Measuring the Enacted Curriculum for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Abstract

Based on recent federal legislation, alternate assessments for students with disabilities may now be based on alternate achievement standards, modified achievement standards, or grade-level achievement standards. Although all students with disabilities must access the general curriculum, those with significant cognitive disabilities often do so through extensions of grade-level content standards. Because curriculum is individualized for students with disabilities, experts cannot immediately apply to this population the methods for examining the taught curriculum in general education. The purpose of this article is to describe the development and use of a method for examining the enacted curriculum for students who take alternate assessments. We present initial item development, survey blueprint, expert review, and pilot test findings. Experts can use this tool to investigate the alignment of curriculum with alternate assessments and state standards and to design professional development for educators learning to access the general curriculum.

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

Agran, M. , Alper, S. , & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities , 37, 123—133.

Alternate Assessment Collaborative. (2004). Guide to expanded bench-marks. Retrieved March 9, 2006, from http://www.cde.state.co.us/cdesped

Browder, D. , Flowers, C. , Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. , Karvonen, M. , Spooner, F. , & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 211—233.

Browder, D. , Wakeman, S.Y. & Flowers, C. (2007). Level of symbolic communication classification for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Available at: http://education.uncc.edu/access/GCApowerpp.htm

Browder, D. , Wakeman, S. , Spooner, F. , Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. , & Algozzine, B. (2006). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children , 72, 392—408.

Browder, D.M. , Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. , Pugalee, D.K. , & Jimenez, B. (2006). Enhancing numeracy. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 171—196). Baltimore: Brookes.

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2003 , June 9). Surveys of enacted curriculum: Tools for aligning instruction, standards, and assessments. Retrieved January 20, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Surveys_of_Enacted_Curriculum/

Council of Chief State School Officers. (2004 ). Data on enacted curriculum study: Experimental design study of effectiveness of DEC professional development model in urban middle schools . Retrieved March 10, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/content/pdfs/DECStudy.pdf

Dillman, D.A. (2000). Mail and Internet surveys: The tailored design method (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.

10.

Flowers, C. , Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. , Browder, D. , & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessment . Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities , 30, 81—92.

11.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990) (amended 1997)

12.

Kleinert, H.L. , Kennedy, S. , & Kearns, J.F. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33, 93—102.

13.

Massachusetts Department of Education. (2001 ). Resource guide to the Massachusetts curriculum frameworks for students with significant disabilities. Retrieved March 9, 2006, from http://www.doe.mass.edu/mcas/alt/

14.

Mayer, D.P. (1999). Measuring instructional practice: Can policymakers trust survey data? Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 21, 29—45.

15.

National Council of Teachers of English. (n.d.). Standards for the English language arts. Retrieved May 25, 2006, from http://www.ncte.org/about/over/standards/110846.htm

16.

National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. (n.d.). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Retrieved May 25, 2006, from http://standards.nctm.org/index.htm

17.

Otis-Wilborn, A. , Winn, J. , Griffin, C. , & Kilgore, K. (2005). Beginning special educators' forays into general education. Teacher Education and Special Education, 28, 143—152.

18.

Porter, A.C. , & Smithson, J.L. (2001, December). Defining, developing, and using curriculum indicators (CPRE Research Report Series RR-048). Retrieved January 20 , 2006, from http://www.cpre.org/Publications/rr48.pdf

19.

Roach, A.T. , & Elliott, S.N. (2006). The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28, 181—194.

20.

Sparks, D. , & Loucks-Horsley, S. (1990). Five models of staff development. Oxford, OH: National Staff Development Council.

21.

Tileston, D.W. (2004). What every teacher should know about special learners . Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press .

22.

Title 1—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 236 (Dec. 9, 2003).

23.

U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/altguidance.doc