Alternate Achievement Standards Research Articles

The Status of Development of Common State Alternate Achievement Standards and Alternate Assessment System for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities in the United States

The Status of Development of Common State Alternate Achievement Standards and Alternate Assessment System for Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities in the United States

Constructing and Evaluating a Validation Argument for a Next-Generation Alternate Assessment

ABSTRACTAlternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) have historically lacked broad validity evidence and an overall evaluation of the extent to which evidence supports intended uses of results. An expanding body of validation literature, the funding of two AA-AAS consortia, and advances in computer-based assessment have supported improvements in AA-AAS validation. This paper describes the validation approach used with the Dynamic Learning Maps® alternate assessment system, including development of the theory of action, claims, and interpretive argument; examples of evidence collected; and evaluation of the evidence in light of the maturity of the assessment system. We focus especially on claims and sources of evidence unique to AA-AAS and especially the Dynamic Learning Maps system design. We synthesize the evidence to evaluate the degree to which it supports the intended uses of assessment results for the targeted population. Considerations are presented for subsequent data collection efforts.

Alternate Curricula as a Barrier to Inclusive Education for Students With Intellectual Disabilities

Although intellectual disability is a culturally defined and often fluid concept, individuals with this label are often at the greatest risk of isolation and low expectations, particularly within school environments. Despite institutional narratives on educating and raising expectations for “all” students, the use of alternate curricula for individuals with intellectual disabilities creates a structural barrier that explicitly designates students as incapable of using the same curriculum as nondisabled peers. Through exemplars in the United States and Sweden, the authors argue the use and expansion of alternate curricula is an international trend with troubling short- and long-term consequences for students. In Sweden, a national alternative curriculum is required for all students with intellectual disabilities. In the United States, adoption of alternate achievement standards varies by state; yet, the use of alternate curricular materials in self-contained classrooms is widespread despite questionable alignment to general education standards. In addition to the challenges posed by a separate curriculum for students with intellectual disabilities, approaches to promoting authentic engagement and learning in the context of general education settings and curricula are discussed.

Students With the Most Significant Disabilities, Communicative Competence, and the Full Extent of Their Exclusion

In this brief response to Agran et al., I provide data on the extent to which students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (i.e., those students participating in alternate assessments on alternate achievement standards) are separated educationally from their peers without disabilities. I further discuss additional factors that may be contributing to separate placements for students with the most significant disabilities. Finally, I provide some promising resources that may help to address these persistent issues.

Effects of Item Modifications on Test Accessibility for Persistently Low-Performing Students with Disabilities

ABSTRACTConstruct-irrelevant cognitive complexity of some items in the statewide grade-level assessments may impose performance barriers for students with disabilities who are ineligible for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. This has spurred research into whether items can be modified to reduce complexity without affecting item construct. This study uses a generalized linear mixed modeling analysis to investigate the effects of item modifications on improving test accessibility by reducing construct-irrelevant cognitive barriers for persistently low-performing fifth-grade students with cognitive disabilities. The results showed item scaffolding was an effective modification for both mathematics and reading. Other modifications, such as bolding/underlining of key words, hindered test performance for low-performing students. We discuss the findings’ potential impact on test development with universal design.

The Profiles of Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities and Known Hearing Loss.

The present study describes the characteristics of students in Grades 3-12 with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) and known hearing loss. The study analyzed results of a survey of teachers of students with SCD (n = 38,367) who were slated to participate in an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards in 14 states in the United States. Analysis revealed similar profiles in academic achievement and symbolic language use combined with an increased incidence of additional sensory impairments among students with SCD and known hearing loss compared to their peers without known hearing loss. Results suggest that hearing loss may be underidentified and underserved among students with SCD and point to the need for improved hearing screenings and evaluations combined with services delivered by teams that follow a model of interprofessional practice.

The profiles of students with significant cognitive disabilities and complex communication needs

Understanding the characteristics of students with complex communication needs and significant cognitive disabilities is an important first step toward creating the kinds of supports and services required to help them successfully access the general education curriculum, achieve grade-level standards, and improve overall communication competence. The First Contact Survey was designed to collect important information about students with significant cognitive disabilities who were eligible to take the Dynamic Learning Maps™ (DLM®) alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards. From November 2012–May 2013, the survey was used to gather information regarding more than 44,787 students. At that time, the goal was to use the data to inform the development of the DLM assessment. Although the survey includes a wealth of information regarding this large sample of students, the reanalysis of the data reported in the current study focused on the motor, sensory, language, reading, and writing skills of students with significant cognitive disabilities, based on their speech production abilities. Significant differences were identified across each of the domains between students who do and do not use speech with or without aided augmentative and alternative communication.

