Search results

Multitiered systems of support (MTSS) is widely advocated as an approach to improving education for all students, including students with disabilities. A hope for MTSS is that it can solve or mitigate many problems associated with providing special education to students with disabilities. While MTSS shows some promise for better addressing these problems, enthusiasm for MTSS and unsound thinking about what MTSS can do, cannot do, and has not done can veil lack of progress toward improving special education, as well as obscure what improving special education requires. We suggest that for both MTSS and special education to make more progress toward achieving their promises, several reality checks are urgently needed.

The roles and functions of a school psychologist are multifaceted. School psychologists are traditionally trained in areas of assessment, intervention, consultation, and program evaluation, though they often participate in prevention and crisis intervention efforts and program evaluation (Harvey & Struzziero, 2008). School psychologists work at district, building, and individual student levels to provide comprehensive and effective services to children and families. Despite a wide range of responsibilities, the school psychologist works in conjunction with other school professionals (e.g., general and special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, audiologists, social workers, principals) and parents to foster individual student success. This chapter presents the general roles and responsibilities of the school psychologist, as well as the school psychologist’s role within an interdisciplinary team when making appropriate educational decisions.

In response to a critical need for uniform school crisis preparedness and response efforts across districts, the National Association of School Psychologists developed PREPaRE, a model and training curriculum aimed to equip school-based professionals to engage in comprehensive school crisis prevention and intervention practices. The PREPaRE acronym stands for: Prevent/Prepare for psychological trauma; Reaffirm physical health, security, and safety; Evaluate psychological trauma; Provide interventions (and) Respond to psychological needs; and Examine the effectiveness of prevention and intervention efforts. The model spans four crisis preparedness phases: Prevention, Mitigation, Response, and Recovery. This chapter provides a detailed overview of the development and structure of the PREPaRE model's core components and the organizational framework of the Incident Command System. It delineates elements of the basic school crisis response plan, assessment of mental health risk following a crisis event, and the provision of crisis interventions within a multitiered system of support framework. Additionally, it summarizes ongoing effectiveness and implementation research used to evaluate and improve the model based on immediate training outcomes assessed through pre and postmeasures and training transfer to applied school contexts. Implications for research and public policy regarding school safety and crisis prevention and intervention, as well as the future of PREPaRE curriculum development, are discussed.

Alternative Education Placements (AEPs) are unique and complex settings that serve students with varieties of needs and strengths, though in practice such settings may be used most frequently to serve students with serious challenging behavior. Although research supports a number of individual interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD), including intensive, individualized interventions, less is known about adapting such interventions for AEPs, and especially about the potential for AEPs to adopt a flexible, positive, multitiered framework for behavior and school climate. Emerging evidence suggests that Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) can be integrated into alternative education settings with careful planning. This chapter provides (1) an overview of AEPs, (2) a description of six steps recommended for integrating PBIS into AEPs, and (3) a brief overview of recent literature regarding PBIS in AEPs.

Recently, a national priority has been set to improve mental health services for children and families. It has been identified in epidemiological literature that in the United States, an approximate 15% of youth meet diagnostic criteria for emotional or behavioral problems. Furthermore, less than one in every five children that present with such needs receive mental health services. Individual, family, and system barriers such as transportation, competing demands, and long waiting lists have negatively impacted access to mental health services. Therefore, the school system has become the “de facto” mental health system for children and adolescents, in part because of the significant time students spend at school. However, meeting the needs of students with behavioral or emotional problems within the school system poses its own challenges. Schools have reported being limited in their ability to deliver basic mental wellness to students due to the lack of available resources. Specifically, there is a shortage of school-employed mental health personnel and the ratio of student to mental health professional is two to three times larger than recommended. Expanded school mental health programs are partnered systems that utilize existing services and collaborate with community mental health (CMH) professionals at each level of the three-tiered system. This partnership enables CMH staff gain access to youth with emotional and behavioral problems, resulting in increased prevention and intervention services for students. Additionally, a coordinated effort such as student-transition services has an integral role of facilitating the process from the school system to postsecondary employment, training, and or additional education.

Identifying students for intensive intervention (also referred to as Tier 3 supports) is most effective when implemented within a tiered system of support. Effective tiered systems include both academic and behavioral supports for identifying and serving students with varied needs. In this chapter, we review existing research, discuss current practice, and offer guidance for identifying students with intensive academic and/or behavioral needs.

In this introductory chapter of volume 32 of Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, we provide an overview of the considerations of intensive, individualized interventions and preview the 10 chapters in the volume. We asked chapter authors to consider the full scope of delivering such learning and behavioral interventions – describing tiered systems of support, identifying students who require intensive and individualized interventions, presenting elements associated with such interventions, and identifying specific examples of intensive and individualized interventions.

Ensuring that young children with severe and multiple disabilities are active participants in all aspects of their lives and that they make meaningful progress toward valued life outcomes can be a daunting endeavor for families and early educators. In this chapter, we describe evidence-based strategies that can be harnessed to ensure that each child is provided with high-quality inclusive education. Initially, we lay the foundation for the chapter by asserting shared assumptions fundamental to early childhood/early childhood special education practices with topics including strengths-based approach, self-determination, all does mean all, and play as a right for all children. Next, components of a high-quality inclusive program for young children designed to support access, participation, and meaningful progress are described. These components include the following: (1) collaborative teaming; (2) family–professional partnerships; (3) authentic assessment linked to meaningful outcomes; (4) discipline-free, functional outcomes or goals; (5) responsive, developmentally appropriate environments; and (6) levels of instructional support (e.g. universal design for learning (UDL), differentiation, and individualization). A vignette is used to further illustrate how to apply the practices discussed.

Despite long-standing evidence that the use of exclusionary discipline practices is both ineffective and even potentially harmful, these policies continue to be used in educational settings across the country. In this chapter, we discuss the problems associated with exclusionary discipline, with an emphasis on zero tolerance approaches. We begin our discussion with a brief history of the origin of zero tolerance policies, a presentation of data that contradict the effectiveness of such policies, and examples of the continued and egregious application of this exclusionary approach. We discuss problems of disproportionality associated with the use of zero tolerance policies, including how this approach exacerbates learning problems for students with and at risk for disabilities, especially if that risk is related to emotional and behavioral disorders (EBD). We conclude by offering alternatives to a zero tolerance approach in the form of positive and preventative approaches for improving student behavior across various levels of intensity within a tiered system of support framework.