Asking the Right Questions, Getting the Right Answers: Evaluating Young Children for Special Education Service

Feel free to print and/or copy any original materials contained in this packet. KITS has purchased the right to reproduce the copyrighted articles included in this packet. Any additional duplication should adhere to appropriate copyright law.

The example organizations, people, places, and events depicted herein are fictitious. No association with any real organization, person, places, or events is intended or should be inferred.

_{Compiled by Misty Goosen, Ed.S. and David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.}

_{Updated December 2008}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System}

_{Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities}

_{Adapted for accessibility and transferred to new website October 2022}

_{Kansas Inservice Training System is supported though Part C, IDEA Funds from the Kansas Department of Health and Environment.}

_{The University of Kansas is and Equal Opportunity/Affirmative Action Employer and does not discriminate in its programs and activities. Federal and state legislation prohibits discrimination on the basis of race, religion, color, national origin, ancestry, sex, age, disability, and veteran status. In addition, University policies prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation, marital status, and parental status.}

Table of Contents

Letter from the Director

Position Statement on Early Childhood Assessment

Best Practices in Early Childhood Assessment/Evaluation

Collecting and Using Information

Example of Informal Assessment Measures

Early Childhood Application of the KSDE Eligibility Indicators

References, Resources and Websites

Packet Evaluation

Letter from the Director

June 2004

Dear Colleague,

When IDEA was first authorized, the focus was on the rights of a child with a disability to access public education (FAPE). Since that time professionals involved in special education evaluations relied heavily on norm-reference, standardized test that documented and categorized specific disabilities. However, when IDEA was reauthorized in 2004, a new focus was established: Access to the general curriculum (for preschoolers - age appropriate activities).  Therefore, a new question was added to the evaluation process. "If a disability exists, how is it affecting the child's ability to participate and progress in age appropriate activities?" This question cannot be answered using the traditional methods of the past. 

This packet was created to provide early childhood special education professionals guidance in conducting early childhood evaluations and assessments that are based on best practice and adhere to state and federal requirements. During the development of this packet, input was provided from staff at the Kansas State Department of Education, Student Support Services. Much of the information provided was adapted from the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (July 2001).

We hope that you will find that the packet contains helpful information. After you have examined the packet, please complete the evaluation found at the end of this packet. Thank you for your interest and your efforts toward the development of quality services and programs for young children and their families.

Sincerely,

David P. Lindeman, Ph.D.

KITS Director

The latest version of the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook can be viewed on the Kansas State Department of Education website. 

Back to top of page

Position Statement on Early Childhood Assessment

This section provides a definition of evaluation and assessment as well as  position statements, standards, and literature that supports best practices in the assessment of young children.

Evaluation vs. Assessment

• Evaluation is the broad umbrella under which assessment sits.
• Evaluation is a process of determination based on judgments of certain information, including but not limited to assessment information.  Determinations such as eligibility for special education or progress over time by comparing skills before and after intervention are both evaluative by nature.
• Assessment is the process of observing, gathering and/or recording information. Assessment is part of the larger evaluation process.

_{Losardo, A., & Notari-Syverson, A. (2001).  Alternative approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore: Paul Brookes.}

NASP Position Statement EC Assessment

The National Association of School Psychologists believes that early identification of developmental and learning problems in infants and young children (ages birth through five years) is essential because of young children’s broad and rapid development. Intervention services for these children’s psychological and developmental difficulties are essential, beneficial, and cost-effective (e.g., Barnett, 1993; Dawson & Osterling, 1997; Schweinhart, Barnes, Weikart, Barnett, & Epstein, 1993). Because the accurate and fair identification of the developmental needs of young children is critical to the design, implementation, and success of appropriate interventions, school psychologists must play a key role.

Evidence from research and practice in early childhood assessment indicates that issues of technical adequacy are more difficult to address with young children who have little test-taking experience, short attention spans, and whose development is rapid and variable (Greenwood , Luze & Carta, 2002). Therefore, standardized assessment procedures should be used with great caution in educational decision-making because such tools are inherently less accurate and less predictive when used with young children (Meisels & Atkins-Burnett, 2000).

Multidisciplinary team assessments must include multiple sources of information, multiple assessment approaches, and be conducted in multiple settings and across time in order to yield a comprehensive understanding of young children’s skills and needs (Neisworth & Bagnato, 2000) . Alternative assessment methods and procedures, including transdisciplinary arena assessment, curriculum-based assessment and play-based assessment should be considered (Losardo & Notari-Syverson, 2001). Assessments should center on the child in the family system and home environment, both substantial influences on the development of young children. Similarly, families’ self-identified resources, priorities and concerns should drive the decision-making process concerning the identification of child and family services (Bailey, 1996).

Because categorical identification of infants, toddlers, and young children is ineffective in most cases for meeting the special needs of young children, assessment of infants and young children requires specialized training and skills beyond those required for the assessment of older children (Mowder, 1996). Longitudinal and functional assessment of behavior and functional developmental skills of infants, young children, and families in a variety of settings is needed to evaluate and document progress and response to intervention over time, and must guide early intervention strategies in meaningful ways (Bagnato, Neisworth, & Munson, 1997) .

Therefore, the National Association of School Psychologists will promote early childhood assessment practices that are:

• developmentally appropriate, flexible, ecological, whole-child focused, strength-based, skills-based, and family-centered (Bagnato et al., 1997; Bricker, 2002);
• conducted by a multi-disciplinary team (Nagle, 2000);
• linked to intervention strategies designed for young children (Meisels, 1996);
• based upon comprehensive, educational and/or behavioral concerns, rather than isolated deficits identified by individual assessments (Bagnato et al., 1997);
• nondiscriminatory in terms of gender, ethnicity, native language, family composition, and/or socio-economic status (Lynch & Hanson, 1996); and
• technically adequate and validated for the purpose(s) for which they are used, including the provision of norms, where applicable, for minority children and children with physical disabilities (DeMers & Fiorello, 1999).

Role of the School Psychologist

NASP encourages the adoption of family-centered practices for early childhood assessment and intervention, including full integration of parents and families into the assessment and intervention components of early childhood services. This mandates methods of naturalistic and systematic observation and information gathering, including work sampling procedures and the involvement of the family, home environment, daycare/preschool, and the community ecology as part of the comprehensive assessment (Nuttall, Nuttall-Vasquez, & Hampel, 1999). School psychologists should provide leadership to the multidisciplinary team in ensuring that all information gathered through the assessment is clearly understood by parents so that they can make fully-informed decisions about interventions for their children.

NASP also advocates for pre-service and in-service education for school psychologists and other professionals to address the following issues: 1) normal and atypical developmental patterns of infants and young children; 2) practices, procedures, and instrumentation appropriate for screening and assessment of young children, their families, and their environments; 3) the selection of assessment techniques and utilization of findings from such assessments for the design, implementation, and efficacy evaluation of interventions; and 4) standards for early childhood mental health, behavioral, and educational assessment, including legal, ethical, and professional issues - all in the context of non categorical service delivery for young children and their families.

Summary

NASP supports early childhood assessment practices that allow for accurate and fair identification of the developmental needs of infants, preschoolers, and young children and facilitate interventions that involve parents and other caregivers. Sound early childhood assessment should involve a multi-disciplinary team, including school psychologists with specialized training in the assessment of the young child who view behavior, mental health, and development from a longitudinal perspective.

Annotated Bibliography

Berman, C., & Shaw, E. (1996). Family-directed child evaluation and assessment under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). In S. J. Meisels & E. Fenichel (Eds.), New visions for the developmental assessment of infants and young children (pp. 361-390). Washington, DC: Zero to Three. This chapter is a wonderful resource for those wanting to learn about putting a family-directed assessment process into action. It describes and illustrates characteristics of family-directed assessment, including issues related to families, the assessment process, personnel preparation issues, and system level issues.

Bracken, B. A. (2000). The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (2nd ed.). Boston: Allyn & Bacon. This edited text is a comprehensive volume addressing multiple aspects of preschool assessment. It includes chapters on preschool assessment history and issues, common assessment instruments, and methods of assessing various developmental domains and populations.

Greenwood , C. R., Luze, G.J & Carta, J. J. (2002). Best practices in assessment of intervention results with infants and toddlers. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 12191230). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. This chapter discusses basic knowledge and skills needed to assess infants and young children, as well as focusing on the assessment of early intervention results. It outlines the approach for progress monitoring for infants and toddlers developed by the Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development. A case study is included.

Katz, L. (1997). A developmental approach to assessment of young children . Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education. This paper describes the concept of developmental appropriateness as it applies to the assessment of young children. The various purposes of assessing individual children are discussed. A match between plans, strategies, and assessment instruments and specific assessment purpose is mandated.

McConnell, S. R., Priest, J. S., Davis, S. D., & McEvoy, M. A. (2002). Best practices in measuring growth and development for preschool children. In A. Thomas, & J. Grimes (Eds), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 1231-1246). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists. This chapter discusses Individual Growth and Development Indicators for preschool-aged children, newly developed, repeatable measures which sample performance in each major developmental domain. It describes the indicators that have been developed to measure each domain, as well as future directions for development.

Meisels, S. J., & Atkins-Burnett, S. (2000). The elements of early childhood assessment. In J. P. Shonkoff & S. J. Meisels (Eds.), Handbook of early childhood intervention (2nd ed.) (pp. 231-257). New York: Cambridge University Press. This chapter addresses issues relevant to early childhood assessment by discussing principles of responsive assessment (e.g., the importance of development, considering strengths and functional skills) and then discussing in detail five elements of assessment, with a focus on targets, contexts, and methods of assessment, as well as assessment personnel and the fusion of assessment and intervention.

Neisworth, J. T., & Bagnato, S. J. (2000). Recommended practices in assessment. In S. Sandall, M. E. McLean, & B. J. Smith (Eds.), DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education (pp. 17-27). Longmont, CO: Sopris West. This chapter lists practices recommended by the Division for Early Childhood for assessment in early intervention and early childhood special education programs for infant and young children with special needs and their families. Suggested standards are listed and defined (e.g., utility, authenticity, equity). The chapter concludes with a list of recommended assessment practices that should be useful to practitioners or programs wanting to assess the extent to which their practices are in line with DEC recommendations.

Nielson, S., & McEvoy, M. A. (2003). Functional behavioral assessment in early education settings. Journal of Early Intervention, 26(2), 115-131. This article provides an overview of functional behavior assessment theory and methods. In addition, it discusses application of FBA to work with young children, and it describes how FBA methods can be used in conjunction with family-based practices and services in natural environments.

Shephard, L., Kagan, S., & Wurtz, E. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington DC: National Education Goals Panel. https://govinfo.library.unt.edu/negp/reports/prinrec.pdf. This booklet discusses best practices for assessment of young children considering their unique development, recent abuses of testing, and legitimate demands for clear and useful information. General principles of assessment included address benefits, reliability and validity, age level appropriateness and language, and parent role in assessment.   

Tomlin, A. M., & Viehweg, S. A. (2003). Infant mental health: Making a difference. Professional Psychology: Research and Practice, 34, 617-625. This article provides an overview of infant mental health, with a focus on principles for the appropriate assessment and intervention with very young children. The article nicely links services typically provided by psychologists in mental health settings to developmental services typically provided under Part C.

References

Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Munson, S. M. (1997). LINKing assessment and early intervention: An authentic curriculum-based approach. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Bailey, D. B. (1996). Assessing family resources, priorities, and concerns. In M. McLean, D. B. Bailey, & M. Wolery (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed.) (pp. 202-233). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Barnett, W. S. (1993). Benefit-cost analysis of preschool education: Findings from a 25-year follow-up. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 63(4), 500-508.

