Course: Introduction and Assessment of Mentally Retarded Children-I (3603)

Level: M.A/M.Ed Special Education Semester: Autumn 2018

ASSIGNMENT No. 1
Q. 1Define mental retardation. What are the different characteristics of different
classification of mental retardation?
ANS: The World Health Organisation (WHO) has estimated that as many as 10-20% of all
children and adolescents have some form of mental disability. Parenting itself is a tough job,
and those with children who are intellectually disabled can be in a difficult spot. However, due
to the negative stigma attached, most people are unaware that there are different degrees of
mental retardation. Discussed below are some of the issues involved and how you can help your
child lead a healthy life.
What is Mental Retardation?
This classification is given to children with poor IQ, typically in the range of 70-75 or less.
They also have low adaptive skills meaning social skills and a sharp learning curve is virtually
non-existent. Mentally disabled children are slower than their peers in acquiring life skills such
as speech development or logic.
Types of Mental Retardation in Kids
Mental retardation has been stereotyped by movies and television shows. These have made
people believe that a mentally disabled person is someone who is slow and dim-witted, often
ridiculed as the village idiot. In reality, this disability is nuanced with different scales of
limitation, and there is room for improvement for those afflicted.

 Mild Intellectual Disability: More than 85% of kids with the disability fall in this
category and have no trouble until shortly before high school. With an IQ of around 55-70, they
are sometimes unable to grasp abstract concepts but can by and large function independently.
 Moderate Intellectual Disability: Falling under the IQ range of 35-54, they constitute
about 10% of the children that are afflicted with mental retardation. These children can be
integrated into society as they can pick up speech and essential life skills. However, their
academic performance is likely to be dismal and would fare poorly in school. These children
can have some amount of autonomy but cannot remain independent for a long duration.
 Severe Intellectual Disability: With an IQ of 20-34, these kids are in a minority of 3-4%
of the mentally challenged child population. Through extensive training, these kids may be able
to learn necessary life skills but would need to live in a sheltered home to avoid stressful
situations.
 Profound Intellectual Disability: This is the most severe form of disability and is also
the rarest, with only 1-2% of mentally challenged children constituting this group. They are
severely handicapped and require extensive supervision due to poor life skills. With regular
training and setting a routine, they may be able to pick up essential life functions.
Causes of Mental Retardation in Children
Some of the reasons include:
 Genetic: Over 30% of mental retardation is attributed to genetics. These children are
likely to suffer from problems such as Down Syndrome and fragile X syndrome.
 Head Trauma: A severe head injury can cause inflammation in the brain. This can
change the mental state of the child and lead to difficulties in memory, attention and reasoning.
 Pregnancy-Related Issues: Pregnant women who do recreational drugs, smoke and
drink alcohol can severely affect the brain development of the foetus.
 Illness: Children suffering from measles can develop encephalitis which causes mental
retardation. Infants suffering from congenital hyperthyroidism are also at the risk of poor brain
development.
 Exposure To Toxic Materials: Elements such as mercury, lead and cadmium are known
to be linked with a reduction in intellectual growth.
Mental Retardation Signs and Symptoms in Children
Not every child is the same. The signs and symptoms of psychological retardation deffer with
different children. Here are a few:
 Difficulty in articulating a point
 Learning speech at a slower rate
 Misplacing objects
 Having trouble remembering things
 Poor academic performance
 Overall Low Intelligence
 Poor performance in IQ tests
 Particular attention required to learn simple skills
 Have trouble putting on clothes
 Behavioural Symptoms
o Aggression
o Depression
o Anxiety
o Impulsive
o The tendency to inflict injury on self
o Suicidal thoughts
o Poor interpersonal relationships
o Excessive dependency on parents
o Unable to respond to situations in a measured manner
o Low attention span
Characteristics of Mentally Disabled Kids
Mentally disabled, also known as differently abled kids portray the following characteristics.

 Bad Memory: These kids have a short-term memory recall. However, when doing a task
repeatedly, they can recall information without displaying any symptoms of mental retardation.
 Slow Learning Curve: Their ability to process new information is relatively low when
compared to other kids. That does not mean they are incapable of learning. Some educationists
 are of the view that a slowing down of the instructions can help in better reception of the
information.
 Attention Deficiency: They are unable to sustain their attention for too long on a single
task. A good way of tackling this deficiency is by making them aware of the most crucial aspect
of the work and then building their attention from there on.
 Disinterest: Due to repeated failures, some children don’t trust their skills, even if they
are correct. Over time they lose faith in their abilities and become disinterested in learning.
 Independent Living: One of the brighter side children with special needs can be trained
in repetitive tasks which they can master over time. This can help them stay independent for a
short duration of time and also prepare them for adulthood.
 Inability to Restrain Emotions: As children grow older, they can give measured
responses when faced with unknown situations. Children with mental disabilities are unable to
do this and may respond unpredictably, usually displaying aggression. Once the episode is over,
they can sense that they have misbehaved and are capable of feeling like they are a burden.
 Social Development: Due to bizarre outbursts and poor language skills, they may be
unable to have healthy social interactions.
 Application of New Ideas: They are unable to incorporate any newly acquired skills
innovatively.
Diagnosis
There a few ways to diagnose mental retardation in kids.
 Stanford-Binet Intelligence Scale: This test gauges quantitative reasoning, knowledge,
fluid reasoning, visual-spatial processing and memory. It is one of the primary tests that identify
learning disorders in children.
 Kaufman Assessment Battery for Children: This test is used to assess the cognitive
development of a child. The types of tests administered are wide-ranging and vary based on the
age of the child. This test is not a stand-alone test, meaning that the results of this analysis must
be seen in conjunction with other tests.
 Bayley Scale of Infant Development: This is a standardised test for infants between 1-
42 months of age. Motor, language and cognitive skills are tested. This, in turn, helps to screen
out children who are prone to having development problems in the future.
Treatment
There is no medical “cure” for mental retardation. However, there are ways in which you can
enrich their lives and help them have a pleasant childhood.

 Stem Cell Therapy: This can be beneficial for children who have Down Syndrome.
While it cannot eliminate Down Syndrome, it can help repair any damaged cells which help in
improving their cognitive abilities.
 Acupuncture: Studies have shown that children who given this form of treatment saw a
marked increase in IQ tests as well as social skills.
 Home Schooling: As the pace of learning is slow, homeschooling is a good option where
the child can thrive in a protected environment. If the child is auditory rather than visual, the
 entire learning experience can be changed based on the child’s needs. This flexibility would not
be available in schools.
 Special Needs Schools: These schools have other children with disabilities studying
under the same roof. The classes are conducted at a slower pace, and hence the children can
grasp the concepts quickly.
Prevention
 Pregnant women should avoid doing drugs, smoking or drinking as it can lead to neural
defects in the child.
 Children should be immunised against diseases that cause mental disorders such as
measles.
 Women suffering from hyperthyroidism need to get treated as it can lead to a foetus with
neural defects.
Problems Faced by Mentally Retarded Children
Common challenges faced by developmentally disabled children are as follows:
 Social Isolation: Perceived as slow, these kids are often ostracised by their peers. All it
takes is one rumour, and most kids would start avoiding a mentally disabled child. Not just
them, even the ones who try to befriend them are ridiculed.
 Bullying: People fear what they can’t understand and hate what they can’t conquer. The
inability of children or even adults to understand the needs of a mentally disabled child can
breed hatred, fear and contempt. Many kids with disabilities must face ridicule from their peers
and are often called unflattering names.
 Low Self Esteem: Consistently poor academic performance can have a negative impact
on their psyche. Complex topics might be difficult to grasp for any child. However, poor
academic performance in natural subjects where their peers outclass them may make them have
a low opinion of themselves.
 Loneliness: Due to social isolation and bullying, many children with mental disabilities
suffer from loneliness.
 Medical Problems: Children that suffer from profound mental retardation are likely to
have other health complications as well. These could include reduced vision, hearing issues,
poor motor function, etc.
Parenting Tips to Help in Raising a Child with an Intellectual Disability
Parents can play a significant role in treating and raising a child with an intellectual disability.
Here are a few tips to help build a differently-abled child:

 Encourage Independence: Children with mental disabilities have a slow learning curve.
A parent telling their child that he cannot do anything will make him even more dependent and
foster low self-esteem. One method to make kids independent is by breaking down complex
tasks/ideas into simple ones.
 Follow Up On Academic Progress: Be active at parent-teacher meetings to find out
what are the strengths and weaknesses of your child. Parent-teacher conferences can be an
excellent forum where you can keep track of your child’s development. It can also be a place
where a healthy exchange of ideas can take place.
 Socialise: Many parents limit their child’s interactions with others in a bid to protect
them. Then there are others who wish to avoid unpleasant situations. While these are legitimate
reasons, making a child socially active would foster a sense of normalcy.
 Network: Taking care of a child with disabilities is difficult for parents. Often there are
instances when parents go into depression or bickering takes place between the couple. It can be
helpful to know that there are other parents out there who are going through the same ordeal.
Networking helps parents a lot, as it not just acts as a support group but also becomes a place
where parents can share their experiences and ideas to come up with new ways of raising kids
with disabilities.
 Educate Themselves: Raising a mentally challenged child may be difficult, and
counselling sessions with experts can help in overcoming these difficulties. Even if you are
unable to meet an expert, buy books such as:
o When your Child has Disabilities by M.L. Batshaw
o A Parent’s and Teacher’s Guide to the Special Needs Child by Darrell M. Parker
 Routine: Develop a habit that can be followed by your kid as it can help them feel
secure. School can be stressful, and a safe environment at home with a predictable routine can
help them feel secure.
 Praise and Reward: Due to the challenges they face every day, low self-esteem issues
are typical, and they need constant appreciation and affection to overcome those.
Encouragement through a reward system can help boost their self-confidence. However, avoid
any negative punishments as it is likely to demotivate them.
 Behaviour Management: Children with mental disabilities may find it difficult to cope
with certain situations. In such cases, it is essential that they don’t dwell on their inability to
comprehend those things. Diverting their mind would be a good idea in such situations.
Something as simple as giving them headphones and making them listen to music would help in
diverting their mind.
Many children who have intellectual challenges have in time, learned to overcome their
disability and live healthy lives. Even the most difficult cases, children have responded well to
proper treatment with many showing a semblance of normalcy
---------------------------------------------------------------

