Search

As is often the case with crises, the pandemic meant both an educational catastrophe but also an opportunity for transformation. The health and social emergencies, with their serious effects on students and their families (España, 2022; MINEDUC, 2020), prompted the search for new answers to tackle challenges that were not possible to address with existing tools. In Chile, socio-emotional learning was one area in which this duality, typical of crises, was shown: Students' socio-emotional well-being was especially hit (Ponce, Bellei & Viedma, 2020) at the same time that a new evaluation system, the Comprehensive Learning Diagnosis (DIA), was developed, making it possible for school communities to get timely evidence and act on it (Agencia de Calidad, 2022). Given its wide acceptance, this system, which also considers an academic component, seems likely to stay in Chilean education, leading to adjustments to the pre-existing national assessment system with its focus on cognitive skills and highstakes accountability for schools. In this case study, the authors will describe the DIA, starting with the context of the crisis in which it emerged, followed by its characteristics and preliminary results. They conclude with lessons learned to build a new formative assessment system and reshape--based on criterions of collaboration, trust and capacity building--the vertical relationship among the different levels of the educational system previously existing in Chile.

The Early Assessment Program (EAP) has emerged as a national model for states seeking to design policies that increase the number of students who leave high school ready for college and careers. In addition, the two national consortia designing new assessments aligned to the Common Core State Standards have recognized the EAP as a model for the design of new high school assessments, which California will implement in 2014-15. The report was written by Hilary McLean of Capitol Impact, LLC. The report describes the key features of the EAP, with a particular focus on the ways in which the program can help to strengthen coherence and alignment in California's fragmented educational system. The report reviews the available research on the EAP and its impact on student access and success in post-secondary education, and identifies ways in which the program could be modified to increase its value to California students and educators. Statement Signed By California Diploma Project Signatories is appended. (Contains 2 figures.)

This study describes a well-defined data-driven diagnostic identification and selection procedure for choosing students at-risk of academic failure for appropriate academic support services. This algorithmic procedure has been validated both by historical quantitative studies of student precedents and outcomes as well as by current qualitative comparisons with existing school procedures and efforts to accomplish the same goal through committee work and recommendations. Results indicate it is both possible and feasible using readily available school student information system data to identify who appears to be at substantial academic risk, what some of those risks are, and who appears likely to benefit from specific academic support service interventions. (Contains 6 figures and 7 footnotes.)

The following is a discussion on student level of academic achievement, specifically that of African American learners. The misdiagnosis of Black students having learning disabilities and other disabilities will be examined, and the factors as to why this misdiagnosis occurs so often. Research will be provided as evidence to support this claim, as well as alternate methods of assessing and assisting African American students, especially those who are from poverty-stricken families, as research shows they are most affected by the inaccuracies of the diagnosis of learning impairments.

Now that all 50 states and the District of Columbia are building statewide longitudinal data systems, the next step is to ensure that the information in these systems is used to improve student learning. The Data Quality Campaign (DQC) has identified 10 actions that states can take to ensure that the right data are available and accessible and that users have the knowledge and skills to use the data well (see "10 State Actions To Ensure Effective Data Use," page 2). This paper discusses reports that states can create using longitudinal data. These reports include, but are not limited to: (1) Growth reports looking at changes in the achievement of the same students over time; (2) Diagnostic reports providing academic histories of students' mastery of specific concepts or skills; (3) Early warning reports identifying students who need immediate help based on at-risk indicators; (4) Predictive reports showing the relationship between earlier and later student outcomes--for example, the relationship between 8th grade test scores and students' readiness for college and careers in 12th grade; (5) Cohort graduation reports showing graduation rates of groups of the same students followed since the beginning of 9th grade; and (6) Feedback reports providing information on outcomes for students after they graduate from a school or district. (Contains 3 tables, 10 figures, 16 resources and 20 endnotes.)