Bricker, D. (2002). AEPS: Assessment, evaluation, and programming system for infants and young children (2nd ed.). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Dawson, G., & Osterling, J. (1997). Early intervention in autism. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.), The effectiveness of early intervention (pp. 307-326). Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

DeMers, S. T., & Fiorello, C. (1999). Legal and ethical issues in preschool assessment and screening. In E. V. Nuttall, I. Romero, & J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and screening preschoolers: Psychological and educational dimensions (pp. 50-58). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Losardo, A., & Notari-Syverson, A. (2001). Alternative approaches to assessing young children. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Lynch, E. W., & Hanson, M. J. (1996). Ensuring cultural competence in assessment. In M. McLean, D. B. Bailey, & M. Wolery (Eds.), Assessing infants and preschoolers with special needs (2nd ed.) (pp. 69-95). Columbus, OH: Merrill.

Meisels, S. J. (1996). Charting the continuum of assessment and intervention. In S. J. Meisels, & E. Fenichel (Eds.), New visions for the developmental assessment of infants and young children (pp. 27-52). Washington, DC: Zero to Three.

Mowder, B. A. (1996). Preparing school psychologists. In D. Bricker & A. Widerstrom (Eds.), Preparing personnel to work with infants and young children and their families: A team approach. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes.

Nagle, R. J. (2000). Issues in preschool assessment. In B. A. Bracken (Ed.), The psychoeducational assessment of preschool children (3rd ed.) (pp. 19-32). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Nuttall, E. V., Nuttall-Vasquez, K., & Hampel, A. (1999). Introduction. In E. V. Nuttall, I. Romero, & J. Kalesnik (Eds.), Assessing and screening preschoolers: Psychological and educational dimensions (pp. 1-8). Boston: Allyn & Bacon.

Schweinhart, L. J., Barnes, H. V., Weikart, D. P., Barnett, W. S., & Epstein, A. S. (1993). Significant benefits: The High/Scope Perry Preschool study through age 27. Ypsilanti, MI: High/Scope Press.

• Original version adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, March 1991
• Revision adopted by NASP Delegate Assembly, July 2005

© 2005 National Association of School Psychologists, 4340 East West Highway, Suite 402, Bethesda MD 20814 - 301-657-0270.

Please note that NASP periodically revises its Position Statements.  We encourage you to check the NASP to ensure that you have the most current version of this Position Statement.

Assessment Standards

Following are eight standards proposed by Steve Bagnato and John Neisworth for materials that facilitate collaborative assessment.

Standard 1: Utility

The materials used for assessment need to support the collaborative team model and be useful for planning intervention and measuring change. Assessment should be evaluated using these three questions:

1. Is the assessment useful for identifying instructional and therapeutic objectives?
2. Is the assessment useful for selecting methods or approaches for teaching or therapy?
3. Is the assessment useful for detecting change after intervention?

Standard 2: Acceptability

Acceptability of assessment, or social validity, refers to the perceived value or appropriateness of assessment. Like utility, acceptability can be gauged at three levels: (1) acceptability of identif ied intervention goals; (2) acceptability of assessment methods; and (3) acceptability of changes detected by assessment.

Standard 3: Authenticity

Authentic assessment materials examine real functioning in real situations. Naturalistic observation, behavior rating scales, interview inventories, and curriculum¬based measures are examples of materials that usually focus on authentic content. Testing children at tables with flip cards, miniature toys, and a prolonged series of tasks is not a realistic sample of how children really function in their own situations. Not only may some of these non-authentic tasks be non-representative of real situations, but many children with special needs cannot manage the tasks or are not interested in them.

Standard 4: Equity

Within the law, equity refers to equality of opportunity, not necessarily equal circumstances. Equity in teaching means supplying children with learning materials and arrangements that accommodate for sensory, motor, affective, or cultural differences. The same standard of equity must be applied to assessment materials.

Standard 5: Sensitivity

Many assessment materials include only a few items for appraising competence. Too few items mean that only relatively crude estimates can be made, so finer targeting for intervention planning is not possible, nor is it is feasible to monitor progress from this type of assessment.

Standard 6: Convergence

Some scales or inventories depend only on one occasion, source, and setting. Many new materials include alternate forms to be completed by parents, teachers, or others who can offer their perspectives. Converging two or more perspectives provides a wider information base, typically including multiple settings (home, school), times (current, prior), and sources (parent, teacher).

Standard 7: Congruence

Almost all conventional psychometric materials have been developed and standardized with a “ standard “sample of children. The items and administration are designed to assess deviation from the norm, and thus to make diagnosis possible. It should be apparent that such materials would fail the standards of equity and sensitivity. Congruence requires that materials are developed and field tested with children similar to those being assessed.

Standard 8: Collaboration

This standard is discussed last because it depends on the preceding standards. Cooperative assessment involves sharing the effort, providing materials in a “friendly” manner to parents and other professionals, and actually depending on the contributions of others to produce the information needed for collaborative decision making. It should be clear that the various standards, especially convergence and authenticity, provide the basis for collaboration. The special requirement for collaboration is cooperative decision making based on the assessment information.

_{Adapted from: Bagnato, S. and Neisworth, J. (1999, April). Collaboration and teamwork in assessment for early intervention. Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America, 8(2), 347 363.}

_{Early Childhood Connections for Infants, Toddlers & Families. (2002, September). Resources and Connections, 1(6), 4. Retrieved December 2, 2008, from http://www.eicolorado.org/files/Newsletter_6.pdf. - Website has since moved to coloradoofficeofearlychildhood.secure.force.com. Reprinted with permission.}

Back to top of page

Best Practices in Early Childhood Assessment/Evaluation

*Please note that the following section "Best Practices in Early Childhood Assessment/Evaluation" had several technical errors when transferring the packet from its original PDF format into this webpage. Every effort was made to fix these errors, however, if you find something you believe to be an error that was missed, please reach out to notify us of it. The common technical issues were parts of sentences that were misplaced, spaces where there should be none and missing hyphens.*

This section provides an overview of the evaluation and assessment process as it applies to young children (ages 35 years) who may have disabilities, according to state and federal law. Explanations of the law, process, and specific examples pertaining to early childhood are provided. Much of the information provided in this section comes directly from the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (February, 2008), a guide developed by the Kansas State Department of Education, Special Education Services to facilitate the understanding and implementation of IDEA in public school systems in Kansas.

Initial Evaluation

1. Referral received from screening, general education intervention process or parent request
2. Parent rights provided at time of referral
3. Prior Written notice provided and consent obtained
4. Develop evaluation plan
5. Evaluation conducted
6. Eligibility determined by team
7. Eligibility report provided to parents
8. IEP developed and implemented if the child is found eligible
9. Child not eligible/Other intervention plan developed

_{Adapted from Special Education Services. (2008, February). Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (p. 3-2 Figure 3-1) Topeka, KS: Kansas State Department of Education.} 

Asking the Right Questions, Getting the Right Answers: Evaluating Young Children for Special Education Services  (Part B)

By Misty D. Goosen, Ed.S.

Introduction

One role of early childhood professionals is the identification of young children with special needs and the development of appropriate services for those children.  An initial evaluation requires many legal and ethical considerations, as evaluation information will be used in a variety of ways for a variety of purposes.  Early childhood professionals may be left feeling overwhelmed by the process.  To comply with legal mandates, assessment instruments and methods must be selected that help teams determine whether the child’s development is significantly different from other children the same age and how those differences affect the child’s ability to participate in every day activities.

The National Association for the Education of Young Children & the National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of Education in their 2003 joint position statement provide the following as indicators of effectiveness in early childhood assessment:

• Ethical principles guide assessment practices
• Assessment instruments are used for their intended purposes
• Assessments are appropriate for ages and other characteristics of children being assessed
• Assessment instruments are in compliance with professional criteria for quality
• What is assessed is developmentally and educationally significant
• Assessment evidence is gathered from realistic settings and situations that reflect children’s actual performance
• Assessments use multiple sources of evidence gathered over time
• Screening is always linked to follow-up
• Use of individually administered, norm-referenced tests is limited
• Staff and families are knowledgeable about assessment

Using the Kansas State Department of Education’s Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (February, 2008) as a guide, the following information is specific to those involved in the evaluation of young children who may be eligible for special education services.  The evaluation process begins with the initial referral through the collection of information crucial to the development of meaningful and measurable Individual Education Plan (IEP) goals. 

Beginning the Process   

Child Find/ Referral Process

Policies and procedures used by the Local Education Agency (LEA) to locate, identify, and serve students with special needs are called Child Find activities.  Child Find activities include, but are not limited to, screening, evaluation, and special education services.   

Children are identified for an initial evaluation in a variety of ways.  Some children are identified through a formal screening process, others are referred through the Part C program prior to their 3rd birthday, while other children are brought for an evaluation at the request of their parents.

Screening: 

The purpose of screening is to determine the need for an initial evaluation. Screening is considered to be a quick look at the developmental areas to assist in determining whether a child should be referred for an initial evaluation.

Kansas regulations specify that each school board have policies and procedures that include age-appropriate screening procedures for children from birth to age five (KAR 91-40-7).   State requirements also mandate that screening, including hearing and vision screening, must be equally available in all public and private schools within the school district's boundaries.  (KSA 72-1204 and 72-5204 et seq.).   Young children's needs must be identified as soon as possible, so that early intervention may be provided.  While there is no specific timeline set for screening, the state requires that screening occur within a reasonable amount of time after the initial request. As a general rule, no child should have to wait more than 30 calendar days for a screening.

Schools should work with their local tiny-k network to collaborate on  Child Find activities that take place for children from birth through two years of age.  For information about local tiny k networks, call the Infant-Toddler Services office at the Kansas Department of Health and Environment, 800-332-6262 or 785-296-6135.  District staff may also collaborate with other local providers who also conduct screenings, such as Head Start, local health departments, Parents As Teachers, Healthy Start home visitors, or KAN-Be-Healthy screeners through Medicaid.  (For information about one or more of these programs, contact the Make A Difference Information Network, 800-332-6262).

Any time it is suspected that a child (birth to age five) may be a child with a disability, school personnel, the family, and/or individuals in the community (e.g., physicians, child care providers, etc.) may refer a child for screening.  Screening must include observations, instruments, measures, and techniques that indicate potential developmental delays or disabilities.  Screenings must also assess vision (including behavioral and observational signs of vision problems in addition to basic vision screening) and hearing (including middle ear function and behavioral audiometry).  Districts must maintain documentation on results of screenings. developmental de If the results of the screening indicate a potential lay or disability, the screening team makes the referral for initial evaluation.

Screening information can also be gathered in less formal ways.  Information provided by preschool teachers, doctors, or others who have recent information that indicates the child may be at risk of having a disability can be used to determine if an initial evaluation is necessary, thus bypassing a formal screening.

No matter how screening information is collected, good screening practices will make a correct decision 70% to 80% of the time.  That means that 20% of the time children who are referred on for an evaluation will later be found to be developing within normal limits and not in need of special education services.  Districts who find that nearly all of the children screened go on to qualify for special education after an initial evaluation, may be conducting screening activities that are too rigorous.  Screening activities shouldn’t require the same amount of staff time and effort as evaluation activities, and should over identify children as being at risk.

Referral from Part C:

Each Part C program is required to notify the appropriate LEA at least 90 days before a child, who may be eligible for Part B services, turns three. This 90 a referral to the Part B program and begins the 60-- day notice constitutes day timeline for the evaluation, IEP development and services (if eligible). Special consideration must be given to children who turn three during the summer. The referral must be made 90 days before the end of the school year, so that appropriate services will be in place for each child.  For all children referred from the Part C system, an IEP must be developed and services begun by the child’s third birthday. 

