Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual
Struggling with problems? Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual provides clear, detailed solutions for better learning.
Ava Martinez
Contributor
4.5
61
about 2 months ago
Preview (31 of 162)
Sign in to access the full document!
Supplemental Chapter (formerly Chapter 20)
ASSESSING CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN THE REGULAR
CLASSROOM: A GROWING NEED
AT FIRST GLANCE you may wonder why we have included two chapters about
testing and assessing children with disabilities on our textbook’s website. You might say, “That’s
the responsibility of the school psychologist.” Or, “Children
with disabilities are in special ed classrooms, not regular ed classrooms.” Or, “I won’t have
to deal with children with disabilities if I’m going to be a regular ed teacher.”
These statements were largely true in the past. Today, thanks to the passage of the
1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–97), the
reauthorization of this act in 2004 (IDEA–04), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
in 2002, they no longer are valid. The days when children with disabilities received
instruction only from special education staff in segregated (e.g., resource, self-contained)
settings, received only annual progress reports, were assessed only by specialists, and
were excluded from annual district-wide assessments are over. The intent of these three
pieces of federal legislation is to better integrate regular and special education to raise
expectations for students with disabilities, and to enable them to benefit from general
education reforms.
The intention of the U.S. Congress and Presidents William Clinton and George W.
Bush in signing IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 and into law is clear: Children with
disabilities will
ASSESSING CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN THE REGULAR
CLASSROOM: A GROWING NEED
AT FIRST GLANCE you may wonder why we have included two chapters about
testing and assessing children with disabilities on our textbook’s website. You might say, “That’s
the responsibility of the school psychologist.” Or, “Children
with disabilities are in special ed classrooms, not regular ed classrooms.” Or, “I won’t have
to deal with children with disabilities if I’m going to be a regular ed teacher.”
These statements were largely true in the past. Today, thanks to the passage of the
1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–97), the
reauthorization of this act in 2004 (IDEA–04), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
in 2002, they no longer are valid. The days when children with disabilities received
instruction only from special education staff in segregated (e.g., resource, self-contained)
settings, received only annual progress reports, were assessed only by specialists, and
were excluded from annual district-wide assessments are over. The intent of these three
pieces of federal legislation is to better integrate regular and special education to raise
expectations for students with disabilities, and to enable them to benefit from general
education reforms.
The intention of the U.S. Congress and Presidents William Clinton and George W.
Bush in signing IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 and into law is clear: Children with
disabilities will
Supplemental Chapter (formerly Chapter 20)
ASSESSING CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN THE REGULAR
CLASSROOM: A GROWING NEED
AT FIRST GLANCE you may wonder why we have included two chapters about
testing and assessing children with disabilities on our textbook’s website. You might say, “That’s
the responsibility of the school psychologist.” Or, “Children
with disabilities are in special ed classrooms, not regular ed classrooms.” Or, “I won’t have
to deal with children with disabilities if I’m going to be a regular ed teacher.”
These statements were largely true in the past. Today, thanks to the passage of the
1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–97), the
reauthorization of this act in 2004 (IDEA–04), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
in 2002, they no longer are valid. The days when children with disabilities received
instruction only from special education staff in segregated (e.g., resource, self-contained)
settings, received only annual progress reports, were assessed only by specialists, and
were excluded from annual district-wide assessments are over. The intent of these three
pieces of federal legislation is to better integrate regular and special education to raise
expectations for students with disabilities, and to enable them to benefit from general
education reforms.
The intention of the U.S. Congress and Presidents William Clinton and George W.
Bush in signing IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 and into law is clear: Children with
disabilities will
ASSESSING CHILDREN WITH
DISABILITIES IN THE REGULAR
CLASSROOM: A GROWING NEED
AT FIRST GLANCE you may wonder why we have included two chapters about
testing and assessing children with disabilities on our textbook’s website. You might say, “That’s
the responsibility of the school psychologist.” Or, “Children
with disabilities are in special ed classrooms, not regular ed classrooms.” Or, “I won’t have
to deal with children with disabilities if I’m going to be a regular ed teacher.”
These statements were largely true in the past. Today, thanks to the passage of the
1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–97), the
reauthorization of this act in 2004 (IDEA–04), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act
in 2002, they no longer are valid. The days when children with disabilities received
instruction only from special education staff in segregated (e.g., resource, self-contained)
settings, received only annual progress reports, were assessed only by specialists, and
were excluded from annual district-wide assessments are over. The intent of these three
pieces of federal legislation is to better integrate regular and special education to raise
expectations for students with disabilities, and to enable them to benefit from general
education reforms.
The intention of the U.S. Congress and Presidents William Clinton and George W.
Bush in signing IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 and into law is clear: Children with
disabilities will
• be integrated meaningfully into the general education curriculum and setting,
• be taught and assessed by both regular and special education staff,
• receive regular reports during the school year of progress toward their annual
Individual Educational Plan (IEP) objectives,
• be included, like their general education peers, in annual state- and district-wide
assessments, with state approved accommodations and alternate assessments when
required by their IEPs, and
• scores for children with disabilities on the annual assessments will be separated
from the scores for regular education students, with schools to be held accountable
if students with disabilities do not demonstrate sufficient annual progress.
Unless they want to risk loss of needed federal funds and to be subject to potential civil
rights suits and investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, schools must now
demonstrate that children with disabilities are integrated meaningfully into the general
education setting, curriculum, and annual academic assessments, and that their educational
outcomes are improving.
Before we discuss the specific ways recent federal legislation will affect classroom
testing and assessment practice, consider the following dialogue, which identifies several
important changes resulting from IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 that will impact the
regular and special education teacher:
“Hi Mr. Past, this is Ms. Future calling, you know, the school special education
coordinator. Hard to believe the new school year is beginning already isn’t it?”
“Sure is,” said Mr. Past. “I wish the vacation was about a month longer.”
“I’ve got to call all the regular ed teachers to let them know about the IEP meeting
• be taught and assessed by both regular and special education staff,
• receive regular reports during the school year of progress toward their annual
Individual Educational Plan (IEP) objectives,
• be included, like their general education peers, in annual state- and district-wide
assessments, with state approved accommodations and alternate assessments when
required by their IEPs, and
• scores for children with disabilities on the annual assessments will be separated
from the scores for regular education students, with schools to be held accountable
if students with disabilities do not demonstrate sufficient annual progress.
Unless they want to risk loss of needed federal funds and to be subject to potential civil
rights suits and investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, schools must now
demonstrate that children with disabilities are integrated meaningfully into the general
education setting, curriculum, and annual academic assessments, and that their educational
outcomes are improving.
Before we discuss the specific ways recent federal legislation will affect classroom
testing and assessment practice, consider the following dialogue, which identifies several
important changes resulting from IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 that will impact the
regular and special education teacher:
“Hi Mr. Past, this is Ms. Future calling, you know, the school special education
coordinator. Hard to believe the new school year is beginning already isn’t it?”
“Sure is,” said Mr. Past. “I wish the vacation was about a month longer.”
“I’ve got to call all the regular ed teachers to let them know about the IEP meeting
schedule for September so I’ll get right to the point, Mr. Past,” said Ms. Future.
“Oh, don’t bother,” replied Mr. Past. “Like I told you last year, I just don’t have
time to attend those meetings. I need to get 28 kids ready for the state high-stakes test,
you know, and that means I don’t have the luxury of just teaching six or eight kids like
the special ed teachers do. Thanks to NCLB, if my class doesn’t do well the whole
school will suffer, including the special ed staff and students. You wouldn’t want that to
happen would you? Each year now, the state raises the bar we have to reach to
demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, as they call it, so we just don’t have
time for special ed meetings anymore. Besides, I don’t know anything about teaching
special ed kids so I wouldn’t have anything to contribute. I’d really like to help the
kids out, but I wouldn’t want to mess them up. Their learning and assessing their
progress is best left to specialists like you, Ms. Future. It’s what’s best for the pupils,
and that’s what I’m about. Thanks for thinking of me though. Bye!”
“Wait! Don’t hang up, Mr. Past!” exclaimed Ms. Future. ”Haven’t you heard about
how Nickel-B applies to the 1997 and 2004 Amendments to IDEA?”
“Of course I’ve heard of Nickel-B, but we call it the No Child Left Behind Act or
NCLB, not Nickel-B”, said Mr. Past, haughtily. “Every year you keep bringing this
IDEA thing up. Whose idea are you talking about anyway?” quipped Mr. Past.
