Where Students with the Most Significant Disabilities Are Taught: Implications for Our Field

Harold L. KleinertIndiana University 2015

Special Education Research Symposium

March 27, 2015

Themes of This Keynote: Who We Are Talking About…

Students with the most significant cognitive disabilities: Those students who take alternate

assessments on alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS)

Most frequently includes students with intellectual disabilities, autism, multiple disabilities

1% of the entire student population.

The What –For Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities:

Where They Are Taught –and Access to the General Curriculum

College and Career Readiness and the Place of Alternate Assessments on Alternate Achievement Standards (AA-AAS)

Teacher Effectiveness, Teacher Evaluation and the Role of Alternate Assessments

Access to the General Curriculum and the LRE

First, the LRE part:The presumption is that we will first consider general education placement for all students:

To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities…are educated with children who are nondisabled, and that special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular education environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily (Individuals with Education Act, 34 C.F.R. Sec. 300.550).

Access to the General Curriculum and the LRE

Students with significant cognitive disabilities must have access to the general curriculum (IDEA 1997 & 2004). Access to the general curriculum is to be provided regardless of educational setting.Access is thus not the same thing as LRE, but they are clearly related.

Access to the General Curriculum

Access is also essential for meaningful participation in measures of school accountability:since alternate assessments must be linked to grade-level content standards (US Department of Education, 2004).

Access and General Education Classrooms…

Offer advantages not easily attained in special class settings, including: the presence of a teacher with expertise in

the academic core content subject, the use of learning materials and tools

specific to that subject, and opportunities for learning alongside peers

who can provide natural supports (Carter, Cushing, et al. 2009; Hunt, McDonnell, & Crockett,

2012; Jimenez et al., 2012; Ryndak, Jackson, & White, 2013).

“Where” Really Matters….

General education classrooms provide specific contextual factors, including:

“features of the physical setting, the activities, roles and contributions of the participants, the timing of events, and the interpersonal relationships” (Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008/2009, p. 179).

Two Significant Issues in Access to the Curriculum

1. The pervasive education of students with significant disabilities in separate educational settings, apart from their same-age peers; and

2. For a significant percentage of students in the alternate assessment, a lack of basic communicative competence.

And Yet…

No large-scale study of the extent to which students in state alternate assessments have access to general education classrooms becauseState LRE data are reported to the US Dept. of Education by disability categories, and not by state assessment participation guidelines.Students in alternate assessments go across disability categories.Students in state AA-AAS typically represents with the most significant educational needs.

The Current Study (Kleinert et al., in press)

A 15 state study involving nearly 40,000 students taking their states’ respective alternate assessments that document the extent of each of these challenges.

Evidence-based and promising practices for addressing these issues for students with significant cognitive disabilities are also discussed.

Research Questions To what extent do students across all of these

states have access to general education settings? To what extent does access to the general

education settings for all students in the 15 states correlate with a) expressive communicative competence; b) use of an augmentative/alternative communication (AAC) system, c) level of reading skill; and d) level of math skill?

Across our full 15 state sample, do specific student characteristics (expressive communication competence, use of AAC, reading and math skill) predict student educational placement?

Learner Characteristic Inventory (LCI)Expressive Communication (check the best description)

o Uses symbolic language to communicate: Student uses verbal or written words, signs, Braille, or language-based augmentative systems to request, initiate, and respond to questions, describe things or events, and express refusal.

o Uses intentional communication, but not at a symbolic language level: Student uses understandable communication through such modes as gestures, pictures, objects/textures, points, etc., to clearly express a variety of intentions.

o Student communicates primarily through cries, facial expressions, change in muscle tone, etc., but no clear use of objects/textures, regularized gestures, pictures, signs, etc., to communicate.