Teacher Evaluation of Resources Designed for Adapting Mathematics for Students With Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Although educators of students who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards are charged with providing access to grade-level mathematics to help their students prepare for this requirement, almost no models exist to provide guidance for how to adapt mathematics content for this population of students. This study asked educators to evaluate resource materials for adapting grade-aligned mathematics. One hundred twenty-five participants completed a survey to appraise two resources developed specifically for teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. One of the resources was designed to build mathematics content knowledge and the second to provide guidance for designing mathematics instruction aligned to academic content standards. The resources received positive reviews from a large majority of respondents who agreed they provided educators with needed models for teaching specific mathematics content.

The Alternate Assessment Based on Alternate Achievement Standards Eligibility Decision-Making Process

Under No Child Left Behind (NCLB), students with significant intellectual disabilities (ID) are allowed to take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) in lieu of the standardized assessments taken by their peers, however evidence suggests that IEP teams inconsistently and sometimes inaccurately apply established participation criteria in finding students eligible to participate in AA-AAS. The purpose of this generic qualitative study was to describe the decision-making process used by Individual Education Program (IEP) teams to identify students eligible to participate in AA-AAS. Thirteen case managers of students taking the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) from central Virginia participated in in-depth interviews. The findings resulted in the Influences on the Process of AA-AAS Eligibility Decisions (IPAED) Model describing a three-phased eligibility decision-making process. Implications suggest the need for training for all IEP team members, with a particular focus on parent education and involvement.

Documenting Reading Achievement and Growth for Students Taking Alternate Assessments

Students with disabilities have been included in state accountability systems for more than a decade; however, only in the past few years have alternate assessments of alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) become stable enough to allow examination of these students’ achievement growth. Using data from Oregon’s AA-AAS in Reading during the period 2008–2009 to 2010–2011, we examined the achievement growth for a sample of 1,061 elementary students using two growth models: a transition matrix and a multilevel linear growth model. The authors found with the transition matrix model that a majority of students remained at the same performance level from one year to the next, whereas with the multilevel linear growth model, students’ scores revealed small, but statistically meaningful, growth year to year. The article concludes by noting advantages and disadvantages of these models to characterize growth and their implications for policy and practice.

Examining Teachers’ Decisions on Test-Type Assignment for Statewide Assessments

Recent studies have raised concerns about the vagueness of alternate assessment eligibility guidelines, specifically, that students with mild disabilities (SWMD) have been inappropriately assigned to alternate assessment–alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS). In this study, special education teachers ( N = 317) were surveyed about SWMD in vignettes to explore (a) perceptions of the clarity of eligibility guidelines, (b) teachers’ test-type decisions, (c) factors considered when making test-type decisions, and (d) teachers’ priority rankings of these factors. Teachers’ test-type decisions varied by state, subjectivity, and noninstructional factors. Findings raise concerns about the inconsistency and lack of specificity of the current state guidelines, their vulnerability to subjective interpretation of eligibility, and states’ different alternate assessment systems. Directions for future research, implications of the current findings, and limitations are discussed.

An Analysis of the Rise and Fall of the AA-MAS Policy

In 2005, to address concerns about students who might fall in the “gap” between the regular assessment and the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), the U.S. Department of Education announced that states could develop alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS). This article reports empirical evidence on characteristics of students participating in the AA-MAS, how students were assigned to test types, research on changes in assessment designs over a 4-year period, and changes in rates of participation and proficiency. The results suggest states and districts have struggled with how to appropriately assign students to this test option, and that there is a need to ensure this group of students has access to rigorous standards-based content. It concludes with a discussion of what can be learned from this policy attempt to resolve a very real problem as the United States moves toward the next generation of assessments.

Where Students With the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Are Taught

Surveying 15 states and 39,837 students, this study examined the extent to which students who took an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards in the 2010–2011 school year had access to regular education settings and the extent to which that access correlated with expressive communication, use of an augmentative or alternative communication (AAC) system, and reading and math skill levels. The vast majority (93%) of students were served in self-contained classrooms, separate schools, or home settings, whereas only 7% were served in regular education or resource room placements. There was a significant, positive correlation between expressive communication and reading and math skill levels with increasingly inclusive classroom settings and a significant, negative correlation between use of AAC and more inclusive settings. Implications of these findings are discussed.

UNDERSTANDING TEST-TYPE ASSIGNMENT: WHY DO SPECIAL EDUCATORS MAKE UNEXPECTED TEST-TYPE ASSIGNMENTS?

We interviewed special educators (a) whose students with disabilities (SWDs) were proficient on the 2008 general education assessment but were assigned to the 2009 alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS), and (b) whose students with mild disabilities took the 2008 alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) and then the 2009 AA-MAS. We explored teachers’ rationales for test-type assignment, student characteristics, and quality of instruction to determine the test-type decisions’ appropriateness. All teachers based their decisions on combinations of factors in the guidelines plus subjective and noninstructional factors. Findings raised concerns about the subjectivity of the assessment assignment system and the inappropriate grade-level instruction for SWDs. Future research, implications of these findings, and limitations are discussed.

