Welcome to TCAP-Alt PA K-2 Scoring Training

Welcome to TCAP-Alt PA K-2 Scoring Training
Section 2: Content Standards, Alternate Performance Indicators, Rubrics, Guide (1a-1h, Ben Weasely)

Before We Start For this portion of the training, you will need the following documents: TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Guide 2012-2013 TCAP-Alt PA Regular Scoring Rubric TCAP-Alt PA Content Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators document (API document) TCAP-Alt PA Scoring-at-a-Glance chart TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Checklist If you do not have these documents, please pause the presentation until you have retrieved them.

Content Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators Let’s look first at the Content Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators document (API document). You’ll need to be familiar with this document in order to understand the Guide and rubrics.

Looking at the table of contents, you’ll notice there are four content areas, or subjects, represented: Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies. These are the four subjects assessed by TCAP-Alt PA.

Each content area, or subject, contains three or more content standards. For Reading/Language Arts, the content standards are Reading, Writing, and Elements of Language. For Math, the content standards are Numbers and Operations, Algebra, Geometry, Measurement, And Data Analysis and Probability. For Science, the content standards are Life Science, Earth Science, and Physical Science. For Social Studies, the content standards are Culture, Economics, Geography, Governance and Civics, History, and Individuals, Groups, and Interactions.

Turn to the Reading/Language Arts section on page 5. At the top of page, you see the content standard Reading.

Each content standard contains one or more Alternate Learning Expectations (ALEs). The ALEs are long-term goals. On this page, you can see that the ALE has a number (in this case, R.1) and a description (“Develop oral language and listening skills”).

Each ALE is broken into shorter-term goals known as Alternate Performance Indicators (APIs). You can see that the APIs are organized into grade level clusters.

During training, we’ll be looking at portfolios from all grade levels. When you begin live scoring, you’ll score only portfolios for students in grades K-2 and will look only at APIs from the K-2 column. These APIs have been aligned with the general education Performance Indicators for grades K-2.

Each API has a code consisting of the ALE Prefix (in this case, R.1) and the number of the individual API. For example, for all four grade level clusters, API number one, “Communicate wants and needs,” would be coded R.1.1. API number four, “Identify functions of objects,” would be coded R.1.4.

Let’s try a few, just to get familiar with the document.

In the Math section, what is the K-2 API coded M.1.2? Right: “Indicate awareness of temperature.”

In the Social Studies section, what is the K-2 API coded GG.2.6? Yes: “Find a specific location on a school or community map.”

Rubric Next, let’s look at the Regular TCAP-Alt PA Scoring Rubric. We’ll address the modified and homebound rubrics at the end of Section 5 of the training. First, we’ll do an overview of the rubric. Some of it may seem confusing at first, but as we go through the scoring guide, it will become clear. For now, just listen to the training and take good notes. Make sure to write down everything I tell you specifically to write.

The rubric shows that the portfolios are scored on five different dimensions: Content, Choice, Settings, Supports, and Peer Interactions. These dimensions are weighted.

Content The first dimension on the rubric is Content. The Content dimension reflects a student’s progress toward appropriate content standards, APIs, and activities.

The maximum score for Content is 50. Under the 50-point description, it says that, for each subject, each of three different Content Standards must have an API, an activity, and a graph with at least 15 data points showing progress. When we have a Content Standard with all of these elements executed correctly, we call it a complete Content Standard set. For maximum points, we need three of those, so in the box with the 50-point Content description, write “3 Sets.” 3 sets

Under the 40-point description, write “2 Sets.” 2 Sets

Under the 30-point description, write “1 set.” 1 Set

The 20-point score is given when we have no complete sets, but the ONLY reason is that there are not enough points on the graph or that the graph does not show progress. When we say “not enough points,” we mean there is at least one point but fewer than 15. Under the 20-point description, write “No Sets + Graph NP/1-14 dots.” NP stands for “no progress.” No Sets + Graph NP/1-14 Dots

The 10-point description means there are no complete sets, for any other reason. Under the 10-point description, write, “No Sets, Any Other Reason.” No Sets, Any Other Reason

Choice The Choice dimension refers to a student’s opportunity to exercise autonomy by choosing some aspect of the task.

Notice that, under the 20-point description, the rubric says, “Choice evidenced and related to at least 3 activities.” That means that, for a choice to receive credit, it must be connected to a creditable activity. On the left side of your rubric, in the box labeled “Choice,” write “Activity” or “Related to Activity.” (You might also want to circle or highlight the word “activity” in each score-point description.)The maximum score for Choice is 20. The 20-point description says we need three different types of choice. Under the 20-point description, highlight or circle “3 types.” Rel. to Activity 3 types

The maximum score for Choice is 20. The 20-point description says we need three different types of choice. Under the 20-point description, highlight or circle “3 types.” Rel. to Activity 3 types

Under the 16-point description, write, highlight, or circle “2 types.” Under the 12-point description, write, highlight, or circle “1 type.” Rel. to Activity 1 type 2 types

Under the 8-point description, write, “Choice Ev.,” or “evidence of choice.” This is our shorthand for a situation in which there was at least one choice that would have gotten credit if the activity had been good. We’ll talk more about that later. Choice Ev. Rel. to Activity

Under the 4-point description, write, “Not Age App.” You will almost never use this score. It’s only for those situations where the student is in an inclusive setting and is given a choice that could set him or her up to be teased or ostracized. At the K-2 grade levels, this almost never happens. Not Age App. Rel. to Activity

If there are no creditable choices at all, and if the 4 points for “evidence of choice” cannot be given, the Choice score is 0. Note that Choice is the only dimension that can receive a score of 0. Because of this, the 0 is not noted on the rubric. You may want to write, “Can get 0” to the left of the “Choice” section of your rubric. Can get 0

Settings, Supports, Peer Interactions The remaining dimensions, Settings, Supports, and Peer Interactions, are worth 10 points each.