Sharing assessment data in schools typically takes the form of a short meeting to report results and give recommendations to school staff and parents. Such meetings are often dominated by a one-way flow of communication; i.e., from the clinician to the child's caregivers. Drawing on the theory and practice of Person-centered Planning and collaborative consultation, this article presents a process-based alternative to this phase of the assessment process. What is proposed is a shift from "reporting" the assessment data to "integrating" these data with observations and insights from all stakeholders; i.e., empowering collaboration. An ecologically valid plan grounded in a consensus as to the student's needs is the goal of such meetings. Though each meeting is unique, inclusion of the phases of gathering, organizing, analyzing, and planning is recommended. (Contains 1 figure.)

As the parent of a child who has or may have a disability, the federal and state laws give them certain rights--called procedural safeguards. If they would like a more detailed explanation of these rights, they should contact the principal of their child's school, a school administrator, their local special education director, or any of the resources listed on the last page of this notice of procedural safeguards (from this point forward referred to as the Notice). This Notice makes reference to the Division which means the Division of Special Education within the Indiana Department of Education (now called the Center for Exceptional Learners, Office of Special Education). (Contains 1 footnote.)

Response to intervention (RTI) can be both a system for providing early interventions to struggling students and a special education diagnostic tool for evaluating and identifying students with specific learning disabilities. Contributing to the very limited literature on state-level approaches, this report describes how nine states define and support RTI at the state level. Despite the growing attention, little has been published on the state-level approach to RTI. This report expands the limited research base by providing descriptive information on state-level RTI policies and procedures in nine states: Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, Nevada, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, Utah, and Washington. While the focus is on West Region states: (Arizona, California, Nevada, and Utah), RTI practices in five states outside the region (Arkansas, Illinois, New Mexico, Pennsylvania, and Washington) provide additional insights into state-level approaches to RTI. The study addresses the following research questions: (1) How is RTI defined in the nine study states, and how are RTI efforts supported at the state level? and (2) What considerations do state respondents report about developing state RTI policies and procedures, and how have their states addressed them? Four appendices are included: (1) Profiles of state approaches to response to intervention; (2) Data collection and study methods; (3) Interview protocol; and (4) Documentation review summary sheet. A list of 44 state-specific resources used in document review is also included. (Contains 4 tables, 10 notes, and 3 boxes.) [This report was prepared for the National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES) by Regional Educational Laboratory West administered by WestEd.]

Dyslexia is a term that has been applied since the early part of the 20th Century to many students with reading difficulties. The term comes from medicine, but its broadest application is within education. Many educators, however, remain confused about the term in spite of the fact that major advances in the understanding of dyslexia have been made through scientific research over the past 40 years. The purpose of this technical assistance paper is to briefly describe what is currently known about dyslexia, focusing particularly on methods of early identification, prevention, and remedial instruction.

Students with specific learning disability ("SLD") account for approximately half of all students that districts have determined to be eligible for special education under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act ("IDEA"). Since the late 1970s, the IDEA regulations have required states to use severe discrepancy--based on a comparison of the child's academic achievement, typically based on a standardized test, with the child's intellectual ability, typically based on an IQ test--as the primary but not exclusive criterion for determining SLD. The new regulations, issued in August 2006 to implement the 2004 amendments to the IDEA, provide significant changes in the determination of SLD eligibility. One of the new provisions concerns responsiveness to intervention ("RTI"), which is an alternate approach that starts with scientific, research-based instruction in general education and offers increasing levels of intervention based on continuous progress monitoring. Pending new state laws and published case law, this overview provides a user-friendly guide to the provisions in the 2004 amendments and the new IDEA regulations pertinent to SLD eligibility, including the role of RTI. (Contains 11 notes.) [This document was produced by the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities.]

