TCAP Alternative Portfolio Assessment Guidance for 2006 - 2007
(as revised following the state’s July 2006 training)
Here are the highlights from the state’s training sessions given in late July 2006. The 05-06 school year saw the biggest change in the portfolio format since it started. It is not changing as much for SY 05-06. During the April 25-28, 2006 scoring anchor setting session, the group clarified many areas. The portfolios turned in for the 05-06 school year were not scored down because of areas that weren’t clear, but most of this update covers the things to keep in mind for the 06-07 school year.
The subject areas at each grade level:
· English/Language Arts, Math, Science, and Social Studies for 3rd to 8th grade
· Math for 9th grade
· Science for 10th grade
· English/Language Arts for 11th grade
Twelfth graders are not assessed unless they haven’t yet been assessed for Math, Science, and Language Arts. To put this another way, a high school student has to be considered a 9th, 10th, and 11th grader at least one time each, and be assessed one year each for Math, Science, and Language Arts, before you can call them 12th grade (for TCAP Alt purposes) and discontinue TCAP Alt Portfolio development.
Last year the planning, monitoring, evaluating, and adjusting sheets were replaced with evidence sheets. Showing an adjustment for a repeated iteration of an activity is no longer required. Showing how the student uses a personal or classroom schedule is still required. State is requiring that only their forms (data collection and evidence sheets) be used. Don't make your own.
Last year, added to the Mode of Communication section was a requirement to list instructional adaptations the student uses. There is still a requirement for the student to show progress, but this is built into the data collection/graphing pages. There are only 15 tries to record for each activity, and they can occur anytime between September 1 and January 31. You don't have to worry about Data Period 1 and Data Period 2 now, or balancing the iterations between the data collection periods.
As was true last year, the overall portfolio validation signature page is needed, but the individual subject validations and a specific parent-only validation are not required. The rubric for each subject still has five scored areas, but the weight of each changed last year and is staying the same this year..
· Content (what used to be “Context”) is worth half of the subject area’s points
· Choice is worth 20% of the score
· Supports, settings, and peer interactions are worth 10% each
Each subject area has 100 points possible, with 81 to 100 being scored as advanced, 51 to 80 being counted as proficient, and 0 to 50 counting as below proficient for the typical rubric. There is a modified rubric for students who have been on homebound the whole year or have missed more than 40% of the data collection days due to medical problems. The homebound rubric has only “Content” and “Choice” dimensions, and one activity per subject instead of three. Let Jeff Romanczuk or Kaye Thomas know early if you are going to do a report of irregularity to have a portfolio scored as homebound or medical/absentee.
Context used to be one goal and three related activities set in four inclusive settings (to get all of the points). Content is now three content standards per subject area with one related activity for each taken from the Alternate Performance Indicators (APIs). To get all the Content points now, each activity would have to have 15 repetitions that show progress over the course of the year. Also, each of the activities has to be from a different API. For example, in the Math section of the portfolio, you would have to include a numbers/operations activity 15 times, another activity for geometry 15 times, and an algebra activity 15 times. You couldn’t have all three activities from only algebra. (Well, you could, but the portfolio wouldn’t score as well as one with a distinct API for each of the 3 activities).
Some of the portfolios scored at the anchor sessions listed only the API and repeated the API as the activity on the subject entry cover sheet. As long as the portfolio got more specific somewhere—on the evidence sheet, or on the data collection sheet, for examples—about what the student had to actually do related to that API, this wasn’t a problem. However, be clear on the subject area tables of contents and especially on the evidence sheets about what is the Content Area Standard is (for example, "Writing"), the Alternate Learning Expectation (for example, "W.1"), and the Alternative Performance Indicator (for example, "W.1.9"). After listing all of these, you still have to write in what specific activity the child is doing. Ideally, it is an IEP benchmark, so you have the words already. In my example, API W.1.9 is "Write left to right, top to bottom." This is not the activity. An activity that fits for a portfolio student might be, "The student will trace over a grayed out or dotted line page of her/his first name."
There was some dispute at the anchor sessions about how to score the portfolios that had no graphic at all for an activity. Some of us took the “less than 20” occurrences to include no occurrences and were thinking 20 points. However, many pointed out that it wasn’t quite fair to put in the same category someone who has 19 occurrences and someone who has none. So we all started giving 10 points for not having any data collection sheets with an activity. It didn’t come up a lot, but it did happen more than any of us expected.