Settings The Settings dimension refers to the student’s opportunity to be educated in inclusive environments. For the maximum score of 10, we need four different inclusive settings. Circle or highlight “4 inclusive settings.”

For 8 points, we need three different inclusive settings. Circle or highlight “3 inclusive settings.”

For 6 points, we need two different inclusive settings. Circle or highlight “2 inclusive settings.”

For 4 points, we need one inclusive setting. Circle or highlight “1 of which is inclusive.” The other settings referenced in the phrase “multiple settings” are special education settings. We don’t need to worry about those.

A score of 2 means there were no creditable inclusive settings. By default, we assume that, if the student was not in an inclusive setting, he or she must have been in a special education setting.

Supports The Supports dimension refers to the student’s opportunity to receive academic support in an inclusive setting from the same person who provides it to the general education population. That kind of support, or help, is called “natural support.” When I refer to “support” that’s what I’m talking about. Note that the rubric says natural support occurs only in inclusive settings and is connected to the activity. On the left side of your rubric, in the box labeled “Supports,” write “Activity” or “Related to Activity.” Rel. to Activity

For the maximum score of 10, we need three supports. Circle or highlight “3” in the 10-point description. Rel. to Activity

For 8 points, we need two supports. Circle or highlight “2” in the 8-point description. Rel. to Activity

For 6 points, we need one support. Circle or highlight “1” in the 6-point description. Rel. to Activity

Under the 4-point description, write, “Support Ev” or “evidence of support.” This is our shorthand for a situation in which there was at least one support that would have gotten credit if the activity had been good. We’ll talk more about that later. Rel. to Activity Support Ev.

A score of 2 means there were no creditable supports and no “evidence of support.” By default, we assume that, if the student did not receive natural support, he or she must have received support from special education personnel. Rel. to Activity

Peer Interactions The Peer Interactions dimension refers to the student’s opportunity to interact with typically developing peers in activities related to the student’s academic goals. According the rubric, there can be only one peer interaction per content standard, and the peer interaction must be related to the API.

For the maximum 10 points, we need three creditable peer interactions. Circle or highlight “3.”

For 8 points, we need two. Circle or highlight “2.”

For 6 points, we need one. Circle or highlight “1.”

For 4 points, we have what we call “evidence of peer interaction.” We’ll talk about that later. For now, just write, “PI Ev” under the 4-point description. PI Ev.

A score of 2 means there was no creditable interaction with peers and no “evidence of peer interaction.” By default, we assume that, if there was no interaction with general education peers, the student must have had interaction only with other students who meet TCAP-Alt Participation Guidelines.

Scoring Guide Let’s look at our scoring guide. You’ll also need your checklist and Scoring-at-a-Glance chart.

For the purpose of training, we’ll look at a variety of separate content areas rather than entire portfolios. We’ll score one subject at a time. When scoring an entire portfolio, you just repeat the process for each subject.

In Section 1, we discussed the importance of checking to make sure each portfolio is scorable. All of the portfolios you are about to see contained all required components. However, in the interest of economy, we have reproduced only the Table of Contents, evidence sheets, and graphs for the portfolios presented.

For the purpose of this training, we will refer to the student whose portfolio is being discussed as “the student.” All other students will be referenced as “peers,” “a peer,” “the peer,” etc.

Guide: G-1 (Ben Weasely) The first student represented in our scoring guide is Ben Weasely. He’s in grade 3. Look at page G1-D. This is the graph page for reading API R.1.2 (Identify/label people, symbols, and objects).

This is a graph page

Each data point on the graph represents one activity related to that API. They may or may not be the same activity, but they will all be lessons designed to teach the chosen API. There should be at least 15 data points on the graph, large enough to see and clearly placed inside the box. Ben has 17, so he has at least that many.

The corresponding evidence sheet, page G1-C, represents one of the activities recorded on the graph. It’s a snapshot of that one lesson. It’s called an evidence sheet because it provides the evidence that the teacher knows how to provide an appropriate activity and choice for this API.

This is an evidence sheet

There’s a series of questions we always ask when scoring the portfolio. You can follow along in your Scoring-at-a-Glance chart. We’ll fill out the checklist as we go.

Be sure to look for the student’s grade level so you’ll know what column to look in for the APIs. For Ben, it’s grade 3, so you’ll look in the column for the 3-5 grade-level cluster.

