U . S . D e p a r t m e n t o f E du c a t i o n

For Your Child Through Alternate Assessments

LEARNING

OPPORTUNITIES

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: http://www.edpubs.org.

This report is also available on the Department’s Web site at: 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.
iii

Contents

Acknowledgments . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v

Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .1

Big Idea 1: High Expectations for All Students . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .3

Big Idea 2: Measuring Academic Achievement of All Students . . . . . . . 5

Big Idea 3: Access to Grade-Level Content . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7

Big Idea 4: Making Decisions One Child at a Time . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11

Big Idea 5: Counting All Students in School Achievement . . . . . . . . .13

Bibliography . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 15

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.

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

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 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.
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. [A]cademic opportunities

increase my child’s life

opportunities.

— Mary Calie, parent

Big Idea

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:

2


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. 
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 gradelevel 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 on 

the next page: 


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 gradelevel 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.
10

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. 

10
11

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, with pictures, words 

or signs)? 

• 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
12

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.

12
Big Idea

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.

5

13
14

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
15

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://education.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://education.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: 

http://www.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: http://www.naacpartners.org/Products/Files/NAAC%20Assmt%20Triangle%20

White%20Paper%20-%20FINAL%20for%20Website.pdf (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://education.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 (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.

16
17

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://education.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://education.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://education.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://education.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://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis51.html

(accessed Sept. 28, 2004).
18
19

Helpful Web Sites 

Federal Technical Assistance and Dissemination Resources

www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/iep-teams.doc

www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/faqs.doc

www.ed.gov/admins/lead/speced/toolkit/idea-nclb.ppt

National Alternate Assessment Center

www.naacpartners.org/products.aspx

www.naacpartners.org/Products/Files/The%20Promise%20of%20Access.ppt

National Center on Educational Outcomes

http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/AlternateAssessments/altAssessFAQ.htm

http://education.umn.edu/nceo/TopicAreas/AlternateAssessments/altAssessTopic.htm

United States Department of Education

www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/edpicks.jhtml?src=fp

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