁt ﬁ'om this legislation (Thurlow, 2005).

From the results of this study, 31% of MI-Access District Coordinators did not

agree that that all students with cognitive impairments should participate in state

92

assessments. These Coordinators provided a variety of explanations to support their
beliefs including the best interest of the student, teacher, and/or school. Whatever the
reasoning surrounding the exclusion of this population, this ﬁnding supports the idea that
more research is needed to understand why or why not educators support the use of
alternate assessments for students with signiﬁcant disabilities (Browder, et al., 2005).

Table 20

Recommendations — Demographic Information

 

 

 

 

Finding Interpretation Recommendation(s)
There were 12 District There are acting District E — Notify all District
Coordinators who were not Coordinators who may not oordinators to reiterate the
in an approved role for the have the appropriate uirements necessary for
position (i.e. administrative backgound for the e position.
assistants, para- position.
professionals). E — Require all District
oordinators to submit a
‘Qualiﬁcation Sheet” to the
E before beginning their
1e in the MI-Access
ogram.
Overall, 60% of District Many District E and Districts —
Coordinators have never Coordinators may not be equire all District
administered the MI- familiar with the oordinators to administer
Access Assessments (50% admirnistration process. e assessment at least once
of the Practitioner goup This may affect their academic year.
and 15% of the ability to commrmicate
Administration goup). with Assessment
Administrators regarding
the MI-Access Program

 

 

 

 

93

Table 20 (Continued)

 

 

 

 

 

 

19% of District For full time Practitioners MDE - Incorporate
Coordinators reported that and Adrnirnistrators, this possible suggestions from
their role as MI-Access time commitment may the ﬁeld including:
Coordinators required create a burden that reducing assessment
more than 20 hours per interferes with existing paperwork and
assessment window (there educational duties. streamlining the pre-
are two assessment referral process
windows per academic
year) MDE — Survey Assessment
Admirnistrators for
additional suggestions as to
how the time commitment
can be decreased.
Districts -— Offer assistance
(i.e., additional staff,
release time, etc.) to
District Coordinators
during MI-Access.
49% of District The lack of familiarity MDE and Districts -
Coordinators reported with the Michigan School Consider professional
being only “somewhat Improvement Framework development for District
familiar” with the is a possible concern due to Coordinators that links MI
Michigan School the importance placed Access to the Michigan
Improvement Framework upon the three strands School Improvement
and an additional 5.9% addressing assessment and Framework. Incorporate a
were not familiar with this increased accountability focus on school change
document. for all students. Lack of and improved educational
understanding may create outcomes for students with
negative effects on signiﬁcant disabilities.
educational outcomes for
students with disabilities.
Just under one third (31%) Even though IDEA MDE — Continue to collect
of District Coordinators do required all states to additional information
not agee that all students implement some type of ﬁ'om educators regarding
who have cognitive alternate assessment by their perceptions of
impairments should be July 2000, there are still alternate assessments and
administered alternate many educators who do why (or why not) they
assessments based on the not see the value and/or believe they are
State’s Extended Grade appropriateness irn this appropriate.
Level Content process. These beliefs may
Expectations. inﬂuence the outcomes of regarding alternate
alternate assessments. assessments during

 

94

 

Research Question One: Utilization of Resources

Data and Results. Schools have been collecting data regarding student
performance for many years. However, the question that is crucial to the utilization of
this data is whether it is being “put to productive purpose” (UMASS Donahue. 2004).
According to participating MI-Access District Coordinators, School Districts in Michigan
were familiar with the data and results that are provided by the Michigan Department of
Education with 94% agreeing that they were familiar with this information. In addition,
80% of participants agreed that the MI-Access data and results are regularly disseminated
to Assessment Administrators to use in the classrooms for instructional purposes.
Interestingly. even though almost all Coordinators ageed that they were familiar with
this information and disseminated it accordingly. only 39% of participants reported that
their districts requested information back ﬁ'om Assessment Adrnirnistrators as to how the
data and results were being utilized with the classroom to improve instruction for
students with cognitive impairments.

Defur (2002) addressed the assumptions that occur with the inclusion of students
with disabilities in high-stakes testing. One of these assumptions is that high-stakes
assessments will potentially create data-based decisions. These decisions include
“improved teaching. enhanced educational opportunities and experiences, and academic
and nonacademic success” (p.205). In addition. a University of Massachusetts — Donahue
Institute study on promising practices in the ﬁeld of Urban Special Education listed “the
use of assessment data to inform decision making” as one of the practices that is
important for schools to support the success of student with disabilities (UMASS

Donahue. 2004). The fact that less than 40% of District Coordinators report that their

95

districts inquire as to how the MI-Access data and results are utilized to develop
instruction denies this assumption and can potentially reduce the chances of improving
educational outcomes.

Utilizing assessment data and results to create instructional change can be
difﬁcult (Thurlow, 2002). However, the lack of utilization of assessment data counteracts
one of the main goals in standards-based reform, which focuses on instructional
improvements (Thurlow, 2002; Ysseldyke et al., 2004, Flowers et al., 2005). With more
than half of the participants in this study not utilizing the data from alternate assessments
to improve instruction, the alignment between curriculum, instruction, and assessment
may be compromised (Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005).

MI-A ccess Resources. The MI-Access resources addressed in this study included
the Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs), Item Analysis Reports, and
Released Item Booklets. While 66% of District Coordinators reported utilizing the
EGLCEs to improve instruction for students with cognitive impairments, 34% were either
not using this resource or were not sure if it was being utilized in their districts. It is
important to note that EGLCEs play a signiﬁcant role in the MI-Access progam. These
extended content expectations represent what is expected for students at each gade level
while taking into consideration their ability level. In essence, the EGLCEs create the
foundation of the MI-Access item development and are used as guidelines for writing
appropriate assessment items. In addition, the Michigan Department of Education
contracted for an external alignment study to determine how well the MI-Access

Assessments align with the EGLCEs (The Assist, 2006).

96

Alignment studies are conducted to ensure that alternate assessments are
developed based on the standards that are provided to teachers for the instruction of
students with disabilities. This alignment is crucial for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities if they are going to have access to the general education curriculum (Flowers,
Browder, Alnlgim-Delzell, & Spooner, 2006). The Donahue Institute study also listed “a
pervasive emphasis on curriculum alignment with the [state] frameworks” and “effective
systems to support curriculum alignment” as two of the practices that are important for
schools to support the success of students with disabilities in the area of state assessments
(UMASS Donahue, 2004). However, this appears to be a concept that is either
overlooked or not considered relevant by District Coordinators in the administration and
implementation of the MI-Access Assessments.

As stated by Courtade-Little & Browder (2005) regarding recent changes in the
education of students with signiﬁcant disabilities, “as educators began to develop and
administer alternate assessments, it soon became clear that for students to demonstrate
the state standards targeted by tlnese assessments, they needed instruction that was
“aligned” to these standards” (p. 8). Typically, alignment of the curriculum is often an
outcome of “high-stakes” testing (Ysseldyke et al., 2004) and in Michigan, the instruction
of students with cognitive impairments should align to the EGLCEs. However, with only
66% of District Coordinators in the study reporting that they utilize the Extended Grade
Level Content Expectations, there is a signiﬁcant gap in the alignment between standards
and instruction for students with cognitive impairments.

