Alexander Kurz

Alignment of the Intended, Planned, and Enacted Curriculum in General and Special Education and Its Relation to Student Achievement

In this initial study, the authors examined the content of the planned and enacted eighth-grade mathematics curriculum for 18 general and special education teachers and the curricula’s alignment to state standards via the Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum. The relation between alignment and student achievement was analyzed for three formative assessments and the corresponding state test within a school year. Results indicated that alignment for the planned and enacted curriculum to state standards was low with no significant differences between general and special education teachers. Significant correlations between student achievement averages for 238 students and teacher alignment indices were equal to or greater than .48. When teacher groups were examined separately, the relation between alignment and achievement remained significant only for special education, with correlations equal to or greater than .75. The study’s conceptual and methodological framework provides a model for subsequent research on alignment and opportunity to learn in general and special education.

Effects of Using Modified Items to Test Students with Persistent Academic Difficulties

This study investigated the effects of using modified items in achievement tests to enhance accessibility. An experiment determined whether tests composed of modified items would reduce the performance gap between students eligible for an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) and students not eligible, and the impact on student proficiency levels. Three groups of eighth-grade students (N = 755) from four states took original and modified versions of reading and mathematics tests. Findings indicate modified item conditions were significantly easier for all students and modifications would result in more AA-MAS eligible students meeting proficiency status. Study limitations and follow-up research on item modifications and the performance of students with disabilities are discussed.

Access to What Should Be Taught and Will Be Tested: Students’ Opportunity to Learn the Intended Curriculum

The annual large-scale assessment of student achievement for accountability purposes is expected to provide reliable test scores that permit valid inferences about the extent to which students have achieved the intended academic content standards. The fact that schools are open to sanctions and rewards on the basis of student achievement also indicates that these test score interpretations include inferences about what students know and can do as a result of the learning opportunities provided by schools (Burstein & Winters, 1994). That is, teachers and school administrators are considered to contribute to student achievement and, if properly incentivized and supported, are assumed to promote student achievement more effectively (Linn, 2008). To support the validity of such inferences, test users must either account for differences in learning opportunities or provide evidence that all test-takers had access to a comparable opportunity to learn the intended and assessed curriculum (Kurz & Elliott, in press; Porter, 1995).

Modified Multiple-Choice Items for Alternate Assessments: Reliability, Difficulty, and Differential Boost.

Federal policy on alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) inspired this research. Specifically, an experimental study was conducted to determine whether tests composed of modified items would have the same level of reliability as tests composed of original items, and whether these modified items helped reduce the performance gap between AA-MAS eligible and ineligible students. Three groups of eighth-grade students (N = 755) defined by eligibility and disability status took original and modified versions of reading and mathematics tests. In a third condition, the students were provided limited reading support along with the modified items. Changes in reliability across groups and conditions for both the reading and mathematics tests were determined to be minimal. Mean item difficulties within the Rasch model were shown to decrease more for students who would be eligible for the AA-MAS than for non-eligible groups, revealing evidence of differential boost. Exploratory analyses indicated that shortening the question stem may be a highly effective modification, and that adding graphics to reading items may be a poor modification.

Assessing Opportunity-to-Learn for Students With Disabilities in General and Special Education Classes

Current legislation encourages schools to educate students with disabilities (SWDs) in general education settings to the greatest extent appropriate. However, it is unclear whether inclusion in general education settings provides SWDs a sufficient opportunity to learn the academic content assessed by accountability measures. This initial study was designed to (a) describe the extent to which general and special educators provide their eighth-grade classes with an opportunity to learn the state-specific standards and to (b) examine the extent to which SWDs experience a differentiated opportunity to learn compared with their overall class. Across three states, we trained 38 general and special educators to use an online teacher log to report on various opportunity-to-learn (OTL) indices for 46 mathematics and reading classes and 89 nested SWDs. Based on an average logging period of 151 days, the results indicated that this sample’s SWDs included in general education classes experienced less time on standards, more non-instructional time, and less content coverage than their overall class. Limitations and implications for policy and future research are discussed.

