Search results

A fully integrated and responsive instructional management system, based upon a continuing analysis of data, is necessary if the “whole is to be greater than the sum of its parts”. This outcome‐based system (in this case for the management of mathematics instruction) consists of: (1) An empirically validated curriculum for mathematics instruction, pre‐school through algebra (quadratic equations); (2) Individual assessment and criterion referenced evaluation instruments (pre‐test, post‐test, placement, cumulative review tests) for all 231 clusters of skills and mathematical concepts, that have been established for validity, reliability, item discrimination and efficiency; (3) A hierarchy of mathematical objectives that graphically displays all skills and concepts and describes the dependency and prerequisite relationships found among the objectives; (4) Computer management software that: maintains an individual history for each student in the programme; identifies objectives in greatest demand; identifies each student′s changing eligibility; matches and optimises individual eligibilities with programme options; monitors each student and signals anomalies if and when an individual student exceeds a historically generated norm.

Federal and state laws exert an important influence on the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The most important of these laws is the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. States and school districts must adhere to the requirements of IDEA when educating students with disabilities in special education programs. In addition to IDEA, other federal and state laws also affect special education programs for students with EBD. Two other important areas are laws that address (a) supervisory responsibilities of teachers of students with emotional and behavioral disorders and (b) issues of bullying in schools. The purpose of this chapter is to provide an overview of Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, and to examine the ways that this and other important laws affect the education of students with EBD and their teachers.

This chapter describes possible effects of the 2017 Endrew F. Supreme Court decision that raised the de minimus standard established in 1982 in Board of Education of the Hendrick Hudson School District v. Rowley. In Rowley, the court held school districts provided an appropriate education to students with disabilities by demonstrating that students' Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) are reasonably calculated to provide some educational benefit. In contrast, the Endrew F. decision requires IEPs to be reasonably calculated to provide progress that is appropriately ambitious in light of the child's circumstances. The implications of Endrew F. in the IEP process are delineated, including the importance of meaningful parent involvement; relevant and current statements of present levels of performance; challenging; ambitious and measurable goals; and frequent, systematic progress monitoring used to inform effective instructional changes that maximize student progress toward IEP goals. Finally, the authors discuss ways that Endrew F. may affect future litigation and that school districts may prepare to avoid possible litigation in the post-Endrew era.

The National Information Center for Children and Youths with Disabilities (NICHCY, 1999) listed five purposes of assessment: (1) screening; (2) evaluation; (3) eligibility and diagnosis; (4) IEP development; and (5) instructional planning. Screening is concerned with identifying students who are suspected of having a disability. In the area of LD, assessors would be evaluating children who are exhibiting learning difficulties or delays in acquiring academic skills. Data from the screening would point out the degree to which these students with suspected LD are approximating average academic growth patterns. Students with extremely deficient skills would be recommended for a full evaluation. This evaluation would delineate the student’s strengths and weaknesses, and overall academic progress across the curriculum. Evaluation would encompass three areas, namely, pre-academic, academic, and learning style assessment. Pre-academic assessment provides information related to a student’s status on prerequisite behaviors (e.g. attention to task) that need to be acquired before instruction in an academic domain (e.g. math) occurs. Academic assessment allows educators to: pinpoint deficit academic readiness skills; describe a student’s overall skill performance level; identify academic skills necessary for learning a domain area; and delineate the steps of a learning task a student has mastered. Learning style assessment involves the identification of a student’s individual learning pattern that she has acquired based on her learning and behavior assets and weaknesses (e.g. active vs. passive learner, auditory vs. visual learner).

Assessment is at the core of high-quality education. When educators purposefully engage in assessment, the learning experiences and outcomes of all students, especially of students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), are improved. In this chapter, we discuss assessment as unfolding within a framework that includes purposes, processes, and tools of assessment existing in the educational context. We open the chapter with an explanation of this framework. Then, in Part 1, we review the construct of SLD and detail how assessment is used within prominent approaches to diagnosis. In Part 2, we discuss how assessment is used to inform instruction before and after diagnosis. We ground our discussion in a vignette that follows Tess, a student who, at the beginning of third grade, has undiagnosed SLD in the area of reading. We show how educators at Tess's school collaborate in the purposeful use of assessment to inform instruction before and after Tess's diagnosis of SLD, highlighting traditional and innovative assessment techniques along the way.

