A Much Delayed Response to A Nation at Risk: Recent Innovations in General and Special Education

Abstract

THE IDEA that our education system is at risk is not a new one. Though its history is longer, this notion was brought to top of public agenda 25 years ago publication of A Nation at Risk. And it is still actively being addressed through legal reforms, mandates, and laws. Here we will discuss recommendations outlined in that landmark report that are specifically related to field of special education, look at efforts to address those recommendations, and end a glimpse into future of field. THE ROLE OF STANDARDIZED TESTING A Nation at Risk addresses matter of testing and discusses use of testing in education system. In brief, report recommends that standardized achievement tests be administered to students at major transition points in their education; that these tests be used to identify need for remediation or for accelerated work; and that tests be given as part of a nationwide system of state and local standardized tests, which would also include other diagnostic procedures designed to help teachers judge student progress. While it seems that A Nation at Risk was on right track its call for tests that would provide baseline data, identify student need, and assist teachers, traditional standardized testing doesn't lend itself to these purposes. Consider case of special education. Controversy and confusion have surrounded use of standardized tests for making decisions in special education, especially their role in I.Q./achievement discrepancy model that federal government previously recognized as way to define a learning disability. (1) A central concern using tests in this way is that they are given only after student has failed and been referred by classroom teacher. The instrument is used to evaluate evaluate whether student meets criteria for a specific learning disability, not to identify remedial strategies. The special educator must then do specific follow-up testing for instructional and remediation needs. Thus a search for alternative kinds of assessments for identifying students for special education has emerged. And Individuals Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) makes change a part of federal law in stating explicitly that the screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related (2) Partly in response to these statements from IDEA and to recommendation in A Nation at Risk that baseline data are needed to assess progress, a kind of package deal has emerged from field of special education: RTI (response to intervention) and CBM (curriculum-based measurement), approaches that allow educators to forgo discrepancy model and use assessments that lend themselves to individualized instruction. RTI uses students' responses to high-quality instruction to guide educational decisions, including decisions about efficacy of instruction and intervention, eligibility for special programs, design of individualized education programs (IEPs), and effectiveness of special education services. (3) In that way it allows for early intervention without waiting for students to fail before providing necessary services and support. (4) RTI may be described in this context as an alternative to I.Q./achievement discrepancy model, and embedded in RTI is CBM. CBM can be characterized as any set of measurement procedures that uses direct observation and measurement to judge a student's performance in school curriculum. (5) In other words, CBM provides information regarding student's abilities as they relate directly to classroom curriculum, and it can be used to assess all academic subjects across all grade levels. CBM also provides educators with a stronger link between assessment and instruction than do standardized tests of achievement. …