Home
About Us
Direct Assistance
Events
Resources
State Information
National Evaluation and Technical Assistance Center for the Education of Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk
A Look at Legislation: Common Pre-Post Assessments
By Nicholas W. Read, NDTAC
|
“Every student should make substantial academic progress every year in every class,” according to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) [1]. Annual State testing aligned to State standards provides the mechanism by which schools are held accountable under State accountability systems [1]. But annual tests do not work for the highly mobile students of most facilities and programs for youth who are neglected or delinquent (N or D). To properly assess the academic gains of these students, pre-post assessment pairings are needed.
Currently, States are in compliance with Title I, Part D requirements so long as they "use multiple and appropriate measures of student progress" [2]. No particular pre-post test is required. While this provides flexibility for States and their N or D programs, many States are finding that their programs are using a number of different tests. Such variety in academic assessments can present difficulties when trying to compare and evaluate programs within the State, or when “rolling up” data for Federal reporting purposes.
Realizing the importance of adequately evaluating and reporting the academic performance of youth involved in the juvenile justice system and the value of consistency between facilities, States like Florida have enacted legislation mandating the use of a common pre-post test for all juvenile justice facilities. Similarly, other States like California have developed a system for schools serving youth who are N or D that offers facilities the opportunity to choose assessment measurements from a State Board of Education approved list. Some background information, as well as the actual legislation, is provided for both Florida and California below.
Florida’s Move to a Common, Statewide Pre-Post Test
In February 2006, Florida Chancellor of K-12 Public Schools, Dr. Cheri Pierson Yecke, announced the selection of the Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) as the common assessment instrument for all incarcerated students across the State [3]. It was a long road to that day, and Karen Denbroeder, Senior Educational Program Director for the Florida Department of Education’s (FLDOE) Bureau of Exceptional Education and Student Services, took time out to tell us about their journey. Ms. Denbroeder, now responsible for the oversight of the education programs of all the juvenile justice facilities in Florida, was instrumental in making the push for a common assessment instrument for the State of Florida. She began working for FLDOE in 1999 and was responsible for developing the assessment reporting format for juvenile justice programs. In a recent phone interview, Ms. Denbroeder provided some insight into the evolution of Florida’s juvenile justice education accountability system and ultimate State legislation, and discussed the next steps for the State in implementing the new test.
Section 1003.52(3), Florida Statute requires that “the district school board of the county in which the residential or nonresidential care facility or juvenile assessment facility is located shall provide appropriate educational assessments and an appropriate program of instruction and special education services” [4]. Beginning in 1999, the Florida Legislature proposed the idea of the use of a common pre-post assessment test for all juvenile justice programs in the State in order to improve program accountability and eliminate the inconsistencies in data collection and reporting of students’ academic progress. The proposal received little support from local facilities, however, as each local education agency (LEA) had its own assessment instrument and was reluctant to change over to a new test. As a compromise, the FLDOE developed a list of approved tests from which facilities must choose as well as a prescribed reporting format. All approved tests evaluated student progress in the areas of reading, math, and writing.
After nearly 4 years under the “approved list” method,
|
FLDOE and the Florida Department of Juvenile Justice (FLDJJ) determined that true program accountability required consistency across facilities, and the two departments pushed the legislature for change. Subsequently, Governor Jeb Bush signed into law HB 1989, Juvenile Justice in August 2004. The statute amended several sections of State law related to education programs for youth in juvenile justice facilities, including 1003.52(3)(b).
The new legislation required that “a common student assessment instrument and protocol for measuring student learning gains and student progression while a student is in a juvenile justice education program be implemented statewide by January 1, 2005” [5]. According to the statute, the instrument and protocol were to be selected by the FLDOE with the assistance of school districts.
A group of stakeholders, consisting mainly of school district representatives, private providers, and assessment specialists, was assembled. The group was tasked with deciding the core elements for a common assessment: who it would assess, when, and by what standards. The group then examined the various assessments currently in use by facilities and weighed them against a set of criteria. In the end, the group identified three tests that fully embodied the criteria. Originally the group elected to solicit proposals only from the makers of the three ideal tests but later chose to develop a Request for Proposal (RFP) open to all test publishers nationally. Coincidentally, those that responded to the RFP were the three publishers previously identified as those meeting the criteria set by the stakeholders. An evaluation committee then reviewed technical quality, vendor qualifications, and management plans for each test through a formal scoring process and made their recommendations to the FLDOE. Under the advisement of the evaluation committee and the evaluation of the cost proposals, the FLDOE chose the Basic Achievement Skills Inventory (BASI) test as Florida’s new common academic assessment for all juvenile justice programs.
|
The BASI test is a computer-administered and scored test, which, according to Ms. Denbroeder, should help reduce test administrator subjectivity as well as human error in scoring. “The mobility of both students and facility staff almost requires the use of a computer-based test” to help ensure the most consistent and reliable evaluation of academic progress (Denbroeder). Such a measure helps programs in maintaining consistency and accuracy in scoring and reduces or eliminates the cost of staff training for such consistency and objectivity. FLDOE is now revising its existing reporting format to insure reliable State reporting of results. In the coming months, FLDOE will provide a series of regional trainings for the administration of the BASI test in all juvenile justice facilities, and intends to implement the new assessment system by July 1, 2006.
