**Learning Opportunities\
For Your Child Through Alternate Assessments**

**Learning Opportunities for Your Child\
Through Alternate Assessments**

By:

Rachel Quenemoen and Martha Thurlow

National Center on Educational Outcomes

U.S. Department of Education

Office of Special Education and

Rehabilitative Services

2007

**U.S. Department of Education**

Margaret Spellings

*Secretary*

**Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services**

William W. Knudsen

*Acting Deputy Assistant Secretary*

First printed: March 2007

Revised: August 2007

This document was developed under a cooperative agreement between the
U.S. Department of Education and the National Center on Educational
Outcomes (NCEO), University of Minnesota, H326G050007. (The holder of
copyright in the document is NCEO. For the purposes of publication, NCEO
hereby assigns copyright of this document to the U.S. Department of
Education. All photos by and permission of Randy Wyant, staff
photographer, Fairfax County, Va., Public Schools, all rights reserved.)
This report's citation should be: U.S. Department of Education, Office
of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, *Learning
Opportunities for Your Child Through Alternate Assessments*. Washington,
D.C., 2007.

To order copies of this report,

**write to**: ED Pubs, Education Publications Center, U.S. Department of
Education, P.O. Box 1398, Jessup, MD 20794 1398;

or **fax** your request to: 301-470-1244;

or **e-mail** your request to: <edpubs@inet.ed.gov>;

or **call** in your request toll-free: 1-877-433-7827 (1-877-4 ED-PUBS).
If 877 service is not yet available in your area, call 1-800-872-5327
(1-800-USA-LEARN). Those who use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) or a teletypewriter (TTY), should call 1‑877‑576‑7734;

or **order online** at:
[www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html](http://www.ed.gov/pubs/edpubs.html).

This report is also available on the Department's Web site at:
[www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers](../www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/osers).

This report contains Web site addresses for information created and
maintained by private organizations. This information is provided for
the reader's convenience. The U.S. Department of Education is not
responsible for controlling or guaranteeing the accuracy, relevance,
timeliness, or completeness of this outside information. Further, the
inclusion of information or a Web site address does not reflect the
importance of an organization; nor is it intended to endorse any views
expressed or products or services offered.

On request, this document can be made available in accessible formats,
such as Braille, large print, and computer diskette. For more
information, please contact the U.S. Department of Education's
Alternative Format Center at 202-260-0852 or 202-260-0818, or by e-mail
to: <katie.mincey@ed.gov>.

# Contents

[Acknowledgments](#acknowledgments)

[Introduction](#introduction)

[Big Idea 1: High Expectations for
All Students](#big-idea-1-high-expectations-for-all-students)

[Big Idea 2: Measuring Academic Achievement of All
Students](#big-idea-2-measuring-academic-achievement-of-all-students)

[Big Idea 3: Access to Grade-Level
Content](#big-idea-3-access-to-grade-level-content)

[Big Idea 4: Making Decisions One Child
at a Time](#big-idea-4-making-decisions-one-child-at-a-time)

[Big Idea 5: Counting All Students in
School Achievement](#big-idea-5-counting-all-students-in-school-achievement)

[Bibliography](#bibliography)

*Now I look at the possibilities instead of the limitations.*\
--- Jeanette Forman, teacher

# Acknowledgments

Parent, teacher and educator quotations are from a multistate report,
taken from: *Alternate Assessment: Teacher and State Experiences* by
Laura Moore-Lamminen and Ken Olsen, Alliance for Systems
Change/Mid-South Regional Resource Center, Interdisciplinary Human
Development Institute, University of Kentucky and the Office of Special
Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (developed under an
OSEP cooperative agreement #H326R040004, CFDA 84.326R), Lexington, Ky.,
2005.

This publication greatly benefited from the contributions of:

**Content and design consultation**

Candace Cortiella and Jamie Ruppmann

The Advocacy Institute, Marshall, Va.

**Grade-level content standards and instruction examples**

Jean Clayton, Mike Burdge and Jacqui Kearns

National Alternate Assessment Center, Lexington, Ky.

**Publication design**

Deb Tanner

National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, Minn.

**Publication layout**

Geoffrey Rhodes

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, U.S. Department
of Education, Washington, D.C.

**Editor**

Michael Moore

National Center on Education Outcomes, Minneapolis, Minn.

