- His ability to shop at Kroeger's, select food, push the cart, place food on the counter, and pay the checkout person.
- His ability to participate in regular P.E. class meaningfully. Not only did he "blend in," but his nonhandicapped peers thought of ways to include him spontaneously. By the way, did you hear the word friend? Yes, Ryan actually had friends as a result of more sensitive and creative educational planning, an integral component of the accountability process.
- His ability to perform more and more self-help skills. . . . Ryan did not eat in a special section in the school. He was with his "circle of friends," his "peer tutors.". . . Most of all he had the opportunity to experience the gift of other children, other children who would model "normal" kid behavior. Ryan smiled, he grew, but more important, his regular teachers began to see him grow, so they grew with him. They began to think of ways to include Ryan. (Nochta, 1995)
High Expectations for All
One key to ensuring high expectations for every child is requiring that all students be included in measures of educational assessment. With the passage of the 1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 1997), all states must now include students with disabilities in statewide and districtwide educational assessments [Section 612(a)(17)(A)]. No longer can a disability exclude students from assessments or exclude their scores from state and district educational reports.
States will have to ensure that students with disabilities receive appropriate accommodations to participate in assessments. For students who cannot participate in assessments even with modifications, states and districts must develop alternate assessments by July 1, 2000.
At this writing, only one state—Kentucky—has an alternate assessment program operating statewide for students who are unable to participate in the assessments designed for typical learners (Elliott, Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Erickson, 1998; Kearns, Kleinert, Clayton, Burdge, & Williams, 1998). As a result of the Kentucky Education Reform Act of 1990, Kentucky fully includes all students, even students with severe disabilities, in its mandatory performance-based assessment system (Elliott et al.; Kleinert, Kearns, & Kennedy, 1997).
Assessment and Accountability
In 1992, Kentucky put into place an inclusive assessment and accountability system—with both regular and alternate assessments. Schools are held accountable for student performance in that they receive rewards or sanctions on the basis of student improvement. Through the 1997–98 school year, schools evaluated students in 4th and 5th grades, 7th and 8th grades, and 11th and 12th grades through writing portfolios; on-demand, open-response performance tasks in math, social studies, reading, science, practical living, and arts and humanities; and more traditional, standardized achievement tests, which included a limited number of multiple-choice questions testing basic skills and concepts. The Kentucky Department of Education is currently restructuring this assessment system to include more standardized testing to allow national comparisons, to improve validity and scoring reliability, and to measure student performance over time.
As our assessment system evolves, it continues to focus on performance. Assessment scores for each student are divided into four performance levels: novice, apprentice, proficient, and distinguished. Schools use these cognitive indicators, along with noncognitive measures such as attendance, dropout and retention rates, and postschool outcomes, to calculate a performance index, which then becomes the baseline value for determining future school rewards or sanctions (Steffy, 1993).
In Kentucky's assessment system, students with disabilities participate in one of three ways (Kleinert et al., 1997). First, 15 to 40 percent of students with mild disabilities participate in the general assessment without any individualized accommodations (Trimble, 1998). Second, many students with disabilities participate in the general system with individualized test accommodations—for example, they may receive a different testing format, increased time, a calculator for a math item, or a word processor for a written entry. Any accommodation must be documented in the student's Individual Education Program (IEP), must be a regular part of ongoing instruction with that student, and cannot interfere with the test's purpose. For instance, a teacher cannot read to a student the part of an assessment intended to measure reading decoding skills.
The third way that students with disabilities participate in Kentucky's assessment system is through an alternate assessment. Students with moderate and severe cognitive disabilities participate in the Alternate Portfolio (Kleinert et al., 1997). The Alternate Portfolio was designed specifically for those students for whom the regular assessment program did not provide a meaningful measure of learning, even with accommodations. Current state data indicate that approximately 1/2 to 1 percent of public school students—those students with the most significant cognitive disabilities—meet the eligibility criteria for the alternate system (Kleinert et al.).
The Alternate Portfolio reflects the same set of learner outcomes or academic expectations identified for all students. Although the Alternate Portfolios assess the same academic expectations, students with significant disabilities may demonstrate those outcomes in other ways. For example, a student can demonstrate the expectation assessing information by appropriately requesting assistance across multiple school and community settings. Students can demonstrate the expectation using technology effectively through appropriate assistive technology applications, such as using an augmentative communication device or operating a computer program through single-switch access.
A Classroom Example
Adam and Elly are working together on a science project at Nicholasville Elementary, Jessamine County. Their research question is, What kind of bugs do certain foods attract? Adam, a student with autism, and Elly, a classmate, assemble the bug traps. Elly reads the directions and checks off each step that Adam completes. Then they place a food sample in each trap and choose a particularly buggy location outside. Later, Adam participates in a cooperative learning group activity in which the group must classify the bugs by using a bug identification sheet. Adam matches the picture of the biggest bug on the identification chart to the one in the bug trap and draws a picture of it.
