This paper presents a review of "best practice standards" relative to curricular design and instruction for students with moderate retardation and severe disabilities. Suggestions about the value, to students and practitioners, of using assessment practices that are closely aligned to best practice assumptions are discussed. The potential benefits of alternative assessment practices such as portfolios and authentic assessment for students with moderate retardation and severe disabilities are described. Finally, strategies focused on alternative assessment processes that can link best practice assumptions and can redirect curriculum and instruction through individualized evaluation criteria are presented. The proposed process for authentic assessment incorporates a portfolio framework that reflects an evolving support for values-driven, quality of life approach to programming for students with moderate and severe disabilities.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
American Association on Mental Retardation (1992). Mental retardation: Definition, classification, and systems of supports (9thEd.). Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
2.
ArterJ. A., & SpandelV. (1992). Using portfolios of student work in instruction and assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues & Practices, 11(1), 36–44.
3.
BagnatoS. J., NeisworthJ. T., & MunsonS. M. (1989). The gap between assessment and inter–vention. In BagnatoS. J., NeisworthJ. T., & MunsonS. M. (Eds.), Linking developmental assessment and early intervention: Curriculum-based prescriptions (2nd ed, pp. 1–10). Rockville, MD: Aspen.
4.
BerresM. S., & KnoblickP. (1987). Program models for mainstreaming: Integrating students with moderate and severe disabilities. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
5.
BradyM., & CunninghamJ. (1985). Living and learning in segregated environments: An ethnog–raphy of normalization outcomes. Education and Training of the Mentally Retarded, 20, 241–252.
6.
BradyM., LinehanS., CampbellP., & NeilsonW. (1992). Too high, too low, too young: An ethnog–raphy of teachers' curriculum and instruction de–cisions for students with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 354–366.
7.
BrowderD. M. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment (2nd ed.). Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
8.
BrownL., NisbetJ., FordA., SweetM., ShiragaB., YorkJ., & LoomisR. (1983). The critical need for nonschool instruction in educational pro–grams for severely handicapped students. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 8, 71–77.
9.
BryantB. R., TaylorR. L., & RiveraD. P. (1996). Assessment of adaptive areas. Austin, TX: PRO-ED.
10.
CalculatorS. N., & JorgensenC. M. (1994). Includ–ing Students with Severe Disabilities in Schools: Foster–ing communication, interaction, and participation. San Diego, CA: Singular Publishing Group, Inc.
11.
CertoN., HaringN., & YorkR. (1984). Public school integration of severely handicapped students. Balti–more: Paul H. Brookes.
12.
CoutinhoM., & MaloufD. (1993). Performance assessment and children with disabilities: Issues and possibilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(4), 62–67.
13.
CramerS. R. (1993). Navigating the assessment maze with portfolios. Clearing House, 67(2), 72–74.
14.
CroninM. E., & PattonJ. R. (1993). Life skills in–struction for all students with special needs: A practical guide for integrating real-life content into the curricu–lum. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
15.
CuvoA. J., LeafR. B., & BorakoveL. S. (1978). Teaching janitorial skills to the mentally retarded: Acquisition, generalization and maintenance. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 11, 345–355.
16.
DanielsonL. C., & BellamyG. T. (1989). State vari–ation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Exceptional Children, 55, 448–455.
17.
DemchakM., & GreenfieldR. (1996). Developing portfolios to facilitate educational transitions of students with severe disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
18.
DowningJ. E. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities in typical classrooms: Practical strategies for teachers. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
19.
DowningJ., & PerinoD. (1992). Functional vs. standardized assessment procedures: Implications for educational programming. Mental Retardation, 30, 289–295.
20.
ElliottS. N. (1994). Creating meaningful performance assessments: Fundamental concepts. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
21.
FalveyM. A. (1995). Inclusive and heterogeneous school–ing: Assessment, curriculum, and instruction. Balti–more, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
22.
FergusonD. L., MeyerG., JeanchildJ., JuniperL., & ZingoJ. (1992). Figuring out what to do with the grown-ups: How teachers make inclusion "work" for students with disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 16, 218–228.
23.
FordA. (1995). A team planning packet for inclusive education. Milwaukee, WI: Wisconsin School Inclu–sion Project.
24.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., BenowitzS., & BarringerL. (1987). Norm-referenced tests: Are they valid for use with handicapped children. Exceptional Chil–dren, 54, 263–271.
25.
GerlachK. P. (1992). Practical classroom teaching ideas for inclusion of students with special needs in the elementary classroom: A guide for the teacher and para–educator. Seattle, WA: Pacific Training Associates.
26.
GiangrecoM. (1990). Making related service deci–sions for students with severe disabilities: Roles, criteria, and authority. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 22–31.
27.
GiangrecoM. F., BaumgartD., & DoyleM. B. (1995). How inclusion can facilitate teaching and learning. Intervention in School and Clinic, 30, 278–278.
28.
GiangrecoM. F., CloningerC. J., & IversonV. S. (1998). Choosing outcomes and accommodations for children: A guide to educational planning for students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
29.
GuessD., HornerD., UtleyB., HolvoetJ., MaxonD., TucherD., & WarrenS. (1978). A functional curriculum sequencing model for teaching the severely handicapped. AAESPH Review, 8, 202–215.
30.
HarrisonP. (1985). Vineland Adaptive Behavior Scales: Classroom Edition manual. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
31.
HelmstetterE., PeckC. A., & GiangrecoM. F. (1994). Outcomes of interaction with peers with moderate and severe disabilities: A statewide sur–vey of high school students. Journal of the Associa–tion for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 19, 263–276.
32.
