The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required states to provide access to the general curriculum and alternate assessments for students with disabilities who were unable to participate in statewide assessments. For this study, we examined the curricular focus of alternate assessments using performance indicators in math, language arts, and functional skills from 31 states. Experts in math education, language arts, and severe disabilities, along with a group of stakeholders (i.e., teachers and administrators), examined the performance indicators relative to their alignment to national standards and curricula. Experts and stakeholders identified states that had alternate assessment performance indicators that were clearly aligned to math or language arts and those that did not. A subgroup also considered the functionality of the indicators. Through a series of discussions, experts and stakeholders identified features of the performance indicators that exemplified alignment with general or functional curricula, including specificity of content, wording, required response, and grade-or age-level appropriateness. The results suggest that alternate assessments have a strong focus on academic skills but also reflect an additive curricular approach linking academic and functional skills.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Azrin, N.H., & Armstrong, P.M. (1973). The “mini-meal”—A method for teaching eating skills to the profoundly retarded. Mental Retardation, 11(1), 9—11.
2.
Azrin, N.H., & Foxx, R.M. (1971). A rapid method of toilet training the institutionalized retarded. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 4, 89—99.
3.
Azrin, N.H., Schaeffer, R.M., & Wesolowski, M.D. (1976). A rapid method of teaching profoundly retarded persons to dress by a reinforcement-guidance method. Mental Retardation, 14(6), 29—33.
4.
Billingsley, F.F., & Albertson, L.R. (1999). Finding a future for functional skills. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 298—302.
5.
Bricker, D.D., & Iacino, R. (1977). Early intervention with severely/profoundly handicapped children. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 166—176). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Mental Retardation.
6.
Browder, D.M. (1987). Assessment of individuals with severe handicaps . Baltimore: Brookes.
7.
Browder, D.M. (1993). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Brookes.
8.
Browder, D.M. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.
9.
Browder, D.M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L.A., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2002, April). Description of alternate assessment for students with disabilities. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
10.
Browder, D.M., & Snell, M.E. (2001). Teaching functional academics. In M. E. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed., pp. 493—542). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
11.
Brown, F., Belz, B., Corsi, L., & Wenig, B. (1993). Choice diversity for people with severe disabilities . Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 28, 318—326.
12.
Brown, L., Bronston, M.B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpiam, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young children. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81—90.
13.
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.), Hey, don't forget about me! Education's investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2—15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
Certo, N., Haring, N., & York, R. (1984). Public school integration of severely handicapped students: Rational issues and progressive alternatives. Baltimore: Brookes.
15.
Cipani, E.E., & Spooner, F. (1994). Curricular and instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
Cole, D.A., & Meyer, L.H. (1991). Social integration and severe disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of child outcomes. The Journal of Special Education, 25, 340—351.
17.
Crocker, L., & Algina, J. (1986). Introduction to classical and modern test theory . New York: Harcourt Brace & Jovanovich.
18.
Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. W. Jackson (Ed.), The handbook of research and curriculum. New York: Macmillan .
19.
Doll, J.A. (1996). Curriculum improvement (9th ed.). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
20.
Downing, J.E. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes.
21.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
22.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
23.
Falvey, M.A. (1986). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps. Baltimore: Brookes.
24.
Ford, A., Davern, L. , Meyer, L., Schnorr, R., Black, J. , & Dempsey, P. (Eds.). (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
25.
Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214—222.
26.
Giangreco, M.F., Cloninger, C.J., & Iverson, V.S. (1993). C.O.A.C.H.: Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children. Baltimore: Brookes .
27.
Gold, M.W. (1972). Stimulus factors in skill training of the retarded on a complex assembly task: Acquisition, transfer, and retention. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 76, 517—526.
28.
Grisham-Brown, J., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Creating standards-based individualized education programs. In H. Kleinert & J. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 17—28). Baltimore: Brookes.
29.
Halderman v. Pennhurst State School and Hospital, 446 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D. Pa. 1977), af'd in part, remanded in part Nos. 74-1490, 78-1564 (3rd Cir. 1979).
30.
Haring, N.G., & Romer, L.T. (1995). Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning and friendships. Baltimore: Brookes.
31.
Hughes, C.A., Korinek, L., & Gorman, J. (1991). Self management for students with mental retardation in public school settings: A research review. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 271—291.
32.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 290—301.
33.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C. § 1401 (26)
34.
Kern, L., Vorndran, C.M., Hilt, A., Ringdahl, J.E., Adelman, B.E., & Dun-lap, G. (1998). Choice as an intervention to improve behavior: A review of the literature. Journal of BehavioralEducation , 8, 151—169.
35.
Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 100—110.
36.
Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Alternate assessment measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
37.
Knowlton, E. (1998). Considerations in the design of personalized curricular support for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 95—107.
38.
Krejcie, R.L., & Morgan, D.W. (1970). Determining sample size for research activities . Educational and Psychological Measurement, 30, 607—610.
39.
Lessard v. Schmidt, 349 F. Supp. 1078 (E.D. Wis. 1972).
40.
Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., & Browder, D.M. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146—161.
41.
Mehren, W.A. (1998). Consequences of assessment: What is the evidence . Educational Policy Analysis, 6(13). Retrieved May 2, 2002, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v6n13.html
42.
Meyer, L.H., Eichinger, J., & Park-Lee, S. (1987). A validation of program quality indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 251—263.
43.
Mount, B., & Zwernik, K. (1988). It's never too early, it's never too late: A booklet about personal futures planning. St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Metropolitan Council.
44.
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journals. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 36—55.
45.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2000). Accessing the general curriculum . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .
46.
O'Brien, J. (1987). A guide to lifestyle planning: Using the activities catalog to integrate service and natural support systems. In B. Wilcox & G. T. Bellamy (Eds.), A comprehensive guide to the activities catalog: An alternative curriculum for youth and adults with severe disabilities (pp.175— 179). Baltimore: Brookes.
47.
Queen, J.A. (1999). Curriculum practice in the elementary and middle school. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
48.
Robinson, C.C., & Robinson, J.H. (1983). Sensorimotor functions and cognitive development. In M. E. Snell (Ed.), Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (2nd ed., pp. 226—266). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
49.
Ryndak, D.L., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
50.
Snell, M. E. (Ed.). (1983). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
51.
Snell, M. E. (Ed.). (1987). Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
52.
Snell, M.E. (1997). Teaching children and young adults with mental retardation in school programs: Current research. Behavior Change, 14, 73—105.
53.
Snell, M. E., & Brown, F. (Eds.). (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.). Columbus, OH: Merrill.
54.
Souder v. Brennan, 367 F. Supp. 808 (D. D.C. 1973).
55.
Stephens, B. (1977). Piagetian approach to curriculum development. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 237—249). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children, Division on Mental Retardation.
56.
Thompson, S.J., Quenemoen, R.F., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
57.
Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.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.
58.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998). Teaching self determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore: Brookes.
59.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327—342.
60.
Westling, D.L., & Fox, L. (1995). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
61.
Westling, D.L., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Merrill.
62.
Wilcox, D.L., & Bellamy, G.T. (1987). The activities catalog: An alternative curriculum for youth and adults with severe disabilities. Baltimore : Brookes.
63.
Wyatt v. Stickney, 344 F. Supp. 373, 381 (N.D. Ala. 1972).
