Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual

Page 1 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 1 preview image

Supplemental Chapter (formerly Chapter 20)ASSESSING CHILDREN WITHDISABILITIES IN THE REGULARCLASSROOM: A GROWING NEEDAT FIRST GLANCEyou may wonder why we have included two chapters abouttesting and assessing children with disabilitieson our textbook’s website.You might say, “That’sthe responsibility of the school psychologist.” Or, “Childrenwith disabilities are in special ed classrooms, not regular ed classrooms.” Or, “I won’t haveto 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 the1997 Amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA–97), thereauthorization of this act in 2004 (IDEA–04), and the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Actin 2002, they no longer are valid. The days when children with disabilities receivedinstruction only from special education staff in segregated (e.g., resource, self-contained)settings, received only annual progress reports, were assessed only by specialists, andwere excluded from annual district-wide assessments are over. The intent of these threepieces of federal legislation is to better integrate regular and special education to raiseexpectations for students with disabilities, and to enable them to benefit from generaleducation 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 withdisabilities will

Page 2 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 2 preview image

Page 3 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 3 preview image

• 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 annualIndividual Educational Plan (IEP) objectives,• be included, like their general education peers, in annual state-and district-wideassessments, with state approved accommodations and alternate assessments whenrequired by their IEPs, and• scores for children with disabilities on the annual assessments will be separatedfrom the scores for regular education students, with schools to be held accountableif 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 civilrights suits and investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, schools must nowdemonstrate that children with disabilities are integrated meaningfully into the generaleducation setting, curriculum, and annual academic assessments, and that their educationaloutcomes are improving.Before we discuss the specific ways recent federal legislation will affect classroomtesting and assessment practice, consider the following dialogue, which identifies severalimportant changes resulting from IDEA–97, NCLB, and IDEA–04 that will impact theregular and special education teacher:“Hi Mr. Past, this is Ms. Future calling, you know, the school special educationcoordinator. 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

Page 4 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 4 preview image

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 havetime 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 likethe special ed teachers do. Thanks to NCLB, if my class doesn’t do well the wholeschool will suffer, including the special ed staff and students. You wouldn’t want that tohappen would you? Each year now, the state raises the bar we have to reach todemonstrate Adequate Yearly Progress, or AYP, as they call it, so we just don’t havetime for special ed meetings anymore. Besides, I don’t know anything about teachingspecial ed kids so I wouldn’t have anything to contribute. I’d really like to help thekids out, but I wouldn’t want to mess them up. Their learning and assessing theirprogress 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 abouthow 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 orNCLB, not Nickel-B”, said Mr. Past, haughtily. “Every year you keep bringing thisIDEA 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 2004amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. The amendments werepassed in 1997 and reauthorized in 2004, and the IEP portion, which requires aregular classroom teacher to attend all IEP meetings, was fully implemented with thebeginning of the 1998–1999 school year,” said Ms. Future. “You’ve had to attend

Page 5 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 5 preview image

these meetings for several years now. Remember?”“Of course I remember,” said an irritated Mr. Past, “but since NCLB things aredifferent here on the regular ed side. I am a regular, that’s R-E-G-U-L-A-R, educationteacher, Ms. Future. That means I teach and assess regular education kids. We have somuch to keep up with now because of all the requirements of NCLB that I really don’thave time for special ed stuff. Since NCLB was passed in 2002 we now have to seethat our kids do well on multiple benchmark tests, because these predict how well theywill do on the annual assessment in April. And you know how important that is, don’tyou? To be sure they are prepared we have to test these kids at least once per weekusing formal teacher-made or standardized measures. I guess simply checking theirprogress with benchmarks isn’t enough for the people in the capitol. And, you knowwhat happens if we don’t reach the proficiency goals the legislators have establishedfor us? Our school gets labeled as ‘in need of improvement’ and we have to work evenharder to get our scores up the next year or we face serious consequences, includingbeing labeled as ‘in corrective action.’ And we could be restructured if we don’t makeAYP for five years! To make matters worse, we have to report not just overall averagescores, but we have to break them down, disaggregation of scores they call it, so thatwe are judged based on scores for different categories of students. These categoriesinclude students who are economically disadvantaged, who are limited Englishproficient, and for each of the major ethnic groups. Can you imagine that? They reallyexpect us to have all students achieve at proficiency. And yet, you want us to get moreinvolved with special ed kids too? Lots of luck! I think I’ll mention our littleconversation to the principal and see how she feels about your efforts to take away