Participants reported limited use of the other two resources provided by the WE

for the MI-Access Program. Forty-eight percent of District Coordinators were either not

97

using, or not sure if they were using, the Item Analysis Reports in their districts.
Similarly, 57% of participants reported that they were not unitizing the Released Item
Booklets to assist in assessment preparation for students with cognitive impairments. In
addition, tlnere were many comments from District Coordinators stating that they were
unaware that these booklets were available for Assessment Admirnistrators.

The underutilization of these resources may have an affect on overall satisfaction
of the MI-Access process. If more District Coordinators were accessing the results and
explanations of data provided in the Item Analysis Reports, there may be more
understanding regarding the outcomes of the alternate assessment process. In addition,
review of the Released Item Booklets would show Assessment Administrators the types

of items that are used in the MI-Access assessments. This type of review could be

especially beneﬁcial for those who are new to the alternate assessment process.

98

Table 21

Recommendations — Research Question One

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding Interpretation Recommendations
39% of participants While familiar with the 'stricts - Require all
reported that their districts data and results provided Assessment Administrators
requested information from by the MDE, many school to report back to school
Assessment Administrators districts do not inquire as inistration as to how
as to how the data and to how this information is ey are using assessment
results were being utilized being utilized to guide ta in their classrooms.
within the classroom to curriculum and improve
improve instruction for irnstruction - both of which E and Districts —
students with cognitive are goals for alternate Provide professional
impairments. assessments. development opportunities
that focus on the use ofdata
to inform instruction.
44% of participants were The EGLCEs represent the Districts — Request that
eitlner not using the state education schools inquire as to how
Extended Grade Level expectations for students the EGLCEs are used in
Content Expectations or with signiﬁcant the classrooms.
were not sure if they were disabilities. Iftlnis
utilized in their districts. document is not used to Districts - Include
guide instruction, it is information regarding the
likely that instruction will EGLCEs in professional
not be aligned to development opportunities
assessment. (i.e., beginning of the
school year or curriculum
development meetings).
48% of District These resources provided MDE and Districts --
Coordinators were either by the MDE to assist in the Request that schools
not using, or not sure if implementation and inquire as to how the Item
they were using, the Item understanding of the MI- Analysis Reports and
Analysis Reports. Access Progam appear to Released Item Booklets are
be underutilized. This may used by Assessment
57% of District lead to an increased Administrators.
Coordinators were either amount of frustration and
not using, or not sure if misinterpretation on the Include information
they were using, the part of Assessment regarding these resources
Released Item Booklets. Admirnistrators. in professional
development Opportunities
(i.e., beginning of the
school year or curriculmn
development meet'ﬂs)

 

 

99

 

Research Question Two: Communication and Collaboration

Research question two addressed the communication and collaboration both
within school districts as well as between districts and the MI-Access Developers.
Overall, District Coordinators reported that they had adequate communication both ﬁ'om
Assessment Administrators regarding MI-Access and between tlnemselves and the MI-
Access progarn and/or the Michigan Department of Education — Office of Educational
Assessment and Accountability. However, there was less ageement as to whether
Assessment Administrators within the district were collaborating with one another
regarding MI-Access. Speciﬁcally, the Practitioner goup reported the least amount of
ageement (M = 2.22) while the Adrnirnistration goup had a mean score of 2.38
pertaining to Assessment Administrator collaboration witlnin their districts.

In order to obtain appropriate alignment of curriculum, instruction, and
assessment, there needs to be successful communication and collaboration both within
the ﬁeld of special education and between special education and general education.
Interestingly, communication and collaboration were both listed as in the “six best
practice themes” regarding successful inclusive practices in middle and secondary
schools (Villa, Thousand, Nevin, Liston, 2005). Regarding the use of collaboration in the
Villa et a1. study, collaboration was reported by all interviewees as “the key to student
success” in reference to appropriate inclusion for students with disabilities. The same
study noted that general educators typically have the backgound in content while those
in special education have experience in strategies and accommodations. A combination of
both of these knowledge bases is essential for the successful implementation of alternate

assessments (Spooner & Browder, 2006). While the skills of effective communication

100

and collaboration are essential to effective inclusionary practices (T itone, 2005), it is
clear that they will also beneﬁt the outcomes of alternate assessments for students with
signiﬁcant disabilities.

As previously discussed in this study, in order for students to be successful on
alternate assessments, there must be alignment among curriculum, instruction, and
assessment. This involves collaboration and communication both within special
education and between special and general education teachers in order to provide
adequate access to the general education curriculum (Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005).
In as study conducted by F umey, Hasazi, and Clark-Keefe (2005) regarding the impact of
state policies on special education, it was noted that professional development activities
associated with curriculum alignment and development had contributed to increased
collaboration between special and general education.

In this study, the survey items regarding District Coordinators’ communication
and collaboration practices show limited interaction between those involved in the MI-
Access Prog'am. However, the survey questions in this area were very speciﬁc regarding
who was communicating and/or collaborating (i.e. Assessment Admirnistrators with
Coordinators). Therefore, it is difficult to determine whetlner the lower mean score
represent an overall lack of these particular practices.

There is little research regarding the role of communication and collaboration in
the alternate assessment process. The fact that the Practitioner goup reports increased
collaboration may be a result of their more common role as Assessment Administrators
(50% of Practitioners vs. 15% of Administration). Because they are more actively

involved in the assessment process, Practitioners may utilize their colleagues (i.e. special

101

and general education teachers) more than District Coordinators in the role of
Administration. Whether District Coordinators are administering the assessment or
overseeing the process, communication and collaboration are very important. Koppang
(2004) noted, “improved communication among all teachers in the school provides
professional educators with another tool for effectively enhancing the learning of all
students in the classroom, especially student with disabilities” (p. 161). In addition,
effective communication witlnin the school increases feeling of “ownership” regarding the
new progams and practices (Duffy, 2008) making it essential for effective policy

implementation.

102

Table 22

Recommendations - Research Question Two

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Finding Interpretation Recommendation(s)
91% of participants agreed The role of District E and Districts —
that Assessment Coordinator is utilized by ontinue to train District
Administrators contacted Assessment Admirnistrators oordinators and provide
them, as needed, with to gain irnformation and em with the necessary
questions regarding MI- clariﬁcation regarding MI- erials to distribute to
Access. Access. ssment Administrators.
88% of District The communication E — Continue to allow
Coordinators reported that process between MI— unication through
they communicate with the Access and Michigan tln email and telephone.
MI—Access Progam School Districts via the
Developers and/or the District Coordinator is E - Possibly add more
MDE to address questions effective and beneﬁcial for l‘Frequently Asked
or concerns in the MI- alternate assessment Questions” to the MI-
Access Progam. implementation. Access website to reduce
Negative comments were the number of incomirng
related to the inability to inquires.
contact MI-Access
professionals via phone.
40% of District The lack of collaboration Districts — If there are
Coordinators did not agree, may be connected to the multiple District
or were not sure, if time constraints placed on Coordinators, allow release
Assessment Adrnirnistrators Assessment Administrators time during each
in their districts were for completion of the assessment window for
collaborating regarding the assessment window. collaboration.
MI-Access process. However, there were also
many comments from MDE — Create an online
District Coordinators forum for collaboration via
stating that they were the the Internet across districts.
only person involved with Can be used to share ideas,
MI-Access in their district address questions, etc.
so collaboration was not
necessary.

