The current emphasis on data-based decision-making ties discussions of accountability, school improvement and educational reform to the notion that gathering and using evidence addresses questions of rigor in our schools and classrooms. The purpose of this research was to survey secondary (middle and high school) general educators (n = 126) to determine which assessments and tools they used most frequently and the types of classroom and student-specific instructional decisions they made from those assessments, particularly for students with disabilities. In addition, comparisons were made to determine if responses differed for general educators engaged in co-teaching. Results indicated that assessments used most frequently were teacher-created tests, entrance/exit slips and questioning techniques. Teachers reported using those assessments and tools for checking for understanding and verifying whether students were retaining the material. Further, those who engaged in co-teaching reported feeling more effective in using data to design and individualize instruction and make adaptations for students with disabilities.

Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD) consistently lag behind their peers academically and behaviorally, are likely to be excluded from school, drop out more frequently, and face higher incarceration rates and a host of other negative outcomes as adults. Federal policy has played a key role in (a) ensuring that students with disabilities are included in schools, (b) requiring schools to meet the unique needs of learners, and (c) providing funding to support the development and implementation of evidence-based practices. Our purpose in this article is to examine the progress and challenges related to the development of federal policy supports for students with EBD, and to offer recommendations to help guide the future development of policy. Specifically, we (a) recognize the important developments of the last 30 years in policy protections and funding for students with EBD, (b) identify current challenges and emerging opportunities in several areas related to the identification and support of students with EBD, and (c) offer policy recommendations related to strengthening the use of the functional assessment and personnel capacity development.

Department of Education released the Regulations implementing IDEIA.Because of the crucial importance of the IDEIA to students with disabilities, school personnel have to be aware of the changes and challenges that these amendments pose to educators.In this article we will summarize these changes and challenges.First we briefly review the reauthorization process.Next we consider the influential effect that No Child Left Behind and two major reports had on Congress when it reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.Third, we discuss major changes to the law.We conclude with an examination of how the law will directly affect special educators, administrators, and teacher trainers.As we address these topics, we caution the reader that (a) courts will clarify many of the provisions, and (b) states will have to change their special education regulations to align with IDEIA.To understand and implement IDEIA appropriately, teachers and administrators will have to monitor these due process hearings, court cases, and state law, regulations, and guidelines.

This study explored the effects of a web-based decision support system ( Tutorial) for writing standards-based Individualized Education Programs (IEPs). A total of 35 teachers and 154 students participated across two academic years. Participants were assigned to one of three intervention groups based on level of Tutorial access: Full, Partial, or Comparison. Direct effects of the intervention on procedural and substantive elements of IEPs revealed that, although all groups had initial IEPs of similar quality, the Full Intervention group’s post- Tutorial IEPs had a significantly higher proportion of substantive items rated as adequate than did the IEPs of other groups. The intervention’s indirect effects were examined using student scores on the State Reading Assessment. The Full Intervention group demonstrated a higher rate of reading score gain than the other two groups during the academic year in which the IEP prepared with access to the Tutorial was implemented. Implications for educational practices and future research directions are discussed.

Statewide assessment activities and efforts surrounding Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) have become increasingly intertwined over time, especially during the past decade during which the use of assessments for accountability has dramatically increased. This chapter addresses this intertwining by describing the value of the contributions of CBM to assessments related to Individualized Education Programs (IEPs); state regular grade-level and alternate assessments; accommodations and modifications; and new accountability provisions for growth models.

A multiple-probe across-subjects design was used to examine persuasive writing performance of six 2nd- through 5th- grade students with emotional/behavior disorders (EBD). Students’ writing was evaluated before and after self-regulated strategy development (SRSD) instruction for the POW (Pick my idea, Organize my notes, Write and say more) + TREE (Topic sentence, Reasons – three or more, Ending, Examine) strategy. Students’ essays written during and immediately after instruction indicated that the students had learned to write independently a persuasive essay with five parts. Generalization and maintenance performance, however, varied across students and appeared to be associated with behavior as opposed to the inability to transfer or remember the strategy.

Including students with disabilities in the new standards and accountability systems is one of the key challenges facing school districts around the nation. In this article, the authors first address the evolving assessment and accommodations requirements of both the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA), with specific emphasis on the interrelationships between education curriculum standards, participation options, and accommodation decisions. Second, using findings from earlier studies, they discuss the decision-making practices of school personnel with regard to participation and accommodations practices for students with high-incidence disabilities who participate in state assessments with or without accommodations. Finally, they suggest areas for future research, including those that may arise with the emergence of alternate assessments based upon modified achievement standards and from the increased monitoring of accommodation decisions under both NCLB and IDEIA.

The individualized education program (IEP) is both an important process and a document in decision-making concerning students' participation and accommodation in assessment. In this intervention study, training was found to increase the quality and extent of participation and accommodation documentation on the IEP. Correlations between what was documented on the IEP and what happened on the day of testing were highly variable. Although students' IEPs appeared to reflect individualized decisions, political and logistical factors limited the utility of the IEP and interfered with its actual implementation.

Federal requirements for the inclusion of students with disabilities in state and district assessments have created a need for increased attention to the processes used by local district personnel for participation and accommodation decisions. This article reports findings of an investigation of the views of teachers, administrators, and assessment personnel about issues stemming from the participation of students with disabilities in large-scale assessments. Participants responded to surveys and interview questions as part of a program of in service training and consultation on assessment decisions. Findings suggest that local personnel are giving increasingly careful consideration to: (a) appropriateness of curriculum choices, (b) assessment option(s) that best match instructional choices, and (c) responsible use of accommodations for instruction and assessment. Participants saw increased opportunities for meaningful assessment and potential challenges in managing the logistics and consequences of participation and accommodation decisions. Results are discussed with implications for educational diagnosticians and assessment personnel in future decision-making roles.

Over a decade ago, Algozzine, Christenson and Ysseldyke (1982) presented data that indicated a very high percentage of referred students were determined eligible for special education. Assessment and decision making practices have changed significantly over the past 10 years. For example, there is a greater reliance on pre-referral practices, problem solving and curriculum-based assessment. In this paper we examine the extent to which there have been changes in the number of referred students assessed, and the number of assessed students declared eligible and served. Rates were consistent with earlier results: 90 to 92% of referred students were tested and 70 to 74% of tested students were declared eligible. Implications for practice, alternative explanations and future directions for research are provided.

The purpose of this article is to examine three major legal and policy developments that will have a profound effect on the education of students with emotional and behavioral disorders. The two legal issues are least restrictive environment and students with emotional and behavioral disorders and disciplining students who present a danger to staff and students. In the policy realm we will explicate recent developments regarding the inclusion of students with disabilities in accountability systems. Implications of these developments are discussed in terms of impact on special education. Language: en

Click to increase image sizeClick to decrease image size Additional informationNotes on contributorsJames G. Shriner Mitchell L. Yell is an assistant professor of Special Education at the University of South Carolina in Columbia, South Carolina. James G. Shriner is an assistant professor in the Department of Foundations and Special Education at Clemson University in Clemson, South Carolina.