Teacher Use of Diagnostic Score Reports for Instructional Decision-Making in the Subsequent Academic Year

Large-scale summative assessment results are typically used for program-evaluation and resource-allocation purposes; however, stakeholders increasingly desire results from large-scale K–12 assessments that inform instruction. Because large-scale summative results are usually delivered after the end of the school year, teacher use of results is reserved for the subsequent academic year. To evaluate use of summative score reports to inform instruction, we conducted a series of teacher interviews and focus groups with 17 teachers in three states. Teachers were asked to describe how they used summative results from the previous administration of a large-scale alternate assessment system in the subsequent academic year. Interview and focus-group transcripts were coded and identified themes related to when and how score reports are delivered; how teachers use results to plan instruction, formulate goals for individualized education programs (IEPs), and create instructional groupings; how teachers talk to parents about results; and what resources best support their use of score reports. Findings demonstrate preliminary support for diagnostic score report use

Developing and Refining a Model for Measuring Implementation Fidelity for an Instructionally Embedded Assessment System

We developed a six-step iterative process for developing and evaluating a model of implementation fidelity appropriate for use in an instructionally embedded assessment system. Our work explicitly connects the literature on theories of actions for assessment systems with the implementation fidelity literature originating from the program evaluation field. The steps include (a) developing a logic model identifying critical and optional implementation components; (b) identifying process data and indicators from the assessment system to represent each component; (c) developing hypotheses about expected patterns in the indicators representing different levels of implementation fidelity and identifying criteria for defining implementation levels; (d) conducting analyses to test the hypotheses; (e) using the results to refine the indicators and criteria; and (f) evaluating strength of the evidence and identifying gaps. This process facilitates measuring action mechanisms and making and testing hypotheses about how critical implementation components are related to intended outcomes of an assessment. Studying implementation fidelity for assessment systems can help us better understand how teachers use assessment results and where additional support may be needed. This work can also help evaluate the extent to which instructionally embedded or formative assessments are implemented as intended and that all students are provided with sufficient opportunity to demonstrate what they have learned

Successful Strategies for Promoting Self-Advocacy Among Students with LD: The LEAD Group

Students with learning disabilities (LD) often need to be taught self-determination skills to be better prepared for life after high school. This article describes the methods used by one school district to promote self-advocacy and self-awareness skills for students with LD. Through multicomponent group activities, students learned about their strengths and disabilities and how to advocate for their educational needs and rights. Advocacy skills were also applied to leadership roles, mentoring, and community education activities. Important features that contributed to the success of the program are described.Yeshttps://us.sagepub.com/en-us/nam/manuscript-submission-guideline

Factors Associated with Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Intellectual Disability

Beginning in 1997, federal legislation required schools provide access to academic curricula to students with intellectual disability.  The extent of such access for students with significant intellectual disability currently is not known.  This study examined access (defined by scope and intensity of content instruction and depth of knowledge) provided to students with significant intellectual disability, and relationship between curriculum access and a set of teacher and student characteristics.  A survey of 644 teachers from nine states found that these students, on average, were exposed to 17 out of 27 English language arts strands and 10 out of 16 math strands.  Canonical correlation analyses suggested that students’ symbolic communication level had the strongest association with students’ access.  Cluster analysis suggested students experience three types of access to English language arts and four types of access to math instruction, and the cluster groups significantly differed by teacher and student variables. These findings suggest several policy and practice actions to better support meaningful participation in the general education curriculum among students with intellectual disabilities