Ben: Content First, let’s look at Content. For the maximum score, we need three different content standards, each with an appropriate API and activity, and a graph with at least 15 data points showing progress. We can get one of these Content Standard Sets for each evidence sheet/graph pair.

Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes, 12/15. You’ll notice the year is 2010. In live scoring, you’ll look for dates from the 2012-13 school year.

Often, a teacher will highlight the matching dates. This is optimal. Sometimes, they won’t highlight either date. That’s fine. Sometimes, they will highlight the wrong date on the graph, but the correct date is also there. That’s fine too. As long as the correct date is there, we can give credit.

On your checklist, go to the first column and put a check mark on the line marked “Content.” Each column represents one evidence sheet/graph pair.

What is the Content Standard? Reading.

On your checklist, go to the first column and write “R” in the space marked “Content Standards.” R

Is there a valid API for that grade level subject? Yes, it’s R.1.2, “Identify people, symbols, and objects.” By “valid,” I mean: Is it from the correct column of the Content Standards and Alternate Performance Indicators document? Yes, it is.

In the first column, write R.1.2 in the space for “Alternate Performance Indicators.” (We ask that the teachers use both the numeric code and the description as a failsafe against typos. If they should happen to write a wrong number, and the activity doesn’t match it, we can use the description to verify the teacher’s intent.) R R.1.2

Is there an acceptable activity that is related to the API? There are several things we need to note about activities. To begin with, an activity may not be related to food or toileting unless there is clearly an academic aspect, such as reading words, exchanging picture cards, or sorting the foods into groups. The complete description must be found in the box designated for the activity. We can’t take clarifying information from the Choice or Peer Interactions sections of the page. The description in the activity box must stand alone.

The activity description should be for one lesson. Some teachers will write everything the student did during the entire data collection period (e.g., “The student demonstrated understanding of telling time using digital clocks, analog clocks, doing a sundial experiment, completing worksheets, and matching pictures of clocks to cards with the times written on them.”). This kind of “activity” cannot receive credit, because we can’t tell what the student did during the particular lesson represented by the evidence sheet.

An acceptable activity has three components. First, the activity must relate to the API—meaning it must be a step toward learning the API. Second, we need to know what the student was doing. Third, we need to know enough about what, if any, materials were used to know how the task was performed. The activity should be so clearly worded that someone unfamiliar with the student can tell what the student was doing and how he or she was doing it.

We don’t have to know every single detail about the materials, but we do need enough to know how the student performed the task. (For example, if the student made a puppet, I may not need to know he used glue, scissors, yarn, and wiggle eyes on a paper bag, but I should at least know that he made the puppet from a paper bag.) If the whole activity is writing or drawing, we need to know at least what the student was writing on or what the student was writing with. (If the writing or drawing is just a small part of an activity that would meet all three requirements even without the “writing or drawing” part, we can accept that activity. In that case, we consider the writing or drawing as “bonus material.”)

Can we tell those things about Ben’s activity? Yes. He’s identifying people, which relates to the API, there are no materials (other than the other children in the play), and he’s identifying them by eye contact on request.

Put a checkmark in the space for “Activities.” R R.1.2

Let’s look at the graph page. Is the graph correct? Is this an appropriate graph (meaning a line graph or a graph of dots)? Yes. Does the graph have at least fifteen data points? Yes. Are they large enough to see and centered in the box? (Because this is a chart of progress rather than a mathematically correct graph, the dot needs to be inside the box. If the dot is placed so that the line goes through it, we can’t tell which level of progress it indicates. Dots placed on the line rather than inside the box cannot be counted.) Yes, the dots are visible and clearly placed inside the box. (It’s helpful to touch each dot as you count.) 14 15 13 7 12 10 9 11 8 5 6 3 1 2 4

Does it show progress? (Progress is defined as at least three days on which the student did two increments better than the first occurrence of the lowest point, with no more than five days in a row at the same level of success. That means that, if you see the same percentage or level of success for five days in a row, on day 6 something has to change—the level of success, a different API, or a change in instruction.) Are there three days on which the student did two increments better than the first occurrence of the lowest point? (To check, find the first occurrence of the lowest point. Count up 2 increments. Are there at least 3 different days after that point where the dot is that high or higher? These days do not have to be consecutive.)

The first occurrence of Ben’s lowest point, at 0%, is on September 1. That means he needs at least three days after that at 20% or better. Do we have that? Yes. Does the graph flatline for more than five days in a row? No. So we have progress. 1 3 Lowest Point 2

Put a checkmark in the space marked “Graph.” R R.1.2

If we were able to say yes to all five of these components (evidence sheet/graph pair, content standard, API, activity, and graph), we have a complete “Content Standard Set.” To indicate that on your checklist, circle the set (the first five rows of the first column). R R.1.2

Ben: Choice Now let’s look at Choice. We need three different types of choice for a top score, and Choice is related to activity. That means that, if the activity on the evidence sheet received credit, we can look for a valid choice, and since each data point represents a different activity, we can look for more choices on the graph. If the activity on the evidence sheet did not receive credit, then we can’t look for a choice, either here or on the graph. The most we can find is “evidence of choice not related to activity.”

