National Status of the Prereferral Process: An Issue for Regular Education

The status and impact of prereferral intervention: “We need a better way to determine success”

“…Such teams may be predicated on the teacher assistance teams of Chalfant and colleagues (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979), which have been expanded by others (Fuchs, 1991;Hayek, 1987;Saver & Downes, 1991). Unsurprisingly, general education teachers are highly involved in the prereferral process, a finding consistent with previous research (Brown et al, 1991;Carter & Sugai, 1989) but resulting in calls for preservice and inservice training of teachers (Wood et al, 1990). In light of this finding, an implication for school psychologists is that given their training in interventions for academic and behavior problems, they are well suited to provide continuing professional development in this area.…”

“…This finding is consistent with calls for endorsement of prereferral intervention (Sindelar et al, 1992;Wood et al, 1990) as well as growing practices adopted on a statewide basis (Reschly & Grimes, 1991) and at district levels (Andringa & Keller, 1991; Tarwater & Schmidt, 1989). Furthermore, prereferral intervention is employed most frequently with students suspected of mild handicaps, and the nature of the intervention primarily comprises instructional modifications or behavior management strategies.…”

“…When asked about the success of prereferral intervention, nearly half of the state directors said prereferral interventions were sometimes successful and a fourth of them had no basis for determination. A partial replication (Wood, Lazzari, Davis, Sugai, & Carter, 1990) of the Carter and Sugai study discovered that approximately one fourth of the states requiring or recommending prereferral practices failed to provide training in intervention strategies, the prereferral process, or general and special education interface.…”

“…The national surveys (Carter & Sugai, 1989;Wood et al, 1990) generated information regarding policy and national trends, but they potentially lack the specificity and personal insights with which practitioners, such as administrators (Nelson et al, 1992) or teachers (Brown et al, 1991;Harrington & Gibson, 1986), respond. On the other hand, practitioner surveys have been hampered by low response rates (Harrington & Gibson, 1986) or restricted sampling, namely, respondents drawn from a single school district (Brown et al, 1991).…”

“…Whereas both Nelson et al (1992) and the current study assess the nature of prereferral intervention and perceived efficacy, the current study also endeavored to specify the suspected disabilities for which prereferral intervention is used and to identify the school personnel who engage in the design, implementation, and evaluation of prereferral intervention. In contrast to state directors of special education (Carter & Sugai, 1989;Wood et al, 1990) or general education teachers (Brown et al, 1991;Harrington & Gibson, 1986), local administrators of special education in Michigan served as respondents. Organizationally, most local school districts in Michigan receive special education services via intermediate school districts.…”