To insure that an IEP is developed and that services are begun before a child’s third birthday, Kansas allows school districts to identify and serve any two-year old child who will turn three during the school year, even if he or she has not been served in the Part C program.  Districts may collaborate with the local infant toddler network to initiate the transition process earlier than the minimum 90day period for those children who will turn three over the summer months.  Initiating the evaluation process earlier for these children will allow the district to start services before the third birthday, and avoid the confusion of summer month evaluations.

Parent Request:

Parents who have concerns about their child’s development may request either a screening or formal evaluation for their child.  Each LEA must have procedures for parents to make a written referral for an initial evaluation. When parents contact an LEA to discuss their concerns, a contact person from the district should explain to the parents the following:

• They have the right to go directly to an evaluation; and/or
• A screening process is available and may precede an initial evaluation to assist the team in determining the specific concerns and needs of the child.

Parents must be fully informed about the purposes of screening and evaluation.  They must understand the specific activities that will take place and the potential outcomes of such activities.

Actions Required of School Personnel Responsible for Initiating Evaluations

Once a child has been referred for an initial evaluation, school personnel are required to:

1. provide parents with a copy of their Parent Rights
2. prepare the Prior Written Notice, including referral information, review of existing information,  and an determination of what, if any, data will be collected during the evaluation
3. provide Prior Written Notice of their intent to conduct an initial evaluation, or their refusal to conduct an initial evaluation
4. obtain Informed Written Consent for the proposed action
5. form the evaluation team
6. conduct the evaluation following the 60 school-day timeline
7. determine eligibility, and provide parents with the eligibility report

Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, February, 2008

The Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (February, 2008) states that there is no longer a specified timeline for the initial evaluation itself; however, State regulations specify several time requirements that must be completed within 60 school days unless an agency can justify the need for a longer period of time or has obtained written parent consent for an extension of time.  The 60-school-day timeline begins when the agency receives informed written parent consent, continues through gathering the evaluation data and determining eligibility, and ends when IEP services are implemented (should the student be found eligible for special education).

Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Page 3-23 February, 2008

The Evaluation Team

Evaluation Team Responsibilities

After the required actions have been taken, an evaluation team, including the parents, is formed.  The primary responsibility of the evaluation team is to analyze assessment data and make decisions based on that information about whether:

• The child is a child with an exceptionality;
• The child needs special education and related services; and
• The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance of the child.

Members of the evaluation team are the same as those who would serve (should the child be found eligible) on the child's IEP Team, including the parents.  Other qualified professionals may be included, as appropriate.  In Kansas, the additional team members mentioned in 34 CFR 300.540 are considered appropriate for these teams.  Thus, team members include:

• The parents of the child;
• At least one general education teacher of the child (if the child does not have a general education teacher, a general education classroom teacher qualified to teach a child of his or her age; or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified to teach a child of the same age);
• At least one special education teacher or one special education provider of the child;
• A representative of the public agency who is (1) qualified to provide, or supervise the provision of, specially designed instruction to meet the unique needs of children with exceptionalities; (2) knowledgeable about the general curriculum; and (3) knowledgeable about the availability of resources of the public agency;
• An individual who can interpret the instructional implications of evaluation results (may be qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of the child, such as a school psychologist, speech-language pathologist, or remedial reading teacher);
• At the discretion of the parents or the agency, other individuals who have knowledge or special expertise regarding the child, including related services personnel as appropriate;
• Other qualified professionals, as appropriate; and
• If appropriate, the child.

(Federal Regulations Sec. 300-533 which refers to Sec. 300.344. IEP Team).

Parents as Team Members

Parents have not always been included as members of the evaluation team; however, when IDEA was reauthorized parent membership became required. The intent of this addition was to allow families to be equal partners in the process of identification and educational planning for their children.

The role parents choose to take in this process will vary.  Some parents may choose to participate in traditional ways such as providing information through interviews and surveys.  Others may choose a more active role by participating in play-based and other types of assessments with their child and in the development of goals for their child’s IEP.  In either case, it is up to the LEA to provide meaningful opportunities for families to participate as active members of the evaluation team.

Regular Education Preschool Teacher at the IEP/IFSP Meeting

The following information is provided in Appendix A, Figure 4-1a, pages 1-4 in the Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (February, 2008):

IDEA-2004 regulations establish the requirements for IEP/IFSP teams to include a regular education teacher of the child. The IEP/IFSP team of each child must include “at least one regular education teacher of the child (if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment).” (34 CFR 300.321(a)(2))

“A regular education teacher of a child with a disability, as a member of an IEP team, must, to the extent appropriate, participate in the development, review and revision of the child’s IEP. This participation shall include assisting in making the following determination [in order for the child to participate in appropriate activities (general curriculum)]:

1. The appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies for the child;
2. The supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and support for school personnel that will be provided to assist the child to:
   • Advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals;
   • Be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities; and
   • Be educated and participate with other children with disabilities and non-disabled children in these activities.” (34 CFR 300.324(a)(3)); 34 CFR 300.320(s)(4))

“Regular education teacher” means a person who, under state standards, is qualified to provide instruction to children without disabilities of the same age as the child with a disability. In the case of preschool age children, the person must be knowledgeable about age-relevant developmental activities or milestones that typically developing children of the same age would be performing or would have achieved. ( The Kansas “State Standard” is that the teacher must meet the requirements of t he administering agency.)

“Regular education teacher of the child” means a regular education teacher who is, or is anticipated to be, the child’s teacher and is knowledgeable about appropriate activities of typically developing peers, so the teacher is able to determine how the child’s disabilities affect the child’s participation (involvement and progress) in those appropriate activities.

“…if the child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment.”

• If a public agency provides regular education preschool services to children without disabilities, then the teacher for these services would be the regular 9education teacher of any preschool age child with a disability in that regular education preschool program. (300.321(a)(2) and 300.32 4(a)(3))
• If a public agency makes kindergarten available to children without disabilities, then the kindergarten teacher would appropriately be the regular education teacher who would be a member of the IEP/IFSP team for a kindergarten age child with a dis ability who is, or may be, participating in the regular education kindergarten environment.
• If the child with a disability is or may be participating in a regular education environment for children without disabilities, which is not provided by the public agency, the agency should invite the regular education preschool teacher. However, if the teacher does not attend the IEP/IFSP meeting the public agency shall designate attendance by an appropriate person who, under state standards, is qualified to serve children without disabilities of the same age as the child with a disability.
• The regular education preschool teacher attending the IEP/IFSP meeting shall be the teacher of the child with a disability or the anticipated teacher of the child (such as the kindergarten teacher if a child is transitioning into kindergarten) or a representative kindergarten teacher from the child’s home school. If the child is not in a regular education preschool environment and is not expected to be participating in a regular education preschool environment or Kindergarten during the term of the IEP/IFSP, as determined by the IEP/IFSP team, then a regular education teacher is not required to attend the IEP/IFSP meeting.
• If the child with a disability is receiving special education services in a regular education preschool environment such as Head Start, Even Start, 4 year old at risk, or private educational preschool, the lead teacher of the preschool program shall be the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting.

The following information provides guidance for determining the regular education teacher for specific environments where a child with a disability may be receiving special education services, and how the state regulations address the issue of dual representation “If qualified to do so, an agency member of the IEP/IFSP team may serve in the role of two or more required members of a child’s IEP/IFSP team.” (KAR 91-40-17(i).

Home Setting Only

When a child with a disability receives special education services in the home, or the home of a child care provider, the parent or child care provider is not considered to be a regular education teacher of the child. In this situation, there is no regular education teacher of the child. The parent must be invited to participate in all IEP/IFSP meetings. Also, the parent should consider inviting the child care provider to attend IEP/IFSP meetings in order to share information about the child and to learn of the type of support they might be able to provide in the child care environment.

Community-Based Preschool Setting

For preschool children with disabilities who are enrolled in a community based early childhood education program, the state has determined that a preschool teacher who meets the administering agency’s requirements is qualified to be the regular education teacher of the child. Therefore, a Head Start teacher, or the teacher of any other public or private early childhood education program who meets the qualifications of the administering agency, is to serve as the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting. The preschool teacher must be the lead teacher of the child’s classroom.

If a Head Start teacher, or a regular education teacher in another preschool program who meets the required state standards, is al so a certified/licensed ECSE teacher and is providing regular education services and special education services to the child with a disability under an IEP/IFSP (under the supervision of a USD/Cooperative/Interlocal), this teacher may serve as both the regular education teacher and the special education teacher of the child.

When a child with a disability receives special education services in a regular education preschool program that is not operated by the LEA, the LEA is required to invite the regular education teacher of the child. If the regular education teacher of the child is not at the IEP/IFSP meeting the LEA shall designate attendance by an appropriate person who, under state standards, is qualified to serve children without disabilities of the same age as the child with a disability.

School-Based Regular Education Preschool Setting

If the public school operates an early childhood program, in which the child with a disability is enrolled, the teacher of the program would be the regular early childhood teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting. For a child attending kindergarten, the kindergarten teacher is the regular education teacher of the child.

Reverse Mainstreaming Setting Only

If a child with a disability is served in a reverse-mainstream early childhood special education setting and it is anticipated that the child will continue in that setting, a regular education teacher is not required to attend the IEP/IFSP meeting. If a school determines that a regular education teacher should attend an IEP/IFSP meeting, and the ECSE teacher of a child is also certified/licensed in early childhood education, the teacher may serve in the role of both the special education teacher and the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting, so long as there is not another regular education teacher of the child. If it is anticipated that the child will be transitioning to kindergarten during the year the IEP/IFSP is in effect, the kindergarten teacher should be the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting.

Early Childhood Special Education Setting Only

If a child with a disability is not in a regular education preschool environment and is not anticipated to be participating in a regular education preschool environment or Kindergarten during the term of the IEP/IFSP, then a regular education teacher is not required to attend the IEP/IFSP meeting. However, if a school determines that a regular education teacher should attend an IEP/IFSP meeting, and the early childhood special education (ECSE) teacher of a child is also licensed in early childhood education, the teacher may serve in the role of both the special education teacher and the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting. If it is anticipated that the child will be transitioning to kindergarten during the year the IEP/IFSP is in effect, the kindergarten teacher should be the regular education teacher at the IEP/IFSP meeting.

Initial Eligibility for Part B Services, including Transition from Part C

For an initial IEP/IFSP meeting, if the child with a disability is, or is anticipated to be, participating in a regular education preschool program, the current regular education preschool teacher or anticipated regular education teacher would serve in the role of the regular education teacher. If the child is not in a regular education preschool environment and is not anticipated to be participating in a regular education preschool environment or Kindergarten during the term of the IEP/IFSP, as determined by the IEP/IFSP team, then a regular education teacher is not required to attend the IEP/IFSP meeting.

Extent of Participation of the Regular Education Teacher

The federal Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) indicates that, the regular education teacher of a child with a disability, as a member of the IEP/IFSP team, must, to the extend appropriate, participate in the development, review and revision of the child’s IEP/IFSP, including assisting in, (1) the determination of appropriate positive behavioral interventions and supports and other strategies for the child; and (2) the determination of supplementary aids and services, program modifications, and supports for school personnel that will be provided to assist the child. While a regular education teacher must be a member of the IEP/IFSP team if t he child is, or may be, participating in the regular education environment, the teacher need not (depending upon the child’s needs and the purpose of the specific IEP/IFSP team meeting) be required to participate in all decisions made as part of the IEP/IF SP meeting or to be present throughout the entire IEP/IFSP. Depending upon the specific circumstances, however, it may not be necessary for the regular education teacher to participate in discussions and decisions regarding, for example, the physical therapy needs of the child, if the teacher is not responsible for implementing that portion of the child’s IEP/IFSP. The extent to which it would be appropriate for the regular education teacher member of the IEP/IFSP team to participate in IEP/IFSP meetings must be decided on a case-by-case basis.

