Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools: Research and Practice [1 ed.] 9780415626057, 9780415626064, 9780203102930

Citation preview

Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools

Over the last decade, the educational context for students with disabilities has changed significantly, primarily as a result of mandates contained in NCLB and IDEA. The purpose of this book is to summarize the research literature regarding how students might be provided with classrooms and schools that are both inclusive and effective. Inclusive schools are defi ned as places where students with disabilities are valued and active participants in academic and social activities and are given support that helps them succeed. Effectiveness is addressed within the current movement toward multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices that meet the demands of high- stakes accountability. James McLeskey is Professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. He has extensive experience in teacher education and professional development activities related to providing high quality, inclusive services for students with disabilities. Nancy Waldron is Professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. Nancy is a Professor-in-Residence at P.K. Yonge Developmental Research School, a Fellow of the American Psychological Association (APA)-Division of School Psychology, and has held various accreditation and credentialing leadership positions in the National Association of School Psychologists (NASP). Fred Spooner is Professor in the Department of Special Education, and Child Development at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He is known for his writing in the area of severe disabilities, specifically on teaching academic content to this population. Bob Algozzine is Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has been a special education teacher and college professor for more than 40 years.

This page intentionally left blank

Handbook of Effective Inclusive Schools Research and Practice

Edited by James McLeskey, Nancy L. Waldron, Fred Spooner, and Bob Algozzine

First published 2014 by Routledge 711 Third Avenue, New York, NY 10017 and by Routledge 2 Park Square, Milton Park, Abingdon, Oxon OX14 4RN Routledge is an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an informa business © 2014 Taylor & Francis The right of James McLeskey, Nancy L. Waldron, Fred Spooner, and Bob Algozzine to be identified as author of this work has been asserted by her in accordance with sections 77 and 78 of the Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988. All rights reserved. No part of this book may be reprinted or reproduced or utilised in any form or by any electronic, mechanical, or other means, now known or hereafter invented, including photocopying and recording, or in any information storage or retrieval system, without permission in writing from the publishers. Trademark notice: Product or corporate names may be trademarks or registered trademarks, and are used only for identification and explanation without intent to infringe. Library of Congress Cataloging in Publication Data Handbook of effective inclusive schools: research and practice / [edited by] James McLeskey... [et al.]. pages cm. Summary: “Over the last decade, the educational context for students with disabilities has significantly changed primarily as a result of mandates contained in NCLB and IDEA. The purpose of this book is to summarize the research literature regarding how students might be provided classrooms and schools that are both inclusive and effective. Inclusive schools are defined as places where students with disabilities are valued and active participants in academic and social activities and are given supports that help them succeed. Effectiveness is addressed within the current movement toward multi-tiered systems of support and evidence-based practices that meet the demands of high-stakes accountability” — Provided by publisher. Includes bibliographical references and index. 1. Inclusive education—United States. 2. Special education—United States. 3. Children with disabilities—Education—United States. 4. Mainstreaming in education—United States. I. McLeskey, James, 1949– LC1201.H34 2014 371.9’046—dc23 2013040877 ISBN: 978-0-415-62605-7 (hbk) ISBN: 978-0-415-62606-4 (pbk) ISBN: 978-0-203-10293-0 (ebk) Typeset in Bembo by RefineCatch Limited, Bungay, Suffolk, UK

Contents

Preface

ix

SECTION I

Organizational and Systemic Perspectives on Effective Inclusive Schools Nancy L.Waldron and Bob Algozzine (Section Editors) 1 What are Effective Inclusive Schools and Why are They Important? James McLeskey, Nancy L.Waldron, Fred Spooner, and Bob Algozzine

1

3

2 What are Qualities of Effective Inclusive Schools? David Hoppey and James McLeskey

17

3 How Do Schools Become Effective and Inclusive? Julie Causton and George Theoharis

30

4 How Does Professional Development Improve Teacher Practice in Inclusive Schools? Melinda M. Leko and Carly A. Roberts

43

5 How Can Teacher Education Improve Effective Inclusive Schools? Paul T. Sindelar, Alyson J. Adams, and Christopher D. Leko

55

6 What are the Roles of Principals in Inclusive Schools? Bonnie S. Billingsley and James McLeskey

67

7 What are the Roles of General and Special Educators in Inclusive Schools? Erica D. McCray,Tyran W. Butler, and Elizabeth Bettini 8 What are the Roles of Paraprofessionals in Inclusive Schools? John McDonnell and J. Matthew Jameson

80

94

v

Contents

9 What are the Roles of Related Service Personnel in Inclusive Schools? Diana Joyce-Beaulieu and Jill Welsh

107

10 What are High Quality Instruction and Support in High Need and Culturally Diverse Schools? Elizabeth B. Kozleski, Alfredo J. Artiles, and Thomas M. Skrtic

118

11 What is High Quality Instruction for English Language Learners in Inclusive Schools? Vivian I. Correa and Rhonda Miller

