Alternate assessments have been used for the last 10 years to evaluate schools' efforts to teach children with significant cognitive disabilities. However, few studies have examined the reading skills of children who participate in these assessments. The purpose of this study was to extend understanding of the reading skills of this population by administering early-grade word and passage reading fluency curriculum-based measures to a sample of 7,440 students in Grades 3 through 8 and 11. Overall, the performance on curriculum-based measures and the relationship with alternate assessment performance varied based upon disability, grade, and level of alternate assessment. The authors discuss implications for test developers and teachers along with future directions for research.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Al OtaibaS.HospM. K. (2004). Providing effective literacy instruction to students with Down syndrome. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 36(4), 28–35.
2.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.CheathamJ. P.ChamplinT. M. (2010). Comprehensive reading instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Findings from the first three years of a longitudinal study. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 445–466. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20482.
3.
AllorJ. H.MathesP. G.RobertsJ. K.JonesF. G.ChamplinT. M. (2010). Teaching students with moderate intellectual disabilities to read: An experimental examination of a comprehensive reading intervention. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 45(1), 3–22.
4.
AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2009). Alternate form and test-retest reliability of easyCBM reading measures: Technical report #0906. Eugene, OR: Behavioral Research and Teaching.
5.
AlonzoJ.TindalG. (2010). Teachers' manual for regular easyCBM: Getting the most out of the system. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon.
6.
AltmanJ. R.LazarusS. S.QuenemoenR. F.KearnsJ.QuenemoenM.ThurlowM. L. (2010). 2009 survey of states: Accomplishments and new issues at the end of a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
7.
BrowderD. M.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG.GibbsS. L.FlowersC. (2008). Evaluation of the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilties. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–52.
8.
BrowderD. M.GibbsS.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.CourtadeG. R.MrazM.FlowersC. (2009). Literacy for students with severe developmental disabilities: What should we teach and what should we hope to achieve?. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 269–282. doi: 10.1177/0741932508315054.
9.
BrowderD. M.WakemanS. Y.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.AlgozzineR. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392–408.
10.
BruceS. M. (2011). Severe and multiple disabilities. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 291–303). New York, NY: Routledge.
11.
ChoH.KingstonN. (2011). Capturing implicit policy from NCLB test type assignments of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 58–72.
12.
ConnersF. A.AtwellJ. A.RosenquistC. J.SlighA. C. (2001). Abilities underlying decoding differences in children with intellectual disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 45, 292–299. http://dx.doi.org/10.1046/j.1365-2788.2001.00319.x.
13.
DenoS. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S. (1995). What's “special” about special education?. Phi Delta Kappan, 76, 522–530.
18.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The ‘blurring’ of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.
19.
FuchsL. S.FuchsD.HamlettC. L. (2007). Using curriculum-based measurement to inform reading instruction. Reading and Writing, 20, 553–567. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11145-007-9051-4.
20.
GerberM. M. (2011). A history of special education. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 2–14). New York, NY: Routledge.
21.
GoodR. H.JeffersonG. (1998). Contemporary perspectives on curriculum-based measurement validity. In ShinnM. R. (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 61–88). New York, NY: Guilford.
22.
GoodR. H.KaminskiR. A. (2003). DIBELS: Dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (6th ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.
23.
HospM. K.HospJ. L.HowellK. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York, NY: Guilford.
24.
KatimsD. S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education & Training in Mental Retardation & Developmental Disabilities, 35(1), 3–15.
25.
KearnsJ. F.Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH. L.KleinertJ. O.ThomasM. K. (2011). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 45, 3–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466909344223.
26.
KliewerC.BiklenD.Kasa-HendricksonC. (2006). Who may be literate? Disability and resistance to the cultural denial of competence. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 163–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312043002163.
27.
LeafM. (1936). The story of Ferdinand. New York, NY: Viking Press.
28.
LeafM. (1953). Reading can be fun. Philadelphia, PA: Lippincott.
29.
LemonsC. J.FuchsD. (2010). Modeling response to reading intervention in children with Down syndrome: An examination of predictors of differential growth. Reading Research Quarterly, 45, 134–168. http://dx.doi.org/10.1598/RRQ.45.2.1.
30.
LemonsC. J.KlooA.ZigmondN. (2011). Implementing modified achievement tests: Questions, challenges, pretending, and potential negative consequences. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 295–317). New York, NY: Springer.
31.
LemonsC. J.KlooA.ZigmondN.FulmerD.LuppL. (2012). Implementing an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards: When policy meets practice. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 59, 67–79. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/1034912X.2012.654963.
32.
NationK.ClarkeP.WrightB.WilliamsC. (2006). Patterns of reading ability in children with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 36, 911–919. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-006-0130-1.
33.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
34.
QuenemoenR. (2008). A brief history of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (Synthesis Report 68). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
35.
ShinnM. R. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
36.
SkibaR. J.SimmonsA. B.RitterS.GibbA. C.RauschM. K.CaudradoJ.ChungC. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.
37.
SteckerP. M.FuchsL. S.FuchsD. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795–819. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/pits.20113.
38.
TindalG.McDonaldM.TedescoM.GlasgowA.AlmondP.CrawfordL.HollenbeckK. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481–494.
39.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.KleinertH.KleinertJ. (2009). An analysis of the learning characteristics of students taking alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 241–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0022466907313451.
40.
Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH.MuhombaM. (2009). Alternate assessment: Have we learned anything new?. Exceptional Children, 75, 233–252.
41.
U.S. Department of Education. (2010). ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington, DC: United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy.
42.
WallaceT.TicháR.GustafsonK. (2010). Technical characteristics of general outcome measures (GOMs) in reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 26, 333–360. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2010.500264.
43.
WaymanM. M.WallaceT.WileyH. I.TicháR.EspinC. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85–129. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/00224669070410020401.
44.
WeiX.BlackorbyJ.SchillerE. (2011). Growth in reading achievement of students with disabilities, ages 7 to 17. Exceptional Children, 78(1), 89–106.
45.
WeigertS. C. (2011). U.S. policies supporting inclusive assessments for students with disabilities. In ElliottS. N.KettlerR. J.BeddowP. A.KurzA. (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students: Bridging the gaps between research, practice, and policy (pp. 19–32). New York, NY: Springer.
46.
WeismerS. E.LordC.EslerA. (2010). Early language patterns of toddlers on the autism spectrum compared to toddlers with developmental delay. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 40, 1259–1273. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10803-010-0983-1.
47.
WhalonK. J.HartJ. E. (2011). Children with autism specturm disorder and literacy instruction: An exploratory study of elementary inclusive settings. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 243–255. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0741932510362174.
48.
YovanoffP.TindalG. (2007). Scaling early reading alternate assessments with statewide measures. Exceptional Children, 73, 184–201.
49.
ZigmondN.KlooA. (2009). The “two percent students”: Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 478–495. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/01619560903240855.
50.
ZigmondN.KlooA. (2011). General and special education are (and should be) different. In KauffmanJ. M.HallahanD. P. (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 160–172). New York, NY: Routledge.
