The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) requires that states have alternate assessments in place by the year 2000. Personnel in departments of education are working on the development of alternate assessments that are to be used in accounting for the performance and progress of students with disabilities who do not participate in the typical state assessments. In this article, we define alternate assessment, describe methods that can be used to collect data, and describe domains in which data should be collected. We report the results of a focus group study in which teachers delineated ways in which data might be collected using each of the methods in each of the domains. We provide a set of initial thoughts that could serve as a starting point for designing alternate assessments.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrownL.BranstonM. B.Hamre-NeitupskiS.PumianI.CertoN.GrunewaldL. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological age appropriate and functional curriculum content for severely handicapped adolescents and adults. Journal of Special Education, 13, 81–90.
2.
ElliottJ. L.ThurlowM. L.YsseldykeJ. E. (1996). Assessment guidelines that maximize the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: Characteristics and considerations (Synthesis Report 25). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 803).
3.
EricksonR.ThurlowM.ThorK. (1995). State special education outcomes, 1994. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 404 799).
4.
EricksonR. N.ThurlowM. L.ThorK. A.SeyfarthA. (1996). State special education outcomes, 1995. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 385 061).
5.
FalveyM. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.*
6.
FordA.SchnorrR.MeyerL.DavernL.BlackJ.DempseyP. (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide. Baltimore: Brookes.*
7.
FreyW.BurkeD.JakworthP.LynchL.SumpterM. L. (1996a). Addressing unique educational needs of individuals with disabilities: Educational performance expectations for achieving full independence in major life roles: AUEN 3.0. Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.*
8.
FreyW.BurkeD.JakworthP.LynchL.SumpterM. L. (1996b). Addressing unique educational needs of individuals with disabilities: Educational performance expectations for achieving functional independence in major life roles: AUEN 3.0. Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.*
9.
FreyW.BurkeD.JakworthP.LynchL.SumpterM. L. (1996c). Addressing unique educational needs of individuals with disabilities: Educational performance expectations for achieving supported independence in major life roles: AUEN 3.0. Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.*
10.
FreyW.BurkeD.JakworthP.LynchL.SumpterM. L. (1996d). Addressing unique educational needs of individuals with disabilities: Educational performance expectations for achieving participation in major life roles: AUEN 3.0. Lansing, MI: Disability Research Systems.*
11.
GiangrecoM.CloningerC.IversonV. (1993). Choosing options and accommodations for children: A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Brookes.*
12.
HaighJ. (1996). Maryland's pilot alternate assessment checklist. Baltimore: Maryland State Department of Education.*
13.
KleinertH.KearnsJ. F.KennedyS. (1996). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio Assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.
14.
KokaskaC. J.BrolinD. E. (1985). Career education for handicapped individuals (2nd ed.). New York: Merrill/Macmillan.*
15.
MercerC. D.MercerA. R. (1993). Teaching students with learning problems (4th ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.*
16.
RoeberE.BondL.BraskampD. (1997). Annual survey of state student assessment programs. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.*
VanderwoodM.YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM. (1993). Consensus building: A process for selecting educational outcomes and indicators (Outcomes and Indicators No. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
19.
YsseldykeJ. E.OlsenK.ThurlowM. (1997). Issues and considerations in alternate assessments (Synthesis Report 27). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 415 656).
20.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. L.McGrewK. S.ShrinerJ. G. (1994). Recommendations for making decisions about the participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessment programs: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines for statewide assessments and students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 15). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 375 588).
21.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.McGrewK.VanderwoodM. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments: A report on a working conference to develop guidelines on inclusion and accommodations (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 372 652).