“Not whose idea, Mr. Past, the IDEA. That’s I-D-E-A, the 1997 and 2004
amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The amendments were
passed in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004, and the IEP portion, which requires a
regular classroom teacher to attend all IEP meetings, was fully implemented with the
beginning of the 1998–1999 school year,” said Ms. Future. “You’ve had to attend
“Oh, don’t bother,” replied Mr. Past. “Like I told you last year, I just don’t have
time to attend those meetings. I need to get 28 kids ready for the state high-stakes test,
you know, and that means I don’t have the luxury of just teaching six or eight kids like
the special ed teachers do. Thanks to NCLB, if my class doesn’t do well the whole
school will suffer, including the special ed staff and students. You wouldn’t want that to
happen would you? Each year now, the state raises the bar we have to reach to
demonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, as they call it, so we just don’t have
time for special ed meetings anymore. Besides, I don’t know anything about teaching
special ed kids so I wouldn’t have anything to contribute. I’d really like to help the
kids out, but I wouldn’t want to mess them up. Their learning and assessing their
progress is best left to specialists like you, Ms. Future. It’s what’s best for the pupils,
and that’s what I’m about. Thanks for thinking of me though. Bye!”
“Wait! Don’t hang up, Mr. Past!” exclaimed Ms. Future. ”Haven’t you heard about
how Nickel-B applies to the 1997 and 2004 Amendments to IDEA?”
“Of course I’ve heard of Nickel-B, but we call it the No Child Left Behind Act or
NCLB, not Nickel-B”, said Mr. Past, haughtily. “Every year you keep bringing this
IDEA thing up. Whose idea are you talking about anyway?” quipped Mr. Past.
“Not whose idea, Mr. Past, the IDEA. That’s I-D-E-A, the 1997 and 2004
amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The amendments were
passed in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004, and the IEP portion, which requires a
regular classroom teacher to attend all IEP meetings, was fully implemented with the
beginning of the 1998–1999 school year,” said Ms. Future. “You’ve had to attend
Loading page 4...
these meetings for several years now. Remember?”
“Of course I remember,” said an irritated Mr. Past, “but since NCLB things are
different here on the regular ed side. I am a regular, that’s R-E-G-U-L-A-R, education
teacher, Ms. Future. That means I teach and assess regular education kids. We have so
much to keep up with now because of all the requirements of NCLB that I really don’t
have time for special ed stuff. Since NCLB was passed in 2002 we now have to see
that our kids do well on multiple benchmark tests, because these predict how well they
will do on the annual assessment in April. And you know how important that is, don’t
you? To be sure they are prepared we have to test these kids at least once per week
using formal teacher-made or standardized measures. I guess simply checking their
progress with benchmarks isn’t enough for the people in the capitol. And, you know
what happens if we don’t reach the proficiency goals the legislators have established
for us? Our school gets labeled as ‘in need of improvement’ and we have to work even
harder to get our scores up the next year or we face serious consequences, including
being labeled as ‘in corrective action.’ And we could be restructured if we don’t make
AYP for five years! To make matters worse, we have to report not just overall average
scores, but we have to break them down, disaggregation of scores they call it, so that
we are judged based on scores for different categories of students. These categories
include students who are economically disadvantaged, who are limited English
proficient, and for each of the major ethnic groups. Can you imagine that? They really
expect us to have all students achieve at proficiency. And yet, you want us to get more
involved with special ed kids too? Lots of luck! I think I’ll mention our little
conversation to the principal and see how she feels about your efforts to take away
“Of course I remember,” said an irritated Mr. Past, “but since NCLB things are
different here on the regular ed side. I am a regular, that’s R-E-G-U-L-A-R, education
teacher, Ms. Future. That means I teach and assess regular education kids. We have so
much to keep up with now because of all the requirements of NCLB that I really don’t
have time for special ed stuff. Since NCLB was passed in 2002 we now have to see
that our kids do well on multiple benchmark tests, because these predict how well they
will do on the annual assessment in April. And you know how important that is, don’t
you? To be sure they are prepared we have to test these kids at least once per week
using formal teacher-made or standardized measures. I guess simply checking their
progress with benchmarks isn’t enough for the people in the capitol. And, you know
what happens if we don’t reach the proficiency goals the legislators have established
for us? Our school gets labeled as ‘in need of improvement’ and we have to work even
harder to get our scores up the next year or we face serious consequences, including
being labeled as ‘in corrective action.’ And we could be restructured if we don’t make
AYP for five years! To make matters worse, we have to report not just overall average
scores, but we have to break them down, disaggregation of scores they call it, so that
we are judged based on scores for different categories of students. These categories
include students who are economically disadvantaged, who are limited English
proficient, and for each of the major ethnic groups. Can you imagine that? They really
expect us to have all students achieve at proficiency. And yet, you want us to get more
involved with special ed kids too? Lots of luck! I think I’ll mention our little
conversation to the principal and see how she feels about your efforts to take away
Loading page 5...
what little instructional time I have left, thanks to all the NCLB testing requirements,
and give that valuable time to special ed students when I could be focusing on raising
test scores for all of my regular ed kids instead. I don’t think shell be too happy about
that. Do you?”, asked a frustrated Mr. Past.
“I agree, Mr. Past, she won’t be pleased”, fumed Ms. Future. “She won’t be pleased
because she is fully aware that IDEA–04 retained the IDEA–97 requirement that
regular education teachers, whether they feel they are qualified or not, must be
members of each student with a disability’s Individual Educational Plan, or IEP, team.
But I think she will really be unhappy to learn that you don’t seem to realize that the
NCLB provisions that apply to regular ed also apply to special ed. Students with
disabilities must participate in the annual state assessments that are required for
regular ed kids, with appropriate accommodations or alternate assessments, as
needed. Furthermore, according to NCLB, it is the IEP team that determines whether
a student with a disability may participate in the standard annual assessment or
whether the student needs accommodations or an alternate assessment. When we
determine the student can’t meaningfully participate in the standard annual
assessment we have to document why the standard assessment is not appropriate and
describe how the student will be assessed using a state-approved accommodation or
alternate assessment! And, in addition to the groups you mentioned, scores must also
be disaggregated for students with disabilities, most of whom now receive the majority
of their instruction in the regular ed classroom and curriculum! In fact, everything you
mentioned about NCLB applies to special ed students. NCLB has put a lot of
additional pressure on everyone in the system, but it’s increased pressure on
and give that valuable time to special ed students when I could be focusing on raising
test scores for all of my regular ed kids instead. I don’t think shell be too happy about
that. Do you?”, asked a frustrated Mr. Past.
“I agree, Mr. Past, she won’t be pleased”, fumed Ms. Future. “She won’t be pleased
because she is fully aware that IDEA–04 retained the IDEA–97 requirement that
regular education teachers, whether they feel they are qualified or not, must be
members of each student with a disability’s Individual Educational Plan, or IEP, team.
But I think she will really be unhappy to learn that you don’t seem to realize that the
NCLB provisions that apply to regular ed also apply to special ed. Students with
disabilities must participate in the annual state assessments that are required for
regular ed kids, with appropriate accommodations or alternate assessments, as
needed. Furthermore, according to NCLB, it is the IEP team that determines whether
a student with a disability may participate in the standard annual assessment or
whether the student needs accommodations or an alternate assessment. When we
determine the student can’t meaningfully participate in the standard annual
assessment we have to document why the standard assessment is not appropriate and
describe how the student will be assessed using a state-approved accommodation or
alternate assessment! And, in addition to the groups you mentioned, scores must also
be disaggregated for students with disabilities, most of whom now receive the majority
of their instruction in the regular ed classroom and curriculum! In fact, everything you
mentioned about NCLB applies to special ed students. NCLB has put a lot of
additional pressure on everyone in the system, but it’s increased pressure on
Loading page 6...
everybody, Mr. Past, not just regular ed teachers!” exclaimed a frustrated Ms. Future.
Low scores for special ed kids also affect the whole school under NCLB!
“I . . . I . . . umm . . . Are you sure about this,” gasped Mr. Past, “I though it was just
regular ed that was affected by NCLB.”
“Positive,” said Ms. Future. “It’s all part of the movement away from providing
segregated instruction for students with disabilities in resource and self-contained
classrooms. It’s called full inclusion, and it’s happening because research has
demonstrated that the old way of isolating children with disabilities has not been as
effective as integrating children with disabilities into the regular education curriculum
and raising expectations for their achievement. And, as you know, we have been
discussing the integration of special and regular students at faculty meetings for the
last several years.” said Ms. Future. “Do you remember?” she asked.
“I know, I know. Now I remember, I just forgot,” said Mr. Past with some hesitation.
“But we’ve been integrating special ed kids and regular ed kids for years. The special
ed kids can play with the regular ed kids on the playground and at lunch. And one of
the special ed aides reads to a couple of them in my social studies class. Heck, I
encourage my own aide to read to them whenever she can too, even though she’s paid
out of regular ed funds. So, I’m supportive of the special ed program and of
inclusion,” said Mr. Past.
