The Standards and Assessments Peer Review– Pg 1
General Recommendations
Recommendations
Use the “State Index” form provided by USED as the template for organizing the submission.
Rationale
Clearly identify the appropriate reference and where in the reference the evidence appears. Be as specific as possible. All attachments and citations should be clearly labeled and numbered sequentially. It is time consuming and frustrating for reviewers to search through a submission for cited references.
Recommendations
In the section entitled “Evidence” provide a clear and concise description of how the state meets the requirement.
Rationale
Narrative and citations of evidence that do not directly address the element give the impression that the state is not sure its system is compliant with the requirement(s). Many states submit too much material, much of it irrelevant to the questions in the Peer Review Guidance keep the evidence submissions
Recommendations
Provide duplicates of any materials that cannot be photocopied, e.g. CD-ROM, color brochures, etc.
Rationale
A State is required to submit only one copy of all materials, but if the state wishes to ensure that reviewer’s copies are complete and formatted as originally designed, that state may provide 6 complete copies of the submission.
Recommendations
List the assessments currently in use in your State. Components currently under development for future use, such as content standards, performance standards and descriptors, and assessments, should be clearly described with proposed dates for full implementation.
Rationale
In 2005-06 many states will be implementing parts of the assessment system for the first time and may not yet have implemented science assessments. Reviewers need to be clear about which assessments are currently used to calculate AYP and which are planned for future development.
Recommendations
If the state’s program does not currently meet the requirement, say so; but give the projected plan and timeline for when the requirement will be met.
Rationale
Do not attempt to obfuscate. If it appears that the state is trying to misrepresent the existing program, reviewers may question the integrity and intent of the submission and give closer scrutiny to all aspects of the documentation provided.
Recommendations
Committees, panels and reviewers cited in evidence as being used in development processes should reflect the demographics of the student population for your state, but at the least should include representatives for students with disabilities, limited English proficient students, and racial/ethnic groups.
Rationale
The participation of representatives that reflect the diversity of the state in all aspects of development is a requirement for several sections of the submission. Documentation should include some indication of panel (committee, reviewer) qualifications.
Recommendations
Participation data should include student enrollment data for the grades tested as well as the number of students assessed.
Rationale
All students must be tested, regardless of the length of time in the school. Reviewers must be able to verify that all students are included in testing so the state should provide accurate enrollment data for the grades tested.
Recommendations
Reports and studies by independent evaluators are valuable types of evidence.
Rationale
Independent evaluations and studies add a level of credibility to findings. This is particularly relevant for studies pertaining to comparability, alignment and validity but it applies to all development processes.
