Positive Social Change in Special Education

                                  Discussion 2: Blog: Evaluator Credibility

Special Education:

Person of Interest: Dr. Susan Lang; Director of Special Education for the school district Cumberland Pa.

Setting: IEP meeting for a child that has Cerebral palsy;

Dr. Lang is the Director of Special Education attend a meeting for a child that has Cerebral Palsy along with mom and dad, Special Ed teacher, vice principal, psychologist, and behavioral specialist. Mom concerns were that her son was not exploring his potential academically. Mom states that her son sits in a class room and watches other student learn life skills and do different activities. Dr. Lang acknowledges mom’s concern and wants to make the community aware of the community, and that can learn different life skills. According to Dr. Cram from Laureate Education (2012) states that, credibility is about our connectedness; how we form a relationship with that organization or community and how we talk about different roles, our responsibilities, our track record and how we’re going to proceed with the evaluation. Therefore, the perceived credibility of the evaluator can shape stakeholders’ willingness both to participate meaningfully in evaluation processes and to endorse evaluation products (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011).

According to Yarbrough, Shulh, Hopson & Caruthers (2011) states that Credible Evaluators assess this fit at the outset of the evaluation and continue to monitor it throughout the process. For example, Special Ed teachers should transfer skills to the teacher aid for each student with Cerebral Palsy have the opportunity to experience the training of life skills. The lack of connectedness and relationship with the community can affect the ability of students with Cerebral Palsy not achieve or feel less of a person. According to Dr. Cram (2012) states what within a method needs is to be able to implement as the core components for that method of connectedness to have fidelity. An evaluator’s credibility affects evaluation and how those methods can be tailored to the community (Dr. Cram, 2012)Therefore, evaluation works for communities using the methods that a community wants to use and will work with the community with children with special needs (Dr. Cram, 2012).

Reference:

Dr. Cram, F. L. (Director). (2012). Voice from the field Evaluator Credibility [Motion Picture].

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., Hopson, R., & Caruthers, F. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards. Los Angeles: Sage.

 Darrell Salla,

                                            Discussion 2: Blog: Accuracy Standards

A2 Valid Information: According to Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, and Caruthers (2011) state that Validity in its various emphases is an integrating theme across all the Accuracy Standards. Therefore, valid information refers to the accuracy of assessment, whether it measures what it is supposed to measure. There are three ways in which validity can be measured. To have confidence that a test is valid and therefore the inferences we make based on the test scores are valid all three kinds of validity evidence should be considered (Fairbairn, 2009). However, being aware of the basic tenets of validity as you construct your classroom assessments, and you should be able to help parents interpret scores for the standardized exams.

 A3 Reliable Information: According to Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, and Caruthers (2011) state that reliability is defined as the consistency of information and the information that is collected and is crucial to the justification of validity. Reliability refers to the extent to which assessments are consistent (Fairbairn, 2009).  For example, having reliable cars that start every time we need it. Therefore, educators will strive to have reliable, consistent instruments to measure student achievement (Golafshani, 2003).  According to Golafshani (2003) states that another measure of reliability is the internal consistency of the items. For example, if you create a test to measure students’ ability to solve quadratic equations, then perhaps the student will get it right. Although reliability enemy can be random error and freedom from the random error, it seems to be equally important for qualitative and quantitative information summaries (Yarbrough, Shulha, & Hopson, 2011).

 Reference:

Fairbairn, S. B. (2009). Inclusive achievement testing for linguistically and culturally diverse test takers: Essential considerations for test developers and decision makers. National Council on Measurement in Education 28 (1), 10-24.

Golafshani, N. (2003). Understanding Reliability and Validity in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 8 (4),, pp. 597-606.

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., & Hopson, R. C. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards. Los Angeles: Sage.

                       Discussion 2: Blog: Process and Procedure Standards

U5- Relevant Information: is data that can be applied to solve a problem. This is a particular issue when determining the format and content of an entity's financial statements, since the proper layout and level of detail of information can adjust the opinions of users regarding the future direction of a business of school district (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). According to Mereoiu, Abercrombie, Murray (2016) states that Individualized Education Program (IEP) is the roadmap that helps educators and families drive the education of students with disabilities, improve outcomes, and fulfill each child’ potential. Professional norms and experience, the relevant special education literature lacks a systematic case law foundation (Butera & Brenda, 1998). There the contents of Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) become relevant in such cases. There educators must examine IEPs to establish the relationship between misbehavior and disability (Zirkel, 2016).

U6- Meaningful Processes and Products: is when they are perceived to have significance and value for stakeholders and designing activities to assure both accuracy and meaningfulness can help stakeholder to a better understanding the complexity of their program’s (Yarbrough, Shulha, Hopson, & Caruthers, 2011). According to Johns, Crowley and Guetzloe (2007) states that IEPs team determines the individual effectiveness of a level system for a student, the team must determine whether the student is making satisfactory progress through the level system. However, the IEPs meeting that includes the stakeholders and parents determine the outcome of the student’s future (Scott, 2011). It is essential in order to achieve positive outcomes when both professionals or stakeholders and parents find themselves in a context in which collaboration includes decision-making and communication skills in a short period of time.

References:

Beverley, J., & Crowley, P. &. (2007). Planning the IEP for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disorders. Focus on Exceptional Children Vol 34, 1-12.

Butera, G., & Brenda, K. M. (1998). A Statewide Study of FAPE and School Discipline Policies. The Journal Of Special Education Vol 32, 108-114.

Mereoiu, M., Abercrombie, S., & Murray, M. (2016). Structured Intervention as a Tool to Shift Views of Parents-Professional Partnerships: Impact on Attitudes Toward the IEP. Exceptionality Education International Vol. 26 Issue 1,, 36-52.

Scott, L. (2011). Teacher Self-Efficacy with Teaching Students to Lead IEP Meetings: A Correlation Study on Administrator Support. Journal of Educational Psychology Vol 5, 9-20.

Yarbrough, D., Shulha, L., Hopson, R., & Caruthers, F. (2011). The Program Evaluation Standards. Los Angeles: Sage.

Zirkel, P. &. (2016). Which Procedural Parts of the IEP Process are the Most Judicially Vulnerable. Exceptional Children Vol 83 (2) DOI: 10117/001440296651849, 219-235.