 

 

Research Question Three: District Coordinators ’ Perceptions

As stated in Chapter 4, the majority of District Coordinators felt knowledgeable

regarding their role in the MI-Access program with an overall mean score of 3.30. There

103

 

was also very little variation between the Admirnistration goup and the Practitioner group
in this area (M = 3.22 and 3.28 respectively). However, when asked whether they
believed they had the background necessary to successfully coordinate the alternate
assessment process, fewer District Coordinators from the Admirnistration goup ageed
(M = 3.26 vs. 3.30). This difference may be attributed to the type of education and
training District Coordinators have had in the area of special education. Typically,
Special Education Directors have a strong backgon in educational policy and legal
issues, but may lack experience in classroom instruction. This limitation could potentially
include the alternate assessment process, which would raise the level of ageement for the
Practitioner goup. Even with this difference, the Administration goup was still
conﬁdent that they had the backgound necessary to coordinate the MI-Access alternate
assessment progam.

Another question in the area of District Coordinators’ personal role in the MI-
Access process addressed whether they delegated additional coordinators at the school
level. The overall mean score for this survey item was 2.68 with a signiﬁcant difference
between the Administration and the Practitioner goups (with the Practitioner goup
reporting more ageement). From the comments provided by participants, it was clear that
many districts did not have enough students with signiﬁcant disabilities taking the MI-
Access assessments to need this type of multi-level coordination. It would have been
beneﬁcial to ask participants how many schools witlnin their districts administered MI-
Access. Without this inforrnation, the results ﬁom this survey item were difﬁcult to

interpret.

104

There was almost identical ageement between the Admirnistration goup (M =
2.73) and the Practitioner goup (M = 2.76) regarding whether their districts provided
adequate training in the MI-Access process. However, the Administration goup was
more likely to report that Assessment Administrators had sufficient release time for
professional development related to MI-Access (M = 2.63 vs. 2.51 respectively). This
ﬁnding may be attributed to the fact that more participants in the Practitioner goup have
actually adrnirnistered the assessment. Participants from this goup may have a better idea
as to the amount of time and resources that are necessary to complete this task. Browder,
Fallin, et al. (2003) identiﬁed both time and training as potential resources that may
inﬂuence student outcomes on alternate assessments. In addition, the Practitioner goups
may experience more challenges with the alternate assessment process. For example, due
to the shortage of teachers in the area of signiﬁcant disabilities, there may be teachers
who are new to the ﬁeld and are still struggling with their new roles in addition to the
implementation of alternate assessments (Browder, Karvonen, et al., 2005).
Open Ended Questions — MI-Access Strengths and Wealmesses

Strengths. District Coordinators provided a variety of responses identifying the
strengths of the MI-Access progam. The most common response was ‘student centered’
with 40% of participants indicating that the implementation of this assessment system
allows all students to take part in accountability systems. This is a vague assertion and
there was little elaboration in the comments provided by District Coordinators. However,
having participants identify this idea can be seen as a positive reaction to the goals of
alternate assessments. By including students with signiﬁcant disabilities in alternate

assessment systems, this student population is given more consideration in the policy

105

making that surrounds state, district, and school educational progams (Browder,
Spooner, Algozzine, etal., 2003)

Interestingly, there were no District Coordinators who identiﬁed the need to
increase expectations or academic standards for students with cognitive impairments as a
strength of MI-Access. In the literature and research surrounding alternate assessments
and increased accountably, many professionals in the ﬁeld identify increased educational
expectations as signiﬁcant goal and often an outcome of the process (Angan et al., 2002,
Browder, F allirn, et al., 2003; Mcgew & Evans, 2004). Quenemoen and Thurlow (2007)
listed “high expectations for all students” as one of their ﬁve “big ideas” surrounding
learrning opporturnities through alternate assessments. They noted, “all children beneﬁt
when schools have high expectations for what each students is expected to know and be
able to do” (p. 3). In addition, Pemer (2006) reported that high expectations for students
with signiﬁcant disabilities and their meaningful involvement in alternate assessment is
“highly supported” by educators and special education organizations. However, out of the
332 MI-Access District Coordinators who responded to the open-ended question
regarding the strengths Michigan’s alternate assessment progarrn, not one response made
reference to the idea of increasing or changing expectations for students with cognitive
impairments.

It is not clear as to why 40% of District Coordinators reported “inclusion of all
students into accountability systems” as a strength of the MI-Access Progam, but did not
identify increasing expectations as an outcome of this inclusion. While the literature

identiﬁes this as an essential goal of alternate assessments system, MI-Access District

106

Coordinators may not believe that inclusion will change expectations for this student
population.

Two of the categories created from District Coordinators’ responses regarding the
strengths of MI-Access focused on both the student and the teacher. Participants
identiﬁed consistent progess monitoring (17.5%) and making teachers accountable for
the learning of students with cognitive impairments (7.5%) as strengths of the MI-Access
progam. However, as discussed earlier in reference to research question one, less than
40% of District Coordinators report utilizing the MI-Access Data and results to improve
instruction for students with cognitive disabilities. It would be beneﬁcial if educators
used the data from alternate assessments for both progess monitoring and instructional
improvements. In doing so, the time invested by Assessment Administrators (excessive
time commitment was considered a weakness of the MI-Access progam) may be more
beneﬁcial for students and teachers (Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, et al., 2003).

Weaknesses. MI-Access District Coordinators identiﬁed a variety of weaknesses
surrounding the state’s alternate assessment process. There were 304 participants who
chose to respond to this survey item. Fifty-one percent of participants reported that the
MI-Access assessments were not relevant and/or appropriate for students with cognitive
impairments. It is possible that MI-Access District Coordinators do not have access to
appropriate research regarding the alternate assessment process for students with
signiﬁcant disabilities. Without information that is considered functional to their role in
education, it may be difficult for tlnem to ﬁnd relevance in the MI-Access Program.
Unfortnmately, there has been little research in the area of technical adequacy and

alternate assessments (Yovanoff & Tindal, 2007) which may also inﬂuence whether or

107

not it is perceived as appropriate for this student population. This limited research base
may increase District Coordinator’s negative perceptions regarding the relevance of the
MI-Access progam.

Another possible explanation for District Coordinators not ﬁnding relevance in
the MI-Access assessments may be related to the recent philosophical shift in the
instructional practices for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. As noted by Browder,
Spooner, and Ahlgim-Dezell, et al., (2003), special education is in a new era, which
focuses on access to the general education curriculum for students with signiﬁcant
disabilities. The shifting philosophy affects curriculum, instruction, and assessment. This
change in practice may account, in part, for the reason half of participating District
Coordinators view “lack of relevance” as a weakness of MI-Access. In addition, the
responses from District Coordinators regarding this topic are most likely affected as
“curriculum experts have noted that philosophy often serves as the basis for educational
decisions (Browder, Spooner, and Ahlgim-Dezell, et al., 2003)

The second most common weakness identiﬁed by 32.2% of participants was
related to the amount of time and paperwork the MI-Access assessments required. This is
a continuing theme in the research surrounding alternate assessments as teachers struggle
with the requirements involved in successful implementation (Browder, Karvonen, et al.,
2005; Flowers, Ahlgim-Delzell, et al., 2005). The third and ﬁnal category in reference to
the most signiﬁcant weakness of the MI-Access program was related to students with
mild cognitive impairments. Seven percent of participants identiﬁed the need for an
assessment that is more appropriate for student with higher levels of academic

functioning. These responses focused on the need for an assessment that will address the

108

ability level of students who are not able to take the general state assessment (MEAP)
with accommodations, but the highest level of MI-Access (Functional Independence) is
not challenging for this population.

