Accountability for All Students: Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio Assessment for Students with Moderate and Severe Cognitive Disabilities

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

Volumn 22, Issue 2, 1997, Pages 88-101

  Kleinert, Harold L ^a   Kearns, Jacqueline Farmer ^a   Kennedy, Sarah ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF KENTUCKY   (United States)

Author keywords

best practices; educational assessment; educational reform; inclusion; learning outcomes; natural supports; peers; performance based assessment; portfolio assessment; school accountability

Indexed keywords

EID: 0031161787     PISSN: 15407969     EISSN: 21692408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/154079699702200206     Document Type: Article

References (29)

1. Baker E. Linn R. (1993). The technical merit of performance assessment. The CRESST Line (Fall). Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
2. Brandt R. (1992). On performance assessment: A conversation with Grant Wiggins. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 35–37.
3. CEC fights to include special education in assessment. (1995). CEC Today, 1(9).
4. Colorado Department of Education (1988). Colorado effective education model: Implementation site checklist—classroom (Draft). Denver, CO: Department of Education.
5. Coutinho M. Malouf D. (1993). Performance assessment and children with disabilities: Issues and possibilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(4), 62–67.
6. Dietel R. (Fall, 1992). Portfolios as worthwhile burdens? The CRESST Line. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
7. Ford A. Davern L. Schnoor R. (1992). Inclusive education: Making sense of the curriculum. In Ed. Stainback S. Stainback W., Curriculum considerations in inclusive classroom: Facilitating learning for all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
8. Gearhart M. Herman J. (Winter, 1995). Portfolio assessment: Whose work is it? Evaluation Comment. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Center for the Study of Evaluation.
9. Guskey T. (1994). What you assess may not be what you get. Educational Leadership, 51(6), 51–54.
10. Halvorsen A. Smithey L. Neary T. (1992). Implementation site criteria for inclusive programs. Sacramento, CA: California State Department of Education, PEERS Project.
11. Herman J. (1992). What research tells us about good assessment. Educational Leadership, 49(8), 74–78.
12. Herman J. Winters L. (1994). Portfolio research: A slim collection. Educational Leadership, 52(2), 48–55.
13. Hunt P. Farron-Davis F. (1992). A preliminary investigation of IEP quality and content associated with placement in general education vs. special education classes. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 17, 247–253.
14. Hunt P. Farron-Davis F. Beckstead S. Curtis D. Goetz L. (1994). Evaluating the effects of placement of students with severe disabilities in general education versus special education classes. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 200–214.
15. Hunt P. Goetz L. Anderson J. (1986). The quality of IEP objectives associated with placement on integrated versus segregated school sites. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 125–130.
16. Kleinert H. Smith P. Hudson M. (1990). Quality program indicators for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Lexington: University of Kentucky, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute.
17. Linn R. Baker E. (Fall, 1992). Portfolios and accountability. The CRESST Line. Los Angeles, CA: UCLA Graduate School of Education, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
18. Mason E. Bramble W. (1978). Understanding and conducting research: Applications in education and the behavioral sciences. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.
19. McGrew K. Thurlow M. Shriner J. Spiegel A. (1992). Inclusion of students with disabilities in national and state data collection programs (Technical Report No. 2). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
20. Meyer L. Eichinger J. Downing J. (1992). The Program Quality Indicators (PQI): A checklist of most promising practices in educational programs for students with severe disabilities (rev. ed.). Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
21. Meyer L. Janney R. (1989). User-friendly measures of meaningful outcomes: Evaluating behavioral interventions. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 263–270.
22. Steffy B. (1993). Top-down—bottom-up: Systemic change in Kentucky. Educational Leadership, 51(1), 42–44.
23. Thurlow M. Ysseldyke J. Silverstein B. (1993). Testing accommodations for students with disabilities: A review of the literature (Synthesis Report No. 4). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
24. United States Department of Education (1995). Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1995: Reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC: Author.
25. Wesson C. King R. (1996). Portfolio assessment and special education students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 28, 44–49.
26. What is Goals 2000: The Educate America Act? Teaching Exceptional Children, 27(1), 78–80.
27. White O. (1980). Adaptive performance objectives: Form versus function. In Ed. Sailor W. Wilcox B. Brown L. (Eds.), Methods of instruction for severely handicapped students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
28. Worthen B. (1993). Critical features that will determine the future of alternative assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 74, 444–454.
29. Ysseldyke J. Thurlow M. Shriner J. (1992). Outcomes are for special educators too. Teaching Exceptional Children, 25(1), 36–50.