Our 15 State Sample  N of students N of LCI Responses

LCI Response Rate (%)

Data Collection Method

State 1 673 673 100 Collected by state

State 2 6,678 6,678 100 Collected by state

State 3 19,575 14,701 75 Collected by state

State 4 9,508 3,048 32 Research surveyState 5 6,652 1,970 30 Research surveyState 6 2,950 1,081 37 Research survey

State 7 646 205 32 Collected by state

State 8 2,100 429 20 Unique methodState 9 17,844 2,600 15 Research survey

State 10 377 377 100 Collected by state

State 11 945 912 97 Collected by state

State 12 3,175 3,175 100 Collected by state

State 13 861 861 100 Collected by state

State 14 5,000 2,938 59 Research survey

State 15 430 189 44 Collected by state

Total 77,414 39,837 63% average NA

Major Findings – Across All States Only 2.7% of students with the most

significant cognitive disabilities are served primarily in general education classrooms (80% or more of the school day)

Only 4.3% of students in with significant cognitive disabilities are served in resource room placements (40% to 79% placement in general education classrooms during the school day)

LRE Findings…Continued

93% of all students in alternate assessments were served primarily in separate class settings (79.6%) or separate schools (12.6%) or other settings (0.7%).

More segregated than students from any single IDEA category.

A Potential Bright Spot

A slight silver lining: The majority of students in our sample had some opportunities for inclusive experiences – either opportunities for some: academic (15.9%) or nonacademic inclusion (70.7%) with their peers without disabilities.

LRE, Severity of Impact and State of Residence Level of severity did predict educational

placement at an individual student level across all 39,833 students.

There were state level variations in educational placements (most notably in percentage of students in regular education or resource room settings) that could not be attributed to student characteristics within a given state.

Communicative Competence

Did predict degree to which students were included in general education: All states but two yielded a statistically significant, positive correlation between expressive communication and an increasingly-inclusive classroom setting.For all states combined, findings also indicated a statistically significant, positive correlation between expressive communication and an increasingly-inclusive classroom setting.

Perhaps an Unexpected Finding…

Student use of augmentative/alternate communication (AAC) was negated related to less restrictive placements:

Why? Is something else going on here?

Level of Math and Reading Skills

A simple one-item measure of math and reading proficiency from the Learner Characteristic Inventory (Kearns, Kleinert, Kleinert, & Towles-Reeves 2006).

As would be expected, proficiency in math and reading skills also predicted the extent to which students were included in general education classes.

Reading

In reading, findings indicated statistically significant, positive correlations between reading skill and increasingly-inclusive classroom setting for:all combined states and each individual state.

Math

Further, results yielded statistically significant, positive correlations between mathematics skill and increasingly-inclusive classroom setting for:all combined states and for all individual states, except one.

Individual State Variations in LRE… Variations in state LRE data in this

study suggest that states do not interpret LRE for students with significant cognitive disabilities in the same way.

This is consistent with Danielson’s and Bellamy’s (1988) classic study of over a quarter of a century ago, and with the most recently available IDEA data (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

A Second Implication: Communicative Competence

Approximately 10% of high school students in our data set did not have a formal means of symbolic communication.

Of this 10%, over half (54%) did not have access to an augmentative/ alternative communication (AAC) system.

At the Heart of Education:Communicative Competence

Is there a more fundamental outcome than the development of a reliable mode of communication?

Can we even speak of post-school outcomes for students with significant disabilities in the absence of a consistent mode of communication?

LRE and Communicative Competence…

The results from this study support the need to more thoroughly understand and implement the LRE for students with significant cognitive disabilities;

Given the negative relationship between use of AAC and placement in less restrictive settings in our study, this need is even more imperative for AAC users.

Several Limitations Overall robust response rate, but

response rates did vary considerably across states

Self-contained placement does not preclude some access to integrated settings

One single measure for math and reading (though the LCI has been used in several national studies)

Several Limitations… cont. We did not assess the overall quality of

AAC usage and support – even when students do have AAC, do they have the opportunity to consistently use it : Across settings, With peers, etc.

Next Steps: Promising Practices at the Classroom & School Levels

Peer supports in General Education Classes – Carter et al., 2009; Cushing et al., 2011

Embedded instruction - Jameson et al., 2008; McDonnell et al., 2002; McDonnell et al., 2006

Aligning core content with relevant life skills - Collins et al., 2007; Collins et al., 2010; Kleinert et al., 2010

Promising Practices…At the Classroom Level In a review of 17 studies that met, or

nearly met, all research quality indicators for establishing evidence-based practices, Hudson, Browder, and Wood (2013) found that embedded instructional trials, delivered via constant time delay, was an EPB for students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classes.