At least 20 percent of students in the Baltimore City Public Schools and other large urban districts are "invisible dyslexics" (children whose academic futures are doomed because their problems in learning to read are diagnosed too late and treated too little or not diagnosed and treated at all). Delay in early diagnosis and treatment has disastrous academic consequences. Baltimore City's flawed system reflects another discrimination in diagnosing and treating early reading difficulties: under special education laws, children must present a large discrepancy between measured intelligence and reading achievement in order to be entitled to special instruction. Children with low IQ scores are much less likely to receive help for similar reading difficulties. This report, based on an analysis of research and practice literature on early reading difficulties and on interviews with researchers and practitioners, recommends specific steps to uproot and remedy this hidden discrimination against poor and minority children. It examines research that overturns long-held beliefs about the causes and cures of reading difficulties and highlights the reasons educators have been slow to respond to the new research consensus (e.g., lack of teacher training and awareness, low expectations, and lack of money for early intervention in impoverished districts). After summarizing the budding evidence on best practices in early identification and intervention beginning in kindergarten, the report illustrates the plight of invisible dyslexics and calls for national, state, and local action. (Contains 48 endnotes.) (SM)

This paper first offers a rationale for the construction of a protocol for school-based assessment of attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and then presents a proposed diagnostic procedure. Guidelines were developed in the context of the definitional language regarding ADHD from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders Fourth Edition as well as recommendations regarding the evaluation of ADHD made by the American Academy of Pediatrics, the American Academy of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry, and the National Institutes of Health. To effect a more comprehensive and systemic process, the proposed process is both "multi-source" and "multi-modal." The six components of the assessment process are: (1) a thorough review of the child's school records; (2) a complete developmental questionnaire and social-history form completed by the parent; (3) a review of medical records, a general measure of cognition, and an interview with the child; (4) a series of four behavioral observations of the child in various settings; (5) completion of the Attention Deficit Disorders Evaluation Scale; and (6) and completion of the "Components of ADHD Assessment Summary Sheet." Data on application of the protocol in the Bethlehem (New York) Central School District are summarized and implementation guidelines are offered. (Contains 18 references.) (DB)

In the rush to implement world-class standards supported by systems of accountability in public schools, education leaders have compromised the educational future of Hispanic students by making high-stakes decisions based on inaccurate and inadequate testing information. State policies often require that Hispanic students be assessed in English with tests they don't understand or in Spanish with alternative but less rigorous tests, whether or not they are receiving instruction in Spanish. Neither approach produces accurate information about student learning, but the results are often used to hold students, rather than educators or the public school systems accountable. Where exemptions from testing exist, Hispanics disappear from accountability systems. This report aims to bring attention to the growing crisis of "invisible" Hispanic students and provide guidance on rectifying the conditions that allow Hispanic students to be wrongly measured and unaccounted for in their own schools. Chapters cover: (1) basic questions about cultural and linguistic influences on test scores; (2) historical context of educational and psychometric testing of linguistic and cultural minority groups; (3) standards for educational and psychological testing and Office for Civil Rights guidelines; (4) six sources of test bias with Hispanic test-takers; (5) Hispanic performance on achievement tests and efforts by the National Research Council to address the testing of English language learners; (6) diagnostic testing for special education; (7) other types of testing; and (8) a summary of 7 options for the testing of Hispanic children, followed by 18 recommendations to the Office for Civil Rights, educators, and researchers. An appendix contains standards for testing individuals of diverse linguistic backgrounds. (Contains approximately 180 references.) (SV)

This paper reviews issues surrounding Hispanic students who are deaf or hard of hearing. Research indicates that Hispanic deaf and hard of hearing students generally have lower academic success than their deaf or hearing peers. In addition, they are more likely to drop out of school or be tracked into vocational programs and less likely to attend college. The most prominent characteristic of Hispanic deaf students is language option and choice. Language options include spoken English or Spanish, various sign languages, or an invented system of home signs. Cultural considerations are also important. Hispanics are family-oriented, mothers and fathers often follow traditional roles, and strong religious beliefs may influence family attitudes toward disabilities. Evaluation teams must collect sufficient data on the student's language use at home to ensure learning in school. The evaluation team should include family members, an audiologist, a speech-language pathologist, an ESL/bilingual teacher, a teacher of the deaf, a general educator, Spanish and sign language interpreters, and paraprofessionals. School personnel must encourage families to participate and take specific steps to avoid communication barriers and breakdowns. A comprehensive naturalistic assessment will provide a wealth of information for academic placement and social support. Rural school districts may pool resources to form a regional assessment team and regional learning centers. (Contains 19 references.) (SV)

