Search results

Purpose: To describe how an approach to instruction that intentionally considers elements of motivation and engagement, intensity of instruction, and cognitive challenge can accelerate the reading achievement of lower-performing readers by giving them access to and support to meet reading and knowledge building with success.

Design: The authors discuss a set of high-leverage practices squarely under the teacher’s control. Grounded in longstanding and rigorous research, the integrated set of practices have been shown time and time again to accelerate achievement beyond typical growth while also intentionally considering the experiences, cultures, and linguistic knowledge students bring to the classroom. The re-conceptualized approach forefronts student agency and engages students in meaningful interactions with text to build knowledge of the world they live in.

Findings: The authors illustrate the comprehensive approach through a composite vignette drawn from work with teachers and students in school and clinical contexts. The focus of the vignette is on the actions of the classroom teacher who is working to meet the needs of three struggling readers within the broader context of her 5th-grade classroom, while also establishing a coherent instructional approach with fellow teachers.

Practical Implications: By re-conceptualizing their approaches to working with struggling readers, teachers increase the likelihood that students will not only develop component skills related to reading but also integrate these components and develop the conceptual expertise that anchors future reading and learning.

Assessment is at the core of high-quality education. When educators purposefully engage in assessment, the learning experiences and outcomes of all students, especially of students diagnosed with specific learning disabilities (SLDs), are improved. In this chapter, we discuss assessment as unfolding within a framework that includes purposes, processes, and tools of assessment existing in the educational context. We open the chapter with an explanation of this framework. Then, in Part 1, we review the construct of SLD and detail how assessment is used within prominent approaches to diagnosis. In Part 2, we discuss how assessment is used to inform instruction before and after diagnosis. We ground our discussion in a vignette that follows Tess, a student who, at the beginning of third grade, has undiagnosed SLD in the area of reading. We show how educators at Tess's school collaborate in the purposeful use of assessment to inform instruction before and after Tess's diagnosis of SLD, highlighting traditional and innovative assessment techniques along the way.

Students with mathematics-related learning difficulties (MLD) experience difficulties in many areas of mathematics achievement; without intervention, these difficulties will persist. In this chapter, I first review research examined cognitive processes deficits of MLD. Because difficulties in learning mathematics are presumably due to these cognitive deficits, findings of these studies can shed light on developing effective intervention programs. Second, using Response to Intervention (RTI) as a framework to distinguish the intensity level of intervention, I review findings from existing Tier 2 and Tier 3 intervention studies and synthesize the instructional approaches used in these studies as well as the factors researchers used to intensify the intervention. Finally, Data-Based Individualization (DBI), a systematic approach to intensify intervention, commonly used at the Tier 3 level, is review. Suggestions for future research directions for intensive mathematics intervention are also provided.

The following chapter discusses common approaches to academic interventions and methods for intensifying instruction when previous attempts at instruction have failed. Contemporary research on intensive intervention is discussed along with competing frameworks for operationalizing intensive intervention to meet the needs of struggling learners.

Evaluation of any given student's responsiveness to intervention depends not only on how effective the intervention is, but also whether the intervention was delivered as intended as well as in the appropriate format and according to the most useful schedule. These latter elements are referred to as treatment integrity and treatment intensity, respectively. The purpose of this chapter is to define and describe how treatment integrity and intensity can be incorporated in the evaluation of outcomes associated with individualized intervention delivery.

Alternative education settings (AES; i.e., self-contained alternative schools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools, and juvenile corrections schools) serve youth with complicated and often serious academic and behavioral needs. The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs) and practices with Best Available Evidence are necessary to increase the likelihood of long-term success for these youth. In this chapter, we define three primary categories of AES and review what we know about the characteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss the current emphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard to both academic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interventions addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementation in AES, where there are often high percentages of youth requiring special education services and who have a significant need for EBPs to succeed academically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood. We focus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifying EBPs; (b) providing a brief review of EBPs and Best Available Evidence in the areas of mathematics, reading, and interventions addressing student behavior for youth in AES; (c) delineating key implementation challenges in AES; and (d) providing recommendations for how to facilitate the use of EBPs in AES.

Since the passage of Public Law 94-142, federal law has prioritized the education of students with disabilities with their non-disabled peers in the context of the general education classroom. This chapter examines the progress, and often lack thereof, with regard to educating students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive settings. We examine current trends in placement, factors that contribute to those placement practices, and what IDEA says about the education of students with extensive and pervasive support needs. We examine what the research suggests happens in substantially segregated settings and then, in contrast, examine impacts and outcomes for students with extensive and pervasive support needs who are educated in inclusive settings. We also examine trends resulting from changing paradigms of disability that provide new opportunities for re-invigorating efforts to educate students with extensive and pervasive support needs in inclusive classrooms.

In this chapter, we describe the policy and practical decisions one school district and school had to make to implement a progress monitoring and Response to Intervention (RtI) model in an historically low-achieving school with a substantial population of students at risk tfor academic failure – characteristics that are common to many public schools across the nation. We contrast the lofty goals and theoretical orientations of RtI described in a burgeoning literature in special and general education with the “real life” burdens of capacity, resources, time, and school culture in a struggling school.

Before discussing educational placement issues related to learners with special needs, definitions related to inclusion need to be presented. It is important to note there is no universally accepted definition of inclusion; thus, this term holds different meanings to different individuals (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994). Furthermore, the terminology has also changed over the decades (McLeskey, 2007). During the 1960s through the early 1980s, the term mainstreaming was used. The terms of integration and regular education initiative were used throughout the 1980s. From the late 1980s through the present, the preferable term has been inclusion. Schwartz (2005) optimistically stated that an inclusive program is “one that provides educational intervention to students with and without disabilities in a common setting and provides appropriate levels of instruction and support to meet the needs of all students” (p. 240). Others have defined inclusion “as the practice of educating students with disabilities in the general education classroom setting” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). The meaning of inclusion has been defined differently from the term mainstreaming, which has been defined as “when students…earn their way into the general educational classroom…with minimal, if any, special education assistance” (Zinkil & Gilbert, 2000, p. 225). For the purposes of this chapter, the definition of inclusion provided by Zinkil and Gilbert (2000) will be used.