Page 6 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 6 preview image

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 raisingtest scores for all of my regular ed kids instead. I don’t think shell be too happy aboutthat. Do you?”, asked a frustrated Mr. Past.“I agree, Mr. Past, she won’t be pleased”, fumed Ms. Future. “She won’t be pleasedbecause she is fully aware that IDEA–04 retained the IDEA–97 requirement thatregular education teachers, whether they feel they are qualified or not, must bemembers 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 theNCLB provisions that apply to regular ed also apply to special ed. Students withdisabilities must participate in the annual state assessments that are required forregular ed kids, with appropriate accommodations or alternate assessments, asneeded. Furthermore, according to NCLB, it is the IEP team that determines whethera student with a disability may participate in the standard annual assessment orwhether the student needs accommodations or an alternate assessment. When wedetermine the student can’t meaningfully participate in the standard annualassessment we have to document why the standard assessment is not appropriate anddescribe how the student will be assessed using a state-approved accommodation oralternate assessment! And, in addition to the groups you mentioned, scores must alsobe disaggregated for students with disabilities, most of whom now receive the majorityof their instruction in the regular ed classroom and curriculum! In fact, everything youmentioned about NCLB applies to special ed students. NCLB has put a lot ofadditional pressure on everyone in the system, but it’s increased pressure on

Page 7 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 7 preview image

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 justregular ed that was affected by NCLB.”“Positive,” said Ms. Future. “It’s all part of the movement away from providingsegregated instruction for students with disabilities in resource and self-containedclassrooms. It’s called full inclusion, and it’s happening because research hasdemonstrated that the old way of isolating children with disabilities has not been aseffective as integrating children with disabilities into the regular education curriculumand raising expectations for their achievement. And, as you know, we have beendiscussing the integration of special and regular students at faculty meetings for thelast 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 specialed kids can play with the regular ed kids on the playground and at lunch. And one ofthe special ed aides reads to a couple of them in my social studies class. Heck, Iencourage my own aide to read to them whenever she can too, even though she’s paidout of regular ed funds. So, I’m supportive of the special ed program and ofinclusion,” said Mr. Past.“I’m glad you are, Mr. Past, but what you are describing is not meaningfulinclusion, and it is not enough! Providing socialization opportunities at lunch andrecess and helping them read is not meaningful integration under IDEA–97 andIDEA–04, and it’s not going to help our students with disabilities achieve at the

Page 8 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 8 preview image

annually increasing levels required by NCLB. If any group, the economicallydisadvantaged, the minorities, the limited English proficient, or the students withdisabilities, fails to meet state proficiency goals for NCLB the whole school will beheld accountable!” said Ms. Future. “That’s why it’s critical that regular educationstaff consult and coordinate actively with the special ed staff concerning instructionaland behavior management strategies, and the testing and assessment of academic,social, emotional, and behavioral progress toward not only IEP objectives—objectivesidentified by you and the rest of us during the IEP team meetings you now are requiredto 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 hasthe 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 inclusiondeprived special ed kids of the benefits of education reform such as higher standards,an enriched curriculum, and annual assessment of their progress. By requiring morecollaboration between special and general education teachers Congress intended toensure that special education kids are meaningfully included in general education,from planning to implementation and evaluation of the annual objectives identified ontheir IEPs and in the state standards. In the past we often excluded children withdisabilities from the annual statewide test program. Now, under NCLB, they all mustbe included, with only a small percentage of exceptions, and when their IEPs call forit we will need to make individualized state-approved accommodations or employ