Q. 2Compare the traditional and modern approaches of learning with respect to language
and motor skill development.
ANS: The domains of child development and early learning are discussed in different terms and
categorized in different ways in the various fields and disciplines that are involved in research,
practice, and policy related to children from birth through age 8. To organize the discussion in
this report, the committee elected to use the approach and overarching terms depicted .The
committee does not intend to present this as a single best set of terms or a single best categorical
organization. For example, different disciplines and researchers have categorized different
general cognitive processes under the categorical term “executive function.” General cognitive
processes also relate to learning competencies such as persistence and engagement. Similarly,
self-regulation has both cognitive and emotional dimensions. It is sometimes categorized as a
part of executive function, as a part of socioemotional competence, or as a part of learning
competencies. Attention and memory could be considered a part of general cognitive processes,
as embedded within executive function, or linked to learning competencies related to
persistence. Mental health is closely linked to socioemotional competence, but is also
inseparable from health.
COGNITIVE DEVELOPMENT
This section highlights what is known about cognitive development in young children. It
begins with key concepts from research viewpoints that
have contributed to recent advances in understanding of the developing mind, and then presents
the implications of this knowledge for early care and education settings. The following section
addresses the learning of specific subjects, with a focus on language and mathematics.
Studies of early cognitive development have led researchers to understand the developing
mind as astonishingly competent, active, and insightful from a very early age. For example,
infants engage in an intuitive analysis of the statistical regularities in the speech sounds they
hear en route to constructing language (Saffran, 2003). Infants and toddlers derive implicit
theories to explain the actions of objects and the behavior of people; these theories form the
foundation for causal learning and more sophisticated understanding of the physical and social
worlds. Infants and young children also are keenly responsive to what they can learn from the
actions and words directed to them by other people. This capacity for joint attention may be the
foundation that enables humans to benefit from culturally transmitted knowledge (Tomasello et
al., 2005). Infants respond to cues conveying the communicative intentions of an adult (such as
eye contact and infant-directed speech) and tune in to what the adult is referring to and what can
be learned about it. This “natural pedagogy” (Csibra, 2010; Csibra and Gergely, 2009) becomes
more sophisticated in the sensitivity of preschoolers to implicit pedagogical guides in adult
speech directed to them (Butler and Markman, 2012a,b, 2014). Young children rely so much on
what they learn from others that they become astute, by the preschool years, in distinguishing
adult speakers who are likely to provide them with reliable information from those who are
not .This connection of relationships and social interactions to cognitive development is
consistent with how the brain develops and how the mind grows, and is a theme throughout this
chapter.
Much of what current research shows is going on in young children’s minds is not transparent
in their behavior. Infants and young children may not show what they know because of
competing demands on their attention, limitations in what they can do, and immature self-
regulation. This is one of the reasons why developmental scientists use carefully designed
experiments for elucidating what young children know and understand about the world. By
designing research procedures that eliminate competing distractions and rely on simple
responses (such as looking time and expressions of surprise), researchers seek to uncover
cognitive processes that might otherwise be more difficult to see. Evidence derived in this
experimental manner, such as the examples in the sections that follow, can be helpful in
explaining young children’s rapid growth in language learning, imitation, problem solving, and
other skills.
Examples of the Development of Implicit Theories
Theories of Physical Objects
 Even babies hold some fundamental principles about how objects move about in space and
time (Baillargeon et al., 2009). For example, babies are surprised (as measured by their
increased looking time) if an object in one location pops up in another location when they did
not see it traverse the space between.
Theories of Numbers
Even babies seem capable of intuitively understanding something that approximates addition
and subtraction, and they are surprised when something counter to these principles occurs
(Wynn, 1992a). For example, when babies witness one object that is then screened from view
and they see that another object is placed behind the screen, they are surprised when the screen
is lowered if there is still only one object there.
There has been a recent explosion of research on quantitative abilities of infants and toddlers.
These studies have examined these young children’s representations and processing of small
exact numbers, as well as their capacities in an approximate number system in which very large
numbers can be represented and discriminated from each other (Carey, 2009; Feigenson et al.,
2013; Hyde and Spelke, 2011; Pinhas et al., 2014). These very early developing capacities in
these two numerical systems lay the foundation for later mathematical abilities that will be
taught explicitly to children.
Effects of Adult Language on Cognition
Understanding the power of language is important for people who interact with children.
Simple labels can help children unify disparate-looking things into coherent categories; thus
labeling is a powerful way to foster conceptual development. Labels also can reify categories or
concepts in ways that may or may not be intended. For example, frequently hearing “boys and
girls” line up for recess, quiet down, etc. implicitly reinforces gender as an important
dimension, compared with saying “children presents examples of linguistic distinctions that
affect children’s construction of conceptual systems.
Effects of Language Used by Adults on Children’s Cognitive Development: Implications
for Adults
Awareness of the benefits and pitfalls of the language used by adults is important for people
who interact with children. The language used by adults affects cognitive growth and learning
in children in many subtle ways. Labeling is a powerful way to foster conceptual development.
Simple labels can help children unify disparate things into coherent categories, but can also
have the unintended consequence of reinforcing categories or concepts that are not desirable.
Effects of Generic Language on Children’s Cognition
Generic language—for example, “dogs bark” rather than “this dog is barking”—conveys
information about an entire category. It is impossible for any individual to experience first-hand
all of the exemplars of a category. The use of generics is thus an indispensable way of learning
about the category as a whole. Generics are a powerful way of conveying general facts,
properties, or information about a category, and those generalizations often can stand even in
the face of counterexamples (Gelman, 2003). The generic statement “dogs bark” is considered
true, for example, even though some dogs do not bark and the universal statement “all dogs
bark” can be falsified by a counterexample. Therefore, not only
are generic statements an important means of conveying generalizations, but they also lead to a
stable form of knowledge that is highly resistant to counterexamples. This stability has many
advantages, but as with categorization, it also can be problematic—for example, generic
statements about social categories can reify the categories and beliefs about them. When an
individual encounters members of a social category that do not share the relevant trait or
behavior, those people may then be seen as exceptions but the generalization will still stand.
Properties conveyed by generics also are construed as central or essential to the category
(Cimpian and Markman, 2009). Four- and 5-year-old children given the same information
conveyed using generic versus nongeneric phrases interpret the information quite differently.
Hearing, for example, that “this snake has holes in its teeth” and then being asked why,
preschool children come up with explanations such as it doesn’t brush its teeth so it has cavities
or it bit into a rock. But hearing that “snakes have holes in their teeth” and then being asked
why, children come up with explanations such as they squirt poison out of the holes. Subtle
differences in generic versus nongeneric language used to convey information to children can
shape the kinds of generalizations they make, the strength of those generalizations, and the
extent to which properties are considered central or defining of the category. Here, too, generics
can sometimes play an unwanted role (Cimpian and Markman, 2011). Preschoolers who heard
that “girls are really good at a game called gorp” would explain this by referring to more
central, inherent causes—for example, because girls are smart. Those children who heard “this
girl is really good at a game called gorp” would more commonly invoke effort and practice.
Dweck and colleagues have shown that children who believe an ability is inherent and fixed are
more likely to give up when faced with failure and to lose motivation for and interest in a task,
while children who view an ability as malleable are more likely to take on the challenge and
work to improve their skill. Therefore, adults’ use of generic rather than nongeneric praise for
children may undermine their achievement motivation, leading them to believe that their
performance is due to an inherent ability (or lack thereof) rather than to effort, practice, and
persistence
Language and Literacy
Children’s language development and literacy development are central to each other. The
development of language and literacy includes knowl-edge and skills in such areas as
vocabulary, syntax, grammar, phonological awareness, writing, reading, comprehension, and
discourse skills. The following sections address the development of language and literacy skills,
including the relationship between the two; the role of the language-learning environment;
socioeconomic disparities in early language environments; and language and literacy
development in dual language learners.
Development of Oral Language Skills
Language skills build in a developmental progression over time as children increase their
vocabulary, average sentence length, complexity and sophistication of sentence structure and
grammar, and ability to express new ideas through words (Kipping et al., 2012). Catts and
Kamhi (1999) define five features of language that both work independently and interact as
children develop language skills: phonology (speech sounds of language), semantics (meanings
of words and phrases), morphology (meaningful parts of words and word tenses), syntax (rules
for combining and ordering words in phrases), and pragmatics (appropriate use of language in
context). The first three parameters combined (phonology, semantics, and morphology) enable
listening and speaking vocabulary to develop, and they also contribute to the ability to read
individual words. All five features of language contribute to the ability to understand sentences,
whether heard or read (O’Connor, 2014). Thus, while children’s development of listening and
speaking abilities are important in their own right, oral language development also contributes
to reading skills.Developing oral communication skills are closely linked to the interactions and
social bonds between adults and children. As discussed earlier in this chapter, parents’ and
caregivers’ talk with infants stimulates—and affects—language comprehension long before
children utter their first words. This comprehension begins with pragmatics—the social aspects
of language that include facial and body language as well as words, such that infants recognize
positive (and negative) interactions. Semantics (understanding meanings of words and clusters
of words that are related) soon follows, in which toddlers link objects and their attributes to
words. Between the ages of 2 and 4, most children show dramatic growth in language,
