The Impact of One State's Alternate Assessment upon Instruction and IEP Development

Abstract 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. Introduction A critical element of No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 is to hold teachers, schools, and states accountable for ensuring every student has the opportunity to achieve at high levels. State large-scale assessment systems are the instruments through which the success of schools in teaching students the content (state academic content standards) is determined. For most students with significant cognitive disabilities, inclusion in this accountability is through alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (U.S. Dept of Education, 2005). Participation Options in Large-Scale Educational Assessment Systems The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997 (IDEA 1997) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004) require that all students, even those with the most significant cognitive disabilities, be included in State and district-wide assessment systems. The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 further requires all students be assessed on grade-level academic content standards through grade-level or alternate achievement standards (U.S. Dept of Education, 2005, p. 21). As determined by a child's Individualized Education Program (IEP) team, students with disabilities may participate in large-scale educational assessment systems in one of five ways: * the regular grade-level state assessment based on grade-level achievement standards; * the regular grade-level state assessment with accommodations based on grade level achievement standards; * an alternate assessment judged against grade-level achievement standards (though at this point, very few states have developed this option; see Thompson, Thurlow, Johnstone, & Altman, 2005); * an alternate assessment judged against modified achievement standards (though the federal guidance for this option has not yet been finalized); or * the alternate assessment judged against alternate achievement standards. For students with disabilities, the regular grade-level state assessment should always be considered first when deciding how a student should participate in large-scale educational assessments. However, students with the most significant cognitive disabilities typically participate in the fifth option: alternate assessments judged against alternate achievement standards. Alternate achievement standards are "an expectation of performance that differs in complexity from a grade-level achievement standard" (U.S. Dept. of Education, 2005, p. 20). While alternate achievement standards may differ in complexity, they must still be linked to grade-level content. The U.S. Department of Education (2004) has made this linkage to grade-level context explicit: "For alternate assessments in grades 3 through 8 based on alternate achievement standards, the assessment materials should show a clear link to the content standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled although the grade-level content may be reduced in complexity or modified to reflect prerequisite skills" (p. 15). Teaching Grade-Level Academic Content Standards to Students with the Most Significant Cognitive Disabilities Since NCLB requires that all students, including students with significant cognitive disabilities, be assessed on grade-level academic content standards, it becomes imperative that students have access to and receive instruction on that grade-level content. …