Currently, the Michigan Departnnent of Education — Ofﬁce of Educational
Assessment and Accountability is working on an assessment that is intended to
incorporate this student population. This will be an alternate assessment based on
modiﬁed achievement standards. Guidelines ﬁ'om the Department of Education (U .S.
Department of Education -— Modiﬁed Achievement Standards, 2007) identiﬁes these
students as those who have a disability that has “precluded [them] from achieving
proﬁciency, as demonstrated by objective evidence of the student’s performance and
whose progess is such that, even if signiﬁcant growth occurs, the student’s IEP team is
reasonably certain that the student will not achieve gade-level proﬁciency within the
year covered by the IEP.” Each state will be allowed to offer this assessment to an
additional 2% of the student population and have the scores count as proﬁcient for
Adequate Yearly Progess. By developing a modiﬁed alternate assessment, this weakness
identiﬁed by MI-Access District Coordinators will be addressed and possibly corrected

by the Michigan Department of Education.

109

Table 23

Recommendations - Research Question Three

 

 

 

 

 

 

process. This may affect
the quality of assessment
administration (especially
considering that the
Practitioner goup reported
even lower levels of
ageement) and ultimately
assessment outcomes.

Finding Interpretation Recommendation(s)
93% of participants Overall, the role of District MDE and Districts ~—
reported that they felt Coordinator appears to be Continue to provide the
knowledgeable in their role ﬁlled by individuals who necessary training and
as District Coordinator and feel conﬁdent in their resources necessary to
90% were conﬁdent that ability to implement the maintain District
they had the backgound MI-Access Progam. The Coordinators knowledge in
(education and/or training) preparation provided for the MI—Access Progam.
necessary to implement the this role is producing
MI-Access Progam. excellent results (as seen
through self-rgorted data).
65% of District Even with the majority of MDE — Provide
Coordinators reported that District Coordinators in professional development
Assessment Administrators agreement, more than one opportunities throughout
were allowed adequate third of believe that the year (summer too) to
release time for increased released time for better accommodate
professional development professional development district release time.
related to MI-Access. would be beneﬁcial.
The Administration goup They may be indentifying Districts — Survey
was more likely to agee tlnis area as a need due to Assessment Administrators
with this statement (M = reported frustrations and/or to determine what
2.63 vs. 2.51). confusion from information would be
Assessment Administrators helpful during PD
regarding the MI-Access opportunities.
process. Communicate to the MDE
for planning
70% of District Almost one tlnird of MDE — Offer detailed
Coordinators reported tlnat District Coordinators assessment administration
Assessment Administrators believe that Assessment training sessions during
received adequate training Administrators need more MEAP/MI—Acess Fall
in the MI-Access process. training in the MI-Access Conferences.

Districts — Survey
Assessment Adrnirnistrators
to determine what areas of
training would be helpful.
Communicate to the MDE
for planning.

 

 

110

 

MI School Improvement Framework and Essential AA Process Components

The Michigan School Improvement Framework was used to categorize survey
items. The data from the School Improvement Framework items showed the lowest levels
of agreement ﬁ'om District Coordinators in the Teaching for Learning Strand with an
overall mean of 2.68. The focus of this strand is curriculum, instruction, and assessments.
Speciﬁcally, the introduction to this strand reads, “the school holds high expectations for
all students, identiﬁes essential curricular content, makes certain it is sequenced
appropriately and is taught effectively. . .Assessments used are aligned to curricular
content and are used to guide instructional decisions and monitor student learrning” (MDE
- School Improvement Framework, 2006).

The use of alternate assessments to guide instructional decisions and monitor
student learning, as outlined in the School Improvement Framework, was not evident in
participants’ responses. While the majority of District Coordinators were familiar with
this information (94%), only 39% reported that their districts requested Assessment
Admirnistrators to identify how they used the data and results to improve student
outcomes.

The highest level of ageement from District Coordinators was in the Personnel &
Professional Learning Strand (M = 2.93). This Strand identiﬁes notes that schools in
Michigan should have, “highly qualiﬁed personnel who continually acquire and use
skills, knowledge, attitudes and beliefs necessary to create a culture with high levels of
learning for all” (MDE - School Improvement Framework, 2006).

The data from District Coordinators regarding their overall krnowledge (93%

agreement) and backgound (90% ageement) in the MI-Access process supports this

111

statement from the School Improvement Framework. These results indicate that Ml-
Access District Coordinators, in self-reporting data, consider themselves highly qualiﬁed
in the area of Michigan’s alternate assessment prograrnn. In the Personnel & Professional
Learning Strand of the School Improvement Framework, this knowledge would support
the goal of “creating a culture with high levels of learning for all.”

The Essential Alternate Assessment Process Components were created by the
researcher to further categorize survey items. Similar to the analysis of the Michigan
School Improvement Framework Strands, MI-Access District Coordinators reported the
highest levels of ageement with the Professional Development and Training component
(M = 3.08). The majority of Coordinators report being knowledgeable and having the
backgound necessary to successfully implement the MI-Access program.

Unfortunately, the two lowest levels of ageement were in the areas of Utilization
of Resources and Utilization of Data and Results (M = 2.29 and 2.85 respectively). As
discussed earlier in this chapter, this has the potential to create a disconnect in the overall
alignment of assessment, curriculum, and instruction for students with cognitive
impairments (Courtade-Little & Browder, 2005). Overall, it appears that MI-Access
District Coordinators are knowledgeable as to the requirements of the alternate
assessment process. However, a signiﬁcant percentage do not incorporate the resources
(including assessment data) provided by the Michigan Department of Education.
Limitations

Several limitations affect the outcomes of this study. First, while there was an
acceptable response rate (64.4%) ﬁorn District Coordinators, this percentage is not

representative of all of the districts implementing Ml-Access in Michigan. Participation

112

in surveys is typically inﬂuenced by the participant’s interest in sharing information
regarding the topic of study (Beatty & Herrmann, 2002). Therefore, responses may have
been more numerous ﬁ'om District Coordinators who were having issues with the
alternate assessment process and wanted to utilize the survey as a forum to express their
opinions. Second, the results of this study provided only the perspective of MI-Access
District Coordinators in the form of self-reported data. While these individuals represent
an important part of the MI-Access progam, their perceptions may not be representative
of the actual alternate assessment process.

The third limitation of this study is related to its generalizability. This research
was conducted as an evaluative study based on the alternate assessment progam used in
one state. While the ﬁndings may be signiﬁcant to Michigan, they may not be easily
generalized to other states due to the unique nature of each state’s alternate assessment
progam (i.e., portfolio, checklist, on—demand, etc.). In addition, the researcher developed
this survey instrument speciﬁcally for the MI-Access progam in Michigan. Therefore, its
relevance to other states may be minimal.