A valid choice is: a) appropriate for the activity, b) not inherent to the activity, and c) something the teacher would reasonably and ethically offer the child. (To do or not do the activity, to take turns, to refrain from hitting or biting, etc. are not valid choices. If the activity is copying from the board, “looking” is not a valid choice, because you can’t do the activity without looking. Looking is inherent to the activity. “Pencil” and “marker,” on the other hand, are valid options, because you could copy from the board with either one.) A choice may not be the answer to the question being asked (for example, if the student is asked to choose which of two objects, a basketball and a pillowcase, is white, the choice options given cannot be “basketball” and “pillowcase”). For a choice to be valid, either decision must be equally okay.

Food choices are not acceptable unless they are directly related to the activity being done (for example, a money activity that involves getting a treat from a vending machine, or a reading activity that involves ordering from a menu).

A choice of choice types (such as choosing between “who to work with” and “where to work”) is not acceptable. There should be one type given, with two relevant options shown and the student’s choice marked.

Let’s look at Ben’s first evidence sheet, page G1-C. Is there an acceptable activity? Yes, as we discussed earlier. That allows us to look for a choice. Is there a valid choice on the evidence sheet (type of choice indicated, two options offered, student’s choice marked or a note explaining that the student refused to choose)? Yes. We have a choice of “who to work with,” with two options—Devontae and Michael—shown, and Devontae circled to show Ben’s choice.

Does it match the choice code given for that day on the graph? (If the answer is no, we have conflicting evidence, so the choice is not valid, and we can’t look for more on the graph.) Yes, it matches.

Put the code for “who to work with”—it’s a question mark—in the appropriate place on the checklist. R R.1.2 ?

Because the evidence sheet has a valid choice, we have evidence that the teacher knows how to provide a valid choice for this API, and we can look for more choices on the graph. Are there additional occurrences of different typesof choice on the graph? Yes, there are plenty.

Put the codes for two others on the checklist as well. We need a total of three choice types, and we can get them all here. That’s because choice is related to activities, and each one of these data points stands for a separate activity. R R.1.2 + ? #

Ben: Settings Let’s look at Settings next. Because the rubric does not tie Settings to either the activity or API, we can always look for settings, as long as there is appropriate documentation to verify that the setting was inclusive.

A verifying signature for each setting MUST occur on the page on which it is found and MUST include the code for the setting and the title of the person signing. (“Teacher” is not enough. Special education teachers are also teachers. We need something like “Grade 4 General Ed. Teacher,” “Art Teacher,” “Geometry Teacher,” “Librarian,” etc.). If the general education teacher just wrote “teacher” for his or her title, the teacher completing the portfolio should have added the necessary clarification.

The person signing should be the same person who provides instruction and other natural support to both general education and special education students. Special education teachers and paraprofessionals may not sign as natural support unless there is a note explaining that they were in a general education setting or inclusion classroom and that they were providing assistance to all students, not just students in special education. We’ll discuss this more when we get to Supports.

We can look for one setting for each occurrence (or dot) on the graph. That means we could get them all from one evidence sheet/graph pair or from any combination of evidence sheet/graph pairs in that subject area. If a teacher uses a setting that is not pre-coded by the state, he or she must name that setting and provide a code for it. If a setting is not coded and defined, it cannot be given credit, no matter how self-evident it may seem to be. For a setting to receive credit, it has to be an inclusive environment. At the end of this training, you’ll get a list of settings that are and are not inclusive, as well as some that require notes of explanation. Here are the basics.

General education Reading/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies are always considered inclusive. We call those “the Big Four” because they are the four content areas, or subjects, assessed by TCAP-Alt PA. As long as there is appropriate documentation below, they can be counted as many times as they appear on the graph.

General education electives or specialty areas, such as Library, Music, Computer Lab, Art, and Physical Education, are always considered inclusive. Since these classes are less focused on the four subjects being assessed, they can be counted only once per content area.

Community settings (such as stores, museums, and restaurants) are inclusive onlyif both general education and special education students were involved together in the activity that took place there. Each type of community setting may be counted once per subject. For example, we could count both McDonald’s and Kroger, but we could not count both McDonald’s and Wendy’s, as those are too similar. Community settings require a note explaining why they are inclusive (e.g., that this was a field trip attended by both special education and general education students). The general education teacher in charge of the group must be the person who signs. Field trips including only special education students or only special education students and peer tutors are not inclusive.

The hallway, office, cafeteria, conference room, teacher workroom, and other places that are typically not inclusive may or may not be appropriate inclusive settings, depending on what’s being done there. If these settings are used, there must be a note explaining why they are inclusive.

Guidance is an inclusive setting for grades K-8. For high school portfolios, Guidance must be accompanied by a note explaining why it is inclusive. Classroom and Homeroom are considered special education settings, unless there is evidence to the contrary (for example, a note from the teacher explaining that it’s inclusive). Speech therapy is always a special education setting, as are Life Skills classes and the resource classroom. These can never be considered inclusive. ISS and the clinic are not appropriate settings for this assessment.

The setting should be an appropriate one in which the activity might occur (and be similar to what the general education peers are doing). For example, in a cosmetology class, a student might copy a chart of plants used in makeup or hair dyes, but it would be inappropriate to copy a chart about photosynthesis or the phases of the moon.