particularly in understanding the meanings of words, their interrelationships, and grammatical
forms (Scarborough, 2001).Karmiloff and Karmiloff-Smith (2001) suggest that children build
webs among words with similar semantics, which leads to broader generalizations among
classes of related words. When adults are responsive to children’s questions and new
experiences, children expand their knowledge of words and the relationships among them.
Development of Literacy Skills
Literacy skills follow a developmental trajectory such that early skills and stages lead into
more complex and integrated skills and stages (Adams, 1990). For example, phonemic
awareness is necessary for decoding printed words (Ball and Blachman, 1991; Bradley and
Bryant, 1983; O’Connor et al., 1995), but it is not sufficient. Students need to understand the
alphabetic principle (that speech sounds can be represented by letters of the alphabet, which is
how speech is captured in print) before they can use their phonemic awareness (the ability to
hear and manipulate sounds in spoken words) to independently decode words they have never
seen before (Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; O’Connor and Jenkins, 1995). Thus,
instruction that combines skill development for 4- to 6-year-old children in phonemic
awareness, letter knowledge, and conceptual understanding and use of these skills is more
effective than teaching the skills in isolation (Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1989; O’Connor and
Jenkins, 1995).
Seminal theories and studies of reading describe an inextricable link between language
development and reading achievement (e.g., Byrne and Fielding-Barnsley, 1995; Gough and
Tunmer, 1986; Hoover and Gough, 1990; Johnston and Kirby, 2006; Joshi and Aaron, 2000;
Tunmer and Hoover, 1993; Vellutino et al., 2007). Early oral language competencies predict
later literacy (Pearson and Hiebert, 2010). Not only do young children with stronger oral
language competencies acquire new language skills faster than students with poorly developed
oral language competencies (Dickinson and Porche, 2011), but they also learn key literacy skills
faster, such as phonemic awareness and understanding of the alphabetic principle (Cooper et al.,
2002). Both of these literacy skills in turn facilitate learning to read in kindergarten and first
grade. By preschool and kindergarten listening and speaking abilities have long-term impacts on
children’s reading and writing abilities in third through fifth grade (Lee, 2011; Nation and
Snowling, 1999; Sénéchal et al., 2006).
Vocabulary development (a complex and integrative feature of language that grows
continuously) and reading words (a skill that most children master by third or fourth grade)
(Ehri, 2005) are reciprocally related, and both reading words accurately and understanding what
words mean contribute to reading comprehension (Gough et al., 1996). Because comprehending
and learning from text depend largely upon a deep understanding of the language used to
communicate the ideas and concepts expressed, oral language skills (i.e., vocabulary, syntax,
listening comprehension) are at the core of this relationship between language and reading
(NICHD Early Child Care Research Network, 2005; Perfetti, 1985; Perfetti and Hart, 2002).
For example, children with larger speaking vocabularies in preschool may have an easier time
with phoneme awareness and the alphabetic
principle because they can draw on more words to explore the similarities among the sounds
they hear in spoken words and the letters that form the words (Metsala and Walley, 1998). Each
word a child knows can influence how well she or he understands a sentence that uses that
word, which in turn can influence the acquisition of knowledge and the ability to learn new
words. A stronger speaking and listening vocabulary provides a deeper and wider field of words
students can attempt to match to printed words. Being bogged down by figuring out what a
given word means slows the rate of information processing and limits what is learned from a
sentence. Thus, differences in early vocabulary can have cascading, cumulative effects (Fernald
et al., 2013; Huttenlocher, 1998). The transition from speaking and listening to reading and
writing is not a smooth one for many children. Although a well-developed vocabulary can make
that transition easier, many children also have difficulty learning the production and meanings
of words. Longitudinal studies of reading disability have found that 70 percent of poor readers
had a history of language difficulties (Catts et al., 1999).
Role of the Language-Learning Environment
Today’s science of reading development focuses more broadly than on teaching children to
read the actual words on a page. As stressed throughout this report, young children’s
development entails a back-and-forth process of social interactions with knowledgeable others
in their environment (Bruner, 1978; NRC and IOM, 2000; Vygotsky, 1978, 1986), and research
has focused on the language of these interactions, examining how children’s linguistic
experiences influence aspects of their development over time, including their literacy
development. The daily talk to which children are exposed and in which they participate is
essential for developing their minds—a key ingredient for building their knowledge of the
world and their understanding of concepts and ideas. In turn, this conceptual knowledge is a
cornerstone of reading success.
The bulk of the research on early linguistic experiences has investigated language input in the
home environment, demonstrating the features of
caregivers’ (usually the mother’s) speech that promote language development among young
children. The evidence accumulated emphasizes the importance of the quantity of
communicative input (i.e., the number of words and sentences spoken) as well as the quality of
that input, as measured by the variety of words and syntactic structures used (for relevant
reviews, see Rowe, 2012; Vasilyeva and Waterfall, 2011). Because children’s language
development is sensitive to these inputs, variability in children’s language-based interactions in
the home environment explains some of the variance in their language development.
A smaller but growing and compelling research base is focused on how children’s literacy
skills are influenced by language use in early care and education settings and schools—for
example, linguistic features of these settings or elementary school teachers’ speech and its
relationship to children’s reading outcomes (Greenwood et al., 2011). This research has
particularly relevant implications for educational practices .
The language environment of the classroom can function as a support for developing the kind
of language that is characteristic of the school curriculum—for example, giving children
opportunities to develop the sophisticated vocabulary and complex syntax found in texts,
beginning at a very early age (Schleppegrell, 2003; Snow and Uccelli, 2009). Moreover,
advances in cognitive science suggest that it is not enough to be immersed in environments that
offer multiple opportunities for exposure to varied and rich language experiences. Rather, the
process also needs to be socially mediated through more knowledgeable persons who can
impart their knowledge to the learner; again, social interaction is a critical component of
cognitive development and learning. Early childhood settings and elementary classrooms thus
not only present opportunities for exposure to varied language- and literacy-rich activities
(whether written or spoken), but also provide a person who is expert in mediating the learning
process—the educator.
Research demonstrates that teachers’ use of high-quality language is linked to individual
differences in language and literacy skills; this work likewise shows the substantial variation in
the quality of teacher talk in early childhood classrooms (e.g., Bowers and Vasilyeva, 2011;
Gámez and Levine, 2013; Greenwood et al., 2011; Huttenlocher et al., 2002). For example,
Huttenlocher and colleagues (2002) found greater syntactic skills in preschoolers exposed to
teachers who used more syntactically complex utterances. Another study found for monolingual
English-speaking children that fourth-grade reading comprehension levels were predicted by
exposure to sophisticated vocabulary in preschool. These effects were mediated by children’s
vocabulary and literacy skills in kindergarten (Dickinson and Porche, 2011).
In classroom studies focused on the linguistic environment, the level of analysis has involved
broad measures of language use, such as amount of talk (i.e., teacher–student interactions by
minute: Connor et al., 2006), amount of instruction (i.e., in teacher-managed versus child-
managed instruction: Connor et al., 2007), type of interaction style (i.e., didactic versus
cognitively demanding talk or the amount of extended discourse: Dickinson and Smith, 1991;
Jacoby and Lesaux, 2014; Smith and Dickinson, 1994), or instructional moves made by the
teacher (e.g., modeling: see review in Lawrence and Snow, 2011). A commonly included
measurement that has been linked to children’s literacy development is extended
discourse, defined as talk that “requires participants to develop understandings beyond the here
and now and that requires the use of several utterances or turns to build a linguistic structure,
such as in explanations, narratives, or pretend” .Children are better prepared to comprehend
narrative texts they encounter in school if their early language environments provide more
exposure to and opportunities to participate in extended discourse. This is because extended
discourse and narrative texts share similar patterns for communicating ideas (Uccelli et al.,
2006).
Engaging groups of children in effective extended discourse involves asking and discussing
open-ended questions and encouraging turn taking, as well as monitoring the group to involve
nonparticipating children engaging children in extended discourse throughout classroom
activities is fundamental to providing a high-quality language-learning environment
 In an example of the influence of the quantity and quality of teachers’ language input in
linguistically diverse classrooms, Bowers and Vasilyeva (2011) found that the total number of
words produced by teachers and the diversity of their speech (which was entirely in English)
were related to vocabulary gains for children from both English-only households and
households in which English was not the primary language, respectively. Thus, they found that
preschool dual language learners benefited only from increased quantities of language exposure
and showed a negative relationship between vocabulary growth and teachers’ syntactic
complexity. By contrast, the English-only children—who presumably had more developed
English language proficiency skills—benefited from the diversity of teachers’ vocabulary and
syntactic complexity. These findings are consistent with the notion that to promote language
learning, different inputs are needed at
different developmental stages Children benefit from hearing simplified speech during very
early word learning With more exposure to language and more advanced vocabulary
development, they benefit from speech input that is more complex suggests that if input is too
complex, children filter it out without negative consequences—as long as sufficient beneficial
input is available to them. On the other hand, “children have no way to make up for input that is
too simple”
Creating a Rich Language Environment: Implications for Adults
Improving language environments for young children requires daily learning opportunities
that focus on the diversity and complexity of language used with young children. Practically
speaking, this can be achieved through extended discourse, with multiple exchanges or turns
that go beyond the immediate “here and now” using explanations, narratives, or pretend.
Extended discourse can take place throughout all activities and in specific interactions,
especially using book reading as a platform for back-and-forth conversations.
Further research is needed to advance understanding of language-based classroom processes
and how dynamic and ongoing interactions facilitate or impede children’s literacy. Such studies
could advance existing research in at least two ways. In particular, it could further elucidate
how language-based social processes in the classroom affect literacy development for the many
students who enter schools and other care and education settings with limited proficiency in
English. The majority of published studies focused on language-based interactions are focused
