Current federal policy requires that students with disabilities participate in large-scale assessments and be included in schools' scores for adequate yearly progress. Students with significant cognitive disabilities may participate in an alternate assessment with alternate achievement standards, but these standards must be linked to grade-level content and promote access to the general curriculum. Because most research with this population has focused on nonacademic life skills, few guidelines exist for teaching and assessing skills that are linked to grade-level content. One challenge to developing research and practice in grade-linked academic content for students with significant cognitive disabilities is the absence of a clear conceptual framework. This article—developed by a team of special education, curriculum content, and measurement experts—proposes a conceptual definition and criteria for linking instruction and assessment to grade-level academic content.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 37, 123—133.
2.
American Educational Research Association (AERA), American Psychological Association (APA), and National Council on Measurement in Education (NCME). (1999). Standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: Author .
3.
Barudin, S.I., & Hourcade, J.J. (1990). Relative effectiveness of three methods of reading instruction in developing specific recall and transfer skills in learners with moderate and severe mental retardation. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 25, 286—291.
4.
Bates, E. (1979). The emergence of symbols: Cognition and communication in infancy. San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
5.
Baumgart, D., Brown, L., Pumpian, I., Nisbet, J., Ford, A., Sweet, M., et al. (1982). Principle of participation and individualized adaptations in educational programs for severely handicapped students. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 7, 17—27.
6.
Bhola, D.S., Impara, J.C., & Buckendahl, C.W. (2003). Aligning tests with states' content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 22(3), 21—29.
7.
Bosner, S.M., & Belifore, P.J. (2001). Strategies and considerations for teaching an adolescent with Down syndrome and Type I diabetes to self-administer insulin. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 94—102.
8.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M. (2006). General curriculum access. In M. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction for students with severe disabilities (6th ed., pp. 489—525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
9.
Browder, D.M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2005). How states define alternate assessments for students with disabilities and recommendations for national policy. Journal of DisabilityPolicy Studies, 15, 209—220.
10.
Browder, D.M., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content to academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211—223.
11.
Browder, D.M., & Minarovic, T.J. (2000). Utilizing sight words in self-instruction training for employees with moderate mental retardation in competitive jobs. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 78—89.
12.
Browder, D.M., & Spooner, F.H. (2006). Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
13.
Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, R., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessments performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165— 181.
14.
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. (in press). A comprehensive review of research to teach math to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children .
15.
Browder, D., Wakeman, S., & Flowers, C. (2006). Level of symbolic communication classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
16.
Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children , 72, 392—408.
17.
Brown, L., Branston, M.B., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Pumpian, I., Certo, N., & Gruenewald, L. (1979). A strategy for developing chronological-age-appropriate and functional curricular content for severely handicapped adolescents and young adults. The Journal of Special Education, 13, 81—90.
18.
Coleman-Martin, M.B., Heller, K.W., Cihak, D.F., & Irvine, K.L. (2005). Using computer-assisted instruction and the nonverbal reading approach to teach word identification. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 80—90.
19.
Colorado Department of Education. (2005, December 19). Standards for students with disabilities. Denver, CO: Author. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped/StuDis-Sub1.asp
20.
Council of Chief State School Officers (n.d.). Alignment analysis. Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Alignment_Analysis/
21.
Cushing, L.S., Clark, N.M., Carter, E.W., & Kennedy, C.H. (2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 6—13.
22.
Denny, P.J., & Test, D.W. (1995). Using the one-more-than technique to teach money counting to individuals with moderate mental retardation: A systematic replication . Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 422—432.
23.
Downing, J.E. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes.
24.
Doyle, P.M., & Gast, D.L. (1990). Use of constant time delay in small group instruction: A study of observational and incidental learning. The Journal of Special Education, 23, 369—385.
25.
Dyches, T. (1998). Effects of switch training on the communication of children with autism and severe disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 151—162.
26.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148—157.
27.
Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessment . Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities , 30, 81—92.
28.
Flowers, C., Browder, D.M., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72, 201—215.
29.
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.
30.