But This Also Highlights A Tremendous Research Need…

A Breadth of Classroom-Based Research that Addresses: Evidenced-based strategies for

teaching students both academic core content and embedded life skill applications in the context of general education classrooms with typical peers

All grade levels and all content areas

And On a Larger Scale – at the School and District Levels

A focus on school and district leadershipSchool-level factors (McIntosh et al., 2013)

Cohesive, student-centered teams Data-based decision making

District level factors: Expert coaches Ongoing professional development Communities of practice

See also Fixsen et al., 2013; Harn et al., 2013; Klingman et al., 2013

Implications of the Study…

While access to the general curriculum is not the same thing as access to general education classrooms:Can we really say that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities have meaningful access to the general curriculum, given the level of separateness in their educational placements?

In other words…Given that access to the general curriculum:Means instruction explicitly linked to grade-level content standards, and And is both what is taught and how it is taught (Jackson et al., 2008/2009; Ryndak et al., 2013)

Can we really speak of full access to that curriculum for our students?

A Last Thought on this Study…

Our findings simply illustrate the gap between what is the reality in the lives of the students we teach, and what could possibly be.

AND THE RELATIONSHIP OF C&CR TO ALTERNATE ASSESSMENT

Our Second Theme: College and Career Readiness (C&CR) for Students in the Alternate Assessment

 

National Center and State Collaborative Policy Paper

Alternate Assessments Based on Common Core State Standards:How Do They Relate to College

and Career Readiness?

Citation…

Kleinert, H., Kearns, J., Quenemoen, R., & Thurlow, M. (2013). NCSC GSEG Policy Paper: Alternate Assessments Based on Common Core State Standards: How Do They Relate to College and Career Readiness? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative..

Two Key Questions…

What is the meaning of college and career readiness for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities?

What, if any, is the relationship between an alternate assessment linked to grade level content standards and college and career readiness?

College & Career Readiness NAAC Recommendations (Kearns et al., 2011)

Communicative competence should be addressed as a foundational priority, and as the basis of everything else.

Fluency in reading, writing, and math are necessary for lifelong learning, community involvement, and success in the workplace.

Age-appropriate social skills and the ability to work effectively with others are essential for future educational and career pursuits.

College & Career Readiness NAAC Recommendations - cont.

Independent work behaviors, as well as the ability to recognize the need for and request assistance as needed, are critical for lifelong learning and on-the-job success.

Skills in accessing support systems are essential for long-term success, in that individuals with the most significant cognitive disabilities will continue to need coordinated supports to achieve their highest potential. (pp. 24-25).

Essential Elements… How a well-designed AA-AAS based on the

CCSS can be related to important dimensions of college and career readiness for students with the most significant disabilities; and

How practitioners can identify those essential elements of college and career readiness that are not within the scope of even the best designed AA-AAS.

Multi-State Alternate Assessment Consortia…

The U.S. Department of Education has funded two large, multi-state consortia to develop alternate assessments, clearly linked to grade level content standards. National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC) (http://www.ncscpartners.org/ ) Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM™) (http://dynamiclearningmaps.org/ )

One of These: The National Center and State Collaborative

The goal of the NCSC project “is to ensure that students with the most significant cognitive disabilities achieve higher academic outcomes. All students should aim to leave high school ready for college and/or careers.” (National Center and State Collaborative, 2013).

NCSC Basic Assumptions

Communicative competence is the foundation of all learning.

Curriculum, assessment and instruction are all of one piece – they must be closely aligned.

College and career readiness also includes “community readiness” - being fully a part of one’s community.

National Center and State Collaborative (NCSC)

A Very Timely Discussion!

This coming month (April 2015) 14 states and 33,000 students will participate in the NCSC operational alternate assessment

States will be using these results for their accountability measures.

Relationship of AA-AAS to College and Career Readiness

First, can tests per se measure life preparation?

