Teacher perceptions of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards: Results from a three-state survey

Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities

Volumn 37, Issue 3, 2012, Pages 185-198

  Restorff, Diane ^a   Sharpe, Michael ^a   Abery, Brian ^a   Rodriguez, Michael ^a   Kim, Nam Keol ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84871296850     PISSN: 15407969     EISSN: 21692408     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.2511/027494812804153570     Document Type: Review

References (21)

1. Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Falin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267-282.
2. Cameto, R., Bergland, F., Knokey, A., Nagle, K. M., Sanford, C., Kalb, S. C., et al. (2010). Teacher perspectives of schoollevel implementation of alternate assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities: A report from the national study on alternate assessments (NCSER 20103007). Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20103007.pdf.
3. Cuban, L. (1992). Curriculum stability and change. In P. Jackson (Ed.), Handbook of research on curriculum (pp. 216-247). New York: Macmillon.
4. Dillman, D. A., Smyth, J. D., & Christian, L. M. (2009). Internet, mail, and mixed mode surveys: The tailored design method. Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.
5. Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., & Spooner, F. (2005). Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessments. Research& Practice for Persons with SevereDisabilities, 30, 81-92. doi: 10.2511/rspd.30.2.81
6. Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1997, 20 U.S.C. x1400 et seq.
7. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. x 1400 et seq.
8. Kampfer, S. H., Horvath, L. S., Kleinert, H. L., & Kearns, J. F. (2001). Teacher's perceptions of one state's alternate assessment: Implications for practice and preparation. Exceptional Children, 67, 361-374. doi: 10.1177/07419325040250050101
9. Kane, M. T. (1992). An argument based approach to validity. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 527-535. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909. 112.3.527
10. Kleinert, H., Kennedy, S., & Kearns, J. (1999). The impact of alternate assessments: A statewide teacher survey. The Journal of Special Education, 33, 93-102. doi: 10.1177/002246699903300202
11. Lane, S., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1998, Summer). A framework for evaluating the consequences of assessment programs. Educational Measurement, Issues and Practice, 17, 24-28. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992.1998.tb00830.x
12. Lane, S., & Stone, C. A. (2002). Strategies for examining the consequences of assessment and accountability programs. Educational Measurement, 21, 23-30. doi: 10.1111/j.1745-3992. 2002.tb.00082.x
13. Lane, S., Ventrice, J., Cerrillo, T. L., Parke, C. S., & Stone, C. A. (1999). Impact of theMaryland school performance assessment program (MSPAP): Evidence from the principal, teacher, and student questionnaires (reading, writing, and science). Paper presented at the Annual Meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, PL 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 20 U.S.C. xx 6301 et seq.
14. Parke, C. S., Cerrillo, T. L., Levenson, J., O'Mara, J., Hansen, M. A., & Lane, S. (1999). Impact of the MSPAP: Evidence from classroom instruction and assessment activities (reading, writing). Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal, Canada.
15. Roach, A. T., Elliot, S. N., & Berndt, S. (2007). Teacher perceptions and the consequential validity of an alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18, 168-175. doi: 10.1177/10442073070180030501
16. Stone, C. A., & Lane, S. (1999). MSPAP performance gains from 1993-98 and their relationship to BMSPAP Impact[ and school characteristic variables. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the National Council on Measurement in Education, Montreal.
17. Towles-Reeves, E., Garrett, B., Burdette, P. J., & Burdge, M. (2006). Validation of large-scale alternate assessment systems and their influence on instructionVWhat are the consequences? Assessment for Effective Intervention, 31, 45-57. doi: 10.1177/073724770603100304
18. Towles-Reeves, E., & Kleinert, H. (2006). The impact of one state's alternate assessment upon instruction and IEP development. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 25, 31-39.
19. Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., & Muhomba, M. (2009). Alternate assessments: Have we learned anything new? Exceptional Children, 75, 233-252.
20. Young-Gyoung, K., Angell, M. E., O'Brian, M. O., Strand, K. H., Fulk, B. M., & Watts, E. H. (2006). Relationships among teachers' perspectives, self-reported practices, and concerns related to an alternate assessment system. Teacher Education and Special Education, 29, 83-97. doi: 10.1177/ 088840640602900201
21. Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., & Nelson, R. (2004). Largescale assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for students with disabilities (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.