on English-only learners, despite the fact that social processes can be experienced differently by
different groups, even within the same setting . Gámez and Levine (2013) suggest that future
research examine the influence of dual-language input on dual language learners’ language
development; the nature of teacher talk during different parts of the instructional day, including
joint book reading, and how these language experiences predict dual language learners’
language skills; and the impact of classroom talk interventions—those that aim to manipulate
the frequency and complexity of teachers’ language—on both the language environment and
dual language learners’ language development.
Language and Literacy Development in Dual Language Learners
For children whose home language is not the predominant language of their school, educators
and schools need to ensure the development of English proficiency. Both parents and preschool
teachers can be particularly useful in improving these children’s depth of vocabulary (Aukrust,
2007; Roberts, 2008). At the same time, children can be helped to both build and maintain their
first language while adding language and literacy skills in English (Espinosa, 2005). In support
of this as a long-term goal are the potential advantages of being bilingual, including maintaining
a cultural and linguistic heritage and conferring an advantage in the ability to communicate with
a broader population in future social, educational, and work environments. Additionally, an
emerging field of research, albeit with mixed results to date, explores potential advantages of
being bilingual that are linked more directly to cognitive development, starting in early
childhood and extending to preserving cognitive function and delaying the symptoms of
dementia in the elderly
Bilingual or multilingual children are faced with more communicative challenges than their
monolingual peers. A child who frequently experiences failure to be understood or to
understand may be driven to pay more attention to context, paralinguistic cues, and gestures in
order to interpret an utterance, and thus become better at reading such cues. The result may be
improved development of theory of mind and understanding of pragmatics In addition, the need
to continually suppress one language for another affords ongoing practice in inhibitory or
executive control, which could confer advantages on a range of inhibitory control tasks in
children and helps preserve this fundamental ability in aging adults One challenge in the
education of dual language learners is that they sometimes are classified along with children
with special needs. One reason for this is the lack of good assessment tools to help distinguish
the nature of the difficulties experienced by dual language learners—whether due to a learning
disability or to the fact that learning a second language is difficult, takes time, and develops
differently in different children
General Cognitive Skills
Several cognitive control processes are important for planning and executing goal-directed
activity, which is needed for successful learning (e.g., Blair, 2002; Lyon and Krasnegor, 1996).
These processes include, for example, short-term and working memory, attention control and
shifting, cognitive flexibility (changing thinking between different concepts and thinking about
multiple concepts simultaneously), inhibitory control (suppressing unproductive responses or
strategies), and cognitive self-regulation. These processes also are closely related to emotion
regulation, which is discussed later in the section on socioemotional development, and which
also contributes to children’s classroom success.
As noted previously, many general cognitive processes often are referred to collectively as
“executive function,” although not everyone defines this construct in the same way (e.g.,
Miyake et al., 2000; Raver, 2013), and different disciplines and researchers differ as to which
cognitive skills it includes. Other theoretical frameworks exist as well. For example, cognitive
control and complexity theory postulates that executive function is an outcome, not an
explanatory construct, and is the result of children’s creation and application of rules (driven
perhaps by an increase in reflection afforded by experience-dependent maturation of the
prefrontal cortex), the committee did not attempt to reconcile those different perspectives.
This variation in perspectives makes it difficult to parse the literature produced by different
fields of research and practice. In general, however, executive function appears to improve most
rapidly in young children (Best et al., 2011; Blair, 2002; Hughes and Ensor, 2011; Romine and
Reynolds, 2005; Schoemaker et al., 2014; Zelazo and Carlson, 2012). Executive function
processes appear to be partially dependent on the development of the prefrontal cortex (the site
of higher-order cognitive processes), notably through the preschool and kindergarten age range
(Bassett et al., 2012; Blair, 2002).
Short-Term and Working Memory
Short-term memory is the ability for short-term recall, such as of a sentence or important
details from conversation and reading. Working memory allows children to hold in their memory
information from multiple sources, whether heard or read, so they can use and link that
information.Updating working memory is the ability to keep and use relevant information while
engaging in another cognitively demanding task (Conway et al., 2003; DeYoung, 2011).
Cognitive Flexibility
Cognitive flexibility capacities develop gradually throughout early childhood and have
significant influences on children’s social and academic competence. Cognitive flexibility is
important, for example, for reading (Duke and Block, 2012). Children who are better able to
consider, at the same time, both letter-sound and semantic (meaning) information about words
have better reading comprehension (Cartwright, 2002; Cartwright et al., 2010). Reading
comprehension also appears to improve when children are taught about words with multiple
meanings (e.g., spell or plane), and sentences with multiple meanings (e.g., “The woman chased
the man on a motorcycle.”) (Yuill, 1996; Zipke et al., 2009). In addition, interventions in young
children that focus on cognitive flexibility have shown significant benefits for reading
comprehension (Cartwright, 2008).
Cognitive Self-Regulation
Cognitive self-regulation is what helps children plan ahead, focus attention, and remember
past experiences. The construct of self-regulation and related concepts have a long history in
psychology (e.g., Glaser, 1991; Markman, 1977, 1981; Piaget and Szeminska, 1952; Sternberg,
1985; Vygotsky, 1978; Zelazo et al., 2003) and education (e.g., McGillicuddy-De Lisi, 1982;
Steffe and Tzur, 1994). Most recently, researchers and educators have used the broad term self-
regulation to refer to the processes involved in intentionally controlling attention, thinking,
impulses, emotions, and behavior. In this way, self-regulation can be thought of in relation to
several aspects of development, including the cognitive processes discussed here and the social
and emotional processes discussed later in this chapter. Developmental psychobiological
research and neuroimaging indicate that these subclasses are both neurally and behaviorally
distinct while also being related and correlated (Bassett et al., 2012; Hofmann et al., 2012;
Hongwanishkul et al., 2005; Neuenschwander et al., 2012; Willoughby et al., 2011). Together,
these types of self-regulation allow children to persevere with tasks even when facing
difficulties in problem solving or learning, fatigue, distraction, or decreased motivation (Blair
and Razza, 2007; Neuenschwander et al., 2012). It is thus unsurprising that
kindergarten teachers believe self-regulation is as important as academics (Bassok and Rorem,
2014).
Both cognitive self-regulation and emotional self-regulation (discussed later in this chapter)
contribute to socioemotional development and also play a role in learning. Although the
relationship between various features of cognitive self-regulation and academic achievement
has been well documented for older students (e.g., Bielaczyc et al., 1995; Zimmerman, 2002),
less was known until recently about how self-regulation developed in the early years contributes
to the later development of cognitive and emotional self-regulation and academic achievement
 Social Interaction as a Forum for Cognitive Growth
A wider perspective on the importance of socioemotional skills for academic success is
gained by considering the importance of social experiences for early learning. Contemporary
research has led developmental scientists to understand the mind’s development as deriving
jointly from the child’s naturally inquisitive activity and the catalysts of social experience.
Sometimes these social experiences are in formal teaching and other pedagogical experiences,
but often they take the form of adults and children sharing in activities that provide the basis for
early learning, in a kind of “guided participation” (e.g., Rogoff, 1991). These activities can be
as simple as the one-sided “conversation” parents have with their infant or toddler from which
language skills develop, or the shared sorting of laundry into piles of similar color, or labeling
of another child’s feelings during an episode of peer conflict. In short, considerable early
learning occurs in the course of a young child’s ordinary interactions with a responsive adult.
Language and Literacy
It is difficult to think of any child developing language apart from social interactions with
others. As discussed earlier in this chapter, variability in these experiences, beginning in
infancy, helps account for socioeconomic disparities in language and mathematical skills that
are apparent by the time children enter school. In a widely cited study, Hart and Risley (1995)
recorded 1 hour of naturally occurring speech in the homes of 42 families at monthly intervals
beginning when children were 7-9 months old and continuing until they turned 3 years. They
found that by age 3, children living in the most socioeconomically advantaged families had a
working vocabulary that was more than twice the size of that of children growing up in the most
disadvantaged families. The latter group of children also was adding words more slowly than
their advantaged counterparts. The differences in children’s vocabulary size were associated, in
part, with how many words were spoken to them during the home observations, with a much
richer linguistic environment being characteristic of the most advantaged homes. In addition,
words were used in functionally different ways, with a much higher ratio of affirmative-to-
prohibitive language being used in the most advantaged homes and a much lower ratio (i.e.,
below 1) being characteristic of the most disadvantaged homes. Differences in the language
environment in which children grew up were, in other words, qualitative as well as quantitative
in nature. Further research with a subset of 29 families in this sample showed that 3-year-olds’
vocabulary size significantly predicted their scores on standardized tests of language skill in
third grade (Hart and Risley, 1995).
A later study by Fernald and colleagues (2013) confirms and extends these findings. A sample
of 48 English-learning infants from families varying in socioeconomic status was followed from
18 to 24 months. At 18 months, significant differences between infants from higher- and lower-
income families were already seen in vocabulary size and in real-time language processing
efficiency. By 24 months, a 6-month gap was found between the two groups in processing skills
related to language development. A companion study by Weisleder and Fernald (2013) with 29
lower-income Spanish-speaking families found that infants who experienced more child-
directed speech at 19 months had larger vocabularies and greater language processing efficiency
at 24 months. But adult speech that was simply overheard by infants (i.e., not child directed) at
19 months had no association with later language (Schneidman et al., 2013). These studies
indicate that child-directed speech, and perhaps the social interaction that accompanies it, is
 what strengthens infants’ language processing efficiency. As in the Hart and Risley (1995)
study, differences in family language environments were both qualitative and quantitative in
nature. These findings are important in light of the association between the socioeconomic
status of children’s families and their language skills (Bradley and Corwyn, 2002).
-----------------------------------------

