Alternate Assessment: Have We Learned Anything New?

Abstract

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.

Leading Student Assessment

“…Alternative assessments include portfolios, skills checklists, and performance assessments that directly measure skills and are based on modified achievement standards (Cohen and Spenciner 2007;Towles-Reeves et al 2009). Modifications are changes to a test or an assessment procedure that fundamentally alter the content, the level, or the administration procedure.…”

A narrative inquiry of students with significant cognitive disabilities and the MCAS alternate assessment as told by their parents

“…The MCAS Alternate Assessment portfolios provide important data on student growth, but the literature does not support automatically placing those who take the MCAS Alternate Assessments in the lowest achievement level. The MCAS Alternate Assessments should also have links to other nonacademic skills to evaluate students with significant cognitive disabilities and the programs they take (Towles-Reeves et al, 2009). …”

“…Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, and Muhomba (2009) After examining data from 42 states, Browder et al (2005) recommended a national policy that identifies the standards and scoring methods for alternate assessments. Because students with significant cognitive disabilities vary widely in their skill sets, linking the alternate assessments to students' IEPs is preferable (Browder et al, 2005).…”

Acquisition of mathematical vocabulary using constant time delay with individuals with moderate and severe disabilities.

“…The reauthorization of IDEA (P. L. 105-17) in 1997 required that students with disabilities have access to the general curriculum (Roach, Elliott, & Webb, 2005;Wakeman, Browder, Meier, & McColl, 2007) and participate in district wide school assessments (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003;Johnson & Arnold, 2007;Marion & Pellegrino, 2006;Perner, 2007;Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, & Muhomba, 2009). IDEA of 1997 also made provisions for accommodations for students and required states to design alternate assessments for the most severely cognitively challenged students (Browder & Cooper-Duffy, 2003;Johnson & Arnold, 2007;Marion & Pellegrino, 2006;Roach, et aI, 2005;Towles-Reeves, et aI., 2009;Wakeman et aI., 2007).…”

“…Currently, alternate assessments are the primary method through which students with the most severe cognitive challenges participate in state assessments (Kerns, 2010 & Towles-Reeves, Kleinert, & Muhomba, 2009). Therefore, alternate assessments are meant for only a small percentage of students Johnson & Arnold, 2007;Towles-Reeves, et aI., 2009, Wakeman et aI., 2007.…”