Inadequate Classroom Achievement
The Wisconsin SLD rule states that the assessment(s) used to measure classroom achievement must be individually administered, norm-referenced, valid, reliable, and diagnostic of impairment in one or more of the eight potential areas of SLD. PI 11.36 (c)(1) These characteristics are defined as follows:
• Norm-referenced: an assessment that judges and ranks student performance against the performance of peers.
• Valid: an assessment that measures what it is intended to measure. Validity is represented by a quantitative analysis of the relationship between the chosen measure and other accepted indicators of the skill being measured.
• Reliable: an assessment that is reliable consistently achieves the same results with the same or a similar cohort of children. Reliability is represented by a quantitative analysis of the consistency of results across assessors, administration events, and the internal consistency of the items on a chosen measure. Standardized achievement tests should have reliabilities around .90.
• Diagnostic of impairment: a diagnostic assessment is one which has a sufficient number of items to identify strengths and weaknesses in a student’s current knowledge and skills for the purpose of identifying a suitable program of learning.
Analyzing Data to Determine Classroom Achievement
Composite scores should be used to determine inadequate classroom achievement unless the assessment used produces a single, highly reliable score. If the standard score is found using a technically adequate instrument, the IEP team determines whether the score is 1.25 standard deviations below the mean. Most achievement tests have a standard deviation (SD) of 15 and a mean (M) of 100. The 1.25 SD cut score is 81 for all tests with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
*During the Formal Evaluation Process this Assessment Measure will be selected, administered, and scored by our Cross-Categorical Teachers.
• Norm-referenced: an assessment that judges and ranks student performance against the performance of peers.
• Valid: an assessment that measures what it is intended to measure. Validity is represented by a quantitative analysis of the relationship between the chosen measure and other accepted indicators of the skill being measured.
• Reliable: an assessment that is reliable consistently achieves the same results with the same or a similar cohort of children. Reliability is represented by a quantitative analysis of the consistency of results across assessors, administration events, and the internal consistency of the items on a chosen measure. Standardized achievement tests should have reliabilities around .90.
• Diagnostic of impairment: a diagnostic assessment is one which has a sufficient number of items to identify strengths and weaknesses in a student’s current knowledge and skills for the purpose of identifying a suitable program of learning.
Analyzing Data to Determine Classroom Achievement
Composite scores should be used to determine inadequate classroom achievement unless the assessment used produces a single, highly reliable score. If the standard score is found using a technically adequate instrument, the IEP team determines whether the score is 1.25 standard deviations below the mean. Most achievement tests have a standard deviation (SD) of 15 and a mean (M) of 100. The 1.25 SD cut score is 81 for all tests with a mean of 100 and a standard deviation of 15.
*During the Formal Evaluation Process this Assessment Measure will be selected, administered, and scored by our Cross-Categorical Teachers.
Applying the Rule: IEP Team Discussion of Inadequate Classroom Achievement
Determining whether the referred student exhibits inadequate classroom achievement after intensive intervention is an important IEP team role. When making the decision, the IEP team may wish to utilize the following questions:
• Has evidence been considered to determine whether lack of appropriate instruction is primary in causing inadequate classroom achievement in one or more areas of concern?
• Has evidence been considered to determine whether limited English proficiency, other impairments, or economic, environmental or cultural factors are primary in causing the inadequate classroom achievement? For example, if there are norms for the student’s subgroup (e.g., primary language, ethnicity, socioeconomic status), has the IEP team considered how the student’s performance compares to the subgroup norms and to norms for grade or age level peers?
• Is there evidence that a valid individual assessment of achievement was administered after intensive intervention as defined in the rule had occurred?