Future Research

The need for continued research in the area of alternate assessments exists on
multiple levels. Nationally, the Government Accounting Ofﬁce reported that numerous
states are experiencing difﬁculty with the implementation of alternate assessments and
meeting the guidelines of NCLB. In addition, these states are in need of assistance as they
search for resources to guide the process of including all students in state alternate

assessment systems (GAO, 2005). Research focusing on how states are developing,

113

implementing and utilizing the data ﬁ'om alternate assessments would be useful to
improve the overall outcomes for students with signiﬁcant disabilities.

While Michigan has an established and peer approved alternate assessment
system, it is important that “efforts continue to ensure alternate assessments, and
students’ opportunity to learn adequate cuniculum, align to state standards and reliably
assess student performance” (Katsiyannis, Zhang, Ryan, & Jones, 2007, p. 161).
Speciﬁcally in Michigan, this would involve Assessment Administrators utilizing the
Extended Grade Level Content Expectations (EGLCEs) to align the curriculum for
students with cognitive impairments with the general education population. Even with
understanding the signiﬁcance of the EGLCEs and their role in the MI-Access process,
44% of Coordinators reported that their districts do not utilize this resource to align
instruction for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. Future research studies identifying
which districts use the EGLCEs and how they incorporate them into instructional
practices would be a beneﬁcial endeavor. Understanding how, or if, assessment affects
instruction for students with signiﬁcant disabilities has the potential to improve the
alternate assessment process for botln Assessment Administrators and students.

In addition, future research needs to focus on ways to provide Assessment
Administrators, speciﬁcally those in the Practitioner goup, with strategies to utilize
alternate assessment resources in daily instruction (Flowers, etal., 2005). In Michigan,
this would include increasing the understanding and incorporation of the MI-Access data
and results as well as the resources providing the Department of Education. In doing so,
Assessment Administrators may better understand the purpose and goals of alternate

assessments for students with cognitive impairments. This will potentially improve

114

educational outcomes for students who utilize alternate assessments. Overall, it is
imperative that educators work to improve the overall implementation and outcomes of
alternate assessments as they represent the achievement levels and reporting criteria
under NCLB (Browder, Karvonen, et al., 2005).

Future research analyzing several sub-categories of this study may also provide
useful information regarding a state’s alternate assessment system. Identifying possible
differences in the areas of (a) gade level of instruction provided by District Coordinators
and/or Assessment Administrators (i.e., elementary, nniddle, and high school), (b) years
of experience reported by participants, and (c) type of instructional certiﬁcation held by
District Coordinators and/or Assessment Administrators could provide useful information
both within and between Adnninistration and Practitioner goups. Another sub-category
that would beneﬁt from continued research in the area of alternate assessments relates to
how the process is conducted within charter schools. Questions including, “Do charter
schools express similar concerns (as public schools) regarding the alternate assessment
process?” and “Do charter schools utilize resources differently than public schools in
relation to alternate assessments?” may provide useful information for both types of
institutions.

Finally, future research needs to focus on the long term effects of an academic
curriculum for students with significant disabilities. If curriculunn, instruction, and
assessment should be aligned, then it is important to understand the impact of current
changes in special education on students with signiﬁcant disabilities. In order to do so,
longitudinal studies focusing on this population and the implementation of academic

curriculum would need to address important questions such as, “Does this change in

115

curriculum increase personal independence?” “Does it affect vocational opportunities?”
and “Does an academic focus increase expectations and/or change perceptions regarding
students with signiﬁcant disabilities?” By understanding the outcomes of “access to the
general education curriculum” and increased accountability for tlnese students, educators
would have more information to guide instruction and assessment.

Conclusion

This study identiﬁed several overall themes surrounding the MI-Access progam
in Michigan. Speciﬁcally, the resources provided by the Michigan Department of
Education appear to be underutilized in the alternate assessment process. As discussed
earlier, these issues create a variety of challenges in the areas of improved instruction and
access to the general education curriculum for students with signiﬁcant disabilities. This
is an issue that needs to be addressed as the requirements of NCLB regarding assessment
and accountability continue to challenge school districts and the students who rely on
them for appropriate educational opporturnities (Katsiyannis et al., 2007).

Beals (2003) noted, “Through carefully constructed evaluations, educators are
able to reﬂect on themselves and on their practice. ..Such an evaluation allows for the
incorporation of stakeholder values, concerns, issues and differences. Such an evaluation
allows for positive change.” As special education moves into a new era of accountability,
inclusion, and awareness, the researcher hopes that this study will be an important
contribution to helping administrators, practitioners, policymakers, and researchers to
better understand the process of alternate assessments — a process that may include both

positive and negative outcomes for students with signiﬁcant disabilities.

116

APPENDICES

117

Appendix A

Overview of MI-Access Student Populations

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Figure 1
Overview of MI-Access Participation and Supported Independence Students
Level of Independence: Level of Irndependence:
Participation Supported Independence
Student Have, or function as if they have, Have, or frmction as if they have,
Characteristics severe or profound cognitive moderate cognitive impairments
impairments that preclude their that seriously impact their ability
ability to (or our skills to to generalize or transfer learning.
ascertain their abilities to)
generalize learning.
Anticipated Life Are expected to participate in Are expected to achieve
Roles major adult living roles. Will supported independence in
require extensive, ongoing adulthood. Will require some
support in all areas of supervision throughout lives, but
functioning throughout life. Will can learn skills to maximize
be dependent on others for most, independence.
if not all, daily living needs.
Curriculum Focuses on the non-core Based on a combination of the
Michigan Model Content non-core Michigan Model
Standards (career and Content Standards (career and
employability, technology, employability, technology,
healtln, and physical education). health, and physical education)
In addition, academic content and academic content standards
standards that are provided in the found in the Michigan
Michigan Curriculum Curriculum Framework, and the
Framework and the Extended Extended Grade Level Content
Grade Level Content Expectations, Extended
Expectations, Extended Benchmarks, and Extended High
Benchmarks, and Extended High School Content Expectations,
School Content Expectations, presented in real-life contexts.
presented in real-life contexts.
Likely State MI-Access Participation MI-Access Supported
Assessment Independence

 

 

 

118

 

Appendix B

MI-Access Scoring Rubric

 

MI-Access Participation V1.5 Scoring Rubric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score Point Definition
3 Responds correctly with no teacher assistance
2 Responds correctlj after teacher provides verbal/physical cues
l Responds correctly after teacher provides physical assistance and/or
modeling, short of hand-over-hand assistance
C3233? Deﬁnition
A Incorrect Response
B Resists/refuses to participate
C Teacher provides hand-over-hand assistance

 

 

 

 

'_"'_"A_11_ 992511999990999_!?§1.1li_i¥139.P919§-___

 

 

MI-Access Supported Independence V1.5 Scoring Rubric

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Score Point Definition
3 Responds correctly with no teacher assistance
2 Responds correctly after teacher provides verbal/physical cues
(38:33:? Definition
A Incorrect Response
B Resists/refuses to participate
C Teacher provides hand—over-hand assistance

 

 

 

 

"All condition codes result in no points.