136

12 How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools? Nancy L.Waldron, Janise Parker, and James McLeskey

155

13 How is Technology Used to Support Instruction in Inclusive Schools? Dave L. Edyburn and Kathy Howery

167

SECTION II

Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with High Incidence Disabilities Brief Introduction/Overview: Bob Algozzine and James McLeskey (Section Editors) 14 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Inclusive Schools George Batsche

181

183

15 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Effective Inclusion in Elementary Schools Dale L. Cusumano, Kate Algozzine, and Bob Algozzine

197

16 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Effective Inclusion in Secondary Schools Evelyn S. Johnson and Daryl F. Mellard

210

17 Effective Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools Beth Harn, Ronda Fritz, and Tricia Berg

229

18 Effective Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools Linda H. Mason and Elizabeth Benedek-Wood

247

19 Effective Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools Cynthia C. Griffin, Maggie H. Jossi, and Delinda van Garderen

261

vi

Contents

20 Supporting Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools J. Stephen Newton, Anne W.Todd, Bob Algozzine, Kate Algozzine, Robert H. Horner, and Dale L. Cusumano

275

21 Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum Wendy W. Murawski and Vanessa A. Goodwin

292

22 Delivering High Quality School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools George Sugai, Brandi Simonsen, Catherine Bradshaw, Rob Horner, and Timothy J. Lewis 23 High School Inclusion for the 21st Century Barbara J. Ehren and Mary E. Little

306

322

SECTION III

Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with Severe Disabilities Brief Introduction/Overview: Fred Spooner and Nancy L.Waldron (Section Editors)

337

24 Using Principles of High Quality Instruction in the General Education Classroom to Provide Access to the General Education Curriculum Diane Browder, Melissa E. Hudson, and Leah Wood

339

25 Providing Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas (Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) in Inclusive Schools Ginevra Courtade, Bree Jimenez, and Monica Delano

352

26 Delivering Alternate Assessment and Student Progress Monitoring in Inclusive Schools Shawnee Y.Wakeman, Claudia Flowers, and Diane M. Browder

363

27 Peer Support Interventions to Support Inclusive Schools Erik W. Carter, Jennifer M. Asmus, and Colleen K. Moss

377

28 Collaboration and Teaming in Effective Inclusive Schools Diane Ryndak, Donna Lehr, Terri Ward, and Hope DeBevoise

395

29 Supporting Students with Behavioral Challenges in Inclusive Schools Cynthia M. Anderson and Billie Jo Rodriguez

410

30 Self-Determination and Inclusive Schools Michael L.Wehmeyer

425

vii

Contents

31 Supporting Life Skills and Transition Instruction in Inclusive Schools David W.Test, Jennifer Cease-Cook, Audrey Bartholomew, and La’ Shawndra C. Scroggins

437

SECTION IV

Supporting Effective Inclusive Schools: Emerging Trends and Future Directions Brief Introduction/Overview: James McLeskey and Fred Spooner (Section Editors)

449

32 What Technology Trends Could Significantly Alter the Future of Special Education? Dave L. Edyburn

451

33 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with High Incidence Disabilities? Festus E. Obiakor, Cheryl A. Utley,Tachelle Banks, and Bob Algozzine

464

34 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Effective Inclusive Elementary Schools for Students with Extensive Support Needs? Melinda Mitchiner, Amy McCart, Elizabeth Kozleski, Holly Sweeney, and Wayne Sailor

477

35 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Inclusive Secondary Schools? Paul Wehman, Carol Schall, Staci Carr, Pam Targett, and Michael West

492

36 International Perspectives: What Can be Known About Effective Inclusive Schools? Lani Florian and Martyn Rouse

507

37 What are Emerging Trends and Perspectives on Inclusive Schools in Italy? Laura Nota, Salvatore Soresi, and Lea Ferrari

521

Contributors Index

535 542

viii

Preface

Over the last 10 years, the context for educating students with disabilities in the U.S. has changed significantly. This has happened primarily as a result of mandates in federal laws (i.e., the No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB] of 2001, and the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA] in 2004) ensuring that local schools are held accountable for educational outcomes for students with disabilities. This focus on accountability, coupled with the longstanding mandates from IDEA that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment and have access to the general education curriculum, has resulted in pressure on all schools to become both effective and inclusive. Much research has been conducted in relation to the effectiveness of inclusive placements. This research has been relatively consistent in revealing that: • • • • •

Some students obtain better achievement outcomes in inclusive general education settings, while others do better with part-time resource support. Student outcomes in inclusive and resource classes are variable because of the unevenness in the quality of instruction that is provided in these settings. Characteristics of high quality instruction that can be used to significantly increase academic achievement for many students with disabilities have been identified. Most general education teachers tend to make few specialized adaptations in their classrooms to meet the specific needs of students with disabilities. Most resource rooms do not provide students with disabilities with the increased quantity or higher quality of instruction that they need to significantly improve academic achievement levels.

