As a special education teacher, it is imperative that I understand the various types of assessments for

eligibility, the process and purpose, for children with special needs because as a decision maker the “formal and
informal decisions that we make can affect children’s development” (Mindes & Jung, 2015, p.42). If I choose an
inappropriate assessment, it can have life-long effects on the child, which can include incorrectly determining
eligibility or placing the child in unnecessary interventions which can affect self-esteem. The assessments that
are used for children with special needs “determine a student’s specific learning strengths and needs and to
determine whether or not that student is eligible for special education services” (Giulani, G & Pierangelo, R.,
2008, p.3).
The assessments are a collection of information from various stakeholders (parents, teachers, specialist
including speech and language pathologist, reading specialist, school psychologist, and administration and even
outside agencies such as a physician or psychiatrist) and uses a problem-solving process and variety of
approaches to assess including interviews, observations, standardized test, testing, dynamic and ecological
assessment (Giulani, G & Pierangelo, R., 2008). Additionally, the assessments need to be reliable; valid;
qualitative; transparent; recognized among the profession (intelligence tests, achievement test, visual-motor
integration test, language test, and auditory test), and include members from the Child Study Team (CST) and
the multidisciplinary team. The CST and multidisciplinary team serve two different functions. CST is a team
that reviews students considered to be high risk, while the multidisciplinary team tries to determine what, if any,
disability is present.
Typically, general education teachers refer a child to the CST using anecdotal records, informal testing,
attendance records, work samples, handwriting samples and group test results which can compare them to peers
on a national and district scale. As a special education teacher, I can be called on to observe the student in
different settings once the MDT process starts, can be involved in the screening process of the suspected
disability and can provide recommended intervention strategies to parents and teachers. When working with the
multidisciplinary team, I must understand “the following components of the assessment process in order to
determine the presence of a suspected disability: collection, analysis, evaluation, determination and
recommendation” (Giulani, G & Pierangelo, R., 2008). Furthermore, I need to understand that there are five
purposes of assessment in school settings: screening and identification; eligibility; IEP development and
placement; instructional planning and evaluation (Giulani, G & Pierangelo, R., 2008). As a special education
teacher, I wear many hats or can be placed in different roles in the educational environment. Thus, I must
understand laws; policies, acronyms used within the context of special education, and understand how to
communicate with parents, professionals and students throughout the process.
Group Chapter 9 reminded me of the biggest factors that affect child behavior and assessment results which
include established risk, biological risk, and environmental risk. When determining an assessment, assessors
have to keep in mind that parents may provide mind information about the child to protect their home life. For
example: environmental risks occur outside the child’s biology (e.g. smoking, alcohol, and other drugs). Parents
may not want to reveal during the parent interview that their child has fetal alcohol syndrome or was born
addicted to drugs because they fear the consequence; however, these are factors that can affect what type of
assessment should be given to the child. For biological risk, I must consider prenatal or neonatal medical
conditions with the child or parents that create a higher probability of disability such as birth weight,
prematurity and HIV infection because these can have long term effects on development. Moreover, certain tests
require that the evaluator document the birth age and if they were born early (number of weeks). Lastly, Lab 3
allowed me to work with a group to determine whether the child should be referred to the Child Study Team
(CST). The group reviewed the standardized scores of percentiles and percentages to assess Alex’s current
developmental levels in language. At first, the group was torn between the referring and not referring but then
realized we could only use the facts. Based on our assessment, we advised that the teacher continue to monitor
Alex’s vocabulary development and scaffold Alex’s vocabulary by conversing with her, using a more diverse
vocabulary, and asking more open-ended questions. This assessment allowed me to understand the complexity
of the CST and importance of understanding percentiles and percentages. Our group received 9.25 out of 10
because we confused percentiles and percentages but received 10 out of 10 on Lab 5 which dealt with
percentiles. As a group, we were able to show that we learned the difference between percentiles and
percentages.