Page 9 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 9 preview image

alternate assessments,” explained Ms. Future.“Are you telling me that in addition to trying to help my kids meet annualproficiency 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 thespecial 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 togetherto help all of our students meet NCLB and IDEA–04 requirements, or else we will allhave 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 andcoordinating with you and the other regular education teachers toward improvededucational outcomes for our children with disabilities,” said Ms. Future. “With thepassage of NCLB and its accountability provisions we all need to pull together toensure that all of our students make adequate yearly progress. Now, about the IEPmeeting schedule. On Monday at 8:15 we are scheduled to meet with . . .”Although you may be surprised by this scenario everythingMs. Future said in the dialogue is anaccurate reflection of new requirementsfor general education teachers under NCLB, IDEA–97,and IDEA–04.To help you understand why these changes were made, we will review brieflywhatwe have learned has worked and has not worked in relation to the education of childrenwith disabilities. Later in this chapter we will discuss how the testing and assessment

Page 10 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 10 preview image

skills of the regular classroom teacher will play an important role in the implementationof NCLB and IDEA with students with disabilities. More specifically, we hope to familiarizeyou with the ways in which the testing and assessment practices you have learnedin this text can guide you in the identification, instruction, and evaluation of children withdisabilities in your regular education class. We will also describe an important and verycontroversial change in the way special education eligibility is determined for studentswith the most common category of disability, specific learning disabilities (SLD). UnderIDEA–04 school districts now have the option of continuing to use the discrepancy modelthat has been in place since 1977, or they may use a response to instruction /interventionmodel, called RTI, or some combination of both. We will discuss these approaches andtheir impact on the regular classroom teacher in more detail later in this chapter. Inour second supplemental chapter (formerlyChapter 21in our text)we will describe a number ofmethods, procedures, and instruments that maybe helpful to both regular and special educationteachers in testing and assessing childrenwith disabilities.A BRIEF HISTORY OF SPECIAL EDUCATIONA variety of social, cultural, and legal developments subsequent to World War II contributedto the guarantee of a free and appropriate public education, or FAPE, enjoyed todayby all children with disabilities. Critical court cases such asBrown v. Board of Educationof Topeka, Pennsylvania Association of Retarded Children v. Commonwealth ofPennsylvania, andMills v. Board of Educationestablished the educational rights ofchildren with disabilities in different states. These cases spurred Congress to pass legislation

Page 11 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 11 preview image

that established a coherent national legislative requirement to guarantee FAPE toall children with disabilities.P.L. 94–142 and the Individuals with DisabilitiesEducation Act (IDEA)School-age children with disabilities were guaranteed FAPE in 1975 with the passage ofPublic Law 94–142, the Education for All the Handicapped (EAH) Act. In 1986, PublicLaw 99–457 was enacted to extend the guarantee of FAPE to preschool children withdisabilities. In 1990, the law was reauthorized as Public Law 105–17 and the name ofEAH was changed to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In 1997Public Law 105–17 was reauthorized as the 1997 Amendments to IDEA (IDEA–97). In2004 the law was amended again and was reauthorized as H.R. 1350, the Individuals withDisabilities 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–97before it, IDEA–04 acknowledges the successes of EAH and IDEA, while also requiringchanges designed to address the shortcomings of EAH and IDEA. The accomplishmentsand shortfalls of EAH and IDEA will be discussed next.Prior to the implementation of Public Law 94–142, about one million children withdisabilities were denied a public education. Since its passage the number of children withdevelopmental disabilities in state institutions has declined by almost 90%. The numberof young adults with disabilities enrolled in post-secondary education has tripled and theunemployment rate for individuals with disabilities in their 20s is about half that of older

