Advertisement

Implementing Modified Achievement Tests: Questions, Challenges, Pretending, and Potential Negative Consequences

  • Christopher J. Lemons
  • Amanda Kloo
  • Naomi Zigmond
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter discusses findings from the General Supervision Enhancement Grant awarded to the state of Pennsylvania by the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs for which the authors provide research support and consultation. The views and commentary expressed therein are solely those of the authors. No official support or endorsement by the US Department of Education or the Pennsylvania Department of Education is intended or to be inferred. We thank the editors, Deborah Fulmer, and Jane Partanen for comments on earlier drafts.

Keywords

Special Education Cognitive Load Theory Universal Design Target Student Regular Assessment 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Carnine, D. W. (1994). Introduction to the mini-series: Diverse learners and prevailing, emerging, and research-based educational approaches and their tools. School Psychology Review, 23(3), 341–350.Google Scholar
  2. Center for Universal Design. (1997). What is universal design? Center for Universal Design, North Carolina State University. Retrieved January, June 9, 2010, from http://www.design.ncsu.edu
  3. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., & Kurtz, A. (2011). Creating access to instruction and test of achievement: Challenges and solutions. In S. N. Elliott, R. J. Kettler, P. A. Beddow & A. Kurtz (Eds.), Handbook of accessible achievement tests for all students (pp. 1–16). New York: Springer.Google Scholar
  4. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., Beddow, P. A., Kurz, A., Compton, E., McGrath, D., et al. (2010). Effects of using modified items to test students with persistent academic difficulties. Exceptional Children, 76(4), 475–495.Google Scholar
  5. Elliott, S. N., Kettler, R. J., & Roach, A. T. (2008). Alternate assessments of modified achievement standards: More accessible and less difficult tests to advance assessment practices? Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19(3), 140–152.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.Google Scholar
  7. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). General educators’ instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21(1), 23–33.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Gabriel, T. (2010, June 10). Under pressure, teachers tamper with tests. The New York Times. Retrieved June 22, 2010, from http://www.nytimes.com
  9. Hess, K., McDivitt, P., & Fincher, M. (2008, June). Who are the 2% students and how do we design items and assessments that provide greater access for them? Results from a pilot study with Georgia students. Paper presented at the CCSSO National Conference on Student Achievement, Orlando, FL. Retrieved June 16, 2010, from http://www.nciea.org/publications/CCSSO_KHPMMF08.pdf
  10. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments. (1997). Pub. L. No. 105-7 (1997) Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.cec.sped.org/law_res/doc/law/index.php
  11. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, Pub. L. No. 108-446. (2004). Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.htm
  12. Johnstone, C. J. (2003). Improving validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 13, 2010, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Technical37.htm
  13. Kame’enui, E. J., Carnine, D. W., Dixon, R. C., Simmons, D. C., & Coyne, M. D. (2002). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (2nd Ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  14. Kettler, R. J. (2011). Holding modified assessments accountable: Applying a unified reliability and validity framework to the development and evaluation of AA-MASs. In M. Russell (Ed.), Assessing Students in the Margins: Challenges, Strategies, and Techniques (pp. 311–333). Charlotte, NC: Information Age Publishing.Google Scholar
  15. Kettler, R. J., & Elliott, S. N. (2009). Introduction to the special issue on alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards: New policy, new practices, and persistent challenges. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 467–477.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Kettler, R. J., Elliott, S. N., & Beddow, P. A. (2009). Modifying achievement test items: A theory-guided and data-based approach for better measurement of what students with disabilities know. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 529–551.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lazarus, S. S., & Thurlow, M. L. (2009). The changing landscape of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards: An analysis of early adapters of AA-MASs. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 496–510.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Levitt, S. D., & Dubner, S. J. (2005). Freakonomics: A rouge economist explores the hidden side of everything. New York: HarperCollins.Google Scholar
