This study examined the learner characteristics and performance scores of students in the 2009 alternate assessment-modified achievement standard for one Midwestern state. Comparing performance differences by disability category for each content area from the students' 2008 test type assignments and performance scores facilitated examining the appropriateness of the 2009 test type assignment. The results raise concerns because some students with disabilities seemed to have been inappropriately assigned to test type. Students with intellectual disabilities had the lowest performances across grade level and subject area. Limitations and implications of this study are discussed and suggestions for future research are offered.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AltmanJ. R.LazarusS. S.ThurlowM. L.QuenemoenR. F.CuthbertM.CormierD. C. (2008). 2007 survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
2.
BeddowP. A.KettlerR. J.ElliottS. N. (2008). Test accessibility and modification inventory (TAMI). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University. Retrieved from http://peabody.vanderbilt.edu/tami.xml.
3.
ClarkR.NguyenF.SwellerJ. (2006). Efficiency in learning: Evidence-based guidelines to manage cognitive load. San Francisco, CA: Pfeiffer.
4.
DomaleskiC. (2009). Operational and accountability issues. In PerieM. (Ed.), Considerations for the Alternate Assessment based on Modified Achievement Standards (AA-MAS): Understanding the eligible population and applying that knowledge to their instruction and assessment. A white paper commissioned by the New York Comprehensive Center in collaboration with the New York State Education Department (pp. 334–363). Retrieved from https://www.cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/AAMAS/AAMASwhitePaper.pdf.
5.
DonnellanA. (1984). The criterion of the least dangerous assumption. Behavior Disorders, 9, 141–150.
6.
ElliottS. N.KurzA.BeddowP.FreyJ. (2009, February). Cognitive load theory and universal design principles: Applications to test item development. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP) Annual Convention, Boston, MA.
7.
FilbinJ. (2008). Lessons from the initial peer review of alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education Student Achievement and School Accountability Program. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/AAMAS/2percentLessonsAAMAS.pdf.
8.
FuchsL.SeethalerP. M.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2008). Using curriculum-based measurement to identify the 2% population. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 153–161. doi:10.1177/1044207308327471.
9.
Georgia Department of Education. (2005–2006). Georgia Performance Standards (GPS) for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Retrieved from http://gadoe.georgiastandards.org/impairment.aspx.
10.
JohnstoneC.ThurlowM.MooreM.AltmanJ. (2006). Using systematic item selection to improve universal design of assessments (Policy Directions 18). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
11.
JosephL. M.EveleighE. L. (2009). A review of the effects of self-monitoring on reading performance of students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 20, 1–11.
12.
KleinertH.ThurlowM. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessment. In KleinertH.KearnsJ. (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.
13.
LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.ThurlowM. L. (2006). How students access accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers (Issue Brief 7). College Park, MD: University of Maryland, Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
14.
NCLB Regulations, 34 C.F.R. § 200 et seq. (2007).
15.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2006).
16.
PellegrinoJ. W.ChudowskyN. J.GlaserR. (Eds.). (2001). Knowing what students know: The science and design of educational assessment. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
17.
ThurlowM. L. (2008). Assessment and instructional implications of the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 132–139. doi:10.1177/1044207308327473.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007, July 20), Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc.
