Frequently Asked Questions

Q: Why are students with disabilities required to participate in assessment programs?
Q: How will states implement alternate assessment programs?
Q: How can students with disabilities participate in state or district assessments?
Q: What challenges do states face developing alternate assessment programs?
Q: What advantages will these assessments present to the education of children with disabilities?
Q: Will changes in assessment programs lead to the desired change of instruction?
Q: How are alternate assessments developed?
Q: Do assessment programs undergo continual improvement and adjustment?
Q: How can the state’s or district’s Core Curriculum be adapted and expanded for students who will be alternately assessed?
Q: How can software contribute to successfully conduct alternate assessments?
Q: How will educators and parents understand and utilize the results of alternate assessments?

The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA ’97) require that “children with disabilities be included in general state and district-wide assessment programs, with appropriate accommodations where necessary” [612(a)(17)(A)], and if general assessments are still not appropriate, alternate assessments are provided. IDEA ’97 was built on and expanded upon the requirements of the Improving America's Schools Act (IASA).

The law requires that Individualized Education Plan (IEP) teams determine how individual children will participate in large-scale assessments, what accommodations will be used for those individuals within the large-scale assessment program, and how individual students will otherwise be assessed if it is determined that they will not participate in the large scale assessment program [(614)(d)(1)(A)(v)]. Furthermore, the amendments specify that "as appropriate, the State or local educational agency: (i) develops guidelines for the participation of children with disabilities in alternate assessments for those children who cannot participate in State and district-wide assessment programs; and (ii) develops and, beginning not later than July 1, 2000, conducts those alternate assessments" [612(a)(17)(A)(i-ii)]. IDEA ’97 also requires that states establish goals for the performance of children with disabilities that "are consistent, to the maximum extent appropriate, with other goals and standards for children established by the state."

The goal of IDEA ’97 is that all students will participate in statewide assessment and accountability programs to the fullest extent and in the least restrictive manner possible. Students with disabilities can participate in the state or district assessments by:

• taking the regular assessments without accommodations.
• taking the regular assessments with accommodation.
• taking the alternate assessment.

The challenges that lie before states are daunting. The students who are to be alternately assessed are more diverse in their disabilities and learning needs than those students who do not require such assessments. In addition, these students have traditionally not been assessed on external assessments of standards-based academic knowledge and skills, so that states (and local school systems) have little or no experience in devising appropriate academic achievement assessments. The emphasis in the collection of information about these students' learning has been on the individual present levels of functioning prompted by the goals and objectives of the IEP, not external standards that are viewed as appropriate for all students. In too many cases, the result has been that students with disabilities are taught isolated functional skills, rather than the broader academic skills (perhaps through referencing and using functional skills as a starting point).

With alternate assessment participation, all students, even those with the most significant disabilities, gain access to the general curriculum to a much greater extent than is currently the case. IDEA ’97 anticipates the time when all students with disabilities will receive instruction that is based on the state’s content standards for all students. The functional skills that predominate current IEPs can become a means to accomplish the general content standards, not ends in themselves, as is often the case currently. Additionally, states, districts, and schools have, for the first time, information about the learning process of this group of students. They will be able to develop better programs of instruction, and target resources more effectively.

The educational research literature is replete with examples of failed attempts to change instruction via changing assessment alone. Change in assessment does not automatically lead to desired changes in instruction, at least the long-term, deeper changes that enable students to learn to their potential. Hence, buried within the requirements of IDEA ’97 is an educational change process that has the potential to affect the very nature of the instructional opportunities provided to students with significant disabilities. For this potential of IDEA ’97 to be realized, however, careful attention needs to be given to how the assessment is created and implemented. A starting point for many teachers is understanding how academic content standards can apply to students with significant disabilities.

There are no clear-cut solutions to the issues inherent in developing developmentally appropriate assessments for student with disabilities who are unable to participate in the statewide assessments, even with accommodations. Measured Progress proposes strategies to state education departments that tackle and attempt to solve these issues. The process of activity helps states create the types of assessments needed, permits these assessments to be used in the state without raising undue concerns, and reaches the goal of participation of all students. Even students with the most significant disabilities can be served.

Among the most crucial issues to be addressed in developing an alternate assessment is the development of a philosophy or set of assumptions that will guide the entire development process.

• Is the purpose of the alternate assessment the same as the purpose for the regular assessment program?
• What are the intended and unintended consequences of the alternate assessment?
• Is the alternate assessment designed to promote best instructional practices, to measure program improvement, to ensure school accountability, to measure students for student accountability purpose?

Failure to address and firmly establish foundational beliefs can lead to ongoing debates and many false starts throughout the assessment development process.

Measured Progress suggests that the guidelines and criteria be reviewed and refined as needed when the assessments are pilot tested and implemented.

A wide variety of assessment strategies to measure the critical academic functions should be constructed so as to permit the most reliable and valid assessment of students. One of the vexing challenges of IDEA ’97 is how to appropriately assess students with disabilities who are unable to participate in the regular assessment program, even with accommodations. As mentioned above, this student group is very diverse; some have significant communication disabilities.

Fortunately, there are procedures designed to help states and districts develop policies and procedures to comply with the spirit of IDEA ’97, which states that all students need to be assessed on the content standards developed for the state or district. The group of special educators working at Measured Progress has considerable experience using portfolios with instructionally-imbedded performance tasks, as well as separate performance events, to assess students with significant disabilities. Additional assessment strategies such as surveys of parents and teachers, structured and unstructured observations, reviews of written records, and scoring of student work (where it can be obtained) can be used. Our goal is to construct multiple methods of assessing each indicator, so local educators have choices of determining which measures best suit the student.

ProFile permits teachers to collect samples of student work, audio clips, video clips, and other evidence, and to view these either for an IEP meeting or for the statewide alternate assessment. The software provides an efficient storage and retrieval system for classroom-based evidence of student performance across the school year. Many users find it helpful for IEP teams to review this information as it pertains to progress on goals and objectives. Parents are particularly pleased to see actual demonstrations of their child's skills through video clips and other direct methods. Educators can organize the evidence of student performance they have collected by entry and content standard, resulting in an effective electronic portfolio that is easily viewed and evaluated.

This task is as daunting as the development of the system itself. Unless this portion of the program is carried out well, the implementation period will be marked with arguments over the value of the information versus the time and effort needed to collect the information. Others may fail to see how some students with severe disabilities can demonstrate any access to the standards.

We develop an overall communications strategy, and implement it in such a manner that local educators increasingly come to “own” the alternate assessment system. This strategy contains both an informational component and a participation component.

By developing materials such as software and online newsletters, we show educators and parents the rationale for an alternate assessment and help them understand how to use it. Alternate assessment results can lead to transformed learning opportunities and improved student learning.