Q. 3Explain in detail the process of curriculum development and adaptations for children with
intellectual development.

ANS: With reference to Hong Kong Review of Rehabilitation Programme Plan (1994/95-
1998/99) Section 9.1, mentally handicapped children are defined as follows:
Mental handicap (retardation) refers to significantly sub-average general intellectual
functioning existing concurrently with deficits in adaptive behaviour and manifested during the
developmental period.
Persons who are mentally handicapped do not develop in childhood as quickly as other children
nor attain the full mental capacities of normal adults. The handicap may be slight or severe. In
the most severe cases, development does not progress even in adult life beyond the mental
capacity of a young child; such severe handicap is much less common than milder degrees of
handicap, covering a wide spectrum ranging up to and merging into the ‘normal’ (Better
Services for the Mentally Handicapped, Department of Health and Social Security, London
1971). Descriptions of the distinctive features of persons with different degrees of mental
handicap in accordance to AAMD/DSM-IIIR

Curriculum Development For Mentally Handicapped Children

Process of Curriculum Development for Mentally Handicapped Children
In Hong Kong, mentally handicapped (MH) children generally go to the following three types
of schools: schools for mildly MH children, schools for moderately MH children and schools
for severely MH children. The Services Division of the Education Department is responsible for
the assessment and placement of these children in the type of schools most suited to their
intelligence and learning needs, so that they can develop their potential in an appropriate
learning environment.
During the past years, curriculum development for MH children in Hong Kong was undertaken
jointly by the Education Department, heads and teachers of schools for MH children and related
professionals. A wide range of curriculum outlines, teaching programmes, teachers' handbooks,
etc. have been developed for the reference of schools for MH children.
However, curriculum development is a continuous process: what is taught and how it is to be
taught are subject to ongoing review. In view of the everchanging needs of society, it is
considered necessary that the curriculum for MH children, which includes the aims of the
special education curriculum, the curriculum goals, curriculum content, strategies for
curriculum implementation, etc. should be reviewed and revised. Some general principles for a
broad, balanced curriculum for these children should be formulated and laid down in a guide to
provide schools with a general direction for implementation.
2.2.2 Overview of Curriculum Development
The Curriculum Development Council has therefore prepared this Guide to Curriculum For
Mentally Handicapped Children to provide schools with a framework of the MH curriculum to
help develop the children's potential. Within this framework, the curriculum is subject to
adaptations to meet the specific learning needs of individual children.
The curriculum for MH children falls into the following six areas of learning:
(1) Language
(2) Mathematics
(3) Personal and Social Development
(4) Perceptual Motor
(5) Aesthetics and Creativity
(6) Practical Skills
These six areas of learning encompass twelve basic subjects as follows:
(1) Language
(2) Mathematics
(3) Computer Learning
(4) Self-Care
(5) General Studies
(6) Perceptual Motor Training
(7) Physical Education
(8) Music
(9) Art and Craft
(10) Home Economics
(11) Design and Technology
(12) Independent Living Skills
Each of these subjects consists of several modules. Chapter III in the Guide will give a brief
description of the combinations and content of the modules in these subjects. A series of twelve
syllabuses on the above subjects will be prepared for the reference of schools at a later date.
These syllabuses will provide, in practical terms, subject-specific guidelines, including teaching
samples, to show how the principles spelt out in the Guide can be put into practice. These
twelve syllabuses, together with this Guide to Curriculum for Mentally Handicapped Children,
will replace the existing three curriculum guides used with mildly, moderately and severely MH
children since 1984.
MH children generally have difficulties in learning and social adjustment. They need
educational programmes specially designed to prepare them for living and functioning in their
homes, the neighbourhood and the community; to equip them with good work skills and habits
and a positive work attitude in preparation for future vocational training. They also need
educational programmes to equip them with self-care skills, independent living skills and
communication skills so that they can integrate into the community as contributing members.

2.3 Learning Difficulties of Mentally Handicapped Children

MH children learn at a slower pace than their peers in mainstream schools. They are likely to
experience difficulties in academic subjects requiring abstract thinking and complicated
learning strategies. They may have difficulties in language development and motor co-
 ordination, which may in turn affect their personal and social development. These are areas
requiring special attention in designing a curriculum for these children.
The learning characteristics of MH children also have implications on the teaching strategies
and approaches. Because of their comparatively short attention span, these children require
more structured programmes with tangible targets, interesting to them and related to their daily
life experiences. Learning tasks have to be broken down into components so that each
component can be learnt in sequence. Thorough practice has to be provided to consolidate the
knowledge, skills and attitudes that they have acquired. Besides, these children have difficulties
in generalizing acquired information and concepts for use in new situations. They need to be
taught how to apply what they have learnt to real life situations.

2.4 Curriculum Approach

In fact, the aims of education are basically the same for all children, irrespective of their
abilities and learning needs. Therefore, in designing a curriculum for MH children, while their
learning characteristics need to be taken into consideration, the general framework of the
mainstream curriculum should also be kept in view.
The Target Oriented Curriculum (TOC) is one of the modes of curriculum development
presently adopted in Hong Kong. It emphasizes the importance of setting clear learning
objectives, on which teaching, learning and assessment can be based; designing learning
materials according to learning objectives set; using assessment and records of progress to
monitor progress and motivate further learning, etc. In this case, the characteristics of TOC are
comparable to those of the MH curriculum. In fact, one could say that the spirit of TOC is
embodied in the MH curriculum. The two syllabuses on Chinese Language and Mathematics
intended for MH children are being prepared along the same line.
The effective utilization of resources, especially human resources, is another important factor
contributing to successful curriculum development and implementation. Current trends in
education emphasize the joint involvement of the teaching and specialist staff of the school and
parents in curriculum development. This joint involvement would enable the curriculum to be
appropriately tailored to meet the abilities and specific learning needs of individual children.
The whole-school approach to curriculum development currently adopted in special schools is
the manifestation of this spirit of joint involvement

