Validity evidence for alternate assessment based on analysis of Individualized Education Programs and curriculum alignment

Until recently, students with the most significant disabilities were excluded from large-scale assessments. The 1997 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act amendments (IDEA 1997) and the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) required states to include students with disabilities in assessment programs by allowing appropriate accommodations to the typical standardized tests and by creating alternate assessments for those who cannot participate in typical assessments even with accommodations. All students must now be assessed in academic subjects.; The purpose of this study was to provide validity evidence for an alternate assessment consisting of standardized performance tasks in reading and math. The basis for the study was the South Carolina High School Alternate Assessment Program (HSAP-Alt). The five research questions for this study were: (1) What academic content and quality indicators are reflected in the IEP objectives of students tested with the HSAP-Alt? (2) What relationships exist among characteristics of the IEPs? (3) Do characteristics of the IEPs vary according to students' disability labels? (4) How do curricular priorities evident in students' IEPs compare with content and performance expectations in the HSAP-Alt? (5) What is the relationship between characteristics of students' IEPs and their HSAP-Alt scores? Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) for all students assessed (N = 292) were analyzed for evidence of curriculum content, depth of knowledge, quality indicators, and performance of skills.; There was considerable variability in the length and content of students' IEPs. The typical IEP contained more English language arts (ELA) than Math objectives. The average IEP emphasized speaking and writing to a greater extent than reading. Math objectives were typically aligned with the measurement strand. In both subjects, IEP objectives primarily required simple recall skills. Students with milder disabilities had academic IEP objectives that required greater cognitive complexity than did objectives for students with significant disabilities. Half of IEPs contained no objectives aligned with the topic measured by the HSAP-Alt reading test, and more than one third of IEPs did not align with the HSAP-Alt math test. This assessment-objective mismatch was associated with students' proficiency on the HSAP-Alt in Reading, but not in Math.