While special education programs have significantly improved educational opportunities for students with disabilities, two continuing issues remain: (a) ensuring that students with disabilities are accepted and included as active participants in the academic and social communities of all schools; and, (b) ensuring that schools are effective in improving student outcomes. In this Handbook, we address the professional literature regarding how students can be provided with classrooms and schools that are both effective and inclusive. We defi ne inclusive schools as places where students with disabilities are valued, active, and successful participants in the same classrooms and in the same academic and social activities as students without disabilities. In this Handbook effectiveness is addressed within the context of the current movement in many schools in the U.S. toward multi-tiered systems of support, as well as the requirement in federal legislation that evidence-based practices be used to address student needs and meet the demands related to high- stakes accountability.

ix

Preface

In each of the chapters in this Handbook, we asked authors to provide a synthesis of research and other scholarly work regarding a critical issue or topic, describe current trends related to that critical issue, and provide direction for what needs to be done in the future to develop and sustain effective inclusive schools. Each chapter is intended to offer a guide for research and practice for those interested in providing effective inclusive schools for students with disabilities and conducting research regarding these practices. The chapters are organized in four sections. Section I addresses organizational and systemic issues that are important considerations for all inclusive schools and all students with disabilities. Issues addressed include topics such as school change; teacher education; the roles of general and special education teachers in effective, inclusive schools; and the role of principals in effective, inclusive schools. Section II addresses a series of issues and topics that are of particular importance regarding the education of students with high incidence disabilities. These issues include the implications of multi-tiered systems of instructional support; characteristics of high quality instruction across general and special education settings and age levels (elementary and secondary); effective instruction across reading, writing, and math; and, strategies for addressing the needs of students from diverse backgrounds. Section III addresses issues and topics that are critical to the education of students with severe disabilities in effective, inclusive schools. The topics addressed in this section are similar to those in Section II, but with an emphasis on needs and educational outcomes for this particular group of students. Specific topics addressed include the characteristics of high quality instruction; effective instruction in core content areas; collaboration and teaming for student support; and issues related to self- determination. In Section IV, we conclude by addressing emerging trends and future directions related to special education and effective inclusive schools. This section addresses ongoing issues in special education related to how we categorize students, deliver services to them, and ensure that their schools are both effective and inclusive. We also provide international perspectives regarding how these issues are being addressed. We realize that this Handbook only begins to address the range of complex issues that must be addressed in order to provide effective inclusive schools for all individuals with disabilities. It is our hope that the chapters in this Handbook will provide a beginning point for a broader consideration of these issues and stimulate discussion and research related to how we might move forward in providing effective inclusive schools for all students. This Handbook is a collective effort by many scholars with expertise in a range of critical areas that are needed to support effective inclusive schools. We would like to thank the chapter authors for working with us to complete this endeavor. We are especially grateful that the chapter authors worked without compensation so that the royalties from this Handbook could be used to support the work of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children. In addition, we would like to thank Lynette Beacher at the University of Florida and Amy Kemp-Inman, who provided us with editorial assistance by ensuring that chapter references were complete and accurate. We would also like to thank our editorial assistant at Routledge, Daniel Schwartz, for his timely support and feedback in completing this project. Finally thanks to our editor at Routledge, Lane Akers, who encouraged us to begin this project, and to Alex Masulis, who took over as our editor upon Lane’s retirement and saw the Handbook through to publication. Both Lane and Alex were most helpful and supportive throughout the process, and kept us moving along with gentle encouragement. Thanks to both of our editors, and all the best to Lane in retirement after many years and countless contributions to the special education professional literature. x

Section I

Organizational and Systemic Perspectives on Effective Inclusive Schools Section Editors: Nancy L. Waldron1 and Bob Algozzine2

While some progress has been made over recent decades toward developing schools that are inclusive and effective for students with disabilities and others who struggle, much progress remains to be made. There seems to be an emerging consensus that if this progress is to occur, large-scale changes are required that address school-wide change, as well as the development of system-wide supports at the district, state, and federal levels to support these changes. More specifically, the development of schools that are inclusive and effective, the large- scale use of evidence-based practices in classrooms, and the implementation of multi-tiered systems of support to improve academic and behavioral outcomes for students all require substantial changes in the culture and structure of schools. Research on school change and the systemic supports that are needed to ensure that these changes are sustained over time is a relatively recent area of inquiry. In this section a series of organizational and systems issues that are critical to the development of all effective inclusive schools are addressed. Given the controversy surrounding inclusive schools, we initially provide our perspective on just what effective inclusive schools are and why a balance must be struck between inclusive placements and improved student outcomes. Given this context, a review of the limited research that has addressed the qualities of effective inclusive schools is then provided. This is followed by chapters that examine research and practice related to how schools are changed to support teachers in improving outcomes for all students, and how teachers are prepared for this work during their initial teacher preparation as well as through ongoing professional development. We then turn to a comprehensive examination of the critical roles played by general and special education teachers, paraprofessionals, related services personnel, and principals in

1 University of Florida 2 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 1

N.L. Waldron and B. Algozzine

providing services and supports for students with disabilities and others who struggle in effective, inclusive schools. The next two chapters review research and practice regarding how to effectively address the particular issues that arise in schools with large populations of students from high poverty, culturally diverse, or English Language Learner backgrounds. We conclude this section by addressing two issues that are critical for the development and support of effective inclusive schools—research and practice related to the importance of school-wide data systems to monitor student progress and ensure accountability, and the importance of technology in supporting students with disabilities and those who struggle to succeed in schools.