Fryxell, D., & Kennedy, C.H. (1995). Placement along the continuum of services and its impact on students' social relationships. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 20, 259—269.
31.
Guess, D., Mulligan Ault, M., Roberts, S., Struth, J., Siegel-Causey, E., Thompson, B., et al. (1988). Implications of biobehavioral states for the education and treatment of students with the most profoundly handicapping conditions. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 13, 163—174.
32.
Heller, K.W., Fredrick, L.D., Tumlin, J., & Brineman, D.G. (2002). Teaching decoding for generalization using the nonverbal reading approach. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 14, 19—35.
33.
Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. (2002). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children , 35(2), 8—17.
34.
Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53—71.
35.
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.
36.
Huynh, H., Kim, D.H., Karvonen, M., & Schneider, C. (2006, April). Technical considerations in using cross-grade items for assessment based on modified achievement standards. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, San Francisco, CA.
37.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1990)(amended 1997)
38.
39.
Kameenui, E.J., & Simmons, D.C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of academic learning problems. Columbus, OH: Merrill.
40.
Kansas State Department of Education. (n.d.). Kansas extended standards. Topeka, KS: Author. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://www.kansped.org/ksde/assmts/ksalt/ksalt.html
41.
Karsh, K.G., Repp, A.C., & Lentz, M.W. (1990). A comparison of the task demonstration model and the standard prompting hierarchy in teaching word identification to persons with moderate retardation. Research in Developmental Disabilities , 11, 395—410.
42.
Katims, D.S. (2000). Literacy instruction for people with mental retardation: Historical highlights and contemporary analysis. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 3—15.
43.
Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Towles-Reeves, E. (2005). The assessment triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of student cognition . Lexington, KY: University of Kentucky, Human Development Institute, National Alternate Assessment Center. Lexington . Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.naacpartners.org/Products/products.htm
44.
Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (Eds.). (2001). Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.
45.
Kleinert, H.L., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 93—102.
46.
Kliewer, C., & Biklen, D. (2001). “School's not really a place for reading”: A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities . The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps , 26, 1—12.
47.
Koegel, L.K., Carter, C.M., & Koegel, R.L. (2003). Teaching children with autism self-initiations as a pivotal response. Topics in Language Disorders, 23, 134—146.
48.
Koegel, R.L., Koegel, L.K., Shoshan, Y., & McNerney, E.K. (2001). Pivotal areas in intervention for autism. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 30, 19—32.
49.
Kozleski, E. (1991). Visual symbol acquisition by students with autism . Exceptionality, 2, 173—194.
50.
Lehr, C., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Putting it all together: Including students with disabilities in assessment and accountability systems (Policy Directions No. 16). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved May 23, 2006, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy16.htm
51.
MacDuff, G.S., Krantz, P.J., & McClannahan, L.E. (1993). Teaching children with autism to use photographic activity schedules: Maintenance and generalization of complex response chains. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis , 26, 89—97.
52.
Marshall, J. (2006). Math wars 2: It's the teaching, stupid!Phi Delta Kappan,87(5), 356—363.
53.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001 ). Resource guide to the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks for students with significant disabilities. Malden, MA : Author. Retrieved January 5, 2006 , from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt
54.
McDonnell, J., Johnson, J.W., Polychronis, S., & Risen, T. (2002). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classrooms. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 37, 363—377.
55.
McGee, G.G., Krantz, P.J., & McClannahan, L.E. (1986). An extension of incidental teaching procedures to reading instruction for autistic children. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 19, 147—157.
56.
Mechling, L.C., & Gast, D.L. (2003). Multi-media instruction to teach grocery word associations and store location: A study of generalization. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 62—76.
57.
National Alternate Assessment Center. (n.d.). Retrieved November 1, 2006, from http://www.naacpartners.org
58.
National Council of Teachers of English. ( 1996). Standards for the English language arts. Urbana, IL: Author.
59.
National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM). (1989). Curriculum and evaluation standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author .
60.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
61.
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 (NIH Pub. No. 00-4754). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.
62.
