Prevalence of Out-of-Level Testing

1. Prevalence of Out-of-Level Testing Martha Thurlow and Jane Minnema National Center on Educational Outcomes http://education.umn.edu/nceo

2. Out-of-level testing is a controversial approach to including all students • General assessment without accommodations • General assessment with accommodations <<<< Something in between?>>>> • Alternate assessment

3. One major concern about out-of-level testing is that we do not know how often it is used • Lack of information on overall prevalence • Lack of information on how far below students are being tested out of level

4. Three states’ assessment data were available for analyses – asked two questions: ? How many students with disabilities are tested below their grade of enrollment? ? What do test performance data show about the difficulty of tests for students with disabilities who are tested below their grade of enrollment?

5. Study Method: Collected data from (a) data reports of states (2 states) or (b) analysis conducted by state in response to NCEO request (1 state). These data were not easy to obtain, nor were they easy to analyze – and this was all started before No Child Left Behind!

6. Complications • Some states’ data could produce only data for the grade of the test administered – not the grade of the student’s enrollment (e.g., of the 40 students tested out of level, 20 were tested at grade 2 and 20 were tested at grade 3 – their actual grade of enrollment was unknown) • Some states’ data could produce only data for the enrollment grade – not the grade at which the student was tested (e.g., of the 40 students in grade 5, 20 were tested at a lower grade level – but which specific grades were unknown)

7. State One Results Prevalence data available for both enrollment grade and grade at which tested. • Approximately 30% of special education students were tested out of level in reading and math, and approximately 20% in writing • How far below grade students were tested spread as grade level increased: Enrolled grade 8: 44% tested gr 6; 40% tested gr 4; 16% tested gr 2 Enrolled grade 4: 68% tested gr 4; 32% tested gr 2

8. State One Results Performance data showed from 5% to 35% of students performed at goal level on the below grade level test – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: 35% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 2 reading test performed at goal level 5% of grade 8 students tested on the grade 6 math test performed at goal level

9. State Two Results Prevalence data available only for grade at which tested. • Approximately 12% of all students tested were tested below their grade of enrollment on the state’s reading literature test • [No data available on how far below grade level students were tested]

10. State Two Results Performance data showed from 3% to 8% of students performed at a level of >80% correct – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: 3% of students tested on grade 3 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were higher grades) 8% of students tested on grade 5 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were in higher grades) 3% of students tested on grade 8 reading test performed at >80% correct (students were higher grade)

11. State Three Results Prevalence data available only for grade at which tested. • Approximately 62% of special education students were tested out of level in reading • Approximately 56% of special education students were tested out of level in math

12. State Three Results Performance data showed from 44% to 54% of students performed at a level of >80% correct – suggesting that they probably should have been in a higher grade level test For example: Overall 50% of students tested below grade in reading performed at >80% correct Overall 50% of students tested below grade in math performed at >80% correct

13. Conclusions • Lack of data on prevalence of out-of-level testing and performance of students tested out of level is shocking • Context of state assessment and state assessment policies has an important effect on prevalence of out-of-level testing

14. Conclusions • Prevalence rates vary by state • Using performance as a proxy for accuracy of placement indicates that generally students are tested at the level where they are performing • This was not the case in one state, however, where most nearly half of the students were performing at a level >80% correct • Even when numbers are relatively small, the consequences for the students may be big

15. Conclusions • Prevalence and performance data reveal significant instructional issues for students with disabilities • Continued scrutiny of out-of-level testing data – prevalence and performance – is needed

16. Some Next Steps • Adjust policies to reduce numbers of students taking out-of-level tests • Adjust instruction to decrease the prevalence of out-of-level testing