RISC: Four Steps for Interpreting and Communicating High-Stakes Assessment Results

Abstract

Six weeks after the mandated statewide high-stakes assessments were conducted, Ms. Benevidez, a middle school special education teacher, holds a thick manila envelope to her chest as she walks out of the school office and back to her classroom. Sitting at her desk, Ms. Benevidez fumbles briefly with the clasp on the envelope, anxious to review her students’ scores on the assessments required by federal and state law. For Ms. Benevidez and many of her colleagues, examining the assessment results includes the tasks of interpreting scores, communicating the results to parents, and making collaborative instructional decisions based on the scores.

Each year, approximately 3.4 million students receiving special education services participate in statewide high-stakes assessments as required by federal law (U.S. Department of Education [USDOE], 2016a). Although the primary purpose of these assessments is state, district, and school accountability, assessment results may have an impact on individual students, parents, and teachers. According to the most recently available data, 24 states require a minimum passing score on statewide assessments to receive a high school diploma (USDOE, 2015), and 16 states hold policies influencing grade-level promotion and retention based on assessment results (Schwerdt, West, & Winters, 2017). Given these policies, assessment reports carry a great deal of power and influence on students’ academic lives and career goals.

Teachers, parents, and students may feel significant pressure when it comes to high-stakes assessments. Students and parents sometimes have difficulty finding meaning and usefulness in the assessments, which can result in distancing themselves from the results and their use in educational planning (Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, & Muhomba, 2009; Wyn, Turnbull, & Grimshaw, 2014). Additionally, teachers and parents may have difficulty accurately interpreting high-stakes assessment reports for students with disabilities (Blackwell, 2015). Although test developers provide interpretation guides, it takes only a few turns of a page to discover that these interpretation guides are populated with abstract terms and often present information in perplexing ways. Barriers to interpretation include densely compiled data within report templates, unclear visual displays of data, lack of information on the precision of test scores, and the use of statistical jargon (Miller & Watkins, 2010; Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012). Faced with concerns about the assessment process and score reports that contain abstract language and few, if any, test item examples, teachers and parents may struggle to make sense of the assessment results and to use the results to inform educational planning.

Despite these potential challenges, it is the responsibility of special educators to understand and interpret the results of high-stakes assessments for educational purposes and for communication to parents. To help teachers understand and accurately communicate high-stakes testing results, we describe a set of research-based strategies in the “RISC” process: Review, Interpret, Streamline, and Communicate. Through the RISC process, special educators can be better prepared to collaborate with parents to interpret and use the results of statewide high-stakes assessments. The RISC process provides teachers with several strategies and tools to assist them in evaluating the degree to which their state’s assessment score reports align with research and recommended practices for reporting assessment results to parents, and in interpreting and communicating the results to parents.

Through the RISC process, special educators can be better prepared to collaborate with parents to interpret and use the results of statewide high-stakes assessments.

The RISC Process

The RISC process consists of four steps, anchored in existing literature from three relevant domains. These domains include research on reporting standardized assessment results for students with and without disabilities; reporting progress for students with disabilities, such as report cards and individualized education program (IEP) goal progress reports; and effectively communicating during the special education planning process.

Step 1: Review

The first step for teachers is to examine the assessment report document for the clarity and complexity of the language used. Teachers should ask themselves, “Is the report language clear and understandable?” This is an important question as research suggests that using parent-friendly, nontechnical terms and avoiding assessment jargon enhance communication for reporting large-scale assessment results (Blackwell, 2015; Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012) and school–family communication (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). Assessment documents can be lengthy and difficult to understand. Even when testing companies present information in a condensed manner, the text can remain dense and confusing to teachers and parents (Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012). To further compound potential difficulties, recent estimates suggest that up to 33% of the U.S. adult population reads below a basic literacy level as measured by the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies survey (USDOE, 2016b). Thus, it is crucial for teachers to consider the readability of the assessment reports and to work toward summarizing and translating this information into more user-friendly language.

In Step 1 of the RISC process, teachers can use the Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports (see Table 1) to identify potentially confusing terminology in the report and provide parents with a reader-friendly definition. We selected these terms based on their frequent occurrence in assessment reports across multiple states and translated the definitions for readability.

Table 1.

Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports

Common terms used in high-stakes assessment reports	Definition^a	Used in the report? (circle)	Example for parents
Academic domain	Academic subject area being tested (e.g., reading, mathematics).	Y / N	The student took tests in three academic domains: reading, writing, and mathematics.
Composite score	Score obtained from adding two or more scores together.	Y / N	The English Language Arts composite score is the combination of the student’s reading comprehension, vocabulary, and written expression scores.
Confidence interval	Range of scores that can be believed to be accurate.	Y / N	The student scored 55 out of 100 points in mathematics. If the student took the test multiple times, the score would almost always be between 50 and 60 points.
Grade equivalent	Compares a student’s score with the average number of correct responses at a specific grade level and point in the school year. This statistic can be very misleading.	Y / N	Be careful with this statistic. The sixth-grade student’s score of 7.2 indicates that the student can identify vocabulary definitions as well as average seventh graders can define sixth-grade vocabulary when tested in the 2nd month of seventh grade. It does not mean the student should be promoted to seventh grade.
Growth indicator	Compares student performance over multiple years on the same test.	Y / N	The student scored higher on the seventh-grade written expression test than was expected based on prior scores in the 2 previous years.
Normative sample	The group of students selected that matches the characteristics of the current test takers.	Y / N	This is an overall description of the students that the state and testing company used to develop the test. The population should be reflective of age, gender, grade, disability, and family income status.
Number attempted	Number of questions the student tried to answer on a test.	Y / N	The student attempted 23 out of 25 questions on the Reading Comprehension subtest.
Percentage correct	Percentage of items answered correctly on a test or subtest.	Y / N	The student answered 80% of the questions correctly on the Mathematics Computation subtest, or 16 out of 20 questions.
Percentile score	Percentage of scores in a comparison group that is the same as or below a particular score point for a student on a test or subtest.	Y / N	The student scored in the 58th percentile on written expression, or the same or better than 58% of the students taking the same test.
Performance standard	Describes proficient performance on a specific academic standard.	Y / N	In the “Key Ideas” section of the Reading test, the student is expected to (a) summarize information from a written passage and (b) connect or extend ideas based on a written passage. The student answered questions on the test in both areas.
Proficiency level	Describes student performance in an academic domain.	Y / N	Our state uses advanced, proficient, and emerging to describe performance on each test. Interpret these terms with caution. The terms do not take into account growth or improvement over time.
Reliability	The consistency of a test to measure the areas being assessed.	Y / N	This refers to the consistency of the tests. Our state and the testing company are responsible for ensuring that the tests consistently measure student results as intended.
Standard or skill domain	A specific standard or skill within a subject area. Subtests often focus on specific skill area.	Y / N	Vocabulary: Using Context to Determine Meaning is a skill domain from the state standards that is measured on the reading test.
Standard score	A distribution of scores from the average that can be used to compare scores for one student over time or compare scores between students.	Y / N	Our state uses a standard score to compare student results from year to year. In mathematics, the student had a standard score of 224 this year and a standard score of 222 last year. Although the numbers are about the same, this indicates that the student is performing about as well in seventh grade as in sixth grade as compared to grade-level peers.
Testing accommodations	A change in the way a test is administered or a change in the way a student responds to the test questions.	Y / N	As we determined at the recent IEP meeting, the student was allowed to take the reading test in an individual setting. The student was also permitted to read the reading test aloud to help comprehension and to use a stress ball during the test.
Total items	Total items on a test or subtest.	Y / N	There were 50 total questions on the science test. There were 25 questions on earth science and 25 questions on physical science.
Validity	The extent to which a test measures what it is designed to measure.	Y / N	This refers to how well the science test measures science knowledge and skills. Our state and the testing company are responsible for ensuring that the test measures what it is supposed to measure.

List additional terms not provided above here:

Note. IEP = individualized education program.

Definitions adapted from glossary found in Farrall, Wright, and Wright (2014).

Teachers are encouraged to use this tool in a side-by-side manner when conducting their initial review of the assessment report. The tool prompts teachers to indicate which potentially confusing or complex terms are present in the report, examine the definition, and read an example of how the term can be presented to parents.

Ms. Benevidez opens the envelope containing Mwita’s high-stakes assessments results. He is a 13-year-old student who loves mathematics but avoids reading and writing tasks whenever possible. Ms. Benevidez scans the test score report to evaluate the complexity of language. She examines the overall structure of the report looking for key terminology and statements of student performance. Next, Ms. Benevidez considers the wording used in the document. She asks herself, “Is the report language clear and understandable?” Using the Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports, she indicates which potentially confusing terms are used in the report. She consults the definitions and records her own notes based on the examples provided to help her explain the concepts to Mwita’s parents when they meet to discuss the results.

