Under the requirement of both the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (1997) and No Child Left Behind (NCLB; 2002), states are required to provide alternate assessment for students who cannot participate in general curriculum and statewide assessments. According to NCLB, states are required to report the progress of all students in science in the 2007—2008 school year. Due to a lack of research on how to teach science for students with significant cognitive disabilities, states find themselves in a difficult position. The intent of this study was to examine the number of states that included performance indicators (PIs) for science in their alternate assessments. We also investigated how states generate their science PIs linked to the academic areas of the national standards set by the National Science Education Standards (NSES) and how to access these indicators to general curriculum for teaching science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. These findings are discussed with recommendations on how to access these indicators to general curriculum for teaching science to students with significant cognitive disabilities.
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 Disability Policy Studies, 15, 209-220.
2.
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. Journal of Special Education , 37, 211-223.
3.
Browder, D.M., & Shear, S.M. (1996). Interspersal of known items in a treatment package to teach sight words to students with behavior disorders. Journal of Special Education, 29, 400-413.
4.
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, R., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Person with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165-181.
5.
Courtade, G. (2006). The effects of inquiry-based science instruction on teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Doctoral dissertation, University of North Carolina at Charlotte.
6.
Courtade, G., Spooner, F., & Browder, D.M. (2007). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 43-49.
7.
Gast, D.L., Winterling, V., Wolery, M., & Farmer, J.A. (1992). Teaching first-aid skills to students with moderate handicaps in small group instruction. Education & Treatment of Children, 15, 101-124.
8.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).
9.
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400, H.R. 1350 (2004).
10.
Marchand-Martella, N.E., Martella, R.C., Christensen, A.M., Agran, M., & Young, K.R. (1992). Teaching a first aid skill to students with disabilities using two training programs. Education & Treatment of Children, 15, 15-31.
11.
Mastropieri, M., & Scruggs, T. (1992). Science for students with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 64, 377-410.
12.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (1998). Performance goals and indicators. Washington, DC: Quick Turn Around (QTA) Forum, U.S. Department of Education.
13.
National Research Council. (1996). National science education standards. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
14.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
15.
Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1991). Classroom applications of mnemonic instruction: Acquisition, maintenance, and generalization. Exceptional Children, 58, 219-229.
16.
Smith, T., Dittmer, K., & Skinner, C. (2002). Enhancing science performance in students with learning disabilities using cover, copy, and compare: A student shows the way. Psychology in the Schools, 39, 417-426.
17.
Spooner, F., & Browder, D.M. (2005, February). Current alignment of national science standards and performance indicators: What this means for students with severe disabilities. Invited address presented at the annual meeting of the North Carolina Association for Behavior Analysis, Wrightsville Beach, NC.
18.
Spooner, F., DiBiase, W., & Courtade-Little, G. (2006). Science standards and functional skills: Finding the links. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 231-245). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
19.
Spooner, F., Dymond, S.K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C.H. (2006). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities . Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities , 31, 277-283.
20.
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.
21.
U.S. Department of Education. (2003). Title I-Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Proposed Rule, 68 Fed. Reg.13,796 (March 20). Washington, DC: Author.
22.
Watson, M., Bain, A., & Houghton, S. (1992). A preliminary study in teaching self-protective skills to children with moderate and severe mental retardation. Journal of Special Education, 26, 181-194.
23.
Wiener, D. (2005). One state's story: Access and alignment to the GRADE-LEVEL content for students with significant cognitive disabilities (Synthesis Report 57). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 27, 2007, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/onlinePubs/Synthesis57.html
24.
Wright, J.C., & Wright, C.S. (1998). A commentary on the profound changes envisioned by the national science standards. Teachers College Record , 100, 122-144.
