Browder, D. (2005, June 7). Research on academic learning by students with significant cognitive disabilities. Presented at the OSEP 15th Technical Assistance and Dissemination Conference, Washington, DC. Retrieved June 9, 2005, from http://education.uncc.edu/access/ppt/DOE June 7 05 lit review sw5-24.ppt.
Browder, D. M., & Spooner, F. H. (in press). Teaching reading, math, and science to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.
Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Courtade-Little, G., & Snell, M. (2005). General curriculum access. In M. Snell & F. Brown (Eds.), Instruction for students with severe disabilities (6th ed.) (pp. 489–525). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall.
Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., Algozzine, R., & Karvonen, M. (2003). A content analysis of the curricular philosophies reflected in states' alternate assessments. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 2, 165–181.
Browder, D., Wakeman, S., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. (2005). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Manuscript submitted for publication.
Clay, M., & Cazden, C. (1992). A Vygotskian interpretation of reading recovery. In L. C. Moll (Ed.), Vygotsky and education: Instructional implications and applications of socio-historical psychology (pp. 206–222). New York: Cambridge University Press.
DeStefano, L., Shriner, J. G., & Lloyd, C. A. (2001). Teacher decision making in participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. Exceptional Children, 68, 7–22.
Downing, J. E. (2005). Teaching literacy to students with significant disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
English, F. W., & Steffy, B. E. (2001). Deep curriculum alignment: Creating a level playing field for all children on high-stakes tests of educational accountability. Lanham, MD: Scarecrow Press.
Fisher, D., & Frey, N. (2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial & Special Education, 22, 148–157.
Horner, R. H., & Albin, R. W. (1988). Research on general case procedures for learners with severe disabilities. Education and Treatment of Children, 11, 375–388.
Horner, R., H., & McDonald, R. S. (1982). Comparison of single instance and general case instruction in teaching a generalized vocational skill. Journal of the Association for the Severely Handicapped, 7, 7–20.
Hunt, P., Staub, D., Alwell, M., & Goetz, L. (1994). Achievement by all students within the context of cooperative learning groups. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 21, 53–71.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. (1997).
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U. S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350 (2004).
Joseph, L. M., & Seery, M. E. (2004). Where is the phonics? A review of the literature on the use of phonetic analysis with students with mental retardation. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 88–94.
Kennedy, C. H., & Haring, T. G. (1993). Teaching choice making during social interactions to students with profound multiple disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 63–77.
Kleinert, H., Browder, D., & Powles-Reeves, E. (2005). The Assessment Triangle and Students with Significant Cognitive Disabilities: Models of Student Cognition. National Alternate Assessment Center, Interdisciplinary Human Development Institute, University of Kentucky. Retrieved December 5, 2005, from http://www.naacpartners.org/publications/whitePapers/18000.pdf.
Kliewer, C., & Bilken, D. (2001). "School's not really a place for reading": A research synthesis of the literate lives of students with severe disabilities. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 1–12.
Koppenhaver, D., Erickson, K., & Skotko, B. (2001). Supporting communication of girls with Rett syndrome and their mothers in storybook reading. International Journal of Disability, Development and Education, 48, 395–410.
Mechling, L., & Langone, J. (2000). The effects of a computer-based instructional program with video anchors on the use of photographs for prompting augmentative communication. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 35, 90–105.
Musselwhite, C., & King-DeBaun, P. (1997). Emergent literacy success: Merging technology and whole language for students with disabilities. Park City, UT: Creative Communicating.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 , Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).
Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (1984). Issues in generalization: Implications for special education. Psychology in the Schools , 21, 397–403.
Shriner, J. G. (2000). Legal perspectives on school outcomes assessment for students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 33, 232–239.
Snyder, T. L., Freeman-Lorentz, K., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1993). The effects of augmentative communication on vocabulary acquisition with primary age students with disabilities. B. C. Journal of Special Education , 17, 73–93.
Stephenson, J., & Linfoot, K. (1995). Choice-making as a natural context for teaching early communication board use to a ten-year-old boy with not spoken language and severe intellectual disability. Australia and New Zealand Journal of Developmental Disabilities, 20, 263–286.
Thurlow, M. L., Lazarus, S. S., Thompson, S. J., & Robey, J. (2002). 2001 State policies on assessment participation and accommodations (NCEO Synthesis Report 46). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 9, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Synthesis46.html.
Thurlow, M. L., Moen, R. E., & Wiley, H. I. (2005). Annual performance reports: 2002-2003 State assessment data. Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved June 22, 2005, from http://education.umn.edu/nceo/OnlinePubs/
U. S. Department of Education. (2003, December 9). Title I—Improving the academic achievement of the disadvantaged; Final rule, 68 Fed. Reg. 236.
U. S. Department of Education. (2004). Standards and assessment peer review guidance: Information and examples for meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. Washington, DC: Author.
The U.S. Department of Education is reviewing public comments received on the notice of proposed rulemaking regarding modified achievement standards. As this analysis is not completed, the content of this document may not necessarily reflect the final views or policies of the Department concerning modified achievement standards.
This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education Contract No. EDO4CO0025/0002 with the American Institutes for Research. Renee Bradley served as the contracting officer's representative. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this report or on Web sites referred to in this report is intended or should be inferred.