# Introduction

No one cares more about your child's welfare than you. No one else will
be more careful to see that your child is well educated and well treated
in school. Now there are efforts underway across the country to help you
achieve those goals. The *No Child Left Behind Act of 2001* (*NCLB*) and
the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*), amended by
Congress in 2004, represent some of the federal government's largest
investments in public education. Both laws have provisions that focus on
improving the quality of teaching for all children, including children
with disabilities, and both laws call for high expectations for the
academic achievement of all our children.

The purpose of this booklet is to introduce you to the "big ideas"
contained in school improvement efforts under *NCLB* and *IDEA*, and to
provide you with the information you need to help ensure your child can
benefit from these efforts.

At the end of this booklet, you will find some suggested sources of
additional information that you can use so that your child benefits from
the nationwide education reform and accountability efforts intended to
ensure high expectations for all children.

## Big Ideas 

> **1 High Expectations for All Students**
>
> **2 Measuring Academic Achievement of All Students**
>
> **3 Access to Grade-Level Content**
>
> **4 Making Decisions One Child at a Time**
>
> **5 Counting All Students in School Achievement**

# Big Idea 1 High Expectations for All Students

The first big idea changing the way schools and parents plan is that all
children benefit when schools have high expectations for what each
student is expected to know and be able to do. *No Child Left Behind*
(*NCLB*) and the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (*IDEA*)
very clearly promote high expectations for academic learning and access
to the general curriculum for every child. Both laws also require that
all children count in school accountability measures so high
expectations will result in high achievement for every child.

What are high expectations for students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities? And how can we describe high achievement for
them? *NCLB* and *IDEA* ask the states to think about these questions in
order to describe what the results of good teaching should be for these
learners.

Since the early days of special education services, we have learned a
lot about how students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
can learn and become more independent. For example, we learned in the
1980s that a functional, life skills curriculum allowed students with
the most challenging disabilities to participate meaningfully in their
home and community life. In the 1990s, we found that inclusion with same
age classmates was an effective approach to helping students with the
most challenging disabilities make their own life decisions and improve
their communication and other social skills.

In the past five years, in communities and schools across the country,
parents and teachers are again discovering new possibilities. Across the
country, we are finding that students with the most significant
cognitive disabilities can access, and make progress in, the
general curriculum.

Today, many students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
are included in their enrolled grade classrooms and they are learning
academic skills and gaining understanding linked to the same content as
their classmates.

As part of the *NCLB* and *IDEA* assessment and accountability
requirements, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
are participating in a curriculum based on the same academic content
standards that all their grade-level peers are learning---content that
is age-appropriate, engaging and challenging. Sometimes, they interact
with this same content in slightly different ways from their
classmates---through assistive technology, pictures, symbols or
textures, or through whatever method they use to communicate. They also
are showing what they have learned in creative and exciting ways. 

# Big Idea 2 Measuring Academic Achievement of All Students

One of the ways *NCLB* and *IDEA* work to ensure that the best education
possible is provided to every student is by holding schools accountable
for educational results. Schools must show adequate yearly progress
(AYP) in student academic achievement, as determined by the achievement
of all students and all student subgroups. One way for parents to think
about high expectations and related requirements in *NCLB* and *IDEA* is
by thinking of them as a set of action steps for the state:

### Action Steps

-   First, as a result of the *No Child Left Behind* Act of 2001, states
    defined ambitious academic standards for what all children must know
    and do in mathematics, reading and language arts, and science at
    each grade-level.

-   Next, state assessments began to measure the achievement of all
    students in learning the content defined by the academic
    content standards.

-   As a result, states decided what level of achievement students must
    show to be considered proficient in math, reading and language arts,
    and science. This is the academic achievement standard that shows
    how well students have been taught.

The tool to measure whether students have been well taught is called a
state assessment. Results from state assessments help parents know
whether schools have been successful in teaching students the knowledge
and skills contained in the state's academic content standards. That is
why it is so important to include all students in statewide
assessments---so that the public can hold schools accountable for all
students' learning.

You and your child's individualized education program (IEP) team will
decide which assessment option is right for your child. IEP teams decide
how each student will participate in assessments, not whether students
will participate. An alternate assessment based on alternate achievement
standards is an assessment designed for students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities that will measure achievement
separately in reading and language arts, math and science.

These alternate assessments make it possible for your child to show what
he or she has learned---and for the school to be held accountable for
that achievement.