Step 2: Interpret

The next step in the RISC process prompts teachers to interpret the visual data displays used in the report. High-stakes assessment reports often use a range of visual data displays, including multiple charts and graphs presented in a condensed format. When presented effectively, visual data displays of graphs and charts can help teachers and parents understand complex data quickly. However, ineffective visual data displays can negatively affect the ability of teachers and parents to understand the assessment results (Zenisky & Hambleton, 2012). Dense, cluttered data displays make it difficult for readers to interpret assessment results (Miller & Watkins, 2010). However, simple line graphs and clearly labeled bar charts have been found to be more effective means of visually presenting assessment data to parents (Miller & Watkins, 2010). High-stakes assessment score reports often contain limited descriptive information to help readers interpret the charts and graphs (Blackwell, 2015). The assumption seems to be that teachers and parents should be able to automatically interpret the results presented in these visual data displays. As we know from experience, this is seldom the case.

In Step 2 of the RISC process, teachers can use the Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports (see Table 2) and the examples in Figures 1 and 2 to assist with the deciphering of visual data displays. By closely examining the data displays, teachers can more accurately interpret the high-stakes assessment results. They are also better prepared to help parents understand the results and engage in collaborative planning.

Table 2.

Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports

Feature	Present in report?(circle)	Teacher notes
Simple and clean presentation	Y / N
Grid scale correctly proportioned	Y / N
Labels are accurate and clear	Y / N
Font size is readable	Y / N
Bars and lines can be easily differentiated by color or pattern	Y / N
Allows for easy comparison across variables	Y / N
Abbreviations and symbols explained in a key	Y / N

Figure 1.

Example of an effective data display

Figure 2.

Example of an ineffective data display

Figure 1 provides an example of an effective visual data display. The graphic is simple and clean, the grid scale is correctly proportioned, the labels are accurate, the font size is readable, the bars are differentiated by both color and pattern, and the data presentation allows for easy comparison among the appropriate variables of interest. Figure 2 lacks many of the qualities. The bars are clustered closely together, the grid scale starts at 50 and ends at 85 (instead of a 0-to-100 scale), the axes and bars are missing detailed labels, and the bars are not differentiated effectively by either color or pattern. This graph is much more difficult for both teachers and parents to interpret.

Interpreting the visual data displays is an important step in understanding the assessment results. In some cases, a close examination of the charts and graphs can lead to additional questions that teachers should clarify before communicating with parents. The following example from Ms. Benevidez illustrates how closely examining the visual data displays can both assist in understanding the results and lead to new and important questions about the interpretation of test results.

After completing the Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports in Step 1, Ms. Benevidez carefully reviews the visual displays of data (e.g., charts and graphs) presented in the test score report (Step 2). She uses the Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports and the accompanying examples to help her interpret the charts and graphs in Mwita’s score report. She records notes on the graphics, particularly regarding a bar chart that presents Mwita’s results on the reading assessment. Ms. Benevidez finds herself drawn to a short paragraph following the bar chart with the heading, “Interpreting the Report.” She believes this section may clarify Mwita’s scores in the bar chart. The report reads, “The Grade Equivalent (GE) for this student in Reading is 5.3. His Proficiency Level (PL) is Emerging.” She is confused because neither of these terms is in the actual bar chart.

The example above illustrates how score reports can unintentionally contribute to potentially confusing or misinterpreted information. The narrative description that accompanied the visual data displays introduced terminology not presented in the graphs. Without understanding the nuances of grade equivalent scores and proficiency level, parents and teachers might easily misinterpret an individual student’s school achievement and progress. In Ms. Benevidez’s case example, she had noted these terms in the Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports. As defined in Table 1, grade equivalent scores are a method for comparing a student’s score with the average number of correct responses at a specific grade level and point in the school year. Contrary to what many parents and teachers believe, grade equivalent scores do not indicate that a child is actually achieving at a specific grade level. Rather, grade equivalent scores allow the teacher to compare the individual’s number of correct responses with that of an average test taker. Standardized tests provide only a sampling of different types of skills, such as defining vocabulary terms and comprehending written passages. Thus, a student such as Mwita could get a higher score on the vocabulary section of the test but struggle significantly on the reading comprehension section. The grade-level equivalent for this portion of the test will not be a detailed, accurate reflection of his reading abilities.