The 20 occurrences required last year is 15 for 06-07. The student has to show progress, and this will be what determines the API you select for that student. At the scoring anchor sessions, the group decided that if any of the 2nd through 20th instance of an activity improved on the first try, this was good enough to be considered showing progress. If a student did not improve in the number of completions, but went from physical prompts to verbal or none at least one time, this was also counted as progress. (This lenient view was set mostly to acknowledge that many of the students have degenerative disabilities and aren’t going to show a pattern of progress.) That said, if you choose an activity that’s too tough, the student might not show progress even over 15 tries. If you choose one that’s too easy, the student could top out early and this wouldn’t be showing progress either. New for 06-07 is that a student will have to move up at least two increments over some span of at least three data collections to be considering making progress. Connect the date dots on your graph. The scorers didn’t take off for this, but it does make the progress (or lack of it) easier to see at a glance. Anyone can complete the data collection/graphing sheets, but only the special education teacher can complete the evidence sheets.
The choices all have to be related to the subject and be evident in all three activities to get full credit for Choice. The sample portfolio on the state’s website used when/where, reward for completion, materials to use, and who to work with as appropriate choices. Their intent was not to limit teachers to offering only these four choices, but to steer them away from "do the activity or not" and other inappropriate choices. The state also meant for the teacher to indicate which materials the student got to choose among, which reward options, etc., and have the student circle or mark their own choice. This is clearer on the new form in the 06-07 manual. However, for 05-06, as long as the evidence sheet indicated one of the four overall choices, no more detail was necessary. In 06-07, though be specific about the choices offered and keep them concrete. Make it choices of things or actions, not behaviors. If you want to use behavior choices, stick to ones easily observable and measurable. An activity can show choice on either the graph page or the evidence sheet. As a scorer, it was easier to find on the evidence sheet and since it is necessary to show choice only once for each activity, crowding the 15-data points graph with it doesn’t make much sense.
Use of four inclusive settings per subject area gets the 10 points for Settings. Don’t just do an activity that has little to do with the setting to get the full credit for inclusive settings. State (and the feds) are pushing to get the CDC kids into regular classes as much as possible. If you have to use the gym, cafeteria, etc., for an activity some of the 15 times, don’t have any of these be the one you expand on in the Evidence Sheet. If a student is fully included in the regular Math or Science (or what ever) class, then the 10 points for Setting is given automatically if at least 4 of the 20 data collections happen in the GenEd classroom. Be clear that the student goes to the regular class for that subject and have the GenEd teacher sign the evidence sheet and initial any data sheet instances she records. This way, the portfolio will get the points for the teacher as natural support for that activity, too.
If people in the community are resistant to signing the portfolio, use a store receipt or even a picture of the student completing the transaction (with the teacher’s note under it to explain how it fits).
Relevant peer support from non-disabled peers in all three APIs earns the 10 points for peer natural support. (For example, the SpEd student and a GenEd student reading a story together in the Library for a Language Arts activity—Reading content standard—works with just about any of the grade level clusters of APIs under Reading.) Remember to have the peer sign (first name only) on the evidence sheet as peer support, or let them initial the data collection sheet (or both). If a natural support person didn’t sign the evidence or portfolio validation sheet, or at least initial the data collection sheet, the scorers didn’t give any credit for natural support for that activity. If the SpEd student is in the regular math, science, etc., class, the subject area will also get full points for peer interactions on that activity. If they are not doing the activity in a GenEd class, then you have to be clear that the setting is half (or more) GenEd students when the activity is happening. Be clear about regular education settings because that’s where the portfolio points are. Natural supports are the toughest part. Keep in mind that the student has to use the support person the same way everybody else in the school does. That’s the “natural” part. Also keep in mind that you need to show natural support in only one of the 15 instances of each activity. This is true for Choice, too. Just show it once (on the evidence sheet) and the other 14 times you don’t have to fret about whether or not the activity showed student choice or used natural support.
Be careful about using the school nurse as a natural support. If the nurse came to the CDC classroom, the scorers counted her as a SpEd-only resource. If the student went to the nurse’s office (like the rest of the kids in the school have to do), then the nurse as a natural support was more clearly justified.
The 7 “required” components of the portfolio look a little different now:
1. Portfolio table of contents page
2. Each subject area’s table of contents page
3. Portfolio validation/signatures page
4. The student’s schedule, showing evidence of use
5. Mode of communication/Adaptations used page
6. 1 to 3 evidence sheets per subject
7. 1 to 3 sheets documenting 15 data collection attempts
“Required” means if 3 or more of the above are missing, the portfolio is considered unscorable and gets a 0. If less than 3 of these are missing, it’ll be scored with no penalty. The schedule has to be a stand-alone item, not one embedded in a subject area activity. If you can’t show evidence of use, include the schedule anyway and as long as you aren’t missing two of the other items listed, you won’t get hammered for it.