Page 12 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 12 preview image

individuals with disabilities.Yet, not all children with disabilities have obtained equal or significant benefit fromIDEA. Students with disabilities are failing courses and dropping out of school by analmost two to one ratio compared to students without disabilities. Advocates have alsobeen concerned that children from economically disadvantaged and minority backgroundsand children with limited English proficiency have been too ofteninappropriately placed in special education. School officials, providers, parents, andothers complained that under EAH and IDEA the focus was on paperwork and processrather than outcomes, and IDEA had not been adequately implemented in many areas. Itwas to remedy these and other shortcomings that IDEA–97 was passed, and IDEA–04reinforces many of the reforms implemented under IDEA–97, although some feel thatIDEA–04 compromised the rights of students with disabilities to provide schools withmore flexibility.IDEA–04 supports expanded opportunities for parents, special educators, relatedservices providers, regular educators, and early intervention services providers and otherpersonnel to develop new partnerships and work collaboratively at the state and locallevels. Incentives are included to enhance the capacity of schools and other communitybasedproviders and entities to work effectively with children with disabilities and theirfamilies by targeting funding for personnel training, research, media, technology, anddissemination of technical assistance and best practices. We have described only a few ofthe many facets of IDEA–04. A more comprehensive analysis of this complex piece oflegislation 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

Page 13 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 13 preview image

classroom teacher in the special education referral and evaluation process later in thechapter.Section 504 of the Rehabilitation ActA separate piece of legislation, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, has cometo play an increasingly important role in service delivery to children with disabilitiessince the late 1980s. Commonly referred to as “Section 504,” it has expanded specialservices eligibility standards to students whose disabilities interfere with learning but whofail 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 beseriously or severely affected by one of the 12 categories of disability it delineated beforea student is eligible to receive special educational services. Section 504 established abroader standard of eligibility. It defined a person with a disability as anyone with aphysical 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 bereferred to as “504 only” students and the services provided to them have come to bereferred to as “504 only” services. This law also empowered the Office of Civil Rights toenforce Section 504 compliance.In recent years Section 504 has generated considerable controversy, in part becauseof the “ambiguity and brevity of Section 504 in regard to requirements for elementary andsecondary schools” (Gammel, 1992, p. 298). One example of the lack of clarity involvesfunding 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

Page 14 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 14 preview image

monies. This means that local or state funds must then be used to fund 504 only specialservices. Needless to say, such funds are scarce in most districts. Thus provision ofspecial services for 504 only children are likely to be within the less expensive regularclassroom setting. This also is in keeping with the intent of Section 504, which, likeIDEA–04, is for services to be provided within the least restrictive environment. Whilethe funding and eligibility issues of Section 504 will continue to be clarified in comingyears through legal interpretation and/or legislation, it appears reasonable to concludethat the involvement of the regular education teacher with 504 only students and serviceproviders may be expected to increase.SPECIAL EDUCATION SERVICE DELIVERY:AN EVOLUTIONIDEA–04, with its requirements for full inclusion of children with disabilities in thegeneral curriculum and setting, is the latest development in an evolution in special educationservices that began prior to the passage of P.L. 94–142 in 1975. This evolution hasaltered thinking regarding the appropriateness of the special education service deliverysetting, eligibility criteria, and disability categories. We will describe this evolution next.Service Delivery SettingWhile P.L. 94–142 and IDEA required placement of children with disabilities in the leastrestrictive educational environment, many children with disabilities were routinely placedin educationally segregated resource or self-contained classrooms on the assumption thatthey could not benefit from regular class instruction. This was especially true for studentswho were viewed as more severely mentally, physically, emotionally, and behaviorally

