Since the implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 states have experienced continual change in how they define and implement alternate assessments. A subset of 16 states was randomly selected to determine how each state is implementing alternate assessments and achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Telephone interviews were conducted from January to August 2005, and a 32-item questionnaire was used to collect information on alternate assessment procedures. This article focuses on the ways states are interpreting how students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are held to the same content standards as their peers without disabilities, whether states exert quality control over the administration of the alternate assessments, and the costs of implementing alternate assessments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BechardS. (2001). Models for reporting the results of alternate assessments within state accountability systems (Synthesis Report 39). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 6, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs?Synthesis39.html.
2.
BrowderD. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford.
3.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (April, 2002). How states define alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
4.
BrowderD.FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.KarvonenM.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37, 211–233.
5.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.AlgozzineR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–61.
6.
BurdetteP. (2001). Alternate assessments: Early highlights and pitfalls of reporting. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26 (2), 61–66.
7.
CorbettH. D.DawsonJ. L.FirestoneW. A. (1984). School context and school change. New York: Teachers College Press.
8.
CrossenS.GarrettB.HurteM.PetersD. (December, 2002). Perspectives from Kentucky and Delaware on scoring assessment portfolios. Paper presented at the 2002 Annual TASH Conference, Boston, MA.
KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2001). Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
14.
KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2004). Alternate assessments. In OreloveF. P.SobseyD.SilbermanR. K. (Eds.), Educating children with multiple disabilities (4th ed., pp. 115–149). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
15.
MarshallC.RossmanG. B. (1999). Designing qualitative research. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
QuenemoenR.RigneyS.ThurlowM. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting accountability systems: Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Education Outcomes.
18.
QuenemoenR.ThompsonS.ThurlowM. (2003). Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria (Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 3, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.
19.
SchillerE.BobronnikovE.Brown-LyonsM.BurnaskaK.BursteinN.FrittsJ. (2004). The study of state and local implementation and impact of the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Draft—2nd interim report. Bethesda, MD: Abt Associates.
20.
ThompsonS.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.YsseldykeJ. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM. L. (2001). 2001 State special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
23.
TindalG. (2001). How will assessments accommodate students with disabilities?. In LissitzR. W.SchaferW. D. (Eds.), Assessments in educational reform (pp. 100–123). New York: Allyn & Bacon.
TowlesE. A.GarrettB.BurdetteP.BurdgeM. (2003). What are the consequences? Validation of large-scale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instruction. Lexington: University of Kentucky. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED478482).
26.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Retrieved August 6, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf.
27.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory Guidance. Retrieved September 1, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/saa.html#guidance.
28.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005b, May). Press Release: Spellings announces new special education guidelines, details workable, “common-sense” policy to help states implement No Child Left Behind. Retrieved August 6, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/news/pressreleases/2005/05/05102005.html.