Neef, N.A., Lensbower, J., Hockersmith, I., DePalma, V., & Gray, K. (1990). In vivo versus simulation training: An interactional analysis of range and type of training exemplars. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 23, 447—458.
63.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq. ( 2002).
64.
Ravitch, D. (1995). National standards in American education: A citizen's guide. Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
65.
Roach, A.T., Elliott, S.N., & Webb, N.L. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 218—231.
66.
Rothman, R., Slattery, J.B., & Vranek, J.C. (2002). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing (CSE Tech. Rep. No. 566). Los Angeles, CA: University of California—Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation. Retrieved December 16, 2005, from http://cresst96.cse.ucla.edu/reports/TR566.pdf
67.
Ryndak, D.L., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
68.
Ryndak, D.L., & Billingsley, F. (2004). Access to the general education curriculum. In C. Kennedy & E. Horn (Eds.), Including Students with Severe Disabilities (pp. 33—53). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
69.
Schmidt, W.H., Hsing, C.W., & McKnight, C.C. (2005). Curriculum coherence: An examination of U.S. mathematics and science content standards from an international perspective. Journal of Curriculum Studies, 37, 525—559.
70.
Siegel-Causey, E., & Guess, D. (1988). Enhancing interactions between service providers and individuals that are severely multiply disabled: Strategies for developing nonsymbolic communication. Lawrence, KS: Kansas University, Department of Special Education. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED331215)
71.
Snell, M.E. (1997). Teaching children and young adults with mental retardation in school programs: Current research. Behaviour Change, 14, 1— 33.
72.
Snell, M.E., & Browder, D.M. (1986). Community-referenced instruction: Research and issues. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 1—11.
73.
Snell, M.E., Lewis, A.P., & Houghton, A. (1989). Acquisition and maintenance of toothbrushing skills by students with cerebral palsy and mental retardation. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 216—226.
74.
South Dakota Department of Education. (n.d.). Alternate content standards. Pierre, SD: Author. Retrieved January 5, 2006, from http://doe.sd.gov/contentstandards/alternatestandards/index.asp
75.
Sowers, J.A., & Powers, L. (1995). Enhancing the participation and independence of students with severe physical and multiple disabilities in performing community activities. Mental Retardation, 33, 209—220.
76.
Spooner, F., DiBiase, W., & Courtade-Little, G. (2006). Science standards and functional skills: Finding the links. In D. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching language arts, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 229—243). Baltimore : Brookes.
77.
Test, D.W., Howell, A., Burkhart, K., & Beroth, T. (1993). The one-more-than technique as a strategy for counting money for individuals with moderate mental retardation. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 28, 232—241.
78.
Thompson, S.J., Quenemoen, R.F., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
79.
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., Johnstone, C.J., & Altman, J.R. (2005). 2005State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 7, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm
80.
U.S. Department of Education. (1983). A nation at risk: The imperative for educational reform. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved July 17, 2006, from http://www.ed.gov/pubs/NatAtRisk/index.html
81.
U.S. Department of Education.Title 1—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Final rule , 68Fed. Reg. 236. (2003, December 9)
82.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting the requirements of NCLB. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved May 2, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.doc
83.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Washington, DC: Author . Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc
84.
Webb, N.L. (1997). Criteria for alignment of expectation and assessments in mathematics and science education (NISE Research Monograph No. 6). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin— Madison, National Institute for Science Education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers .
85.
Webb, N.L., Tindal, G., & Wise, L.L. (2005). Improving alignment tools for enhanced, more accessible assessment: Development of an electronic, automated analysis system for states [Technical report]. Madison, WI: Council of Chief State School Officers, Wisconsin Center for Educational Research.
86.
Wehmeyer, M.L., & Schwartz, M. (1998). The relationship between self-determination and quality of life for adults with mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 3—12.
87.
Westling, D.L., & Floyd, J. (1990). Generalization of community skills: How much training is necessary?The Journal of Special Education, 23, 386— 407.
88.
Westling, D.L., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Prentice Hall.
89.
Wetherby, A.M., & Prizant, B. (1989). Communicative profiles of preschool children with handicaps: Implications for early identification. The Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 54, 148—158.