--------------------------------------------------------

Q. 4 Compare the medical and educational domains of assessment and evaluation of

intellectual disability in children.
ANS: The National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities (NJCLD) strongly supports
comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities by a
multidisciplinary team for the identification and diagnosis of students with learning disabilities.
Comprehensive assessment of individual students requires the use of multiple data sources.
These sources may include standardized tests, informal measures, observations, student self-
reports, parent reports, and progress monitoring data from response-to-intervention (RTI)
approaches (NJCLD, 2005). Reliance on any single criterion for assessment or evaluation is not
comprehensive, nor is a group assessment, such as universal screening or statewide academic
assessment tests, sufficient for comprehensive assessment or evaluation.
This paper is intended to inform administrators, educators, parents, and others concerned about
the effective identification and education of students with learning disabilities about the
components, processes, and participants necessary for comprehensive assessment and
evaluation, as well as optimal practices that should further enhance the education of students
with learning disabilities. The NJCLD has long recognized that inappropriate assessment and
evaluation practices may result in questionable incidence rates for learning disabilities (NJCLD,
2001a). Similarly, the NJCLD (2001a, 2001b) has provided a solid foundation for addressing
the issues of assessment, evaluation, identification, and eligibility of students with learning
disabilities.
Differentiating Assessment and Evaluation
The purpose of a comprehensive assessment and evaluation is to accurately identify a student's
patterns of strengths and needs. The term assessment is used in many different contexts for a
variety of purposes in educational settings including individual and group, standardized and
informal, and formative and summative. Some professionals use assessment broadly to include
both assessment and evaluation. For this paper, we are differentiating assessment and evaluation
to underscore the sequence, procedures, and decisions involved in a comprehensive process.
Assessment is used in this paper to refer to the collection of data through the use of multiple
measures, including standardized and informal instruments and procedures. These measures
yield comprehensive quantitative and qualitative data about an individual student. The results of
continuous progress monitoring also may be used as part of individual and classroom
assessments. Information from many of these sources of assessment data can and should be
used to help ensure that the comprehensive assessment and evaluation accurately reflects how
an individual student is performing.
Evaluation follows assessment and incorporates information from all data sources. In this paper,
evaluation refers to the process of integrating, interpreting, and summarizing the comprehensive
assessment data, including indirect and preexisting sources. The major goal of assessment and
evaluation is to enable team members to use data to create a profile of a student's strengths and
needs. The student profile informs decisions about identification, eligibility, services, and
instruction. Comprehensive assessment and evaluation procedures are both critical for making
an accurate diagnosis of students with learning disabilities. Procedures that are not
comprehensive can result in identification of some individuals as having learning disabilities
when they do not, and conversely, exclude some individuals who do have specific learning
disabilities.
Research. Several areas of research have influenced comprehensive assessment and evaluation
components and processes. These focused on use of the discrepancy model, skills critical to
reading success in the early grades, and development of a team-based problem-solving
approach to assist students who are struggling academically. More recent research has emerged
in many areas, including, but not limited to, implementation of response-based problem-solving
models in literacy, complexities of reading, noncognitive influences, brain function, genetics,
and accountability measures. These advances in research show promise for further enhancing
effective comprehensive assessment and evaluation of students with learning disabilities, as
well as impacting future assessment and instruction processes.
Because research did not support the rigid application of the commonly used discrepancy
formula as the sole criterion for determination of specific learning disabilities (Fletcher et al.,
1998; Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, & Lynn, 1996; Francis, Fletcher, & Stuebing, 2005;
Stanovich & Siegel, 1994), alternative approaches to classification decisions were needed. In
the late 1990s, clinical research on critical beginning reading skills such as phonemic
awareness, phonics, and explicit instruction (e.g., Foorman, Francis, Fletcher, Schatschneider, &
Mehta, 1998; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000; Fuchs et al., 2001; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Torgesen, 2004;
Torgesen et al., 1999) demonstrated that earlier identification and quality instruction could make
a difference for students struggling with reading. As a result, RTI and other approaches to
support student success prior to the determination of learning disabilities were proposed
(Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Gresham, 2002; Hallahan & Mercer, 2002; President’s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002; Ysseldyke, 2002). A key feature of RTI
and similar approaches is assessment through universal screening and frequent monitoring of
student progress that links to instruction (Fletcher, Lyons, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007, pp. 263–264).
The call for a response-based problem-solving process has raised new questions about the role
of RTI in a comprehensive assessment and evaluation process. A growing body of research
concerns specific aspects of the process, including frequency of monitoring; intervention
fidelity and intensity; effects in scaled-up models; longitudinal results; cost effectiveness; and
maintenance of change over time. For example, a recent study comparing RTI continuous
progress monitoring procedures (Jenkins, Graff, & Miglioretti, 2009) found that frequent, brief,
timed assessments were no more useful in predicting success than assessments conducted two
or three times per year. In mathematics, the specific language, cognitive processes, and
academic skills, which may or may not be impaired in students with learning disabilities, are
not as well developed as those in reading and writing (Fletcher et al., 2007, p. 208). However,
research is emerging on how mathematical computation and problem solving can be effectively
integrated into an RTI or problem-solving process. Such research is reported to be “just
beginning” based on careful review of nine studies of procedures intended to be implemented in
Tier 2
Emerging reading research is providing new understanding about how specific complex reading
components interact with language (Fletcher et al., 2007). For example, the fluency component
of reading is often narrowly defined as automatic, and therefore, rapid word recognition, but
“…there is a growing consensus that accuracy, automaticity, and [pitch, or] prosody all...”
contribute to fluency and comprehension (Kuhn, Schwanenflugel, & Meisinger, 2010). In a
recent related study, Wanzek, Roberts, and Linan-Thompson (2010) compared oral reading
fluency performance in primary grade students with third grade reading comprehension
measured on both state and nationally normed tests. Earlier data demonstrating that oral reading
fluency has predictive validity for reading comprehension (Stage & Jacobson, 2001; Wiley &
Deno, 2005) was not only confirmed, but extended to both assessments. However, students
were more likely to show proficiency on state-normed than on nationally-normed tests,
suggesting that students passing a state test may still be at risk for problems in reading
achievement.
In contrast, literacy research has evolved beyond reading and writing to include how oral and
written language interacts with cognitive processes within classroom, family, and community
contexts. The focus also has expanded to address literacy across the age-span from early and
emerging literacy, to adolescent, adult, workforce, and lifelong literacy. Because assessment
instruments and data are developed to reflect the ways in which reading is defined (Altwerger,
Jordan, & Shelton, 2007), continued research focusing on the components and
interconnectedness of language, reading, and literacy and their components promises to
influence the assessment and evaluation process, as well as intervention from primary grades
through high school and beyond.
Sensitivity to cultural and linguistic diversity in assessments and assessment procedures is
another factor that is receiving attention in reading and literacy research (Figueroa & Newsome,
2006; Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006). Although assessment instruments are
now translated into Spanish, Chinese, and other languages, particular care must be taken when
assessing ELL students whose native language is not English. Identifying learning disabilities in
such students requires sensitivity, knowledge, and skill on the part of team members (Klingner
& Harry, 2006; Macswan & Rolstad, 2006). Recent research has begun to address the
importance of understanding the interactive factors of language and literacy development in
bilingual students (Petrovic, 2010). Other recent research is exploring how noncognitive
variables such as motivation (Marinak & Gambrell, 2008), engagement (Guthrie & Wigfield,
2000), students’ interests and self-efficacy (Hampton & Mason, 2003), influence student
learning, including reading and literacy development (Afflerbach, 2007). In addition to
confirming the complexity of learning and literacy processes, research suggests the need for a
variety of assessment instruments, tools, and procedures to determine if, when, and how such
variables affect learning in students with learning disabilities, as well as ensuring that
instructional approaches are selected that enhance noncognitive variables in students.
New advances in medical research in areas such as brain function and genetics are also
contributing to the understanding and identification of learning disabilities. For example, the
use of brain imaging as a tool to relate brain activity to specific language behaviors is showing
promise in contributing information to the learning disabilities identification process (Price &
McCrory, 2005; Pugh et al., 2000; Shaywitz et al., 2002). Similarly, recent progress in research
on genetic influences is contributing to a greater understanding of the bases of learning
disabilities (Olson, 2005; Tapia-Páez, Tammimies, Massinen, Roy, & Kere, 2008).
IDEA also has stimulated cutting-edge research on applying new statistical models to document
changes in student proficiency more clearly than the model mandated by ESEA for determining
accountability and adequate yearly progress (AYP). There is particular interest in growth
models that incorporate changes in achievement of individual students into statewide
accountability data for calculation of AYP (Goldschmidt et al., 2005). Following pilot programs
in two states during the 2005–2006 school year, nine states submitted proposals for
implementing growth models in the 2007–2008 school year (U. S. Department of Education,
2008). The chosen pilot programs can vary in method and characteristics, but must meet nine
specific required design characteristics. Careful examination of data from large scale pilot
projects is intended to guide states with basic questions such as “How much growth is enough?”
 and “How do we report growth?” and with technical issues such as precision, reliability,
stability, and validity (Auty et al., 2008, p. 16).
The increased attention to research in these and other new and challenging assessment contexts
can be expected to continue shedding new light on the assessment/instructional process for all
students, including those with learning disabilities.
Education. Growth in the number of students receiving special education services and who are
identified as having disabilities remained relatively stable for a number of years (60 million in
1995 and 65 million in 2004). During the same period, the percentage of students with learning
disabilities in the general school age population (ages 6–21 years) dropped from 4.3 % in 1995
to 4.2% in 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2009). Concomitantly, the number of students
from “minority backgrounds” identified with intellectual disabilities, behavior disorders, and to
a lesser degree, learning disabilities, has been found to be disproportionately represented in
special programs (Gamm, 2007). The issue of disproportionality has led to increased attention
to RTI and other approaches intended to reduce over identification.
Given the increasing diversity of the population in the United States, educators and related
service providers are becoming familiar with nonbiased assessment techniques, assessment
tools that are available in different languages, and protocols for selecting assessment tools that
include norms that are sensitive to cultural and linguistic differences. Professionals also are
becoming more aware of the need to be able to interpret assessment results for parents and
families, as well as other professionals on the team. Professional development opportunities are
available that include more training in multicultural issues and nonbiased assessments for
school personnel. Increasing recruitment of professionals from culturally and linguistically
diverse backgrounds is another means of improving services for an increasingly diverse student
population.
Other educational practice trends have implications for appropriate comprehensive assessment
and evaluation practices. These include the following:
1. Increased access to and participation in the general education curriculum requires that
assessment personnel and related service providers are familiar with academic achievement
standards and expectations.
2. Increased emphasis on the use of instructionally linked assessments, such as the progress-
monitoring data component of RTI and formative and summative classroom and school
assessments, in addition to individualized standardized assessment measurement tools, means
that team members must understand the nature, purpose, potential, and limitations of such data
for instruction.
3. Increased understanding of how students learn and demonstrate their knowledge and
skills has resulted in the development of evidence-based instructional strategies, techniques, and
curricula, which may either prevent the need for eligibility determination or enhance
instructional access following such determination.
4. Increased attention to individual differences in learning has improved our understanding
of how to individualize help for low achieving students. Following the earlier work of many
educators, recent practitioners (e.g., Clay, 1998, 2002; Goodman, Watson, & Burke, 2005) have
recognized that no two children take the same path to becoming independent readers and writers
and have developed assessment tools and instructional guides for teachers. Systematic
 standardized observations of emergent and struggling readers are used to map literacy growth.
Areas such as oral language, concepts about print, phonemic awareness, vocabulary knowledge,
reading text, reliance on semantic or syntactic clues in oral reading, and use of strategies in
written expression are assessed and often also linked to or embedded in instruction (e.g., Clay,
