Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 1991-1
The Range Of Reading Skills Within And Across General Education Classrooms: Contributions To Understanding Special Education For Students With Mild Handicaps
This study examined the range of reading skills in elementary classrooms to understand the instructional needs of general education students. Students in Grades 1-6 were tested using two curriculum-based reading measures. Results documented a wide range of reading skills both within and across grades. Findings are discussed in terms of relations between general and special education.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Algozzine, B., Christenson, S., & Ysseldyke, J. (1982). Probabilities associated with the referral to placement process. Teacher Education and Special Education, 5, 19–23.
2.
Allen, D. (1989). Periodic and annual reviews and decisions to terminate special education services. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 182–201). New York: Guilford Press.
3.
Becker, H.S. (1963). Outsiders: Studies in the sociology of deviance. New York: Free Press.
4.
Clymer, T., & Fenn, T. (1979). Ginn Reading 720, Rainbow Edition. Lexington, MA: Ginn.
5.
Dawson, M.M. (1987). Beyond ability grouping: A review of the effectiveness of ability grouping and its alternatives. School Psychology Review, 16, 348–369.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
8.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and alternative special education services: A fundamental and direct relationship. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 1–17). New York: Guilford Press.
9.
Deno, S.L., & Fuchs, L.S. (1987). Developing curriculum-based measurement systems for data-based special education problem solving. Focus on Exceptional Children, 19(8), 1–16.
10.
Deno, S.L., Marston, D., Shinn, M.R., & Tindal, G. (1983). Oral reading fluency: A simple datum for scaling reading disability. Topics in Learning and Learning Disability, 2, 53–59.
11.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
12.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Wesson, K. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35, 5–24.
13.
Evertson, C.H., Sanford, J.P., & Emmer, E.T. (1981). Effects of class heterogeneity in junior high school. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 219–232.
14.
Freeman, D.J., Juhn, T.M., Porter, A.C., Floden, R.E., Schmidt, W.H., & Schwille, J.R. (1983). Do textbooks and tests define a national curriculum in elementary school mathematics?Elementary School Journal, 83, 501–513.
15.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(2), 20–28.
16.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teacher as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148.
17.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1985). Micro-economics of referral and reintegration: A paradigm for evaluation of special education. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 11, 13–29.
18.
Good, R.H., & Salvia, J. (1988). Curriculum bias in published, norm-referenced reading tests: Demonstrable effects. School Psychology Review, 17, 51–60.
19.
Hall, B. (1985). Survey of the technical characteristics of published educational achievement tests. Educational Measurement and Practice, 4, 6–14.
Jenkins, J.R., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
22.
Marston, D. (1989). A curriculum-based measurement approach to assessing performance: What is it and why do it? In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 18–78). New York: Guilford Press.
23.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.
24.
Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1988). Implementation of curriculum-based measurement. In J.L. Graden, J.E. Zins, & M.J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instructional options for all students (pp. 137–172). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
Marston, D., Tindal, G., & Deno, S.L. (1983). A comparison of standardized achievement tests and direct measurement techniques in measuring student progress (Research Report No. 126). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
26.
Reschly, D. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459–475.
27.
Reynolds, C.R. (1981). The fallacy of “two years below grade level for age” as a diagnostic criterion for reading disorders. Journal of School Psychology, 19, 350–358.
28.
Senf, G. (1981). Issues surrounding the diagnosis of learning disabilities: Child handicap versus failure of the child-school interaction. In T.R. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology: Vol. 4 (pp. 83–130). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
29.
Shapiro, E.S., & Derr, T. (1987). An examination of the overlap between reading curricula and standardized achievement tests. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 31–45.
30.
Shinn, M.R. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decisionmaking. School Psychology Review, 17, 61–80.
31.
Shinn, M.R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving, and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6(2), 31–38.
32.
Shinn, M.R., Nolet, V., & Knutson, N. (1990). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology II (pp. 287–307). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
33.
Shinn, M.R., & Rodden-Nord, K. (1990). RReACS: A model of responsibility reintegrating academically competent special education students into general education. In G. Tindal (Ed.), Proceedings from the 1990 Oregon Conference on Special Education (pp. 3–12). Eugene: University of Oregon.
34.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G., & Spira, D. (1987). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests?Exceptional Children, 54, 32–40.
35.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G.A., Spira, D.A., & Marston, D. (1987). Practice of learning disabilities as social policy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 17–28.
36.
Shinn, M.R., Ysseldyke, J.E., Deno, S.L., & Tindal, G.A. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving on measures of classroom performance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19, 545–552.
37.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
38.
Tindal, G.A., Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., Shinn, M.R., Deno, S.L., & Germann, G. (1985). Empirical validation of criterion-referenced tests. Journal of Educational Research, 78, 203–209.
39.
Tindal, G., Germann, G., & Deno, S.L. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
40.
Wesson, C., Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., Marayama, G., Skiba, R., King, R., & Sevcik, B. (1988). A causal analysis of the relationships among ongoing curriculum-based measurement and evaluation, the structure of instruction, and student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 330–343.
