Measuring Academic Achievement of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Building Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria. Synthesis Report.

Autor/inn/en	Quenemoen, Rachel; Thompson, Sandra; Thurlow, Martha
Institution	National Center on Educational Outcomes, Minneapolis, MN.; Council of Chief State School Officers, Washington, DC.; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Alexandria, VA.
Titel	Measuring Academic Achievement of Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Building Understanding of Alternate Assessment Scoring Criteria. Synthesis Report.
Quelle	(2003), (64 Seiten) PDF als Volltext kostenfreie Datei Verfügbarkeit
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Monographie
Schlagwörter	Academic Achievement; Elementary Secondary Education; Evaluation Methods; Individualized Education Programs; Mental Retardation; Scoring; Student Evaluation; Test Interpretation; Arkansas; Kentucky; Louisiana; Oregon; Vermont + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Schulleistung; Individualized education program; Individualisierendes Lernen; Geistige Behinderung; Bewertung; Schulnote; Studentische Bewertung; Test analysis; Testauswertung
Abstract	This report compares the assumptions and values embedded in scoring criteria used in five states (Arkansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Oregon, and Vermont) for alternate assessments of students with significant cognitive disabilities. The five states use different alternate assessment approaches, including portfolio assessment, performance assessment, Individualized Education Program (IEP) linked body of evidence, and traditional test formats. Analysis finds a surprising degree of commonality in how the states define success for these students. Six criteria are included the states' approaches, either articulated or assumed. They include: (1) content standards linkage; (2) independence; (3) generalization; (4) appropriateness; (5) IEP linkage; and (6) performance. Three scoring criteria are very different across the five states' approaches, including system vs. student emphasis, mastery, and progress. The report offers 10 recommendations for states including identify stated and embedded scoring criteria; clarify whether scoring criteria refer to the student or the system; determine whether underlying assumptions of scoring criteria reflect views of various stakeholders; examine the scoring process in light of the scoring criteria; and examine scores of alternate assessments to ensure that scores reflect original intentions. Appended are an interview guide and student and system criteria definitions and examples. (Contains 19 references and 17 tables.) (DB)
Anmerkungen	National Center on Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota, 350 Elliott Hall, 75 East River Rd., Minneapolis, MN 55455 ($20). Tel: 612-624-8561; Fax: 612-624-0879; Web site: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO. For full text: http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis50.html.
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC