The alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAS) is the latest flexibility added to the No Child Left Behind Act and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It allows schools to count up to 2% of the total student population as proficient against a modified achievement standard. This new assessment option has significant implications for both what the assessment is like and what must happen in instruction for students. This article provides a brief summary of the AA-MAS and what states are doing in the development of the AA-MAS. It also addresses the implications of the AA-MAS option for assessment development and for instruction.
Altman, J.R., Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., Cuthbert, M., & Cormier, D.C. (2008). 2007 survey of states: Activities, changes, and challenges for special education. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
2.
Christensen, L.L., Lail, K.E., & Thurlow, M.L. (2007). Hints and tips for addressing accommodations issues for peer review. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
3.
Cortiella, C. (2007). Learning opportunities for your child through alternate assessments: Alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
4.
DeStefano, L., Shriner, J., & Lloyd, C. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment. Exceptional Children , 62, 7-22.
5.
Donahue Institute. (2004). A study of MCAS achievement and promising practices in urban special education . Hadley: University of Massachusetts, Donahue Institute. Available from http://www.donahue.umassp.edu/docs/exec_summary_field_rsrch_findings
6.
Education Trust. (2005). Gaining traction, gaining ground: How some high schools accelerate learning for struggling students. Washington, DC: Author .
7.
Elmore, R.F., & Rothman, R. (1999). Testing, teaching, and learning: A guide to states and school districts. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
8.
Federal Register. (2007, April 9). Vol. 72, No. 67, pp. 17753-17781.
9.
Federal Register. (2003, Dec 9). Vol. 68, No. 236, pp. 68697-68708.
10.
Holbrook, M.D. (2007). Standards-based Individualized Education Program examples. Alexandria, VA: National Association of Directors of Special Education, Project Forum.
11.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004. 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (2004).
12.
Johnstone, C.J. (2003). Improving the validity of large-scale tests: Universal design and student performance (Technical Report 37). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
13.
Johnstone, C., Liu, K., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. (2007). Student think aloud reflections on comprehensible and readable assessment items: Perspectives on what does and does not make an item readable (Technical Report 48). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
14.
Kannapel, P.J., & Clements, S.K. (2005). Inside the black box of high-performing high-poverty schools. Lexington, KY: Prichard Committee for Academic Excellence.
15.
Ketterlin-Geller, L.R., Yovanoff, P., & Tindal, G. (2007). Developing a new paradigm for conducting research on accommodations in mathematics testing. Exceptional Children , 73(3), 331-347.
16.
Langley, J., & Olsen, K. (2003). Training district and state personnel on accommodations: A study of state practices, challenges and resources. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers .
17.
Lazarus, S.S., Thompson, S.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2006). How students access accommodations in assessment and instruction: Results of a survey of special education teachers (Issue Brief 7). College Park: University of Maryland, Educational Policy Reform Research Institute.
18.
Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Christensen, L.L., & Cormier, D. (2007). States' alternate assessments based on modified achievement standards (AA-MAS) in 2007 (Synthesis Report 67). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
19.
Lazarus, S.S., Thurlow, M.L., Lail, K.E., & Christensen, L. (in press). A longitudinal analysis of state accommodations policies: Twelve years of change 1993-2005. Journal of Special Education.
20.
Massachusetts Department of Education. (2008 ). Progress report on students attaining the competency determination statewide and by school and district: Classes of 2008 and 2009. Malden, MA: Author.
21.
McDonnell, L.M., & McLaughlin, M.J. (1997). Educating one and all: Students with disabilities and standards-based reform. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
22.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. (2001).
23.
Nolet, V., & McLaughlin, M.J. (2005). Accessing the general curriculum: Including students with disabilities in standards-based reform (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
24.
Ohio Department of Education. (2004). Standards-based instruction for all learners: A treasure chest for principal-led building teams in improving results for learners most at-risk. Columbus, OH: Author.
25.
Project Forum. (2007). A seven-step process to creating standards-based IEPs. Alexandria, VA : National Association of Directors of Special Education .
26.
Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Moen, R., Thompson, S., & Morse, A.B. (2004). Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report 53). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
27.
Rhode Island Department of Education. (2002 ). Results from Rhode Island's assessment accommodation survey . Providence, RI: Office of Special Needs, Paul Sherlock Center on Disabilities.
28.
Shriner, J.G., & DeStefano, L. (2003). Participation and accommodation in state assessment: The role of individualized education programs. Exceptional Children, 69(2), 147-161.
29.
Thompson, S.J., Johnstone, C.J., & Thurlow, M.L. (2002). Universal design applied to large scale assessments (Synthesis Report 44). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
30.
Thompson, S.J., Morse, A.B., Sharpe, M., & Hall, S. (2005). Accommodations manual: How to select, administer, and evaluate use of accommodations for instruction and assessment of students with disabilities (2nd ed.). Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers .
31.
Thompson, S.J., Thurlow, M.L., & Malouf, D. (2004). Creating better tests for everyone through universally designed assessments. Journal of Applied Testing Technology , 6(1), 1-15. Available from http://www.testpublishers.org/journal.htm
32.
Thurlow, M.L., Christensen, L.L., & Lail, K.E. (in press). An analysis of accommodations issues from the standards and assessments peer review. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
33.
Thurlow, M.L., Elliott, J.L., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (2003). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for meeting district and state requirements (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin.
34.
Thurlow, M.L., Lazarus, S.S., & Christensen, L.L. (in press). Role of accommodations in accountability. Perspectives.
35.
Thurlow, M.L., Quenemoen, R.F., Altman, J., & Cuthbert, M. (2008). Trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.
36.
U.S. Department of Education. (2007). Modified academic achievement standards: Non-regulatory guidance. Washington, DC: Author.
37.
Williams, T., Kirst, M., & Haertel, E. (2005). Similar students, different results: Why do some schools do better? A large-scale survey of California elementary schools serving low-income students. Mountain view, CA: EdSource.