These limitations are true for tests for all students—important life outcomes can never fully be predicted by a single test result.

But to the Extent Academic Skills Are Measurable and…

Essential for Life Preparation – Math Skills – solving area problems to paint a room or seed a lawn, or estimating sales tax.Reading Skills – to obtain information needed in our every day lives, or for enjoyment.Writing Skills- to formulate a position to critical to self-advocacy or elucidating one’s life goals.

Well-Designed Alternate Assessments

Can measure that proficiency Can link to grade level content

standards deemed important for all learners

And point to critical skills teachers need to teach, including problem-solving skills.

A Key Proviso: Those Important Life Predictors Alternate Assessments Cannot Directly Measure

Self-determination (as a guiding life concept) Student goal setting (Self-Determined

Learning Model of Instruction) Student involvement in the IEP planning

process Community-based vocational training

and paid employment while in school Community-based instruction

Those Important Life Predictors Alternate Assessments Cannot Measure – cont.

Inclusion in general education Social interaction skills and

opportunities with peers Knowledge of one’s own support needs And Beyond the Student: Interagency

transition collaboration: Creating needed transition supports and

linkages.

Self-Determination Students’ ability to direct their own

lives and to make important decisions related to their education and career goals have been strongly and causally related to positive post-school outcomes (Shogren et al., in press; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003).

Self-Determination - continued Self-determination can be taught

through carefully designed instruction (Wehmeyer et al., 2013), though opportunities to teach youth with significant disabilities self-determination skills are often missed (Carter et al. 2009).

Student Directed IEPs Student involvement in the IEP process is

both: an indicator of student self-determination and an opportunity to enhance self-determination

in a critical moment in planning one’s future (Test et al., 2004; Thoma & Wehman, 2010),

Students clearly need the opportunity to participate in setting their education and career goals, and to develop the self-advocacy skills they will need in their future.

Student Involvement in IEP Process An essential element of self-

determination – taking control of one’s future in IEP and transition planning.

Can also lead to enhanced academic outcomes.

Important for all students – including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

Evidence Based Practices: Integrated, Paid Employment

Integrated, paid employment (during high school) Predictor of education, employment and

independent living The strongest predictor of employment after

high school Work experience is any activity that

places the student in an authentic workplace, and could include: Work sampling, job shadowing, internships,

apprenticeships, and paid employment.

Evidence Based Practices: Building Employment Resumes

Discovery and summer employment Provides additional opportunities for

youth with limited employment history to expand their resumes & gain experience (Carter et al., 2010).

Also noted the need for such summer opportunities as student internships and volunteer activities for students with significant disabilities who typically have had little opportunity to engage in these.

Community-Based Instruction (CBI)…Effective CBI:

1. Supports academic instruction, but does not supplant it,

2. Often includes peers without disabilities as a part of their own learning experiences;

3. Is data-based and clearly tied to important student goals;

4. Provides frequent opportunities for active student learning (embedding learning trials throughout that instruction); and

5. Does not remove students from regularly scheduled general education classes.

Inclusion in General Education An evidence-based predictor for students

with disabilities: Test (2009, 2012) noted that participation in general education* predicts: Employment, Postsecondary education, and Independent living outcomes for students

with disabilities *though not established as a predictor for students

with more significant disabilities – see Courtade, Test, & Cook, 2015.

Yet for Students with the Most Significant Disabilities… Students with the most significant

cognitive disabilities overwhelming spend their time in separate classrooms or separate schools.

Served in more restrictive settings than any single IDEA category (93% served primarily in separate classrooms or separate schools).

Social Interaction Skills and Opportunities With Peers A key element in preparation for college

and career readiness for students with significant cognitive disabilities is the presence of opportunities to interact and develop friendships with peers without disabilities.

This includes extra-curricular activities!

Evidence Based Practices: Social Skills and Networks

Carter et al. (2009, 2013) have identified promising peer support strategies for students with significant cognitive disabilities in general education classes. Peer Supports (in general education

classrooms) Peer Networks (establishing relationships

outside of the classroom)

Promising Practices in Creating Friendships…

Peer networks are a method of creating social groups for students with disabilities (Carter et al., 2013; Gardner et al., 2014): Friendships with peers that foster a sense

of belonging, enhance satisfaction with school, and contribute to increased quality of life.

