Alternate Assessment as the “Ultimate Accommodation”: Four Challenges for Policy and Practice

Assessment for Effective Intervention

Volumn 31, Issue 1, 2005, Pages 73-78

  Roach, Andrew T ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WISCONSIN MADISON   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84858913592     PISSN: 15345084     EISSN: None     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1177/073724770503100107     Document Type: Article

References (21)

1. 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.
2. 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.
3. Elementary and Secondary Education Act, 20 U.S.C.’ 6311(b)(3)(C)(ii) (2002).
4. 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.
5. Fuchs, L.S., & Elliott, S.N. (1997). The utility of curriculum-based measurement and performance assessment as alternatives to traditional intelligence and achievement tests. School Psychology Review, 26, 224–233.
6. Hoge, R.D., & Coladarci, T. (1989). Teacher-based judgments of academic achievement: A review of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 59, 297–313.
7. Hollenbeck, K., Tindall, G., & Almond, P. (1998). Teachers' knowledge of accommodations as a validity issue in high-stakes testing. Journal of Special Education, 32, 175–183.
8. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 105–17, 111 Stat. 37 (codified as amended at 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.).
9. Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.F. (1999). A validation study of the performance indicators and learner outcomes of Kentucky's alternate assessment for students with significant disabilities. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 24, 100–110.
10. Koertz, D., McCaffrey, D., Klein, S., Bell, R., & Stecher, B. (1993). The reliability of scores from the 1992 Vermont portfolio assessment program (CSE Technical Report 355). Los Angeles, CA: National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing.
11. Lewis, D.M., Mitzel, H.C., & Green, D.R. (1996, June). Standard setting: A bookmark approach. In D. R. Green (Chair), IRT-based standard-setting procedures utilizing behavioral anchoring. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the Council of Chief State School Officers National Conference on Large Scale Assessment, Phoenix, AZ.
12. Pugach, M.C., & Warger, C.L. (2001). Curriculum matters: Raising expectations for students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 194–196.
13. Roach, A.T., & Elliott, S.N. (2004, April). Alignment analysis and standard setting procedures for alternate assessments. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, San Diego, CA.
14. Roach, A.T., Elliott, S.N., & Webb N.L. (2003). Alignment analysis and content validity of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities, (WCER Working Paper No. 2003–2). Available at: http://www.wcer.wisc.edu/publications/workingpaper/abstract/Working_Paper_No_2003_2.asp
15. Shinn, M.R. (1995). Best practice in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology—III (pp. 547–568). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
16. Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, J.L. (2003). 2003 State special education outcomes: Marching on. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 1, 2004, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2003StateReport.htm.
17. Tindal, G., McDonald, M., Tedesco, M., Glasgow, A., Almond, P., Crawford, L., & Hollenbeck, K. (2003). Alternate assessments in reading and math: Development and validation for students with significant disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 481–494.
18. Turner, M.D., Baldwin, L., Kleinert, H.L., & Kearns, J.E. (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.
19. U.S. Department of Education. (2003, March). Title I-Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; proposed rule. Federal Register, 68(54), 13796–13801.
20. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., McGrew, K., & Vanderwood, M. (1994). Making decisions about the inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments (Synthesis Report 13). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes.
21. Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Shin, H. (1995). Opportunity-to-learn standards (Policy Directions No. 4). Minneapolis: National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved March 18, 2003 from: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Policy4.html