*... \[A\]cademic opportunities increase my child's life opportunities.\
*--- Mary Calie, parent

# Big Idea 3 Access to Grade-Level Content

Many parents worry about schools assessing their children with the most
significant cognitive disabilities. They know that their child may not
have access to academic instruction in math and reading (that is, access
to the general curriculum). They may wonder if it really is possible for
their child to learn reading and math.

Many children with the most significant cognitive disabilities have IEP
goals that are focused on learning life skills. The third big idea
contained in *NCLB* and *IDEA* recognizes that students with the most
significant cognitive disabilities can learn both functional skills and
academic skills at the same time. That is, we should not wait to teach a
child to read until after they have mastered functional skills. As one
researcher put it, "Students who are nondisabled are not expected to
master cleaning their rooms or washing their hands before they receive
instruction in reading." Many of the resources we provide at the end of
this booklet confirm that students with significant challenges can
thrive by learning academic content while they are learning life skills,
just as their typical peers do.

Parents can be assured that experience and research are beginning to
show that when the instructional content is clearly linked to reading,
math and science standards, high expectations have been set for their
child and that their child is taught in the same areas that are going to
be assessed.

Just looking at grade-level curriculum can make the task of identifying
ways to link your child's curriculum to grade-level learning standards
formidable. Parents and IEP teams may conclude that some students with
the most significant cognitive disabilities are unable to achieve
grade-level expectations, even with the best instruction. What makes
more sense, and is becoming good practice in many states, is to help IEP
teams s-t-r-e-t-c-h the grade-level learning standards to make possible
lots of "entry points." Let's look at some examples below:

### Math Example 

> **Grade 7 Content Standard---Data Analysis (Statistics):** Students
> will apply range and measures of central tendency (mean, median and
> mode) of a given numerical data set.
>
> **How students learn the content:** All seventh-graders are learning
> the concepts of mean, median and mode. They plot various sets of data,
> including prices, to illustrate the concepts. Ron is plotting the mode
> using prices cut from advertisements and then glued on an organizer to
> create a bar graph.
>
> **Why this is useful:** Looking at information and drawing conclusions
> from it (data analysis) is an important skill that helps us understand
> everything from shopping to social trends.
>
> **Combining academic and functional learning:** Ron is learning the
> concepts of more, equal ("same"), and less in the context of consumer
> choices. Having access to the same information as other students his
> age helps him develop appropriate language and provides increased
> opportunities for interaction and communication.
>
> Another student in Ron's class is learning similar skills and concepts
> using an adapted keyboard to graph the mode. This activity gives that
> student an opportunity to practice picture identification and fine
> motor skills, as well more practice in ways (other than speech) to
> communicate.

### Reading Example

> **Grade 6 Content Standard---Comprehending Literary Text (Elements of
> Literature):** Students will describe the plots and main parts of
> grade-level novels (e.g., main events, conflict, rising action,
> climax, falling action and resolution).
>
> **How students learn the content:** Sixth-graders are reading a book
> about dolphins and using it to learn about plot components. They all
> use graphic organizers to help them analyze the story. June is working
> on basic plot components using a graphic organizer that provides
> visual cues. Her materials also reflect her augmentative communication
> and text identification systems of photographs and line drawings
> paired with print.
>
> **Why this is useful:** Learning to sequence events in reading gives
> students not only an appreciation of literature and a deeper
> understanding of recreation and leisure activities, but can help
> generalize sequencing skills. Sequencing is an important skill used in
> most life activities from self care to scheduling to vocational tasks.
>
> **Combining academic and functional learning:** Besides text
> comprehension (including word recognition strategies and vocabulary),
> June is working on sequencing (first then next then last and beginning
> then middle then end). Having access to the same literature as other
> students her age gives her increased opportunities for interaction
> and communication.
>
> Another student is identifying the events in the story using tactile
> symbols (sand for being alone on the island, fake fur for being hunted
> by the wild dogs, and a wooden dowel for the mast of the sailboat).
> This gives him more practice in developing and using a consistent mode
> of communication in addition to learning about the story and the
> concepts of beginning then ending and first then last. It also
> provides opportunities for sensory integration experiences.

What these examples have in common is that they are based on the state
academic content standards, and demonstrate ways all children can access
the general curriculum. That is the foundation on which your child's
alternate assessment must be built.