This chapter discusses the SETT Framework – an acronym for Student, Environments, Tasks and Tools – a decision-making tool originally designed to help collaborative teams gather and organise information that can be used to guide decisions about assistive technology (AT) devices and services that foster the educational success of students with disabilities (Zabala, 1995). Explanations and examples are provided both related to the original intent of the framework and how the principles of the SETT Framework have expanded to include not only AT but also other educational services, noneducational environments and other beneficiaries. This commentary is organised around key questions designed to foster rich conversations around the use the SETT Framework in all phases of AT service delivery to support the development of inclusive learning environments and to consider supports and services needed for staff, families and other supporters of students.

Purpose – To present the Assessment to Instructional Planning (ATIP) framework that uses assessment to guide instructional planning.

Design/methodology/approach – The ATIP framework is comprised of three interconnected processes: data collection, data analysis and interpretation, and instructional planning.

Findings – In the ATIP framework, data collection includes reviewing background information and developing and implementing an assessment plan. The data analysis and interpretation process begins with scoring assessments and progresses to contextualizing results and making decisions. Instructional planning moves from setting goals to selecting instructional methods and materials, implementing instructional checkpoints, and monitoring and adjusting instruction.

Research limitations/implications – The ATIP framework provides a step-by-step process that educators can follow to use assessment to plan instruction. ATIP requires that educators already have knowledge of literacy assessment and instruction to apply the Framework appropriately.

Practical implications – The ATIP framework can be applied for students in grades K-8 in clinical settings, school-based intervention programs, and elementary and middle school classrooms.

Originality/value – This chapter provides three profiles to illustrate the ATIP framework in clinical, small-group intervention, and classroom settings with different levels of readers with varying strengths, needs, and backgrounds.

The transition services requirement was added to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 1990. Congress included this mandate in the IDEA to ensure that students with disabilities would be prepared for post-school life. The mandate charges school district personnel with planning and implementing transition services as part of special education programming provided to all eligible students with disabilities when they reach age 16 or earlier if required by state law. The purpose of this chapter is to review the legal requirements regarding transition services and the delivery of transition programming to students with disabilities.

Progress monitoring and data-based intervention are unique special education developments stemming from efforts to find an effective alternative to diagnostic/prescriptive instruction. Springing from research on Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM) in the late 1970s and early 1980s at the Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, the approach has generated a large body of empirical research and development. While the original work demonstrated that teachers could be more effective using progress monitoring in data-based intervention, most research and development activity has focused on development and extensions of the CBM model with less attention to data-based intervention. While research on progress monitoring has occurred at a high rate, widespread implementation of progress monitoring has been spurred by both federal funding and commercial development. As might be expected, all of this activity has resulted in a large set of successes and disappointments that are described here. For better or worse, as progress monitoring and data-based intervention have been incorporated into Response to Intervention (RTI) models it seems likely that the future of progress monitoring and data-based intervention is tied to the future of RTI. The question is whether this linking will result in adding to the set of successes or to that of disappointments for this unique special education innovation.

For undergraduate students completing their senior seminar research, there is value in conceiving their study as a project. Research that is project-driven allows students to design the depth of their study with the target goal of degree completion and graduation. Fittingly, this chapter provides students with an applicable project performance strategy that works across academic disciplines and in tandem with the scientific research methodology. Along these lines, this work “connects the dots” between project performance and the student researcher’s capacity for investigative achievement. This notion of performance achievement capacity is referred to as research project performativity.

Accordingly, a blueprint for research project performativity is presented to show students a path to senior seminar success. To conclude, this chapter provides 10 useful tips to boost undergraduate student’s chances for surviving the experience of a senior seminar research.