“I’m glad you are, Mr. Past, but what you are describing is not meaningful
inclusion, and it is not enough! Providing socialization opportunities at lunch and
recess and helping them read is not meaningful integration under IDEA–97 and
IDEA–04, and it’s not going to help our students with disabilities achieve at the
Low scores for special ed kids also affect the whole school under NCLB!
“I . . . I . . . umm . . . Are you sure about this,” gasped Mr. Past, “I though it was just
regular ed that was affected by NCLB.”
“Positive,” said Ms. Future. “It’s all part of the movement away from providing
segregated instruction for students with disabilities in resource and self-contained
classrooms. It’s called full inclusion, and it’s happening because research has
demonstrated that the old way of isolating children with disabilities has not been as
effective as integrating children with disabilities into the regular education curriculum
and raising expectations for their achievement. And, as you know, we have been
discussing the integration of special and regular students at faculty meetings for the
last several years.” said Ms. Future. “Do you remember?” she asked.
“I know, I know. Now I remember, I just forgot,” said Mr. Past with some hesitation.
“But we’ve been integrating special ed kids and regular ed kids for years. The special
ed kids can play with the regular ed kids on the playground and at lunch. And one of
the special ed aides reads to a couple of them in my social studies class. Heck, I
encourage my own aide to read to them whenever she can too, even though she’s paid
out of regular ed funds. So, I’m supportive of the special ed program and of
inclusion,” said Mr. Past.
“I’m glad you are, Mr. Past, but what you are describing is not meaningful
inclusion, and it is not enough! Providing socialization opportunities at lunch and
recess and helping them read is not meaningful integration under IDEA–97 and
IDEA–04, and it’s not going to help our students with disabilities achieve at the
Loading page 7...
annually increasing levels required by NCLB. If any group, the economically
disadvantaged, the minorities, the limited English proficient, or the students with
disabilities, fails to meet state proficiency goals for NCLB the whole school will be
held accountable!” said Ms. Future. “That’s why it’s critical that regular education
staff consult and coordinate actively with the special ed staff concerning instructional
and behavior management strategies, and the testing and assessment of academic,
social, emotional, and behavioral progress toward not only IEP objectives—objectives
identified by you and the rest of us during the IEP team meetings you now are required
to attend—but also the state proficiency standards required under NCLB.”
“But the way we’ve been doing it has worked just fine. I’d like to keep it that way.
Everyone knows the routine. Consulting and coordinating sounds great, but who has
the time? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” exclaimed Mr. Past, becoming irritated again.
“But that’s just it! It hasn’t been working, at least not for children with disabilities.
Congress has recognized that isolation in special classes and superficial inclusion
deprived special ed kids of the benefits of education reform such as higher standards,
an enriched curriculum, and annual assessment of their progress. By requiring more
collaboration between special and general education teachers Congress intended to
ensure that special education kids are meaningfully included in general education,
from planning to implementation and evaluation of the annual objectives identified on
their IEPs and in the state standards. In the past we often excluded children with
disabilities from the annual statewide test program. Now, under NCLB, they all must
be included, with only a small percentage of exceptions, and when their IEPs call for
it we will need to make individualized state-approved accommodations or employ
disadvantaged, the minorities, the limited English proficient, or the students with
disabilities, fails to meet state proficiency goals for NCLB the whole school will be
held accountable!” said Ms. Future. “That’s why it’s critical that regular education
staff consult and coordinate actively with the special ed staff concerning instructional
and behavior management strategies, and the testing and assessment of academic,
social, emotional, and behavioral progress toward not only IEP objectives—objectives
identified by you and the rest of us during the IEP team meetings you now are required
to attend—but also the state proficiency standards required under NCLB.”
“But the way we’ve been doing it has worked just fine. I’d like to keep it that way.
Everyone knows the routine. Consulting and coordinating sounds great, but who has
the time? If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” exclaimed Mr. Past, becoming irritated again.
“But that’s just it! It hasn’t been working, at least not for children with disabilities.
Congress has recognized that isolation in special classes and superficial inclusion
deprived special ed kids of the benefits of education reform such as higher standards,
an enriched curriculum, and annual assessment of their progress. By requiring more
collaboration between special and general education teachers Congress intended to
ensure that special education kids are meaningfully included in general education,
from planning to implementation and evaluation of the annual objectives identified on
their IEPs and in the state standards. In the past we often excluded children with
disabilities from the annual statewide test program. Now, under NCLB, they all must
be included, with only a small percentage of exceptions, and when their IEPs call for
it we will need to make individualized state-approved accommodations or employ
Loading page 8...
alternate assessments,” explained Ms. Future.
“Are you telling me that in addition to trying to help my kids meet annual
proficiency standards required by NCLB I am going to have to attend IEP meetings,
include special ed kids in my classes and curriculum, teach them, help them socialize,
raise academic expectations, test and assess them, and coordinate all this with the
special ed staff? Is that what you’re telling me?” asked a disbelieving Mr. Past.
“I’d say that about covers it. Basically, regular and special ed need to pull together
to help all of our students meet NCLB and IDEA–04 requirements, or else we will all
have to face uncomfortable consequences,” replied Ms. Future.
“Umm, uhhh, well, you know I’m just trying to do my job, and I am a team player,”
said Mr. Past.
“I’m glad to hear that, Mr. Past. I am too, and I look forward to collaborating and
coordinating with you and the other regular education teachers toward improved
educational outcomes for our children with disabilities,” said Ms. Future. “With the
passage of NCLB and its accountability provisions we all need to pull together to
ensure that all of our students make adequate yearly progress. Now, about the IEP
meeting schedule. On Monday at 8:15 we are scheduled to meet with . . .”
Although you may be surprised by this scenario everything Ms. Future said in the dialogue is an
accurate reflection of new requirements for general education teachers under NCLB, IDEA–97,
and IDEA–04. To help you understand why these changes were made, we will review briefly
what we have learned has worked and has not worked in relation to the education of children
with disabilities. Later in this chapter we will discuss how the testing and assessment
“Are you telling me that in addition to trying to help my kids meet annual
proficiency standards required by NCLB I am going to have to attend IEP meetings,
include special ed kids in my classes and curriculum, teach them, help them socialize,
raise academic expectations, test and assess them, and coordinate all this with the
special ed staff? Is that what you’re telling me?” asked a disbelieving Mr. Past.
“I’d say that about covers it. Basically, regular and special ed need to pull together
to help all of our students meet NCLB and IDEA–04 requirements, or else we will all
have to face uncomfortable consequences,” replied Ms. Future.
“Umm, uhhh, well, you know I’m just trying to do my job, and I am a team player,”
said Mr. Past.
“I’m glad to hear that, Mr. Past. I am too, and I look forward to collaborating and
coordinating with you and the other regular education teachers toward improved
educational outcomes for our children with disabilities,” said Ms. Future. “With the
passage of NCLB and its accountability provisions we all need to pull together to
ensure that all of our students make adequate yearly progress. Now, about the IEP
meeting schedule. On Monday at 8:15 we are scheduled to meet with . . .”
Although you may be surprised by this scenario everything Ms. Future said in the dialogue is an
accurate reflection of new requirements for general education teachers under NCLB, IDEA–97,
and IDEA–04. To help you understand why these changes were made, we will review briefly
what we have learned has worked and has not worked in relation to the education of children
with disabilities. Later in this chapter we will discuss how the testing and assessment
Loading page 9...
skills of the regular classroom teacher will play an important role in the implementation
of NCLB and IDEA with students with disabilities. More specifically, we hope to familiarize
you with the ways in which the testing and assessment practices you have learned
in this text can guide you in the identification, instruction, and evaluation of children with
disabilities in your regular education class. We will also describe an important and very
controversial change in the way special education eligibility is determined for students
with the most common category of disability, specific learning disabilities (SLD). Under
IDEA–04 school districts now have the option of continuing to use the discrepancy model
that has been in place since 1977, or they may use a response to instruction /intervention
model, called RTI, or some combination of both. We will discuss these approaches and
their impact on the regular classroom teacher in more detail later in this chapter. In
our second supplemental chapter (formerly Chapter 21 in our text) we will describe a number of
methods, procedures, and instruments that may be helpful to both regular and special education
teachers in testing and assessing children with disabilities.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
A variety of social, cultural, and legal developments subsequent to World War II contributed
to the guarantee of a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE, enjoyed today
by all children with disabilities. Critical court cases such as
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and Mills v. Board of Education established the educational rights of
children with disabilities in different states. These cases spurred Congress to pass legislation
of NCLB and IDEA with students with disabilities. More specifically, we hope to familiarize
you with the ways in which the testing and assessment practices you have learned
in this text can guide you in the identification, instruction, and evaluation of children with
disabilities in your regular education class. We will also describe an important and very
controversial change in the way special education eligibility is determined for students
with the most common category of disability, specific learning disabilities (SLD). Under
IDEA–04 school districts now have the option of continuing to use the discrepancy model
that has been in place since 1977, or they may use a response to instruction /intervention
model, called RTI, or some combination of both. We will discuss these approaches and
their impact on the regular classroom teacher in more detail later in this chapter. In
our second supplemental chapter (formerly Chapter 21 in our text) we will describe a number of
methods, procedures, and instruments that may be helpful to both regular and special education
teachers in testing and assessing children with disabilities.
