In this initial study, the authors examined the content of the planned and enacted eighth-grade mathematics curriculum for 18 general and special education teachers and the curricula’s alignment to state standards via the Surveys of the Enacted Curriculum. The relation between alignment and student achievement was analyzed for three formative assessments and the corresponding state test within a school year. Results indicated that alignment for the planned and enacted curriculum to state standards was low with no significant differences between general and special education teachers. Significant correlations between student achievement averages for 238 students and teacher alignment indices were equal to or greater than .48. When teacher groups were examined separately, the relation between alignment and achievement remained significant only for special education, with correlations equal to or greater than .75. The study’s conceptual and methodological framework provides a model for subsequent research on alignment and opportunity to learn in general and special education.
Baker, E.L., & Linn, R.L. ( 2002). Validity issues for accountability systems (CSE Tech. Rep. 585). Los Angeles: University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
2.
Barr, R., & Dreeben, R. ( 1983). How schools work. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
3.
Bhola, D.S., Impara, J.C., & Buckendahl, C.W. (2003). Aligning tests with states’ content standards: Methods and issues. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practices, 22(3), 21-29.
4.
Blank, R.K. ( 2002). Using surveys of enacted curriculum to advance evaluation of instruction in relation to standards. Pea-body Journal of Education, 77(4), 86-121.
5.
Blank, R.K., Porter, A., & Smithson, J. ( 2001). New tools for analyzing teaching, curriculum and standards in mathematics and science. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.
6.
Bloom, B.S. ( 1949, November). A taxonomy of educational objectives. Paper presented at the Meeting of Examiners, Monticello, IL.
7.
Browder, D., Flowers, C., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Karvonen, M., Spooner, F., & Algozzine, R. ( 2004). The alignment of alternate assessment content with academic and functional curricula. Journal of Special Education, 37(4), 211-223.
8.
Cohen, J. ( 1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin , 112(1), 155-159.
9.
Council of Chief State School Officers. (2006 ). Alignment analysis. Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.ccsso.org/Projects/Alignment_Analysis/
10.
DiPerna, J.C., Volpe, R.J., & Elliott, S.N. ( 2001). A model of academic enablers and elementary reading/language arts achievement. School Psychology Review, 31, 298-312.
11.
Elliott, S.N., Braden, J.P., & White, J. ( 2001). Assessing one and all: Educational accountability for students with disabilities. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
12.
Flowers, C., Browder, D., & Ahlgrim-Delzell, L. (2006). An analysis of three states’ alignment between language arts and mathematics standards and alternate assessments. Exceptional Children, 72(2), 201-215.
13.
Gamoran, A., Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., & White, P.A. ( 1997). Upgrading high school mathematics instruction: Improving learning opportunities for low-achieving, low-income youth. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19(4), 325-338.
14.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (2004).
15.
Karvonen, M., Wakeman, S.Y., Flowers, C., & Browder, D.M. ( 2007). Measuring the enacted curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities: A preliminary investigation. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 33(1), 29-38.
16.
Koretz, D., & Barton, K. ( 2003). Assessing students with disabilities: Issues and evidence . Educational Assessment, 9, 29-60.
17.
Malmgren, K.W., McLaughlin, M.J., & Nolet, V. ( 2005). Accounting for the performance of students with disabilities on state-wide assessments. Journal of Special Education, 39(2), 86-96.
18.
Mullens, J.E., & Gayler, K. ( 1999). Measuring classroom instructional processes: Using survey and case study field test results to improve item construction (NES 1990-08) . Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
19.
National Council on Disability. (2004). Improving educational outcomes for students with disabilities. Washington, DC: Author.
20.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6311 et seq. (2002).
21.
Porter, A.C. ( 2002). Measuring the content of instruction: Uses in research and practice. Educational Researcher, 31(7), 3-14.
22.
Porter, A.C. ( 2004). Curriculum assessment (Additional SCALE Research Publications and Products: Goals 1, 2, and 4). Nashville, TN: Vanderbilt University.
23.
Porter, A.C., Kirst, M.W., Osthoff, E.J., Smithson, J.L., & Schneider, S.A. (1993). Reform up close: An analysis of high school mathematics and science classrooms (final report). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Wisconsin Center for Education Research.
24.
Porter, A.C., & Smithson, J.L. (2000,April). Alignment of state testing programs NAEP and reports of teacher practice in mathematics and science in Grades 4 and 8. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
25.
Porter, A.C., & Smithson, J.L. (2001). Are content standards being implemented in the classroom? A methodology and some tentative answers. In S. Fuhrman (Ed.), From the Capitol to the classroom: Standards-based reform in the states. One Hundredth Yearbook of the National Society for the Study of Education (pp. 60-80). Chicago : University of Chicago Press.
26.
Porter, A.C., & Smithson, J.L. (2002, April). Alignment of assessments, standards, and instruction using curriculum indicator data. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA.
27.
Porter, A.C., Smithson, J., Blank, R., & Zeidner, T. ( 2007). Alignment as a teacher variable. Applied Measurement in Education, 20(1), 27-51.
28.