A similar misunderstanding that can result from high-stakes assessment score reports involves the interpretation of proficiency levels. As defined in Table 1, proficiency levels are used to describe student performance in an academic domain. Tests frequently use terms such as advanced, proficient, emerging, and novice to indicate proficiency levels. Research has demonstrated that parents of children with disabilities can experience difficulties in interpreting these types of performance labels. The difficulties have been found both on high-stakes assessment reports (Blackwell, 2015) and on report cards and progress reports (Guskey & Bailey, 2010). Expert teachers report the importance of using strong examples to help explain and support parents’ understanding of academic skills (Guskey & Bailey, 2010). By using the Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports and the Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports, teachers such as Ms. Benevidez can begin to identify some of these problematic areas of high-stakes assessment reports and better prepare themselves to assist parents in understanding the results.

Step 3: Streamline

The third step in the RISC process encourages teachers to streamline the results of their work from Steps 1 and 2 in order to make connections between the high-stakes assessment results and other valuable pieces of assessment information available for the student. These additional and valuable data sources include results from universal screening tools, ongoing progress monitoring, recent diagnostic assessment results, and scores from the previous year’s high-stakes assessment report. For students with disabilities, there is sometimes a lack of connection between the high-stakes assessment results and implications for education planning (Towles-Reeves et al., 2009). By streamlining the results and making connections across assessment sources, teachers are able to form the crucial link between these data sources and educational planning (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012). Teachers will be better able to identify any potential changes to instruction and intervention based on the assessment results. They will also be more prepared to help parents understand how the high-stakes assessment results fit into the larger picture of ongoing assessment and intervention designed to achieve improved academic skill outcomes for their child.

In Step 3 of the RISC process, teachers can use the Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources to develop a single-page document that summarizes all relevant assessment information for a particular academic domain. The worksheet can help teachers make connections across various data sources, such as high-stakes assessments, universal screening and progress-monitoring assessments, and diagnostic assessments. This step can be completed for each academic domain tested on the high-stakes assessment. Table 3 includes a completed version of the Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources for Ms. Benevidez’s student, Mwita.

Table 3.

Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results

Assessment source	Summary of relevant data	Teacher notes
Student name: Mwita A.
Academic domain: Reading
Associated IEP goals:1) Given a seventh-grade-level reading passage, Mwita will use the text to identify the main idea and at least three supporting details in four out of five opportunities as measured through a weekly progress-monitoring tool on three consecutive occasions.2) Given a seventh-grade-level reading passage, Mwita will use context clues provided in the passage to determine the meaning of unfamiliar words in four out of five opportunities as measured through a weekly progress-monitoring tool on three consecutive occasions.
Recent statewide high-stakes reading assessment (seventh grade)	Percentile score of 58.2 on Key Ideas subtest.Percentile score of 64.4 on Vocabulary subtest.Composite results were “5.3” grade equivalent and “emerging” for proficiency level.	Mwita’s performance is comparatively lower on this test than on progress-monitoring assessments. However, he improved from last year’s statewide test. Clarify the composite results to avoid misinterpretation of the grade equivalent score.
Previous statewide high-stakes reading assessment (sixth grade)	Percentile score of 48.5 on Key Ideas subtest.Percentile score of 52.1 correct on Vocabulary subtest.Composite results were “4.1” grade equivalent and “emerging” for proficiency level.	Highlight this to his parents. Mwita has improved in both areas since last spring’s test.
Universal screening (three times per school year)	For main idea and details, his percentile scores have steadily improved this year (62.1, 68.3, 74.2).For vocabulary, his percentile scores have also improved (69.1, 75.3, 76.1).	His results are better on the universal screeners than on the high-stakes assessment. He is steadily improving, but we need to consider additional strategies for continuing growth, particularly related to main idea and details.
Ongoing progress monitoring (weekly)	For main idea and details, he scored between 72.1% and 81.3% correct over the past 4 weeks.For vocabulary, he scored between 75.0% and 82.1% correct over the past 4 weeks.	Although he is making progress, Mwita probably will not meet his IEP goal related to main idea and details. However, his progress toward the vocabulary goal looks promising.
Most recent diagnostic assessment (2 years ago)	As of the most recent reevaluation conducted 2 years ago, testing showed marked difficulties in reading comprehension and reading vocabulary.	Mwita’s reevaluation is next school year. Based on other assessment sources, I anticipate considerable improvement.
Recommended action steps: We should explore additional strategies for helping Mwita improve his reading comprehension skills. Our recent interventions have focused on story mapping, paraphrasing strategies, and building his vocabulary knowledge. In addition to continuing with these strategies, we can use collaborative strategic reading [Capin & Vaughn, 2017]. There is evidence of its effectiveness at the middle and high school levels. This strategy can be used in both the inclusive classroom and the learning support center. We will also focus more on text-based vocabulary instruction [Swanson, Vaughn, & Wexler, 2017], as that has been demonstrated to help students in secondary school.