Proximity is not inclusion. The student may be doing a modified version of what his or her peers are doing, but not something completely separate. For example, a student might reasonably count or sort rubber balls in PE class, but counting out plastic chips into an egg carton is unlikely to bear any relation to what the PE class is doing. In this case, the activity proves that the setting was not inclusive. Just being present in the same room as general education peers is not enough.

If the class is in PE, and the rest of the students are playing dodge ball, but the portfolio student is sorting alphabet cards, that is not an inclusive setting.

According to the rubric, we need four inclusive settings. Let’s see how Ben’s settings stack up.

Is instruction occurring in one or more inclusive settings? Yes, we have two different settings, general education Reading/Language Arts and Library. Is the setting appropriate for the activity/API? Yes, you could easily work on labeling objects or people in either of these settings.

Is there a signature to verify that the setting is inclusive? Yes, we have the second grade general education teacher and the librarian. Did the person signing include his/her title and indicate the setting to which the signature should be attached? Yes, in both cases.

How many times can it count: multiple times (for a “Big 4” classroom) or once (for a specialty area or other inclusive setting)? Reading/Language Arts is a “Big 4” setting. It appears three times and can be counted three times. Put three RLs on the checklist. Library is a specialty area, so it can be counted only once, no matter how many times it appears. Put one L on the checklist. That gives us all four settings. R R.1.2 + ? # RL RL L RL

Ben: Supports The next dimension is Supports. According to the rubric, we need three natural supports. Natural support is an adult in an inclusive setting who is available to help both the typically developing students and the special education students with similar (though perhaps modified) activities.

Some examples of natural support are: General education teachers Specialty teachers in inclusive classes (such as music, art, P.E., computer, etc.) General education paraprofessionals/assistants School Cafeteria Workers or Managers

Like Choice, the Supports dimension is related to activities. That means that, if the activity on the evidence sheet received credit, we can look for one natural support for each inclusive setting. If the activity did not receive credit, then we cannot look for supports. The most we can find is “evidence of support not related to activity.”

Documentation of support consists of an appropriate signature, title, indication of setting code, and corresponding inclusive setting. The title has to show that this is a general education teacher (e.g., “general ed 3rd grade,” “grade 3,” “3rd,” “music teacher”). Just saying “teacher” is not enough. Special education teachers are also teachers.

The setting (or inclusion) code and title must be placed correctly. The title tells who worked with the student; the setting code tells where the instruction occurred. If the setting code portion of the signature line is blank, we assume that the person signing went to the special education class to provide support, and neither the setting nor the support can receive credit. If the title portion is blank, we assume that the person signing is special education personnel, and neither the setting nor the support can receive credit.

General education teachers (including the librarian, music teacher, P.E. teacher, and other specialty area teachers) may be counted multiple times, even though their settings count only once. They can be counted each time their class shows up on the graph(s). For example, the gym teacher could provide natural support on three occasions for maximum points, as long as PE appeared three times on the graph(s). This is because the interaction that takes place between the student and the teacher providing natural support is more important than the location in which that interaction occurs. As a reminder of this rule, we say, “People are more important than places.”

However, natural supports who are not teachers (such as the school cafeteria manager or cashier, P.E. Assistant, and so on) may be counted only once per subject because they are less responsible for the student’s academic progress. For example, a cafeteria worker who helped a student each day could be counted only once for Language Arts, once for Math, once for Science, and once for Social Studies.

Teachers can be counted only once for settings (such as recess or field trips) other than their class.

Since natural support occursonly in inclusive settings, if any of the above people work with the student in a non-inclusive setting, it is no longer natural support. Remember, for the purpose of this training, when I refer to support, I’m referring to natural support.

Special education teachers and paraprofessionals are not natural support, unless there is a note explaining that, during this particular lesson, the special educator was providing assistance to all students in an inclusive environment, including typically developing peers. An example would be a grade-level math class taught collaboratively by special education and general education teachers. If this occurred, there must be a note of explanation.

We need one natural support signature for each different inclusive setting indicated on the graph. (For example, if Art is listed twice, Music is listed once, and general education Reading is listed three times, the art, music, and general education reading teachers should each sign once.) The signature on the graph page verifies that the class was inclusive and that the student attended that class and worked on the selected API on all of the specified dates.

The person who signs the graph page should be the person who provided the natural support. For example, if the librarian who supervised the activity is on medical leave when the portfolio is assembled, a library assistant who did not assist with the activity may not sign. A one-on-one paraprofessional or assistant is not natural support.

You can see that Settings and Supports are closely related, since we can’t get a support without an inclusive setting, and we can’t get a setting without the verifying signature, title, and code.

Let’s look at Ben’s supports. Is the activity on the evidence sheet acceptable? Yes. We gave credit for it earlier. That allows us to look for supports. Is there an inclusive setting in which the API could legitimately be taught? Yes, Library and Reading/Language Arts.

Is there a signature for the person providing natural support, an appropriate title, and a code that explains which setting should be attached to the signature? Yes, in both cases.

