This study investigated: (a) the degree to which one rural state's alternate assessment influenced daily instruction and IEP development for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; and (b) in those instances in which teachers reported no influence or a negative influence on daily instruction or IEP development, the reasons teachers gave for these phenomena. The results of this survey support other findings that teachers perceive the alternate assessment to have a greater influence upon daily instruction than upon IEP development (Towles-Reeves, in press). Implications for teacher support and training in alternate assessments, especially in rural areas, are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BrowderD., & SpoonerF. (Eds.) (in press). Teaching reading, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
2.
Collins,B., Hawkins,S., Keramidas,C., McLaren,E., Schuster,J., Slevin,B., et al. (2005). The effect of No Child Left Behind on rural students with low incidence disabilities.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 48-53.
3.
Elliott,J. (1997). Invited commentary.Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 104–106.
4.
Flowers,C., Ahlgrim-Delzell,L., Browder,D., & Spooner,F.(2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments.Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30(2), 81–92.
5.
Hager,K., & Slocum,T.(2005). Using alternate assessment to improve educational outcomes.Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24(1), 54–59.
6.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
7.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), PL 108–446, Part B.
8.
Kampfer,S., Horvath,L., Kleinert,H., & Kearns,J.(2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation.Exceptional Children, 67(3), 361–374.
9.
Kleinert,H. L., Kennedy,S., & Kearns,J. F., (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey.The Journal of Special Education, 33(2), 93–102.
10.
Lane,S., & Stone,C. A.(2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs.Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 21(2), 23–30.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
13.
Reck,C. (1990). Successful instructional practices for small schools.Charleston, WV: ERIC Clearinghouse on Rural Education and Small Schools. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 326352)
14.
Rosenkoetter,S., Irwin,J., & Saceda,R.(2004). Addressing personnel needs for rural areas.Teacher Education and Special Education, 27, 276–291.
15.
Towles-Reeves,E., Burdge,M., Garrett,B. (2006). A Multi-State Examination of the Consequential Validity of Alternate Assessments. Unpublished manuscript.
16.
Towles-Reeves,E., Garrett,B., Burdette,P., & Burdge,M.(in press). What are the consequences? Validation of large-scale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instruction.Assessment for Effective Intervention.
17.
Thompson,S.J., Thurlow,M.L., Johnstone,C.J., & Altman,J. R. (2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved [December 12, 2005] from the World Wide Web: http://www.education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm.
18.
U.S. Department of Education (April 28, 2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance.Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
19.
U.S. Department of Education (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non-regulatory guidance.Washington D.C.: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
20.
Westling,D., & Fox,L.(2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall, p. 181–189.