At the end of the bug unit, everyone takes a final exam, which comprises multiple-choice items and two performance activities. On his exam, Adam must identify and draw pictures of bugs. On the performance portion of the exam, Adam assembles a bug trap.
Both Adam and Elly, along with their classmates, are working on Kentucky's Learning Goals and Academic Expectations, such as nature of scientific inquiry, reading, writing, speaking, classifying, quantifying, patterns, and interpersonal relationships. Although Elly and Adam clearly have different skill levels, they can work together on tasks that are appropriately individualized but also have mutual learning outcomes.
Adam will include in his science portfolio entry such items as a bug graph, a picture of a bug, and photographs or a videotape of his bug trap assembly, as well as the teacher's instructional data on the number of steps that he completed correctly. Adam will evaluate his work and his skill progress by using a check sheet, which will be included in his science portfolio entry.
Alternate Portfolio Contents and Entries
- Evidence of how the student communicates. Many students who are eligible for the Alternate Portfolio have difficulties with basic communication and thus may need an alternative or augmentative way of communicating, such as a picture communication system.
- The student's daily or weekly schedule. The schedule represents activities associated with academic expectations, such as organizing materials and using classification rules and systems; making sense of reading materials; and demonstrating skills and work habits that lead to success in future schooling or work.
- A student letter to the reviewer. The letter indicates why the student has chosen the portfolio entries and names the student's best or favorite entry. Students can collaborate with nondisabled peers or the teacher, as long as they indicate the level of assistance.
- A résumé of work experiences for 12th graders. This highlights the range of real-life vocational experiences, including in-school and community jobs, with employer evaluations and other evidence of vocational study.
- A letter from the student's parents or guardian. This should indicate the parents' level of satisfaction with the student's portfolio.
- Five academic entries. Entries may be selected from language arts, mathematics, science, social studies, arts and humanities, physical education, and vocational studies. Student products as well as systematic instructional data may serve as evidence of academic expectations. All levels require a language arts entry, whereas only 12th grade requires a vocational entry.
Bobby, a middle school student with a moderate disability, has completed a folklore project for his 8th grade U.S. history class. Students completed six projects that ranged from constructing a family tree to recording local oral histories. Bobby chose three of the six activities for his portfolio. He constructed a family tree, took pictures of family members, and with a partner took pictures of local historical sites. Together, he and his partner gave a presentation to the class. Bobby named the historical sites while the partner shared the details.
The academic expectations for this project included observing to understand people and the relationships among individuals and among groups; recognizing and understanding the relationship between people and geography as applied to real-life settings; and collecting, organizing, and communicating information and ideas. Bobby worked on the same academic expectations as the other students, but with individualized performance expectations.
Standards for Evaluating Portfolios
- Performance of targeted skills within the context of academic expectations.
- Appropriate supports that lead to independence.
- Performance in multiple settings to enhance the generalization of skills.
- Social relationships that support the development of appropriate social interaction skills and the development of social networks.
- Age-appropriate performance with opportunities for making choices and decisions.
Figure 1. Kentucky's Alternate Assessment Scoring Rubric
We Need Not Exclude Anyone - table
Novice | Apprentice | Proficient | Distinguished | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Performance | Student participates passively in portfolio products. No clear evidence of targeted skills. Little or no linkage to Academic Expectations. | Student performs specifically targeted skills that are meaningful in current and future environments. Planning, monitoring, and evaluating are limited or inconsistent. Some evidence of Academic Expectations. | Student work indicates progress on specifically targeted skills that are meaningful in current and future environments. Student consistently plans, monitors, and evaluates own performance. Most entries show Academic Expectations. | Student work indicates progress on specifically targeted skills that are meaningful in future environments. Evidence of planning, monitoring, and evaluating progress. Evaluation is used to extend performance. Evidence of Academic Expectations in all entries. |
| Support | No clear evidence of peer supports or needed adaptations, modifications, or assistive technology. | Support is limited to peer tutoring. Limited use of adaptations, modifications, or assistive technology. | Support is natural with students learning together. Appropriate use of adaptations, modifications, or assistive technology. | Support is natural. Evidence of adaptations, modifications, or assistive technology. |
| Settings | Student participates in a limited number of settings. | Student performs targeted skills in a variety of integrated settings. | Student performs targeted skills in a wide variety of integrated settings within and across most entries. | Student performance occurs in an extensive variety of integrated settings within and across all entries. |
| Social Relationships | The student's social interactions are limited. | The student has frequent social interactions with nondisabled peers. | The student sustains social relationships with peers over time. | The student has clearly established mutual friendships with nondisabled peers. |
| Contexts | Student makes limited choices in portfolio products. Products are not age-appropriate. | Student makes choices in a variety of portfolio products. All products are age-appropriate. | Student consistently makes choices in a wide variety of portfolio products. All portfolio products are age-appropriate. | Evidence of student choice and control in age-appropriate portfolio products within and across all entries. |
A rubric is a scoring guide used to evaluate the quality of a student's performance. For large-scale, high-stakes assessment, a more detailed scoring rubric increases the likelihood of rater agreement (Popham, 1997).