The TCAP Alt Participation Guidelines, http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/doc/tcap_part_guidelines06-07.pdf , (what I’d been calling the TCAP Alt Addendum to the IEP on the website) changed a lot in 2005-2006, and a little more in 2006-2007. If you suspect (or know) the student will be assessed by portfolio in 2006-2007, remember to do the 3-page Guidelines at the IEP meeting. Remember, too, that the School Psychologist now has to sign the testing section of the Guidelines now and that the Principal has to sign every completed TCAP Alt Participation Guidelines.
Follow the rubric table to know what gets points. State tweaked the rubric wording to clarify a few items, but other than the 15 tries instead of 20, it didn't change in a huge way for 06-07. One piece dropped was the need to show progress “throughout both data periods.” This was a concession for high school kids on block schedule, so the portfolio's content area could be done by the end of the first semester. However, a gung-ho middle school teacher could conceivably get her students' portfolios done in the first semester as well.
You have to know fairly early on if you are going to use the homebound or frequent absences rubrics instead (and remember to tell Jeff or Kaye as soon as you know). By frequent, State means the student misses 40% of the class time between September 1 and March 1, or more. Homebound student have to on homebound for the whole year, or at least since September. Both kinds allow you to do only one activity per subject area, but you have to turn in a report of irregularity with these to avoid having them scored with the regular rubric.
The 2006-2007 booklet covering the Adaptations and Accommodations, http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/doc/tcap_acco_instructions06-07.pdf , has changed a little since the 05-06 one and is on the State site. It has been a couple years since the scribe rule (Item J) changed. That is, now the scribe does a first run through, just writing down what the student says the way the student says it. However, both may do a second run through together to indicate punctuation and make spelling changes. Being able to read the whole test to students, even Reading tests, has been allowed for the past three years. If students get accommodations all through the year, they have to get them on the statewide assessment, too.
The teacher’s manual for school year 2006-2007 is online at http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/doc/tcap_06-07_teachersman.pdf . Jeff will be further revising or removing the stuff on the Sevier County SpEd site to make it more like the evidence sheet State provided. Meanwhile, stick with theirs because it will make the scorer’s job easier. In April 2006, it was really tough to score the portfolios in which the teachers used a revised PME/A or used it without even revising.
The Alternate Performance Indicators are also available on the state’s site as a separate PDF file, but these are included in the teacher’s manual, too. To get just the APIs, go to http://www.state.tn.us/education/speced/doc/sealtperind.pdf .
Kaye and Jeff will do an optional inservice on November 10, 2006 for any teachers who want to check with us and each other on how the portfolios have to be set up now to ease data collection under these revised rules. It will be from 8 to 11 am, at PFMS, in Ashley and Kim's rooms.
Afters from the April 2006 scoring:
The teachers asked why we can’t just use a Vineland or Brigance set of scores in lieu of the portfolio, since these cover a lot of the same ground. However, the federal government requires the states to have an assessment for all students that is aligned with that state’s curriculum framework.
Some teachers felt the State needed to develop “lower level” APIs to be realistic about the level some of the CDC students are. State’s counter to this was that the teacher was supposed to adapt the activity so that it was appropriate for the student and still linked to the APIs that link to the curriculum framework of all students. Although a lot of the API do sound like activities, the API is not intended to describe what the student is specifically doing.
Many of the teachers attending recommended that State standardize the forms, graphs, and evidence sheets to use. State’s TCAP Alt Advisory Board had already been considering this, and making the forms web-based.
Don’t just have a peer, teacher, TA, or store employee sign without being clear about who they are either right on that page, or on the overall portfolio validation page.
Most scorers favored a short description from the teacher on how the peer interaction, supports, and choice happened for each activity. For example, a couple sentences on the evidence sheet to say something like, “The same group of peer tutors goes to the library with the CDC class each week. Each CDC student gets to choose which peer to work with . . ..” It seemed like overkill to many of us, but watch for this one again.
Similarly, a lot of teachers want to have points assigned for the 7 required components mentioned above. This wasn’t a majority, though, and Jeff’s hunch is that State wants to concentrate the points in the rubric to the subject areas.