The literature reports controversy among teachers about the value of an alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities (SCD) (Kampfer, Horvath, Kleinert, & Kearns, 2001).The purpose of this study was to investigate the perceptions of special education teachers about the value and implementation of the Arizona Alternate Assessment (AIMS-A) for instructional planning.Twelve elementary special education teachers from three school districts in Southern Arizona were placed in one of two focus groups. They were asked questions about the value of the alternate assessment, the impact on instructional planning, the allocation of time to complete the assessment, and the usefulness of the data collected for the alternate assessment. Later, in-depth interviews were held with three of the 12 teachers representing each of the districts. The teachers' responses to the questions asked in the focus group and interview sessions were tape-recorded, transcribed, and organized into themes.Results revealed four major themes and 11 sub-themes. Most teachers valued the AIMS-A information in guiding their teaching. Some teachers, however, believed the instrument did not accurately assess students with the most severe disabilities. Teachers reported the assessment helped guide their instructional planning. The limited time allocated during the school day to complete the assessment resulted in an additional burden on teachers' personal time. Teachers found documenting and collection data throughout the school year was necessary to be able to accurately assess students during the spring testing period. Most of the teachers found the progress data useful.Six recommendations for State (SEAs) and Local Education Agencies (LEAs) resulted from the implications. The first recommendation is to acquire positive teacher perceptions and support for the AIMS-A by providing teachers with a thorough understanding of the benefits of the assessment. A second recommendation is for LEA administrators to assist teachers in finding time to administer the AIMS-A. The third recommendation is that the LEA's must provide in-service training. The fourth recommendation requires modification of existing policies when needed. The fifth recommendation is to create a state-wide data base that articulates student progress on the AIMS-A. The final recommendation is to modify existing policies where needed.

The purpose of this study was to understand the decision-making process used by IEP teams and case managers for students with significant intellectual disabilities who participate in alternate assessments based on aligned academic achievement standards (AA-AAS). Semi-structured in-depth interviews were conducted with case managers for students participating in the Virginia Alternate Assessment Program (VAAP) from school divisions in central Virginia. Traditional inductive data analysis techniques were used to analyze data collected from the in-depth interviews, the researcher’s reflexive field notes and observations, and a review of VAAP training and guidance documents provided by study participants. Findings illuminated the decision-making process of finding students with significant intellectual disabilities eligible to participate in the VAAP and resulted in a visual representation of the decision-making process.

xvi, 116 p. A print copy of this thesis is available through the UO Libraries. Search the library catalog for the location and call number. / A significant challenge in developing alternate assessments is obtaining suitable sample sizes. This study investigated whether psychometric characteristics of mathematic alternate assessment items created for 2% students in grade 8 can be meaningfully estimated with data obtained from general education students in lower grades. Participants included 23 2% students in grade 8 and 235 general education students in grades 6-8. Twenty three 2% students were identified through the Student Performance Test (10 standard items and 10 2% items) and the Teacher Perception Survey. Performance on 10 2% items by the 2% students and the general education students were analyzed to address the questions: (a) are there grade levels at which the item parameters estimated from general education students in grade 6-8 are not different from those obtained using the 2% student sample? and (b) are there grade levels at which the estimated ability of general education students in grades 6-8 are not different the 2% student sample in grade 8? Results indicated that the item response patterns of 2% students in grade 8 were comparable to those of general education students in grades 6 and 7. Additionally, 2% students in grade 8 showed comparable mathematics performance on 2% items when compared to general education students in grades 6 and 7. Considering the content exposure of students in lower grades, this study concluded that data from general education students in grade 7 would be more appropriate to be used in designing alternate assessment for 2% students in grade 8 than data from students in grade 6. The general conclusion is that using data obtained from general education students in lower grade levels may be an appropriate and efficient method of designing alternate assessment items. / Advisers: Dr. Beth Ham, Co-Chair; Dr. Paul Yovanoff, Co-Chair

Statewide accountability programs are incorporating academic growth estimates for general assessments. This transition focuses attention on modeling growth for students with significant cognitive disabilities (SWSCD) who take alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS), as most states attempt to structure their AA-AAS systems as similarly as possible to their general assessments (GA). Test scaling, group heterogeneity, small sample sizes, missing data, and the use of status-based assessments that were not necessarily designed to measure a developmental continuum complicate modeling growth for SWSCD. This study addressed these challenges by: (a) analyzing test results from a common scale, (b) modeling achievement and growth for students in multiple demographic and exceptionality categories, and (c) using multiple cohorts to increase sample sizes. Latent growth curve modeling (LGCM) was used to define growth estimates based on exceptionality, sex, race, and economic disadvantage. Unconditional latent class growth analysis (LCGA) was used to determine the number of homogeneous subgroups that existed within the heterogeneous population of SWSCD for subsequent growth mixture modeling (GMM). Unconditional GMM was used to define the number of homogeneous subgroups of students with similar intercept and growth patterns within the overall population of SWSCD. Discriminant function analysis (DFA) including student exceptionality, sex, race, and economic disadvantage status was also used to analyze class membership post hoc. SWSCD with different exceptionalities generally had significantly different average initial achievement but growth rates that did not differ significantly from each other. SWSCD classified as economically disadvantaged performed significantly lower than their peers in initial achievement, yet exhibited growth rates that were not statistically different than the reference group. This study also found evidence for two separate latent classes of students with exceptionalities on the Oregon AA-AAS. The first class had lower achievement and larger growth rates, while the second class had higher achievement and slower growth rates. Students identified as SLD and CD were generally higher-performing, while students identified as ID, ASD, and OI were lower performing across all analytic models.

