With the passage of No Child Left Behind and the start of the high-stakes accountability movement, it has become increasingly important that teachers are able to appropriately assess all students, including those who qualify for alternate assessments. If suitable assessment is occurring, teachers can use these data to help improve student performance to meet both individualized education program (IEP) goals and state standards. In this study, which was conducted with teachers in an urban system within a high-stakes accountability state, students' alternate assessment scores improved when teachers received training on instructional practices. In addition, students who did well on alternate assessments also showed growth in direct observation of performance of their IEP objectives.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AgranM.AlperS.WehmeyerM. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.
2.
AyresB. J.MeyerL. H.ErevellesN.Park-LeeS. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84–93.
3.
BelfioreP. J.BrowderD. M. (1992). The effects of self-monitoring on teacher's data-based decisions and on the progress of adults with severe mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 60–67.
4.
BrowderD.DemchakM. A.HellerM.KingD. (1991). An in vivo evaluation of data-based rules to guide instructional decisions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 234–240.
5.
BrowderD.LibertyK.HellerM.D'HuyvettersK. (1986). Self-management to improve teachers' instructional decisions. Professional School Psychology, 1, 165–175.
6.
BrowderD. M. (Ed). (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilites. New York: Guilford Press.
7.
BrowderD. M.Cooper-DuffyK. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the NCLB requirement for adequate yearly progress in reading, math, and science. Journal of Special Education, 37, 157–163.
8.
BrowderD. M.FallinK.DavisS.KarvonenM. (2003). A consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255–270.
9.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.AlgozzineR.KarvonenM. (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28, 105–181.
10.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–61.
11.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12.
FarlowS. J.SnellM. E. (1989). Teacher use of student performance data to make instructional decisions: Practices in programs for students with moderate to profound disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 13–22.
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
14.
KampferS.HorvathL.KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment portfolio program: Implications for practice and teacher preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361–374.
15.
KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F.KennedyS. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons With Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.
16.
KleinertH. L.ThurlowM. L. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessment. In KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
17.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
18.
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (September, 2002). The North Carolina State Testing Results. Raleigh, NC: Public Schools of North Carolina.
19.
QuenemoenR.ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2003). Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 31, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.
20.
ThompsonS.ThurlowM. L. (2001). 2001 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 5, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/onlinedefault.html.
21.
Title I — Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68,698 (Dec. 9, 2003) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200).
