The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis

Volumn 28, Issue 2, 2006, Pages 181-194

  Roach, Andrew T ^a,b   Elliott, Stephen N ^a,c  

^a VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY MEDICAL CENTER   (United States)

^c VANDERBILT UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

Accountability; Alternate assessment; Curricular access; Students with disabilities

Indexed keywords

EID: 33746376977     PISSN: 01623737     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.3102/01623737028002181     Document Type: Article

References (36)

1. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. (2002). Access to the general education curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teacher. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123-133.
2. American Educational Research Association, American Psychological Association, & National Council on Measurement in Education. (1999). The standards for educational and psychological testing. Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
3. Anderson, L. W. (2002). Curricular alignment: A reexamination. Theory into Practice, 41, 255-260.
4. Baker, J. M., & Zigmond, N. (1990). Are regular classes equipped to accommodate students with learning disabilities? Exceptional Children, 56, 515-526.
5. Browder, D.M., & Cooper-Duffy, K. (2003). Evidence-based practices for students with severe disabilities and the requirements for accountability in "No Child Left Behind." Journal of Special Education, 37, 157-165.
6. Browder, D. M., Fallin, K., Davis, S., & Karvonen, M. (2003). Consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate assessment. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 255-270.
7. Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. (2002, April). Curricular implications of alternate assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
8. Browder, D. M., & Xin, Y. (1998). A review and meta-analysis of sight word instruction with students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 32, 130-153.
9. Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. A. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. Journal of Special Education, 14, 295-309.
10. Demaray, M. K., & Elliott, S. N. (1998). Teachers' judgments of students' academic functioning: A comparison of actual and predicted performance. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 8-24.
11. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C. § 6311 (b)(3)(C)(ii) (2002).
12. Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. B., & White, J. L. (2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability for students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
13. Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148-157.
14. Ford, A., Davern, L., & Schnorr, R. (2001). Learners with significant disabilities: Curricular relevance in an era of standards-based reform. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 214-222.
15. Grimm, L. G., & Yarnold, P. R. (2000). Reading and understanding more multivariate statistics. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
16. Hope, R. D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297-313.
17. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.).
18. Kampfer, S. H., Horvath, L. S., Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Teachers' perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361-374.
19. Kavale, K. A. (2002). Mainstreaming to full inclusion: From orthogenesis to pathogenesis of an idea. International Journal of Disability, Development, and Education, 49, 201-214.
20. Kline, R. B. (1998). Principles and practice of structural equation modeling. New York: Guilford Press.
21. Lane, S. (1999, October). Validity evidence for assessments. Paper presented at the Edward F. Reidy Interactive Lecture Series, The National Center for the Improvement of Educational Assessment, Providence, RI.
22. Lipsky, D., & Gartner, A. (1997). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America's classrooms. Baltimore, MD: Brookes.
23. 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. Syracuse, NY: Syracuse University Division of Special Education and Rehabilitation.
24. Nietupski, J., Harme-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976-1995 in six selected journals. Journal of Special Education, 31, 36-55.
25. Pugach, M. C., & Warger, C. L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194-196.
26. Roach, A. T. (2005). Alternate assessment as the "ultimate accommodation": Four challenges for policy and practice. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 73-78.
27. Roach, A. T., Elliott, S. N., & Webb, N. L. (2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment. Journal of Special Education, 38, 218-231.
28. Thompson, S., Johnstone, C., Thurlow, M., & Altman, J. (2005). 2005 state special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.
29. Turner, M. D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2000). The relation of a statewide alternate assessment for students with severe disabilities to other measures of instructional effectiveness. Journal of Special Education, 34, 69-76.
30. Walsh, J. M. (2001). Getting the "big picture" of IEP goals and state standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 5, 18-26.
31. Wehmeyer, M. L. (2003). Denning mental retardation and ensuring access to the general curriculum. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 271-282.
32. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lance, G. D., & Bashinski, S. (2002). Promoting access to the general curriculum for students with mental retardation: A multi-level model. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 223-234.
33. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rinker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262-272.
34. Yell, M. L. (1998). The law and special education. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
35. Yoon, B., & Resnick, L. B. (1998). Instructional validity, opportunity to learn, and equity: New Standards Examination for the California Mathematics Renaissance (CSE Technical Report 484). Los Angeles: University of California-Los Angeles, Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
36. Ysseldyke, J. E., & Olsen, K. R. (1997). Putting alternate assessments into practice: What to measure and possible sources of data (NCEO Synthesis Report No. 28). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes.