Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2brh9 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T13:45:37.777Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Current Practices in Alternate Assessment and Access to the General Curriculum for Students with Severe Disabilities in the United States of America

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2016

Diane M. Browder ,
Fred Spooner  and
Mary Anna Bingham
Diane M. Browder
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Charlotte, USA
Fred Spooner
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Charlotte, USA
Mary Anna Bingham
Affiliation:
University of North Carolina Charlotte, USA
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Alternate assessment and access to the general curriculum are the focus of much attention today for professionals and practitioners who provide services to students who have severe disabilities. Current legislation in the United States requires states to include students with severe disabilities in state‐wide assessments. The rationale is to require schools to be accountable for the progress of all students. Including students with severe disabilities in school accountability systems has created the need to rethink curriculum for this population and develop alternate assessments. In recent decades educators have focused on functional curriculum for students with severe disabilities, but recent federal legislation in the United States called No Child Left Behind requires schools to collect data on the yearly progress in academic content areas. Educators are focusing on ways to define alternate achievement standards for reading and mathematics for students with severe disabilities. States have developed a variety of formats for alternate assessments to be used for students who cannot participate in large scale assessments with accommodations. This article describes: (a) how the move towards including all students in school accountability is impacting curriculum for students with severe disabilities, (b) the decisions states must make in developing alternate assessments, and (c) recommendations for future practice and research.

Type
Research Article
Information
Australasian Journal of Special Education , Volume 28 , Issue 2 , January 2004 , pp. 17 - 29
Copyright
Copyright © The Australian Association of Special Education 2004