Special Education Services. (2008, February). Kansas Special Education Process Handbook. (Appendix A, pp. 1-4 Figure 4-1a) Topeka, KS: Kansas State Department of Education.

The Kansas Special Education Process Handbook Appendix A, Figure 41b, provides an easy to follow chart listing all the possible positions that can fulfill the role of regular education teacher for preschool aged children within different scenarios.  A copy of this chart is provided near the end of this section.

Review of Existing Data

A preliminary step to conducting the initial evaluation is for the evaluation team, including the parents, to review existing information to determine what additional data may be needed to establish:

• Whether the child is a child with an exceptionality;
• Whether the child needs special education and related services; and
• The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and educational needs of the child.

Initially, the review of existing data is to help determine what, if any, information will need to be collected to answer the evaluation questions.  The LEA must inform the parents exactly what information will be collected in the evaluation process. The data reviewed may include information provided by the parents, current classroom based assessments and/or observations, teacher and related services providers' observations, and/or information from screening. For children under age five, the team might review information from tiny-k providers, child care providers, Early Head Start or Head Start teachers, other early childhood programs, IFSP teams, performance on screening measures, and other caregiver information. The team then should engage in problem analysis to generate hypotheses regarding possible causes of the concerns. This critical discussion will assist the team in determining the specific data to be collected during the evaluation.

In determining what additional data may be needed, the team should consider what information i n needed to be sufficiently comprehensive in determining if the child qualifies to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs. After determining what additional data are needed, the team should also determine what evaluation data each member of the evaluation team is responsible for collecting (Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Page 35, February, 2008).

Once the review of existing data is completed parents are informed what, if any, new assessment information will be collected.  The consent forms for an initial evaluation should indicate specifically what information will be collected, and who will be responsible for collecting that information. At this time parents are also provided a copy of the Parent Rights document and written consent for the proposed action is obtained.

If the school district does not propose to administer any additional assessments to determine whether the child is a child with a disability, the school district must include in the Prior Written Notice to the child’s parents:

• A statement of this fact and the reasons for it; and
• A statement of the right of the parents to request additional assessment to determine whether the child is a child with an exceptionality.

The school district is not required to conduct any assessment of a child to determine if the child is a child with a disability, unless requested to do so by the parents. In addition, if the parents request an assessment of their child, the school district may refuse to do so, but it must provide the parents with Prior Written Notice of the refusal to conduct the assessment and the reasons for the refusal. The parents may request mediation or due process if they want the assessment conducted (Kansas Special Education Process Handbook , Page 36, February 2008).

The Initial Evaluation Process

After obtaining formal written consent for the evaluation from a parent, the evaluation team is ready to conduct the comprehensive evaluation.  The team is charged with a number of tasks in this process. Not only must they determine if the child is eligible for special education services, they must also collect enough information to identify how the child’s disability (if a disability was identified) affects their child’s ability to participate and progress in age appropriate activities.  The team must identify specific strengths/ needs from which an educational plan of action can be created (IEP) and progress from specialized instruction can be monitored.

The initial evaluation must be completed within 60 school days, unless the district can justify the need for a longer period of time or has obtained written parent consent for an extension of time.  The 60-school-day begins when the agency receives informed written parent consent, continues through the evaluation and determination of eligibility, and ends when an IEP is written and services are implemented, should the student be found eligible for special education (Kansas Special Education Process Handbook , Page 3-10, February, 2008).

Not everyone on the evaluation team is required to collect assessment information. The team collectively decides which team members will collect the assessment information that is needed. All members do, however, participate in the decision making pro cess from which the assessment information is utilized. Therefore, the team must make sure that assessment and other evaluation information be organized and shared in such a way that all members, including the parents, can easily understand the results, and thus use it to make informed decisions.

Eligibility Determination

Eligibility for Special Education and Related Services: The primary decision that is made through the initial evaluation process is a child’s eligibility and therefore, entitlement, for special education and related services. Eligibility is established by answering “yes” to both questions in the following 2-Prong Eligibility Test:

2-Prong Eligibility Test

• Prong 1: Does the student meet one of the definitions of a student with a disability?
• Prong 2: Does the student have an educational need than cannot be met in general education

In addition to determining eligibility (identified disability + need), the evaluation team must also identify the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP) for the child.

Therefore, the three major tasks of the evaluation team are to determine:

• Whether the child is a child with a disability
• Whether the child needs special education and related services and;
• The present levels of performance and educational needs of the child

Within each of these tasks, the evaluation team must create a more specific list of assessment questions from which an evaluation plan can be created.

Prong 1: Does the student meet one of the definitions of a student with a disability?

To determine if the student meets one of the definitions of a student with a disability, the evaluation team must:

• know the federal and state definitions of disability
• be knowledgeable of typical development in young children
• be able to identify if a child’s development is significantly different  from other children the same age
• determine if this difference requires special education and related services.

This determination must be made using multiple sources of information that verify a delay exists across settings, people, and situations.

Definitions of a student with a disability

According to Federal Regulations, there are 13 areas by which a child can be identified as a “child with a disability”.

• Autism
• Mental retardation
• Speech or language impairment
• Deaf-blindness
• Multiple disabilities
• Traumatic brain injury
• Deafness
• Orthopedic impairment
• Visual impairment
• Emotional disturbance
• Hearing impairment
• Specific learning disability
• Other health impairment

In addition to the 13 Federal categories, Kansas Regulations allow children ages three through nine, to be identified under the category of developmental delay (DD)  a definition of disability that is considered non-category for the entire three through nine age categorical.  Districts can use the DD range, or they can use it for ages three through five years only.  This decision is left to the discretion of individual districts.

State Regulation KAR 91-40-1

"Developmental delay" means such a deviation from average development in one or more of the following developmental areas that special education and related services are required:

• physical;
• cognitive;
• adaptive behavior;
• communication; or
• social or emotional development

The deviation from average development shall be documented and measured by appropriate  diagnostic instruments and procedures. 

In summary, DD is a category used to describe a significant delay in one or more of the developmental areas. Although it is not necessary to assess a child in all developmental areas, all areas related to a suspected disability must be assessed. 

State Regulation KAR 91-40-9(b)

Each child shall be a be assessed in all areas related to a suspected exceptionality, including, if appropriate, the following:

• health;
• vision;
• hearing;
• social and emotional status;
• general intelligence;
• academic performance;
• communicative status;
• and motor abilities.

Each evaluation shall be sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child's special education and related services needs. 

DD and Significant Difference

As stated above, a fundamental characteristic of DD is the establishment of a significant delay in one or more developmental areas. Therefore, the evaluation team must identify if a difference exists, and how significant that difference is when compared with other children the same age.  To do this the team must have knowledge regarding typical development and understand how to choose assessment tools and techniques that will provide valid information about the child’s developmental status compared to same age peers. The team may choose to use normative data (national and local) in conjunction with professional judgments, observations, and other assessment techniques. No matter which tools and techniques are used, the information collected must provide evidence that a significant developmental difference is present across situations, activities, and environments, not just in an isolated testing situation.

The following are guiding questions to help determine if a significant developmental difference exists:

• With extra support does the child continue to make minimal/no progress?
• What might be keeping the child from doing what is expected? (lack of experience, physiological)
• Has the problem been present since birth?
• Does information on norm-referenced tools indicate a significant difference?
• Do non-traditional assessments indicate significant difference from peers in community?
• Does the problem exist across settings, people, or situations?

Prong 2: Does the student have an educational need that cannot be met in general education.

In order for a child to qualify for special education services, it is not enough for a team to identify a significant difference in the child’s development. The team must also verify: a) the child’s developmental difference has a substantial impact on the child’s ability to do things that other children of the same age would be doing (educational need), and b) that the resources needed for the child to participate and progress are beyond those available through general education, and will therefore require specially designed instruction and related services.

Appropriate Activities and Educational Need

For elementary and secondary students, educational need refers to the types of resources needed in order for the child to be successful in the general education curriculum (i.e., reading, writing, math, social skills—as it relates to school relationships, etc.). For preschool children, educational need refers to the types of resources needed for the child to be successful in appropriate activities. Appropriate activities include those activities that children of the same age would take part in if enrolled in preschool, child-care, mother’s day out programs, or even staying home with their family.  These activities may include listening to stories/looking at books, dramatic play, participating in small and/or large group activities, playing with friends, singing songs, constructing buildings with blocks, coloring, painting, etc.  Age appropriate activities are considered “the general education curriculum” for children three to five years of age.

34 C. F.R.  Appendix A.  Question 1. p. 12471:  Appropriate Activities

Age appropriate developmental abilities or milestones that typically developing children of the same age would be performing or would have achieved.

Kansas Early Learning Document - Early Learning Standards (KSELD) & Appropriate Activities

In 2006, the Kansas State Department of Education printed the Kansas Early Learning Document, which includes Early Learning Standards for young children from birth to age five.  These standards were developed by a group of early childhood professionals and other stakeholders and set appropriate expectations for what young children should know and be able to do as a result of participating in high quality early childhood program.  Early learning standards help guide instructional planning by establishing the core of what should be taught, as w ell as providing a starting point from which specific curriculum(s) can be developed or identified.  Therefore, the KSELD-ELS may also be used to help identify age appropriate activities in the initial evaluation process.

Special Education and Related Services

Special education is specially designed instruction, provided at no cost to the parents, which meets the unique needs of a child with a disability, and may include instruction conducted in their preschool classroom, home, hospitals, and/or other educational settings. Specially designed instruction means adapting, as appropriate to the needs of an individual child, the content, methodology, or delivery of instruction. Therefore, if an evaluation team determines that the only thing necessary for a child to make progress in appropriate activities is to be provided with an opportunity to experience those activities (e.g., participate in a preschool program), this would not be considered “specialized instruction” and the child would not be eligible for special education services. On the other hand, if the evaluation team determined that the child needed instruction using a specific methodology, content to be adapted, and/or that the child needed specifically focused instruction, the team would have justification of a need for special education.

The following are examples of specially designed instruction:

• Instruction in sign language
• Visual, written, verbal, touch prompts/cues
• Modeling
• Chunking, chaining
• Pre teaching
• Time delay strategies
• Social stories
• Direct Instruction
• Differential reinforcement

Related services are special services that are necessary in order for the child to benefit from the special education program.  The related services most often utilized in early childhood settings include, but are not limited to: transportation, speech-language pathology services, audiology, occupational therapy, physical therapy, hearing and vision services, psychological service, social work services, medical diagnostic and evaluation services.

Collecting Assessment Information for Educational Programming

Up to this point, the main focus of the evaluation team has been to determine a child’s eligibility for special education and related services using the two-prong test. Answers are generally yes or no (Is there evidence of a disability?   Is the disability impacting the child’s ability to participate and progress in appropriate activities?)  A second, but equally important part of the evaluation process is collecting data and information that can be utilized to develop the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance and to develop an IEP.  Questions in this phase of the evaluation process will help the team determine  “why” and “how” the child’s disability affects their participation in appropriate activities, as well as the team’s determination of “what” to do in terms of educational planning.

How/ Questions

After the evaluation team has identified that a child has a disability, and that the presence of that disability impacts the child’s participation and progress in appropriate activities, the next step is to develop hypotheses about how the disability is impacting the child. To answer “how” questions, the evaluation team seeks to explain a child’s developmental differences. The team must specifically hypothesize about where the breakdown is occurring and how it affects participation/progress.  For example:

• Communication Delay - During group activities, Cindy takes a longer time than her peers to process wha t is being said, therefore she is unable to follow along with group discussion.
• Small Muscle Delay - Freddy holds his writing utensils with his fist, because the muscles in his hands and fingers are not strong enough to hold utensils between his thumb an d fingers. Therefore he cannot participate in drawing/ writing activities for extended periods of time, and is limited in the types of drawings he is able to create.
• Cognitive Delay - Limited play schemes keep Harry from playing with same age peers, thus difficult for him to establish friendships.