Page 15 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 15 preview image

challenged. The common wisdom for decades was that it was not only in the bestinterests of such severely challenged children to be in segregated classrooms, but that thiswas also essential to protect the regular educational process from disruption due to thepresence of such challenged students.The traditional special education “pull-out” system, in which the special learner istaught in a self-contained classroom for at least part of the day, has been criticized asdiscriminatory, ineffective, and inefficient (Davis, 1989). Indeed, the National Council onDisability (1989) clarified that the intent of the Education for All Handicapped ChildrenAct (P.L. 94–142) never was to segregate children with disabilities, even those withmultiple or severe disabilities.Legal decisions in the 1990s increasingly required the inclusion of children withdisabilities in the regular education classroom. A 1993 decision by the U.S. Court ofAppeals found that a New Jersey school district failed to make a reasonable effort to meeta 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 alsoadvocated for greater inclusion of children with disabilities in the regular classroom(Cannon, Idol, West, 1992; Conte, 1994; Hale & Carlson, 1992). Nevertheless, noteveryone believed that full inclusion is in the best interests of special and regular educationstudents. This may have been especially true for more experienced teachers (Coker &Griffith, 1994). In the end, the prevailing view was that the regular classroom teachershould expect to increasingly collaborate and cooperate with the special educator in bothteaching and assessing the special learner’s academic, physical and behavioral progress(Bauwens, Hourcade, & Friend, 1989; Cannon et al., 1992; Friend & Cook, 1992).

Page 16 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 16 preview image

This view prevailed, in part, because of an accumulating body of research attestingto the beneficial effects of inclusion of students with disabilities in the regular classroomand curriculum. Reviews of research in the 1980s and early 1990s (Halvorsen & Sailor,1990; Stainback & Stainback, 1992) documented improved educational and socialoutcomes for children with disabilities, even those who were severely challenged, whowere in integrated placements (i.e., placements that included contact with regular educationstudents and curriculum as well as special education services) as compared to peersin segregated placements (i.e., self-contained special education only). These reviews ledSailor, Gee and Karasoff (1993) to conclude, “The body of research literature is sufficientto demonstrate that educators need no longer spend energy and resources debating theissue of whether or not to integrate or include students with severe disabilities in thelearning environments of their non-disabled peers but can concentrate instead on howbest to do it” (p. 2).These findings led many special and regular educators to accept and adopt “fullinclusion” as a goal for all children with disabilities. The passage of IDEA–97 codifiedand formalized this consensus, and IDEA–04 reinforces it. Sailor et al. (1993) identifiedthe 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

Page 17 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 17 preview image

that, in keeping with the nonsegregatory intent of P.L. 94–142, the trend was alreadytoward increased mainstreaming of the challenged learner. For example, Fig. 20.1 illustratesthat as far back as the 1987–1988 school year approximately 75% of all studentswith disabilities received their primary educational services in the regular classroom or ina 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 ofIDEA (U.S. Department of Education, 2001) indicated that 45% of students in the SLD

Page 18 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 18 preview image

category spent less than 20% of their instructional time in special education. Thus, morethan 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 primarygrades, these data indicate that there is no doubt that if you are an elementary schoolteacher you will be responsible for the majority of instruction for students with SLDs andespecially SLDs in reading. Furthermore, because the performance of students withdisabilities must be reported separately to meet NCLB requirements, regular testing andassessment of these students in the regular curriculum will be needed to ensure they aremaking adequate progress.Determining Eligibility for ServicesUnder EAH and IDEA a number of categories of disability existed that could qualify achild to receive special education related services. However, students were unable toqualify 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 disabilitiesbefore services could be provided, the old IDEA unintentionally impeded prevention andearly intervention activities. The result was that a child’s problems had to become chronicor intensify to crisis proportions in many cases before assistance under IDEA could beprovided. By the time the problem escalated to this level only intense and expensiveinterventionshad any hope of resolving the problem—a costly, ineffective utilization oflimited resources.One of the intentions of IDEA–97 was to encourage early identification and interventionwithin the regular class environment, a process sometimes referred to as prereferral