A study in a small rural school district used district preassessment records of students referred for a comprehensive, special education evaluation to determine if preassessment practices had improved. The district was located in a midwestern state that mandated preassessment practices in the mid-1980s in an effort to control special education referrals and maintain more students in the general classroom. A subject pool of 48 educators was provided with actual preassessment forms completed by school-based preassessment teams for the 1996-97 school year. General information on referrals was collected as well as reasons for referral and suggested interventions. Preassessment teams serve two clear functions: to support students experiencing learning or behavioral difficulties and to monitor the referral of students for special education evaluations. The teams in this study appeared to address both these functions, but with limited success. Preassessment records showed regular team meetings, documentation of suggested classroom interventions, and a regulated system of referrals for special education assessment. However, there were qualitative concerns about team membership and involvement of key stakeholders, duration of attention given to students at the preassessment level, team proficiency in pinpointing student problems, and the efficacy of team-suggested interventions. Contains 15 references and lists of preassessment team interventions suggested for the areas of speech and language, math, reading, written language, motor, and general achievement. (CDS)

A followup study of 10 prereferral teams within a rural, northwestern state investigated common causes for prereferral teams to be discontinued within schools and examined effective methods being used to maintain the prereferral teams. Prereferral teams assist general educators with academic and behavioral concerns they encounter with their students, thereby reducing referrals to special education services. Each of the prereferral teams studied consisted of 7-9 members, mostly general education teachers. Eight of the 10 teams remained in operation, providing school support as needed. One team was no longer functioning, while another had shifted its focus to monitoring "at-risk" sophomores. Information collected from special education directors and prereferral team members revealed strengths and weaknessess evident in team operations. A rotation system in which team members served for a period of time and then were released from their duties was an effective mechanism for preventing burn-out. Other factors contributing to team success were realization by school personnel of the benefits of prereferral services, multidisciplinary team membership and transdisciplinary operations, and use of a tracking system to provide continuity of effort in the next school year. Results strongly support the provision of formal team training and ongoing support for newly developing prereferral teams. Contains 15 references. (CDS)

Alternative resources, which differentiate language differences from language disorders among bilingual children, are needed for assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students. Standardized testing is especially troublesome when there are few testing substitutes and no translations in their language, which may incorrectly identify the students as having a disability. An ongoing investigation of culturally relevant assessment for bilingual American Indian children on the Navajo Reservation evolved into a collaborative model of student centered learning. This model provides a comprehensive, authentic, assessment process using multiple data resources. Data sources include, but are not limited to, the student, parents, teachers, counselors, school psychologists, and administrators. This educational community includes primary and secondary stakeholders in the physical, affective, cognitive, and communicative development of the student. In this model all educational stakeholders, including students, are trusted to provide culturally and linguistically relevant information in support of the assessment process. Portfolio assessment provides a more equitable analysis of the student's abilities and performance over time and in a variety of settings rather than traditional reliance on decontextualized data. "An interactive Model for American-Indian Educational Communities" is presented schematically, and "Recommendations for Portfolio Assessment Team Procedures" are included. (Contains 13 references.) (EMK)

This report discusses the findings of a study that examined the reflections of identified "expert" special educators (n=20) working in a variety of instructional settings with diverse student populations. Special education supervisors were asked to nominate teachers who: (1) had at least five years of teaching experience, (2) were recognized among their peers, parents or the community as being effective teachers, (3) instructed students that generally made excellent progress in achieving their individualized education plan objectives, and (4) were viewed as superior special education teachers. Teachers viewed videotapes of themselves teaching and recalled thoughts or feelings that occurring during the instruction. Results indicate that teachers made frequent use of "instructional diagnosis," in which teachers used extensive content knowledge and the particular knowledge of the student to arrive at a diagnosis. Immediately following the diagnosis, they applied a modification to remedy the learning difficulty that the student was encountering. This procedure was repeated numerous times over the course of the instructional period, with a diagnosis of one student often being made several times in the space of five or ten minutes. This instructional diagnosis did not seem to rely on the category assigned to a student; instead, teachers closely observed the progress of the student, basing their observation on the student's progress, together with their past knowledge of the student. (Contains 35 references.) (CR)