In these examples, the evaluation team looked beyond the broad category of delay to more specific skills to explain how the disability was impacting the child’s participation/progress in appropriate activities.

Assessing Strengths

The evaluation team should use a portion of its time to identify specific strengths of the child.  By identifying strengths, the evaluation team has information that will potentially be used for intervention plans. The following are examples of identified strengths that might prove useful for the IEP team in intervention planning:

• Painting - Cindy enjoys painting and is able to engage in painting activities for long periods of time.
• Numeracy - Bill is able to count up to 28, he enjoys number games.
• Agility/Balance - Susie is very agile, enjoys dance and movement activities.
• Book Skills - Tommy enjoys looking at books alone and with others.  He is able  to recall stories and enjoys acting them out.

Putting it All Together: Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance

Answering “how questions” and identifying individual strengths of the child will provide the evaluation team with the preliminary information needed for the educational planning process.   Specifically, this information will be used to develop the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance (PLAAFP).  Should an IEP be needed, PLAAFP information will become the cornerstone from which it is developed.

The purpose of the PLAAFP is to identify the child’s needs and establish baseline for the child’s performance in appropriate activities. Information used for the development of the PLAAFP will help prioritize the specific needs of the child from which meaningful and measurable IEP goals can be created.  The assessment methods or tools used in this process will be the same methods and tools used to monitor a child’s progress towards specified IEP goals.

The challenge of the evaluation team in this phase of the evaluation is to collect data that can be stated in clear and concise terms, is free of jargon and relates specifically to a child’s performance in appropriate activities. To collect such information the team may use a variety of formal and informal measures, such as published curriculum-based assessments or criterion-referenced tests, structured observations, rating scales, rubrics, portfolio assessments, work sample analysis, language samples and checklists.  Information collected using such methods will provide good baseline data to be used in the PLAAFP.

Assessment Methods/Tools

The previous sections provided an overview of the evaluation process outlining the three main determinations of the evaluation team:

• Whether the child is a child with an exceptionality;
• Whether the child needs special education and related services; and
• The present levels of academic achievement and functional performance and educational needs of the child.

In order for the team to carry out these duties, they must match the assessment questions with the proper assessment methods/tools.  Evaluation teams should not use a standard battery of tests and tools, but rather look at each case individually, carefully selecting the most efficient, effective, and valid measures from which to make their decisions.

The Kansas Special Education Process Handbook, Page 3-8, February 2008, provides a summary of the methods evaluation teams use in the collection of assessment data:

Record Review:

• Includes evaluations and information provided by the parents, current classroom-based assessments, information from tiny-k service providers, results of interventions on the Individual Family Service Plan (IFSP), health/medical records, records from previous evaluations, recent developmental screening results, vision and hearing screening results, reports from other agencies, portfolios, cumulative file information, curriculum guides, and other records.

Record reviews can provide a great deal of information in the assessment process.  They can provide documentation of the presenting concern, establish the concern as long standing, and provide clues in the development of a hypothesis as to the cause of the concern.  Record reviews can also provide information as to what has been tried in the past, the effectiveness of specific interventions, and the amount of support that was needed to help the child participate in appropriate activities.  Such information may be used alone or with other data to support the existence of a disability, and possibly the need for special education and related services (e.g., the amount of support necessary).

Interviews:

• Includes interviews with parents, teachers, related services personnel, and other caregivers as well as with the student, if appropriate.  The information gathered during the interview process may include instructional history, social history, additional medical information, learning preferences, and other data.

Interviews are a great source of information for getting a better understanding of the presenting concerns, providing a historical perspective of the concerns, and information about what has been tried in the past.  Interviews can provide information about a child’s temperament, learning rate, and learning environment.  They can be used as corroboration with other evidence. Interviews may also provide insight as to how the disability may be impacting the child’s ability to participate and progress in appropriate activities.

Observations:

• Includes structured observations, rating scales, ecological instruments (e.g., EBASS, TIES-II), behavioral interventions, functional analysis of behavior and instruction, anecdotal notes, rubrics, routines-based assessments, ecological assessments, and other observations conducted by parents, teachers, related services personnel, and others.

Like record reviews and interviews, observations can provide corroborating evidence of the presenting concern.  In addition, observations can be used to collect information about Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance, the effectiveness of specific intervention strategies, and learning rates.  Observations can be structured in ways to establish baseline (e.g., frequency counts, duration, event sampling).  Checklists and rubrics fall under the category of observation, and can also be used to create a specific score from which baseline can be established.

Teams can also use observational information as an informal measure of “significant difference”.  By collecting routine observation data of typical peers, the team can compare that data against the observations of the target child.  While this could not be used as the only measure of a significant developmental difference, it could be used to corroborate other more formal evidence.

Tests:

• Includes individual and group measures of ability or aptitude, performance-based assessments, norm-referenced or criterion-referenced/curriculum based achievement measures (national, state, or local), adaptive behavior scales, measures of motor function, speech and language, dynamic testing, and other tests.

Formal and informal tests provide a wide range of information.  Generally speaking, formal norm-referenced tests compare how well the target child performs when compared with other children of the same age on the same types of tasks.  Norm-referenced tools provide a general look at a child and may provide information from which the team can investigate further.  All norm-referenced tests are standardized, that is, they are given in the same manner, with the same material, using the same directives, and scored in the same way.  Some norm-referenced tests are administered directly with the child (e.g., BDI, WPPSI-R), while other norm-referenced instruments are checklists or scales that are conducted in interviews with parents, caregivers or educational staff (e.g., Adaptive Behavior Scales, Child Behavior Checklist).

In the past, evaluation teams relied heavily on norm-referenced, standardized tests in the evaluation process. Given that young children go through periods of variable and rapid development, attend for only short periods of time, and are generally more active than sedentary, such tools have limited technical adequacy in the assessment process.   The National Association of School Psychologists states that “standardized assessment procedures should be used with a great deal of caution in educational decision making because such tools are inherently less accurate and less predictive when used with young children ” (NASP Position Statement, 2005).

Criterion and curriculum based assessments provide information related to how well a child can perform in relation to a specified criterion or skill identified within the curriculum. This information is most useful to establish the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance from which intervention plans can be established. Statements regarding how the disability is affecting the child may also be gathered through such assessments.

Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) Early Childhood Outcomes

The administration of one of eight approved curriculum based assessments (listed below) during the initial evaluation process is now required by KSDE as a means of reporting early childhood outcome data to the federal government (OSEP):

• Assessment and Evaluation Programming System (AEPS)
• Carolina Curriculum
• Child Observation Record (High Scope)
• Creative Curriculum
• Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP)
• Individual Growth and Development Indicators (IGDIs)(Birth to 3 years only)
• Transdisciplinary Play-based Assessment
• Work Sampling System

While this assessment activity is conducted simultaneously with the initial evaluation, it has a distinct and separate purpose. Outcome data is used at the federal level to examine the effectiveness of state programs serving children with disabilities from birth through age five.   Therefore, IEP teams may choose to use (or not use) this information to establish eligibility and develop an appropriate IEP.  Given that curriculum based assessments provide excellent baseline information related to the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance, most teams will likely choose to use this information for both purposes. If the IEP team decides to use the curriculum based assessment information as part of the evaluation, it must b e indicated on the Consent for Evaluation form.

Reviewing Assessment Information/ Making Decisions

When the evaluation team has completed all the necessary assessments, a meeting is held to share the results among team members, which includes the parents .  At this meeting the team reviews all assessment information to determine whether the child is eligible for special education services.  Therefore, it is important that the information that has been collected be presented in an integrated, meaningful and understandable way from which decisions can be made.  Professionals should refrain from using jargon. Test terms, including scores, should be explained in language that is understandable to all team members.

After assessment information has been shared, the team uses the information to answer the evaluation questions;

Prong 1: Does the student meet one of the definitions of a student with a disability?

• Is there evidence of a severe discrepancy between the performance of the student and his/her peers or evidence of a severe discrepancy between the student’s ability and performance in the areas of concern?
• Is the presence of a disability substantiated by convergent data from multiple sources?

If the answer to both (a) and (b) are “yes”, then the student meets one of the definitions of a student with a disability.

Prong 2: Does the student have an educational need than cannot be met in general education.

• Are the resources needed to support the student to participate and progress in appropriate activities for students of the same age beyond those available through general education or other resources?

If the answer to (a) is “yes”, then educational need has been proven.

If the answers to Prongs 1 and 2 are both “yes”, then child meets the definition of a child with a disability and is eligible for special education and related services.   

Evaluation/Eligibility Report

Upon completion of the evaluation and determination of eligibility, the evaluation team must prepare a written report of their findings.  The purpose of this report is to summarize the data collected during the evaluation, to document the eligibility determination and the basis for that determination, and to record the agreement or disagreement of team members regarding that decision.  At a minimum, the evaluation/eligibility report must contain the following (KAR 91-40-10):

• Each team member must certify in writing whether the report reflects the member's conclusion.  If it does not reflect the member's conclusion, the team member may submit a separate statement presenting the member's conclusion.
• The determination of whether the child has an exceptionality
• The basis for making the determination
• The relevant behavior noted during observation of the child; the relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning
• Educationally relevant medical findings (if any)
• The determination of whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services
• The determination of the team concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage

Regardless of the decision, the district must provide written notification of the team’s decision of eligibility to the parents.  If the child is found to be eligible, the written notice can be part of the Notice of Consent for Services/Placement form.  It is important to remember, however, consent for placement and services cannot be made until an IEP is written.

Summary:

The initial evaluation is an important activity and should be conducted using best practices.  Assessment methods and tools should be selected based on the unique needs of individual children, provide all the necessary information from which to base future decisions, and be conducted in a manner that includes and is respectful to families.  Evaluation teams using this guidance will be in a position to provide the best possible services to young children and families.

Bibliography

Bagnato, S. J. (2005). The authentic alternative for assessment in early childhood: An emerging evidence-based practice. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 17–22.

Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Munson, S. M. (1989). Linking development assessment and early intervention: Curriculum-based prescriptions (2nd ed). Rockville, MD: Aspen.   

Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Davis, K., Davis, C., McVey, D., & Nelson, C. (2004). Evaluation and eligibility training workshop. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project, the Kansas Evaluation Project, and the Kansas Inservice Training System.

Division for Early Childhood. (2007). Promoting positive outcomes for children with disabilities: Recommendations for curriculum, assessment and program evaluation Retrieved January 14, 2008, from dec-sped.org

Dodge, D.T., Heroman, C., Charles, J., & Maiorca, J. (2004). Beyond outcomes: How ongoing assessment supports children's learning and leads to meaningful curriculum. Young Children, 59 (1), 20-28.

Grisham-Brown, J., Hallam, R., & Brookshire, R. (2006).  Using authentic assessment to evidence children’s progress toward early learning standards. Early Childhood Education Journal, (34) 1, 45-51.

Goosen, M., & Lindeman, D. P. (2003). Creating meaningful and measurable early childhood IEP goals and objectives. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice Training System, University of Kansas Center on Developmental Disabilities.

Horn, E., Lieber, J., Li, S. M., Sandall, S., & Schwartz, I. (2000). Supporting young children’s IEP goals in inclusive settings through embedded learning opportunities. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 20, 208-223

Kansas State Department of Education. (2006).  Kansas early learning: Building the foundation for successful children. Topeka: Author.