A BRIEF HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATION
A variety of social, cultural, and legal developments subsequent to World War II contributed
to the guarantee of a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE, enjoyed today
by all children with disabilities. Critical court cases such as
Brown v. Board of Education
of Topeka, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth of
Pennsylvania, and Mills v. Board of Education established the educational rights of
children with disabilities in different states. These cases spurred Congress to pass legislation
Loading page 10...
that established a coherent national legislative requirement to guarantee FAPE to
all children with disabilities.
P.L. 94–142 and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
School-age children with disabilities were guaranteed FAPE in 1975 with the passage of
Public Law 94–142, the Education for All the Handicapped (EAH) Act. In 1986, Public
Law 99–457 was enacted to extend the guarantee of FAPE to preschool children with
disabilities. In 1990, the law was reauthorized as Public Law 105–17 and the name of
EAH was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In 1997
Public Law 105–17 was reauthorized as the 1997 Amendments to IDEA (IDEA–97). In
2004 the law was amended again and was reauthorized as H.R. 1350, the Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA–04).
Like previous versions of IDEA, the 2004 reauthorization reaffirms Congress’
intent to ensure the rights of children with disabilities to receive FAPE. Like IDEA–97
before it, IDEA–04 acknowledges the successes of EAH and IDEA, while also requiring
changes designed to address the shortcomings of EAH and IDEA. The accomplishments
and shortfalls of EAH and IDEA will be discussed next.
Prior to the implementation of Public Law 94–142, about one million children with
disabilities were denied a public education. Since its passage the number of children with
developmental disabilities in state institutions has declined by almost 90%. The number
of young adults with disabilities enrolled in post-secondary education has tripled and the
unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in their 20s is about half that of older
all children with disabilities.
P.L. 94–142 and the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA)
School-age children with disabilities were guaranteed FAPE in 1975 with the passage of
Public Law 94–142, the Education for All the Handicapped (EAH) Act. In 1986, Public
Law 99–457 was enacted to extend the guarantee of FAPE to preschool children with
disabilities. In 1990, the law was reauthorized as Public Law 105–17 and the name of
EAH was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In 1997
Public Law 105–17 was reauthorized as the 1997 Amendments to IDEA (IDEA–97). In
2004 the law was amended again and was reauthorized as H.R. 1350, the Individuals with
Disabilities Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA–04).
Like previous versions of IDEA, the 2004 reauthorization reaffirms Congress’
intent to ensure the rights of children with disabilities to receive FAPE. Like IDEA–97
before it, IDEA–04 acknowledges the successes of EAH and IDEA, while also requiring
changes designed to address the shortcomings of EAH and IDEA. The accomplishments
and shortfalls of EAH and IDEA will be discussed next.
Prior to the implementation of Public Law 94–142, about one million children with
disabilities were denied a public education. Since its passage the number of children with
developmental disabilities in state institutions has declined by almost 90%. The number
of young adults with disabilities enrolled in post-secondary education has tripled and the
unemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in their 20s is about half that of older
Loading page 11...
individuals with disabilities.
Yet, not all children with disabilities have obtained equal or significant benefit from
IDEA. Students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school by an
almost two to one ratio compared to students without disabilities. Advocates have also
been concerned that children from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds
and children with limited English proficiency have been too often
inappropriately placed in special education. School officials, providers, parents, and
others complained that under EAH and IDEA the focus was on paperwork and process
rather than outcomes, and IDEA had not been adequately implemented in many areas. It
was to remedy these and other shortcomings that IDEA–97 was passed, and IDEA–04
reinforces many of the reforms implemented under IDEA–97, although some feel that
IDEA–04 compromised the rights of students with disabilities to provide schools with
more flexibility.
IDEA–04 supports expanded opportunities for parents, special educators, related
services providers, regular educators, and early intervention services providers and other
personnel to develop new partnerships and work collaboratively at the state and local
levels. Incentives are included to enhance the capacity of schools and other communitybased
providers and entities to work effectively with children with disabilities and their
families by targeting funding for personnel training, research, media, technology, and
dissemination of technical assistance and best practices. We have described only a few of
the many facets of IDEA–04. A more comprehensive analysis of this complex piece of
legislation is beyond the scope of this text (and probably beyond most of your interests!),
but we will revisit relevant aspects of IDEA–04 as we discuss the role of the regular
Yet, not all children with disabilities have obtained equal or significant benefit from
IDEA. Students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school by an
almost two to one ratio compared to students without disabilities. Advocates have also
been concerned that children from economically disadvantaged and minority backgrounds
and children with limited English proficiency have been too often
inappropriately placed in special education. School officials, providers, parents, and
others complained that under EAH and IDEA the focus was on paperwork and process
rather than outcomes, and IDEA had not been adequately implemented in many areas. It
was to remedy these and other shortcomings that IDEA–97 was passed, and IDEA–04
reinforces many of the reforms implemented under IDEA–97, although some feel that
IDEA–04 compromised the rights of students with disabilities to provide schools with
more flexibility.
IDEA–04 supports expanded opportunities for parents, special educators, related
services providers, regular educators, and early intervention services providers and other
personnel to develop new partnerships and work collaboratively at the state and local
levels. Incentives are included to enhance the capacity of schools and other communitybased
providers and entities to work effectively with children with disabilities and their
families by targeting funding for personnel training, research, media, technology, and
dissemination of technical assistance and best practices. We have described only a few of
the many facets of IDEA–04. A more comprehensive analysis of this complex piece of
legislation is beyond the scope of this text (and probably beyond most of your interests!),
but we will revisit relevant aspects of IDEA–04 as we discuss the role of the regular
Loading page 12...
classroom teacher in the special education referral and evaluation process later in the
chapter.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
A separate piece of legislation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, has come
to play an increasingly important role in service delivery to children with disabilities
since the late 1980s. Commonly referred to as “Section 504,” it has expanded special
services eligibility standards to students whose disabilities interfere with learning but who
fail to qualify for special education services under IDEA’s requirements (Hakola, 1992).
IDEA–97 and its predecessors required that a student’s behavior or learning be
seriously or severely affected by one of the 12 categories of disability it delineated before
a student is eligible to receive special educational services. Section 504 established a
broader standard of eligibility. It defined a person with a disability as anyone with a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Students who qualify for assistance under Section 504, but not IDEA, have come to be
referred to as “504 only” students and the services provided to them have come to be
referred to as “504 only” services. This law also empowered the Office of Civil Rights to
enforce Section 504 compliance.
In recent years Section 504 has generated considerable controversy, in part because
of the “ambiguity and brevity of Section 504 in regard to requirements for elementary and
secondary schools” (Gammel, 1992, p. 298). One example of the lack of clarity involves
funding for services. When a child qualifies for special services under Section 504 (i.e.,
504 only), but not under IDEA–04, the child is not eligible for funding through IDEA
chapter.
Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act
A separate piece of legislation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, has come
to play an increasingly important role in service delivery to children with disabilities
since the late 1980s. Commonly referred to as “Section 504,” it has expanded special
services eligibility standards to students whose disabilities interfere with learning but who
fail to qualify for special education services under IDEA’s requirements (Hakola, 1992).
IDEA–97 and its predecessors required that a student’s behavior or learning be
seriously or severely affected by one of the 12 categories of disability it delineated before
a student is eligible to receive special educational services. Section 504 established a
broader standard of eligibility. It defined a person with a disability as anyone with a
physical or mental impairment that substantially limits one or more major life activities.
Students who qualify for assistance under Section 504, but not IDEA, have come to be
referred to as “504 only” students and the services provided to them have come to be
referred to as “504 only” services. This law also empowered the Office of Civil Rights to
enforce Section 504 compliance.
In recent years Section 504 has generated considerable controversy, in part because
of the “ambiguity and brevity of Section 504 in regard to requirements for elementary and
secondary schools” (Gammel, 1992, p. 298). One example of the lack of clarity involves
funding for services. When a child qualifies for special services under Section 504 (i.e.,
504 only), but not under IDEA–04, the child is not eligible for funding through IDEA
Loading page 13...
monies. This means that local or state funds must then be used to fund 504 only special
services. Needless to say, such funds are scarce in most districts. Thus provision of
special services for 504 only children are likely to be within the less expensive regular
classroom setting. This also is in keeping with the intent of Section 504, which, like
IDEA–04, is for services to be provided within the least restrictive environment. While
the funding and eligibility issues of Section 504 will continue to be clarified in coming
years through legal interpretation and/or legislation, it appears reasonable to conclude
that the involvement of the regular education teacher with 504 only students and service
providers may be expected to increase.