 

119

Appendix C

Sample of Extended Grade Level Content Expectations

 

ENGLISH LANGUAGE ARTS
STRAND: READING

 

Domain: Narrative Text (N I)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Level of Independence Elementary School Middle School
(Full, SI, P) (Linked to Grade 4)* (Linked to Grade 7)*
Assessable at:
(Classroom/LEAHSD/State)
R.NT.04.02 R.NT.07.02
ELA Identify and describe the Analyze the structure,
Grade Level Content structure, elements, and elements, style, and
Expectation v.12.05 purpose of a variety of purpose of narrative
narrative genre including genre including mystery,
poetry, myths, legends, poetry, memoir, drama,
fantasy, and adventure. myths, and legends.
R.NT.e.SI.EG02 R.NT.m.SI.EG02
Supported Independence Identify a variety of Identify and describe a
Extended Grade Level narrative text genre, variety of narrative text
Content Expectation (e.g., stories, poetry, and genre, (e.g., stories,
songs). poetry, and songs).
Chssroom/LEA/ISD/State
R.NT.e.P.EG02 R.N'I‘.m.P.EG02
Participation Differentiate between Differentiate between two
Extended Grade Level two types of narrative types of narrative text
Content Expectation text genre, (e.g., stories, genre, (e.g., stories,
poetry, and songs). poetry, and songs).
Classroom/LEA/ISD/State

 

 

 

120

 

Appendix D
Survey

1. Consent

I am currently a Ph.D. Candidate in Special Education at Michigan State University. I am
interested in alternate assessment systems for students with cognitive impairments and
have been involved with the development of the MI-Access Alternate Assessment
Program in Michigan.

At this time, I am conducting a research study examining the MI-Access Program and
would geatly appreciate your input. As a District Coordinator, you play a very important
role in the alternate assessment process. This survey will be sent to approximately 800
MI-Access District Coordinators throughout the state.

The purpose of this research is to conduct an evaluative study of Michigan’s alternate
assessment process. The researcher will not share this information with any other party
and results will be used for research purposes only. Your conﬁdentiality will be protected
to the maximum extent allowable by law. If indicators are used in publications and/or
presentations, they will be limited to school district size and general geogaphic locations.

While you may not directly beneﬁt from participation in this research study, your input
could potentially inﬂuence its recommendations. This evaluative study of the MI-Access
Progam may discover areas of improvement that could lead to positive educational
change for students, teachers, and or school admirnistrators. There are no known risks
associated with this study.

Your participation in this research study is voluntary. You may choose not to participate
is the survey or, if you choose to begin the survey, you may exit at any time without
consequence. If you decide to participate, your responses to this survey will be attached
to the email you use for your work as a MI-Access District Coordinator. However, to
ensure conﬁdentiality, your name and district will not be used in any publication and/or
presentation.

All responses are conﬁdential and only the researcher will have access to the survey data
using a password-protected account in Survey Monkey. Any identifying information will
be stored with the data and available only to the researcher. It will be securely stored in a
locked home office cabinet for a mirnimum of ﬁve years after publication. Electronic
copies of the data will be stored under password protection on the researcher’s home
computer for a minimum of ﬁve years after publication. At that time, the ﬁles will be
deleted from the hard drive and the device will be restored to ensure that there are no
remaining ﬁles.

121

If you have any questions regarding this study, such as scientiﬁc issues, how to do any
part of it, or to report an injury, please contact the researcher, Angela Dalhoe, at 716
Dadson Dr. Lansing, MI — dalhoean@msu.edu — (517-887-6369) or the research advisor
for this study, Dr. Troy Mariage, at mariaget@msu.edu — (517-432-1981). Ifyou have
any questions or concerns regarding your role and rights as a research participant, or
would like to register a complaint about this study, you may contact, anonymously if you
wish, the Director of MSU’s Human Research Protection Progarns, Dr. Peter Vasilenko,
at 517-355-2180, FAX 517-432-4503, or e-mail irb@msu.edu, or regular mail at: 202
Olds Hall, MSU, East Lansing, MI 48824.

I sincerely hope that you will complete this snn'vey. The information you provide
regarding your role in the MI-Access Progam will geatly assist in my research on the
use of alternate assessments. This survey consists of 23 multiple-choice questions and 4
"open-ended" questions. Your participation in this survey should take less than twenty
minutes. For your convenience, you do not need to complete this survey in one session.

You indicate your voluntary ageement to participate in this research and have your
answers included in the data set by completing and returning the attached survey.

2. Demomphics

1. How long have you been a Mil-Access District Coordinator?

This is my ﬁrst year
2 years
More than 2 years

2. What is your official role in the district where your are coordinator?

Teacher

Principal

Special Education Director
School Psychologist
Guidance Counselor

Other (please specify)

3. Do you currently administer the MI-Access Assessments?
Yes

No
I have in the past, but not this year.

122

4. Do you receive any compensation for your role as a MI-Access District
Coordinator?

Stipend

Release time

Additional staff assistance

No, being a MI-Access District Coordinator is in addition to my regular responsibilities.
Other (please specify)

5. If you were to estimate the time you spend on combined tasks (e.g., receiving,
delivering, packaging, and returning materials) during one assessment window, how
many hours are needed to successfully complete your requirements as a NIT-Access
District Coordinator?

1-10 hours per assessment window
11-20 hours per assessment window
21-30 hours per assessment window
31-40 hours per assessment window
40+ hours per assessment window

6. How would you describe the geographic location of your district?

Urban (more than 25,000)

Mid-size City (15,000 - 24,999)
Suburban (2,000 - 14,999)

Small Town/Rural (less than 2000)

I provide services in a charter school.
I provide services at the ISD level.

7. How familiar are you with the Michigan School Improvement Framework?

Very familiar
Somewhat familiar
Not familiar

8. Do you agree that all students who have cognitive impairments should be
administered alternate state assessments based on Extended Grade Level Content
Expectations (EGLCEs)?

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agee

2 - Disagee

1 - Strongly Disagee

0 - Don’t Know/Not Sure

If you disagee, what do you believe are the exceptions?

123

 

3. Strand 1 — Teaching for Learning

1. As a District Coordinator, I am familiar with the MI-Access data and results
provided to my district by the Michigan Department of Education (MDE).

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

2. My district adequately disseminates the MI-Access data and results to Assessment
Administrators to use for instructional purposes.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

3. My district regularly requests information from Assessment Administrators as to
how the MI-Access data and results are being used to improve instruction in the
classroom.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

4. My district utilizes the Michigan Extended Grade Level Content Expectations
(EGLCEs) to align instruction for students with cognitive impairments with the
State Grade Level Content Expectations (GLCEs).

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

124

 

5. My district utilizes the Item Analysis Reports provided by the MDE to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

4. Strand 1] - Leadership

1. As a District Coordinator, I consider myself knowledgeable regarding the
coordination and successful implementation process of the MI—Access Program in
my district.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

2. Assessment Administrators in my district effectively complete their tasks in the
Ml-Access Program process (e.g., receiving, administering, and returning
assessment materials).