2

1 What are Effective Inclusive Schools and Why are They Important? James McLeskey,1 Nancy L. Waldron,1 Fred Spooner,2and Bob Algozzine3

Setting the Stage Historically, exclusion and stigma have been part of the lives of most persons with disabilities (Osgood, 2007). Concepts such as mainstreaming, integration, and, most recently, inclusion have been developed in an attempt to address these issues and to support the human rights of persons with disabilities (McLeskey, 2007; UNESCO, 2005). While most professionals and advocates are supportive of the concept of inclusion and the need to ensure human rights for persons with disabilities, they have not been able to agree on a defi nition of inclusion that guides how these concepts should be applied in practice (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006; Dyson, Farrell, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2004; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011a). Much of the controversy regarding how inclusion should be defi ned and enacted in practice has related to how much emphasis professionals place on whether students should be included as valued participants in the school community versus the need to provide effective instruction that improves student outcomes (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; McLeskey & Waldron, 2011a). In short, should more emphasis be placed on the inclusiveness or the effectiveness of a school? We take the position that schools should place equal emphasis on both, as they strive to be effective and inclusive. The chapters in this Handbook are intended to provide information regarding how this might be achieved. In this chapter, we provide a context for the chapters that follow. Initially, we address issues related to how inclusion is defi ned and enacted in practice, and take a pragmatic middle ground with regard to the controversy that the term ‘inclusion’ has engendered (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman, 1993; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). We then provide data on how schools in the U.S. have changed over the last two decades, as increasing numbers of students with disabilities were educated in general education classrooms for much of the school day. We also provide data and discuss selected categories of students who are being

1 School of Special Education, School Psychology, & Early Childhood Studies, University of Florida 2 Special Education, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 3 Educational Leadership, University of North Carolina at Charlotte 3

J. McLeskey, N.L. Waldron, et al.

included for much of the school day, and those who are not. We conclude this chapter by addressing future directions related to schools that are both inclusive and effective; we believe these are schools where students with disabilities are valued members of the school community and also where supports are provided that result in improved student outcomes.

Current Trends Regarding Inclusion Considerations Regarding the Definition of Inclusion As we solicited chapter authors for this Handbook, we did not attempt to reach a consensus regarding how inclusion should be defi ned. This was because we recognized that while most educators support the concept of inclusion, there is no agreement on how this general concept should be enacted in practice. As Ainscow et al. (2006) have noted, there are many different perspectives on inclusion in the field, resulting in a lack of agreement on what inclusion is across countries and schools. Ryndak, Jackson, and Billingsley (2001) similarly note that while “The term inclusion has many uses in the literature . . . researchers have begun to use the term without an explicit defi nition, leaving the reader to determine the meaning of the word” (p. 102). Given the lack of consensus regarding how inclusion should be defi ned and enacted, we provided the chapter authors with a very general defi nition of inclusive schools that addressed core issues and was agreed upon by the editors of this Handbook. For this purpose, we described inclusive schools as places where students with disabilities are valued and active participants and where they are provided supports needed to succeed in the academic, social, and extra-curricular activities of the school. This defi nition suggests, in the most basic sense, that inclusion may be defi ned as educating students with disabilities in the same classrooms and schools as their same-age neighbors and peers. Effective inclusive schools, then, are those with classrooms where students with disabilities are provided the supports they need to succeed in academic, social, and extra-curricular activities. We understand that this is a general defi nition which does not address every aspect of effective inclusive schools. The difficulty in defi ning effective inclusive schools is reflected in the considerable variability that exists in how these schools have been enacted across settings, suggesting that there are many paths for a school to follow to become both effective and inclusive (Dyson et al., 2004; Rouse & Florian, 1996). While there is much variability in the characteristics of effective inclusive schools (Farrell, Dyson, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2007; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, in press), there are nonetheless guiding concepts that are important to consider when we address how a school may become more ‘inclusive’. To address these key concepts, we build on our general defi nition of effective inclusive schools to offer what Ryndak, Jackson and Billingsley (2001) have called a working defi nition of inclusion and inclusive practice. This working defi nition is taken from a number of sources that have identified key concepts that are generalizable across inclusive settings (Booth & Ainscow, 2002; McLeskey et al., 2013; McLeskey & Waldron, 2006, 2011a; Ryndak et al., 2001; UNESCO, 2005). The components of this working defi nition include the following: •

4

Schools provide comprehensive and ongoing support to better meet the needs of a diverse range of students. This includes sustained engagement of a large proportion of the school administration, staff, and other stakeholders in whole school change that results in substantial alterations in the school related to curriculum, instruction, school organization, teacher roles, and beliefs and attitudes among all school staff and administration. Furthermore,

What are Effective Inclusive Schools?