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE DELIVERY:
AN EVOLUTION
IDEA–04, with its requirements for full inclusion of children with disabilities in the
general curriculum and setting, is the latest development in an evolution in special education
services that began prior to the passage of P.L. 94–142 in 1975. This evolution has
altered thinking regarding the appropriateness of the special education service delivery
setting, eligibility criteria, and disability categories. We will describe this evolution next.
Service Delivery Setting
While P.L. 94–142 and IDEA required placement of children with disabilities in the least
restrictive educational environment, many children with disabilities were routinely placed
in educationally segregated resource or self-contained classrooms on the assumption that
they could not benefit from regular class instruction. This was especially true for students
who were viewed as more severely mentally, physically, emotionally, and behaviorally
services. Needless to say, such funds are scarce in most districts. Thus provision of
special services for 504 only children are likely to be within the less expensive regular
classroom setting. This also is in keeping with the intent of Section 504, which, like
IDEA–04, is for services to be provided within the least restrictive environment. While
the funding and eligibility issues of Section 504 will continue to be clarified in coming
years through legal interpretation and/or legislation, it appears reasonable to conclude
that the involvement of the regular education teacher with 504 only students and service
providers may be expected to increase.
SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE DELIVERY:
AN EVOLUTION
IDEA–04, with its requirements for full inclusion of children with disabilities in the
general curriculum and setting, is the latest development in an evolution in special education
services that began prior to the passage of P.L. 94–142 in 1975. This evolution has
altered thinking regarding the appropriateness of the special education service delivery
setting, eligibility criteria, and disability categories. We will describe this evolution next.
Service Delivery Setting
While P.L. 94–142 and IDEA required placement of children with disabilities in the least
restrictive educational environment, many children with disabilities were routinely placed
in educationally segregated resource or self-contained classrooms on the assumption that
they could not benefit from regular class instruction. This was especially true for students
who were viewed as more severely mentally, physically, emotionally, and behaviorally
Loading page 14...
challenged. The common wisdom for decades was that it was not only in the best
interests of such severely challenged children to be in segregated classrooms, but that this
was also essential to protect the regular educational process from disruption due to the
presence of such challenged students.
The traditional special education “pull-out” system, in which the special learner is
taught in a self-contained classroom for at least part of the day, has been criticized as
discriminatory, ineffective, and inefficient (Davis, 1989). Indeed, the National Council on
Disability (1989) clarified that the intent of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (P.L. 94–142) never was to segregate children with disabilities, even those with
multiple or severe disabilities.
Legal decisions in the 1990s increasingly required the inclusion of children with
disabilities in the regular education classroom. A 1993 decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals found that a New Jersey school district failed to make a reasonable effort to meet
a student’s special learning needs when it excluded him from the regular classroom
(Viadero, 1993). In the early 1990s, special education leaders and policy makers also
advocated for greater inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular classroom
(Cannon, Idol, West, 1992; Conte, 1994; Hale & Carlson, 1992). Nevertheless, not
everyone believed that full inclusion is in the best interests of special and regular education
students. This may have been especially true for more experienced teachers (Coker &
Griffith, 1994). In the end, the prevailing view was that the regular classroom teacher
should expect to increasingly collaborate and cooperate with the special educator in both
teaching and assessing the special learner’s academic, physical and behavioral progress
(Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Cannon et al., 1992; Friend & Cook, 1992).
interests of such severely challenged children to be in segregated classrooms, but that this
was also essential to protect the regular educational process from disruption due to the
presence of such challenged students.
The traditional special education “pull-out” system, in which the special learner is
taught in a self-contained classroom for at least part of the day, has been criticized as
discriminatory, ineffective, and inefficient (Davis, 1989). Indeed, the National Council on
Disability (1989) clarified that the intent of the Education for All Handicapped Children
Act (P.L. 94–142) never was to segregate children with disabilities, even those with
multiple or severe disabilities.
Legal decisions in the 1990s increasingly required the inclusion of children with
disabilities in the regular education classroom. A 1993 decision by the U.S. Court of
Appeals found that a New Jersey school district failed to make a reasonable effort to meet
a student’s special learning needs when it excluded him from the regular classroom
(Viadero, 1993). In the early 1990s, special education leaders and policy makers also
advocated for greater inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular classroom
(Cannon, Idol, West, 1992; Conte, 1994; Hale & Carlson, 1992). Nevertheless, not
everyone believed that full inclusion is in the best interests of special and regular education
students. This may have been especially true for more experienced teachers (Coker &
Griffith, 1994). In the end, the prevailing view was that the regular classroom teacher
should expect to increasingly collaborate and cooperate with the special educator in both
teaching and assessing the special learner’s academic, physical and behavioral progress
(Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Cannon et al., 1992; Friend & Cook, 1992).
Loading page 15...
This view prevailed, in part, because of an accumulating body of research attesting
to the beneficial effects of inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroom
and curriculum. Reviews of research in the 1980s and early 1990s (Halvorsen & Sailor,
1990; Stainback & Stainback, 1992) documented improved educational and social
outcomes for children with disabilities, even those who were severely challenged, who
were in integrated placements (i.e., placements that included contact with regular education
students and curriculum as well as special education services) as compared to peers
in segregated placements (i.e., self-contained special education only). These reviews led
Sailor, Gee and Karasoff (1993) to conclude, “The body of research literature is sufficient
to demonstrate that educators need no longer spend energy and resources debating the
issue of whether or not to integrate or include students with severe disabilities in the
learning environments of their non-disabled peers but can concentrate instead on how
best to do it” (p. 2).
These findings led many special and regular educators to accept and adopt “full
inclusion” as a goal for all children with disabilities. The passage of IDEA–97 codified
and formalized this consensus, and IDEA–04 reinforces it. Sailor et al. (1993) identified
the following key elements of full inclusion for children with disabilities:
• Full general education class membership.
• Full perception of “ownership” from both special and general education.
• Individual outcomes-based decision making.
• Student-based services with team curriculum design.
• Site-team coordination of services and educational support.
Yet, even before full inclusion came to be as accepted as it is today, it was clear
to the beneficial effects of inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroom
and curriculum. Reviews of research in the 1980s and early 1990s (Halvorsen & Sailor,
1990; Stainback & Stainback, 1992) documented improved educational and social
outcomes for children with disabilities, even those who were severely challenged, who
were in integrated placements (i.e., placements that included contact with regular education
students and curriculum as well as special education services) as compared to peers
in segregated placements (i.e., self-contained special education only). These reviews led
Sailor, Gee and Karasoff (1993) to conclude, “The body of research literature is sufficient
to demonstrate that educators need no longer spend energy and resources debating the
issue of whether or not to integrate or include students with severe disabilities in the
learning environments of their non-disabled peers but can concentrate instead on how
best to do it” (p. 2).
These findings led many special and regular educators to accept and adopt “full
inclusion” as a goal for all children with disabilities. The passage of IDEA–97 codified
and formalized this consensus, and IDEA–04 reinforces it. Sailor et al. (1993) identified
the following key elements of full inclusion for children with disabilities:
• Full general education class membership.
• Full perception of “ownership” from both special and general education.
• Individual outcomes-based decision making.
• Student-based services with team curriculum design.
• Site-team coordination of services and educational support.
Yet, even before full inclusion came to be as accepted as it is today, it was clear
Loading page 16...
that, in keeping with the nonsegregatory intent of P.L. 94–142, the trend was already
toward increased mainstreaming of the challenged learner. For example, Fig. 20.1 illustrates
that as far back as the 1987–1988 school year approximately 75% of all students
with disabilities received their primary educational services in the regular classroom or in
a combination of the regular classroom with one or more periods in a resource room.
More than a decade later, an annual report to Congress on the implementation of
IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) indicated that 45% of students in the SLD
toward increased mainstreaming of the challenged learner. For example, Fig. 20.1 illustrates
that as far back as the 1987–1988 school year approximately 75% of all students
with disabilities received their primary educational services in the regular classroom or in
a combination of the regular classroom with one or more periods in a resource room.
More than a decade later, an annual report to Congress on the implementation of
IDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) indicated that 45% of students in the SLD
Loading page 17...
category spent less than 20% of their instructional time in special education. Thus, more
than 80% of the instruction for students with SLD was left to general education teachers.