Note. IEP = individualized education program.

Ms. Benevidez starts with Mwita’s results on the reading test. After examining his high-stakes assessment score report for the reading test, Ms. Benevidez reviews Mwita’s current IEP and compiles data from multiple assessment sources. She imagines that Mwita’s parents may wonder how all of the different assessments that were discussed at the last IEP meeting fit together. As she reviews these data, she takes notes on the Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources so that she can present cohesive, organized information to the parents. In reading, she notes that Mwita performs better on universal screening and progress-monitoring assessments than he does on the statewide high-stakes assessment. He is demonstrating progress toward both related IEP goals (vocabulary and main ideas), but Ms. Benevidez feels that the data indicate a need for additional strategies for helping him improve his reading comprehension. She writes down recommendations based on recent research to share with his parents at their upcoming meeting.

Parents sometimes have difficulty finding meaning and usefulness in high-stakes assessment results (Blackwell, 2015; Towles-Reeves et al., 2009; Wyn et al., 2014). By closely examining the results and making connections across assessment sources, teachers can be better prepared to help parents understand how high-stakes assessment results fit into the larger picture of their child’s education. As in the case of Ms. Benevidez, teachers may be able to identify needed changes to intervention and instruction. In this example, her analysis of Mwita’s reading performance from multiple assessment sources consistently indicated that it would be appropriate to try new interventions to support his reading comprehension skills. She then consulted the available research to identify potential interventions and instructional approaches. Having a streamlined picture of the student’s high-stakes assessment results, in tandem with other assessment sources, will allow teachers to target areas for intervention and make recommendations for the use of evidence-based practices.

Step 4: Communicate

The last step in the RISC process is to effectively communicate the student’s high-stakes assessment results to the parents in order to facilitate collaborative planning and shared educational decision making. This step involves soliciting parent input to develop an agenda, organizing the information gathered in Steps 1 through 3, and meeting directly with the parents. Parents do not always view themselves as informed members of the special education process (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). They benefit from the use of nontechnical language and engaging in preferred methods of communication, such as in-person meetings for which parents are provided with relevant information in advance (Tucker & Schwartz, 2014; Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013). In the case of high-stakes assessment score results, parents have reported that the most effective method for understanding their child’s scores is to meet with teachers directly to review the results (Blackwell, 2017).

When reaching out to parents, it is helpful for teachers to encourage them to identify potential questions that they would like to discuss.

Timing

The timing of a meeting to examine the results with parents will depend on the parents’ preferences and if there are any previously scheduled meetings, such as an upcoming IEP meeting. Ideally, teachers and parents will meet soon after the high-stakes assessment score reports have been issued (Blackwell, 2017). In some cases, this might mean scheduling a meeting specifically for this purpose. However, teachers and parents might find it worthwhile to wait until the next IEP meeting or next regularly scheduled parent–teacher conference session. Scheduling meetings at times that are convenient for parents will increase the chances for their active participation (Zeitlin & Curcic, 2013).

Parental input

In addition to determining the timing of a meeting, an important part of the planning process is to seek out parental input. When parents have the opportunity to contribute in advance to upcoming conversations and meeting agendas, they are more actively involved (Esquivel, Ryan, & Bonner, 2008). Teachers need to keep in mind the family’s cultural, economic, and language background when reaching out to schedule a meeting to review assessment results. Some parents can be contacted by phone, whereas others are more accessible through e-mail or even a home visit. When reaching out to parents, it is helpful for teachers to encourage them to identify potential questions that they would like to discuss. The teacher can provide suggestions for parents, stating, “In the past, parents have raised these questions during the meeting:

How do you think [name] is doing in school?

What does [name] do well in school?

What specific skills does [name] need to improve?

What can teachers do to help [name] improve in [subject area]?

What do [name]’s test results mean for next year?”