This paper describes efforts to address the shortage of special educators in rural Georgia by supplying regular education teachers with information and resources to teach disabled students. Since 1969, the Georgia Center for Students with Disabilities (GCSD) has provided yearly comprehensive medical and psychoeducational evaluations to approximately 100 children from birth to 21 years of age who have low-incidence or multiple disabilities. In order to assure equal access to GCSD diagnostic services, all referrals are processed through 17 regional sites of the Georgia Learning Resources System (GLRS), a support system for special education. At the conclusion of a 4-day evaluation conducted by professionals in various disciplines, an exit conference is held at GCSD with the child's family and school representative. In addition, a written report is compiled and sent to the family, the local school system, and the local GLRS. This report includes findings and recommendations in the areas of behavior, vision, auditory reception, speech and language, motor, activities of daily living, cognition, and academics. Each GLRS regional office has materials available for loan to teachers, including a collection of films, records, books, videos, kits, and equipment. GCSD and GLRS collaborate in connecting teachers to the materials and resources that they need to teach children with low-incidence or multiple disabilities and to implement recommendations in the written diagnostic report. GCSD writes a request that GLRS provide a list of materials and local resources specific to the recommendations of the GCSD diagnostic report to the teacher of the evaluated student. In addition, during the student's 4-day evaluation period, the local teacher is contacted by GCSD staff to collect more data and to further discuss the needs of the student. Both classroom teachers and GLRS staff have reacted positively concerning the collaboration between GCSD and GLRS in meeting the needs of disabled students. (LP)

The KeyMath Revised is a power test that measures the understanding and application of mathematics skills and concepts. It is individually administered and is intended for students from kindergarten through the ninth grade to determine student mastery of mathematics concepts. The revised version is designed to be user-friendly for the student and examiner and differs from the original mainly in its simpler format. Test results can be used for general or remedial instruction, as part of a comprehensive evaluation, for pretest and posttest assessment, and for curriculum assessment. The revised version appears to be covering all the mathematics concepts for the grades intended. Scoring, which is also a change from the original version, involves marking answers on a protocol. Tools to assist in scoring are available. The KeyMath Revised was standardized in 1985 and 1986 using a sample of 1,798 students in kindergarten through grade 9. Reliability was acceptable, and content and criterion-related validities were reported. The instrument provides a clear and concise way to assess a student's level of mathematics, but is limited by the low reliability of the subtests when used in special education to pinpoint specific mathematics disabilities. In addition, the norms may not be appropriate for all grades because the sample for any given grade was not large. Overall, however, the KeyMath Revised is an appropriate tool to assess mathematics skills and concepts. (Contains 3 references.) (SLD)

This report describes the results of a three-year study, the Informed Instruction Project, that investigated different approaches to mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities and at-risk for special education services. The project focused on two strands of inquiry: (1) the effects of a computer-based diagnostic assessment system in aiding special education teachers to remedy students' arithmetic misconceptions and (2) the effects of specific curricular interventions on students in a mainstreamed setting. The three sections of the report discuss the findings. The first section presents an overview of project dissemination and products. The second section is an overview of the findings, "The Informed Instruction Project: Preliminary Findings and Implications for Future Research in Mathematics for Students with Learning Disabilities" (John Woodward and Juliet Baxter), written for the National Center to Improve Instruction in November 1995. This paper describes the implementation of a diagnostic system (TORUS) designed to detect student misconceptions in addition and subtraction that was used in a year-long, qualitative study by a special education teacher, who used direct instruction and TORUS to supplement resource room math classes. The third section contains the technical overview of the project, "Action-based Research on Innovative Mathematics Instruction and Students with Special Needs" (Juliet A. Baxter and Deborah K. Olson). (Contains references.) (Author/LC)