Page 19 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 19 preview image

intervention (meaning before referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation).IDEA–97 also allowed special education related services to be delivered, at thediscretion of state and local educational agencies, to children between the ages of 3 and 9experiencing developmental delays, as defined by the state and as measured by appropriatediagnostic instruments and procedures, in physical, cognitive, communication,social or emotional, or adaptive development. By including developmental delaysCongress signaled its intent to break from the categorical service delivery requirements ofthe old IDEA that discouraged early identification and intervention. IDEA–04 continuesto support these changes.In practice, prior to the passage of IDEA–97 and IDEA–04 many districts andrelated service providers developed mechanisms to deliver early identification and interventionservices to students with suspected disabilities before students were referred tothe costly special education eligibility process. Referred to by various names (e.g.,pre-referral services, teacher or student assistance or study teams, intervention assistanceprograms), these programs were intended to provide immediate service to teachers andstudents 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 fundedunder the old IDEA, they instead were funded on a patchwork basis with funds fromlocal, site-based managed schools, districts, state and regional service centers, the Officeof Special Education Programs (OSEP), and private foundations.Learning Disability Determination:Discrepancy or RTI?

Page 20 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 20 preview image

To stimulate even more early intervention within the regular classroom, and to addressdifficulties with the existing method of eligibility determination, IDEA–04 implementedan optional, controversial change in the way eligibility for special education services is tobe determined for the disability category of Specific Learning Disability (SLD), the mostcommon disability category. Since 1977, under EAH, IDEA, and IDEA–97 a severediscrepancy between aptitude and achievement (see Chapter 18) was required for SLDeligibility. Under IDEA–04, to determine SLD eligibility school districts have the optionof 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. Heateddebate has arisen between proponents of the RTI models and alternative models, andreaders interested in the complexities and nuances of the debate are referred to articles byFletcher and Reschly (2005) and Kavale, Kaufman, Naglieri, and Hale (2005). For ourpurposes, we will simply say that the issues are complex, and the jury is still out in termsof which approach is “better.” Nevertheless, it is important for regular education teachersto 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 ModelSince 1977 eligibility for special education services as achild with a SLD hinged on whether a severe discrepancy was found between a child’spredicted achievement, as measured by an aptitude or IQ test, and a child’s actualachievement, as measured by an achievement test. Under this model, an appropriatelytrained psychologist had to perform an individual assessment, including at least an IQ and

Page 21 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 21 preview image

an achievement test, to determine whether the child’s achievement was significantlydiscrepant (i.e., whether there was a large enough gap between between predicted andactual achievement that was not attributable to other factors, such as inconsistentschooling). The actual size of the discrepancy necessary for SLD eligibility varied,depending on state laws, from one to two standard deviations. Demonstrating thisdiscrepancy 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 toqualify as a learning disability in first grade, the gap would eventually widen if wewait long enough and the child would then qualify in later years, after achievementhas suffered, perhaps irreparably).• IQ–achievement discrepancies lack specificity in differentiating among lowachievers (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, soevaluators 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 mathematicaldiscrepancies (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

Page 22 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 22 preview image

resources and generating an anti-special education backlash when general educationfunds have been tapped to fund services for learning disabled students• The identification process has been lengthy and expensive, with an evaluation andreport often requiring 6–8 hours or more of the psychologist’s time for eachreferred child.Response to Intervention/Instruction (RTI)RTI is an acronym that stands forresponse to intervention,or instruction in some circles, or resistance to intervention inothers. Regardless of the language used the key features of the RTI model for learningdisability determination are similar:• Early identification of learning (especially reading) difficulty and early interventionwith evidence-based treatments (i.e., scientifically based). This is very similar to thepre-referral intervention process that we discussed earlier.• Monitoring/graphing of the child’s progress (using classroom curriculum-basedtests and norm-referenced instruments). These assessments will often be completedby the regular classroom teacher.• Intensive intervention with evidence-based programs when performance and rate ofprogress lag the norm for grade and educational setting (i.e., compared to localnorms).• If a strict RTI identification model is employed, failure to respond to the intensiveintervention would make a student eligible for special education as a child withSLD.

