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.

Little research has precisely defined the population of students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards (AA-AAAS). Therefore, the purpose of this article is twofold: (a) explicate the findings of a multistate study examining the characteristics of the population of students participating in AA-AAAS, and (b) discuss the implications of those findings for instruction and assessment that move us closer to understanding what these students know and can do. The article discusses the results of our study within and across these seven states, implications for practitioners, and future research directions that should be considered for both instruction and assessment.

This study examined the learner characteristics of students in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards in three geographically and demographically different states. On the basis of the results, it can be argued that students in alternate assessments fall into at least two distinct subgroups. The first set of learners have either symbolic or emerging symbolic levels of communication, evidence social engagement, and possess at least some level of functional reading and math skills. The second set of students have not yet acquired formal, symbolic communication systems; may not initiate, maintain, or respond to social interactions consistently; and have no awareness of print, Braille, or numbers. The authors provide implications and considerations of the findings of the Learner Characteristics Inventory for states and practitioners in developing alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards.

Since the first review of alternate assessment literature by Browder, Spooner, Algozzine, et al. (2003), educational research related to alternate assessment has rapidly expanded as state and federal policies have required the inclusion of students with disabilities, including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities, in state and school accountability indexes. The purpose of this literature review was to examine the empirical studies conducted since the conception of alternate assessment to evaluate the progress made in this area, using a research framework proposed by Browder et al. We discuss future research directions, particularly as these relate to recent changes in federal policy under No Child Left Behind as well as implications for teachers and practitioners.

The purpose of this study was to examine all states’ participation guidelines for alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) and to analyze these guidelines for common and contrasting themes. State alternate assessment participation guidelines were found for all 50 states. Participation guidelines were coded, and 12 categories emerged. These categories fell into four major patterns: not included in almost all states’ participation guidelines, evenly distributed between being included and not included, included in the majority of states’ participation guidelines, and included in almost all states’ participation guidelines. This research can help state-level personnel revise and improve their own participation guidelines by providing information about current language used in participation guidelines and can inform the field of the level of consistency in the language used to describe the population who participate in AA-AAS.

This article addresses the application of the assessment triangle developed by the National Research Council ( Pellegrino, Chudowsky, & Glaser, 2001 ), most specifically the cognition vertex of that triangle, to the unique learning characteristics of students with significant cognitive disabilities in developing and demonstrating academic competence. Given the inclusion of all students, including students with significant cognitive disabilities, in measures of large-scale educational assessment and accountability under the No Child Left Behind Act, it is essential to examine how the primary elements of knowledge representation and competence identified by Pellegrino et al. for all students have special ramifications for students with significant cognitive disabilities. It is only in the development of such a model of competence that it is possible to construct alternate assessments for these students that validly represent what these students know and can do.

In conjunction with the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA; PL 105-17), the No Child Left Behind Act of 2002 (NCLB; PL 107-110) calls for enhancements to existing assessment and accountability systems within specific timelines. The NCLB Act also stresses the importance of using reliable and valid data for decision making. This study examined the consequential validity of a large-scale alternate assessment system for students with severe cognitive disabilities in one midwestern state. Three hundred and four teachers completed a survey designed to measure their perceptions of the alternate assessment's influence on instruction and the development of individualized education programs (IEPs). Findings indicated the assessment had a strong influence on instruction and a strong, but lesser influence on the development of IEPs.

This study investigated: (a) the degree to which one rural state's alternate assessment influenced daily instruction and IEP development for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities; and (b) in those instances in which teachers reported no influence or a negative influence on daily instruction or IEP development, the reasons teachers gave for these phenomena. The results of this survey support other findings that teachers perceive the alternate assessment to have a greater influence upon daily instruction than upon IEP development (Towles-Reeves, in press). Implications for teacher support and training in alternate assessments, especially in rural areas, are discussed.