•

•

•

•

•

school administration and staff recognize that developing effective inclusive schools is a never- ending process of seeking ways to respond to student diversity and improve student outcomes. Professionals work collaboratively to provide support and effective instruction. Educators collaborate to plan, implement, and evaluate instruction based on each student’s progress. Furthermore, services and supports for students with disabilities and those who struggle are seamlessly integrated within general education activities that are provided for all students. Students are educated in natural settings that are highly effective in meeting their needs. Schools actively seek to increase the participation of students with disabilities in natural settings and activities, while also seeking to reduce placements in separate settings. This includes placement in age-appropriate general education classrooms that are located in schools they would attend if they did not have a disability. This does not preclude the use of separate settings for instruction that may be needed to meet the needs of individual students. Regardless of the placement setting, all students are provided with high-quality instruction that leads to adequate yearly progress toward challenging curriculum standards. Students are educated together. All students learn together during both academic and nonacademic activities. This occurs in the general education classroom and throughout the school community, allowing students with and without disabilities to positively interact and actively participate with other students socially, physically, and academically. Students are valued members of all classrooms. All students are valued members of the school community who are accepted by both adults and students. In these settings, diversity is valued and appreciated, all students are welcomed, and diversity is perceived as an ordinary and normal part of the classroom and school. Students are provided supports to meet individual needs and achieve valued learner outcomes. This includes needed supports for both students and teachers that are intended to address necessary accommodations and modifications of curriculum, instruction, and assessment in the general education classroom. These supports may also include instruction that is tailored to meet individual needs and ensure effective instruction for all students. Finally, these supports are provided to ensure meaningful participation in general education routines and activities, allowing students with disabilities to make real, meaningful contributions in these settings.

These six components of a working defi nition of inclusion are intended as a useful framework to provide direction related to the development of inclusive schools that serve all students with disabilities. As we noted previously, these components embody the core elements of inclusion and inclusive schools—that is, students with disabilities are valued members of the school community who participate with peers without disabilities in academic, social, and extra-curricular activities before, during, and after the school day and they are provided supports and effective instruction that produce improved student outcomes. The chapters in this Handbook are intended to provide descriptions of effective practices that can be used to ensure that these guiding principles are enacted in schools that are both inclusive and effective. In the next section, we examine data related to the extent to which students with disabilities are included in general education classrooms in the U.S. We begin by reviewing changes that have occurred in placement practices over the last two decades. We then examine placement practices for disability categories and discuss trends related to these data. 5

J. McLeskey, N.L. Waldron, et al.

The Current Status of Inclusive Placements in the U.S. Over the last two decades, the context for the education of students with disabilities in the U.S. has changed substantially (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). This has happened primarily as a result of mandates in federal laws (i.e., the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB, 2006] and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA, 2004]) which ensure that local schools will be held accountable for providing students with disabilities access to the general education curriculum, and ensuring that these students make adequate yearly progress relative to this curriculum. This context includes a longstanding mandate from reauthorized versions of the IDEA which requires that students with disabilities be educated in the least restrictive environment, creating a clear preference for educating these students in general education classrooms (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2013). These mandates have resulted in pressure to develop schools that are both inclusive and effective in meeting the needs of all students (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011a). Systematically collected data regarding the extent to which inclusive schools are effective are not available in the U.S. (McLeskey et al., in press); however, data are available regarding the extent to which schools are educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms. These data are provided each year by the U.S. Department of Education to ensure that states are addressing the Least Restrictive Environment mandate of IDEA. Table 1.1 includes data on changes in the placement of all students with disabilities in general education classrooms between 1990 and 2008 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). The data from this table reveal that substantial progress has been made toward educating students with disabilities for most (i.e., 80% or more) of the school day in general education classrooms. In 1990, only 31% of all students with disabilities were included in general education classes for most of the school day. This percentage almost doubled to 58% in 2008. Coupled with this increase was a substantial decrease in placements of students with disabilities in settings where they were segregated from general education classrooms for most of the school day. In 1990, 30% of all students with disabilities were educated in substantially segregated settings; this percentage had decreased to 21% by 2008. These data reveal substantial progress toward educating students with disabilities in general education classrooms for much of the school day, as 4 of every 5 students with disabilities are included in these settings. It is noteworthy that about 1 in 5 students with disabilities continue to be largely segregated from their general education peers. These students are either

Table 1.1 Placement of All Students with Disabilities in General Education Classrooms—1990 and 2008 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) Year

Percentage of Time Spent in General Education Classroom

1990 2008

> 79%1 34% 58%

40–79% 36% 21%

< 40% or SS2 30% 21%

1. These percentages indicate the percentage of the school day students with disabilities are placed in general education classrooms. For example, greater than 79% is used for students who spend 80% or more of the school day in general education classrooms. 2. Separate School (SS) includes public, private separate or residential facilities, and homebound or hospital programs.