How many times does each one count? We have three for Reading/Language Arts, and we can count all three. We have two for Library, and since the librarian is a specialty area teacher, we can count her both times. That gives us all three supports we need, plus two spares. Write the code for each one on the appropriate line. We already have all we need. R R.1.2 ? + # RL RL RL L RL RL RL

Ben: Peer Interactions The last dimension is Peer Interactions. According to the rubric, we need three peer interactions. A peer interaction must be related to the API, and we can have only one per content standard. That means that for each differentcontent standard, we can look for onlyone peer interaction.

A peer is defined as a student who does not qualify for TCAP-Alt PA. For grades K-8, the peer is no more than two grades above or below the student whose portfolio is being assessed. For students in grades 9 and 10, peers may be two grade levels below and unlimited levels above, including adult co-workers in a work-based learning program. For students in grades 11 and 12, peers may be in grades 9-12, or may be adult co-workers in a work-based learning program. Teachers and paraprofessionals are not considered peers.

If the activity is a group activity and all peers are helping the student, any peer in the group may sign. If the description of the interaction specifies that only one peer worked with the student, that peer must be the one who signs.

The peer interaction description should explain what the two students did together and how the interaction related to the activity and API. Did the peer model how to participate in the activity by doing a similar assignment alongside the student being assessed? Did the peer encourage the student to participate in the activity? Did the peer help the student complete the work? “Peers verbally encouraged Anaxamander to help paint the volcano,” “Peers helped Anaxamander count the correct change for the cashier,” and “Peers included Anaxamander in the group discussion of Brazil” are appropriate descriptions of how the student and peers interacted, because they include the necessary information: how the peers helped Anaxamander complete this specific, API-related activity.

“Anaxamander interacted well with his peers” is NOT an appropriate description, because it doesn’t tell what the students did or indicate whether or not the interaction was related to the instructional activity.

“Peers encouraged Anaxamander” would also not be sufficient, since it doesn’t show the relationship to the API. What did they encourage him to do? “Peers said hi and gave Anaxamander a high five” would not be related to an API about identifying coins. It might be related to an API about interacting with others or responding to other students, depending on the activity. (The peer interaction should help the student complete the activity or provide feedback as to whether it was done correctly.)

Pre-task and post-task activities (such as just taking the student to the room where the activity will be performed, handing the student a stack of materials to work with, or checking the student’s work without reference to providing feedback) are not related to the API. The interaction must be related to the actual instruction.

The peer interaction description must be placed in the section of the evidence sheet designated for peer interaction, even if it is also included in the activity above.

For each peer interaction, the peer should sign his/her first name and write his/her grade level on the appropriate lines.

Let’s look at Ben’s peer interactions. There is a place for a peer interaction on the evidence sheet and another on the graph page. Ben has one on each, but since we can only use one per content standard, we only need one or the other.

Do we have a valid API? Yes. We saw it on the evidence sheet, earlier.

Is there a peer interaction on either the evidence sheet or the graph page? Yes, there’s one on each page. We can only take one for this content standard, so if one is good and one isn’t, we’ll use the best one. We always look at the one on the evidence sheet first and use the other for a fallback.

Can we tell what the student and peer are doing together that is related to the API? Yes. Devontae is asking Ben to identify characters, and all the peers are encouraging Ben to answer.

Is there a peer signature, an appropriate grade level, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph? Yes. Since several peers were involved in encouraging Ben to complete the activity, any of them could have signed. In this case, Devontae did. The date is at the top of the evidence sheet.

So we can put a check mark for Peer Interactions. R R.1.2 ? + # RL RL RL L RL RL RL

We have an extra peer interaction on the graph page. We don’t need it, but let’s look at it anyway.

We already know we have a valid API. We have a signature, an appropriate grade level, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph. I can tell from this description that the interaction was related to the API. So if we hadn’t gotten the peer interaction on the evidence sheet, we could have used this one.

We’ve gotten all we can from this evidence sheet/graph pair. Let’s move on to the next pair on pages G1-E and G1-F. This is still Ben, so when we look up the APIs, we’re still looking at grade 3.

Starting with Content: Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes, 10/21.

Let’s check it off. R R.1.2 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

What is the content standard? Writing.

On your checklist, go to the second column and write “W” for “Content Standards.” Is it different from the previous one? Yes. R W R.1.2 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is there a valid API for that grade level and subject? Yes, it’s W.1.1, “Use writing tools to make marks on paper.” It comes from the correct column of the Content Standards and API document.

In the second column, write W.1.1 in the space marked “Alternate Performance Indicators.” R W R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is there an acceptable activity that is related to the API? This isn’t related to food or toileting, so we just need to make sure it has the three components. Is it related to the API? Yes, he’s learning to make marks on paper. Can we tell what he’s doing? Yes, he’s painting. Do we know enough about what materials were used to know how he performed the activity? Yes, he has a stencil and a modified paintbrush. Since this activity involves writing, we would need to know at least what he was writing with or what he was writing on. In this case, we know both. In the second column, put a checkmark in the space marked “Activities.” This activity is clearly written so that someone unfamiliar with Ben could read this and know what Ben did and how he did it.