Page 23 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 23 preview image

• If a combination RTI and other models is employed, referral for comprehensiveevaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine special education eligibilityoccurs if the child fails to respond to intensive intervention.Referral for a comprehensive special education evaluation is often thefirststepwhen SLD is suspected under the discrepancy model. The comprehensive evaluation willbeeliminatedcompletely (under strict RTI models) or will become thelaststep if acombination RTI and alternative models is adopted for SLD identification.The RTI model has also been criticized for a number of reasons. Some of thesefollow:• Development of RTI models is uneven with some states (e.g., Iowa, Minnesota)ready for broad implementation but with others in need of intensive technicaltraining and support.• Local norms for curriculum-linked assessments will need to be developed and it isunclear who will be responsible for this.• There is disagreement about what constitutes scientific, evidence-basedinterventions.• Methods and procedures for wide-scale data collection, graphing (necessary toshow progress), analysis, and management await development.• Special education eligibility for the gifted learning disabled child (i.e., the childwith 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 determinationcan be whether a child is resistant to scientifically based instruction. Guess who will

Page 24 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 24 preview image

be providing the brunt of this instruction? Yes, general education teachers. General educationteachers, likely in consultation with the school psychologist, special educationteacher, and other school staff, will now have to (a) document that the child is fallingbehind age or grade norms, using appropriate assessment tools, (b) implement evidencebased,scientifically validated interventions, and (c) track the child’s progress after theinterventions have been implemented, and (d) if the child fails to catch up, only then cana referral for a special education evaluation be made.Sound like more work? Yes, it does. Fortunately, your work in this course hasprepared you well to develop and administer the formal and informal tests and assessmentthat will be necessary to document deficits and then evaluate outcomes on an ongoingbasis. At this point, with final IDEA–04 federal regulations still unavailable, we cannotsay 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 intoany discussions that may emerge in your district or campus.We have described a number of important changes initiated by both IDEA–97 andIDEA–04. The overall effect of these changes is clear. Whereas P.L. 94–142 and IDEAwere focused on categorical procedure, identification, and eligibility, the intent ofIDEA–97 and IDEA–04 is to support early identification and intervention, integratedbest practices, and assessment of educational outcomes, all toward improved educationaloutcomes for children with disabilities and developmental delays.Disability Categories to Developmental DelaysOver the past few decades challenged students have been classified and defined in a

Page 25 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 25 preview image

number of ways. New definitions of challenging conditions will continue to evolve asmore and more becomes known about this subgroup of schoolchildren. A number of categoriesof challenging conditions have been identified under IDEA. These categoriesusually include children with physical disabilities, hearing impairments, visual impairments,mental retardation, behavior disorders, learning disabilities, communicationdisorders, autism, other health impaired and multiple disabilities, which are described inFig. 20.2.IDEA–04 continues these disability categories and the expanded special educationservices eligibility to children with developmental delays initiated by IDEA–97. At stateand local district discretion, special education funds may now be used to provide servicesto children between the ages of 3 and 9 who experience state-defined developmental delaysin five areas: physical, cognitive, communication, social and emotional, and adaptivedevelopment. States have been given considerable latitude in defining developmentaldelays. IDEA–04 only requires that the presence of a developmental delay be identifiedthrough the use of appropriate diagnostic instruments and procedures. Figure 20.3 identifiesthe new categories of developmental delay.The purpose of the disability and developmental delay categories is not to labelor 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 shorthandway of communicating about those learners whose physical, emotional, and/orcognitive functions are already, or are at risk for becoming, so impaired from anycause that the individuals cannot be adequately or safely educated without the provisionof special services. While these special services are the direct responsibility of the

Page 26 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 26 preview image

special education program within a school, under IDEA–04 the regular classroomteacher is expected to play an important, integrated role in both the provision andevaluation of services delivered to students with developmental delays as well asstudents with disabilities.