Because reading is a primary emphasis of the elementary, and especially the primary
grades, these data indicate that there is no doubt that if you are an elementary school
teacher you will be responsible for the majority of instruction for students with SLDs and
especially SLDs in reading. Furthermore, because the performance of students with
disabilities must be reported separately to meet NCLB requirements, regular testing and
assessment of these students in the regular curriculum will be needed to ensure they are
making adequate progress.
Determining Eligibility for Services
Under EAH and IDEA a number of categories of disability existed that could qualify a
child to receive special education related services. However, students were unable to
qualify to receive services until their disabilities were demonstrably severe or serious.
By requiring that a child first be identified and labeled as a child with disabilities
before services could be provided, the old IDEA unintentionally impeded prevention and
early intervention activities. The result was that a child’s problems had to become chronic
or intensify to crisis proportions in many cases before assistance under IDEA could be
provided. By the time the problem escalated to this level only intense and expensive
interventions had any hope of resolving the problem—a costly, ineffective utilization of
limited resources.
One of the intentions of IDEA–97 was to encourage early identification and intervention
within the regular class environment, a process sometimes referred to as prereferral
than 80% of the instruction for students with SLD was left to general education teachers.
Because reading is a primary emphasis of the elementary, and especially the primary
grades, these data indicate that there is no doubt that if you are an elementary school
teacher you will be responsible for the majority of instruction for students with SLDs and
especially SLDs in reading. Furthermore, because the performance of students with
disabilities must be reported separately to meet NCLB requirements, regular testing and
assessment of these students in the regular curriculum will be needed to ensure they are
making adequate progress.
Determining Eligibility for Services
Under EAH and IDEA a number of categories of disability existed that could qualify a
child to receive special education related services. However, students were unable to
qualify to receive services until their disabilities were demonstrably severe or serious.
By requiring that a child first be identified and labeled as a child with disabilities
before services could be provided, the old IDEA unintentionally impeded prevention and
early intervention activities. The result was that a child’s problems had to become chronic
or intensify to crisis proportions in many cases before assistance under IDEA could be
provided. By the time the problem escalated to this level only intense and expensive
interventions had any hope of resolving the problem—a costly, ineffective utilization of
limited resources.
One of the intentions of IDEA–97 was to encourage early identification and intervention
within the regular class environment, a process sometimes referred to as prereferral
Loading page 18...
intervention (meaning before referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation).
IDEA–97 also allowed special education related services to be delivered, at the
discretion of state and local educational agencies, to children between the ages of 3 and 9
experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the state and as measured by appropriate
diagnostic instruments and procedures, in physical, cognitive, communication,
social or emotional, or adaptive development. By including developmental delays
Congress signaled its intent to break from the categorical service delivery requirements of
the old IDEA that discouraged early identification and intervention. IDEA–04 continues
to support these changes.
In practice, prior to the passage of IDEA–97 and IDEA–04 many districts and
related service providers developed mechanisms to deliver early identification and intervention
services to students with suspected disabilities before students were referred to
the costly special education eligibility process. Referred to by various names (e.g.,
pre-referral services, teacher or student assistance or study teams, intervention assistance
programs), these programs were intended to provide immediate service to teachers and
students in regular classrooms and to reduce the number of referrals to special education
(Ross, 1995). However, because there was no provision for such services to be funded
under the old IDEA, they instead were funded on a patchwork basis with funds from
local, site-based managed schools, districts, state and regional service centers, the Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and private foundations.
Learning Disability Determination:
Discrepancy or RTI?
IDEA–97 also allowed special education related services to be delivered, at the
discretion of state and local educational agencies, to children between the ages of 3 and 9
experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the state and as measured by appropriate
diagnostic instruments and procedures, in physical, cognitive, communication,
social or emotional, or adaptive development. By including developmental delays
Congress signaled its intent to break from the categorical service delivery requirements of
the old IDEA that discouraged early identification and intervention. IDEA–04 continues
to support these changes.
In practice, prior to the passage of IDEA–97 and IDEA–04 many districts and
related service providers developed mechanisms to deliver early identification and intervention
services to students with suspected disabilities before students were referred to
the costly special education eligibility process. Referred to by various names (e.g.,
pre-referral services, teacher or student assistance or study teams, intervention assistance
programs), these programs were intended to provide immediate service to teachers and
students in regular classrooms and to reduce the number of referrals to special education
(Ross, 1995). However, because there was no provision for such services to be funded
under the old IDEA, they instead were funded on a patchwork basis with funds from
local, site-based managed schools, districts, state and regional service centers, the Office
of Special Education Programs (OSEP), and private foundations.
Learning Disability Determination:
Discrepancy or RTI?
Loading page 19...
To stimulate even more early intervention within the regular classroom, and to address
difficulties with the existing method of eligibility determination, IDEA–04 implemented
an optional, controversial change in the way eligibility for special education services is to
be determined for the disability category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD), the most
common disability category. Since 1977, under EAH, IDEA, and IDEA–97 a severe
discrepancy between aptitude and achievement (see Chapter 18) was required for SLD
eligibility. Under IDEA–04, to determine SLD eligibility school districts have the option
of continuing to use the discrepancy model or using a response to instruction/intervention
(RTI) model, or some combination of the discrepancy model and the RTI model. Heated
debate has arisen between proponents of the RTI models and alternative models, and
readers interested in the complexities and nuances of the debate are referred to articles by
Fletcher and Reschly (2005) and Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, and Hale (2005). For our
purposes, we will simply say that the issues are complex, and the jury is still out in terms
of which approach is “better.” Nevertheless, it is important for regular education teachers
to have some familiarity with what discrepancy, RTI, and alternative approaches entail,
because regular education teachers will contribute to all methods of SLD determination.
The Discrepancy Model
Since 1977 eligibility for special education services as a
child with a SLD hinged on whether a severe discrepancy was found between a child’s
predicted achievement, as measured by an aptitude or IQ test, and a child’s actual
achievement, as measured by an achievement test. Under this model, an appropriately
trained psychologist had to perform an individual assessment, including at least an IQ and
difficulties with the existing method of eligibility determination, IDEA–04 implemented
an optional, controversial change in the way eligibility for special education services is to
be determined for the disability category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD), the most
common disability category. Since 1977, under EAH, IDEA, and IDEA–97 a severe
discrepancy between aptitude and achievement (see Chapter 18) was required for SLD
eligibility. Under IDEA–04, to determine SLD eligibility school districts have the option
of continuing to use the discrepancy model or using a response to instruction/intervention
(RTI) model, or some combination of the discrepancy model and the RTI model. Heated
debate has arisen between proponents of the RTI models and alternative models, and
readers interested in the complexities and nuances of the debate are referred to articles by
Fletcher and Reschly (2005) and Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, and Hale (2005). For our
purposes, we will simply say that the issues are complex, and the jury is still out in terms
of which approach is “better.” Nevertheless, it is important for regular education teachers
to have some familiarity with what discrepancy, RTI, and alternative approaches entail,
because regular education teachers will contribute to all methods of SLD determination.
The Discrepancy Model
Since 1977 eligibility for special education services as a
child with a SLD hinged on whether a severe discrepancy was found between a child’s
predicted achievement, as measured by an aptitude or IQ test, and a child’s actual
achievement, as measured by an achievement test. Under this model, an appropriately
trained psychologist had to perform an individual assessment, including at least an IQ and
Loading page 20...
an achievement test, to determine whether the child’s achievement was significantly
discrepant (i.e., whether there was a large enough gap between between predicted and
actual achievement that was not attributable to other factors, such as inconsistent
schooling). The actual size of the discrepancy necessary for SLD eligibility varied,
depending on state laws, from one to two standard deviations. Demonstrating this
discrepancy was the purview of school psychologists and other qualified professionals,
supported by assessment data provided by classroom teachers.
The discrepancy model has been criticized for a variety of reasons. These include
• It is a “wait to fail” model (e.g., if a child’s discrepancy was not large enough to
qualify as a learning disability in first grade, the gap would eventually widen if we
wait long enough and the child would then qualify in later years, after achievement
has suffered, perhaps irreparably).
• IQ–achievement discrepancies lack specificity in differentiating among low
achievers (i.e., poor achievement may result from linguistic, cultural, attendance,
motivation, teaching, emotional, or other factors than a learning disability).
• Different tests (IQ and achievement) yield different scores for the same student, so
evaluators may select combinations that are more or less likely to yield a discrepancy
(i.e., careful selection of IQ tests that “run high” and achievement tests than
“run low” will increase the likelihood of finding a significant discrepancy).
• Similar factors can depress both IQ and achievement scores and eliminate mathematical
discrepancies (e.g., poor vocabulary).
