This paper examines the use of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) to operationalize satisfactory achievement, one distinguishing feature of the Least Restrictive Environment. This feature then is used to identify students receiving special education as potential candidates for reintegration into general education. In two studies, local norms representing the reading skills of general education low reading group students on passages derived from their curriculum were used to represent satisfactory performance. Students in special education who read as well as or better than their low reading group peers on CBM tasks were identified as potential candidates for reintegration. Results, analyzed by idiographic and nomothetic approaches, showed that a substantial portion (approximately 40%) of the special education students could be candidates for reintegration using this approach. Implications for reintegration efforts are discussed.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
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. 184–203). New York: Guilford.
Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176 (1982).
4.
Brophy, J., & Good, T. (1986). Teacher behavior and student achievement. In Wittrock (Ed.), Handbook of research on teaching (pp. 328–375). New York: Macmillan.
Deno, S.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: A new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
8.
Deno, S.L. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement and 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.
9.
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.
10.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104.
11.
Deno, S.L., Mirkin, P.K., & Chiang, B. (1982). Identifying valid measures of reading. Exceptional Children, 49, 36–45.
12.
Education for All Handicapped Children Act (PL 94--142). United States Statutes at Large, 79, pp. 27--52.
13.
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.
14.
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L.S. (1991). Framing the REI debate: Abolitionists vs. Conservationists. In J.W. Lloyd, A.C. Repp, & N.N. Singh (Eds.), Perspectives on the integration of atypical learners in regular education settings (pp. 241–245). DeKaib, IL: Sycamore Press.
15.
Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L.S., & Fernstrom, P. (1992). Case-by-case reintegration of students with learning disabilities. The Elementary School Journal, 92, 261–281.
16.
Fuchs, L.S. (in press). Enhancing instructional programming and student achievement with curriculum-based measurement. In J. Kramer (Ed.), Curriculum-based assessment: Examining old problems, evaluating new solutions.Lincoln, NE: Buros Institute.
17.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1984). Criterion-referenced assessment without measurement: How accurate for special education. Remedial and Special Education, 5(1), 29–32.
18.
Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal reading comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9(1), 20–28.
19.
Gans, K.D. (1985). Regular and special educators: Handicap integration attitudes and implications for consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 8(4), 188–197.
20.
Gans, K.D. (1987). Willingness of regular and special educators to teach students with handicaps. Exceptional Children, 54, 41–45.
21.
Gerber, M., & Semmel, M. (1984). Teachers as imperfect test: Reconceptualizing the referral process. Educational Psychologist, 19, 137–148.
22.
Gleason, M.M., Colvin, G., & Archer, A.L. (1991). Interventions for improving study skills. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 137–160). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
23.
Good, R.H., & Salvia, J. (1988). Curriculum bias in published, norm-referenced reading tests: Demonstrable effects. School Psychology Review, 17, 51–60.
24.
Grossen, B., & Carnine, D. (1991). Strategies for maximizing reading success in the regular education classroom. In G. Stoner, M.R. Shinn, & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 333–356). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
Hoover, J.J., & Cessna, K. (1984). Preservice teachers' attitudes toward mainstreaming prior to student teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 35(4), 49–51.
26.
Hundert, J. (1982). Some considerations of planning the integration of handicapped children into the mainstream. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 15(2), 73–80.
27.
Jenkins, J.R., & Pany, D. (1978). Standardized achievement tests: How useful for special education?Exceptional Children, 44, 448–453.
Knoff, H.M. (1985). Attitudes toward main-streaming: A status report and comparison of regular and special educators in New York and Massachusetts. Psychology in the Schools, 22, 411–418.
30.
Marston, D. (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: 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.
31.
McKinney, J.D., & Hocutt, A.M. (1988). The need for policy analysis in evaluating the Regular Education Initiative. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 21, 12–18.
32.
Moore, J., & Fine, M.J. (1978). Regular and special class teachers' perceptions of normal and exceptional children and their attitudes towards mainstreaming. Psychology in the Schools, 15, 253–259.
33.
Pearson, P.D., Johnson, D.D., Clymer, T., Indrisano, R., Venezky, R.L., Baumann, J.F., Hiebert, E., & Toth, M. (1989). World of reading.Needham, MA: Silver, Burdett, & Ginn.
34.
Pedhazur-Schmelkin, L. (1981). Teachers' and nonteachers' attitudes toward main-streaming. Exceptional Children, 48, 42–47.
35.
Rodden-Nord, M.K. (1990). An examination of the effects of achievement information on general education teachers' willingness to reintegrate mildly handicapped students into general education classrooms. Unpublished doctoral dissertation. Eugene: University of Oregon.
36.
Rodden-Nord, K.ss, Shinn, M.R., & Good, R.H. (1992). Effects of classroom performance data on general education teachers' willingness to reintegrate mildly handicapped students. School Psychology Review, 21, 138–154.
37.
Shapiro, E.S., & Derr, T.F. (1987). An examination of the overlap between reading curricula and standardized achievement tests. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 59–67.
38.
Shinn, M.R. (1988). Development of curriculum-based local norms for use in special education decisionmaking. School Psychology Review, 17, 61–80.
Shinn, M.R. (1989b). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M.R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children (pp. 90–129). New York: Guilford.
41.
Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., Knutson, N., Tilly, W., & Collins, V. (1992). Curriculum-based reading fluency: A confirmatory analysis of its relationship to reading. School Psychology Review, 21, 458–478.
42.
Shinn, M.R., & Marston, D. (1985). Differentiating mildly handicapped, low-achieving and regular education students: A curriculum-based approach. Remedial and Special Education, 6, 31–38.
43.
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 (pp. 287–308). Silver Spring, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
44.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G., Spira, D., & Marston, D. (1987). Learning disabilities as social policy. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 17–28.
45.
Shinn, M.R., Tindal, G., & Stein, S. (1988). Curriculum-based assessment and the identification of mildly handicapped students: A research review. Professional School Psychology, 3, 69–85.
46.
Stainback, W., & Stainback, S. (1984). A rationale for the merger of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 51, 102–111.
Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G.R. (1977). Applying behavior analysis procedures with children and youth.New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.
49.
Thurman, S.K. (1977). Congruence of behavioral ecologies: A model for special education programming. The Journal of Special Education, 11(3), 329–333.
50.
U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitation. (1988). Tenth Annual report to Congress on implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act. Washington, DC: Author.
