Results by title

Simple in concept, far-reaching in implementation, Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) was developed in the 1980s as an efficient way to assess the progress of struggling students, including those with disabilities. Today, there are few areas of special education policy and practice that have not been influenced by CBM progress monitoring. The impact of CBM is reflected in recent education reforms that emphasize improvements in assessment and data-based decision making. Gathering an international group of leading researchers and practitioners, A Measure of Success provides a comprehensive picture of the past, present, and possible future of CBM progress monitoring. The book will be instrumental for researchers and practitioners in both general and special education, particularly those involved in the rapidly growing Response to Intervention (RTI) approach, an approach used to determine the performance and placement of students with learning difficulties.

A Measure of Success presents a nuanced examination of CBM progress monitoring in reading, math, and content-area learning to assess students at all levels, from early childhood to secondary school, and with a wide range of abilities, from high- and low-incidence disabilities to no disabilities. This study also evaluates how the approach has affected instructional practices, teacher training, psychology and school psychology, educational policy, and research in the United States and beyond.

Timely and unique, this volume will interest anyone in education who wants to harness the potential advantage of progress monitoring to improve outcomes for students.

Contributors: Laurence Bergeron; Lionel A. Blatchley; Renee Bradley; Mary T. Brownell, U of Florida; Todd W. Busch, U of St. Thomas; Heather M. Campbell, St. Olaf College; Ann Casey; Theodore J. Christ, U of Minnesota; Kelli D. Cummings, U of Oregon; Eric Dion, U du Québec à Montréal; Isabelle Dubé, U du Québec à Montréal; Hank Fien, U of Oregon; Anne Foegen, Iowa State U; Douglas Fuchs, Vanderbilt U; Lynn S. Fuchs, Vanderbilt U; Gary Germann; Kim Gibbons; Roland H. Good III, U of Oregon; Anne W. Graves, San Diego State U; John L. Hosp, U of Iowa; Michelle K. Hosp; Joseph R. Jenkins, U of Washington; Ruth A. Kaminski; Panayiota Kendeou, Neapolis U Pafos, Cyprus; Dong-il Kim, Seoul National U, South Korea; Amanda Kloo, U of Pittsburgh; Danika Landry, U du Québec à Montréal; Erica Lembke, U of Missouri; Francis E. Lentz Jr., U of Cincinnati; Sylvia Linan-Thompson, U of Texas at Austin; Charles D. Machesky; Doug Marston; James L. McLeskey, U of Florida; Timothy C. Papadopoulos, U of Cyprus; Kelly A. Powell-Smith; Greg Roberts, U of Texas at Austin; Margaret J. Robinson; Steven L. Robinson, Minnesota State U, Mankato; Catherine Roux, U du Québec à Montréal; Barbara J. Scierka; Edward S. Shapiro, Lehigh U; Jongho Shin, Seoul National U, South Korea; Mark R. Shinn, National Louis U; James G. Shriner, U of Illinois, Urbana-Champaign; Paul T. Sindelar, U of Florida; Deborah L. Speece, U of Maryland; Pamela M. Stecker, Clemson U; Martha L. Thurlow, U of Minnesota; RenátaTichá, U of Minnesota; Gerald Tindal, U of Oregon; Paul van den Broek, Leiden U, the Netherlands; Sharon Vaughn, U of Texas at Austin; Dana L. Wagner, Augsburg College; Teri Wallace, Minnesota State U, Mankato; Jeanne Wanzek, Florida State U; Mary Jane White, U of Minnesota; Mitchell L. Yell, U of South Carolina; Naomi Zigmond, U of Pittsburgh.

Enrollment at America's community colleges has exploded in recent years, with five times as many entering students today as in 1965. However, most community college students do not graduate; many earn no credits and may leave school with no more advantages in the labor market than if they had never attended. Experts disagree over the reason for community colleges' mixed record. Is it that the students in these schools are under-prepared and ill-equipped for the academic rigors of college? Are the colleges themselves not adapting to keep up with the needs of the new kinds of students they are enrolling? In After Admission, James Rosenbaum, Regina Deil-Amen, and Ann Person weigh in on this debate with a close look at this important trend in American higher education. After Admission compares community colleges with private occupational colleges that offer accredited associates degrees. The authors examine how these different types of institutions reach out to students, teach them social and cultural skills valued in the labor market, and encourage them to complete a degree. Rosenbaum, Deil-Amen, and Person find that community colleges are suffering from a kind of identity crisis as they face the inherent complexities of guiding their students towards four-year colleges or to providing them with vocational skills to support a move directly into the labor market. This confusion creates administrative difficulties and problems allocating resources. However, these contradictions do not have to pose problems for students. After Admission shows that when colleges present students with clear pathways, students can effectively navigate the system in a way that fits their needs. The occupational colleges the authors studied employed close monitoring of student progress, regular meetings with advisors and peer cohorts, and structured plans for helping students meet career goals in a timely fashion. These procedures helped keep students on track and, the authors suggest, could have the same effect if implemented at community colleges. As college access grows in America, institutions must adapt to meet the needs of a new generation of students. After Admission highlights organizational innovations that can help guide students more effectively through higher education.