Put a check mark in the space marked “Activities.” R W R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is this an appropriate graph (meaning a line graph or a graph of dots)? Yes. Does the graph have at least fifteen data points? Yes. Are they large enough to see and centered in the box? Yes. Does it show progress (at least three days on which the student did two increments better than the lowest point, with no more than five days in a row at the same level of success)? Yes. The first occurrence of Ben’s lowest point, physical withdrawal, is on September 16. That means he needs at least three days after that at “hand over hand” or better. Do we have that? Yes. Does the graph flatline for more than five days in a row? No. So we have progress. Lowest point 15 dots 1 2 3

In the second column, put a checkmark in the space marked “Graph.” R W R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

We have another complete “Content Standard Set.” To indicate that on your checklist, circle the set (the first five rows of the second column). R W R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Now let’s look at Choice. We don’t need these, because we already have enough for the maximum score. But if we did need them, we have a good activity, so we could look for more choices from this evidence sheet/graph pair.

If we needed it, would this choice be valid (type of choice indicated, two options offered, student’s choice marked or a note explaining that the student refused to choose)? Yes. And it matches the choice given for that day on the graph. So if we needed more choices, we could use this one, and if there are different types on the graph, we could get more from there.

And…there are.

Let’s look at Settings next, on the graph page, G1-F. Ben has all of his settings, but if he didn’t, is there anything here we could use if we needed it? Yes, we have Art, Music, and the Hall, each with an appropriate signature, title, and code. For “hall,” we have the necessary note explaining why the hallway was inclusive. So we could get three more settings here, if we needed them.

The next dimension is Supports. Remember, supports are related to activities. Ben has all of his, but if we needed more, could we get them from here? Yes, because we had a good activity, and we have appropriate signatures, titles, and defined inclusion codes.

Last, we have Peer Interactions. We still need one of these, because we can only have one per content standard.

Since we had a valid API, we can look for a peer interaction. If we had a bad API, the most we could look for would be “evidence of peer interaction. Is there a peer interaction on either the evidence sheet or the graph page? Yes, there’s one on the evidence sheet.

Can we tell what the student and peer are doing together that is related to the API? Yes. Is there a peer signature, an appropriate grade level, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph? Yes. Since all of Ben’s tablemates helped him stay on task, any one them could have signed. Radir gave hand-over-hand assistance, so he’s the one who signed. The date is at the top of the evidence sheet.

So we can give credit for this peer interaction. R W R.1.2 W.11 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

We’ve gotten all we can from this evidence sheet/graph pair. Let’s move on to the next pair, on pages G1-G and G1-H. This is still Ben, so when we look up the APIs, we’re still looking at grade 3.

Starting with Content: Do we have an evidence sheet and graph with matching dates? Yes, 11/11.

So we can check it off. R W R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

What is the content standard? Elements of Language.

On your checklist, go to the third column and write “EL” in the space marked “Content Standards.” Is it a different one from what we had before? Yes. R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is there a valid API for that grade level and subject? Yes, it’s EL.1.1, followed by a description from the correct column of the API document.

Go to the third column and write EL.1.1 in the space marked “Alternate Performance Indicators.” R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 EL.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is there an acceptable activity that is related to the API? This isn’t related to food or toileting, so we just need to make sure it has the three components. Is it related to the API? Yes, this is a prerequisite to making a word book. Can we tell what he’s doing? Yes, making a “Sounds of Autumn” booklet. Do we know enough about what materials were used to know how he student performed the activity? Yes, we have enough information to know he’s putting actual photos in a paper booklet (since he’s making a physical book using clip art from a file of photos), with help from a friend.

In the third column, put a checkmark in the space marked “Activities.” R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 EL.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Is this an appropriate graph (meaning a line graph or a graph of dots)? Yes. Does the graph have at least fifteen data points? Yes. Are they large enough to see and centered in the box? Yes, they’re large enough to see and clearly placed inside the box. Does it show progress (at least three days on which the student did two increments better than the lowest point, with no more than five days in a row at the same level of success)? Yes. The first occurrence of Ben’s lowest point, 0%, is on 11/23. That means he needs at least three days after that at 20% or better. Do we have that? Yes. Does the graph flatline for more than five days in a row? No. So we have progress. Lowest point 1 3 2

In the third column, put a checkmark in the space marked “Graph.” We have another complete “Content Standard Set.” To indicate that on your checklist, circle the set. R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 EL.1.1 ? # + RL RLRL L RL RLRL

Now let’s look at Choice. We still don’t need these, because we already have enough for the maximum score. But if we did, we have a good activity, so we could look for more choices from this evidence sheet graph pair.

If we needed it, would this choice be valid (type of choice indicated, two options offered, students choice marked or a note explaining that the student refused to choose)? Yes, if it matches the one for that date on the graph, we could use it, and if there were different types on the graph, we could use those too.

It does match, so we could use any other types if we needed them. In this case, the only other type is “materials.”

Let’s look at Settings next, on the graph page, G1-F. Ben has all of his settings, but if he didn’t, is there anything here we could use if we needed it? Yes, we have Reading/Language Art, Music, and Guidance, each with an appropriate signature, title, and code.

We could get three Reading/Language Arts and one Guidance, since Guidance is inclusive for grades K-8. We already have Music, which is all we can use for this subject area. So we could get a total of four more settings here, if we needed them.