It is important for teachers to encourage parents to express their concerns and questions both before and during the meeting. Some parents may feel comfortable sticking to these questions, whereas others may use these questions as a springboard for further discussion. Teachers will want to follow up with parents before the meeting to ensure their immediate questions are reflected in the meeting agenda.

Facilitation guide

In the final step of the RISC process, teachers can use the Facilitation Guide for Discussing High-Stakes Assessment Results With Parents (see Table 4) to prepare for and guide the meeting with parents. The Facilitation Guide is designed to encourage teachers to bring together their work from Steps 1 through 3 in the RISC process in order to lead a productive, parent-friendly, collaborative meeting. The first element of the Facilitation Guide outlines materials to prepare in advance of the meeting, including the parents’ questions, the high-stakes assessment score report, and notes from all three previous steps.

Table 4.

Facilitation Guide for Discussing High-Stakes Assessment Results With Parents

Agenda:	Discussion points:	Notes:
Materials to prepare in advance:	• Parents’ specific questions• High-stakes assessment score report• Notes from Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports• Notes from Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports• Completed Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources for each academic domain
1. Preview agenda and parents’ questions	• Explain purpose of meeting• Preview the agenda• Preview the parents’ questions and identify where in meeting agenda they will be addressed
2. Purpose of high-stakes assessments	• Purpose of assessments• When and how testing was conducted• Potential consequences (e.g., grade promotion, graduation)• Answer parents’ questions
3. Testing accommodations	• Accommodations used during testing• Examples of how they were implemented• Importance of accommodations for transition into postsecondary school and employment• Answer parents’ questions
4. Results of high-stakes assessments	• Summary of student performance• Clarify testing terminology (refer to Tool for Evaluating Terminology in High-Stakes Assessment Reports)• Interpret visual data displays (refer to Checklist for Effective Visual Data Displays on High-Stakes Assessment Score Reports)• Answer parents’ questions
5. Discuss implications for educational planning	• Examine connections to other assessment data (refer to Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources) for each academic domain• Consider potential implications, including need for additional evidence-based interventions or revisions to IEP• Answer parents’ questions

Note. IEP = individualized education program

The other sections in the Facilitation Guide are designed to help structure the conversation. We recommend that teachers begin the meeting by previewing the agenda and parents’ questions. At this juncture, the teacher and parents can mutually identify at what points in the meeting the parents’ questions will be addressed. Some questions may need to be addressed up front, whereas other questions may be addressed at junctures already identified in the agenda.

The next phase of the meeting should focus on the purposes of the high-stakes assessment and the implications of the results. The teacher can outline the purposes of their state’s high-stakes assessment test program and discuss any implications of the results, such as grade-level promotion or graduation. As the meeting facilitator, the teacher should provide parents with a clear and detailed description of all testing accommodations used by the student during the actual testing. It is important to remind parents of the agreed-upon testing accommodations identified at the annual IEP meeting and to provide detailed examples of how the accommodations were incorporated into the testing sessions. This conversation provides an opportunity to emphasize the importance of testing accommodations, particularly as students prepare to transition into postsecondary education and employment (Connor, 2012).

The next step for helping parents make sense of the assessment results is to present a summary of the student’s performance, clarify any potentially confusing terminology as identified in Step 1, and interpret the visual data displays from Step 2. Using the completed Worksheet for Streamlining High-Stakes Assessment Results With Other Assessment Sources for each academic domain developed in Step 3, teachers and parents can make connections across various data sources. When viewed as a systematic process for providing actionable feedback, the assessment data can guide instructional planning decisions.

Throughout the meeting, it is essential that teachers pause to give parents an opportunity to digest the information, clarify their understanding, and ask questions. Following the meeting, teachers should contact the parents to see if there are additional questions or concerns that can be addressed.

After talking with Mwita’s parents on the phone to schedule a meeting and identify their specific questions, Ms. Benevidez uses the Facilitation Guide for Discussing High-Stakes Assessment Results With Parents to prepare for their upcoming meeting. She organizes her notes for each agenda item, rehearsing the conversation in her mind so that she feels prepared to explain the assessment results in parent-friendly language. Because Mwita’s most notable area for skill improvement is reading comprehension, she researches potential interventions and prepares to explain to his parents how these strategies can be implemented. At the meeting, she finds that much of their time is spent going through the results. Mwita’s parents are pleased with his improvement in all academic areas and agree with Ms. Benevidez’s recommendations on new interventions to improve his reading comprehension. They mutually agree to continue the discussion at his next IEP meeting that is scheduled to be held the following month.

