The Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA; 2004) requires school districts to identify students with disabilities and provide identified students with a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). This process is quite involved, and actually begins prior to a referral for special education assessment, in that resources and interventions delivered in general education are attempted and documented regarding student progress. Once a student is suspected of having a disability, that student is referred and the process begins with a Full Individual Evaluation (FIE). If a student is eligible, the process culminates in the development of an Individualized Education Program (IEP). The IEP team, composed of a variety of school personnel and the student's parents, makes decisions regarding eligibility (e.g., Does the student qualify for special education? Specifically, does he or she meet the criteria for a disability condition, and by reason thereof, does he or she need specialized instruction?), educational programming (e.g., What are the student's needs regarding accommodations and modifications, including modified standards with specific goals and objectives for various courses, assistive technology, various related services such as counseling, speech/occupational/physical therapy?), and placement (e.g., In what type of program or class will the student be educated, and how many minutes will be spent in such classes, including access to general education?). Numerous other issues are addressed, and many decisions are made in the IEP meeting; the ultimate outcome is the student's total educational program.

Given the importance of math in today’s society, it is critical that children who are at risk for math difficulty are identified early. We developed and validated a prekindergarten math subtest (i.e., CIRCLE Progress Monitoring [CPM] Math Subtest). This teacher-completed measure evaluates domains considered important for later math development. Evaluation of validity was undertaken in a longitudinal sample of 383 children ( Mage = 4.9 years), and a follow-up sample of 3,691 children ( Mage = 4.4 years). The measure demonstrated adequate psychometric properties, including strong internal consistency reliability (α = .94) and test–retest reliability ( r = .78). Evaluation of concurrent and predictive validity demonstrated scores on the CPM Math Subtest were correlated with scores on other assessments at high levels ( rs from .55–.65). Exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses revealed that the subtest conforms to a well-defined five-factor model that parallels areas considered to be important in the math literature.

No abstract