HornerR. H., MeyerL. H., & FriedericksH. D. (1986). (Eds.). The education of learners with severe handicaps: Exemplary service strategies. Baltimore, MD: Brookes Publishing.
33.
IronsD., IronsT., & MadduxC. D. (1984). A sur–vey of perceived competence among psychologists who evaluate students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabili–ties, 5, 368–381.
34.
JohnsonJ. M., BaumgartD., HelmstetterE., & CurryC. A. (1996). Augmenting basic communica–tion in natural contexts. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co., Inc.
35.
KozisekJ. A., & GalvinS. (1995). My Learning Jour–nal: A computer program. Crete, NE: Pathways to Learning.
36.
LyonS., & LyonG. (1980). Team functioning and staff development: A role release approach to pro–viding integrated educational services for severely handicapped students. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 5, 250–263.
37.
McLaughlinM. J., & WarrenS. H. (1994). Authen–tic assessment: The key to increased participation of students with disabilities in accountability sys–tems. Coalition Quarterly, 12(1), 7–11.
38.
MeyerL. H., & EichingerJ. (1994). Program quality indicators: A checklist on most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabili–ties (3rd ed.). Baltimore, MD: The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
39.
MeyerL. H., EichingerJ., & DowningJ. (1992). Program quality indicators: A checklist on most promis–ing practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. (Rev. ed.). Seattle, WA: The Asso–ciation for Persons with Severe Handicaps.
40.
MeyerL. H., EichingerJ., & Park-LeeS. (1987). A validation of program quality indications in edu–cational services for students with severe disabili–ties. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 12, 251–263.
41.
MountB., & ZwernikK. (1988). It's never too early, it's never too late: A booklet about personal futures plan–ning. St. Paul, MN: St. Paul Metropolitan Council.
42.
NietupskiJ. A., & Hamre-NietupskiS. M. (1987). An ecological approach to curriculum develop–ment. In GoetzL., GuessD., & Stremel-Camp–bellK. (Eds.), Innovative program design for individuals with dual sensory impairments (pp. 225–253). Balti–more, MD: Brookes.
NoletV. (1992). Classroom-based measurement and portfolio assessment. Diagnostique, 18, 5–26.
45.
Notari-SyversonA., & LosardoA. (1996). Assessing children's language in meaningful contexts. In ColeK. N., DaleP. S., & ThalD. J. (Eds.), Assess–ment of communication and language (pp. 257–279). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
46.
OreloveF. P., & SobseyD. (1996). Educating chil–dren with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary ap–proach. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publish–ing Co., Inc.
47.
PearpointJ., O'BrienJ., & ForestM. (1992). PATH: Planning alternative tomorrows with hope. To–ronto, Ontario, Canada: Inclusion Press.
48.
PoteetJ. A., ChoateJ. S., & StewartS. C. (1993). Performance assessment and special education: Practices and prospects. Focus on Exceptional Chil–dren, 26(1), 1–20.
49.
RainforthB., YorkJ., & MacDonaldD. (1992). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy with educational services. Balti–more: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
50.
RyndakD. L., & AlperS. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.
51.
SailorW., AndersonJ. L., HalvorsenA., DoeringK., FillerJ., & GoetzL. (1989). The comprehensive local school. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
52.
SailorW., GoetzL., AndersonJ., HuntP., & GeeK. (1988). Research on community intensive in–struction as a model for building functional, gen–eralized skills. In HornerR. H., DunlapG., & KoegelR. L. (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life–style changes in applied settings (pp. 67–98). Balti–more: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
SchwartzI. S., StaubD., CallucciD., & PeckC. A. (1995). Blending qualitative and behavior analytic research methods to evaluate outcomes in inclu–sive schools. Journal of Behavioral Education, 5, 93–106.
55.
Siegel-CauseyE., GuyB., & GuessD. (1995). Se–vere and multiple disabilities. In MeyenE.L. & SkrticT.M. (Eds.), Special education and student dis–ability: An introduction (4th ed., pp. 415–452). Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co.
56.
SigafoosJ., ColeD. A., & McQuarterR. J. (1987). Current practices in the assessment of students with severe handicaps. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 12, 264–273.
57.
SnellM., & BrownF. (1993). Instructional plan–ning and implementation. In SnellM. (Ed.) Sys–tematic instruction for students with severe disabilities (4th ed., pp. 99–151). New York, NY: MacMillan.
58.
SparrowS., BallaD., & CicchettiD. (1984). Inter–view edition, expanded form manual, Vineland Adap–tive Behavior Scales. Circle Pines, MN: American Guidance Service.
59.
StainbackS., & StainbackW. (1992a). (Eds.). Cur–riculum considerations in inclusive classrooms: Facili–tating learning for all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
TuckerJ. A. (1985). Curriculum-based assessment: An introduction. Exceptional Children, 52, 199–204.
64.
VandercookT., YorkJ., & ForestM. (1989). The McGill Action Planning System (MAPS): A strat–egy for building the vision. The Journal for The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 205–215.
65.
WechslerD. (1991). Wechsler Intelligence Scale for Chil–dren-III. San Antonio, TX: Psychological Corpo–ration.
66.
WessonC. L., & KingR. P. (1996). Portfolio assess–ment and special education students. Teaching Ex–ceptional Children, 28(2), 44–49.
67.
WilliamsW., FoxT. J., ThousandJ., & FoxW. (1990). Level of acceptance and implementation of best practices in the education of students with severe disabilities in Vermont. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 120–131.
68.
WorthenB. R. (1993). Critical issues that will deter–mine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444–454.
York-BarrJ. (1996). Creating inclusive school communi–ties: A staff development series for general and special educators (Module 1-5). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co.
