The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores

Exceptional Children

Volumn 71, Issue 3, 2005, Pages 267-282

  Browder, Diane M ^a   Karvonen, Meagan ^b   Davis, Stephanie ^c   Fallin, Kathy ^d   Courtade Little, Ginevra ^d  

^a UNIVERSITY OF NORTH CAROLINA AT CHARLOTTE   (United States)

^b WESTERN CAROLINA UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^c Cabarrus County Schools   (United States)

^d Charlotte Mecklenburg Schools   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 14644399719     PISSN: 00144029     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/001440290507100304     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
2. Ayres, B. J., Meyer, L. H., Erevelles, N., & Park-Lee, S. (1994). Easy for you to say: Teacher perspectives on implementing most promising practices. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 19, 84-93.
3. Belfiore, P. J., & Browder, D. M. (1992). The effects of self-monitoring on teacher's data-based decisions and on the progress of adults with severe mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 60-67.
4. Browder, D., Demchak, M. A., Heller, M., & King, D. (1991). An in vivo evaluation of data-based rules to guide instructional decisions. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 234-240.
5. Browder, D., Liberty, K., Heller, M., & D'Huyvetters, K. (1986). Self-management to improve teachers' instructional decisions. Professional School Psychology, 1, 165-175.
6. Browder, D. M. (Ed). (2001). Curriculum and assessment for students with moderate and severe disabilites, New York: Guilford Press.
7. Browder, D. M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the NCLB requirement for adequate yearly progress in reading, math, and science. Journal of Special Education, 37, 157-163.
8. Browder, D. M., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255-270.
9. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, R., & Karvonen, M. (2004). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons With Severe Disabilities, 28, 105-181.
10. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, R., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45-61.
11. Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analyses for the behavioral sciences (2nd Ed). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
12. Farlow, S. J., & Snell, M. E. (1989). Teacher use of student performance data to make instructional decisions: Practices in programs for students with moderate to profound disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 13-22.
13. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq.
14. Kampfer, S., Horvath, L., Kleinert, H., & Kearns, J. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment portfolio program: Implications for practice and teacher preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361-374.
15. Kleinert, H. L., Kearns, J. F., & 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.
16. Kleinert, H. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (2001). An introduction to alternate assessment. In H. L. Kleinert & J. F. Kearns (Eds.), Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes and supports for students with disabilities (pp. 1-15). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
17. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
18. North Carolina Department of Public Instruction, (September, 2002). The North Carolina State Testing Results. Raleigh, NC: Public Schools of North Carolina.
19. Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (2003). Measuring academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities: Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved July 31, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html
20. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2001). 2001 state special education outcomes: A report on state activities at the beginning of a new decade. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved September 5, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/ OnlinePubs/onlinedefault.html
21. Title I - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 68,698 (Dec. 9, 2003) (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200).