Confusion among stakeholders regarding some aspects of the special education process—chiefly the triennial reevaluation—leads to misapplication of rules across districts and states based on interpretations of informal lore-based reasoning. Local education agencies (LEA) can determine that no additional data are needed and advise parents to forego the evaluation. Too, often, families who fear losing special education services for their child will acquiesce and decline the evaluation. Although this may be appropriate for some students, for others it can be a highly questionable and counterproductive decision. We illustrated the ways that avoiding triennial evaluations could hamper the ability of the LEA to adequately foster the student’s independence, monitor the student’s disability condition, and set and reach the student’s Individual Education Plans (IEP) goals. We argued that the major issue in decisions regarding triennial evaluations is centered on determining if a student is still eligible for special education services. This places too much attention on test-based eligibility and too little on educational needs, transition needs, and the instructional program. Triennial reevaluations should pivot from an “eligibility” focus to a “needs” focus, allowing schools and parents to gain a fresh understanding of the individual receiving the services. Failure to do so raises questions about the fidelity of assessment within the structure of special education service provision. Finally, we suggested that the motives underlying the practices for triennial evaluations illustrated here call the pragmatic acceptability of “full inclusion” into question.

中文翻译：

---

三年一次的评估：将手段与目的分开

利益相关者之间对特殊教育过程的某些方面（主要是三年一次的重新评估）的混淆导致基于对非正式知识推理的解释而跨地区和州错误应用规则。当地教育机构 (LEA) 可以确定不需要额外数据，并建议家长放弃评估。通常情况下，担心失去孩子的特殊教育服务的家庭会默许并拒绝评估。尽管这可能适合某些学生，但对于其他学生来说，这可能是一个非常值得怀疑和适得其反的决定。我们说明了避免三年一次评估可能会妨碍 LEA 充分培养学生独立性、监控学生残疾状况、并设定并实现学生的个人教育计划 (IEP) 目标。我们认为，关于三年一次评估的决定的主要问题集中在确定学生是否仍有资格获得特殊教育服务。这过多地关注基于考试的资格，而过分关注教育需求、过渡需求和教学计划。三年一次的重新评估应从“资格”重点转向“需求”重点，让学校和家长对接受服务的个人有新的了解。如果不这样做，就会引发关于特殊教育服务提供结构中评估的真实性的问题。最后，