A context to assist students with disabilities connect with peers without disabilities beyond an academic setting.

Students’ Knowledge of Own Support Needs

The ability to access systems of support whether negotiating college applications, applying for a job, or thinking through affordable living arrangements represents a fundamental set of knowledge & skills. Starts with such basic skills as making

choices, asking for assistance when needed, learning to self-monitor.

What We Know…

High expectations are essential. Academic learning can directly

contribute to a student’s quality of life.

College and career readiness includes high expectations for academic learning, but also the other evidence-based practices we have noted.

Part 3: Measuring Teacher Effectiveness

Measuring Teacher Effectiveness for Students with the Most Significant

Cognitive Disabilities

Citation…

Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Thurlow, M. Quenemoen, R., & Gong, B. (accepted pending final revisions). Alternate assessments as one measure of teacher effectiveness: Implications for our field. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities.

The Context…

ESEA flexibility guidance requires that states receiving flexibility from school accountability requirements develop educator evaluation systems that can be used to assess the performance of all teachers, including those who serve children with disabilities (U.S. Department of Education, 2012).

The Context Continued

Teacher evaluation systems are required to include student assessment data, specifically data on student growth for all students.

Many states have included their large-scale assessments as one component of their system to ensure that there is one consistent measure across schools.

The Inclusion of Alternate Assessment Results…

Have to be included in a manner similar to how states are including assessment results for all students.

Most states are using a multi-dimensional model of teacher evaluation.

So what should this look like for teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities?

Two Key Questions…

What are fair measures of teacher effectiveness (and teacher evaluation) for teachers of students with the most significant disabilities?

What, if any, is the relationship between an AA-AAS linked to grade level content standards and teacher effectiveness?

Some Considerations in Measuring Teacher Effectiveness for Students with Significant SCD

Need for Collaborative Team Supports. Student with SCD typically receive services from a team of professionals, including SLPs, OTs/PTs, and VI and HI specialists, as well as general and special education teachers.

How do you measure the contributions of individual team members?

Some Considerations in Measuring Teacher Effectiveness for Students with Significant SCD

Range of educational placements and teacher academic content knowledge. The vast majority (approximately 93%) of students with significant disabilities participating in state alternate assessments are served primarily in self-contained classrooms or separate school settings (Kleinert et al., in press).

Teacher Effectiveness and Least Restrictive Environment

Should Part of Teacher Evaluation for Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities Be Increasing Access to the General Curriculum in the Context of Opportunities for Active Learning and Peer Supports?

A Second Consideration in Measuring Teacher Effectiveness for Students with Significant SCD

Variability in the student population and communicative competence. significant cognitive disabilities in this group is also more pronounced. Approximately 30% of students in state AA-AAS are rate by their teachers as either emerging symbolic or pre-symbolic in their expressive communication (Towles-Reeves et al., 2011, 2012)  

The Importance of Communication Competence

Communication and symbolic language form the foundation for the acquisition of academic knowledge and skills.

Students receiving appropriate intervention in communication do increase in the acquisition of symbolic language (Snell et al., 2010),

The Importance of Communication Competence

Increases in communicative competence for students with limited communication skills are an important part of effective teaching.

Should increased communicative competence should be one measure of teacher effectiveness for this population?

The Importance of Other Life Outcomes..

Consider whether other indicators: Increases in self-determination, Participation in community-based vocational instruction and paid employment related to positive post-school outcomes could be fairly included in a teacher evaluation system.

Measurement Issues for this Population… Teachers serving students in the AA-AAS

typically are serving much smaller caseloads (and across grades) than general education teachers.

Teachers with small caseloads are differentially impacted by the statistical properties of certain models for calculating teacher effectiveness (e.g., value-added modeling) (Steinbrecher et al. (2014).

