The idea of a continuum of services in education has motivated some governments to develop efforts for implementing educational policies organized in progressively intensive levels of support and instruction in opposition to the dichotomy between special education and regular education that has been in action for several years. The response-to-intervention model, RTI, is congruent with this perspective given the proactive approach adopted to prevent and intervene in early stages in students’ difficulties (Fletcher & Vaughn 2009; Fuchs & Fuchs 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs 2003). In RTI, all children can have additional support at the first signal of difficulties, regardless their status for special education services. By planning assessment and instruction into tiers, the RTI helps to reduce the need of labelling for guarantying the provision of additional support and, hence, prevents discrimination. Henceforth, it adopts an approach congruent with principles that underpin inclusive education by making it possible the allocation of resources for instruction and intervention before the development of significant deficits and by allowing continuous support within regular context, not necessarily tied to a label (Grosche & Volpe, 2013).

However, the implementation of such approach depends on assessment tools that allow, in a quick and efficient way: to identify students’ needs; to locate students in the curriculum of different subjects; to continuously monitor their progress. Furthermore, the scarcity of assessment tools is, in fact, one of the recurring themes reflected in teachers’ discourses (e.g., Sanches-Ferreira et al., 2010; Terziev, 2014). In this context, the Functional Assessment Measure, FAM(Santa Clara Valley Medical Center), has the potential to answer the aforementioned challenges given its attribute of enabling the assessment/score of the level of independence and support needed to perform actions underlying key areas. It allows to identify the level of functioning and support needed of individuals in different areas of functioning and, thus, to provide specific information on the baseline for the delineation of objectives and strategies of intervention.

In Portugal, there are different moments when teachers are faced with decisions- making about the assessment and instruction of students at educational risk before, during and after the activation of special education services (e.g., referral; specialized assessment using the ICF as framework; description of the student’s functioning profile that bases the eligibility decision; intervention and IEP’s design and implementation). The FAM can be used by teachers and team to guide the assessment process, in particular, we view this assessment tool as a support for the description of the profile of functioning of students subjected to a specialized assessment.

This study aimed to evaluate the use of the Functional Assessment Measure in supporting teachers before, during and after the activation of special education services. Specifically, we will evaluate the utility of the FAM at different moments and how it can be used as a tool for:

-        Screening students for academic and behavioural problems, in order to preventively identify situations of educational risk;

-        Supporting the school’s team in following steps within special education services: a) the referral of a student for special education services; b) the decision-making for developing a specialized assessment of the student; c) the description of the student’ functioning profile.

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. (2009). Response to Intervention: Preventing and Remediating Academic Difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37. doi: 10.1111/j.1750-8606.2008.00072.x Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93-99. doi: 10.1598/RRQ.41.1.4 Grosche, M., & Volpe, R. J. (2013). Response-to-intervention (RTI) as a model to facilitate inclusion for students with learning and behaviour problems. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 28(3), 254-269. doi: 10.1080/08856257.2013.768452 Hall, K. M., Hamilton, B. B., Gordon, W.A., & Zasler, N.D. (1993). Characteristics and comparisons of functional assessment indices: Disability Rating Scale, Functional Independence Measure, and Functional Assessment Measure. J Head Trauma Rehabil, 8, 60–74 Sanches-Ferreira, M., Simeonsson, R., Silveira-Maia, M., Alves, S., Pinheiro, S., & Tavares, A. (2010). Projecto da Avaliação Externa da Implementação do Decreto-Lei n.º 3/2008: Relatório Final. Lisboa: Direcção-Geral de Inovação e de Desenvolvimento Curricular. Terziev, V. (2014). Analysis of Educational Needs Assessment Methodology of Children with Special Educational Needs in Bulgaria. Procedia - Social and Behavioral Sciences, 146, 47-54. doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.sbspro.2014.08.085 Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Redefining Learning Disabilities as Inadequate Response to Instruction: The Promise and Potential Problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 137-146. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00070