6

What are Effective Inclusive Schools?

educated in separate schools that are removed from their neighborhood schools, or are educated in a local school but in a separate special education classroom for much of the school day. Further examination of data on placement patterns across categories of disabilities provides insight into the extent to which different groups of students are benefitting from the progress that has been made toward educating students with disabilities in more inclusive settings, as well as categories in which many students continue to be educated in largely separate settings. Previous research has revealed that while the move toward educating students in less restrictive settings occurred across all disability categories, most of the change that occurred between 1990 and 2008 may be attributed to changes in placement patterns for students with mild disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, other health impairments) (McLeskey, Landers, Hoppey, & Williamson, 2011; McLeskey et al., 2012). This research also revealed substantial differences in placement patterns across categories. Table 1.2 provides data regarding placement patterns across disability categories in 2008. Categories are listed in this table based on the percentage of students who are educated in largely segregated settings, beginning with the category with the fewest students in these settings. As Table 1.2 reveals, students with some disabilities (i.e., learning disabilities, speech/ language impairments, other health impairments (including students with ADHD), and developmental delays) are likely to be educated for much of the school day in general education settings, and a relatively small proportion of these students are educated in largely separate settings. In contrast, students with disabilities whose characteristics more often result in substantial academic and/or behavioral challenges (i.e., multiple disabilities, intellectual disabilities, deaf/blindness, autism, and emotional disturbance) are much more likely to be educated in separate class or separate school settings. More specifically, students in these categories are 2 to 3 times more likely to be educated in these separate settings than are students with learning disabilities, speech/language impairments, other health impairments, and developmental delays. This pattern is supported by previous research which has documented that teachers are more supportive of including some students in general education classrooms but are not as supportive of including students with more substantial academic or behavioral difficulties (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Waldron, 2007). The pattern toward educating students in more restrictive settings is perhaps most understandable for students from categories such as emotional disturbance and autism who exhibit challenging behaviors, as many teachers and researchers take the position that the needs of these students are often too complex to manage successfully in a general education classroom for substantial portions of the school day (Kauffman, Mock, & Simpson, 2007; Simpson, 2004). Thus a higher proportion of these students are placed in separate settings, as teachers here provide highly specialized instruction and programs that are designed to meet the individual needs of these students (Kauffman, Bantz, & McCullough, 2002; Landrum, Tankersley, & Kauffman, 2003). In contrast, it is much more difficult to understand placement patterns for students with intellectual disabilities (McLeskey et al., 2012; Williamson, McLeskey, Hoppey, & Rentz, 2006). As Table 1.2 reveals, only 17% of these students are educated in general education settings for most of the school day, while 56% are educated for much or all of the school day in separate settings. This placement pattern has occurred in spite of the fact that research conducted for over 50 years has indicated that these students can be successfully included in general education classrooms and often benefit academically and socially from well- designed inclusive placements (Freeman & Alkin, 2000; Hardman & Dawson, 2008; Johnson, 1962; McLeskey et al., 2012; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007). This fi nding 7

J. McLeskey, N.L. Waldron, et al.

Table 1.2 Placement Patterns Across Disability Categories—2008 (U.S. Department of Education, 2013) Disability Category

Placement Setting

Percentage of Students

Speech/Language Impairments

>79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% 79% 40–79% and forward

Fish have________________ so they can breathe in the water.

Figure 11.2

Fish do not have skin. They have for protection.

Graphic Organizer that can Support Students’ Gathering of Information from their Reading

Explicit instruction in identifying phonemes, segmenting and blending, manipulating onsets, and rimes result in positive gains in early reading skills for ELLs (Leafstedt et al., 2004). Sixty-four kindergarten students participated in a study that examined the effects of explicit instruction in phonological awareness with at-risk ELLs. Students received 300 minutes of intensive instruction in PA, including onset and rime skills, segmenting, and blending activities. Results indicated significant growth in word reading for the intervention participants. A study by Roberts and Neal (2004) provides another example of the use of explicit instruction with ELLs. They focused on explicit small group instruction on comprehensionbased and letter/rhyme lessons of 33 preschoolers who were learning ESL. Of the participants, 23 spoke Hmong and 10 spoke Spanish as their primary languages. Intervention sessions were conducted three days per week in groups of 10–11 students. In the 144