Measurement Issues for this Population…Continued

It is statistically much more difficult to show a value other than “expected” growth for a teacher with 10 students than it is for a teacher who has 22 students. Steinbrecher et al. have referred to this as “shrinkage to the mean”.

Final Caveats on Teacher Evaluation

Teacher effectiveness requires a multi-method approach

It is much more than simply measuring teachers by how their students do on a test….

Final Caveats cont…Only when students have:access to the core curriculuma reliable mode of communication, andthe opportunity to learn alongside their peers without disabilities

And teachers have access to high quality professional development: on core content standards and the grade-level general curriculum

Final Caveats…

……Can we fairly use alternate assessments based on the core academic content as one integral element of teacher evaluation.

So What Do We Really Know

As a field, we really do not provide meaningful access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities, in the context of learning with their typical peers: And what are the policy and practice

implications of this?

So What Do We Really Know

As a field, we must recognize that up to 10% of students with the most significant disabilities are leaving school without a reliable mode of communication? And what are the policy and practice

implications of this?

And Perhaps as Much as Anything…

Effective teaching matters: What are the most important

indicators of teacher effectiveness for our students?

And how do we incorporate those indicators into a multi-dimensional teacher evaluation model?

So that we can produce and sustain truly effective teachers!

References Carter, E., Asmus, J., et al. (2013). Peer support strategies among students with and without

disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46 (2), 51-59. Carter, E., Austin, D., & Trainor, A. (2012). Predictors of postschool employment outcomes for

young adults with severe disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 23, 50-63. doi: 10.1177/1044207311414680.

Carter, E., Cushing, L., & Kennedy, C. (2009). Peer support strategies: Improving all students’ social lives and learning. Baltimore: Brookes.

Carter, E., Ditchman, N., Sun, Y., Trainor, A., Swedeen, B., & Owens, L. (2010). Summer employment and community experiences of transition-age youth with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 194-212.

Carter, E., Owens, L., Trainor, A., Sun, Y., & Swedeen, B. (2009). Self-determination skills and opportunities of adolescents with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179-192.

Collins, B. C., Evans, A., Creech-Galloway, C., Karl, J., & Miller, A. (2007). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22(4), 220-233. doi:10.1177/10883576070220040401

Collins, B.C., Karl, J., Riggs, L., Galloway, C.C., & Hager, K.L. (2010). Teaching core content with real-life applications to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 52-59.

References Cushing, L., Carter, E., & Moss, C. (2011, December). Peer support strategies to

promote inclusive education: An evidence-based practice. Presented to the International TASH Conference, Atlanta, GA.

Danielson, L. C., & Bellamy, G.T. (1988). State variation in placement of children with handicaps in segregated environments. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services.

Fixsen, D., Bkase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. (2013). Statewide implementation of evidence-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213-232.

Gardner, K., Carter, E., Gustafson, J., Hochman, J., Harvey, M., Mullins, T., & Fan, H. (2014). Effects of peer networks on the social interactions of high school students with autism spectrum disorders. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 39, 100-118.

Harn, B., Parisi, Danielle, & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children, 79, 181-194. doi:10.2511/rpsd.27.3.165

Hudson, M., Browder, D., & Wood, L. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 38, 17-29. doi:10.2511/027494813807046926

References Hunt, P., McDonnell, J., & Crockett, M. (2012). Reconciling an ecological curricular

framework focusing on quality of life outcomes with the development and instruction of standards-based academic goals. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 37, 139-152. doi:10.2511/027494812804153471

Jackson, L., Ryndak, D., & Wehmeyer, M. (2008/2009). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33-4(4-1), 175-195. doi: 10.25.2511/rpsd.33.4.175.

Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. (2008). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346-363. doi:10.1352/2008.46:346-363

Jimenez, B., Browder, M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. (2012). Inclusive inquiry science using peer mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301-317.

Kearns, J. F., Kleinert, H. L., Kleinert, J. O., & Towles-Reeves, E. A. (2006). Learner characteristics inventory. Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center.

Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Thurlow, M. Quenemoen, R., & Gong, B. (in final revisions). Alternate assessments as one measure of teacher effectiveness: Implications for our field. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities.