Kansas State Department of Education Student Support Service. (February, 2008). The individualized education plan. In Kansas Special Education Process Handbook. Topeka: Author. Retrieved December 5, 2008 fromhttp://www.kansped.org/ksde/process.html - Website has since been discontinued.

National Association for the Education of Young Children & National Association of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departments of education. (2003). Early childhood assessment and program evaluation: Building an effective, accountable system in programs for children birth through Age 8. (A joint position statement). Washington, DC: NAEYC. Retrieved January 27, 2004, from http://naecs.crc.uiuc.edu/position.html - Website has since moved to naeyc.org

National Association of School Psychologists. (2005, July). Position statement on early childhood assessment. Retrieved December 11, 2008 from http://www.nasponline.org/about_nasp/pospaper_eca.aspx. Webpage has since been removed - Visit nasponline.org for the latest Position Statement.

Nelson, C., & Goosen, M. (2004). Asking the right questions, getting the right answers: Evaluating young children for special education. Workshop conducted on January 23, 2004 in Iola, KS.

Ostrosky, M. M., & Horn, E. (Eds.). (2002). Assessment: Gathering meaningful information.  Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Slentz, K. L., & Hyatt, K. J. (2008). Best practices in applying curriculum-based assessment in early childhood. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 519–534). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2005). Intervention-driven assessment practices in early childhood/early intervention: Measuring what is possible rather than what is present. Journal of Early Intervention, 28, 28–33.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Snyder, P. (2006). Integrating frameworks from early childhood intervention and school psychology to accelerate growth for all young children. School Psychology Review, 35, 519–534.

Walsh, J. M. (2001). Getting the big picture of IEP goals and state standards. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33(5), 18–26.

Wolery, M. (1994, November).  Assessing children with special needs.  In M. Wolery & J. S. Wibers (Eds.), Including children with special needs in early childhood programs (pp. 71-96).  Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Wolery, M., Strain, P. S., & Bailey, D. B., Jr. (1995). Reaching potentials of children with special needs. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds.), Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol. 1, pp. 92-111). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Regular Education Preschool Teacher at the IEP Meeting

(Revised 10/12/2007)

_{Adapted from Special Education Services. (2008, February). Kansas Special Education Process Handbook (p. 28, Appendix A, Figure 4-1b) Topeka, KS: Kansas State Department of Education.} 

Back to top of page

Collecting and Using Information

This section provides Tip Sheets relating to the collection of assessment information. These sheets can be used individually or collaboratively with team members to take a closer look at the match between current and recommended practices. The following Tip Sheets are provided:

• Making Assessment Decisions – This table matches the type of assessment decision with the type of assessment activity (e.g., screening, evaluation, intervention planning, progress monitoring), and the corresponding assessment questions.
• IDEA Requirements – Outlines State and Federal requirements in assessment
• Issues in Data Collection – Team considerations when collecting data
• Review of Existing Data Form – This form provides examples of where/how assessment data can be gathered (e.g., record review, interview, observation, tests)
• Tool Selection Grid– Matches specific tools & methods with questions that may come up in the evaluation/assessment process.
• Watching and Recording Children’s Behavior – provides an overview of observational techniques that can be used to document specific skills and develop baseline to be used in the Present Levels of Academic Achievement and Functional Performance and subsequently Measurable Annual Goals.
• Report Document Template– Provides an outline of what must go into the final evaluation/eligibility report that is submitted at the end of the evaluation process.

Making Assessment Decisions

_{Adapted from: Wolery, M., Strain, P., & Bailey, D. B. (1992). Reaching potentials of children with special needs. In S. Bredekamp & T. Rosegrant (Eds.) Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (pp. 92-111). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.}

IDEA Requirements

1. Use a variety of assessment tools and strategies.
2. Include relevant functional and behavioral data.
3. Other considerations (legal requirements for evaluation or reporting)
   • Relevant behavior
   • Impact on educational performance
   • Data collected in all areas of suspected exceptionality
   • Exclusionary factors
     • Lack of instruction in reading or math
     • Limited English proficiency
     • Category specific (e.g., LD, ED, TBI)
4. Include information from the parents.
5. Include information related to enabling the child to participate and progress in the general curriculum.
6. Assess the student in all areas of a suspected exceptionality.
7. Consider the need for a functional behavioral assessment.

_{Davis, K., Davis, C., & McVey, D. (2003). Evaluation and eligibility training. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project and the Kansas Program Evaluation Project.}

Issues in Data Collection

_{Davis, K., Davis, C., & McVey, D. (2003). Evaluation and eligibility training. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project and the Kansas Program Evaluation Project.}

Review of Existing Data

When reviewing data using RIOT, keep asking:

1. Is sufficient data available to completely understand the issue?
2. What additional data is needed so the team can better understand the issue?

_{Davis, K., Davis, C., & McVey, D. (2003). Evaluation and eligibility training. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project and the Kansas Program Evaluation Project.}

 Tool Selection Grid RIOT

_{Nelson, C., & Goosen, M. (2004, January). Asking the right questions, getting the right answers: Evaluating young children for special education services. Presentation at Iola, Kansas. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice Training System, Kansas University  Center on Developmental Disabilities.}

Watching and Recording Children's Behavior

Anecdotal Observations

This method of assessment relies on defining the incidence or behavior to be observed. Often times a data sheet is created to help organize and record each occurrence of a specified behavior as well as reporting the antecedent and consequence of the behavior. Anecdotal observations are useful for recording the content of the behavior.  They help to provide hypotheses about the causes or reinforces of the behavior.

Frequency Counts

Sometimes it is helpful to see how many times a behavior occurs within a specific time frame.  In recording frequency data the observer first writes down the specific behavior to be counted.  Frequency can be listed or graphed.  Frequency rates are calculated by dividing the number of times the behavior occurred by the number of minutes in the observation.  A future goal may include either decreasing or increasing the frequency rate of the specific behavior.

Duration

At times it is helpful to assess how long a behavior lasts. For example a team could assess how long a tantrum lasts, or the amount of time it takes from instruction to the child actually participating in the activity.  A percentage is calculated by dividing the total amount of time the child exhibits the behavior by the total amount of time provided for the specified activity.

Intensity

At times we may need to know not only the frequency or duration of a behavior, but also the intensity with which the behavior is performed.  To what degree is the behavior exhibited, how hard, how strong, how loud, how well?  This information is added on to either a frequency or duration recording method with the additional measure of intensity such as volume (whisper, conversational speech, shouting), degree of protest (whining, crying, tantruming) level of prompting (physical, verbal, environmental cue).

Time Samples/Interval Recording

When it is not feasible to continuously observe and record a behavior, a time sampling method can be used.  Recording the occurrence or nonoccurrence of the target behavior at the end of specified time segments or intervals is how a time sampling procedure is done.  The observer makes a tally mark at the end of each time interval if the behavior has occurred.  If the behavior occurs before the end of the time interval, the behavior is not recorded.  The behavior is only recorded at the end of the interval.

Checklists

Checklists provide a quick answer to whether or not a specific behavior is performed.  Specified behaviors are listed and a space is provided to either check or make comments beside each skill.  Published curriculums often provide formal checklists, however, checklists can also be created by teachers or others on the evaluation team.

Rubrics

A rubric is a scoring guide that seeks to evaluate a student’s performance based on the sum of a full range of criteria rather than a single numerical score.  Rubrics can be used to define behaviors that involve qualitative judgements (attention, engagement, independence, etc.).  A rubric is very similar to a checklist in that specific behaviors have been selected to observe that help define the expectations of a given task. Rubrics are created by task analyzing a related set of behaviors, placing them on a grid in a linear fashion and then assigning a numeric value to each behavior.  Criteria are generally set on a 3 to 5 point scale.  Rubrics can only be used to assess a single set of highly related behaviors.  They are not appropriate to assess broad categories such as pre-academic, communication, fine motor skills, etc. Rubrics are best used when they are constructed around the presenting concern and will, therefore, vary with each child and situation.

_{Nelson, C., & Goosen, M. (2004, January). Asking the right questions, getting the right answers: Evaluating young children for special education services. Presentation at Iola, Kansas. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice Training System, Kansas University  Center on Developmental Disabilities.}

Report Documentation

The purpose of the evaluation/eligibility report is to summarize the data collected during the evaluation, to document the eligibility determination and the basis for that determination, and to record the agreement/disagreement of team members regarding that decision.

Evaluation/Eligibility Report Requirements

Upon completion of an evaluation and determination of eligibility, the Evaluation Team must prepare a written report that includes statements of the following:

• Each team member must certify in writing whether the report reflects the member’s conclusion. If it does not reflect the member’s conclusion, the team member may submit a separate statement presenting the member’s conclusion.
• The determination of whether the child has an exceptionality.
• The basis for making the determination.
• The relevant behavior noted during observation of the child; the relationship of that behavior to the child's academic functioning.
• Educationally relevant medical findings (if any).

If the child has a Specific Learning Disability, the report must also include:

• The determination of whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services.
• The determination of the team concerning the effects of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. 

Davis, K., Davis, C., & McVey, D. (2003). Evaluation and eligibility training. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project and the Kansas Program Evaluation Project.

Back to top of page

Example of Informal Assessment Measures

This section provides examples of informal methods of collecting assessment information. These examples provide a format for collecting information that will be especially useful in the development of specific interventions, establishing baseline, and monitoring progress after intervention.

Using Informal Assessment Measures

IEP teams should avoid over reliance on norm referenced standardized tests in the evaluation process, given that young children develop at variable and rapid rates, attend for short periods of time and are generally more active than sedentary.  These tools cannot be used for progress monitoring purposes because they cannot be administered frequently and they are not sensitive to small changes in skill level. In addition, norm referenced standardized tests do not reflect local general curriculum or age appropriate activities, and therefore cannot be used to develop PLAAFP statements with baseline data.

Informal assessment measures such as structured observations, skill checklists, rubrics, rating scales, work samples, elicited responses, and test-teach-test methods are good alternatives for collecting information that reflects children’s abilities within age appropriate activities, across environments, and can be used in progress monitoring.  Informal measures can easily be incorporated into everyday classroom routines and do not interfere with general instructional time should these measures be used later on in progress monitoring.  For these measures to be reliable they must include clear statements of the skill/behavioral expectations for student performance and yield ratings or judgments about the performance that are both accurate and consistent over time. When informal assessments are reliable and measure accurately what they intend to measure they can be considered a valid assessment tool and are a very appropriate means of collecting information in the initial evaluation process.   

Informal assessments can be used to answer the question “How does the disability or delay impact the child’s ability to access, participate, and progress in appropriate activities?”  Appropriate activities include things such as:

• Listening to stories
• Looking at books
• Engaging in dramatic play
• Participating in groups (small & large)
• Playing with peers
• Singing songs
• Constructing things (blocks, clay, other)
• Drawing/painting

These activities and other age appropriate activities are reflected in the Kansas Early Learning Document – Early Learning Standards (KSELD).  Informal assessments could be used to measure performance within the KSELD-ELS using benchmarks and age appropriate indicators as guides.  The KSELD-ELS is a good resource for discussing issues about the general curriculum, age expectations, and the impact of the delay on child performance.

Ecological Congruence Assessment for Classroom Activities and Routines

Teacher:

Target Child:

Date:

Classroom:

_{Wolery, M., Brashers, M.S., Grant, S., & Pauca, T. (2000). Ecological congruence assessment for classroom activities and routines in childcare.  Chapel Hill, NC: Frank Porter Graham Child Development Center.  Note: This form may be reproduced without permission when providing citation information.}

Test-Teach-Test: Observation Form

Child's Name:

Date:

Target skill(s) list:

Correct response required-describe:

Learning environment:

Test description of attempt at target skill:

Teach description of attempt at target skill with support (being taught):

Test description of attempt at target skill after support is withdrawn:

Goosen, M. (2004). Asking the right questions: Getting the right answers. Parsons, KS: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities. Note: This form may be reproduced without permission when providing citation information.