• The utilization of the discrepancy model has swelled SLD identification rates to 12%
to 15% of the general education population in some states, taxing budgets and
discrepant (i.e., whether there was a large enough gap between between predicted and
actual achievement that was not attributable to other factors, such as inconsistent
schooling). The actual size of the discrepancy necessary for SLD eligibility varied,
depending on state laws, from one to two standard deviations. Demonstrating this
discrepancy was the purview of school psychologists and other qualified professionals,
supported by assessment data provided by classroom teachers.
The discrepancy model has been criticized for a variety of reasons. These include
• It is a “wait to fail” model (e.g., if a child’s discrepancy was not large enough to
qualify as a learning disability in first grade, the gap would eventually widen if we
wait long enough and the child would then qualify in later years, after achievement
has suffered, perhaps irreparably).
• IQ–achievement discrepancies lack specificity in differentiating among low
achievers (i.e., poor achievement may result from linguistic, cultural, attendance,
motivation, teaching, emotional, or other factors than a learning disability).
• Different tests (IQ and achievement) yield different scores for the same student, so
evaluators may select combinations that are more or less likely to yield a discrepancy
(i.e., careful selection of IQ tests that “run high” and achievement tests than
“run low” will increase the likelihood of finding a significant discrepancy).
• Similar factors can depress both IQ and achievement scores and eliminate mathematical
discrepancies (e.g., poor vocabulary).
• The utilization of the discrepancy model has swelled SLD identification rates to 12%
to 15% of the general education population in some states, taxing budgets and
Loading page 21...
resources and generating an anti-special education backlash when general education
funds have been tapped to fund services for learning disabled students
• The identification process has been lengthy and expensive, with an evaluation and
report often requiring 6–8 hours or more of the psychologist’s time for each
referred child.
Response to Intervention/Instruction (RTI)
RTI is an acronym that stands for
response to intervention, or instruction in some circles, or resistance to intervention in
others. Regardless of the language used the key features of the RTI model for learning
disability determination are similar:
• Early identification of learning (especially reading) difficulty and early intervention
with evidence-based treatments (i.e., scientifically based). This is very similar to the
pre-referral intervention process that we discussed earlier.
• Monitoring/graphing of the child’s progress (using classroom curriculum-based
tests and norm-referenced instruments). These assessments will often be completed
by the regular classroom teacher.
• Intensive intervention with evidence-based programs when performance and rate of
progress lag the norm for grade and educational setting (i.e., compared to local
norms).
• If a strict RTI identification model is employed, failure to respond to the intensive
intervention would make a student eligible for special education as a child with
SLD.
funds have been tapped to fund services for learning disabled students
• The identification process has been lengthy and expensive, with an evaluation and
report often requiring 6–8 hours or more of the psychologist’s time for each
referred child.
Response to Intervention/Instruction (RTI)
RTI is an acronym that stands for
response to intervention, or instruction in some circles, or resistance to intervention in
others. Regardless of the language used the key features of the RTI model for learning
disability determination are similar:
• Early identification of learning (especially reading) difficulty and early intervention
with evidence-based treatments (i.e., scientifically based). This is very similar to the
pre-referral intervention process that we discussed earlier.
• Monitoring/graphing of the child’s progress (using classroom curriculum-based
tests and norm-referenced instruments). These assessments will often be completed
by the regular classroom teacher.
• Intensive intervention with evidence-based programs when performance and rate of
progress lag the norm for grade and educational setting (i.e., compared to local
norms).
• If a strict RTI identification model is employed, failure to respond to the intensive
intervention would make a student eligible for special education as a child with
SLD.
Loading page 22...
• If a combination RTI and other models is employed, referral for comprehensive
evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine special education eligibility
occurs if the child fails to respond to intensive intervention.
Referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation is often the first step
when SLD is suspected under the discrepancy model. The comprehensive evaluation will
be eliminated completely (under strict RTI models) or will become the last step if a
combination RTI and alternative models is adopted for SLD identification.
The RTI model has also been criticized for a number of reasons. Some of these
follow:
• Development of RTI models is uneven with some states (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota)
ready for broad implementation but with others in need of intensive technical
training and support.
• Local norms for curriculum-linked assessments will need to be developed and it is
unclear who will be responsible for this.
• There is disagreement about what constitutes scientific, evidence-based
interventions.
• Methods and procedures for wide-scale data collection, graphing (necessary to
show progress), analysis, and management await development.
• Special education eligibility for the gifted learning disabled child (i.e., the child
with an above average IQ whose achievement is only average) will be eliminated.
What would a switch to the RTI model have to do with general education teachers?
Plenty. Under the new language, the primary criterion for learning disability determination
can be whether a child is resistant to scientifically based instruction. Guess who will
evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine special education eligibility
occurs if the child fails to respond to intensive intervention.
Referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation is often the first step
when SLD is suspected under the discrepancy model. The comprehensive evaluation will
be eliminated completely (under strict RTI models) or will become the last step if a
combination RTI and alternative models is adopted for SLD identification.
The RTI model has also been criticized for a number of reasons. Some of these
follow:
• Development of RTI models is uneven with some states (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota)
ready for broad implementation but with others in need of intensive technical
training and support.
• Local norms for curriculum-linked assessments will need to be developed and it is
unclear who will be responsible for this.
• There is disagreement about what constitutes scientific, evidence-based
interventions.
• Methods and procedures for wide-scale data collection, graphing (necessary to
show progress), analysis, and management await development.
• Special education eligibility for the gifted learning disabled child (i.e., the child
with an above average IQ whose achievement is only average) will be eliminated.
What would a switch to the RTI model have to do with general education teachers?
Plenty. Under the new language, the primary criterion for learning disability determination
can be whether a child is resistant to scientifically based instruction. Guess who will
Loading page 23...
be providing the brunt of this instruction? Yes, general education teachers. General education
teachers, likely in consultation with the school psychologist, special education
teacher, and other school staff, will now have to (a) document that the child is falling
behind age or grade norms, using appropriate assessment tools, (b) implement evidencebased,
scientifically validated interventions, and (c) track the child’s progress after the
interventions have been implemented, and (d) if the child fails to catch up, only then can
a referral for a special education evaluation be made.
Sound like more work? Yes, it does. Fortunately, your work in this course has
prepared you well to develop and administer the formal and informal tests and assessment
that will be necessary to document deficits and then evaluate outcomes on an ongoing
basis. At this point, with final IDEA–04 federal regulations still unavailable, we cannot
say whether the RTI approach or an alternative approach will dominate SLD determination.
In any case, at least you now have some background that will inform your input into
any discussions that may emerge in your district or campus.
We have described a number of important changes initiated by both IDEA–97 and
IDEA–04. The overall effect of these changes is clear. Whereas P.L. 94–142 and IDEA
were focused on categorical procedure, identification, and eligibility, the intent of
IDEA–97 and IDEA–04 is to support early identification and intervention, integrated
best practices, and assessment of educational outcomes, all toward improved educational
outcomes for children with disabilities and developmental delays.
Disability Categories to Developmental Delays
Over the past few decades challenged students have been classified and defined in a
teachers, likely in consultation with the school psychologist, special education
teacher, and other school staff, will now have to (a) document that the child is falling
behind age or grade norms, using appropriate assessment tools, (b) implement evidencebased,
scientifically validated interventions, and (c) track the child’s progress after the
interventions have been implemented, and (d) if the child fails to catch up, only then can
a referral for a special education evaluation be made.
Sound like more work? Yes, it does. Fortunately, your work in this course has
prepared you well to develop and administer the formal and informal tests and assessment
that will be necessary to document deficits and then evaluate outcomes on an ongoing
basis. At this point, with final IDEA–04 federal regulations still unavailable, we cannot
say whether the RTI approach or an alternative approach will dominate SLD determination.
In any case, at least you now have some background that will inform your input into
any discussions that may emerge in your district or campus.
We have described a number of important changes initiated by both IDEA–97 and
IDEA–04. The overall effect of these changes is clear. Whereas P.L. 94–142 and IDEA
were focused on categorical procedure, identification, and eligibility, the intent of
IDEA–97 and IDEA–04 is to support early identification and intervention, integrated
best practices, and assessment of educational outcomes, all toward improved educational
outcomes for children with disabilities and developmental delays.
Disability Categories to Developmental Delays
Over the past few decades challenged students have been classified and defined in a
Loading page 24...
number of ways. New definitions of challenging conditions will continue to evolve as
more and more becomes known about this subgroup of schoolchildren. A number of categories
of challenging conditions have been identified under IDEA. These categories
usually include children with physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments,
mental retardation, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, communication
disorders, autism, other health impaired and multiple disabilities, which are described in
Fig. 20.2.
