To improve teaching and assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities and to truly ensure that state accountability systems address the performance of these students, a better understanding of the instructional effects of accountability systems as perceived by school leaders (i.e., principals) is critically important. This study was designed to examine two exploratory research questions related to principals' perceptions of the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) in two states; specifically, (a) What were principals' overall perceptions of the influence of the AA-AAS on teachers' daily instruction; and (b) Were there meaningful differences in perceptions between principals from State 1 and State 2? Findings across the two states were similar and, overall, the principals' perceptions of the AA-AAS in their respective states were positive. Future research considerations and implications for practitioners are discussed.
Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.BrowderD.WakemanS. (2006). School administrators' perceptions of the impact of alternate assessments. Unpublished manuscript.
2.
BrowderD.Ahlgrim-DelzelleL.CourtadeG.GibbsS.FlowersC. (2008). Evaluating the effectiveness of an early literacy program for students with significant developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 33–54.
3.
BrowderD.KarvonenM.DavisS.FallinK.Courtade-LittleG. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267–282.
4.
BrowderD.SpoonerF. (2003). Understanding the purpose and process of alternate assessment. In RyndakD.AlperS., Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings. Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
5.
BrowderD.SpoonerR.AlgozzineR.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.KarvonenM. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–61.
6.
BrowderD.SpoonerF.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.FlowersC.AlgozzineB.KarvonenM. (2004). 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.
7.
Chief Council for State School Officers. (2003). Surveys of enacted curriculum: Tools for aligning instruction, standards, and assessments. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved November 13, 2006, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Surveys_of_Enacted_Curriculum/.
8.
Chief Council for State School Officers. (2004). A framework for examining the validity in state accountability systems. Retrieved October 5, 2005 from the World Wide Web: http://www.cccsso.org/publications/index.cfm.
9.
ClaytonJ.BurdgeM.DenhamA.KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2006). A four-step process for accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 20–27.
10.
CollinsB.KleinertH.LandL. (2006). Addressing math standards and functional math. In BrowderD.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching reading, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 197–227). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
11.
CostelloK.TurnerM.KearnsJ.KleinertH. (2000). Teacher and principal perceptions of the impact of alternate assessments on school accountability and instructional practices. Unpublished manuscript.
12.
CottonK. (2003). Principals and student achievement: What the research says. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.
13.
FlowersC.Ahlgrim-DelzellL.BrowderD.SpoonerF. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 81–92.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, PL 105-17, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
15.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA), PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq.
16.
KampferS.HorvathL.KleinertH.KearnsJ. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361–374.
17.
KleinertH.KennedyS.KearnsJ. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33, 93–102.
18.
KleinertH.QuenemoenR.ThurlowM. (in press). An introduction to alternate assessments: Historical foundations, essential parameters, and guiding principles. In KearnsJ.KleinertH. (Eds.), Meaningful outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Alternate assessment on alternate achievement standards. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
19.
KleinertH.ThurlowM. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessments: Historical foundations and essential parameters. In KleinertH.KearnsJ. (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1–15). Baltimore: Brookes.
20.
LazarusS. S.RogersC.CormierD.ThurlowM. L. (2008). States' participation guidelines for alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2008 (Synthesis Report 71). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21.
McGrewK.ThurlowM.SpiegelA. (1993). An investigation of the exclusion of students with disabilities in national data collection programs. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15, 339–352.
22.
National Alternate Assessment Center. (2007a). Documenting the technical quality of State 1's alternate assessment system: An annotated workbook. Lexington, KY: Author.
23.
National Alternate Assessment Center. (2007b). Documenting the technical quality of State 2's alternate assessment system: An annotated workbook. Lexington, KY: Author.
24.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), Pub. L. No. 107–110, § 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
25.
ShrinerJ.ThurlowM. (1993). 1992 State special education outcomes. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
26.
SpoonerF.Di BiaseW.Courtade-LittleG. (2006). Science standards and functional skills: Finding the links. In BrowderD.SpoonerF. (Eds.), Teaching reading, math and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities (pp. 229–243). Baltimore: Paul Brookes.
27.
ThompsonS.QuenemoenR. (2001). Eight steps to effective implementation of alternate assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 26, 67–74.
28.
ThurlowM.JohnsonD. (2000). High stakes testing of students with disabilities. Journal of Teacher Education, 51, 305–314.
29.
ThurlowM.WileyH.BielinskiJ. (2003). Going public: What 2000–2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35)Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30.
Towles-ReevesE.GarrettB.BurdetteP.BurdgeM. (2006). What are the consequences? Validation of large-scale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instruction. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 45–57.
31.
Towles-ReevesE.KleinertH. (2006). The impact of one state's alternate assessment upon instruction and IEP development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25, 31–39.
32.
U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessments peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
33.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Non regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
WehmeyerM.LattinD.AgranM. (2001). Achieving access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A curriculum decision-making model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 36, 327–342.
36.
WienerD. (2006). Alternate assessments measured against gradelevel achievement standards: The Massachusetts “Competency Portfolio” (Synthesis Report 59). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
