The IDEA Amendments of 1997 mandate inclusion of students with disabilities in accountability systems. By 2001 professionals in many states had begun to develop alternate assessments to focus on students' performance relative to general education performance criteria. The purpose of this study was to examine how alternate assessments have been defined and aligned with state general education standards and to identify the methods that have been used to score the assessments. An analysis of states' documents revealed a variety of alignment and scoring methods. In most states, either assessments were linked to state general education standards or those standards were extended to include alternate assessments. Academic domains were measured in most states, but some states measured only functional skills. Most states used some form of rubric to score the alternate assessments, typically measuring mastery, progress, or level of independence. The article concludes with recommendations for enhancing national policy on alternate assessment.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Browder, D.M. (1987). Assessment of individuals with severe handicaps: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment. Baltimore: Brookes.
2.
Browder, D.M. ( 2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.
3.
Browder, D.M., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2002, April). Curricular implications of alternate assessments . Paper presented at the National Council of Measurement in Education 2002 Annual Meeting, New Orleans.
4.
Browder, D.M., & Grasso, E. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 297—308.
5.
Browder, D.M., & Xin, Y.P. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for teaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. The Journal of Special Education , 32, 130—153.
6.
Creswell, J.W. (2002). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
7.
Erickson, R.N., Thurlow, M.L., & Thor, K. (1995). State special education outcomes, 1994. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404799)
8.
Falvey, M.A. (1989). Community-based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps. Baltimore: Brookes.
9.
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.
10.
Ford, A., Schnorr, R. , Meyer, L. H., Davern, L., Black, J. , & Dempsey, P. (Eds.). (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore : Brookes.
11.
Giangreco, M.F., Cloninger, C.J., & Iverson, V.S. (1993). Choosing options and accommodations for children (COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore : Brookes.
12.
Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, Pub. L. No. 103-382 (2002). Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved April 23, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov.legislation/ESEA/
13.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997)
14.
Knowlton, E. (1998). Considerations in the design of personalized curricular supports for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 95—107.
15.
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.
16.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 70 § 6301 et seq.
17.
Snell, M.E. (1997). Teaching children and young adults with mental retardation in school programs: Current research. Behaviour Change, 14, 73—105.
18.
Spooner, F., & Wood, W.M. (2003). Teaching personal care and hygiene skills. In P. Wehman & J. Kregel (Eds.), Functional curriculum for elementary, middle, and secondary age students with special needs (2nd ed., pp. 317— 356). Austin, TX: PRO-ED .
19.
Thompson, S., Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Ysseldyke, J., & Callender, S. (1999). Status of states in development of alternate assessments (Synthesis Report No. 31). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis31.html
20.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1999). 1999state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota.
21.
Thompson, S.J., Quenemoen, R.F., Thurlow, M.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
22.
Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2000). State alternate assessments: Status as IDEA alternate assessment requirements take effect (Synthesis Report No. 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved January 24, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis35.html
23.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M.L. (2001). 2001state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 5, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/onlinedefault.html
24.
Title 1 Guidance on Standards, Assessments, and Accountability. ( 1997). Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retreived April 23, 2002, from http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/StandardsAssessment/assess.html
25.
Title 1: Improving the Academic Achievement of thet Disadvantaged, 68 Fed. Reg. 13,796 (March 20, 2003).
26.
Turner, M.D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness . The Journal of Special Education, 34, 69—76.
27.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., & Agran, M. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 36, 327—342.
28.
Wilcox, B., & Bellamy, G.T. (1987). The activities catalog: An alternative curriculum for youth and adults with severe disabilities. Baltimore : Brookes.