Your child's progress on IEP goals or an assessment of functional life
skills cannot be used as achievement measures under the accountability
provisions of *NCLB* and *IDEA*. IEP goals are individual to each child
and are developed for the purpose of reporting progress to parents and
making decisions about programs and services a child receives.

In addition, IEP goals are often not aligned with state academic content
standards. Therefore, it is not possible to use IEP goals to measure
whether schools are meeting their goals for AYP, which is the measure of
school accountability under *NCLB*. Learning functional skills may be an
important component of your child's IEP, but it is also critical that
your child have access to the general curriculum and that your child's
academic achievement be counted for AYP purposes.

*NCLB*'s accountability provisions go beyond the individual
accountability of the IEP to ensure each student's broad learning needs
in the general curriculum are supported. For students with disabilities,
the system accountability of *NCLB* and *IDEA* adds more
accountability---that every school and district must be accountable for
the academic learning for all students---including those with the most
significant cognitive disabilities.

# Big Idea 4 Making Decisions One Child at a Time

The fourth big idea is making decisions one child at a time. All
students with disabilities must be included in statewide and
districtwide assessments. The IEP team plays a role in deciding how a
student with the most significant cognitive disabilities will take the
statewide assessment. The decision should be based on educational needs
and parents should be active in this decision process. One way to
prepare for making decisions about statewide assessments is to think
about the following questions:

• How does your child get access to the general education academic
curriculum and the topics that the testing will cover?

• How does your child communicate (for example, does your child want or
need to read a short sentence, pay attention to a reader, identify
pictures, recognize some letters and sounds, match words and use symbols
to represent objects)?

• How does your child interact with text (for example, does your child
pay attention to a reader, identify pictures, recognize some letters and
sounds, match words and use symbols to represent objects, wants or needs
or read a short sentence)?

• What kind of supports or modifications does your child use in order to
be successful and participate actively in the general academic
curriculum? Are those supports and accommodations going to be available
for your child?

*I found for our daughter that the topics of the 11th-grade curriculum,
such as biodiversity and \[the American novel\], were engaging to her.
They provided motivation that reduced the need for prompting.\
*--- Mary Calie, parent

If the parents and their child's IEP team decide that the child will
take an alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards,
the IEP must contain a statement about why the student cannot
participate in the regular assessment, and how the particular alternate
assessment selected is appropriate for the child.

Parents should learn more about the methods that will be used to assess
their child. The design of alternate assessments varies from state to
state. In almost all states, the alternate assessment incorporates the
use of pictures, visual cues and objects.

In some states, parents may be asked to give permission for their child
to be videotaped or photographed while engaged in schoolwork, and a
collection of school work samples as well as video or photographs are
gathered over the course of several months. These collections of student
work are then evaluated and given a score that indicates the level of
achievement. This type of alternate assessment is sometimes called a
portfolio assessment or a body of evidence.

In other states, the state prepares a performance assessment for each
student's teacher to administer to the student---these assessments are a
set of specific tasks that the student performs over the course of
several days. Usually the teacher provides whatever supports and
learning tools the student uses in instruction to be sure that the
student can give a response in a meaningful way. The teacher scores the
tasks and submits them to the state for review.

Still other states may have a checklist of essential skills and
knowledge for each grade and content area, sometimes called a rating
scale or checklist. Over the course of several months, a teacher gathers
information that results in a rating of the student's achievement of
these skills and knowledge. Usually evidence of those skills also is
kept in the student's file for occasional review by the state or
district to be sure the ratings are accurate.

There are many different variations of these types of alternate
assessments. Ask your child's teacher or IEP team members to help you
become familiar with the type of assessment your child will take.

Parents may also want to think about how much support and prompting may
be too much. Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
may need lots of supports to successfully participate in assessments,
but those supports should not prevent the student from demonstrating
independent skills and problem solving.

# Big Idea 5 Counting All Students in School Achievement

Parents are often surprised when they find out that the statewide
assessments used to measure the academic progress of all students are
designed to give information about their own school's progress in
teaching their child and other groups of children.

The last big idea is counting all students in school achievement. *NCLB*
requires that schools make genuine progress in closing the long-standing
achievement gaps between students who are disadvantaged or have
disabilities and their classmates. States must show that they are making
continuous and substantial improvement and that the accountability
system they are using is the same in all their public schools.