Since the legislation was passed, several other States have contacted Florida, some requesting to view the State’s RFP to test makers and others seeking background information and resources. It is likely that Florida will continue to serve as a model for other States and localities looking to legislate for the use of a common assessment for their facilities for delinquent youth.
California’s ASAM Offers Approved Pre-Post Tests
California’s Public Schools Accountability Act (PSAA) was officially enacted in April 1999. Preexisting State law required that each school district, charter school, and county office of education administer to each student in grades 2-11 an achievement test, designated by the State Board of Education, as part of the Standardized Testing and Reporting program [6]. The PSAA’s addition of Chapter 6.1 (commencing with Section 52050) to Part 28 of the Education Code established the Public Schools Performance Accountability Program. Section 52052 of the Act requires that “the Superintendent [of Public Education], with approval of the State Board of Education, shall develop an Academic Performance Index (API), to measure the performance of schools, especially the academic performance of pupils” [6]. Pursuant to this Section, Subsection (h) states:
The Superintendent, with the approval of the State Board of Education, shall develop an alternative accountability system for schools under the jurisdiction of a county board of education or a county superintendent of schools, community day schools, nonpublic, nonsectarian schools pursuant to Section 56366, and alternative schools serving high-risk pupils, including continuation high schools and opportunity schools. Schools in the alternative accountability system may receive an API score, but shall not be included in the API rankings [7].
|
Under the mandate of this legislation, the Subcommittee on Alternative Accountability of the Superintendent’s Advisory Committee on the PSAA presented a framework for alternative accountability to the State Board of Education (SBE) in July 2000. The SBE approved the framework which included the Alternative Schools Accountability Model or ASAM. The ASAM is a State-level multiple-indicator accountability system that includes nonacademic and academic indicators of performance selected from a list of indicators approved by the California State Board of Education (SBE). The academic indicators include information from pre-post assessments in writing, reading, and mathematics, and the system provides the framework for accountability for alternative schools serving very high-risk student populations. Recently, Mr. Robert Bakke, a consultant for the California Department of Education’s Secondary, Postsecondary, and Adult Education Division’s Educational Options Office, shared some background information about the ASAM and its continued importance for accountability in California’s alternative schools.
With the passage of NCLB, “the ASAM remained a critical component of California’s state accountability system, providing critical contextual alternative school accountability data that focuses on the special missions of these schools and their specific student populations” (Bakke). Because very few facility programs for youth who are N or D have sufficient valid test scores to demonstrate school-level accountability, ASAM data is used to supplement Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) and Academic Performance Index (API) indicators while maintaining the focus on the appropriate aspects of school performance [8]. According to Mr. Bakke, ASAM schools are most often faced with improving school readiness, behavior, and prelearning; student punctuality; attendance in all assigned classes; dropout prevention; and completing assignments and meeting goals as critical foundations to improving academic achievement. “The focus of the ASAM is to measure how well these schools are doing to accomplish their principal mission: working with high-risk students to help them succeed educationally and in life” (Bakke). In this way, the ASAM indicators “recognize the distinctiveness of ASAM student populations and goals” [8]. With many facilities for youth who are N or D using the assessment instruments approved through ASAM, California has helped to improve program accountability through increased consistency in student evaluation data collection and reporting and thereby improved the chances for academic success for youth who are N or D.
Conclusion
Florida and California are two examples of States that have taken legislative measures to improve program accountability and the evaluation of academic performance of students educated in Title I, Part D programs and facilities. The process of approving a common pre-post test or list of tests can be long and difficult but Florida and California have shown that it is possible. NDTAC would like to know what other States are doing to work toward a common pre-post assessment test for programs serving youth who are N or D. You can share information about your State’s efforts by contacting the Center at ndtac@air.org. Perhaps your State could be showcased in a future NDTAC Spotlight.
[1] U.S. Department of Education (2005). The Facts About…Measuring Progress.
[2] Title I, Part D. Section 1431 Program Evaluations.
[3] Florida Department of Education (2006). Memorandum to District School Superintendents: Common Assessment for Educational Programs in Department of Juvenile Justice Facilities.
[4] Florida Senate (2005). The 2005 Florida Statutes.
[5] Florida Department of Education (2004). Memorandum to District School Superintendents: 2004 Legislation: Juvenile Justice, HB 1989.
[6] State Senate of California (1999). Senate Bill No. 1, Ch. 3.
[7] California Education Code Section 52051-52052.5.
[8] Bakke, R., & Lewis, J. (2006). California’s Alternative Schools Accountability Model (ASAM): Evaluating and implementing assessments for high-risk students. From ED Title I, Part D Training Session.
Published April 2006