English Language Learners

comprehension-based group, instruction focused on interactive book reading activities, vocabulary instruction, and comprehension activities such as sequencing events. In the letter/ rhyme group, instruction was centered on letter naming and letter writing, as well as rhyme recognition and generation. Both groups were taught using explicit instruction. Results showed that children in the comprehension instruction group outperformed letter/rhyme children on vocabulary and print concepts, while children in the letter/rhyme group outperformed the comprehension group on letter naming and letter writing. No gains were noted in rhyming skills. This study provides evidence that explicit small group instruction is an effective method for teaching both linguistic comprehension and decoding-related components of early literacy even for children in the early stages of English language acquisition. Providing Peer-Assisted Learning Opportunities Several researchers have used cooperative learning and peer-assisted instruction with ELLs (Long & Porter, 1985; Madrid, Canas, & Ortega-Medina, 2007; Slavin & Madden, 2001). Working with peers on classroom assignments gives ELLs the opportunity to practice and extend teacher- directed learning (Gersten et al., 2007). With the focus of cooperative learning being reciprocal teaching and peer interactions, students have opportunities to communicate their ideas and receive immediate feedback from their peers (Klingner et al., 2012; Ortiz, 1997). ELLs have opportunities for realistic conversations, as opposed to typical classroom instruction in which the student answers the teacher’s question with little chance for elaboration (Long & Porter, 1985). In supportive cooperative groups, students can take risks with their language skills without fear of being embarrassed in front of the whole class. In addition, small group work gives students more opportunities to infer, suggest, disagree, and hypothesize (Long & Porter, 1985). The teacher can also individualize instruction by providing the small group with materials that are specifically suited to their needs. Small groups composed of same-language peers can help ELLs use their native language to discuss and understand a task or concept (Long & Porter, 1985). Madrid et al. (2007) conducted a study of 16 Spanish/English bilingual students with a history of poor academic performance in spelling. The researchers compared the use of three peer learning formats: (a) competitive team peer tutoring; (b) cooperative team peer tutoring; and (c) teacher-led instruction. During all three conditions, students were asked to learn as many spelling words as possible. During the competitive condition, students tried to earn more points than other teams. During the cooperative team condition, students were told that the team with the most points would share their points with other teams so that everyone would have the same amount of points. During the teacher-led condition, students worked individually to earn as many points for themselves as possible. The results of the study showed that although team competition and team cooperation resulted in higher levels of correct responses relative to the standard teacher-led condition, cooperative team peer tutoring resulted in the highest rate of correct response. Another example of cooperative learning is the think-pair-share strategy (Lyman, 1981). In this strategy, the teacher poses a question to the class and asks students to think silently about the question for a few moments. Next, students pair up, discuss the question, and decide on the best answer. Finally, pairs are asked to share their answers with the rest of the class. Advantages of this instructional strategy include class-wide participation and accountability. The strategy allows all students a chance to explore their answers in the “safety” of a small group. Think-pair-share can also be arranged with same-language peers. Another intervention that incorporates cooperative learning strategies is the Success for All (SFA) reading program (Slavin, Madden, Dolan, & Wasik, 1996). SFA is a comprehensive 145

V.I. Correa and R. Miller

reading program that emphasizes phonics in Grades K–1, and cooperative learning and direct instruction in Grades 2–6. For ELLs, Success for All has two variations. One is a Spanish bilingual program, Éxito Para Todos, which teaches reading in Spanish in Grades 1–2 and then transitions them to English- only instruction. The other is an English language development adaptation, which provides instruction in English with appropriate supports, such as vocabulary development strategies linked to the words introduced in children’s reading texts. Slavin and Madden (1999) evaluated the results of the two different versions of SFA used with ELLs. The effects of Success for All on the achievement of ELLs are not entirely consistent, but, in general, they are substantially positive. In all schools implementing Éxito Para Todos, effect sizes for fi rst graders on Spanish assessments were strong. Even after transitioning to Englishonly instruction, third graders performed better on English assessments than control students who were taught primarily in English. Peer-assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)© is a class-wide peer tutoring strategy that was developed by Doug and Lynn Fuchs in the late 1990s (Fuchs, Fuchs, Mathes, & Simmons, 1997). PALS has been studied extensively; it has received the “ ‘Best Practice’ status from the U.S. Department of Education Program Effectiveness Panel, and many schools and districts have adopted PALS as part of their reading curricula” (McMaster, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2006, p. 7). The purpose of PALS is to increase strategic reading behavior, reading fluency, and comprehension (Fuchs et al., 2001). The kindergarten and first grade level of PALS addresses phonological awareness, letter-sound correspondence, and sight word recognition. The grades two through six level of PALS includes three main activities: partner reading with retell, paragraph shrinking, and prediction relay. The partner reading with retell activity asks partners to take turns reading small portions of the text aloud and summarizing what was read. The paragraph shrinking activity requires partners to summarize larger chunks of the text. The prediction relay activity asks partners to predict what they think will happen next in the text, read the text, and check their predictions. McMaster, Kung, Han, and Cao (2008) conducted a study using a kindergarten version of PALS, called K-PALS. Sixty participants were divided into three groups: 20 K-PALS ELLs, 20 control ELLs, and 20 K-PALS non-ELLs. Tutoring pairs practiced rhyming, letter sounds, and sentence reading activities. Results showed that K-PALS ELLs outperformed control ELLs on phonemic awareness and letter- sound recognition measures. In addition, K-PALS was shown to be as effective for K-PALS ELLs as for non-ELLs (McMaster et al., 2008). Researchers have concluded that peer-assisted learning opportunities can reduce the more formal English linguistic demands of a task by giving ELLs a less formal opportunity to work together with peers in solving classroom assignments (Fuchs et al., 2001; McMaster et al., 2008). Using peer groups can help ELLs handle assignments that require higher cognitive demands by reducing the level of intimidation that comes with using English in the whole group environment (Fuchs et al., 2001). Using Native Language to Support Learning Although much has been reported on using English as the primary language of instruction through immersion or sheltered English instruction (Echevarría & Graves, 2010; Francis, Lesaux, & August, 2006), many researchers maintain that using native language supports can assist ELLs in comprehending challenging academic content (Baker et al., 2012; Francis et al., 2006). Using a bilingual approach, however, depends largely on the resources available in the school, such as the number of ELLs in the school and the number of teaching staff proficient in the students’ native language (Baker et al., 2012). The premise underlying bilingual or native language supports for ELLs is that the skills students have in their fi rst language (L1) can transfer to their second language (L2). 146

