There are increasing demands of accountability for improved student achievement, hence the challenges for governments, school systems, and educators to promote the development of teacher preparation and educational practices that assimilate precise strategies and alternate assessment tools for effective use in the classroom. This research study looks at the level and type of preparation given to teachers prior to the administering of the alternate assessment offered to students with significant cognitive disabilities to indicate students contribution to the schools academic progress or failure. Results of this study provide informative guidelines to all stakeholders in the business of training and preparing teachers to become more knowledgeable and efficient and hence demonstrate positive attitude toward this form of assessment.
Develop effective alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). With this practical guidebook, K-12 educators will modify assessments and ensure high-quality instruction that leads to better outcomes.
Federal legislation mandates all students, including those with significant cognitive disabilities, participate in standards based education and in state assessments linked to those standards. To address this issue, this study used a multiple case study design in order to determine the impact alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards have on teaching and learning for students with significant cognitive disabilities who participate in these assessments. Specifically, this study examined: (a) the link between the IEP and the state standards, (b) teacher and parent perceptions of standards based instruction and alternate assessment, and (c) how teachers deliver academic content to students who participate in alternate assessment. Data were collected using observations, in-depth interviews, surveys, and a document review. Exemplar cases were selected from schools representing urban, suburban and rural school districts in Georgia. Five middle school special education teachers and five parents of middle school students with moderate and significant levels of intellectual disabilities were participants - creating a teacher/parent/student triad. Each case was involved in standards-based instruction for students with significant cognitive disabilities who participated in the Georgia Alternate Assessment (GAA) during the 2008-09 school-year. Results from this study indicate that parents and teachers have favorable views of academic instruction for students with moderate intellectual disabilities, but some were less sure of the benefit for students with the most significant disabilities. Additionally, parents know little about the alternate assessment itself. Teachers were providing academic instruction that was linked to the state grade level standards and to the GAA, yet many of the teachers continued to maintain separate academic or GAA time and IEP goal/objective time. The document review revealed that little to no linkage was demonstrated between the IEP and the state standards, with most of IEPs containing more functional than academic goals and objectives. The findings of this study have several implications for policy, research and practice, including (a) the need for on-going professional development to assist teachers in developing the necessary skills to adapt grade level standards for inclusion into the IEP and (b) professional development that helps teachers integrate academic activities with IEP activities into more lessons.
Discover what really works in alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. This book gathers cutting-edge knowledge and best practices in seven states to help readers work toward accurate assessment of students with severe disabilities.
Dealing with flexibility--or its converse, the extent of standardization--is fundamental to alignment, assessment design, and interpretation of results in fully inclusive assessment systems. Highly standardized tests make it easier to compare (performances, students, and schools) across time and to common standards because certain conditions are met that (ostensibly) reduce the irrelevant variation and support stronger inferences for interpretation. Alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards--and the corresponding instruction for these students--have come from a highly individualized tradition in which comparisons among students and data aggregation have not been the focus. Alternate assessment and instruction is moving more firmly into a standards-based accountability world, due in large part to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) Amendments of 1997, the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004, and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). This document presents an analysis, by assessment system component, of where flexibility is typically allowed and where it tends to be controlled (standardized) in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. One of the greatest challenges in either aggregating data or evaluating technical quality for many forms of alternate assessments results from the intended flexibility allowed in student learning (and assessment) goals. On the other hand, the present analysis indicates that there are many choice points for state policymakers and assessment leaders regarding the degree of flexibility or standardization they might choose to design into their alternate assessment systems. Of course, these choices are contingent on the values of the state regarding the primary purposes of the alternate assessment system. This report provides a useful framework to inform discussion about flexibility in assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities that will: (1) permit clarification of values and goals so fundamental policy decisions can be made regarding desired comparability; (2) support research and development work to improve assessment for this population of students, with the long-term goal that such assessment will support improved achievement; (3) help the discussion of alternate assessment approaches move beyond simply using nominal labels of familiar assessment formats (e.g., portfolio, performance, checklist or rating scales) and recognize that most alternate assessments are a blend of multiple formats with varying degrees of flexibility for different components of the system; and (4) assist in the evaluation of the technical quality of alternate assessment systems. Appended are: (1) Information excerpted from Quenemoen, Thompson, and Thurlow (2003) to help provide additional background material regarding the various types of alternate assessment; and (2) Inclusive Assessment System Options by Degree of Standardization/Flexibility. (Contains 2 tables and 1 figure.).
Make the best decisions about the design and development of AA-MAS, so students can reach their full potential and schools can meet adequate yearly progress requirements. A comprehensive, research-based guide for policymakers and administrators.
The report is organized to provide information on the school-level implementation of alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Following the Introduction in Chapter 1, Chapter 2 describes the study design and methods, including the development of the teacher survey and data collection procedures and analyses. Chapter 3 describes background information for teacher respondents, the students they teach, and the classrooms in which they work. Chapter 4 describes teachers' potential instructional influences, their understanding of the alternate assessment system, and their expectations and beliefs related to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Chapter 5 describes the teachers' professional capacity and the availability and use of resources. Chapter 6 describes students' opportunity to learn academic content. Chapter 7 highlights key study findings. National Study on Alternate Assessments Teacher Survey is appended. (Contains 1 table, 60 figures, and 10 footnotes.).
"Students with disabilities must overcome unique obstacles in order to learn, and the pressure of testing often exacerbates existing challenges. With increased focus on accountability for all, how can educators properly prepare students for tests without sacrificing meaningful learning? In Improving Test Performance of Students With Disabilities ... On District and State Assessments, Second Edition, authors Elliott and Thurlow offer numerous strategies for improving instruction, student accommodations, and test preparation, all with the goal of improving the test performance of students with disabilities. Emphasizing practical application, this comprehensive resource delineates the key elements district, school, and state professionals must consider in order to maximize the academic performance of students with disabilities. The second edition of this insightful text addresses the impact of the No Child Left Behind Act on instruction and assessment practices for students with disabilities, including those who are also English Language Learners. Featuring inserts and easy-to-follow worksheets, tables, and appendices, this indispensable resource will enable all educators to help students with disabilities learn more effectively and show what they know on the day of the test."--Publisher's website.
In December, 2004, the National Center on Educational Outcomes (NCEO) hosted one of its series of national telephone conferences on the topic of access and alignment to the grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Dan Wiener from the Massachusetts Department of Education was the practitioner presenter. Dan Wiener's presentation was a powerful case study of why and how one state, Massachusetts, ensures that ALL children have access to the grade level curriculum, and achieve at high levels. This publication is in response to many requests for his story. He presents a model for using grade level content standards for developing instruction and assessments aligned with the requirements of NCLB for students who will be assessed in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. A case study is described in which the State of Massachusetts equipped its special educators with the same content knowledge that general educators have, so they could put their considerable skills to work adapting and modifying that curriculum, because that is what special educators already do well. The State of Massachusetts provided those special educators who work with students who are the most difficult to include in the curriculum with a roadmap to make it possible for them to grasp, at a conceptual level, what is expected of all students (the standards), and to understand the process for customizing that curriculum for each student. Then they were shown how to collect data and to document a student's progress learning targeted skills in the student's portfolio that gets used in the school, and later submitted to the state as an alternate assessment. A key ingredient to the State of Massachusetts' success has been a coordinated message about alternate assessment from a unified state leadership. The "1% rule" has given schools an even greater incentive to educate these students in their local schools, and to take the alternate assessment seriously.