The purpose of this study was to determine if the use of the Equals mathematics curriculum had any statistically significant impact on the 2012 Florida Alternate Assessment mathematics scores of students with disabilities in six Florida school districts when comparing the scores of those who received mathematics instruction via the curriculum to the scores of students with disabilities in six other Florida school districts who did not receive mathematics instruction via the curriculum. This study further examined the perceptions of and attitudes about the Equals mathematics curriculum that exist among Exceptional Student Education (ESE) teachers who teach mathematics to students with disabilities participating in the Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA). The study utilized a mixed methods approach to research that included both quantitative and qualitative methodologies. The quantitative portion of the study was conducted using archival data obtained from the 2012 Florida Alternate Assessment Data Book. A Mann-Whitney U Test was conducted through SPSS at a significance level of α = .05 to test for relative differences in performance between the treatment (Equals) and control (non-Equals) groups. Based on the results, the Equals mathematics curriculum did not have any statistically significant impact on the 2012 FAA mathematics scores for students with disabilities in the treatment school districts at any of the tested grade groupings (elementary, middle, high, and overall). The qualitative method of data collection utilized an online teacher survey. The results were analyzed using the researcher-coded results and assisted through summary iv tables provided by Survey-Monkey. Differences and similarities among the survey question responses were explored. Common terms and themes were noted and compared. Data triangulation was used by surveying teachers from five of the six treatment counties. This promoted generalizability for study replication since the treatment counties train teachers and utilize the curriculum in different manners. The results of the qualitative analysis indicated that many teachers were not satisfied with the training they received and felt overwhelmed by the curriculum itself, specifically in the areas of lesson planning and delivery. Based on the quantitative and qualitative results, it was concluded that further research needs to be completed to determine the effectiveness of the Equals mathematics curriculum when used with true fidelity.

The focus of this quantitative study was to discover perceptions of pre-K and kindergarten teachers within public schools in Tennessee regarding the appropriateness of the student growth portfolio model. This study explored teachers’ perceptions of the appropriateness of the math standards, English language arts standards, and the scoring guide included within the SGPM. A quantitative survey was used to understand pre-K and kindergarten teachers’ perceptions of the appropriateness of the 2017-2018 student growth portfolio model. There were 16 pre-K teachers and 51 kindergarten teachers who participated in the survey. Single sample t-tests were used to analyze responses. Research indicated that pre-K teachers do perceive the counting and cardinality and measurement and data standards as appropriate for measuring student growth. There was not enough statistical data to infer that pre-K teachers perceive the geometry standards or ELA standards as appropriate for measuring student growth. The research found that kindergarten teachers do not perceive the math or the ELA narrative standards as appropriate for measuring kindergarten student growth. There was not enough statistical evidence to infer that kindergarten teachers perceive the ELA informative standards as appropriate for measuring student growth. The research indicated that pre-K and kindergarten teachers do not perceive the scoring guides for math and ELA as appropriate for measuring student growth. Through comparison of the survey results and development in early childhood it can be concluded that the standards included within the student growth portfolio model are appropriate; however, the scoring guides need to be revised to align with the standards for pre-K and kindergarten.

Assessment scores indicated students with severe disabilities (SWSD) have not been performing to their maximum potential, which may lead to lower quality of life after graduation. Teacher efficacy has been shown to impact student achievement; thus, this study involved exploring the teacher efficacy of the teachers of SWSD. Tschannen-Moran, Woolfolk Hoy, and Hoy's teacher efficacy conceptual framework guided this nonexperimental correlation study to investigate if levels of self-efficacy, years of overall teaching experience, and years of teaching experience with Grade 3 to 8 SWSD were predictors of student reading achievement in a New York City school district. Two open-ended questions were added to explore challenges teachers of SWSD encounter. Student New York State Alternate Assessment (NYSAA) scores were collected from all classroom teachers of students who participated in the 2014-2015 NYSAA at the study site. A regression analysis indicated no significant relationship between teachers' sense of efficacy and the achievement of SWSD in the area of literacy. TSES responses were triangulated using data from 2 open-ended questions, which revealed that teachers face specific challenges when educating students with severe disabilities. At the organizational level, changes to address the needs of teachers could be made to address the challenges found in this study. Positive social change will occur by helping to inform new policies that will reduce challenges indicated by teachers of SWSD and address the needs of teachers to improve the education of SWSD.

Teaching students with Intellectual Disability (ID) is a relatively new endeavor. Beginning in 2001 with the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act, the general education curriculum integrated algebra across the K-12 curriculum (Kendall, 2011; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices & Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010), and expansion of the curriculum included five intertwined skills (productive disposition, procedural fluency, strategic competence, adaptive reasoning, and conceptual understanding) (Kilpatrick, Swafford, & Findell, 2001). Researchers are just beginning to explore the potential of students with ID with algebra (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris & Wakeman, 2008; Creech-Galloway, Collins, Knight, & Bausch, 2013; Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012; Göransson, Hellblom-Thibblin, & Axdorph, 2016). Most of the research examines the development of procedural fluency (Göransson et al., 2016) and few researchers have explored high school level skills. Using a single-case multiple-baseline across participants design, the study proposes to teach two algebra skills to six high school students with ID, creating an equation (y=mx+b) from a graph of a line and creating a graph from an equation. The six high school students with ID will be recruited from a school district in central Virginia. The intervention package modeled after Jimenez, Browder, and Courtade (2008), included modeling, templates, time delay prompting, and a task analysis. Results showed that all six individuals improved performance during intervention for the target skills over baseline; results also indicated that in three out of the six cases some generalization to the inverse skill occurred without supplemental intervention. The ability of individuals with ID to generalize the learning without intervention provides some evidence that individuals with ID are developing conceptual understanding while learning procedural fluency.