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with severe disabilities: What it means to teachers. Educational and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123–133.Google Scholar
Board of Studies, New South Wales, Australia (2004). K-6 education resources. Retrieved May 25, 2004, from www.bosnsw-k6.nsw.edu.au.Google Scholar
Board of Studies, New South Wales, Australia (2004). Statement of equity principles. Retrieved May 25, from www.boardofstudies.nsw.edu.au.Google Scholar
Bricker, W., & Campbell, P. (1980). Interdisciplinary assessment and programming for multihandicapped students. In Sailor, W. Wilcox, B., & Brown, L. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 3–46). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Bricker, D., & lacino, R. (1977). Early intervention with severely/profoundly handicapped children. In Sontag, E., Smith, J., & Certo, N. (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 166–176). Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Browder, D. (1987). Assessment of individuals with severe handicaps: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Browder, D. (1991). Assessment of individuals with severe disabilities: An applied behavior approach to life skills assessment (2nd> ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Browder, D. (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (in press). How states implement alternate assessment and recommendations for national policy. Journal of Disability Policy Studies.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessments. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 28, 255–270.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content to academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37, 211–224 Google Scholar
Browder, D., & Grasso, E. (1999). Teaching money skills to individuals with mental retardation: A research review with practical applications. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 297–308.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (In press). An evaluation of the Charlotte alternate assessment project to Improve scores in a high stakes accountability system for students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Browder, D., & Lohrmann-O#x2019;Rourke, S. (2001). Promoting self-determination in planning and instruction. In Browder, D. (Ed.), Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilities (pp. 148–178). New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2003). Understanding the purpose and process of alternate assessment. In Ryndak, D. & Alper, S. (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction for students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings (2nd> ed., pp. 51–72). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45–62.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., & Algozzine, R. (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.Google Scholar
Browder, D., Wood, W., Test, D., Karvonen, M., & AIgozzine, B. (2001). Reviewing resources on self-determination: A map for teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 233–244 Google Scholar
Browder, D., & Xin, Y. (1998). A meta-analysis and review of sight word research and its implications for reaching functional reading to individuals with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130–153.Google Scholar
Brown, L., Nietupski, J., & Hamre-Nietupski, S. (1976). Criterion of ultimate functioning. In Thomas, M.A. (Ed.), Hey, don’t forget about me! Education’s investment in the severely, profoundly, and multiply handicapped (pp. 2–15). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Certo, N., Haring, N., & York, R. (1984). Public school integration of severely handicapped students: Rational issues and progressive alternatives. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Charlotte Alternate Assessment Project (2004). Increasing instructional effectiveness. Retrieved May 3, 2004, from http://www.uncc.edu/aap/ Google Scholar
Cipani, E., & Spooner, F. (1994). Cumcularand instructional approaches for persons with severe disabilities. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Cohen, M., Gross, P., & Haring, N. (1976). Developmental pinpoints. In Haring, N.G. & Brown, L.J. (Eds.). Teaching the severely handicapped: Volume I. New York: Grune & Stratton.Google Scholar
Downing, J. (1996). Including students with severe and multiple disabilities In typical classrooms. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., & Thor, K. (1995). State special education outcomes, 1994. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED404 799)Google Scholar
Erickson, R., Thurlow, M., Thor, K., & Seyfarth, A. (1996).Google Scholar
State special education outcomes, 1995. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED385061)Google Scholar
Falvey, M. (1986). Community based curriculum: Instructional strategies for students with severe handicaps. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Farlow, L., & Snell, M. (1989). Teacher use of student performance data to make Instructional decisions: Practices in program for students with moderate to profound disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 13–22.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with severe disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214–222.Google Scholar
Ford, A., Schnorr, R., Meyer, L., Davern, L., Black, J., & Dempsey, P. (Eds.). (1989). The Syracuse community-referenced curriculum guide for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C., & Iverson, V. (1993). Choosing options and accommodations for children (COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Giangreco, M., Cloninger, C., & Iverson, V. (1998). Choosing options and accommodations for children (COACH): A guide to planning inclusive education (2nd> ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Grigg, N., Snell, M., & Loyd, B. (1989). Visual analysis of student evaluation data: a qualitative analysis of teacher decision making. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 23–32.Google Scholar
Haring, N. Liberty, K., & White, O. (1980). Rules for data-based strategy decisions in Instructional programs: Current research and instructional implications. In Sailor, W., Wilcox, B., & Brown, L. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students (pp. 159–192). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Haring, N., & Romer, L. (Eds.). (1995). Welcoming students who are deaf-blind into typical classrooms: Facilitating school participation, learning, and friendships. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Holvoet, J., O’Neil, C., Chazdon, L., Carr, D., & Warner, J. (1983). Hey do we really have to take data? The Journal of The Association for the Severely Handicapped, 8(3), 56–70.Google Scholar
Hughes, C., Korinek, L., & Gorman, J. (1991).Google Scholar
Self-management for students with mental retardation in public school settings: A research review. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 271–291.Google Scholar
Kern, L., Vorndran, C., Hilt, A., Ringdahl, J., Adelman, B., & Dunlap, G. (1998). Choice as an intervention to improve behavior: A review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 151–169.Google Scholar
Kleinert, H., Haig, J., Kearns, J., & Kennedy, S. (2000). Alternate assessments: Lessons learned and roads to be taken. Exceptional Children, 67, 51–66.Google Scholar
Kleinert, H., Keams, J., & Kennedy, S. (1997). Accountability for all students: Kentucky’s alternate portfolio assessment for students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 88–101.Google Scholar
Kleinert, H., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). Impact of alternate assessments: Astatewide teacher survey. Journal of Special Education, 33, 93–102.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kleinert, H., & Thurlow, M. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessment. In Kleinert, H.L. & Kearns, J.F. (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1–12). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Knowlton, E. (1998). Considerations in the design of personalized curricular supports for students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 95–107.Google Scholar
Lindsley, O. (1972). From Skinner to precision teaching: The child knows best. In Jordan, J.B. & Robbins, L.S. (Eds.), Lets’try doing something else kind of thing (pp. 1–11). Arlington, VA: The Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Lindsley, O. (1990). Precision teaching: By teachers for children. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 22(3), 10–15.Google Scholar
Lohrmann-O’Rourke, S., & Browder, D. (1998). Empirically based methods to assess the preferences of individuals with severe disabilities. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 103, 146–161.Google Scholar
Meyer, L., Eichinger, J., & Park-Lee, S. (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, 251–263.Google Scholar
National Center on Education Outcomes. Retrieved May 26, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO Google Scholar
New South Wales Department of Education (1988). Curriculum statement for the education of students with severe intellectual disability. Sydney: Author.Google Scholar
Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976 to 1995 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36–55.Google Scholar
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110,115 Stat.1425 (2002).Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2001). Report of student performance: North Carolina alternate assessment portfolio pilot program, 1999-2000 Raleigh, NC: Author.Google Scholar
North Carolina Department of Public Instruction. (2003). The North Carolina state testing results: preliminary data 2002-2003 (“The green book”). Raleigh, NC; Author.Google Scholar
Robinson, C., & Robinson, J. (1983). Sensorimotor functions and cognitive development. In Snell, M.E. (Ed.), Systematic Instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (2nd ed., pp. 226–266). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Ryndak, D., & Alper, S. (1996). Curriculum content for students with moderate and severe disabilities in inclusive settings. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Ryndak, D., & Alper, S. (2003). Curriculum and instruction for students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education settings (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
Sailor, W., Goetz, L., Anderson, J., Hunt, P., & Gee, K. (1988). Research on community intensive instruction as a model for building functional, generalized skills. In Homer, R.H., Dunlap, G., & Koegel, R.L (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Lifestyle changes in applied settings (pp. 67–98). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Snell, M. (Ed.). (1983). Systematic instruction of the moderately and severely handicapped (2nd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Snell, M. (Ed.). (1987). Systematic instruction of persons with severe handicaps (3rd ed.). Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.Google Scholar
Snell, M. (1988). Curriculum and methodology for individuals with severe disabilities. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 23, 302–314.Google Scholar
Snell, M. (Ed.). (1993). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th ed.). New York: Merrill.Google Scholar
Snell, M., & Brown, F. (Eds.). (2000). Instruction of students with severe disabilities (5th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Stephens, B. (1977). Piagetian approach to curriculum development. In Sontag, E., Smith, J., & Certo, N. (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 237–249). Reston, VA: Division on Mental Retardation, Council for Exceptional Children.Google Scholar
Test, D., Karvonen, M., Wood, W., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. (2000). Choosing a self-determination curriculum. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 33(2), 48–54.Google Scholar
Thompson, S., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., & Ysseldyke, J. (2001). Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
Westling, D., & Fox, L. (1995). Teaching students with severe disabilities. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2000). Teaching students with severe disabilities (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
Westling, D., & Fox, L. (2004). Teaching students with severe disabilities (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.Google Scholar
White, O., & Haring, N. (1980). Exceptional teaching (2nd ed.). Merrill: Columbus, OH.Google Scholar
Wilcox, B., & Bellamy, G. (1987). The Activities catalog: An alternative curriculum for youth and adults with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.Google Scholar
Williams, W., Fox, T., Thousand, J., & Fox, W. (1990). Level of acceptance and implementation of best practices in the education of students with severe handicaps in Vermont. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 25, 120–131.Google Scholar