Concluding Thoughts

Through the RISC process (Review, Interpret, Streamline, and Communicate), special educators can be better prepared to collaborate with parents to interpret and use the results of statewide high-stakes assessments for students with disabilities. The RISC process provides teachers with strategies and tools to assist them in evaluating the degree to which their state’s assessment score reports align with research and recommended practices for reporting assessment results to parents, and in interpreting and communicating the results to parents. By using this approach, teachers and parents can be better equipped to accurately interpret the reports and to navigate the pressures that accompany high-stakes assessment results and potential implications for educational planning.

Footnotes

Funding

The author(s) received no financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

William Blackwell, Assistant Professor, School of Teaching and Learning, and Nancy Stockall, Professor, School of Teaching and Learning, Sam Houston State University, Huntsville, TX.

References

Blackwell

(2015). Communicating the results of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) to parents and teachers of students with significant disabilities. In Bowman

(Ed.), Special education: Developments, teaching strategies, and parental involvement (pp. 81–108). Hauppauge, NY: Nova Science.

Blackwell

(2017). Strategies to help parents understand and utilize their child’s STARR Alternate 2 results. DiaLog, 46, 4–6.

Connor

D. J.

(2012). Helping students with disabilities transition to college: 21 tips for students with LD and/or ADD/ADHD. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 44, 16–25. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204400502

Capin

Vaughn

(2017). Improving reading and social studies learning for secondary students with reading disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49, 249–261. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917691043

Esquivel

S. L.

Ryan

C. S.

Bonner

(2008). Involved parents’ perceptions of their experiences in school-based team meetings. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 18, 234–258. https://doi.org/10.1080/10474410802022589

Farrall

M. L.

Wright

P. D.

Wright

P. W. D.

(2014). All about tests and assessments: Answers to frequently asked questions. Hartfield, VA: Harbor House Law Press.

Fuchs

L. S.

Vaughn

(2012). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219412442150

Guskey

T. R.

Bailey

J. M.

(2010). Developing standards-based report cards. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.

Miller

J. A.

Watkins

M. W.

(2010). The use of graphs to communicate psychoeducational test results to parents. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 26, 1–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/15377900903175911

10.

Schwerdt

West

M. R.

Winters

M. A.

(2017). The effects of test-based retention on student outcomes over time: Regression discontinuity evidence from Florida. Journal of Public Economics, 152, 154–169. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jpubeco.2017.06.004

11.

Swanson

Vaughn

Wexler

(2017). Enhancing adolescents’ comprehension of text by building vocabulary knowledge. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 50, 84–94. http://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917720777

12.

Towles-Reeves

Kleinert

Muhomba

(2009). Alternate assessment: Have we learned anything new? Exceptional Children, 75, 233–252. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290907500206

13.

Tucker

Schwartz

(2013). Parents’ perspectives on collaboration with school professionals: Barriers and facilitators to successful partnerships in planning for students with ASD. School Mental Health, 5, 3–14. https://doi.org/10.1007/s12310-012-9102-0

14.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016a). Number and percent of students Grades 3 through 8 and high school, served under IDEA, Part B, who participated in reading and math assessments, by assessment type and state [Data file]. Retrieved from https://www2.ed.gov/programs/osepidea/618-data/static-tables/index.html

15.

U.S. Department of Education. (2016b). Skills of U.S. unemployed, young, and older adults in sharp focus: Results from the Program for the International Assessment of Adult Competencies (PIAAC). Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2016039rev

16.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). Course credit requirements and exit exam requirements for a standard high school diploma and the use of other high school completion credentials, by state: 2013. Retrieved from https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d15/tables/dt15_234.30.asp

17.

Wyn

Turnbull

Grimshaw

(2014). The experience of education: The impacts of high stakes testing on school students and their families. Melbourne, Australia: Whitlam Institute.

18.

Zeitlin

V. M.

Curcic

(2013). Parental voices on individualized education programs: “Oh, IEP meeting tomorrow? Rum tonight!” Disability & Society, 29, 372–387. https://doi.org/10.1080/09687599.2013.776493

19.

Zenisky

A. L.

Hambleton

R. K.

(2012). Developing test score reports that work: The process and best practices for effective communication. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 31(2), 21–26. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1745-3992.2012.00231.x