2002; Goodman et al., 2005). Thus, educators are more aware that group assessments are not
sufficient to guide instruction, but must be supplemented by assessments that illuminate
individual differences, including authentic learning materials observed in natural conditions.
5. Ongoing recognition of issues related to assessment of ELLs includes factors such as a
lack of valid and reliable assessment tools, limited English skills masking disabilities, and the
poor match of cultural/linguistic characteristics with instruction or significant life events (Liu,
Ortiz, Wilkinson, Robertson, & Kushner, 2008).
6. The age at which each student receiving special education services must have an
individual transition plan (ITP) has changed from age 14 to age 16 years (IDEA 2004). Because
states may retain the earlier required age for an ITP, or move to the later age, the timing of re-
evaluations for students varies from state to state. The possibility of delaying ITP decisions until
age 16 brings concerns about the usefulness of the assessment and evaluation processes. Delay
in linking assessment to timely decisions about courses, curriculum, services, and
postsecondary options also raises questions about the shorter planning time to support a
successful transition from high school for each student.
7. The shift to the development of a summary of performance (SOP) for reporting student
academic achievement and functional performance instead of the previously mandated re-
evaluation means that school personnel need to be aware of their state’s SOP requirements.
IDEA now mandates that the SOP include recommendations to assist the student in meeting
individual postsecondary goals. Because the SOP must meet the needs of all students with
disabilities, the format states adopt requires a breadth of academic and functional information
that can reflect individual performance and recommendations for students with mild, moderate,
and severe learning disabilities. In addition, teachers, related service providers, families, and
students (as appropriate) will need to be prepared to work together to describe academic
achievement and behavioral and functional skills, and recommend accommodations for
postsecondary education and/or employment goals.
8. A provision of IDEA 2004 that discourages the use of a severe discrepancy between
achievement and ability as a criterion for identification of students with learning disabilities has
led to less reliance on a single data source. As a result, a broader range of measurement tools
and data is used to inform assessment, evaluation, and eligibility processes. Important questions
of the occurrence of other special learning needs along with learning disabilities also can be
more clearly delineated with such assessment procedures.
9. Increased access to technological advances serves to simplify, streamline, and standardize
data collection for assessment and data interpretation for evaluation. In some places, teachers
are using technological devices to record and store progress-monitoring data. Computer
software provides online achievement testing, automated interpretations of standardized test
data, and banks of goals that can be incorporated into IEPs, individualized family service plans
(IFSPs), and ITPs. Some teachers are using software to generate or select instructional
objectives and activities that are correlated with state standards. However, teachers still need to
 individualize objectives based on a combination of evaluation reports, state-specific general
education curriculum objectives, and the particular needs and interests of the student. In
addition, use of principles of universal design for learning and accommodations using assistive
technology are changing the landscape of both assessment instruments and instructional
material options.
10. Recent efforts spearheaded by the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) and
the National Governors Association (NGA) have focused on the need for Common Core State
Standards (CCSSO, 2009). The standards would initially address (1) English-language arts and
mathematics for grades K–12 and (2) College and Career-Readiness. As noted by Phillips and
Wong (2010), “Having a set of common standards … lays the groundwork for developing
assessments aligned with those college-ready standards and for developing teaching tools that
are aligned with both the standards and the assessments” (p. 37).
Instruments and Procedures for Comprehensive Assessment and Evaluation
To obtain a comprehensive set of quantitative and qualitative data, accurate and useful
information about an individual student’s status and needs must be derived from a variety of
assessment instruments and procedures including RTI data, if available. A comprehensive
assessment and evaluation should
1. Use a valid and the most current version of any standardized assessment.
2. Use multiple measures, including both standardized and nonstandardized assessments,
and other data sources, such as
o case history and interviews with parents, educators, related professionals, and the
student (if appropriate);
o evaluations and information provided by parents;
o direct observations that yield informal (e.g., anecdotal reports) or data-based
information (e.g., frequency recordings) in multiple settings and on more than one occasion;
o standardized tests that are reliable and valid, as well as culturally, linguistically,
developmentally, and age appropriate;
o curriculum-based assessments, task and error pattern analysis (e.g., miscue
analysis), portfolios, diagnostic teaching, and other nonstandardized approaches;
o continuous progress monitoring repeated during instruction and over time.
3. Consider all components of the definition of specific learning disabilities in IDEA 2004
and/or its regulations, including
o exclusionary factors;
o inclusionary factors;
o the eight areas of specific learning disabilities (i.e., oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, reading fluency,
mathematics calculation, mathematics problem solving);
o the intra-individual differences in a student, as demonstrated by “a pattern of
strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both relative to age, State-approved
grade level standards or intellectual development” 34 CFR 300.309(a)(2)(ii).
4. Examine functioning and/or ability levels across domains of motor, sensory, cognitive,
communication, and behavior, including specific areas of cognitive and integrative difficulties
 in perception; memory; attention; sequencing; motor planning and coordination; and thinking,
reasoning, and organization.
5. Adhere to the accepted and recommended procedures for administration, scoring, and
reporting of standardized measures. Express results that maximize comparability across
measures (i.e., standard scores). Age or grade equivalents are not appropriate to report.
6. Provide confidence interval and standard error of measure, if available.
7. Integrate the standardized and informal data collected.
8. Balance and discuss the information gathered from both standardized and
nonstandardized data, which describes the student’s current level of academic performance and
functional skills and informs decisions about identification, eligibility, services, and
instructional planning.
Diagnosis: Determining Whether a Student Has Learning Disabilities
Consideration of Learning Disability Characteristics. A comprehensive assessment is conducted
to determine eligibility for special education and to identify the specific areas of strength and
unique educational needs. The reason that comprehensive assessment and evaluation procedures
are needed is because learning disabilities may be manifested differently among individuals
over time, in severity, and across settings. Furthermore, the manifestations of learning
disabilities are often subtle and may be hidden when students use compensatory or avoidance
strategies. Consequently, it is important for the team to consider the following characteristics of
learning disabilities in the course of the assessment and evaluation processes:
1. Learning disabilities, like other disabilities, vary with the individual. Intra-individual
differences may include strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both. In
addition, each of these differences must be considered relative to age, grade, or intellectual level
across and within areas pertinent to learning (e.g., listening, reading, writing, reasoning, and
mathematics).
2. Learning disabilities exist on a continuum from mild to severe.
3. Learning disabilities can appear differently in various academic and nonacademic
settings.
4. Learning disabilities vary in their manifestations depending on task demands and may
include difficulties in language (i.e., listening, written and oral expression, spelling, reading),
mathematics, handwriting, memory, perception, cognition, fine motor expression, social skills,
and executive functions (e.g., attention, organization, reasoning).
5. Learning disabilities can occur in students who are also gifted and/or talented. These
“twice exceptional” students often achieve at age and grade expectations and are thus not
considered to be struggling in school (Callard-Szulgit, 2008), despite showing academic and
social problems characteristic of students with learning disabilities, Often these students can
perform above age- and/or grade-based achievement levels, if provided with needed
individualized learning opportunities.
Eligibility: Determining Whether a Student Needs Special Education and Related Services
Comprehensive assessment and evaluation processes are intended to assist the IEP team in
determining whether an individual should be identified or diagnosed as having a learning
disability or disabilities (i.e., meets eligibility criteria). Eligibility criteria should guide the
assessment team. If the student does meet criteria, the results of the assessment will be used to
 assist the team in identifying strengths and needs, establishing goals and, finally, determining
the combination of services that might best meet the identified needs. The multidisciplinary
team conducting the assessment and evaluation is expected to identify a student without regard
to the prospects of the services needed to address the student’s identified needs. Therefore, the
decision about diagnosis should not be based on any of the following factors:
1. Absence of an appropriate placement or availability of services;
2. Lack of funds or resources;
3. Desire or intention to generate special education funds.
Professional Development
1. Ongoing education should occur for all professionals who are expected to participate in
team decision making so they may consistently demonstrate the ability to partner with other
professionals, families, and students in all phases of the assessment, evaluation, and program
planning processes.
2. Administrative, teaching, and related service providers should be made aware of the
potential impact of cultural and linguistic diversity on the selection, administration, and
interpretation of assessment measures, as well as on identification, eligibility, and instructional
processes. Planned, periodic professional development activities, including, but not limited to,
opportunities for video observations, discussions, and interactive sessions, along with printed
information, written reminders on relevant documents, and other experiences are needed to
ensure both understanding and application by all professionals in education settings.
3. Professional development should be provided for middle and secondary school personnel
that focuses on the implications of recent legislation and increased practical assessment
information that supports families and students as they prepare for transition from high school
to postsecondary options. Understanding the role of assessment in shaping student goals,
courses, and curriculum; and in developing and finalizing the SOP under IDEA mandates is
critical. Equally important are knowing the protections of the Americans with Disabilities Act
Amendment Act of 2008 (ADAAA), meeting admission criteria including a psycho educational
or medical evaluation, and accessing needed support services such as accommodations,
assistive technology, and universal design for learning.
4. State and local agencies should provide professional development for all educators,
including general education teachers and school and district administrators, to ensure
understanding of the parameters for the determination of learning disabilities, comprehensive
assessment and evaluation, and instructional practices.
5. Educators should keep up-to-date about legislation, research, and education that impact
their level of involvement in such areas as data collection, assessment, and evaluation
components. An individual professional growth plan developed in collaboration with
appropriate education personnel may be useful.
Families and Advocates
1. School district personnel should expand meaningful ways in which families and other
advocates can be involved in the comprehensive assessment and evaluation of learning
disabilities for their children.
2. School districts and other entities should increase information and training for families
and other advocates of both mandated and recommended components of the comprehensive
 assessment and evaluation process for individual students whose learning difficulties may be
due to learning disabilities.
3. School districts should ensure that educational personnel understand and can
communicate to families the necessity for early, collaborative, and focused transition
assessment and planning. Families of students who may seek admission to postsecondary
education need to be aware that although the SOP document required under IDEA can be
helpful, “most colleges still require a current psycho educational evaluation or a medical report
from a qualified physician to determine eligibility and protection under the ADA” (Shaw,
Madaus, & Dukes, 2010, p. 239).
Administration/Leadership
1. School administrators must provide the infrastructure and resources for effective
assessment and evaluation (e.g., appropriate and current assessment tools, current materials,
continuing professional development), data-driven and high quality instruction, time for data
collection and analysis, and collaboration (e.g. sufficient joint planning time for teams).
2. School and district administrators should provide needed leadership and logistical support
to multidisciplinary assessment team members to ensure the appropriate application of the
comprehensive assessment and evaluation processes.
3. Educators should critically examine the relationship between curriculum, standards, and
accountability measures and the multidimensional nature of comprehensive assessment and
evaluation to ensure that meaningful information is available for decision making.
4. Researchers, educators, and policy makers should examine assessment practices to ensure
that students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds, particularly ELLs, are
provided with nonbiased assessment measures.
5. School districts should take responsibility for providing school administrators with
experiences, information, and supports that foster implementation of positive school practices
based on research.
6. Policy makers, administrators, and educators should examine assessment, evaluation, and
services practices to ensure that gifted students with learning disabilities are provided with
learning opportunities to perform at achievement levels beyond their chronological age or
grade.
7. State and district administrators need to clarify that intra-individual differences occur as a
pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance and/or achievement within specific
domains, such as behavior, cognition, communication, and academics. IDEA 2004 does not
specify the areas of performance and/or achievement that constitute these intra-individual
differences or patterns.

