The Relation of a Statewide Alternate Assessment for Students with Severe Disabilities to Other Measures of Instructional Effectiveness

This article is based on a study that investigated the extent to which scores in Kentucky's statewide alternate assessment program for students with severe disabilities correlated with measures of program quality and overall school effectiveness. Across 36 schools, 60 students were observed in their classroom environments, and the resulting measures of overall program quality (i.e., observed indicators of best practices for students with moderate and severe disabilities) and Individualized Education Program (IEP) quality were correlated with the students' alternate assessment scores. Results indicated a significant relationship between overall program quality and the resulting Alternate Portfolio scores, but not between assessment scores and IEP quality. Finally, for these 60 students, Alternate Portfolio scores were positively related to the school's educational accountability index for all students and with the percentage improvement within each school's overall accountability index over the previous 2-year reporting cycle.

[1]  K. McGrew,et al.  Why We Can't Say Much about Students with Disabilities during Education Reform , 1998 .

[2]  Sarah Kennedy,et al.  Accountability for All Students: Kentucky's Alternate Portfolio Assessment for Students with Moderate and Severe Cognitive Disabilities , 1997 .

[3]  Sarah Kennedy,et al.  The Impact of Alternate Assessments , 1999 .

[4]  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 .

[5]  James G. Shriner,et al.  Outcomes are for Special Educators Too , 1992 .

[6]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  A Compilation of States' Guidelines for Including Students with Disabilities in Assessments (NCEO Synthesis Reports) , 1995 .

[7]  P. Hunt,et al.  The Quality of IEP Objectives Associated with Placement on Integrated versus Segregated School Sites , 1986 .

[8]  M. Thurlow,et al.  What about Assessment and Accountability? , 1998 .

[9]  K. McGrew,et al.  An Investigation of the Exclusion of Students With Disabilities in National Data Collection Programs , 1993 .

[10]  Martha Thurlow,et al.  A Compilation of States’ Guidelines for Accommodations in Assessments for Students with Disabilities (NCEO Synthesis Reports) , 1995 .

[11]  Joan L. Herman,et al.  Portfolio Research: A Slim Collection. , 1994 .

[12]  J. Eichinger,et al.  A Validation of Program Quality Indicators in Educational Services for Students with Severe Disabilities , 1987 .

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

[14]  H. Kleinert,et al.  Principal Supports for Inclusive Assessment , 1998 .

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

[16]  J. Ysseldyke.  Making Decisions about the Inclusion of Students with Disabilities in Large-Scale Assessments: A Report on a Working Conference To Develop Guidelines on Inclusion and Accommodations. Synthesis Report 13. , 1994 .

[17]  J. Filler.  Inclusion and School Reform: Transforming America`s Classrooms , 1999 .

[18]  P. Hunt,et al.  A Preliminary Investigation of IEP Quality and Content Associated with Placement in General Education versus Special Education Classes , 1992 .

[19]  M. Thurlow,et al.  Neglected Numerators, Drifting Denominators, and Fractured Fractions: Determining Participation Rates for Students With Disabilities , 1996 .

[20]  C. Jorgensen.  Restructuring High Schools for All Students: Taking Inclusion to the Next Level , 1997 .