Sometimes the general education program alone is not able to meet the needs of a child with disabilities, and he/she may be able to receive special education services. The evaluation process can be a very difficult task when trying to identify if the child qualifies for special education, schools often have a pre-referral intervention process. The most prominent approached used today is the “response-to-Intervention” or RTI.
Special Education teachers face many challenges when trying to meet the needs of special needs students in their classrooms. Methods of evaluation are a big concern and challenge for educators of special needs students today. In addition, meeting everyone’s needs is a difficult task to accomplish because of students’ diverse abilities in the classroom. This research paper will explore the different methods of assessment in special education programs and the best practices to help this children achieve their potential in an appropriate setting.
Testing and assessment is an ongoing process with children in special education programs. Some of these assessments include, developmental assessments, screening tests, individual intelligence tests, individual academic achievement tests, adaptive behavior scales, behavior rating scales, curriculum-based assessments, end-of-grade, end-of-course, and alternate assessments. Comprehensive assessment of individual students requires the use of multiple data sources. These sources may also include standardized tests, informal measures, observations, student self-reports, parent reports, and progress monitoring data from response-to-intervention (RTI) approaches (NJCLD, 2005). The main purpose of a comprehensive assessment in the special education field is to accurately identify the strengths and needs of the students to help them be successful during their school years and there after.
Legislation has played a big role in the shift
Bibliography: Bush, President George W. (December 3, 2004). Bipartisan Special Education Reform Bill Cahalan, C. & Morgan, D.L. (2003). Review of state policy for high stakes testing of students with disabilities on high school exit exams Fair Test. (2005). The National Center for Fair & Open Testing. Retrieved from http://www.fairtest.org on October 12, 2011 Goldhaber, D. (2002). What might go wrong with the accountability measures of the? No Child Left Behind Act? The Urban Institute. IDEA Partnership, http://www.ideapartnership.org Klot z, M.B. & Canter, A. (2006). Culturally Competent Assessment and Consultation. Retrieved October 2011 from: http://www.naspcenter.org/principals/Culturally%20Competent%20Assessment%20and%20Consultation%20NASSP.pdf. National Association of School Psychology. (2007). The Truth in Labeling: Disproportionality Special Education. Retrieved from www.nea.org/books on October 15, 2011. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Available from www.ldonline.org/njcld. No educator left behind: Testing special education students. (2003). Retrieved October 15, 2011, from http://www.education-world.com/a_issues/NELB/NELB025.shtml Olson, L American Psychologist, 35, 31-35. Retrieved from www.apa.org on October 15, 2011 U.S