In *NCLB*'s accountability provisions, all students count, including all
students with disabilities. In many places, schools have been motivated
by the inclusion of students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities to dramatically improve the instruction that these students
receive. The inclusion of these students in school accountability has
resulted in new understanding of what all children can achieve when
taught well.

It is important for students with the most significant cognitive
disabilities to be included in statewide assessments and accountability.
The scores of these students make a difference. These students count.

*There was always a desire to include all students, but no one ever
thought to use curriculum as a means to obtain full inclusion. Now, with
inclusive accountability and a restructuring of the academic system in
special education, children with the most significant cognitive
impairments are contributing to the education system, and more
importantly, they are learning.\
*--- Daniel Wiener, educator

# Bibliography

Browder, D. (2001). *Curriculum and assessment for students with
moderate and severe disabilities*. New York: Guilford Press.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner,
F., and Algozzine, R. (April 2002). "How states define alternate
assessments." *Research and Policy in Developmental Disabilities*. Paper
presented at the Annual Meeting of the American Educational Research
Association: New Orleans, La.

Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., and Snell, M.
(2005). General curriculum access. In M. Snell and F. Brown (eds.).
*Instruction of students with severe disabilities* (6th ed.). Merrill
Prentice Hall: Upper Saddle River, N.J.

Browder, D.M., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner,
F., and Algozzine, R. (2004). The alignment of alternate assessment
content to academic and functional curricula. *Journal of Special
Education*, 37, 211--223.

Browder, D.M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen, M., Spooner,
F., and Algozzine, R. (2005). How states implement alternate assessments
for students with disabilities and recommendations for national policy.
*Journal of Disability Policy Studies*, 15, 209--220.

Browder, D., Fallin, K., Davis, S., and Karvonen, M. (2003). A
consideration of what may influence student outcomes on alternate
assessment. *Education and Training in Mental Retardation and
Developmental Disabilities*, 38, 255--270.

Browder, D.M., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., and Courtade-Little,
G. (2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment
scores. *Exceptional Children*, 71, 267--282.

Browder, D.M. and Spooner, F. (2003). Understanding the purpose and
process of alternate assessment. In D. Ryndak and S. Alper (eds.),
*Curriculum and instruction for students with significant disabilities
in inclusive settings* (pp. 51--72) Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Karvonen,
M., and Algozzine, R. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular
philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessment performance
indicators. *Research and Practice for Persons with Severe
Disabilities*, 28, 165--181.

Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers,
C., and Karvonen, M. (2003). What we know and need to know about
alternate assessment. *Exceptional Children*, 70, 45--62.

Browder, D.M., Spooner, F., and Bingham, M.A. (2004). Current practices
in alternate assessment and access to the general curriculum for
students with severe disabilities in the United States of America.
*Australasian Journal of Special Education*, Vol. 28, No. 2, pp. 17--29.

Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R., Pugalee. D.,
and Karvonen, M. (in press). Creating access to the general curriculum
with links to grade-level content for students with significant
cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. *Journal of
Special Education*.

Clapper, A.T., Morse, A.B., Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., and Thurlow,
M.L. (2005). *2003 state policies on assessment participation and
accommodations for students with disabilities* (Synthesis Report 56).
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis56.html> (accessed Oct.
2006).

Courtade-Little, G. and Browder, D.M. (2005). *Aligning IEPs with
academic standards for students with moderate and severe disabilities*.
Verona, Wis.: Attainment Company.

Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Browder, D., and Spooner, F. (2005).
Teachers' perceptions of alternate assessment. *Research and Practice
for Persons with Severe Disabilities*, 30, 81--92.

Flowers, C., Browder, D.M., and Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis
of three states alignment between language arts and math standards and
alternate assessment. *Exceptional Children*, 72, 201--216.

Flowers, C., Browder, D., Wakeman, S., and Karvonen, M. (2006).
*Alternate assessment alignment pilot study: Report to the State
Department of Education*. Charlotte, N.C.: University of North Carolina
at Charlotte, National Alternate Assessment Center.

Gong, B. and Marion, S.F. (2006). *Dealing with flexibility in
assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities*
(Synthesis Report 60). Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota,
National Center for Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/Synthesis60.html> (accessed Oct.
2006).