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

3. My district provides an adequate amount of release time to Assessment
Administrators to participate in professional development related to the MI-Access
Program.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

125

 

4. My district utilizes the Released Item Booklets provided by the MDE to improve
instruction for students with cognitive impairments.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

5. My district designates MI-Access Coordinators for each building to organize
the dissemination, administration, and collection of the Ml-Access Assessments.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

5. Strand III — Personnel & Professional Learning

1. As a District Coordinator, I believe I have the background necessary (e.g.,
assessment and/or special education training) to successfully coordinate and manage
the process of the Ml-Access Assessment Program.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

2. My district provides adequate training to Assessment Administrators regarding
the administration of Ml-Access Assessments.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 - Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

126

 

3. In my district, Assessment Administrators contact me with questions and/or
concerns regarding the MI-Access Program.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

4. As a District Coordinator, I communicate with the MI-Access Program
Developers to answer questions and clarify assessment issues (e.g., calling the MI-
Access Hot-line or the MDE-ASWDP ofﬁces).

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

5. In my district, Assessment Administrators regularly collaborate with each other
to improve the alternate assessment administration process.

4 - Strongly Agree

3 - Agree

2 - Disagree

1 - Strongly Disagree

0 — Don’t Know/Not Sure
Comments

6. Open-Ended Questions

1. Are there changes that could help improve the implementation process of the MI-
Access Program (e. g., before, during, and after the assessment)?

2. Considering your response to the previous question, what is the most effective way for
your recommendations to be implemented?

3. What do you consider the most signiﬁcant strengths of the MI-Access Assessment
Program?

4. What do you consider the most signiﬁcant weaknesses of the MI-Access Assessment
Program?

127

 

Appendix E

Sample Coding of Open-Ended Questions

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

M-Access Strengths
Participant Comment Code Category
It allows all students to be Inclusion Includes all students in
part of assessments accountability systems
It makes assessments fair Equality Includes all students in
for special ed. Students accountability systems
Makes record keeping Collecting data Allows consistent progress
easier to see student monitoring
ro s
We can see how these Monitoring Allows consistent progress
students are doing ﬁ'om monitoring
year to year
It is clear and easy to Assessment ease MI-Access is well
administer organized and easy to
administer
MI-Access hotline and Assistance from MDE MI-Access is well
office are helpful — I can organized and easy to
always get straight administer
answers that are easy to
understand and use
Finally teachers of these Teacher Accountability Makes teachers
kid have to show they are accountable for learning
teaching
CI Teachers have to be Teacher Involvement Makes teachers
part of assessments accountable for learning
The whole process is Weakness Off topic
irresponsible and irrelevant
I don’t think there is a No answer Off topic
strength
It is fun for the students Other Other
I enjoy having the one on Other Other
one time with my students
when I give the test

 

 

 

 

128

 

 

Appendix F

Sample Coding of Open-Ended Questions -— Weaknesses

MI-A ccess Weaknesses

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Participant Comment Code Category

The items on this test is Relevancy Not relevant/appropriate to
not what the students do in students needs

their classes

There is no reason why Faimess/Appropriateness Not relevant/appropriate to
these types of kids should students needs

have to take this test

It takes so much time to Time Too time consuming/Too
get all of the assessment much paperwork
materials together and to

give the test. My other

student suffer because of

this assessment

The amount of paperwork Time/Paperwork Too time consuming/Too
is ridiculous. It is a waste much paperwork

of teacher time and natural

resources.

MI-Access does not help Higher academics Does not appropriately
the students who are too assess Mild CI

high for this test, but too

low for MEAP

I have students who breeze Too easy Does not appropriately
through this test but cannot assess Mild CI

take the MEAP — there

needs to be something in

between

It would be nice if it were Not clear Off topic

bigger

It is ﬁne No answer Off topic

There should be more Other Other

training

This test would make more Other Other

sense if it was given at the

end of the year

 

129

 

REFERENCES

Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general cru'riculum for
students with signiﬁcant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and
Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 3 7(2), 123-133.

Aheam, E. (2006). Standards-Based IEPs: Implementation in selected states (May 2006,
pp. 1-29). Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.

Ainsworth, P., & Baker, P. (2004). Understanding mental retardation. University Press
of Mississippi.

Beals, F. M. (2003, December). Balancing demands: Exploring dilemmas that can arise
in evaluative research. Paper presented at the AARE/NZARE Conference,
Auckland, New Zealand.

Beatty, P., & Herrmann, D. (2002). To answer or not to answer: Decision processes
related to survey item nonresponse. In R. M. Groves, D. A. Dillman, J. L. Eltinge,
& R. J. A. Little (Eds), Survey nonresponse (pp. 71-86). New York: John Wiley

and Sons.

Brace, I. (2004). Questionnaire design: How to plan, structure, and write survey material
for effective market research. London: Market Research in Practice Series.

Browder, D., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with
severe disabilities and the requirement for accountability in "No Child Left
Behin ". Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 157-163.

Browder, D., F allin, K., Davis, 8., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may
inﬂuence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in
Developmental Disabilities, 38(3), 255-270.

Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine,
R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and
functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 3 7(4), 211-223.

Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, 8., F allin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The

impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional
Children, 71(3), 267-282.

130

Browder, D., Spooner, F ., Ahlgrim-Delzell, A., Flowers, C., Algozzine, B., & Karvonen,
M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reﬂected in states'
alternate assessment performance indicators. Research & Practice for Persons
with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165-181.

Browder, D., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen,
M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment.
Exceptional Children, 70(1), 45-61.

Brown, L., Branston, M., Harnre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L.
(1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age appropriate and functional
curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The
Journal of Special Education, 13(1), 81-90.

CCSSO. (2003). Summary and analysis of the U.S. Department of Education '5' ﬁnal
regulations on alternate achievement standards and alternate assessments under
the No Child Leﬁ Behind Act of 2001 . Council of Chief State School Ofﬁcers.

Courtade-Little, G., & Browder, D. (2005). Aligning IEPs to academic standards for
students with moderate and severe disabilities. Verona, WI: Attainment
Company.

Defur, S. H. (2002). Education reform, high-stakes assessment, and students with
disabilities: One state's approach. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 203-
211.

Duffy, F. M. (2008, April). Strategic communication during times of great change.
School Administrator, 65(4), 24-28.

Flowers, C. P., Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Dezell, L., & Spooner, F. (2006). Promoting
the alignment of curriculum, assessment, and instruction. In Teaching language
arts, math, & science to students with signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore:
Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers'
perceptions of alternate assessments. Research &. Practice for Persons with
Severe Disabilities, 30, 81-92.

Fullan, M. (2001). The meaning of educational change. In The new meaning of
educational change (3rd ed., pp. 29-48). New York: Teachers College Press.

Fumey, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., & Clark-Keefe, K. (2005). The impact of state policies on

special education and supports for all students. Journal of Disability Policy
Studies, 16(3), 169-176.

131

Golden Gate University Law Review. (2006). "No Child Leﬁ Behind" In need of a new
"IDEA ": A ﬂexible approach to alternate assessment requirements (V 01. 36(2)).

Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2006). Dealing with ﬂexibility in assessments for students with
significant cognitive disabilities (NCEO Synthesis Report 60). Minneapolis:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Government Accountability Ofﬁce. (2005). Most students with disabilities participated in
statewide assessments, but inclusion options could be improved (Report to the
Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and
Pensions, U.S. Senate). Washington DC: U.S. Government Accountability
Office. Retrieved April 14, 2008, from http://www.goa.gov/new.items/d05618.pdf

Guba, E., & Lincoln, Y. S. (1989). Fourth Generation Evaluation. Newbury Park,
California: Sage Publications.

