Assessment of progress in the general curriculum for students with disabilities

Theory into Practice

Volumn 45, Issue 3, 2006, Pages 249-259

  Browder, Diane M ^a   Wakeman, Shawnee Y ^a   Flowers, Claudia ^a  

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

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 33747482646     PISSN: 00405841     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1207/s15430421tip4503_7     Document Type: Article

References (46)

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. Allinder, R. M. (1995). An examination of the relationship between teacher efficacy and curriculum-based measurement and student achievement. Remedial & Special Education, 16, 247-254.
3. Boundy, K. (2000, April). Including students with disabilities in standards based education reform. TASH Newsletter, 4-5, 21.
4. Brophy, J. (1987). Teacher effects research and teacher quality. Journal of Classroom Interaction, 22, 14-23.
5. Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. (2003). Understanding the purpose and process of alternate assessment. In D. Ryndak & S. Alper (Eds.), Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities in inclusive settings (pp. 51-72). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
6. Browder, D. M., 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, 211-223.
7. Byrnes, M. (2001, April). Teachers' perspectives about adopting statewide curriculum frameworks for students in out-of-district day and residential special education programs: Reflections on the way to realizing the promise. Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Seattle, WA.
8. Cook, L., Eignor, D., & Cahalan, C. (2004, June). Alternate assessments: Key issues and research implications. Paper presented at the Council of Chief State School Officers Large-Scale Assessment Conference, Boston, MA.
9. Cuban, L. (1992). Why some reforms last: The case of kindergarten. American Journal of Education, 100, 166-194.
10. Darling-Hammond, L. (2000). Teacher quality and student achievement: A review of state policy evidence. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 5(1). Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1
11. Elliott, S. N., Braden, J. P., & White, J. L. (2001). Assessing one and all. Arlington, VA: Council of Exceptional Children.
12. English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational account-ability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
13. Flowers, C., Browder, D. M., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of three states' alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 72, 201-215.
14. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). What is scientifically-based research on progress monitoring? Washington, DC: National Center on Student Progress Monitoring. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://www.studentprogress.org
15. Guillot, M. (1997). Swiss Family Robinson. Oakdale, NY: Edcon Publishing (Original work by Johann Wyss published 1812).
16. Hancock, D. R., Mayring, P., Glaeser-Zikuda, M., Nichols, M. D., & Jones, J. (2000). The impact of teacher instructional strategies and student anxiety levels on students' achievement in eighth grade German and U.S. classrooms. Journal of Research and Development in Education, 33, 232-240.
17. Hitchcock, C., Meyer, A., Rose, A., & Jackson, R. (2002, July). Access, participation, and progress in the general curriculum. Paper presented at the National Capacity Building Institute on Access to the General Curriculum, Arlington, VA.
18. Improving America's Schools Act of 1994, 20 U.S.C. § 1111 et seq.
19. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105-17, 111 Stat. 37 (1997).
20. Lashley, C. (2002). Participation of students with disabilities in statewide assessments and the general education curriculum: Implications for administrative practice. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 15, 10-16.
21. Minnema, J., Thurlow, M., & Bielinski, J., & Scott, J. (2000). Past and present understanding of out-of-level testing: A research synthesis (Out-of-Level Testing Project Report 1). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 9, 2005,from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/ OOLTl.html
22. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
23. Orkwis, R. (2003). Universally designed instruction. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 475386)
24. Porter, A. C. (2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(1), 3-14.
25. Quenemoen, R., Lehr, C. A., Thurlow, M. L., & Massanari, C. B. (2001). Student with disabilities in standards-based assessment accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 3, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Synthesis37.html.
26. Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., & Thurlow, M. (2002). Use of alternate assessment results in reporting and accountability systems; Conditions for use based on research and practice (Synthesis Report 43). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 20, 2002, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Synthesis43.html
27. Thompson, S., Blount, A., & Thurlow, M. (2002). A summary of research on the effects of test accommodations: 1999 through 2001 (Technical Report 34). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/ NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technica134.html
28. Thompson, S., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002) Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Synthesis44.html
29. Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M. (1999). 1999 state special education outcomes; A report on state activities at the end of the century. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 19, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ 99StateReport.htm
30. Thompson, S. J., Thurlow, M. L., Johnstone, C. J., & Altman, J. R. (2005). 2005 state special education outcomes: Steps forward in n decade of change. Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved November 15, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/ NCEO/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm/
31. Thompson, S., Thurlow, M., & Moore, M. (2003). Using computer-based tests with students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 15). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Out-comes. Retrieved November 14, 2003, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Policy 15.htm
32. Thurlow, M., & Bolt, S. (2001). Empirical support for accommodations most often allowed in state policy (Synthesis Report 41). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 9, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis41.html
33. Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
34. Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Morse, A. B. (2005). State policies on assessment participation and accommodations for students with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 232-240.
35. Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., & Lehr, C. (2001). Principles and characteristics of inclusive assessment and accountability systems (Synthesis Report 40). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved December 7, 2001, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis40.html
36. Thurlow, M., Wiley, H. I., & Bielinski, J._(2003). Going public: What 2000-2001 reports tell us about the performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 35). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved February 22, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical35.htm
37. U.S, Department of Education, (2003a). Title 1 - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Final Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 236 (December 2, 2002) (codified at 34 C.F.R. pt. 200)
38. U.S. Department of Education. (2003b). Title 1 - Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Proposed Rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 13,797-13,798.
39. U.S. Department of Education. (2005a). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/ guid/altguidance.doc
40. U.S. Department of Education. (2005b). Raising achievement: Alternate assessments for students with disabilities. Retrieved August 26, 2005, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/raising/ alt-assess-long.html
41. Webb, N. L. (1997). Research Monograph No. 6: Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
42. Webb, N. L. (1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states. (NISE Research Monograph No. 18). Madison, WI/ Washington, DC: University of Wisconsin-Madison, National Institute for Science Education/Council of Chief State School Officers.
43. Webb, N. L. (2002). Alignment study in language arts, mathematics, science, and social studies of state standards and assessments for four states. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
44. Webb, N. L., Horton, M., & O'Neal, S. (2002, April). An analysis of the alignment between language arts standards and assessments for four states. Paper presented at the meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
45. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. (2003). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial & Special Education, 24, 262-272.
46. Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2003). Large-scale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved August 28, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/ Synthesis51.html\