Much of the current research on special education effectiveness challenges the notion that delivery of these services to handicapped children significantly improves their academic performance in schools. It is argued here that such conclusions are premature since many of these studies are based upon tests with poor technical adequacy or flawed experimental designs. It is reasoned that a more efficacious approach to investigating issues of special education effectiveness might rely on time series analysis where researchers examine the response of handicapped children to varying educational interventions. This study presents such an approach where the impact of regular and special education on 11 mildly handicapped children is studied by analyzing their slope of improvement on weekly curriculum-based measures (CBM) reading scores. The data for these pupils suggest that special education is in fact a significant educational intervention, and that time series analysis of CBM data is a useful evaluation tool. In addition, the report provides an analysis of the instructional environment of these children in their regular and special education settings.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Arter, J., & Jenkins, J.R. (1979). Differential diagnosis-prescriptive teaching: A critical appraisal. Review of Educational Research, 49, 517–555.
2.
Becker, W.C. (1977). Teaching reading and language to the disadvantaged---What we have learned from field research. Harvard Educational Review, 47, 518–543.
3.
Blatt, B., & Garfunkel, F. (1973). Teaching the mentally retarded. In R. Travers (Ed.), Second handbook of research on teaching.Chicago: Rand McNally.
4.
Bloom, B.S. (1984, June/July). The 2 sigma problem: The search for methods of group instruction as effective as one-to-one tutoring. Educational Researcher, pp. 4–15.
5.
Campbell, D.T., & Stanley, J.C. (1963). Experimental- and quasi-experimental designs for research and teaching. In N.L. Gage (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 171–246). Chicago: Rand McNally.
6.
Carlberg, C., & Kavale, K. (1980). The efficacy of special versus regular class placement for exceptional children: A meta-analysis. The Journal of Special Education, 14, 295–309.
7.
Carver, R.P. (1974). Two dimensions of tests: Psychometric and edumetric. American Psychologist, 29, 512–518.
8.
Cegelka, W.J., & Tyler, J.L. (1970). The efficacy of special class placement for the mentally retarded in proper perspective. Training School Bulletin, 67, 33–68.
9.
Clymer, T. & Fenn, T. (1979). Reading 720: Rainbow edition.Lexington, MA: Ginn.
10.
Cronbach, L.J., & Furby, L. (1970). How we should measure "change"---or should we?Psychological Bulletin, 1, 68–80.
11.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
12.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D. & Mirkin, P.K. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
13.
Deno, S.L., & Mirkin, P.K. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
14.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K. & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
15.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K.Lowry, L. & Kuehnle, K. (1980). Relationships among simple measures of spelling and performance on standardized achievement tests (Research Report No. 21). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota, Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
16.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K. & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16 (2), 99–105.
17.
Edwards, A.L. (1970). The measurement of personality traits by scales and inventories.New York: Holt.
Englert, C.S., & Sugai, G. (1981). Direct instruction observation system (DIOS).Lexington: University of Kentucky.
20.
Floden, R., Porter, A.Schmidt, W. & Freeman, D. (1980). Don't they all measure the same thing? In E. Baker & E. Quellnalz (Eds.), Educational testing and evaluation (pp. 109–120). Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
21.
Fry, E. (1968). Graph for estimating reliability. Journal of Reading, 11 (7), 513–516, 577.
22.
Fuchs, L.S. (1986). Monitoring progress among mildly handicapped pupils: Review of current practice and research. Remedial and Special Education, 7 (5), 5–12.
23.
Fuchs, L., Deno, S.L. & Mirkin, P.K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460.
24.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
25.
Glass, G.V. (1983). Effectiveness of special education. Policy Studies Review, 2 (1), 65–78.
26.
Glass, G.V., Willson, V.L. & Gottman, J.M. (1975). Design and analysis of time-series experiments.Boulder: University of Colorado Press.
27.
Greenwood, C.R., Delquadri, J.C. Stanley, S.O. Terry, B. & Hall, R.V. (1982). Relationships among instructional contexts, student behavior, and academic achievement. Unpublished manuscript, No. 81–081.
28.
Hersen, M., & Barlow, D.H. (1976). Single case experimental designs.New York: Pergamon Press.
29.
Hively, W., & Reynolds, M.C. (1975). Domain-referenced testing in special education.Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.
30.
Jenkins, J., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
Kirk, R.E. (1968). Experimental design: Procedures for the behavioral sciences.Belmont, CA: Brooks/Cole.
33.
Kratochwill, T.R. (1978). Single subject research: Strategies for evaluating change.New York: Academic Press.
34.
Madden, R., Gardner, E.R.Rudman, H.Karlsen, B. & Merwin, J.C. (1973). Stanford achievement test.New York: Harcourt, Brace, Jovanovich.
35.
Marston, D., Fuchs, L. & Deno, S. (1986). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring pupil progress. Diagnostique, 11, 77–90.
36.
Marston, D., * Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementation of curriculum-based measurement in the special and regular education setting. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.
37.
Marston, D., Mirkin, P.K. & Deno, S.L. (1984). Curriculum-based measurement: An alternative to traditional screening, referral, and identification. The Journal of Special Education, 18, 109–118.
38.
Minneapolis Public Schools. (1985). Bench-mark reading test.Minneapolis, MN: Department of Counseling and Assessment Services, Minneapolis Public Schools.
39.
Naslund, R.A., Thorpe, L.P. & Lefever, D. W. (1978). SRA achievement series.Chicago: Science Research Associates.
40.
Nunnally, J. (1978). Psychometric theory (2nd ed.). New York: McGraw-Hill.
41.
Rosenshine, B.V. (1980). How time is spent in elementary classrooms. In C. Denham & A. Lieberman (Eds.), Time to learn (pp. 107–126). Washington, DC: National Institute of Education.
42.
Salvia, J., & Ysseldyke, J.E. (1981). Assessment in special and remedial education (2nd ed.). Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
43.
Shinn, M.R. (1986). Does anyone care what happens after the refer-test-place sequence: The systematic evaluation of special education program effectiveness. School Psychology Review, 15, 49–58.
44.
Sidman, M. (1960). Tactics of scientific research: Evaluating experimental data in psychology.New York: Basic Books.
45.
Skinner, B.F. (1953). Science and human behavior.New York: Macmillan.
46.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B. & Mayer, G.R. (1977). Applying behavior-analysis procedures with children and youth.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
47.
Thorndike, R., & Hagen, E. (1978). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (2nd ed.). New York: Wiley.
48.
Tindal, G. (1985). Investigating the effectiveness of special education: An analysis of methodology. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 18, 101–112.
Ysseldyke, J.E. (1973). Diagnostic-prescriptive teaching: The search for aptitude-treatment interactions. In L. Mann & D. Sabatino (Eds.), The first review of special education.Philadelphia: JSE Press.
