The purpose of this article is to report the results from a study examining the relationship between educational experiences for students with deaf-blindness and large-scale alternate assessment outcomes. Individualized education plans (IEPs) and instructional practices for 24 students were observed for indicators of best practices for students with deaf-blindness and severe cognitive disabilities. Results indicate that students who had greater opportunities for developing communication and social skills also had better outcomes on a statewide large-scale assessment, yet there was no relationship between assessment outcomes and the quality of a student's IEP or overall instructional programming.
FiglioD. (2002, February). Aggregation and accountability. Paper presented at the meeting of Will No Child Truly Be Left Behind? The Challenges of Making this Law Work. Washington, DC.
2.
GarrettB. (2003). A white paper on including students with deaf-blindness in large-scale assessment systems (Report #2003–0226). Disseminated by DB Link: The National Information Clearinghouse on Children Who are Deaf-Blind, Monmouth, OR.
3.
GoetzL. (1995). Inclusion of students who are deaf-blind: What does the future hold? In HaringN. G.RomerL. T. (Eds.), Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships (pp. 3–16). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
4.
GoldhaberD. (2002, February). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the “No Child Left Behind Act?” Paper presented at the meeting of Will No Child Truly Be Left Behind? The Challenges of Making this Law Work. Washington, DC.
5.
GoodallD.EversonJ. M. (1992). Communication instruction and support strategies for young adults who are deaf-blind. In EversonJ. M. (Ed.), Supporting young adults who are deaf-blind in their communities: A transition planning guide for service providers, families, and friends (pp. 203–225). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
6.
Grisham-BrownJ.HemmeterM. L. (1998). Writing IEP goals and objectives: Reflecting an activity-based approach to instruction for young children with disabilities. Young Exceptional Children, 1(3), 2–10.
7.
Grisham-BrownJ.KearnsJ. F. (2001). Creating standards-based individualized education programs. In KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
8.
HaertelE. H. (1999). Validity arguments for high-stakes testing: In search of the evidence. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 18(4), 5–9.
9.
HaringK.Farron-DavisF.GoetzL.KarasoffP.SailorW.ZephL. (1992). LRE and the placement of students with severe disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 145–153.
10.
HaringT.HaringN. G.BreenC.RomerL. T.WhiteJ. (1995). Social relationships among students with deaf-blindness and their peers in inclusive settings. In HaringN. G.RomerL. T. (Eds.), Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships (pp. 231–248). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
11.
HuntP.GoetzL.AndersonJ. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 125–130.
12.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, 20 U.S.C 1400 et. seq.
13.
KearnsJ. F. (2001). Kentucky alternate portfolio research study. [Results of Kentucky's 1998–2000 alternate assessment]. Unpublished raw data.
14.
KleinertH.HaighJ.KearnsJ.KennedyS. (2000). Alternate assessments: Lessons learned and roads to be taken. Exceptional Children, 67, 51–66.
15.
KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2001). Alternate assessments: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
16.
KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F.KennedyS. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Person's with Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.
17.
KleinertH.ThurlowM. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessments. In KleinertH.KearnsJ., Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities. (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
18.
LinnR. L. (1993). Educational assessment: Expanded expectations and challenges. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 1–16.
19.
McCormickK.Grisham-BrownJ.NellisL.AndermanL. H.PrivettN.WilliamsA. (2003). Characteristics and attributes of effective primary programs and practices in Kentucky. Unpublished manuscript, University of Kentucky.
20.
McLetchieB. A. B. (1995). Teacher preparation. In HaringN. G.RomerL. T. (Eds.), Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships (pp. 89–104). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
21.
MeyerL. H.EichingerJ.Park-LeeS. (1987). A validation of Program Quality Indicators in educational services for students with severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 12, 251–268.
22.
MeyerL. H.EichingerJ.DowningJ. (1994). Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University, School of Education.
23.
MeyerL.Park-LeeH. S.Grenot-ScheyerM.SchwartzI.HarryB. (1998). Participatory research approaches for the study of the social relationships of children and youth. In MeyerL. (Ed.), Making friends. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
24.
National Technical Assistance Consortium for Children and Young Adults Who Are Deaf-Blind. (2003). National deaf-blind child count summary. Retrieved March 26, 2003, from http://www.tr.wou.edu/ntac/ntac.htm.
25.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2002, Pub. L. No. 107-110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
26.
OreloveF. P.SobseyD. (1996). Educating children with multiple disabilities: A transdisciplinary approach (3rd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
27.
Pretti-FrontczakK.BrickerD. (2000). Enhancing the quality of individualized education plan (IEP) goals and objectives. Journal of Early Intervention, 23, 92–105.
28.
RainforthB.YorkJ.York-BarrC. (1997). Collaborative teams for students with severe disabilities: Integrating therapy and educational services. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
29.
SteffyB. E. (1993). The Kentucky education reform: Lessons for America. Lancaster, PA: Technomic.
30.
StremelK.SchutzR. (1995). Functional communication in inclusive settings for students who are deaf-blind. In HaringN. G.RomerL. T. (Eds.), Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships (pp. 197–230). Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes.
31.
TurnerM. D.BaldwinL.KleinertH. L.KearnsJ. F. (2000). The relation of statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69–76.
32.
U.S. Office of Special Education Programs. (2000). OSEP memorandum to state directors of special education. (OSEP 00-24). Washington, DC: Authors.
33.
YinR. (2002). Case study research: Design and methods. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
34.
YsseldykeJ. E.OlsenK.ThurlowM. (1997). Issues and considerations in alternate assessments. (Synthesis Report 27) National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