_{Source: Burton, V. J., & Watkins, R.V. (2002). Dynamic assessment: Understanding children’s development. In M. M. Ostrosky, & E. Horn (Eds.), Assessment: Gathering meaningful information (pp. 68-69).  Missoula, MT: Division for Early Childhood}

Group Engagement Rubric

Name:

Date:

Total points:

Group Engagement Rubric

Name:

Date:

Total points:

_{Goosen, M. (2004). Asking the right questions: Getting the right answers. Parsons, KS: Kansas University Center on Developmental Disabilities. Note: This form may be reproduced without permission when providing citation information.} 

Back to top of page

Early Childhood Application of the KSDE Eligibility Indicators

The Kansas State Department of Education (KSDE) published the “Eligibility Indicators” document in August 2012.  This document was developed to provide guidance to special education evaluation teams regarding the  “two-prong test of eligibility”.  The “Eligibility Indicators” document contains specific assessment questions and example sources of data that can assist teams in determining whether a child’s needs qualify them under of one of the IDEA categories for special education.  In Kansas, children age 9 and younger may be found eligible for special education services under the category of “developmental delay (DD)”.

There has been some confusion in the field regarding how information in the  “Eligibility Indicators” document can or should be applied to preschool age children (3-5 years of age).  Much of the confusion rests on language included under “Exclusionary Criteria” as follows:

A child must NOT be determined to be a child with an exceptionality if the determinant factor is:

• Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA (NCLB)
• Lack of appropriate instruction in math or
• Limited English proficiency

With the exception of the first bullet, the information listed under exclusionary criteria as it applies to the special education evaluation process is not new. IDEA has always required special education teams to ensure a child’s apparent challenges cannot be explained primarily from causes outside of a disability  (e.g. lack of experience, lack of being taught, limited understanding of the English language). What is new is the language added by the first bullet. “Lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA (NCLB)”. This language is consistent with the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, often referred to as “No Child Left Behind”. The Elementary and Secondary Education Act defines “appropriate instruction” more specifically.

It is important for early childhood professionals to understand that this significant language change only applies to children in kindergarten through grade 12. Preschool age children are not required to attend any formal instructional setting (e.g. preschool), nor are parents required to provide specific academically oriented learning opportunities at home. For this reason young children may or may not have been exposed to learning environments where a scientifically based curriculum has been implemented, and therefore the “No Child Left Behind” definition of “appropriate instruction” does not apply to this age group.

When applied to young children, not yet attending kindergarten, the term “appropriate instruction” continues to be defined as “appropriate activities”. The Eligibility Indicators Document states:   

• For a child three to five years old, who is not yet enrolled in kindergarten, teams should consider “appropriate instruction” as the child’s participation in appropriate activities.  This evidence may come from interviews with family and other caregivers and through observation in the child’s natural environment that indicates whether or not the child has been exposed to activities appropriate for his/her age (p. 7).

Appropriate activities include learning opportunities or experiences that children of the same age would be engaged in as a member of a family, or in the care of others such as in a child-care, preschool, mother’s day out program, or other such program.  Specific activities may include listening to stories, looking at books, engaging in pretend play, participating in small or large group activities, playing with a friend(s), constructing buildings with blocks, coloring, painting, etc.  Age appropriate activities are considered the “general education curriculum for children between the ages of three and five years.   

The Eligibility Indicators Document provides useful information for special education evaluation teams as they collect information and make eligibility decisions on behalf of individual students. Teams, however, must be aware of the correct interpretation of “appropriate instruction” when they are evaluating young children and determining their eligibility for special education services.

Back to top of page

Glossary & Bibliography

This section provides a glossary of terms that relate to the assessment of young children. In addition, there is an extensive bibliography that includes resources and websites where further information on the topic of early childhood assessment can be found.  A listing of published assessment tools is also provided.  Information contained in this section is a sampling and should not be interpreted as exhaustive.  Many of the books and tools listed are available for loan at the Early Childhood Resource Center, which can be found through the main directory of this website. 

Action: Being in a state of motion with organized patterns of behavior.

Active Alert: The considerable motor activity, including thrusting of the arms and legs; the baby often responds to stimuli with more movement; brief “fussy” periods may be noted.

Adaptive Behavior: The effectiveness of the individual in adjusting to the natural and social demands of the environment; may be reflected in maturation, learning, or social development.

Adaptive Behavior Measure: An instrument designed to assess acquisition of developmental and social skills including coping behaviors, sensory processing, motor control, psychological functions and social-emotional factors.

Adaptive Response: An appropriate action in which the individual responds successfully to some environmental demand; adaptive responses further the sensory integration process.

Affect: The feeling, emotion, mood, and temperament associated with a thought.

Affective Monitoring: The monitoring of experiences as pleasurable or not pleasurable.

Anticipatory Guidance: An approach that emphasizes discussing with a caregiver the next step or phase of a child’s development before it occurs.

Aspiration: The entrance of material (e.g., food, saliva) into the trachea or airway below the level of the true vocal cords.

Assessment: Identification of priorities, resources, and concerns of families regarding their infants/children abilities, behaviors or skills.

Assessment: An ongoing process designed to collect information regarding a child’s level of functioning, and define program outcomes and strategies. Babbling: Repetition of phonemes, such as ba, ba, ba, da, da, etc.

Behavior Checklist: An instrument designed to measure a child’s basic behavioral characteristics including social and object orientation, participation, motivation, endurance, communication, consolability, activity, reactivity, goal directedness, frustration, attention span, responsiveness, and general tone.

Cause-Effect: A problem solving skill that reflects how things happen and understanding of how things work.

Clinical Opinion: An informed opinion from a qualified and trained professional.

Communication: Any means by which an individual relates experiences, ideas, knowledge, and feelings to another; includes speech, sign language, gestures, writing.

Constructive Play: When a child learns the use of play materials and attempts to create something with them.

Contingent Interaction: An adult response that is directly related to a child’s behavior.

Cooperative Play: When a child plays in an organized group that shares a common goal; the other children supplement the efforts of one child.

Coping: The process of making adaptations in order to meet personal needs and respond to the demands of the environment.

Coping Style: An individual’s characteristic way of behaving in situations viewed as threatening or challenging to one’s sense of well being.

Criterion-Referenced: A type of test that measures a person’s level of mastery in a particular skill area without comparing him/her to others.

Crying Alert: When an infant is crying intensely; difficult to break through the crying with any stimulus.

Deep Sleep: When the baby is asleep and has a regular respiratory pattern; the eyes are closed with no eye movements; there is no spontaneous activity; though jerks or startles may be seen; responses to external stimuli are delayed.

Developmental Age: The age at which at child is functioning (demonstrating specific abilities), based on assessment of the child’s skills and comparison of those skills to the age at which they are considered typical.

Diagnosis: A process designed to confirm or disconfirm the existence of a problem and describe the nature of the problem.

Diagnostic Evaluation: An in-depth process used by an interdisciplinary team to detect a developmental problem, describe the level of functioning in all developmental areas, and to identify the type of problem (for example, mental retardation, autism, cerebral palsy) and (if possible) the cause.

Dramatic Play: When a child engages in role-playing and pretends to be someone, or something else, using real or imagined objects.

Drowsy or Semi-Dozing: The eyes are open but dull and heavy-lidded or closed with eyelids fluttering; infant may look dazed and “unavailable”; activity level is variable, though movements are generally smooth with mild startles; frequent state changes can be seen with stimulation.

Evaluation: A process in which a variety of methods are used to determine if a child is eligible for services including determination of present levels of functioning in each developmental area.

Failure to Thrive: A condition characterized by low weight/slow weight gain that is below expectations set by the standard growth chart, caused by physical and/or psychosocial factors.

Functional Play: When a child repeats or initiates actions; simple and repetitive muscular activities.

Gesture: The child’s use of hands/body to express thought and intent prior to the consistent use of spoken language.

Goal-Directed Behavior: An activity with purposeful, sequenced events in order to achieve a specific outcome.

Gravitational Insecurity: An unusual degree of anxiety or fear in response to movement or change in head position, related to poor processing of vestibular and proprioceptive.

Group Play/Associative Play: When a child plays with other children; they are all engaged in similar if not identical activity.

Homeostasis: A biological term that refers to a state of balance within a system.

Jargon: Strings of unintelligible speech sounds with the intonational pattern of adult speech.

Joint (Shared) Reference: A process of differentiating or noting a particular object, action, or event for the purpose of communication.

Joint Attention: A child or caregiver focused on the same object, toy, activity, etc., at the same time.

Kinesthesia: A muscle sense that provides body awareness of movement and body position in relation to one’s environment.

Language Comprehension: The child’s understanding of verbal language with and without linguistic cues.

Language Expression: The child’s use of nonverbal, preverbal and verbal behaviors to communicate with others to convey thoughts, feelings and ideas.

Learning Style: The way in which an individual best acquires knowledge or processes information.

Level of Arousal: A neurophysiological term used to describe the state of the human nervous system that occurs on a continuum from sleeping to awake; it incorporates both affective and physical components and is an important foundation for learning, performance and behavior.

Light Sleep: The eyes are closed, though rapid eye movements may be noted beneath closed eyelids, and occasionally an eye may open briefly; low-level motor activity present, with movements quite random; respirations frequently irregular and sucking movements may be seen.

Means-End: A problem solving skill; how a child uses an action or “means” to achieve a goal or the “end”.

Modulation: The brain’s regulation of its own activity; involves facilitating some neural messages to maximize a response and inhibiting other messages to reduce irrelevant activity.

Muscle Tone: A muscle’s level of tension while at rest or in reaction to movement; reflects the condition of the muscle and the nerves that supply it; can be high, low, normal or a combination of levels.

Mutual Co-Regulation: The process that occurs during caregiver-child interactions in which each member both influences the experience and is influenced by the dynamics of the interaction, which in turn impacts self-regulation capacities.

Mutual Gaze: Eye contact with a communication partner, used to signal intensified attention. Norm-

Referenced: A type of test which compares a person’s results with others of the same age to show his or her relative standing on the items tested.

Object Permanence: The concept that objects continue to exist even when they cannot be seen, heard, or touched.

Onomatopoeia: A word that is pronounced similar to the sound it represents; such as, bark, moo, bang, and meow.

Oral Defensiveness: A unique pattern of avoidance of certain textures of food; soft, slimy foods, rough textures, etc., and irritation with activities using the mouth in general.

Otitis Media: An inflammation of the middle ear usually caused by upper respiratory infections that can cause hearing loss, if chronic.

Parallel Play: Play that is purposefully and independently conducted alongside of peers.  Children engaged in parallel play may carry out the same actions or use the same toys as the peer they are playing near, however, there is little or no interaction between each other as actual play partners.

Performance: The way or manner in which one acts, expresses oneself, or responds, given different situations and requirements.

Perservation: Continuing to repeat a behavior or response after it is no longer appropriate; repetition of sounds, words, or actions.

Postural Insecurity: The feeling of being unstable or insecure in one’s body, especially in the trunk area.

Pragmatics: The way a child uses language to communicate with and to affect others.

Premature Infant: A baby born before 37 weeks gestation.

Proprioception: The perception of sensation from the muscles and joints; proprioceptive input tells the brain when and how muscles are contracting or stretching and when and how joints are bending, extending, or being pulled or compressed; this information enables the brain to know where each part of the body is and how it is moving.

Quiet Alert: The infant is strongly focused on a stimulus (often auditory or visual); bright, almost glazed look, though the focus of attention can change easily after a brief delay; minimal motor activity.

Reflective Practices: A style of practice that involves a commitment to increasing self-awareness and knowledge through reflection and question asking.