Kearns, J., Kleinert, H., Harrison, B., Sheppard-Jones, K., Hall, M., & Jones, M. (2011). What does ‘college and career ready’ mean for students with significant cognitive disabilities? Lexington: University of Kentucky, National Alternate Assessment Center. Available at: http://www.naacpartners.org/publications/CareerCollegeReadiness.pdf

References Kearns, J., Towles-Reeves, E., Kleinert, H., Kleinert, J., & Thomas, M. (2011).

Characteristics of and implications for students participating in alternate assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards. Journal of Special Education, 45 (1), 3-14.

Kleinert, H., Collins, B. Wickham, D., Riggs, L., & Hager, K. (2010). Embedding life skills, self-determination, social relationships, and other evidenced based practices (PAGES). In H. Kleinert & J. Kearns, Alternate assessment for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An educator’s guide. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes.

Kleinert, H., Kearns, J., Quenemoen, R., & Thurlow, M. (2013). NCSC GSEG Policy Paper: Alternate Assessments Based on Common Core State Standards: How Do They Relate to College and Career Readiness? Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative.

Kleinert, H., Towles-Reeves, E., Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Fluegge, L., Weseman, L., & Kerbel, A. (in press). Where students with the most significant cognitive disabilities are taught: Implications for general curriculum access. Exceptional Children. 

Klingman, J., Boardman, A., & Stoolmiller, M.. (2012). What does it take to scale up and sustain evidence-based practices? Exceptional Children, 79, 195-212.

McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Reisen, T. (2002). The effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363-377.

References McDonnell, J., Johnson, J., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., Jameson, M. & Kercher, K.,

(2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes with small group 31 instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125-138.

McIntosh, K., Mercer, S., Hume, A., Frank, J., Turri, M., & Matthews, S. (2013). Factors related to sustained implementation of school-wide positive behavioral supports. Exceptional Children, 79, 293-312.

Ryndak, D., Jackson, L., & While, J. (2013). Involvement and progress in the general curriculum for students with extensive support needs: K-12 inclusive-education research and implications for the future. INCLUSION, 1 (1), 28-49.

Shogren, K., Wehmeyer, M., Palmer, S., Rifenbark, G., & Little, T. (in press). Relationships between self-determination and postschool outcomes for youth with disabilities. Journal of Special Education.

Snell, M., Brady, N., McLean, L., Ogletree, B., Siegel, E. Sylvester, L., Mineo, B., Paul, D., Romski, M., & Sevcik, R. (2010). Twenty years of communication intervention research with individuals who have severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 115, 364-380. Retrieved http://www.aaiddjournals.org/doi/abs/10.1352/1944-7558-115-5.364

Test, D., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neal, M., & Wood, W. (2004). Student involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391-412.

References Test, D. (2012). Evidence-based instructional strategies for transition. Baltimore:

Paul Brookes. Steinbrecher, T., Selig, J., Cosbey, J., & Thorstensen, B. (2014). Evaluating

special educator effectiveness: Addressing issues inherent to value-added modeling. Exceptional Children, 80, 323-336.

Thoma, C., & Wehman, P. (2010). Getting the most out of IEPs: An educator’s guide to the student-directed approach. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.

Towles-Reeves, E., Kearns, J, Flowers, C., Hart, L., Kerbel, A., Kleinert, H., Quenemoen, R., & Thurlow, M. (2012). Learner characteristics inventory project report (A product of the NCSC validity evaluation). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, National Center and State Collaborative.

Wehmeyer, M., & Palmer, S. (2003). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities three-years after high school: The impact of self-determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38 (2), 131-144.

Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Shogren, K., Williams-Diehm, K., & Soukup, J. (2013). Establishing a causal relationship between intervention to promote self-determination and enhanced student self-determination. The Journal of Special Education, 146 (4), 195-210.

U.S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance. Washington, DC: Author, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.

U.S. Department of Education. (2012). ESEA flexibility: Review guidance. Washington, DC: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Retrieved from: www.ed.gov/sites/default/files/review-guidance.doc