An Analysis of Three States' Alignment between Language Arts and Mathematics Standards and Alternate Assessments

Recent guidelines for No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2001) permit the use of alternate achievement standards for counting up to 1% of students with significant cognitive disabilities as proficient in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations. This provision increases the importance of ass...

Full description

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Published in:Exceptional children 2006, Vol.72 (2), p.201-215
Main Authors: Flowers, Claudia, Browder, Diane, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Lynn
Format: Article
Language:English
Subjects:
Academic Standards
Alternative Assessment
Biological and medical sciences
Disabilities
Disabled students
Education
Educational Change
Educational evaluation
Educational Improvement
English language
Exceptional children
Federal Legislation
Federal Programs
General Education
Grade 5
Language Arts
Mathematics
Mathematics Curriculum
Mathematics education
Medical sciences
No Child Left Behind Act 2001
No Child Left Behind Act 2001-US
Psychology. Psychoanalysis. Psychiatry
Psychopathology. Psychiatry
Qualitative Research
Special education. Orthophony
State Standards
Students with Disabilities
Study and teaching
Treatments
Citations: Items that this one cites
Items that cite this one
Online Access:Get full text
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
Description
Summary:Recent guidelines for No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB; 2001) permit the use of alternate achievement standards for counting up to 1% of students with significant cognitive disabilities as proficient in adequate yearly progress (AYP) calculations. This provision increases the importance of assessing the technical quality of alternate assessments and their alignment to academic content standards. This study used a quantitative method of alignment to estimate the match between three states' alternate assessments and their state academic content standards. The results indicate that alternate assessments are aligned to academic content standards, but alternate assessments only capture a narrow range and depth of the content standards. Recommendations for using alignment procedures to address critical elements in Title I as amended by NCLB are discussed.
ISSN:0014-4029
2163-5560
DOI:10.1177/001440290607200205