Reform changes were piloted by a rural special education cooperative in southern Illinois. This article describes the process used in one component of the reform, use of a problem-solving model at the prereferral level where curriculum-based measurement was a primary assessment. One observation was that fewer referrals were made for special education evaluations after the problem-solving model was put in place. Suggestions for improvement to the prereferral process are made.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
BayM., BryanT., & O'ConnorR. (1994). Teachers assisting teachers: A prereferral model for urban educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17(1), 10–21.
2.
ChalfantJ.C., & Van Dusen PyshM. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: five descriptive studies on 96 teams. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49–58.
3.
ChristensonS.L., & YsseldykeJ.E. (1989). Assessing student performance … an important change is needed. Journal of School Psychology, 27, 409–426.
4.
DenoS.L. (1986). Formative evaluation of individual student programs: a new role for school psychologists. School Psychology Review, 15, 358–374.
5.
DenoS., MarstonD., & MirkinP. (1982). Valid measurement procedures for continuous evaluation of written expression. Exceptional Children, 48, 368–371.
6.
FlugumK.R., & ReschlyD.J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14.
7.
FuchsL., & DenoS. (1981a). A comparison of reading placements based on teacher judgment, standardized testing and curriculum-based assessment (Research Report No. 56). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
8.
FuchsL., & DenoS. (1981b). The relationship between curriculum based mastery measures and standardized achievement tests in reading (Research Report No. 57).Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. 212 662).
9.
FuchsL.S., & FuchsD. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation on student achievement: a meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.
10.
FuchsL., FuchsD., & DenoS. (1982). Reliability and validity of curriculum-based informal reading inventories. Reading Research Quarterly, 18, 6–25.
11.
GutkinT.B., Henning-StoutM., & PierselW.C. (1988). Impact of a districtwide behavioral consultation prereferral intervention service on patterns of school psychological service delivery. Professional School Psychology, 3, 301–308.
12.
MarstonD. (1982). The technical adequacy of direct, repeated measurement of academic skills in low achieving elementary students. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN.
13.
MarstonD., FuchsL., & DenoS. (1987). Measuring pupil progress: a comparison of standardized achievement tests and curriculum-related measures. Diagnostique, 11, 77–90.
14.
NelsonJ.R., SmithD.J., TaylorL., DoddJ.M., & ReavisK. (1991). Prereferral intervention: a review of the research. Education and Treatment of Children, 14, 243–253.
15.
ReschlyD.J. (1996). Functional assessment and special education decision-making. In StainbackW. & StainbackS. (Eds.). Controversial Issues Confronting Special Education: Divergent Perspectives (2nd Ed., pp. 115–128), Needham Heights, Mass.: Allyn & Bacon.
16.
ReschlyD.J. (1988). Special education reform: school psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17(3), 459–475.
17.
ReschlyD.J. (1980). School psychologists and assessment in the future. Professional Psychology, 11, 841–848.
18.
ReschlyD.J., & FlugumK.R. (1992). Special education and related services: Characteristics of current services and implications for system reform (Research Report No. 4), Des Moines, IA: Iowa Department of Education, Bureau of Special Education, Renewed Services Delivery System.
19.
ReschlyD.J., & TillyW.D. (1993). The WHY of system reform. Communique, 22(1), 4–6.
ShinnM.R., YsseldykeJ.E., DenoS.L., & TindalG.A. (1986). A comparison of differences between students labeled learning disabled and low achieving on measures of classroom perfomance. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 19(9), 545–552.
22.
SlavinR., KarweitN., & MaddenN. (1989). Effective programs for students at risk. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.
23.
TindalG., GermannG., & DenoS. (1983). Descriptive research on the Pine County Norms: A compilation of findings (Research Report No. 132). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities.
24.
TillyW.D., FlugumK.R., & ReschlyD.J. (1996). Preliminary outcomes of renewed service delivery system. Iowa Department of Education.
25.
WittJ.C. (1986). Review of the Wide Range Achievement Test-Revised. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 4, 87–90.