The next dimension is Supports. Remember, supports are related to activities. Ben has all of his, but if we needed more, could we get them from here? Yes, because we had a good activity, and we have appropriate signatures, titles, and defined inclusion codes. We could get five if we needed them—three for the Reading/Language Arts teacher, one for the Guidance teacher, and one for the Music teacher (remember, the teacher can count multiple times).

Last we have Peer Interactions. We still need one of these, because we can only have one per content standard.

Since we gave credit for a valid API, we can look for a peer interaction. Is there a peer interaction on either the evidence sheet or the graph page? Yes. There’s one on the evidence sheet and one on the graph page. We’ll look at the one on the evidence sheet first. We only need the one on the graph page if the one on the evidence sheet is no good.

Can we tell what the student and peer are doing together that is related to the API? Yes. Is there a peer signature, an appropriate grade level, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph? Yes. Ben’s peer tutor signed it. The grade level is appropriate, and the date is at the top of the evidence sheet.

So we can give credit to this peer interaction. R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 EL.1.1 ? + # RL RLRL L RL RLRL

We’ve completed Ben’s Reading/Language Arts checklist. Let’s compare our checklist to the rubric.

For Content, ask: How many different Content Standard Sets do we have? In Ben’s case, we have all three, so we find the appropriate score for three sets and see a score of 50. Write 50 in the “Content Score” blank. R W EL R.1.2 W.1.6 EL.1.1 50 3 Sets

If we had two sets, we’d have a score of 40. One set would be a score of 30. Look at the next level, score of 20. Remember, this score is reserved for a special case. We award this when we have no complete sets, but only because the graph has too few dots and/or fails to show progress. When I say “too few dots,” I mean there is at least one dot, but fewer than 15. A portfolio with no dots at all wouldn’t be eligible for this score. The last one, a score of 10 is when you have no complete sets for any other reason. No Sets, NP/1-14 dots 2 Sets 1 Set

Next is Choice. We need three. How many do we have? Right: three, for a score of 20. Write 20 in the “Choice Score” blank. ? # + 20

If we had two, we’d have a score of 16. If we had one, we’d have a score of 12. The 8-point level is for “choice evidenced, but not related to activity.” This score is given only when no choices were credited, but only because none of the activities received credit. To be eligible for this score, there must be at least one evidence sheet choice that would have received credit if the activity had been good. We call this “evidence of choice.” The final score point level, for 4 points, is one you’re unlikely to need to worry about for K-2 students. This is when there are choices that would normally receive credit, but none of them are age appropriate. This is a very rare occurrence in K-2.

If no choices were credited, and the portfolio is not eligible for either the 8- or 4-point levels, the Choice score would be 0. Remember, Choice is the only dimension that can receive a score of 0 for a scorable portfolio. (Because of this, the 0 is not noted on the rubric.)

Now let’s look at Settings. For the maximum score of 10, we need four settings, and Ben got them all on the very first evidence sheet/graph pair. Put 10 in the “Settings Score” blank of your checklist. 10 RL RLRL L

If we had three settings, we would have a score of 8. If we had two, we’d have a score of 6. If we had one, we’d have a score of 4. If we had no inclusive settings, we would give a score of 2, “Instruction evidenced occurs only in special education settings.” (The evidence for special education settings is that there were no inclusive ones. Since the student has to be somewhere, that leaves only special education settings.)

Next, let’s look at Supports. For the maximum score of 10, we need three supports. Again, Ben got them all on his first evidence sheet/graph pair. Put 10 in the “Supports Score” blank. RL RLRL 10

If we had two supports, we’d have a score of 8. If we had one support, we’d have a score of 6. The next level, for a score of 4, says, “Natural support evidenced in an inclusive setting but not connected to activity.” This score is given only when no supports were credited, only because none of the activities received credit. To be eligible for this score, there must be at least one support that would have received credit if the activity had been good (meaning there was an appropriate natural support signature, title, and defined code for an inclusive setting).

If there were no natural supports and no evidence of natural support, we would give a score of 2, “Support is only special education teacher and/or assistant.”

Finally, let’s look at Peer Interactions. For the maximum score of 10, we need three, and we could get one per content standard. How many do we have? Three. Put 10 in the “Peer Interactions” blank of your checklist. 10

If we had two peer interactions, we’d have a score of 8. If we had one, we’d have a score of 6. If didn’t have any, we would look for “evidence of peer interaction,” for a score or 4. The rubric wording is somewhat different, but effectively, this score point means that, while we couldn’t give credit to the description, we did have evidence that the student was given a chance to interact with peers. The evidence we need for a score of 4 is a peer signature, an appropriate grade level, and a date that corresponds to a date on the graph.

If there were no peer interactions and no “evidence of peer interaction, we would give a score of 2.

Now that we have all of Ben’s scores, we add them together for a total score of 100. That’s as good as it gets. R W EL R.1.2 W.1.1 EL.1.1 50 20 ? + # RL RLRL L 10 10 RL RLRL 10 Total Score: 100

That concludes Session 2. In Session 3, we’ll continue with the Guide.

Welcome to TCAP-Alt PA K-2 Scoring Training