The purpose of this investigation was to understand the variables that influence teachers' perceptions regarding one state's alternate assessment process and results. Elementary and secondary special education teachers (N = 113) from across Wisconsin participated, submitting case materials for one of their students. These materials included the a copy of the students' WisconsinAlternative Assessment (WAA) rating scale and current Individualized Education Program (IEP); a brief survey regarding their perceptions of the WAA; and a curricular access questionnaire that documented which WAA items were part of the student's curriculum during the current or previous school year. A stepwise multiple regression analysis was conducted to determine the relationship between predictor variables and teachers' perceptions as reported on the teacher survey. The results indicated student grade level accounted for the small amount of the variation in teacher's positive perceptions of the WAA. These results are discussed in the context of consequential evidence for the validity of the WAA.
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 education curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teacher. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 37, 123—133.
2.
American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3.
Avramidis, E., & Norwich, B. (2002). Teachers' attitudes toward integration/ inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129—147.
4.
Baker, E.L., & Linn, R.L. (2002). Validity issues for accountability systems. Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
5.
Browder, D.M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirements for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.” The Journal of Special Education, 37, 157—165.
6.
Browder, D.M., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255—270.
7.
Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45—61.
8.
Browder, D.M., & Xin, Y. (1998). A review and meta-analysis of sight word instruction with students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education , 32, 130—153.
9.
Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6311(b)(3)(C)(ii) (2002).
10.
Elmore, R.F. (2003). The problem with stakes in performance-based accountability systems. In S. Fuhrman & R. Elmore (Eds.), Redesigning accountability systems. New York: Teachers College Press.
11.
Elmore, R.F., Abelman, C.H., & Fuhrman, S.H. (1996). The new accountability in state education reform: From process to performance. In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding schools accountable: Performance-based reform in education (pp. 65—98). Washington, DC: Brookings Institute.
12.
Elliott, S.N., & Fuchs, L.S. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224—233.
13.
Hoge, R.D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research , 59, 297—313.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997)
15.
Kampfer, S.H., Horvath, L.S., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361—374.
16.
Kleinert, H.L., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 93—102.
17.
Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1996). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore: Brookes.
18.
O'Day, J.A. (2002). Complexity, accountability, and school improvement . Harvard Educational Review, 72, 293—329.
19.
Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194—196.
20.
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.
21.
Roach, A.T. (2004). Teachers' experiences with alternate assessment: How special educators manage implementation of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (unpublished manuscript). Madison, WI: University of Wisconsin-Madison.
22.
Salvia, J., & Munson, S. (1986). Attitudes of regular education teachers toward mainstreaming mildly handicapped students. In C. J. Meisel (Ed.), Mainstreaming handicapped children: Outcomes, controversies, and new directions (pp. 111—128). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
23.
Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, J.L. (2003). 2003state special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm
24.
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.
25.
United States Department of Education (2003 , December). Final regulations for the inclusion of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in Title I assessments (34 CFR Part 200). Washington, DC: author.
26.
Wehmeyer, M.L. (2003). Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 271—282.
27.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lance, G.D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 223—234.
28.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rinker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262—272.
29.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. ( 1998). Guidelines for complying with the assessment provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Bulletin 98.14). Madison, WI: Author.
30.
Yell, M.L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
31.
Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., McGrew, K., &Vanderwood, M. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes .
