Printer Friendly Version (pdf, 4.1M)

Designing from the Ground Floor: Alternate Assessment on Alternate Achievement Standards

Science

The one study for Earth and space science dealt with teaching the students about weather sight words. Most of the personal and social perspectives dealt with making correct responses or choices in safety situations (i.e., cooking, crossing the street). Information in the area of science is limited. Clearly there is a need for research in this area as the assessment of students in science is approaching. There will continue to be a need for extensive curriculum work to create appropriate, meaningful content standards for students with significant disabilities as well as a need for alignment of those standards to instruction and assessments.

The reason for this lack of definition in academic content is the lack of literature and the separate curricular philosophies encompassed within the developmental and functional eras.

Checkpoint

Notes

Curricular Context for Students with the most Significant Cognitive Disabilities

Trainer's Note: Once the following activity has been completed, the trainer will want to review the remaining slides to summarize this section.

Directions for Participant Activity: Walk the Wall

1. Give brief overview of each curriculum model (developmental, functional, social inclusion, general curriculum or standards based curriculum). Overview would not include timeline as all curriculum models are currently still in use nor would it include pros and cons – more just a quick explanation accompanied by what would you see if you walked into a classroom where that curriculum model was being used. (10 minutes)
2. Split into 4 groups (possibly 8 if group is large but this is a little awkward). Each group is assigned to a specific curriculum model posted on chart paper in four corners of the room.
3. Group brainstorms and lists pros and cons of their curriculum model. (5 minutes)
4. Groups move around to each other curriculum model charts and repeats activity for each. (4 minutes, 3 minutes, 2 minutes – decreasing amounts of time are given because they are building upon ideas already listed so there are less and less items to identify)
5. The groups end up at the one they started with so each group has read a "complete" pros and cons list for each model developed by the whole group. (2 minutes)

Alternative Activity: Four Corner Jigsaw

1. Participants number off at their "home groups" 1-4. The numbers represent the expert group in which they will be participating.
2. Each curriculum era has a handout for their curriculum era (i.e., 1 = 1960's Developmental Era).
3. Each curriculum era is assigned an expert group in one of the four corners of the room.
4. Participants move to their expert group.
5. Participants read, discuss, and develop a plan to teach the materials given to their group.
6. Participants return to their home groups and teach the others in the materials from their expert group.
7. Participants may use the note taking guide found on page 20.

Handouts for Jigsaw/Trainer Content

Curriculum for students with moderate and severe disabilities has evolved over the last thirty-five years since Christmas in Purgatory exposed the plight of children with disabilities living in institutional settings. As Blatt and Kaplan (1974) suggested, what children with moderate and severe disabilities should be taught may not be that different from what typical children are taught, and that the "specialness" of children with disabilities serves to reinforce lower expectations of achievement. Interestingly, the question of expectations and what is appropriate for children to learn again surfaced in the recent IDEA 97 and "No Child Left Behind" legislation (IDEA, 1997; NCLB, 2002). Indeed, recent research by Browder (2004) considered the question of curriculum alignment in alternate assessments. To understand today's mandate for children to "access the general curriculum", it is important to trace the evolution of curriculum for students with moderate, severe and profound disabilities and find the roots of our heritage so that we may more clearly see the possibilities in the future.

Notes

Because many children with cognitive disabilities were institutionalized in the 1970's, there was a focus on a developmental model of curriculum where children were described in terms of their developmental characteristics (i.e., 6 months of age). The predominant education theories applied to children and youth with mental retardation during this period focused on theories of learning such as developmental theory and behavioral science. Curriculum guides from this era suggested a developmental focus including these familiar areas: gross and fine motor skills, track objects, imitation, put pegs in peg boards, self help, toileting, hand washing, and some pre-academic skills such as writing name. An emphasis on task analysis as an essential element of instructional planning was the centerpiece of curriculum planning for students with disabilities. School programs that existed during this time were developed and supported by families who believed that their sons and daughters should be and could be educated.

In addition, the first research programs focused on the learning and behavior of individuals with disabilities and were authorized in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA, 1965). The innovation during this period was the advent of what we know today as special education – confirming that indeed children with disabilities can learn. However, as children got older, the developmental model no longer seemed to make sense for a variety of reasons but most importantly because the gap between chronological age and developmental age appeared to be uneven across major life areas. For example, an adolescent playing with an infant toy reinforced the perception that the individual was only capable of skills which characterize infants. Providing only activities according to developmental milestones widened the gap in perception about what students with moderate and severe disabilities could learn and do. In addition, the developmental theme suggested that students couldn't move forward if they weren't developmentally "ready". Many of these developmentally "ready" steps would not be met at all by some children with significant cognitive disabilities.

Previous  |  Next