Porter, A.C., Zeidner, T., & Smithson, J.L. (2007). Investigating the quality of SEC content analyses of state student achievement tests and content standards . . Retrieved February 10, 2007, from http://www.ccsso.org/projects/Surveys_of_Enacted_Curriculum/SEC_Resources/
29.
Quenemoen, R.F., Lehr, C.A., Thurlow, M.L., & Massanari, C.B. (2001). Students with disabilities in standards-based assessment and accountability systems: Emerging issues, strategies, and recommendations (Synthesis Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30.
Resnick, L.B., Rothman, R., Slattery, J.B., & Vranek, J.L. ( 2003). Benchmarking and alignment of standards and testing. Educational Assessment, 9, 1-27.
31.
Roach, A.T., Niebling, B.C., & Kurz, A. ( 2008). Evaluating the alignment among curriculum, instruction, and assessments: Implications and applications for research and practice. Psychology in the Schools, 45(2), 158-176.
32.
Roach, A.T., & Elliott, S.N. ( 2006). The influence of access to general education curriculum on alternate assessment performance of students with significant cognitive disabilities. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 28(2), 181-194.
33.
Roach, A.T., Elliott, S.N., & Webb, N.L. ( 2005). Alignment of an alternate assessment with state academic standards: Evidence for the content validity of the Wisconsin alternate assessment . Journal of Special Education, 38(4), 218-231.
34.
Roach, A.T., Namisi-Chilungu, E., LaSalle, T.P., Talapatra, D., Vignieri, M.J., & Kurz, A. ( 2009). Alternate assessment based on modified achievement standards: Opportunities and options for facilitating and evaluating access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
35.
Rowan, B. ( 1998). The task characteristics of teaching: Implications for the organizational design of schools. In R. Bernhardt, C. N. Hedley, G. Cattaro, & V. Svolopoulus (Eds.), Curriculum leadership: Rethinking schools for the 21st century. Cresskill, NJ: Hampton .
36.
Rowan, B., Camburn, E., & Correnti, R. ( 2004). Using teacher logs to measure the enacted curriculum: A study of literacy teaching in third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 105(1), 75-101.
37.
Rowan, B., & Correnti, R. ( 2009). Studying reading instruction with teacher logs: Lessons from the study of instructional improvement. Educational Researcher , 38(2), 120-131.
38.
Schmidt, W.H., McKnight, C.C., & Raizen, S.A. ( 1997). A splintered vision: An investigation of U.S. science and mathematics education. Boston: Kluwer.
39.
Shavelson, R.J., Webb, N.M., & Burstein, L. ( 1986). Measurement of teaching. In M. Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (3rd ed., pp. 55-91). Washington, DC: American Educational Research Association.
40.
Smithson, J.L. ( 2007). Report of alignment analyses of state n content standards and assessment instruments. Unpublished manuscript, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
41.
Smithson, J.L., & Collares, A.C. (2007, April). Alignment as a predictor of student achievement gains. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Chicago.
42.
Smithson, J.L., & Porter, A.C. ( 1994). Measuring classroom practice: Lessons learned from efforts to describe the enacted curriculum. The Reform Up Close study (CPRE Research Rep. Series No. 31). Madison: University of Wisconsin-Madison, Consortium for Policy Research in Education.
43.
Steinberg, Z., & Knitzer, J. ( 1992). Classrooms for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed students: Facing the challenge. Behavioral Disorders, 17(2), 145-156.
44.
Thompson, S., & Thurlow, M.L. ( 2003). 2003 state special education outcomes: Marching forward . Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
45.
Thurlow, M.L., Moen, R., & Altman, J. ( 2006). Annual performance reports: 2003-2004 state assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
46.
U.S. Department of Education. (2005). 26th annual (2004) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (ED01CO0082/0008). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs .
47.
Webb, N., Herman, J., & Webb, N.L. ( 2006). Alignment of mathematics state-level standards and assessments: The role of review agreement (CSE Report 685). Los Angeles : University of California, Los Angeles, Center for the Study of Evaluation.
48.
Webb, N.L. ( 1997a). Criteria for alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (Research Monograph No. 6). Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.
49.
Webb, N.L. ( 1997b). Determining alignment of expectations and assessments in mathematics and science education (NISE Brief, Vol. 1, No. 2). Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.
50.
Webb, N.L. ( 1999). Alignment of science and mathematics standards and assessments in four states (Research Monograph No. 18). Madison: University of Wisconsin, National Institute for Science Education.
51.
Wehby, J.H. ( 1997, November). Teacher interactions in SED classrooms: Implications for academic and social behavior. Paper presented at the 21st annual Conference on Severe Behavior Disorders in Children and Youth, Tempe, AZ.
52.
Wehby, J.H., Symons, F.J., Canale, J.A., & Go, F.J. ( 1998). Teaching practices in classrooms with emotional and behavioral disorders: Discrepancies between recommendations and observations. Behavioral Disorders, 24(1), 51-56.
53.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Lattin, D.L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. ( 2003). Access to the curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24(5), 262-272.
54.
Wehmeyer, M.L., Sands, D.J., Knowlton, H.E., & Kozleski, E.B. (2002). Teaching students with mental retardation: Providing access to the general curriculum. Baltimore: Brookes.