  19. Marion, S. (2007). A technical design and documentation workbook for assessments based on modified achievement standards. Minneapolis, MN: National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved April 2, 2010, from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/nceo/Teleconferences/AAMASteleconferences/AAMASworkbook.pdf Google Scholar
  20. No Child Left Behind Act, Pub. L. No. 107-110. (2001). Retrieved January 21, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/leg/eseas02/index/html
  21. O’Sullivan, P. J., Ysseldyke, J. E., Christenson, S. L., & Thurlow, M. L. (1990). Mildly handicapped elementary students' opportunity to learn during reading instruction in mainstream and special education settings. Reading Research Quarterly, 25(2), 131–146.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Palmer, P. W. (2009). State perspectives on implementing, or choosing not to implement, an alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards. Peabody Journal of Education, 84, 578–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Pennsylvania Department of Education. (2010). PSSA & PSSA-M Accommodations Guidelines for Students with IEPs and Students with 504 Plans (Revised 1/11/2010). Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://www.portal.state.pa.us/portal/server.pt/gateway/PTARGS_0_123031_744146_0_0_18/PSSA_Accommodations_Guidelines_2010.pdf
  24. Quenemoen, R. (2009, July). Identifying students and considering why and whether to assess them with an alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards. In M. Perie (Ed.), Considerations for the alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) (Chapter 2, pp. 17–50). Albany, NY: New York Comprehensive Center. Retrieved June 17, 2010, from http://nycomprehensivecenter.org.docs/AA_MAS.pdf
  25. Rodriguez, M. C. (2005). Three options are optimal for multiple choice items: A meta-analysis of 80 years of research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 24, 3–13.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Samuels, C. (2007). Spec. ed. advocates wary of relaxing testing rules. Education Week, 26(43), 24–28.Google Scholar
  27. Schiller, E., Sanford, C., & Blackorby, J. (2008). A national profile of the classroom experiences and academic performance of students with LD: A special topic report from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Accessed on June 20, 2010. Available at http://www.seels.net/info_reports/national_profile_students_leaming_disabilities.htm Google Scholar
  28. Skiba, R. J., Simmons, A. B., Ritter, S., Gbb, A. C., Rausch, M. K., Cuadrado, J., et al. (2008). Achieving equity in special education: History, status, and current challenges. Exceptional Children, 74, 264–288.Google Scholar
  29. Sweller, J. (1994). Cognitive load theory, learning difficulty and instructional design. Learning and Instruction, 4, 295–312.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act; Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities. (2005). Proposed Rule, 70(Fed. Reg.), 74624–74638.Google Scholar
  31. Title I—Improving the Academic Achievement of the Disadvantaged; Individuals with Disabilities Education (IDEA) Act. (2007). Final Rule, 72(Fed. Reg.), 17748–17751 (to be codified at 34 C.F.R. pts. 200 and 300).Google Scholar
  32. Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., & Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 9, 2010, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis44.html Google Scholar
  33. Thurlow, M. L. (2008). Assessment and instructional implications of the alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS). Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 19, 132–139.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1998). Testing students with disability: Practical strategies for complying with state and district requirements. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.Google Scholar
  35. US Department of Education. (2007). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author. Retrieved February 14, 2010, from http://www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc Google Scholar
  36. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Garza, N. (2006). An overview of findings from wave 2 of the national longitudinal transition study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved June 20, 2010. Available at http://www.nlts2.org/reports/2006_08/nlts2_report_2006_08_complete.pdf Google Scholar
  37. Zigmond, N., & Kloo, A. (2009). The “two percent students:” Considerations and consequences of eligibility decisions. Peabody Journal of Education, 84(4), 478–495.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Zigmond, N., & Matta, D. (2004). Value added of the special education teacher in secondary school cotaught classes. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Secondary interventions: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 17, pp. 57–78). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAL.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer New York 2011

Authors and Affiliations

  • Christopher J. Lemons
    • 1
  • Amanda Kloo
    • 2
  • Naomi Zigmond
    • 2
  1. 1.University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA
  2. 2.Department of Instruction and LearningSchool of Education, University of PittsburghPittsburghUSA

Personalised recommendations