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.

This study examined special education teachers' perspectives of the instructional impact of the Florida Alternate Assessment (FAA) for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Through purposeful sampling, six special education teachers who serve students with significant cognitive disabilities and had experience administering the FAA were identified. Interviews posed questions about how they used the FAA to impact their instructional decision-making, how the FAA has influenced how the development of Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals, and how the FAA impacted how they defined access to the general education curriculum. The interviews, along with IEP artifacts, and a research journal formed the research design. Results revealed 8 major themes and 18 sub-themes. Teachers reported that the FAA ignores the complex needs of their students, and highlighted the curricular tensions between academics and life skills. A third of the teachers indicated they have created and adopted curriculum to mirror the FAA, and five out of the six teachers integrated more daily assessments similar to the FAA. In addition, the study revealed varied results for utilizing FAA results on IEP development and writing goals. Finally, teachers had varied beliefs on the value of curriculum content standards called access points for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Most of the teachers stated that higher standards lead to higher expectations. The results also revealed teachers' perspectives of the instructional impact of the FAA were influenced by their teaching context: center setting versus general education setting. Implications for future research and practice are included.

Students with significant cognitive disabilities frequently exhibit reduced communicative and academic competence. The Low Incidence Initiative (LII) project was a professional development model designed to train school-based teams to facilitate increased communicative and academic competence with such students via distance-technology coaching. This study analyzed pre-existing data from year one of the LII. Data were analyzed to determine effectiveness of the project on communication status of students and on training school personnel to accurately identify student levels of communication, and for overall satisfaction with the project. Results indicated that all student participants demonstrated improvement in expressive communication output. 100% of students who required augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) increased in the complexity of AAC used. Some improvement in school personnel’s identification of student communication levels was demonstrated, however, the continued discrepancy between LII staff and school personnel indicates a need for additional training in this area. Qualitative analysis of survey question responses, and other anecdotal information, revealed an overwhelming satisfaction with the LII model, increased communicative sophistication of students, improvements in collaborative teaming, increased access to general curriculum for students, and improvement in school personnel skill-level. Implications of the results of this study and areas for future research are discussed.