Education and Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Implications for Educators.

State and federal mandates for education reform call for increased accountability and the inclusion of students with disabilities in all accountability efforts. In the rush to implement high-stakes education reforms, particularly those involving tests or assessments, the particular needs of students with severe cognitive disabilities are only now being addressed by policymakers and educators. For students with significant cognitive disabilities, implementation of alternate approaches to education accountability is increasing. At the same time, the challenges associated with successfully implementing alternate assessment programs are becoming more obvious. This paper describes some of the ways in which alternate assessment as

[1]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  Students with Disabilities & Educational Standards: Recommendations for Policy & Practice (NCEO Policy Direction) , 1994 .

[2]  P. Moss.  Shifting Conceptions of Validity in Educational Measurement: Implications for Performance Assessment , 1992 .

[3]  Harold L. Kleinert,et al.  A Validation Study of the Performance Indicators and Learner Outcomes of Kentucky's Alternate Assessment for Students with Significant Disabilities , 1999 .

[4]  Lorrie A. Shepard,et al.  Will National Tests Improve Student Learning , 1991 .

[5]  V. Daniels.  Minority Students in Gifted and Special Education Programs , 1998 .

[6]  Daniel Koretz,et al.  The Reliability of Scores from the 1992 Vermont Portfolio Assessment Program. Interim Report. , 1992 .

[7]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  The National Center On Educational Outcomes , 1997 .

[8]  Victor Nolet.  Classroom-Based Measurement and Portfolio Assessment , 1992 .

[9]  Sarah Kennedy,et al.  Alternate Assessments: Lessons Learned and Roads to Be Taken , 2000 .

[10]  B. Worthen.  Critical Issues That Will Determine the Future of Alternative Assessment. , 1993 .

[11]  M. Thurlow,et al.  A Disability Perspective on Five Years of Education Reform (NCEO Synthesis Reports) , 1995 .

[12]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  Alternate Assessments for Students With Disabilities , 2001 .

[13]  K. Olsen.  What Principles Are Driving Development of State Alternate Assessments , 1998 .

[14]  Sue Legg,et al.  Alternative Assessment in a HighmStakes Environment , 2005 .

[15]  Peter J. Denning,et al.  A nation at risk: the imperative for educational reform , 1983, CACM.

[16]  Matthew D. Turner,et al.  The Relation of a Statewide Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities to Other Measures of Instructional Effectiveness , 2000 .

[17]  D. Malouf,et al.  Performance Assessment and Children with Disabilities: Issues and Possibilities. , 1993 .

[18]  J. Ysseldyke,et al.  Putting Alternate Assessments into Practice: What to Measure and Possible Sources of Data , 1997 .

[19]  Joyce S. Choate,et al.  Authentic Assessment of Special Learners: Problem or Promise? , 1992 .

[20]  Portfolio Assessment: Opportunities and Challenges , 1995 .

[21]  M. Thurlow,et al.  Issues and Considerations in Alternate Assessments , 1997 .

[22]  H. Kleinert,et al.  Teachers Perceptions of One State's Alternate Assessment: Implications for Practice and Preparation , 2001 .

[23]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  Measuring Academic Achievement of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Building Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria. Synthesis Report. , 2003 .

[24]  M. Harris,et al.  Knowledge, Attitudes, and Concerns About Portfolio Assessment: An Exploratory Study , 1998 .

[25]  Sandra J. Thompson,et al.  State Special Education Outcomes, 1999: A Report on State Activities at the End of the Century. , 1999 .

[26]  James G. Shriner,et al.  Teacher Decision Making in Participation of Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessment , 2001 .