Each standard identifies specific scoring criteria. After clustering these five individual standards, raters give students a single score of novice, apprentice, proficient, or distinguished. Each student in the Alternate Portfolio system contributes a weight equal to that of a student in Kentucky's regular assessment and accountability system.
Thus, a student with a severe disability whose Alternate Portfolio receives a distinguished rating contributes positive recognition and reward to the school—equivalent to that of a distinguished student in the regular assessment system. IDEA 1997 requires only that students with disabilities participate in the assessment and that their results are reported; it does not require that students with disabilities be included in accountability systems. However, Kentucky chose to include all students in both assessment and accountability.
Impact of the Alternate Assessment
After six years of statewide implementation, the impact of Kentucky's alternate assessment system is clear. Statewide teacher surveys, conducted during the first year of implementation and then repeated in the fifth year, revealed a 21 percent increase in the number of nonverbal students who use augmentative communication systems (Kleinert, Kennedy, & Kearns, in press). Students in the alternate assessment are also using individualized schedules and are evaluating their own work.
In the past six years, we have seen a steady decrease in the number of students with severe disabilities served in segregated, self-contained settings. Although many factors may contribute to this decrease, we should note that portfolio entries require evidence of performance in a variety of integrated settings. As the examples suggest, the portfolio achievements of students with moderate and severe disabilities continue to challenge our expectations.
Recommendations
- Ideally, rather than create alternatives for distinct populations, assess all learners together. Many students—with and without disabilities—may not perform well on any given large-scale assessment, but that should not exclude them from the assessment. If participation in the large-scale assessment does not provide adequate instructional information about the performance of some students, local districts may want to use more prescriptive tools in addition to large-scale assessment. But we can get a true picture of how well a school is doing to educate all its students only if all students are included in the assessment.
- Carefully consider how students with disabilities can participate with appropriate accommodations. The remainder of students—the small percentage who, even with accommodations, cannot meaningfully participate in the large-scale regular assessment—may be the target population for the alternate assessment. In Kentucky this is less than 1 percent of the total student population.
- Determine how state or district standards apply to students who will take the alternate assessment. Although the regulations for IDEA 1997 are not yet written on this topic, alternate assessments must align as closely as possible with state standards determined for all children. IDEA 1997 mandates that each student's IEP team document the extent to which students participate and progress in the general curriculum [Section 614(d)(1)(A)]. Moreover, a recent survey of national experts revealed overwhelming support for using the same set of standards for all children (Kleinert & Kearns, 1998).
- Convene a stakeholder group—with general and special education teachers, administrators, and parents—to assist with decisions about the standards as well as about the assessment format. Those involved in the decisions are more likely to have ownership of the assessment, which in turn leads to more successful implementation. One promise of the IDEA 1997 legislation is the opportunity for general and special educators to work together. This opportunity extends not only to the state-level stakeholder group but also to classroom teachers in local districts and schools.
- Determine an assessment format that is consistent with other forms of student assessment (use a portfolio, for example, if other students are also developing portfolios). Teachers may want to think about how to assist students with moderate and severe disabilities to highlight their individual achievements.
- Decide how to report the student scores to the public in a manner that is useful and yet protects individual student identities. The interpretation of scoring results is a crucial feature for parents and teachers who are striving to improve instruction.
- Implement the assessment. This requires professional development opportunities for teachers as a matter of course. As teachers, students, and parents engage in conversations about student work, they will refine the assessment, which will lead to improved results for students.
One Final Thought
The parent in the opening example, who relayed her dreams for her son, included prose in her testimony, which Senator Bill Frist (R-TN) later read on the floor of the U.S. Senate to introduce IDEA 1997: Make no little plans.They have no magic to stir men's blood and probably themselves will not be realized.Make big plans, aim high in hope and work, remembering that a noble, logical diagram once recorded will never die, but long after we're gone will be a living thing asserting itself with ever-growing insistency. (Burnham, 1907)
Educational outcomes are for all students—indeed, they are part of education's own "noble design." They reflect our fundamental aspirations for every child.
