Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility requires states to develop and implement teacher effectiveness measures that consider student assessment results, including assessment results for students with disabilities participating in general and alternate assessments. We describe how alternate assessment results for students with significant cognitive disabilities could appropriately be used in teacher effectiveness measures. In addition, we discuss the unique parameters faced by teachers serving students with significant cognitive disabilities that may warrant a multiple measures approach to evaluating teacher effectiveness. Using one of the two national initiatives presently developing alternate assessments based on the Common Core State Standards as an example, we describe how these new assessments might be applied in measuring teacher effectiveness. Finally, we offer implications for both policy makers and practitioners in measuring teacher effectiveness for teachers serving students with significant cognitive disabilities participating in alternate assessments.
BraunH. I. (2005). Using student progress to evaluate teachers: A primer on value-added models. Princeton, NJ: Policy Information Center, Educational Testing Service.
4.
BrowderD.SpoonerF. (2011). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press.
5.
CarterE.CushingL.ClarkN.KennedyC. (2005). Effects of peer support interactions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 30, 15-25.
6.
CarterE.SiscoL.BrownL.BrickhamD.Al-KhabbazZ. (2008). Peer interaction and academic engagement of youth with developmental disabilities in inclusive middle and high school classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113, 479-494.
Creech-GallowayC.CollinsB. C.KnightV.BauschM. (2014). Using a simultaneous prompting procedure with an iPad to teach the Pythagorean Theorem to adolescents with moderate intellectual disability. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 38, 222-232.
11.
CurtisR.WienerR. (2012). Means to an end: A guide to developing teacher evaluation systems that support growth and development. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Education & Society Program.
Darling-HammondL. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8(1). Retrieved from http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/article/view/392
14.
DelanoM.KeefeL.PernerD. (2008/2009). Personnel preparation: Recurring challenges and the need for action to ensure access to general curriculum. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33-34, 232-240.
15.
DenoS. L. (2003). Developments in curriculum based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184-192.
HarrisD.SassT.SemykinaA. (2010). Value-added models and the measurement of teacher productivity (Working Paper No. 54). Raleigh, NC: Urban Institute, National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Educational Research.
HoldheideL. R.GoeL.CroftA.ReschlyD. J. (2010). Challenges in evaluating special education teachers and English language learner specialists (Research and Policy Brief). Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
22.
HuntP.McDonnellJ.CrockettM. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular framework focusing on quality of life with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 37, 139-152.
23.
JacksonL.RyndakD.WehmeyerM. (2008/2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33-4, 175-195. doi:10.25.2511/rpsd.33.4.175
24.
KaneM. T. (2006). Validation. In BrennanR. L. (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 17-64). New York, NY: Praeger.
25.
KearnsJ.Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH.KleinertJ.ThomasM. (2011). Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. Journal of Special Education, 45, 3-14.
26.
KleinertH.BrowderD.Towles-ReevesE. (2009). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79, 301-326.
27.
KleinertH.KearnsJ. (in press). Alternate assessments for students with severe and multiple disabilities. In OreloveF.SobseyD.GilesD. (Eds.), Educating students with severe and multiple disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
28.
KleinertH.KearnsJ.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM. (2013). NCSC GSEG Policy Paper: Alternate assessments based on Common Core State Standards: How do they relate to college and career readiness?Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative.
29.
KleinertH.Towles-ReevesE.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.FlueggeL.WesemanL.KerbelA. (2015). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children, 81, 312-329.
30.
KliewerC. (2008). Joining the literacy flow: Fostering and written language learning in young children with significant developmental disabilities through the four currents of literacy. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 33, 103-121.
31.
LazarusS. S.EdwardsL. M.ThurlowM. L.HodgsonJ. R. (2014). States’ flexibility waiver plans for the new alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) system (Synthesis Report). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
32.
McNultyB. A.BesserL. (2011). Leaders make it happen! An administrator’s guide to data teams. Englewood, CO: Lead & Learn Press.
33.
National Board for Professional Teaching Standards. (2011). Getting it right: A comprehensive guide to developing and sustaining teacher evaluation and support systems. Arlington, VA: Author.
NewtonX.Darling-HammondL.HaertelE.ThomasE. (2010). Value-added modeling of teacher effectiveness: An exploration of stability across models and contexts. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 18, 1-24.
36.
OreloveF.SobseyD.GillesD. (Eds.). (in press). Educating students with severe and multiple disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
37.
OreloveF.SobseyD.SilbermanR. (Eds.). (2004). Educating children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (4th ed.). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
38.
QuenemoenR.FlowersC.ForteE. (2014). The curriculum, instruction, and assessment pieces of the student achievement puzzle. In BrowderD. M.SpoonerF. (Eds.), More language arts, math, and science for students with severe disabilities (pp. 237-254). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
39.
QuenemoenR.ThurlowM.MoenR.ThompsonS.MorseA. B. (2003). Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report No. 53). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
40.
RAND Education. (2012). Student growth percentiles 101: Using relative ranks in student test scores to help measure teaching effectiveness. Available from www.rand.org
41.
RivkinS. G.HanushekE. A.KainJ. F. (2002). Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
42.
RowlandC.SchweigertP. (2000). Tangible symbols, tangible outcomes. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 16, 61-78.
43.
RupparA.DymondS.GaffneyJ. (2011). Teachers’ perceptions of literacy instruction for students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 36, 100-111.
44.
SandersW. L.HornW. P. (1998). Research findings from the Tennessee value added assessment system database: Implications for research and evaluation. Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 12, 247-256.
45.
SnellM.BradyN.McLeanL.OgletreeB.SiegelE.SylvesterL.. . .SevcikR. (2010). Twenty years of communication intervention research with individuals who have severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 364-380.
46.
SteinbrecherT.SeligJ.CosbeyJ.ThorstensenB. (2014). Evaluating special educator effectiveness: Addressing issues inherent to value-added modeling. Exceptional Children, 80, 323-336.
47.
TelferD. M. (2012). A synthesis of lessons learned: How districts used assessment and accountability to increase performance for students with disabilities as part of district-wide improvement. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
48.
Towles-ReevesE.KearnsJ.FlowersC.HartL.KerbelA.KleinertH.. . . ThurlowM. (2012). Learner Characteristics Inventory project report (A product of the NCSC validity evaluation). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative.
U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility: Review guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/review-guidance.doc
51.
WarrenS.ThurlowM.LazarusS.ChristensenL.ChartrandA.RiekeR. (2012). Forum on evaluating educator effectiveness: Critical considerations for including students with disabilities. Minneapolis, MN: Council of Chief State School Officers, Assessing Special Education Students State Collaborative on Assessment and Student Standards.
52.
WhetstoneP.AbellM.CollinsB.KleinertH. (2013). Teacher preparation in moderate and severe disabilities: A state tool for intern support. Teacher Education and Special Education, 36, 28-36.
53.
WienerR.JacobsA. (2011). Designing and implementing teacher performance management systems: Pitfalls and possibilities. Washington, DC: The Aspen Institute, Education & Society Program.