Opportunities and Options for Facilitating and Evaluating Access to the General Curriculum for Students With Disabilities

Federal regulations concerning the development and implementation of alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards include a set of safeguards intended to ensure that eligible students have access to grade-level general curriculum. These regulations concerning curricular access and opportunity to learn for students with disabilities may prove difficult for educational researchers and policymakers to operationalize and evaluate. This article provides a historical and policy context for efforts to ensure curricular access. In addition, this article reviews research on potential indicators of (or ways of measuring) access to the general curriculum and opportunity to learn. Finally, best practices for facilitating and evaluating access to the general curriculum are discussed.

Meeting the Curricular Challenges of Inclusive Assessment: The Role of Alignment, Opportunity to Learn, and Student Engagement.

Inclusive test-based accountability systems are intended to focus attention on the teaching and learning of important knowledge and skills for students with disabilities. Test score inferences to this end are often based on unverified assumptions of curricular alignment, access, and engagement. Focusing on students with disabilities, we discuss key concepts and practices relevant for measuring and facilitating alignment, opportunity to learn (OTL), and student engagement. In conclusion, three recommendations are provided calling for the collection and evaluation of alignment, OTL, and engagement data to support the validity of test score inferences and to inform the design of interventions that improve student OTL and engagement.

Handbook of Accessible Achievement Tests for All Students

Introduction.-Accessible Tests, Inclusive Assessment Systems, & Needed Innovations.-I. Federal Policies & Legal Considerations.-Federal Policies that Support Inclusive Assessments.-IEP Team Decision Making for More Inclusive Assessments.-Legal Issues in Testing.-II. Classroom Connections.-Opportunity to Learn What is Tested.-Classroom Learning and Students with Persistent Academic Difficulties.-Instructional Accommodations and Modifications that Support Learning.-Test-wiseness and Test Preparation.-III.Test Design Principles and Innovative Practices for More Accessible Tests.-Validity Evidence for Accommodated and Modified Tests.-Item Writing Research.-Universal Design and Cognitive Load Theories Influence on Item and Test Design.-Testing Accommodations and Item Modifications: Research to Guide Practice.-Students Input: Cognitive Labs and Surveys.-Computerized Tests Sensitive to Individual Needs.-Defining Proficient Performances and Setting Standards.-Conclusions: Accessibility Challenges, Innovative Answers.-Implementing Modified Achievement Tests: Cost / Benefits.-Accessible Tests of Student Achievement: Why now and How

Facilitating Opportunity to Learn for Students With Disabilities With Instructional Feedback Data

Opportunity to learn refers to the extent to which teachers dedicate instructional time and content coverage to the intended curriculum using a range of cognitive processes, instructional practices, and grouping formats. This article describes the My Instructional Learning Opportunities Guidance System, a research-based online teacher log that allows teachers to plan and keep track of their instruction related to content standards, review feedback reports that are based on their own instructional data, and communicate and collaborate with colleagues to promote students’ opportunity to learn. A working example from an actual teachers instructional data is used to illustrate My Instructional Learning Opportunities Guidance System and its potential to facilitate improved instruction for students with disabilities.

School-Wide Educator Evaluation for Improving School Capacity and Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools: Year 1 of the School System Improvement Project.

The United States is in an era of high-stakes evaluation of educators (i.e., teachers and principals), the results of which are used to inform human capital decision making (i.e., recruitment, hiring, retention, and dismissal), which in turn impacts school capacity and student learning. The present article describes the School System Improvement (SSI) Project, a school-wide educator evaluation initiative that includes 22 high-poverty schools. The primary goal is to present the Year 1 planning for implementation of educator evaluation, highlighting the use of system consultation for planning. The SSI Project team includes researchers in school psychology and special education, school administrators, and teachers. The project aims to implement a multimethod educator evaluation system that generates scores for informing targeted, evidence-based professional development. Project goals are to increase educator competencies that lead to improved student achievement. Finally, directions for training and recommendations for future school reform are presented.