Regulatory Disorders: They are reflected in difficulties in regulating behavioral, physiological, sensory, attentional, motor, or affective processes, and in organizing a calm, alert, or effectively positive state.

Reliability: The consistency of a test; the more reliable the instrument, the more likely a person will receive the same score if tested again.

Screening: A process for separating from a group those children who need further evaluation.

Self-Regulation: A complex developmental process involving the ability to achieve, monitor, and change state behavior to match the demands of the environment/situation.

Sensorimotor: The combined sensory and motor aspects of activities and experiences; child takes in information through the senses (sensory) and acts upon it (motor).

Sensory Defensiveness: A constellation of symptoms that result from adverse or defensive reactions to non-noxious stimuli across one or more sensory modalities; an over reaction of normal protective senses; individuals with sensory defensiveness have their own response styles; possible patterns of avoidance, sensory seeking, fear, anxiety or even aggression.

Sensory Input: The streams of neural impulses flowing from the sense receptors in the body to the spinal cord and brain.

Sensory Integration: The ability of the brain to organize sensory information including vestibular, tactile, and proprioceptive; the parts of the nervous system work together so that a person can interact with the environment effectively and experience appropriate satisfaction.

Sensory Processing: The nervous system’s ability to take in and make sense of incoming sensory information.

Serious Otitis Media: An acute or chronic ear condition in which fluid collects in the middle ear, causing inflammation; can lead to conductive hearing loss and serious damage to the inner ear if untreated.

Small for Gestational Age (SGA): A birth weight that is below the 10th percentile for gestational age, reflecting poor fetal growth.

Solitary Play: When a child plays alone with toys that are different from those used by other children; the child is centered on self-activity.

Standardization: The formal development of a test with written uniform procedures for administration, scoring and interpretation; standardized tests may be either norm-referenced or criterion-referenced.

Suck/Swallow/Breathe Synchrony: The rhythmical, coordinated pattern of sucking, swallowing, and breathing that is present in all normal babies.

Tactile Defensiveness: A tendency to respond negatively to tactile/touch input; may result in avoiding touch from others, dislike of crowds, irritation when having hair washed or cut, avoidance of certain types of clothing, and many other similar reactions to touching or being touched.

Tactile Hypersensitivity: Increased sensitivity or overreaction to tactile/touch input.

Tactile Hyposensitivity: The decreased or under-reaction to tactile/touch input.

Temperament: The basic foundation for a child’s behavior, including activity level, and interactions with and reactions to people, places, and things; refers to the qualities of behavior including how a child acts and reacts to the world.

Touchpoints: The key times in development identified by Brazelton as being important to discuss with caregivers.

Transitions: The times of change or movement from one experience to another or one activity to another.

Validity: The extent to which a test measures what it claims to measure.

Vestibular System: The sensory system located in the inner ear that is responsible for detecting movement and position in space.

Visual Defensiveness: The over-sensitivity to visual input that results in distractibility and gaze avoidance.

Vocal Play: The long strings of consonant-vowel syllables produced in self-imitation, such as ba-ba-ba-ba; appears at about 6 months of age.

_{University of New Mexico Center for Development & Disability. (n.d.). Glossary of assessment terminology. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.newassessment.org/Public/Communication/Terms/default.cfm?CategoryID=11 - Webpage has since been removed.} 

Early Childhood Assessment Measures

 _{University of New Mexico Center for Development & Disability. (n.d.). Glossary of assessment terminology. Retrieved December 3, 2008, from http://www.newassessment.org/Public/Assessments/selecttool.cfm?CategoryID=20 - Webpage has since been removed.}

Back to top of page

References, Resources and Websites

Books and Articles

*Atkins-Burnett, S., & Meisels, S. J. (1994).  Developmental screening in early childhood:  A guide (4th ed.) Washington, DC: National Education Association for the Education of Young Children.

*Bagnato, S. J., Neisworth, J. T., & Munson, S. M. (1989). Linking developmental assessment and early intervention: Curriculum-based prescriptions (2nd ed). Rockville, MD: Aspen.

*Bredekamp, S., & Copple, C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmentally appropriate practice in early childhood programs. Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Davis, K., Davis, C., McVey, D., & Nelson, C. (2004). Evaluation and eligibility training workshop. Materials developed by the Kansas Assessment Project, the Kansas Evaluation Project, and the Kansas Inservice Training System.

*Gullo, D. F. (1994). Understanding assessment and evaluation in early childhood education. New York: Teachers College Press.

*Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G. E, Smity, B. J., & Sandall, S. (Eds.). (2001).  DEC recommended practices program assessment: Improving practices for young children with special needs and their families. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Katz, L. (1997). A developmental approach to assessment of young children. Champaign, IL: ERIC Clearinghouse on Elementary and Early Childhood Education.

Nelson, C., & Goosen, G. (2004, January). Asking the right questions, getting the right answers: Evaluating young children for special education services. Presentation at Iola, Kansas. Parsons, KS: Kansas Inservice Training System, Kansas University  Center on Developmental Disabilities.

Neisworth, J. T., Bagnato, S. J. (2004). The mismeasure of young children: The authentic assessment alternative. Infants and Young Children, 17(3), 198-212.

*Ostrosky, M. M., & Horn, E. (2002). Assessment: Gathering meaningful information. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

*Preator, K. K., & McAllister, J. R. (1995). Assessing infants and toddlers. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology III, (pp. 775-788). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.    

*Sandall, S., McLean, M. E., & Smith, B. J. (2000). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Schweinhart, L. (1993, July). Observing young children in action: The key to early childhood assessment. Young Children 48(5), 29- 33.

Southeastern Regional Vision for Education. (1991). Assessment in early childhood education: Status of the issue. Washington, DC: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (ED 368 507).

Shephard, L., Kagan, S., & Wurtz, E. (1998). Principles and recommendations for early childhood assessments. Washington DC: National Education Goals Panel.

Student Support Services. (2001, July). Kansas special education process handbook. Topeka, KS: Kansas State Department of Education.

Wolery, M. (1994). Assessing children with special needs. In M. Wolery & J. S. Wibers (Eds.), Including children with special needs in early childhood programs (pp. 71-96).  Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

*Wolery, M., Strain, P. S., & Bailey, D., Jr. (1995). Reaching potentials of children with special needs. In S. Bredekamp & T.  Rosegrant (1995).  Reaching potentials: Appropriate curriculum and assessment for young children (Vol. 1, pp 92-111). Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Videos

Allen-Young, D., Buchman, S., & Camp, M. (n.d.). Transdisciplinary arena-style assessment with play. Van Nuys, CA: Child Development Media.

*Colker, L. (1995). Observing young children: Learning to look, looking to learn. Washington, DC: Teaching Strategies.

*Farrell, J., & Potter, L. (1995). The ages and stages questionnaires on a home visit. (1995). Baltimore: Brookes.

*Helm, J., Beneke, S., & Steinheimer, K. (1998). Windows on learning: An introduction to documenting children’s work. New York: Teachers College Press.

*Linder, T. (1995). And you thought they were just playing: Transdisciplinary play-based assessment. Baltimore: Brookes.

*Linder, T. (1996). Observing Kassandra: A transdisciplinary play-based assessment of a child with severe disabilities. Baltimore: Brookes.

Mar, H. H. (n.d.). Assessing children with multiple disabilities including deaf-blindness. Van Nuys, CA: Child Development Media.

*These items are available from:

KITS Early Childhood Resource Center
2601 Gabriel, Parsons, KS 67357
Email: resourcecenter@ku.edu
Phone: 620-421-3067

Websites

Early Childhood Research Institute on Measuring Growth and Development

The National Information Clearinghouse on Children who are Deaf-Blind

Texas School for the Blind and Visually Impaired

Other Resources

The following items are a sample of screening/assessment tools that are available for checkout through the Early Childhood Resource Center.  This list should not be viewed as an endorsement of specific tools by the KITS Project.

• Screening Tools
  • Ages and Stages Questionnaires (ASQ), Second Edition
  • Bayley Infant Neurodevelopmental Screener (BINS)
  • Birth to Three Assessment and Intervention System, Screening Test of Developmental Disabilities, Second Edition
  • Bracken Basic Concept Scale, Revised
  • Brigance Screening Instruments
  • Developmental Indicators for the Assessment of Learning, (DIAL 3), Third Edition
  • Denver II Developmental Screening TestEarly Screening Inventory (ESI-R), Revised
  • JOLIET 3 Minute Preschool Speech and Language Screen
  • Screening Test for Evaluating Preschoolers (First STEP)
• Developmental Scales
  • Infant Development Inventory (IDI)
  • Battelle Developmental Inventory (BDI)
  • Bayley Scales of Infant Development, Second Edition
  • Boehm 3, Boehm Test of Basic Concepts – Preschool
  • Child Development Inventory (CDI)
  • Children’s Memory Scale (CMS)
  • Cognitive Abilities Scale (CAS-2), Second Edition
  • Developmental Assessment of Young Children, (DAYC)
  • Devereux Early Childhood Assessment Program
  • Early Learning Accomplishment Profile for Young Children (E-LAP) Revised
  • Individual Developmental Early Assessment (IDEA)
  • Infant-Toddler Developmental Assessment-Administration (IDA)
  • Mullen Scales of Early Learning (MSEL)
  • Preschool Evaluation Scale (PES)
• Social Emotional /Behavioral
  • Behavior Assessment System for Children (BASC)
  • Early Childhood Behavior Scale (ECBS)
  • Preschool and Kindergarten Behavior Scales (PKBS-2), Second Edition
  • Social Skills Rating System (SSRS)
  • Scales of Independent Behavior (SIB)
  • TABS (Temperament and Atypical Behavior Scale), Early Childhood Indicators of Developmental Dysfunction
  • Vineland Social-Emotional Early Childhood Scales (SEEC)
  • Wiig Criterion Referenced Inventory of Language (CRIL)
• Motor Skills
  • Movement Assessment Battery for Children
  • Peabody Developmental Motor Scales and Activity Cards (PDMS-2), Second Edition
  • Test of Visual-Motor Skills (TVMS), Revised
• Communication Skills
  • Bankson Language Test (BLT-2)
  • Bangs Receptive Vocabulary Checklist for Preschool and Kindergarten Children
  • CELF (Clinical Evaluation of Language Fundamentals)
  • Communication and Symbolic Behavior Scales (CSBS)
  • Early Language Milestone Scale (ELM Scale-2)
  • Goldman Fristoe 2 Test of Articulation (G-FTA)
  • MacArthur Communicative Development Inventories
  • Preschool Language Assessment Instrument (PLAI-2), Second Edition
  • Test of Early Language Development (TELD-3)Test of Phonological Awareness (TOPA)
  • Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test Technical References (PPVT-III), Third Edition
• Functional Assessment Tools
  • Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS)
  • The Carolina Curriculum
  • Child Observation Record (COR), High/Scope
  • The Child Preference Indicators
  • The Creative Curriculum
  • Developmental Observation Checklist System (DOCS)
  • Hawaii Early Learning Profile (HELP)
  • High/Scope Child Observation Record For Infants and Toddlers
  • Infant-Preschool Play Assessment Scale, (I-PAS)
  • Infant Toddler Environment Rating Scale (ITERS-R), Revised Edition
  • Preparing Children to Learn: Manual and Curriculum. A Family-Centered Approach to Functional Skills Assessment
  • Preschool Child Observation Record (COR), Second Edition
  • System to Plan Early Childhood Services (SPECS)
  • Transdisciplinary Play Based Assessment
  • The Work Sampling System, Complete Reference Set

Back to top of page

Packet Evaluation

Please take a few minutes to complete the brief online survey above. Your feedback is central to our evaluation of the services and materials provided by KITS.

Back to top of page