Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade-level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: an explication of the concept.

Current federal policy requires that students with disabilities participate in large-scale assessments and be included in schools' scores for adequate yearly progress. Students with significant cognitive disabilities may participate in an alternate assessment with alternate achievement standards, but these standards must be linked to grade-level content and promote access to the general curriculum. Because most research with this population has focused on nonacademic life skills, few guidelines exist for teaching and assessing skills that are linked to grade-level content. One challenge to developing research and practice in grade-linked academic content for students with significant cognitive disabilities is the absence of a clear conceptual framework. This article--developed by a team of special education, curriculum content, and measurement experts--proposes a conceptual definition and criteria for linking instruction and assessment to grade-level academic content.

**********

Legislation in the last decade has resulted in increasing expectations for students with significant cognitive disabilities to have access to general curriculum content. The 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) required that students with disabilities be included in general and districtwide assessment programs, with alternate assessments conducted beginning July 1,2000, for students who could not participate in the general assessments. IDEA (1997) also required that all students have access to the general curriculum; that is, the state or locally defined course of study. In 2001 the reauthorization of the 1965 Elementary and Secondary Education Act, entitled the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), required states to establish challenging standards; to implement assessments that measure students' performance against those standards; and to hold schools accountable for achievement in reading, math, and science. Final NCLB regulations on including students with the most significant cognitive disabilities permitted states to develop alternate achievement standards for reporting adequate yearly progress for students with significant cognitive disabilities (up to 1% of the general population), but further stipulated that these alternate achievement standards must be aligned with a state's academic content standards, promote access to the general curriculum, and reflect the highest achievement standards possible (U.S. Department of Education, 2003, [section] 200.1(d)). Subsequent nonregulatory guidance denoted that alternate assessments "should be clearly related to grade-level content, although it may be restricted in scope or complexity or take the form of introductory or prerequisite skills" (U.S. Department of Education, 2005, p. 26). Through these policies, the expectation for students with significant cognitive disabilities has evolved from simply participating in assessment; to the documented achievement of adequate yearly progress in reading, math, and science; to the expectation that these assessments document achievement with clear links to state grade-level content standards, even when applying alternate achievement standards for this population.

Access to the general curriculum may be promoted through inclusion in general education classes (Fisher & Frey, 2001). Research has shown that students with significant disabilities benefit socially (Fryxell & Kennedy, 1995; Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, & Goetz, 1996) and acquire new skills in general education classes when taught alongside peers with typical development (Hunt, Staub, Alwell, & Goetz, 1994; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Risen, 2002). In contrast, the newest reauthorization of IDEA, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), does not require that all students receive access to general curriculum content through placement in general education classes. Instead, the law requires that students who participate in alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards receive instruction from teachers who are highly qualified with subject matter knowledge. Under the current policy, then, a special education teacher may be highly qualified to teach academic content and do so in any type of classroom, including a self-contained special education class. Students in all types of special education placements must have access to general curriculum content and participate in alternate assessments based on grade-level content standards.

Educators sometimes find creating access to grade-level academic content to be confusing or even incomprehensible. Surveys reveal that some teachers question the relevance of this grade-level content for students with significant intellectual disabilities (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002) or do not agree that alternate assessment promotes access to the general curriculum standards (Flowers, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Browder, & Spooner, 2005; Kleinert, Kennedy, & Kearns, 1999). Some states have not clearly linked alternate assessments to the general academic content (Browder et al., 2005). Even states that have alternate assessments with strong links to academic content are challenged to assess the full depth and breadth of the general academic curriculum (Flowers, Browder, & Ahlgrim-Delzell, 2006). Experts in severe disabilities have also questioned the meaningfulness of some of the skills that states are using to "extend" their academic content standards to this population (Ford, Davern, & Schnorr, 2001).

Despite this confusion and doubt, there has been progress in recent years in understanding how to create access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Many states have revised their alternate assessments to include a stronger academic focus (Thompson, Thurlow, Johnstone, & Altman, 2005). Some states have also created curricular frameworks with numerous examples of how to make grade-level content accessible to students with significant disabilities (Massachusetts Department of Education, 2001; South Dakota Department of Education, n.d.). Additional resources have emerged on how to plan for general curriculum access (Cushing, Clark, Carter, & Kennedy, 2005; Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, & Jackson, 2002; Ryndak & Billingsley, 2004); how to create alternate assessments that link to academic content (Kleinert & Kearns, 2001; Thompson, Quenemoen, Thurlow, & Ysseldyke, 2001); and how to teach academic content to students with significant cognitive disabilities (Browder & Spooner, 2006; Downing, 1996; Ryndak & Alper, 1996). To help educators, the National Alternate Assessment Center provides guidelines and examples of how to adequately assess grade-level content for this population.

Educators' perceptions about the overall value of alternate assessments and of access to the general curriculum may be changing as they gain more experience with these areas. Flowers et al. (2005) found that teachers who reported that alternate assessments counted in school accountability were more positive about alternate assessment in general and more likely to agree that this process promoted access to the general curriculum. Since the Flowers et al. survey was conducted in 2003, NCLB (beginning with assessments administered in 2004-2005) has required that all students' scores be considered for school accountability, regardless of disability.