-----------------------------------

Q. 5 How the assessment of the M.R child is reflected in the Individualized Education Plan?

ANS: Origins and Purpose

Although the legal precedence for inclusion can be traced to the Supreme Court decision in the
case of Brown v. Board of Education, it was really the parents of children with disabilities that
 encouraged legislators to adopt the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA) in
1975. This legislation required school districts to include and educate students with special
needs and to create specialized academic plans for them. In 1990, EAHCA was renamed The
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).
With such honorable beginnings, it makes sense that the individualized education program
(IEP), or sometimes called individual education plan, process was intended to be centered on
the student. Whatever the IEP includes, its purpose is always the same: to tailor an educational
plan for the child so that he or she can reach his or her full potential.
The First Step: Determining Eligibility for Services
Who Qualifies?
Before a student can receive special education services, he or she must be evaluated for
eligibility. Under IDEA, there are currently 13 categories under which a child can receive these
services:
1. Autism
2. Deaf-blindness
3. Deafness
4. Emotional disturbance
5. Hearing impairment
6. Intellectual disability*
7. Multiple disabilities
8. Orthopedic impairment
9. Other health impairment
10. Specific learning disability
11. Speech or language impairment
12. Traumatic brain injury
13. Visual impairment
*ID has also been referred to as “Mental Retardation” (MR) in the past, and the term and its
acronym may be used colloquially or in older documentation. It is not, however, a currently
accepted practice to refer to individuals with intellectual disabilities as mentally retarded.
How Can I Have My Child/Student Evaluated for Eligibility?
As a parent, it is very simple. If you think that your child may qualify for special education
services, you need only to request an evaluation. You can do this by contacting you child’s
teacher, the school psychologist or the school principal. A group of qualified personnel will
decide whether to evaluate or not and create a plan for the evaluation. The district has 60 days
from the date of your giving permission to evaluate to complete the evaluation. Some states
have administrative code that defines the length of time the team has to decide how and whether
to evaluate, but not all do so. Any and all decisions regarding evaluation require the school
district to inform and invite the parent to be a participant. There should be no decisions about
whether or how to evaluate without the parent being a part of the team’s discussion.
Teachers can also refer students for evaluation, but this should happen after attempts have
been made to remedy problems without special education services. If such attempts have
been made, and the child continues to struggle, while varied from school to school, the next step
may be initiating an intervention under RTI, or convening the school’s student services team
(SST) to discuss the student’s performance. At this meeting, the general education teacher
should bring work samples and other data such as reading and math scores, behavioral charts
and writing samples. The evaluation team can then decide whether to refer the child for an
evaluation, or suggest that the child continue without special education services.
If the team suspects that a child has a learning or behavioral impairment, it will work together to
determine what tests and data will be gathered. This can include a variety of performance-
based tests, such as the Woodcock Johnson, Third Edition (WJIII) or the Wechsler Individual
Achievement Test (WIAT), as well as cognitive and behavioral functioning tests. It’s important
to note that NO testing can begin until the parent consent by giving written permission to
evaluate.
Following the testing and gathering of existing data, the evaluation team will meet again to
discuss the results. Any time the decisions are made regarding evaluation, the parent is invited
to participate. Each of the 13 categories of disability included in IDEA has unique qualification
requirements. However, the most common disability (roughly half of those evaluated) are in the
category of specific learning disability (SLD). Under the SLD category, if the discrepancy
between achievement and ability (measured by the discrepancy between IQ and academic test
results) is large enough, the child will qualify for services.
A note about the discrepancy method and SLD: As a part of the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA,
school districts were asked not to rely solely upon the discrepancy method for identifying SLD,
because it makes it very difficult to identify any child who is younger than the third grade age
level. Nonetheless, a large number of school districts still rely upon the so-called discrepancy
model for SLD, when in reality they can acquire enough pre-existing data with RTI to document
eligibility. The other 12 categories have varying requirements, but none are similar at all to
those required for SLD. Parents should be careful to observe when SLD standards are being
applied to other categories, such as Other Health Impairments, when there is no legal provision
to do so.
Also, keep in mind that there are some diagnoses that teachers and school psychologists are not
qualified to make. Attention deficit hyperactive disorder (ADHD), autism, and most physical
and developmental delays require medical diagnoses. If you suspect that a student has one of
these impairments, it is vital to include a medical professional (such as the child’s pediatrician)
in the evaluation process. Also, children with developmental delays or physical impairments
who receive routine medical care will most likely be diagnosed in the pediatrician’s office and
will begin receiving services early in life. Children under age three can receive early
intervention services through school districts (depending on the state of residence) or other
state-funded programs.
The bottom line is that in each category of disability there must be an impact on the student’s
education caused by the disability, and the student must be deemed in need of specially
designed instruction. After all, not all children with a disability require special education
services.
Step Two: The IEP
If your student or child is diagnosed with a disability, the next step will be to design a program
for him or her that will address his or her unique needs. This program will be laid out in a very
specific, very long document called the individualized education program (IEP) that will be
 reviewed annually in the IEP meeting. Annual is defined as no more than 365 days; meetings
held after this date are considered non-compliant. An initial IEP (the first one) must be in place
within 30 days of the evaluation meeting determining eligibility.
Special education teachers often use the term “IEP” interchangeably to mean the formal
document and the meeting in which it is discussed. To avoid confusion, you should refer to the
document as the “IEP,” and the meeting as the “IEP Meeting” or “annual review.”
Who attends the IEP meeting?
Every IEP meeting must have in attendance the special education teacher, district representative
(often an administrator, but not required to be), someone to interpret test data, and a general
education teacher; the is parent invited and encouraged to attend. Also commonly seen in IEP
meetings are the student (who are required to attend from the age of 16 years on), school
psychologist, adaptive physical education teacher and service providers such as
speech and language specialists and occupational therapists.
While all five member roles are required, it is possible for one member to serve more than one
role. For example, a special education teacher is typically trained to interpret test data, so he or
she can play the role of that position as well as the special education teacher. Each person on
the team has a unique role. The special education teacher knows what forms of specially
designed instruction can be easily done in that school; the general education teacher is an expert
in the general education curriculum of the grade in which the student is current placed; the
district representative ensures that the IEP is legally compliant and all the stipulations of the IEP
can be put in place; the interpreter of test data helps the team to understand the testing
information. Finally, the parent, is not mandated to attend, has the unique role of understanding
the child from birth and outside of a school setting.
What Goes into the IEP?
Everything but the kitchen sink! All levity aside, a good IEP is a long and very specific IEP. It is
important to remember that the IEP is a binding document for the provision of
services between the district and the parents. This means that if a district does not provide
services that are promised in the IEP, it is non-compliant with the IEP and the law. It does not
mean that if a child has not made as much progress as the team would like to see, that the
teacher or district should be sued; it also doesn’t mean that anyone will go to jail.
Inside the IEP, you should expect to find all of the following:
 Present Levels: This is a snapshot of who the child is and how he is doing right now.
This should include eligibility information, contact information for the parents and a summary
of current work. This summary should include data such as reading and math test results,
current grades, observed skills, behavioral referrals and records of work habits. In short, it
should be specific. Teachers should avoid writing generalities or subjective comments such as
“Johnny is a well-behaved boy.” Space should be provided for family and parental input. In
essence, the present levels of academic achievement and functional performance (PLAAFP)
should state the students strengths and weaknesses, classroom performance, and provide
measurable baseline data from which goals are created.
 Offer of Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): This is commonly referred
to as “placement” and/or “services.” This is the binding part of the contract, in which the district
 offers classroom and/or ancillary services such as speech therapy or adaptive
physical education. It should specify how often (number of days in the school year) the child
will receive these services and the duration of the services (how many minutes per
session). This section cannot use variable terms, such as “as needed,” rather should spell out the
minimum number and times for provision of services.
 Goals: Goals are written to provide measures of progress. Goals can be academic,
behavioral, social or transition-based, and should always be written for recognized areas of
need. For example, if a student is far behind peers in math, he or she should have a math goal.
Goals should be achievable (the team should agree that the student could reasonably meet the
goal in one year) and measurable (the teacher must feel that he or she can provide hard data and
work samples to show progress toward the goal).
 Accommodations and Modifications: Accommodations and modifications are changes
to the classroom environment that may be necessary to assist the student. Teachers and parents
are often unclear about the difference between an accommodation and a modification. The
general rule is this: if it helps the student to complete the same work at the same level as his
peers, it is an accommodation; if it changes the work, or the work is completed at a different
level, it is a modification. For example, allowing a child to type his notes rather than hand write
them is an accommodation. An adult typing them for him is a modification.
 Transition Plan: Recent legislation requires that students who will turn 16 within the life
of the IEP must have a transition goal and plan.
 Signature Page and Meeting Notes: Each member of the IEP team typically signs,
indicating that he or she was present at the meeting and approves the notes from the meeting. In
addition, the parent must consent to the accommodations, modifications and placement (offer of
FAPE) from the district for the initial IEP to be implemented

---------------------------------