Hardman, M. L., & Dawson, S. (2008, Winter). The impact of federal public policy on
curriculum and instruction for students with disabilities in the general classroom.
Preventing School Failure, 52(2), 5-11.

Hehir, T. (2005). New directions in special education. Cambridge. MA: Harvard
Education Press.

IAR. (2007). Evaluative programs: Process evaluation. Retrieved December 20, 2007,
ﬁ'om Instructional Assessment Resources Web site:
http://www.utexas.edu/academic/diia/assessment/iar/programs/plan/types/process.

php

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. No. 108-446,
118 Stat. 2647 (2004) (amending 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.).

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.

Jackson, R. (2005). Curriculum access for students with low-incident disabilities: The
promise of universal design for learning. Wakeﬁeld, MA: National Center on
Accessing the General Curriculum.

Katsiyannis, A., Zhang, D., Ryan, J., & Jones, J. (2007). High-stakes testing and students
with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18(3), 160—167.

Kearns, J ., Lewis, R, Hall, T., & Kleinert, H. (2007). Universal design of alternate
assessment on alternate achievement standards: Concepts, issues, and strategies.
Unpublished manuscript, National Alternate Assessment Center, Human
Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington.

132

Kelly, T. F. (2007, October). Bridges, tunnels, and school reform: It's the system. Phi
Delta Kappan, 89(2), 151-152.

Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and
supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Brooks Publishing Co.

Koppang, A. (2004). Curriculum mapping: Building collaboration and communication.
Intervention in School and Clinic, 39(3), 154-161.

Kuter, U., & Yilmaz, C. (2001). Survey methods: Questionnaires and interviews.
Retrieved March 9, 2008, from http://www.otal.umd.edu/hci-rm/survey.html

Louis, K. S., Febey, K., & Schroeder, R. (2005). State-madated accountability in high
schools: Teachers' interpretations of a new era. Educational Evaluation and
Policy Analysis, 27(2), 177-204.

Martinez, T., & Olsen, K. (2004). Distribution of proﬁcient scores that exceed the 1%
cap: Four possible approaches. In Alliance for Systems Change (March 2004).
Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute - University of Kentucky.

Masci, F. J ., Cuddapah, J. L., & Pajak, E. F. (2008). Becoming an agent of stability:
Keeping your school in balance during the perfect storm. American Secondary
Education, 36(2), 57-68.

McGrew, K. S., & Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities:
Is the cup half empty or half ﬁt” ? Can the cup ﬂow over? (N CEO Synthesis
Report 55). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes.

MDE-OSI. (2007). School Improvement. Michigan Department of Education. Retrieved
February 2, 2008, from Department of Education Web site:
http://www.mighigan.gov/mde

MI-Access assessment development update. (2006, Fall). The Assist, 3-7.

Michigan Department of Education Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment & Accountability.
(2007/2008). Coordinator and Assessment Administrator Manual.

Michigan Department of Education Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment & Accountability.
(2007). MI-A ccess Participation and Supported Independence v1.5 Mathematics
and English Language Arts Technical Report.

Michigan Department of Education Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment & Accountability.
(Spring 2005). MI-A ccess Functional Independence Assessment Plan.

133

Michigan Department of Education Ofﬁce of Educational Assessment & Accountability.
(Fall 2007). MI-A ccess Participation and Supported Independence Assessment
Plan - English Language Arts and Mathematics.

Michigan Department of Education. (2006). Michigan School Improvement Framework
(v.1.6.06).

Michigan Legislature - Act 451. (1997). The Revised School Code (Excerpt) Act 451 of
1976 (Section 1277).

NIRM. (2008). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. University of
South Florida: The National Implementation Research Network.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Ohi, S. (2008). The teacher's role in the research-policy-praxis nexus. Australian Journal
of Education, 52(1), 95-109.

Pemer, D. E. (2007). No Child Left Behind: Issues of assessing students with the most
signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities, 42(3), 243-251.

Pugach, M., & Warger, C. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students
with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 23(4), 194-196.

Quenemoen, R., & Thurlow, M. (2007). Learning opportunities for you child through
alternate assessments (National Center on Educational Outcomes). Washington
DC: U.S. Department of Education Oﬂice of Special Education.

Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results
in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research
and practice (N CEO Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Reeves, D. B. (2006). Pull the weeds before you pull the ﬂowers. Educational
Leadership, 64(1), 89-90.

Sheehan, K. (2001). E-mail survey response rates: A review. Journal of Computer
Mediated Communication, 6(2).

Spaulding, D. T. (2008). Program evaluation in practice: Core concepts and examples
for discussion and analysis. San Francisco: J ossey-Bass.

Spooner, F ., & Browder, D. (2006). Why teach the general curriculum? In Teaching
language arts, math, & science to students with signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities
(pp. 1-13). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

134

 

Stufﬂebeam, D. L. (2007). CIPP evaluation model checklist: A tool for applying the fifth
installment of the CIPP Model to assess long-term enterprises (2nd ed.).
Retrieved December 3, 2007, from http://www.wmich.edu/evalctr/checklists
/cippchecklist.htm

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educational results for all students. Remedial and Special
Education, 23(4), 195-202.

Thurlow, M. L. (2005, December). Educating students with disabilities: Do you pass the
test? Student Counseling, PL, l2-15.

Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2003). Testing students with
disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state
requirements (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Titone, C. (2005). The philosophy of inclusion: Roadblocks and remedies for the teacher
and the teacher educator. Journal of Educational Thought, 39(1), 7-32.

Towles-Reeves, E., & Kleinert, H. (2006). The impact of one state's alternate assessment
upon instruction and IEP development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25(3),
31-39.

Trochim, W. M. K. (2006). Introduction to Evaluation. Retrieved December 12, 2007,
from Research Methods Knowledge Base Web site: http:// www.
socialreasearhmethodsnet

U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of
the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Federal Registry 236 (December 9, 2003)
(codified at 34 C.F.R. pt 200).

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with
the most signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities (Non-Regulatory Guidance).
Washington DC.

U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Modified academic achievement standards (Non-
Regulatory Guidance Draﬁ). Washington DC.

UMASS Donahue Institute. (2004, October). A study of MCAS Achievement and
promising practices in urban special education: Summary of field research
findings. Hadley, MA.

Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Lison, A. (2005). Successful inclusive

practices in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33(3),
33-45.

135

Web cast Q &A - Fall, 2006. (2006). Retrieved May 12, 2008, from http://www.mi.gov/
mde

Wehmeyer, M. L., & Agran, M. (2006). Promoting access to the general curriculum for
students with signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities. In Teaching language arts, math,
& science to students with signiﬁcant cognitive disabilities (pp. 15-3 7).
Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.

Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Scaling early reading alternate assessments with
statewide measures. Exceptional Children, 73, 184-201 .

Ysseldyke, J ., & Olsen, K R. (1997). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What

to measure and possible sources of data (N CEO Synthesis Report 28).
Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

Ysseldyke, J., Nelson, R., Christenson, S., Johnson, D., Dennison, A., Triezenberg, H., et

al. (2004). What we know and need to know about the consequences of high-
stakes testing for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(1), 75-94.

136

IIIIIIIIIIIII U VERS L BRARIE

II/IH/IIIIHMIll/lilwllllUlllllllillll

3 1293 02956 9971