Dispelling Misperceptions

Misperceptions related to the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) continue in the field. Three misperceptions identified in the section on alternate assessment are addressed in this response: the perception that grade-level content is inappropriate for students with significant cognitive disabilities; the view that functional skills should be the primary content taught to students with significant cognitive disabilities; and the belief that alternate assessments reduce opportunities for inclusion or other instructional opportunities. The field is encouraged to focus on how to ensure that standards-based reforms result in better outcomes for students with significant cognitive disabilities, including increased participation in inclusive settings and access to the content in those settings. Doing this can be promoted by identifying a theory of action that includes curriculum, instruction, professional development, classroom assessments, and accountability assessments.

Addressing the Academic Needs of Adolescents With Autism Spectrum Disorder in Secondary Education

The number of individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) who enter secondary school settings and access the general education curriculum continues to grow. Many educators may find they are not prepared to adapt their instruction to meet both state standards and the diverse needs of the full spectrum individuals with ASD, which has implications for postsecondary success. In this article, we present an overview of current knowledge around academic instruction for this population, specifically (a) how characteristics associated with ASD can impact academic performance, (b) academic profiles of individuals with ASD across content areas, and (c) interventions that have been successful in improving academic outcomes for this population, including special considerations for those individuals who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. We conclude by offering suggestions for future research and considerations for professional development.

The Relationship of Teachers' Instructional Decisions and Beliefs about Alternate Assessments to Student Achievement

In the decade since alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) were first required, special education teachers have had to develop content knowledge and pedagogical skills to teach academics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. The purpose of this study is to examine the impact that teachers' instructional decisions and beliefs about AA-AAS have on the academic achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities. A survey of nearly 400 teachers across three states provided evidence of teachers' beliefs, as well as their instructional planning processes for students. Students' learning characteristics were also identified. Survey responses were analyzed in conjunction with students' 2010–2011 scores on their statewide AA-AAS. The results indicated that students with presymbolic communication systems had a lower likelihood of achieving proficiency in English language arts/reading and math than students with abstract symbolic communication. Students with concrete symbolic communication systems had lesser odds of proficiency in ELA/reading but not in math. Teachers who agreed that AA-AAS had an impact on instruction tended to have students with higher achievement proficiency. However, more negative views of the validity of AA-AAS scores were associated with greater odds of proficiency.

Comparing Panelists' Understanding of Standard Setting Across Multiple Levels of an Alternate Science Assessment

Large-scale assessment programs, including alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), must provide evidence of technical quality and validity. This study provides information about the technical quality of one AA-AAS by evaluating the standard setting for the science component. The assessment was designed to have three levels of cognitive difficulty, where each student is administered only the most appropriate level. The current study investigated panelists' levels of understanding during standard setting to explore whether there were differences based on cognitive level of the test. Data were collected at various time points through the use of open- and closed-ended questionnaires. Panelists reported that they understood the Performance Level Descriptor development and standard setting tasks and had common concerns and levels of understandings across levels of the AA-AAS.

Effects of structured inquiry and graphic organizers on social studies comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorders

In social studies, students learn about society and the culture in which they live, current and historical events, people from different backgrounds, and how to develop skills for participating in a democratic system. As people with disabilities are members of our society, participation in social studies content is an important component of their knowledge. Despite the potential benefits of learning social studies content, there is limited investigation in this area for individuals with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). In this study, three middle school students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD) who participated in alternate assessment standards testing based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) learned social studies content (geographic relationships, historical perspectives, economics and development, and government and active citizenship) via structured inquiry and explicit instruction. Results from the single-case multiple probe across participants design suggest a functional relation between the implementation of structured inquiry using explicit instruction and student comprehension of social studies content. In addition, students were able to generalize to “real-world” applications. Future research and implications for practices are discussed.

Considerations for Equating Alternate Assessments: Two Case Studies of Alternate Assessments Based on Alternate Achievement Standards

The development of alternate assessments for students with disabilities plays a pivotal role in state and national accountability systems. An important assumption in the use of alternate assessments in these accountability systems is that scores are comparable on different test forms across diverse groups of students over time. The use of test equating is a common way that states attempt to establish score comparability on different test forms. However, equating presents many unique, practical, and technical challenges for alternate assessments. This article provides case studies of equating for two alternate assessments in Michigan and an approach to determine whether or not equating would be preferred to not equating on these assessments. This approach is based on examining equated score and performance-level differences and investigating population invariance across subgroups of students with disabilities. Results suggest that using an equating method with these data appeared to have a minimal impact on proficiency classifications. The population invariance assumption was suspect for some subgroups and equating methods with some large potential differences observed.