Page 27 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 27 preview image

IDEA–04 AND THE CLASSROOM TEACHERThe acquisition, interpretation, and reporting of data pertaining to the performance of childrenwith disabilities in the regular classroom and general curriculum will be an important

Page 28 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 28 preview image

function of the regular classroom teacher under IDEA–04. This may involve the use of arange 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 bycongenital anomaly and diseases, or students with limitedstrength, vitality, or alertness owing to chronic or acutehealth problemsHearing Impaired Students who are hearing impaired (hard of hearing) or deaf.Visually Impaired Students who, after medical treatment and use of opticalaids, remain legally blind or otherwise exhibit loss of criticalsight functions.Mental retardation Students with significantly subaverage general intellectualfunctioning existing concurrent with deficiencies in adaptivebehavior. Severity of retardation is sometimes indicated withthe termsmild,moderate,severe,orprofound.Testing or the Assessment Process?Do you recall the distinction we made between testing and the assessmentprocessin

Page 29 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 29 preview image

Chapter 1? We stated, “If important educational decisions are to be made, critically evaluatedtest results should be combined with results from a variety of other measurementprocedures (e.g., performance and portfolio assessments, observations, checklists, ratingscales—all covered later in the text), as appropriate, and integrated with relevant backgroundand contextual information (e.g., reading level, language proficiency, culturalconsiderations—also covered later in the text), to ensure that the educational decisionsare appropriate.”Educational decisions about children with disabilities certainly are important. Theycan have significant impact on the special learner’s current and future life and haveimplications for school staff, related service providers, and always limited resources.Furthermore, parents and advocates for both children with disabilities and schools maymonitor these decisions very closely, and may challenge decisions made and the data onwhich such decisions may be based. Obviously, the classroom teacher, and all othersinvolved in the testing and assessment of children with disabilities, would be welladvised to employ sound measurement practice in selecting, administering, scoring, andinterpreting test results, and in incorporating these results into the assessment process.Note that only some of the data we referred to in distinguishing between testingand 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 datashould be collected to obtain as diverse and accurate a picture of the child’s performanceas is possible. Thus the classroom teacher’s role in the identification and evaluationprocess should not be construed as only “testing,” but more broadly as “contributing tothe assessment process.”

Page 30 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 30 preview image

Ysseldyke and Algozzine (1990) have organized the many levels at which regularclassroom teachers can be involved in the assessment process into a flowchart, shown inFig. 20.4. Although predating the passage of IDEA–04, this flowchart remains relevanttoday. Figure 20.4 shows many of the functions that Mr. Past will need to “get up to speedon” if he is to truly contribute to the education of children with disabilities, as teachersare now required to do under IDEA–04. This flowchart illustrates how the testing andassessment skills of regular education teachers are instrumental in every step of thespecial education identification, instruction, and evaluation process. Clearly, with theDevelopmental delays must be defined by the state and measured by appropriatediagnostic instruments in the following areas:Physical developmentCognitive developmentCommunication developmentSocial or emotional developmentAdaptive developmentpassage of IDEA–04, the involvement of the regular education teacher with testing andassessment of children with disabilities can only increase.

Page 31 of 31

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 31 preview image

Preview Mode

This document has 162 pages. Sign in to access the full document!

Report

Learning Tools

Writing Tools

Browse Resources

Venture Capital, Private Equity, and the Financing of Entrepreneurship, 1st Edition Solution Manual - Page 1

Study Now!

Document Details

Related Documents

Introduction Microfinance - the concept of microfi

Texas Life and Health Insurance Exam 150 Questions

Understanding Obligation and Deobligation in Resou

Budgeting for Life After High School

Ch 4 les 1

Understanding Credit Reports Analyzing John's Fina

Essentials of Risk Management

Analysis of ABC Company

International Financial Management

Business and Financial Risks

Company

Explore

Study Tools