Kristie Pretti-Frontczak

Enhancing the Quality of Individualized Education Plan (IEP) Goals and Objectives

Individualized service is a cornerstone of early childhood special education. A primary mechanism used to individualize services is the Individualized Education Plan (IEP). Unfortunately, many studies report that IEP goals and objectives tend to be poorly written and question the individualized nature of the IEP. The purpose of this study was to validate a strategy for improving the quality of written IEP goals and objectives. A diverse group of early childhood special educators was trained on writing quality IEP goals/objectives and using a curriculum-based measure called the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) for Three to Six Years. Results indicate the quality of written IEP goals and objectives improved following the IEP goal writing training and use of the AEPS Test.

Preschool Teachers' Use of Assessments and Curricula: A Statewide Examination

Preschool teachers in Ohio, representing Head Start, Preschool Special Education, and Public School Preschool programs, completed a survey designed to examine their use of assessments and curricula. The 586 preschool teachers provided a range of responses, including reported use of 21 commercial assessments and self-developed and program-developed checklists. A majority of teachers listed curriculum-based measures acceptable in linking assessment and intervention. Teachers also provided a range of curricular responses, including six that met our definition of an actual curriculum. Differences were found between the three types of teachers with respect to their level of education and the total number of assessments and curricula responses, and the number of assessments (including self-developed checklists) and actual curricula used, but not years of experience.

Preparing Head Start Personnel to Use a Curriculum-Based Assessment: An Innovative Practice in the "Age of Accountability".

The purpose of this investigation was to evaluate technical assistance and training of Head Start teachers and assistant teachers on the use of a contemporary curriculum-based assessment. A description of the technical assistance process used and the procedures for determining interrater agreement and assessment fidelity are presented. During the study, participating practitioners reliably scored assessment protocols and administered the curriculum-based assessment with fidelity within their classrooms.

Teaching IEP Goals an Objectives in the Context of Classroom Routines and Activities

Activities Oaria is a three-year old child with special needs. Maria’s team is composed of her parents, the classroom teacher, a speech/language pathologist, physical therapist, and an occupational therapist. The team has decided that the most appropriate placement for Maria is a community-based early childhood center that she attends four mornings per week, and where support services are provided in her classroom on a weekly basis. The Center’s philosophy embraces the principles of child-centered practices including the belief that it is important to follow the children’s lead, to allow children to initiate, and to base daily activities on the interests of the children. Additionally, the Center has adopted the &dquo;Creative Curriculum&dquo; and the &dquo;Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System Curriculum.&dquo; The team is faced with the challenge of incorpor ating and addressing Maria’s individualized education plan (IEP) within the context of daily activities and events while adhering to the Center’s philosophy of child-centered practice and its adopted curricula.

Eligibility Determination Using a Curriculum-Based Assessment: A Further Examination

This study examined the accuracy of a curriculum-based assessment for use during the eligibility process for Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) services. The study extended a previous investigation in which performance scores of children without disabilities on the Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System (AEPS) were used to set cutoff scores at 6-month age intervals. These cutoff scores were then tested for service eligibility classification accuracy. The present study specifies and examines cutoff scores at more specific age intervals and performance domains. Present study findings largely replicated results of the original study. The AEPS cutoff scores were found to accurately classify most eligible children but did overidentify some ineligible children. The data from these two studies suggest that, to the extent allowed by state criteria, early intervention/early childhood special education personnel may be able to use the AEPS test as a valid assessment tool while qualifying children for IDEA services.

Authentic Assessment as "Best Practice" for Early Childhood Intervention: National Consumer Social Validity Research

The early childhood professionals recognize the limitations of conventional testing with young children. This recognition has given rise to Authentic Assessment, now recognized officially as best practice by the major professional organizations. However, no national studies have been conducted to document the comparative qualities of either authentic or conventional approaches—according to meaningful external standards. Based on a national Internet survey of professionals, we report details of a social validity study of common measurement methods on eight operationally defined standards for developmentally appropriate assessment linked to professionally sanctioned practice standards and indicators. Approximately 1,500 professional responses reveal higher quality appraisals for authentic assessment over conventional testing methods for early childhood intervention purposes. Based on these results, we offer recommendations to advance valid, sensible, and contextually appropriate assessment for early childhood intervention.

Addressing Early Learning Standards for All Children Within Blended Preschool Classrooms

Preschool teachers working in blended classrooms are faced with identifying which children need intensive instruction as well as being responsible for directly linking individualized learning outcomes with state or federal early learning standards. The series of studies presented were designed to illustrate how teachers working in blended preschool programs provided intensive instruction on individual skills that were related to a common early learning standard (i.e., prewriting). Results suggest that embedding intensive instruction during daily activities is not only effective but also efficient given the relatively short amount of time it took for children to acquire individualized skills. Future research should examine interventions that produce effective and efficient results given the constraints imposed by the schedule of publicly funded blended preschools.

Using Planning Time to Individualize Instruction for Preschoolers With Special Needs

Teacher planning time is essential for ensuring individualized, intentional instruction for young children with disabilities in community-based settings. The purpose of this study was to describe how preschool teachers plan classroom activities or events, how they describe procedures used to individualize instruction for children with disabilities, and challenges they face in planning effective, individualized instruction. Data were gathered through a written questionnaire completed by 453 teachers and a series of three focus groups. Findings offer initial descriptions of the planning processes of preschool teachers in relation to individualizing instruction, and suggest that planning for individualized instruction is a complex process. Study limitations, in terms of the sample and data collection methods, and suggestions for future research on teacher planning are discussed.

Using Curriculum-Based Measures To Promote a Linked System Approach.

Early childhood intervention teams face many challenges in providing high-quality services. Challenges include accurately assessing childrens current strengths and needs, developing transdisciplinary goals and objectives, individualizing intervention within the context of developmentally appropriate activities, and monitoring childrens performance across time. To address the complexities and challenges of providing services to young children with special needs and their families, a linked system to intervention has been recommended. Within a linked system approach, assessment information guides the development of goals and objectives, which in turn guides individualization of intervention efforts and evaluation activities. Specifically, recommended practice suggests the use of curriculum-based measures in promoting a linked system approach. This article outlines a five-step process for use in selecting and adopting curriculum-based measures designed to facilitate a linked system approach and promote family-centered, collaborative early childhood intervention practices.

Comparing Apples and Oranges: The Mismeasurement of Young Children through the Mismatch of Assessment Purpose and the Interpretation of Results.

The assessment of young children in early childhood special education is a central area of educational practice. The results of child assessments often have significant implications for young children, their families, and the programs that serve them, including eligibility for special education services, instructional planning, and documentation of child outcomes. The array of early childhood assessment types and purposes can be challenging to disentangle at the practitioner and policy level. At this time, different types of assessment tools (e.g., norm-referenced and criterion-referenced) are being used to document the development and learning of children and little attention has been paid to the parallel information produced from different assessment types. The purpose of this study is to compare the assessment results from two types of developmental instruments commonly used (Assessment, Evaluation, and Programming System Second Edition [AEPS 2nd ed.] and Battelle Developmental Inventory II [BDI-2]) to determine their congruence in determining a child’s developmental status (e.g., “on track” or delayed). Results indicate substantive difference between the two measures highlighting the potential for mismeasurement and misinterpretation of child assessment data. Implications for policy and practice are discussed.