Students with significant cognitive disabilities are eligible to participate in two statewide testing options for accountability: alternate assessments or general assessments with appropriate accommodations. Participation guidelines are generally quite vague, leading to students “switching” test participation between years. In this study, we tracked test participation for two cohorts of students with a documented disability over 3 years. Results suggested approximately 25% of students who initially took the alternate assessment switched test type at least once, although patterns of switching were not consistent across disabilities. Students on the performance “bubble” were more likely to switch test participation. Test switching poses challenges for monitoring students’ academic growth within accountability frameworks.
AbediJ.LeonS.KaoJ. C. (2008). Examining differential item functioning in reading assessments for students with disabilities (CRESST Report No. 744). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2.
AlbusD.ThurlowM. L. (2012). Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAAS) participation policies (Synthesis Report No. 88). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3.
AndersonD.FarleyD.TindalG. (2013). Test design considerations for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466913491834
4.
BetebennerD. (2009). Norm- and criterion-referenced student growth. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 28, 42–51. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2009.00161.x
5.
BlankR. K. (2010). State growth models for school accountability: Progress on development and reporting measures of student growth. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
6.
BuzickH. M.LaitusisC. C. (2010). Using growth for accountability: Measurement challenges for students with disabilities and recommendations for research. Educational Researcher, 39, 537–544. doi:10.3102/0013189X10383560
7.
Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management. (2012a). The alternate assessment consortia: Dynamic learning maps (DLM). Austin, TX: Educational Testing Service.
8.
Center for K-12 Assessment & Performance Management. (2012b). The alternate assessment consortia: National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC). Austin, TX: Educational Testing Service.
9.
ChoH. J.KingstonN. (2012). Why IEP teams assign low performers with mild disabilities to the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 162–174. doi:10.1177/0022466911435416
10.
ChoH. J.KingstonN. (2013). Examining teachers’ decisions on test-type assignment for statewide assessments. The Journal of Special Education. Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466913498772
11.
ChoH. J.KingstonN. (2014). Understanding test-type assignment: Why do special educators make unexpected test-type assignments?Psychology in the Schools, 51, 866–878. doi:10.1002/pits.21783
12.
ElliottS. N.ComptonE.RoachA. T. (2007). Building validity evidence for scores on a state-wide alternate assessment: A contrasting groups multi-method approach. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 26, 30–43. doi:10.1111/j.1745-3992.2007.00092.x
13.
FurgolK. E.HelmsL. B. (2012). Lessons in leveraging implementation: Rulemaking, growth models, and policy dynamics under NCLB. Educational Policy, 26, 777–812. doi:10.1177/0895904811417588
14.
GongB.MarionS. (2006). Dealing with flexibility in assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Synthesis Report No. 60). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
15.
HoA. D. (2009). A nonparametric framework for comparing trends and gaps across tests. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 34, 201–228. doi:10.3102/1076998609332755
16.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 20 U.S.C., Pub. L. No. 105-117 § 1400 et seq. (1997).
17.
KearnsJ.KleinertH.KleinertJ.Towles-ReevesE. (2006). Learner Characteristics Inventory. Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center.
18.
KearnsJ.Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH. L.KleinertJ. O.ThomasM. K.-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. doi:10.1177/0022466909344223
19.
KleinertH. L.BrowderD. M.Towles-ReevesE. A. (2009). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79, 301–326. doi:10.3102/0034654308326160
20.
LemkeR. J.HoerandnerC. M.McMahonR. E. (2006). Student assessments, non-test-takers, and school accountability. Education Economics, 14, 235–250.
21.
LittleR. J. A.RubinD. B. (2002). Statistical analysis with missing data. New York, NY: Wiley.
22.
McCaffreyD. F.LockwoodJ. R.KoretzD.LouisT. A.HamiltionL. (2004). Models for value-added modeling of teacher effects. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 29, 67–101. doi:10.3102/10769986029001067
23.
MussonJ. E.ThomasM. K.Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ. (2010). An analysis of state alternate assessment participation guidelines. The Journal of Special Education, 44, 67–78. doi:10.1177/0022466909333515
24.
MuthénL. K.MuthénB. O. (1998–2007). Mplus user’s guide (5th ed.). Los Angeles, CA: Author.
25.
No Child Left Behind Act, 20 U.S.C., Pub. L. No. 107-110 § 1424 et seq., 6301 Stat. (2002).
26.
QuenemoenR. (2008). A brief history of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (Synthesis Report No. 68). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27.
R Core Team. (2013). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing. Available from http://www.R-project.org/
28.
RoachA. T. (2005). Alternate assessment as the “ultimate accommodation”: Four challenges for policy and practice. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 73–78. doi:10.1177/073724770503100107
29.
SandersW. L.HornS. P. (1994). The Tennessee value-added assessment system (TVAAS): Mixed-model methodology in educational assessment. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 8, 299–311. doi:10.1007/BF00973726
SchaferJ. L.GrahamJ. W. (2002). Missing data: Our view of the state of the art. Psychological Methods, 7, 147–177. doi:10.1037//1082-989X.7.2.147
32.
SchulteA. C.StevensJ. (2015). Once, sometimes, or always in special education: Mathematics growth and achievement gaps. Exceptional Children, 81(3), 370–387. doi:10.1177/0014402914563695
ThompsonS.JohnstonC.ThurlowM. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Vol. 44). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
35.
ThurlowM. L. (2004). How state policies and practices for alternate assessment impact who is included in NAEP State Assessments. Paper presented at the NAGB Conference on Increasing the Participation of SD and LEP Students in NAEP. Retrieved from http://www.nagb.org/publications/conferences/thurlow.pdf
36.
ThurlowM. L.LazarusS. S.ThompsonS. J.MorseA. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 232–240.
37.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.FlowersC.HartL.KerbelA.KleinertH.. . . ThurlowM. L. (2012). Learner characteristics inventory project report: A product of the NCSC validity evaluation. Minneapolis, MN: National Center and State Collaborative.
38.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
39.
WickhamH. (2009). ggplot2: Elegant graphics for data analysis. New York, NY: Springer.
40.
WongV. C. (2011, March). Games schools play: How schools near the proficiency threshold respond to accountability pressures under No Child Left Behind. In GamoranA. (Chair), Education policy. Symposium conducted at the Spring meeting of the Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED518224.pdf
