Search

One photojournalist's decade-long commitment, a gripping collection of portraits and interviews of those whose lives were crossed by radioactive fallout.

Recent research has shown that the technical adequacy of assessments for special student populations is relatively undeveloped compared to their general education counterparts; that is, the technical evidence provided and the methods by which this evidence is established do not necessarily account for the unique characteristics of special needs populations (i.e., ELLs, SWDs) or the assessed domains (e.g., English language proficiency) (Rabinowitz & Sato, 2005). While there is substantial overlap between the procedures and criteria found appropriate and essential for determining the technical adequacy of special population assessments versus their general education counterparts, there is not complete overlap. Some technical criteria do not transfer directly or are less critical when applied to a technical review of assessments for special student populations (Rabinowitz & Sato, 2005). This document presents an ongoing evaluation conducted by the Special Populations Strand of the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC) and is intended to inform developers and consumers of assessments for special student populations (ELLs and SWDs). The evaluation focuses on the technical adequacy (i.e., validity, reliability, freedom from bias) of evidence related to assessments used to meet relevant Title I and Title III requirements under NCLB. The technical criteria used in this evaluation are validated and are sensitive to the unique characteristics of special student populations, the particular purposes of the assessments, and the stage of development and maturity of the assessments. Appended are: (1) Assessments for English Language Learners: Technical Adequacy Criteria--Tiers; and (2) Assessments for English Language Learners: Technical Adequacy Criteria--Operational Definitions. (Contains 3 footnotes.).

These guidelines, prepared by the Special Populations Strand of the Assessment and Accountability Comprehensive Center (AACC), focus on the technical quality of assessments for English language learners (ELLs) and students with disabilities (SWDs). This document is an evolving document that will periodically be updated to incorporate new information. This document is intended to provide information to Regional Comprehensive Centers (RCCs) and states as they work to comply with the regulations of No Child Left Behind (NCLB) affecting their special student populations (i.e., SWDs, ELLs). These guidelines also are intended to help RCCs and states: (1) gauge where a state is with regard to meeting federal requirements relevant to the assessment and accountability of special student populations; (2) focus attention on priority issues related to implementing practices and systems that are in compliance with federal regulations; and (3) select implementation strategies that have evidence of effectiveness, given the particular needs and conditions of the state. A list of resources is included. (Contains 17 tables and 5 footnotes.).

Researchers recommend that policymakers use data from multiple sources when making decisions that have high-stakes consequences (Herman, Baker, & Linn, 2004; Linn, 2007; Stone & Lane, 2003). For this reason, a fair but rigorous teacher-effectiveness rating process relies on evidence collected from different sources (Goe, Bell, & Little, 2008; Center for Educator Compensation Reform [CECR], 2009; Domaleski & Hill, 2010; Economic Policy Institute [EPI], 2010; Little, 2009; Mathers, Oliva, & Laine, 2008; National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality [NCCTQ], 2010a; Steele, Hamilton, & Stecher, 2010). Yet policymakers must take into account that (a) certain types of information are more trustworthy than others for the purposes of measuring teacher effectiveness and (b) the availability of technically sound data varies across content areas, grade ranges, states, districts, and schools. This report is intended to highlight the range of data sources that can be tapped to validate teacher effectiveness. Section I describes broad considerations to support identification of those sources of information most appropriate for a specific purpose or context. Section II highlights the strengths and limitations of different types of information about teacher effectiveness, beginning with sources of Level 1 data and proceeding through typical sources of data at Levels 2 and 3. Section III offers a set of final recommendations about effective data use when measuring teacher effectiveness. State and local decision-makers are encouraged to consider all of the data options presented--and weigh possible tradeoffs associated with their use--when determining which "combination" of sources is most likely to yield the information that best meets their needs. A glossary is included. (Contains 4 tables.) [For the companion document, "Measuring Teacher Effectiveness: An Overview of State Policies and Practices Related to Pre-K-12 Teacher Effectiveness or Teacher Evaluation," see ED524220.].