Figure 1

About Quality Assurance Review (QAR)

The 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) offered Michigan an opportunity for special education service providers to support systemic education reform. As a result, the Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS) implemented a three-year action research project using the QAR process. The MDE extended the project to a fourth year in 2003.

Throughout the project years, QAR coordinators have continually monitored the school’s progress, changing and building the program based on school data. In this way, they have modeled what they want teachers and schools to do for children with disabilities.

At the end of the project’s fourth year, QAR pilot schools have completed student case study research for 72 students with disabilities, implementing data-driven individualized educational programs (IEPs) using a QAR process for each student. Teachers report they are also applying the knowledge they’ve gained through the action research with additional students. The results, according to participant reports, are that ALL students are learning more, as measured by a variety of assessment data: text-based, curricula-based, informal teacher assessment and standardized tests.

The QAR process aligns with all state and federal legislation focused on improving the performance of students with disabilities.

Source: Quality Assurance Review, Mentoring Guide 2003-2004, Revised 6/17/03, Michigan Department of Education (MDE), Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services (OSE/EIS).

Return to Text

Figure 2

8 Components of QAR

Return to Text

Figure 3

How did Quality Assurance Review (QAR) work in the pilot school sites?

1. School-based teams collected student data from multiple sources. At each pilot site, the special education service provider collected 12 assessments and their respective results for three students with different disabilities. The12 assessments comprised three different assessments from each of the four core content areas identified in the Michigan Curriculum Framework. (Triangulating comparable data of ten items or more is statistically reliable, is compatible with North Central Accreditation (NCA) requirements, and fulfills federal and state compliance regulations.)
   
2. School-based teams compared the data. Through random selection, the teams analyzed one question answered incorrectly by the student from each of the 12 assessments from the four core content areas (see list of the types of assessments pilot schools used). The teams analyzed this data (assessment question) to identify the universal skills (see Figure 4) that the student needed to know and be able to do to answer the question correctly. Teams selected three to five universal skills that repeatedly appeared throughout all core content areas as the focus for the student’s learning and basis for developing the student’s IEP (see Figure 5 for information about universal skills).
   
3. School-based teams collaborated with parents/guardians. The data analysis was shared with parents/guardians of the students with disabilities. Parents/guardians were also invited to share their own observations about the universal skills their child used effectively or struggled to use at home. This input became part of the decision-making data set used to write a quality IEP.
   
4. School-based teams prepared for a quality IEP. Using the QAR data-based decision-making process, the team used the student’s universal skills and descriptors in a number of ways: to describe the student’s present level of educational performance (PLEP); to develop a suggested quality annual goal to access and progress in the general curriculum; to develop suggested quality short-term objectives for the IEP; and to develop a suggested quality statement of progress. Pilot participants surveyed parents/guardians to measure whether they believed their input was valued and used in developing their child’s IEP.
   
5. The school-based teams determined measures to evaluate the student’s progress. In collaboration with general education teachers, QAR teams identified three different assessments to measure a student’s progress toward achieving the annual goal and its short-term objectives in each core content area. In addition, pilot participants developed charts identifying the assessments and the results, which were sent to the parent/guardian with the same frequency as progress reports for all students in the school.
   

Return to Text

Figure 4

What Are Universal Skills?

This action research project used a framework of seven universal skills inherent in the development of critical thinking patterns: 1) Apply, 2) Reason, 3) Categorize, 4) Communicate, 5) Imagine, 6) Problem Solve, and 7) Organize.

The descriptor skills can be used to specifically focus the student’s need to learn a universal skill. For a student with disabilities, the identification of a universal skill and/or descriptors is based upon an analysis of a random sampling of assessment questions the student answered incorrectly. The universal skills and/or descriptors determine the critical thinking patterns the student needs to learn the general education curriculum.

The universal skills and their descriptors were developed through a comprehensive analysis of the core content standards and benchmarks in the Michigan Curriculum Framework; extensive research literature (see Bibliography); and two years of action research (see Figure 5).

Source: Preparing a Quality Individualized Education Program for a Student with Disabilities, Revised 11/1/03, MDE, OSE/EIS.

Return to Text

Figure 5

How Were the Universal Skills and/or Descriptors Developed?

1. In 2001, Quality Assurance Review (QAR) project manager Kathy Bradford conducted a comprehensive horizontal and vertical analysis of the core content and content standards and benchmarks, as described in the Michigan Curriculum Framework. She used this analysis to identify the skills a student needs to know to achieve the standards and benchmarks.
   
2. That same year, Bradford, along with QAR consultant Jim Newnum, applied extensive research to the project (see Bibliography) which included, but was not limited to, concept-based education, differentiated learning, skill-based learning, meta-cognition, and right- and left-brain learning.
   
3. For two years, QAR pilot study school sites field-tested application of the universal skills and/or descriptors as a basis for developing a quality IEP to improve the performance of students with disabilities.

The universal skills and/or descriptors are designed to transcend all curriculum and education settings to ensure that the student’s learning of the general curriculum is transferable to all content areas in all settings.

To test the application of the universal skills and/or descriptors in preparing a quality IEP, action research was conducted in six QAR pilot study school sites. The results—as measured by text-based, curriculum based, and standardized assessment—indicate significant improvement for students with disabilities.

Source: Preparing a Quality Individualized Education Program for a Student with Disabilities, Revised 11/1/03, MDE, OSE/EIS.

Return to Text