The purpose of this investigation was to understand the variables that influence parents' perceptions of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment (WAA). Parents and teachers of elementary and secondary students with severe cognitive disabilities (n = 77) from across Wisconsin participated. Teachers submitted case materials that included a copy of the students' WAA rating scale and current IEP; brief teacher and parent surveys 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 parents' perceptions as reported on the teacher survey. The results indicated that student age and the percentage of academic-focused IEP goals each accounted for the small amount of the variation in parents' perceptions of the WAA. These results are discussed in the context of consequential evidence for the validity of the WAA.
AvramidisE.NorwichB. (2002). Teachers' attitudes toward integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 17, 129–147.
2.
BrowderD. M.Cooper-DuffyK. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirements for accountability in “No Child Left Behind.”Journal of Special Education, 37, 157–165.
3.
BrowderD. M.FallinK.DavisS.KarvonenM. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255–270.
4.
BrowderD. M.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.AlgozzineB.KarvonenM. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance indicators. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 28, 165–181.
5.
BrowderD. M.XinY. (1998). A review and meta-analysis of sight word instruction with students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.
6.
ElliottJ.YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.EricksonR. (1998). What about assessment and accountability?Teaching Exceptional Children, 31, 20–27.
7.
FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.SpoonerF. (2005). Teacher perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 81–92.
8.
FordA.DavernL.SchnoorR. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–222.
9.
GreenS. K.ShinnM. R. (1995). Parent attitudes about special education and reintegration: What is the role of student outcomes?Exceptional Children, 61, 269–281.
10.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–17, 111 Stat. 37 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.).
11.
KampferS. H.HorvathL. S.KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361–374.
12.
KasariC.FreemanS. F. N.BaumingerN.AlkinM. C. (2004). Parental perspectives on inclusion: Effects of autism and Down syndrome. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 29, 297–305.
13.
KleinertH. L.KennedyS.KearnsJ. F. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal on Special Education, 33, 93–102.
14.
LipskyD.GartnerA. (1996). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
15.
NietupskiJ.Harme-NietupskiS.CurtinS.ShrikanthK. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976–1995 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36–55.
16.
PalmerD. S.Borthwick-DuffyS. A.WidamanK. (1998). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 271–282.
17.
PalmerD. S.FullerK.AroraT.NelsonM. (2001). Taking sides: Parent views on inclusion for their children with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 67, 467–484.
18.
PugachM. C.WargerC. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194–196.
19.
RoachA. T.ElliottS. N.WebbN. L. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment. Journal of Special Education, 38, 218–231.
20.
ThurlowM.OlsenK.ElliottJ.YsseldykeJ.EricksonR.AhearnE. (1996). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities (NCEO Policy Directions No. 5). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21.
TurnerM. D.BaldwinL.KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69–76.
22.
WehmeyerM. L. (2003). Defining mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 271–282.
23.
WehmeyerM. L.LattinD.Lapp-RinkerG.AgranM. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262–272.
24.
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction. (1998). Guidelines for complying with the assessment provisions of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Bulletin 98.14). Madison: Author.
25.
YsseldykeJ.ThurlowM.McGrewK.VanderwoodM. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments? (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