IDEA–04 continues these disability categories and the expanded special education
services eligibility to children with developmental delays initiated by IDEA–97. At state
and local district discretion, special education funds may now be used to provide services
to children between the ages of 3 and 9 who experience state-defined developmental delays
in five areas: physical, cognitive, communication, social and emotional, and adaptive
development. States have been given considerable latitude in defining developmental
delays. IDEA–04 only requires that the presence of a developmental delay be identified
through the use of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures. Figure 20.3 identifies
the new categories of developmental delay.
The purpose of the disability and developmental delay categories is not to label
or stigmatize the child who needs help but may not be eligible for special education,
but to identify learners in need of assistance. That is, these categories enable a shorthand
way of communicating about those learners whose physical, emotional, and/or
cognitive functions are already, or are at risk for becoming, so impaired from any
cause that the individuals cannot be adequately or safely educated without the provision
of special services. While these special services are the direct responsibility of the
more and more becomes known about this subgroup of schoolchildren. A number of categories
of challenging conditions have been identified under IDEA. These categories
usually include children with physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments,
mental retardation, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, communication
disorders, autism, other health impaired and multiple disabilities, which are described in
Fig. 20.2.
IDEA–04 continues these disability categories and the expanded special education
services eligibility to children with developmental delays initiated by IDEA–97. At state
and local district discretion, special education funds may now be used to provide services
to children between the ages of 3 and 9 who experience state-defined developmental delays
in five areas: physical, cognitive, communication, social and emotional, and adaptive
development. States have been given considerable latitude in defining developmental
delays. IDEA–04 only requires that the presence of a developmental delay be identified
through the use of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures. Figure 20.3 identifies
the new categories of developmental delay.
The purpose of the disability and developmental delay categories is not to label
or stigmatize the child who needs help but may not be eligible for special education,
but to identify learners in need of assistance. That is, these categories enable a shorthand
way of communicating about those learners whose physical, emotional, and/or
cognitive functions are already, or are at risk for becoming, so impaired from any
cause that the individuals cannot be adequately or safely educated without the provision
of special services. While these special services are the direct responsibility of the
Loading page 25...
special education program within a school, under IDEA–04 the regular classroom
teacher is expected to play an important, integrated role in both the provision and
evaluation of services delivered to students with developmental delays as well as
students with disabilities.
teacher is expected to play an important, integrated role in both the provision and
evaluation of services delivered to students with developmental delays as well as
students with disabilities.
Loading page 26...
IDEA–04 AND THE CLASSROOM TEACHER
The acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of data pertaining to the performance of children
with disabilities in the regular classroom and general curriculum will be an important
The acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of data pertaining to the performance of children
with disabilities in the regular classroom and general curriculum will be an important
Loading page 27...
function of the regular classroom teacher under IDEA–04. This may involve the use of a
range of tests and assessments, including performance assessments and portfolios, checklists,
structured observations, rating scales, and both teacher-made and standardized tests.
Physical Disabilities Students whose body functions or members are impaired by
congenital anomaly and diseases, or students with limited
strength, vitality, or alertness owing to chronic or acute
health problems
Hearing Impaired Students who are hearing impaired (hard of hearing) or deaf.
Visually Impaired Students who, after medical treatment and use of optical
aids, remain legally blind or otherwise exhibit loss of critical
sight functions.
Mental retardation Students with significantly subaverage general intellectual
functioning existing concurrent with deficiencies in adaptive
behavior. Severity of retardation is sometimes indicated with the terms mild, moderate, severe,
or profound.
Testing or the Assessment Process?
Do you recall the distinction we made between testing and the assessment process in
range of tests and assessments, including performance assessments and portfolios, checklists,
structured observations, rating scales, and both teacher-made and standardized tests.
Physical Disabilities Students whose body functions or members are impaired by
congenital anomaly and diseases, or students with limited
strength, vitality, or alertness owing to chronic or acute
health problems
Hearing Impaired Students who are hearing impaired (hard of hearing) or deaf.
Visually Impaired Students who, after medical treatment and use of optical
aids, remain legally blind or otherwise exhibit loss of critical
sight functions.
Mental retardation Students with significantly subaverage general intellectual
functioning existing concurrent with deficiencies in adaptive
behavior. Severity of retardation is sometimes indicated with the terms mild, moderate, severe,
or profound.
Testing or the Assessment Process?
Do you recall the distinction we made between testing and the assessment process in
Loading page 28...
Chapter 1? We stated, “If important educational decisions are to be made, critically evaluated
test results should be combined with results from a variety of other measurement
procedures (e.g., performance and portfolio assessments, observations, checklists, rating
scales—all covered later in the text), as appropriate, and integrated with relevant background
and contextual information (e.g., reading level, language proficiency, cultural
considerations—also covered later in the text), to ensure that the educational decisions
are appropriate.”
Educational decisions about children with disabilities certainly are important. They
can have significant impact on the special learner’s current and future life and have
implications for school staff, related service providers, and always limited resources.
Furthermore, parents and advocates for both children with disabilities and schools may
monitor these decisions very closely, and may challenge decisions made and the data on
which such decisions may be based. Obviously, the classroom teacher, and all others
involved in the testing and assessment of children with disabilities, would be well
advised to employ sound measurement practice in selecting, administering, scoring, and
interpreting test results, and in incorporating these results into the assessment process.
Note that only some of the data we referred to in distinguishing between testing
and the assessment process come from formal tests (i.e., teacher-made or standardized).
This is intentional. Remember, because tests are fallible, many and varied forms of data
should be collected to obtain as diverse and accurate a picture of the child’s performance
as is possible. Thus the classroom teacher’s role in the identification and evaluation
process should not be construed as only “testing,” but more broadly as “contributing to
the assessment process.”
test results should be combined with results from a variety of other measurement
procedures (e.g., performance and portfolio assessments, observations, checklists, rating
scales—all covered later in the text), as appropriate, and integrated with relevant background
and contextual information (e.g., reading level, language proficiency, cultural
considerations—also covered later in the text), to ensure that the educational decisions
are appropriate.”
Educational decisions about children with disabilities certainly are important. They
can have significant impact on the special learner’s current and future life and have
implications for school staff, related service providers, and always limited resources.
Furthermore, parents and advocates for both children with disabilities and schools may
monitor these decisions very closely, and may challenge decisions made and the data on
which such decisions may be based. Obviously, the classroom teacher, and all others
involved in the testing and assessment of children with disabilities, would be well
advised to employ sound measurement practice in selecting, administering, scoring, and
interpreting test results, and in incorporating these results into the assessment process.
Note that only some of the data we referred to in distinguishing between testing
and the assessment process come from formal tests (i.e., teacher-made or standardized).
This is intentional. Remember, because tests are fallible, many and varied forms of data
should be collected to obtain as diverse and accurate a picture of the child’s performance
as is possible. Thus the classroom teacher’s role in the identification and evaluation
process should not be construed as only “testing,” but more broadly as “contributing to
the assessment process.”
Loading page 29...
Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1990) have organized the many levels at which regular
classroom teachers can be involved in the assessment process into a flowchart, shown in
Fig. 20.4. Although predating the passage of IDEA–04, this flowchart remains relevant
today. Figure 20.4 shows many of the functions that Mr. Past will need to “get up to speed
on” if he is to truly contribute to the education of children with disabilities, as teachers
are now required to do under IDEA–04. This flowchart illustrates how the testing and
assessment skills of regular education teachers are instrumental in every step of the
special education identification, instruction, and evaluation process. Clearly, with the
Developmental delays must be defined by the state and measured by appropriate
diagnostic instruments in the following areas:
Physical development
Cognitive development
Communication development
Social or emotional development
Adaptive development
passage of IDEA–04, the involvement of the regular education teacher with testing and
assessment of children with disabilities can only increase.
classroom teachers can be involved in the assessment process into a flowchart, shown in
Fig. 20.4. Although predating the passage of IDEA–04, this flowchart remains relevant
today. Figure 20.4 shows many of the functions that Mr. Past will need to “get up to speed
on” if he is to truly contribute to the education of children with disabilities, as teachers
are now required to do under IDEA–04. This flowchart illustrates how the testing and
assessment skills of regular education teachers are instrumental in every step of the
special education identification, instruction, and evaluation process. Clearly, with the
Developmental delays must be defined by the state and measured by appropriate
diagnostic instruments in the following areas:
Physical development
Cognitive development
Communication development
Social or emotional development
Adaptive development
passage of IDEA–04, the involvement of the regular education teacher with testing and
assessment of children with disabilities can only increase.
Loading page 30...
Loading page 31...
30 more pages available. Scroll down to load them.
Preview Mode
Sign in to access the full document!
100%
Study Now!
XY-Copilot AI
Unlimited Access
Secure Payment
Instant Access
24/7 Support
AI Assistant
Document Details
Subject
Finance