This study reviewed 1137 students' records from 25 school districts to determine if there is a possible conflict between Wisconsin's learning disabilities (LD) eligibility criteria and the federal definition under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. It also surveyed student evaluation and placement teams concerning their application of the criteria. Wisconsin requires an individual to have normal intellectual functioning and academic discrepancies in two or more achievement areas. A literature review examined: prevalence, referral, and eligibility; IQ scores and discrepancy models; and prevalence of ethnic groups in special education. Results suggest that although some students in Wisconsin may be denied eligibility for learning disabilities when using Wisconsin's criteria inflexibly, others demonstrating the same conditions may be found eligible when the criteria are applied flexibly. It was found that the eligibility decision was based on two points: the extent to which a child has demonstrated inability for success in regular education, and the extent to which further modifications cannot be anticipated in the regular education setting without assistance from special education. Recommendations for improvements in Wisconsin's identification procedures and services for students with learning disabilities were proposed by parents, administrators, and other school personnel. Twenty appendices provide letters, questionnaires, statistical analyses, and responses to a survey. (Contains 54 references.) (CR)

This report is the result of a year-long evaluation of special education in New York City (New York) and presents major recommendations for reorganizing general and special education. It proposes a school-based model with an integrated general/special education system, and use of an enrichment allocation from merged special and general education funds to meet the needs of students with disabilities and students at risk of academic failure. It recommends creation of Instructional Support Teams within schools, formal evaluations of students by a district-level multidisciplinary Committee on Special Education, significant investment in school-based professional development, creation of an independent Accountability and Quality Assurance Office, changes in state funding mechanisms to encourage the placement of students in neighborhood schools, and restoration of funding to general education. The report begins with an executive summary and an introduction. The following six chapters address: (1) why the current system doesn't work; (2) guiding assumptions of the study; (3) major features of the school-based model; (4) implications for high schools; (5)implications for District 75/citywide programs; and (6) implications for preschools. A concluding chapter presents the study's 14 specific recommendations and suggestions for phased-in implementation. Appendices provide: public reaction to the first draft of this report; a legal analysis of the proposed changes by Perry A. Zirkel; and a review of financing dimensions of the proposed changes by Thomas B. Parrish. Contains 15 references. (DB)

The relevance of intelligence testing for schools within one district, the Sacramento (California) school district and the state of California is explored, and applications of intelligence theory in district schools and classrooms are discussed. Intelligence, for purposes of this discussion, is the aggregate capacity of each student's intelligence, the combination of abilities that are quantitatively different, and the way the student uses these abilities to deal with the environment. California allowed group and individual intelligence testing until the 1960s, but no longer allows group intelligence testing for students. Individual students are tested to identify the gifted or for other educational diagnoses. In the Sacramento City Unified School District intelligence tests are used for the same purposes, to identify the gifted and special education students. Self-efficacy theory and the theory of multiple intelligences are being applied in the intelligence assessment of students in the district. Much that is good is being recognized about intelligence, but many practices reflect the negative influences of believing that intelligence is fixed at an early age. (Contains 7 references.) (SLD)

This report of a Virginia interdisciplinary task force on children with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) in the schools reviews what is known about this disorder and presents recommendations to the Virginia Department of Education and local school districts. Recommendations include the need to provide a systematic program of inservice education and revise state rules, regulations, and guidelines in specified ways. Recommendations to local school districts include development of plans for programing for ADHD children and establishment of resource libraries. Incorporation of education regarding ADHD into all teacher training programs in the state is urged. Sections of the report discuss: (1) historical background of ADHD; (2) definition; (3) relationship to special education categories; (4) prevalence; (5) identification and assessment; (6) the schools' role in the assessment and diagnostic process for ADHD; (7) medical interventions; (8) school-based interventions; (9) parent/family issues; (10) controversial interventions; and (11) conclusions. An attachment updates the ADHD definition based on the fourth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders. (Contains 41 references.) (DB)

This document presents a brief synthesis of recent literature on attention deficit difficulties with hyperactivity, particularly literature concerning classroom interventions. It describes diagnostic criteria for attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, its incidence, behavioral characteristics of students who exhibit attention difficulties and hyperactivity, the appropriateness of stimulant medication, behavioral and cognitive behavioral interventions, and modifications in the classroom environment and in instructional methods. Appendices present sample antecedents-behaviors-consequences, a sample token economy system, and a sample behavior contract. (Contains 11 references.) (JDD)