This study was undertaken to determine whether a preschool screening instrument could predict whether kindergarten students would later be retained, referred to special education, or placed in special education. The results of Early Prevention of School Failure (EPSF) screening on 161 kindergarten students were examined. Students who had been retained, referred to special education, or placed in special education demonstrated significantly lower EPSF pretest scores except in the gross motor modality. All EPSF modalities were statistically significant predictors of students' status; however, other factors such as family support network, preschool experiences, and motivational factors must be considered in evaluating whether a student is “at risk” of later school failure.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AlgozzineB.ChristensonS., & YsseldykeJ. E. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.
2.
American Guidance Services. (1981). Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test — Revised Manual for Form L and M. Circle Pines, MN: Author.
3.
BarclayL. K. (1983). Developmental screening of early childhood skills. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 18, 94–100.
4.
BerryK. E. (1982). The revised administration, scoring, and teaching manual for the Developmental Test of Visual — Motor Integration. Cleveland, OH: Modern Curriculum Press.
5.
BetzP. (1990). Evaluation of student impact and program fidelity. Peotone, IL: Early Prevention of School Failure.
6.
CamperJ. (1989, August 14). Early signs can pinpoint dropouts, study finds. Chicago Tribune, p. 7.
7.
CarterJ., & SugaiG. (1989). Survey on prereferral practices: Responses from state departments of education. Exceptional Children, 55, 298–302.
8.
CatterallJ., & Cota-RoblesE. (1988). The educationally at-risk: What the numbers mean. In Accelerating the education of at-risk students [Summary]. Conference on Accelerating the Education of At-Risk Students (pp. 6–7). Stanford, CA: Center for Educational Research, Stanford University.
9.
DavisW. E., & McCaulE. (1990). At-risk children and youth: A crisis in our schools and society. Orono, ME: College of Education, University of Maine.
10.
FedorukG. K., & NormanC. A. (1991). Kindergarten screening predictive inaccuracy: First-grade teacher variability. Exceptional Children, 57, 258–263.
11.
GradenJ. L. (1989). Redefining “prereferral” intervention as intervention assistance: Collaboration between general and special education. Exceptional Children, 56, 221–231.
12.
GradenJ. L.CaseyA., & ChristensonS. L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: Part 1. The model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377–384.
13.
HafnerA.IngelsS.SchneiderB.StevensonD., & OwingsJ. A. (1990). National educational longitudinal study of 1988: A profile of the American eighth grader. (Report No. NCES 90–458). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
14.
HahnA.DanzbergerJ., & LefkowitzB. (1987). Dropouts in America: Enough is known for action. Washington, DC: Institute for Educational Leadership.
15.
JudyJ. (1986). Early screening is essential for educational accountability: Response to Salzer and to Shepard and Smith. Educational Leadership, 44, 87–88.
16.
KiersteadJ. T., & Gray-HancD. M. (1990). Maine special education data summary report: 1988–89. Augusta, ME: Maine Department of Education.
17.
LevinH. M. (1985). The educationally disadvantaged: A national crisis. (The State Youth Initiatives Project, Working Paper #6). Philadelphia: Public/Private Ventures.
18.
LindsayG. A., & WedellK. (1982). The early identification of educationally “at risk” children revisited. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15, 212–217.
19.
MarionS. F., & ColadarciT. (1990). A longitudinal study of grade retention and its effects. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, Boston.
20.
MeiselsS. J., & ProvenceS. (1989). Screening and assessment: Guidelines for identifying young disabled and developmentally vulnerable children and their families. (National Early Childhood Technical Assistance System and National Center for Clinical Infant Programs report, ISBN 0-943657-15-6.) Washington, DC: National Center for Clinical Infant Programs.
21.
ParkerL. D., & CiechalskiJ. C. (1990). Kindergarten screening and remediation strategies with implications for school counselors. Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 25, 116–122.
22.
PugachM. C., & JohnsonL. J. (1989). Prereferral intervention: Progress, problems, and challenges. Exceptional Children, 56, 217–226.
23.
SlavinR. E. (1989). Students at risk of school failure: The problem and its dimensions. In SlavinR.KarweitN., & MaddenN. (Eds.), Effective programs for students at risk (pp. 3–19). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
24.
SlavinR. E., & MaddenN. A. (1989). What works for students at risk: A research synthesis. Educational Leadership, 46, 14–20.
25.
SpeeceD. L. & CooperD. H. (1990). Ontogeny of school failure: Classification of first-grade children. American Educational Research Journal, 27, 119–140.
26.
WalkerH. M.StieberS.RamseyE., & O'NeillR. E. (1990). School behavioral profiles of arrested versus nonarrested adolescents. Exceptionality: A Research Journal, 1, 249–266.
27.
WernerL. (1985). Early prevention of school failure training and resource handbook. Peotone, IL: EPSF Nationally Validated Project.
28.
YsseldykeJ. E.ThurlowM. C., & O'SullivanP. J. (1987). The impact of screening and referral practices in early childhood special education: Policy considerations and research directions. Journal of Special Education, 21, 85–96.