Karvonen, M., Flowers, C., Browder, D.M., Wakeman, S.Y., and Algozzine,
B. (2006). Case study of the influences on alternate assessment outcomes
for students with disabilities. *Education and Training in Developmental
Disabilities*, 41, 95--110.

Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., and Kleinert, J. (2006).
Learning Characteristics Inventory (LCI) Report. National Alternate
Assessment Center, Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky,
Lexington. Available at:
naacpartners.org/Products/Files/Research_Focus_LCI.pdf (accessed Feb.
12, 2006).

Kleinert, H., Browder, D., and Towles-Reeves, E. (2005). *The assessment
triangle and students with significant cognitive disabilities: Models of
student cognition*. National Alternate Assessment Center, Human
Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Available at:
naacpartners.org/Products/ (accessed Oct. 2006).

Kleinert, H. and Kearns, J., *Alternate assessment: Measuring outcomes
and supports for students with disabilities* (pp. 93--134). Baltimore,
Md.: Paul Brookes.

Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Lail, K.E., Eisenbraun, K.D., and Kato, K.
(2006). *2005 state policies on assessment participation and
accommodations for students with disabilities* (Synthesis Report 64).
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis64/> (accessed Oct. 2006).

Moore-Lamminen, L. and Olsen, K. (2005). *Alternate assessment: teacher
and state experiences*. Mid-south Regional Resource Center, Human
Development Institute, University of Kentucky, Lexington. Available at:
[http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/images/stories/MSRRC/DOCS/ASSESSMENT/alt%20assmt%20stories.doc](http://www.rrfcnetwork.org/images/stories/MSRRC/DOCS/ASSESSMENT/alt assmt stories.doc)
(accessed Oct. 2006).

National Research Council (2001). *Knowing what students know: The
science and design of educational assessment*. Washington, D.C.:
National Academy of Sciences.

Quenemoen, R., Thompson, S., and Thurlow, M. (2003). *Measuring academic
achievement of students with significant cognitive disabilities:
Building understanding of alternate assessment scoring criteria*
(Synthesis Report 50). Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota,
National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html> (accessed Sept.
28, 2004).

Quenemoen, R., Rigney, S., and Thurlow, M. (2002). *Use of alternate
assessment results in reporting and accountability systems: Conditions
for use based on research and practice* (Synthesis Report 43).
Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis43.html> (accessed Oct.
2006).

Sheinker, J. and Redfield, D. (2001). *Handbook for professional
development in assessment literacy*. Washington, D.C.: Council of Chief
State School Officers.

Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., Thurlow, M.L., and Altman, J.R. (2005).
*2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of
change*. Minneapolis, Minn.: University of Minnesota, National Center on
Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/2005StateReport.htm> (accessed
Sept. 28, 2004).

Thompson, S., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., and Ysseldyke, J. (2001).
*Alternate assessments for students with disabilities*. Thousand Oaks,
Calif.: Corwin Press.

Wiener, D. (2005). *One state's story: Access and alignment to the
GRADE-LEVEL content for students with significant cognitive
disabilities* (Synthesis Report 57). Minneapolis, Minn.: University of
Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Available at:
<http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis57.html> (accessed Feb.
12, 2006).

Ysseldyke, J., Dennison, A., and Nelson, R. (2003). *Large-scale
assessment and accountability systems: Positive consequences for
students with disabilities* (Synthesis Report 51). Minneapolis, Minn.:
University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
Available at: <http://cehd.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html>
(accessed Sept. 28, 2004).

# Helpful Web Sites

#### Federal Technical Assistance and Dissemination Resources

> [www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/iep-teams.doc](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/iep-teams.doc)
>
> [www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/faqs.doc](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/faqs.doc)
>
> [www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/idea-nclb.ppt](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/idea-nclb.ppt)

#### National Alternate Assessment Center

> [www.naacpartners.org/products.aspx](http://www.naacpartners.org/products.aspx)
>
> www.naacpartners.org/Products/Files/The%20Promise%20of%20Access.ppt

#### National Center on Educational Outcomes

> <http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/AlternateAssessments/altAssessFAQ.htm>
>
> <http://cehd.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/AlternateAssessments/altAssessTopic.htm>

#### United States Department of Education

> [www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp](http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp)
>
> [www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html](http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html)

***The Department of Education's mission is to promote student
achievement and\
preparation for global competitiveness by fostering educational
excellence\
and ensuring equal access.***

[**www.ed.gov**](http://www.ed.gov/)