No abstract

As educational alternatives develop and evolve, so too must assessment strategies. Prior to the 20th century, assessment was primarily a matter of monitoring competence in the Hthree Rs." During the early 1900s, as the Industrial Revolution reshaped the way we worked, vocational education _ curricula (primarily agriculture, industrial arts, and home economics) appeared as a means to provide a well-trained labor force. During this same time, compulsory education and child labor laws required our schools to educate an ever increasing range of pupils, foreshadowing the need for a general education curriculum track. It is not surprising, then, that the early 1900s marked the beginning of the standardized testing movement. School counselors and administrators needed a means to place students into the various curriculum alternatives.As we progressed through the first half of the 1900s, curriculum options expanded even more. New divisions such as health, distributive, business, and technical education appeared in vocational education, and our increasingly sophisticated assessment techniques opened the door for placement among special education alternatives. The 1950s and early 1960s saw a rapid expansion in school placement alternatives in mental retardation, followed closely by the learning disabilities category in the 1970s and, more recently, that of emotional disturbance / behavioral disorders . . The expanding curriculum alternatives and the inclusion of children with a greater range of abilities and needs has made educators increasingly aware of complex interactions among curriculum, instructional delivery, and child characteristics. One small, yet troublesome, portion of that interaction-the assessment and placement of handicapped students who are likely candidates to receive secondary vocational education in a mainstreamed environment-is the subject of this article. The discussion here relates only to high school vocational assessment, and it is not intended to be critical of all of current vocational evaluation, both within and outside of schools. We recognize that the quality of vocational evaluation ranges to extremes. Our aim is to be constructive, not perjorative, and we trust the reader will apply that intent to the following discussion and paradigm.

As educational alternatives develop and evolve, so too must assessment strategies. Prior to the 20th century, assessment was primarily a matter of monitoring competence in the Hthree Rs." During the early 1900s, as the Industrial Revolution reshaped the way we worked, vocational education _ curricula (primarily agriculture, industrial arts, and home economics) appeared as a means to provide a well-trained labor force. During this same time, compulsory education and child labor laws required our schools to educate an ever increasing range of pupils, foreshadowing the need for a general education curriculum track. It is not surprising, then, that the early 1900s marked the beginning of the standardized testing movement. School counselors and administrators needed a means to place students into the various curriculum alternatives. As we progressed through the first half of the 1900s, curriculum options expanded even more. New divisions such as health, distributive, business, and technical education appeared in vocational education, and our increasingly sophisticated assessment techniques opened the door for placement among special education alternatives. The 1950s and early 1960s saw a rapid expansion in school placement alternatives in mental retardation, followed closely by the learning disabilities category in the 1970s and, more recently, that of emotional disturbance / behavioral disorders. . The expanding curriculum alternatives and the inclusion of children with a greater range of abilities and needs has made educators increasingly aware of complex interactions among curriculum, instructional delivery, and child characteristics. One small, yet troublesome, portion of that interaction-the assessment and placement of handicapped students who are likely candidates to receive secondary vocational education in a mainstreamed environment-is the subject of this article. The discussion here relates only to high school vocational assessment, and it is not intended to be critical of all of current vocational evaluation, both within and outside of schools. We recognize that the quality of vocational evaluation ranges to extremes. Our aim is to be constructive, not perjorative, and we trust the reader will apply that intent to the following discussion and paradigm.

No abstract