English Language Learners

Cross-linguistic transfer is thought to occur whenever there is a moderate to strong correlation between abilities in L1 and abilities in L2 (Durgunogˇlu, 2002). For example, researchers have found that phonological awareness (PA) is a common skill across languages (Cummins, 1996; Leasfstedt et al., 2004). Preliminary evidence shows that once a student has acquired PA in L1 it becomes an available resource for learning PA in L2 (Cummins, 1996; Leasfstedt et al., 2004). Cummins’ (1996) Common Underlying Proficiencies (CUP) theory states that knowledge about reading in the fi rst language helps ELLs develop reading ability in the second language. Cross-linguistic transfer refers to a student’s ability to access and use the linguistic resources in L1 while learning L2 (Leafstedt & Gerber, 2005; Anthony et al., 2009). Durgunogˇ lu (2002) posits that ELLs already have some learning experiences in L1, and if proficiencies in phonologic skills are present, then those proficiencies are likely to appear in L2. Providing explicit instruction in phonological awareness (PA) in L1 may assist ELLs in transitioning to reading in L2 (Cárdenas-Hagan, Carlson, & Pollard-Durodola, 2007; Leafstedt & Gerber, 2005). The use of cognates can also support comprehension for ELLs whose language has a Latin base (Echevarria et al., 2004). Cognates are words in one language that look or sound like the same word in another language. For example, ‘continente’ is a Spanish cognate for ‘continent’. Research on using cognates to help ELLs link L1 to L2 (English) vocabulary words has shown that the strategy is useful in establishing the meaning of the word in English (Genesee, Lindholm-Leary, Saunders, & Christian, 2006). Teachers may want to keep a chart of common cognates on the wall in a classroom for students who are ELLs. A list of Spanish and English cognates can be found at the Colorín Colorado website (www.colorincolorado.org/ pdfs/articles/cognates.pdf ). Teaching Scenario: (A Lesson On Capacity) TEACHER: Capacity of an object is the largest amount that can be held by the container, and it often refers to the measurement of liquids. [Holding up a cottage cheese container and a measuring cup] I want you to estimate the amount of liquid that this container can hold. (Same Lesson Using Cognates And Visual Representations) TEACHER: The capacity [pointing to the word ‘capacity’ written on the board] of an object is how much the container can hold when it is full. Capacity [pointing to the word again] or capacidad [pointing to the Spanish word for capacity on the board] is usually a measurement of liquids like water, milk, juice, gasoline. So, the capacity [pointing to the word again] is how much liquid, if we measured it, would fit in this container [holding up the cottage cheese container]. I want you to think [puts her index finger up to her temple] and tell me how much water can fit in this container. Is it half a cup [points to ½ on the measuring cup]? Is it one whole cup? Two cups? How much liquid or water would fit in this container [holds up cottage cheese container] . . . because I want to know the capacity [points to the word] of this container. Utilizing a combination of the strategies discussed so far would likely result in the most successful instruction of ELLs in inclusive classrooms. Vaughn et al. (2009) tested the effects of a multicomponent instructional routine developed to enhance effective vocabulary and comprehension outcomes for ELLs. The intervention was conducted in middle school social studies classrooms. Two studies were conducted, the second study replicating the fi rst. Experiment 1 involved 381 participants, and Experiment 2 involved 507. In both studies, the participants included ELLs and monolingual English speakers. The intervention included components that have been found to be effective in the development of vocabulary and 147

V.I. Correa and R. Miller

comprehension of ELLs: explicit instruction of vocabulary, graphic organizers, peer-assisted learning opportunities, and use of native language. Findings from these two experimental studies indicate that both ELLs and monolingual students improved their word knowledge and their comprehension related to the social studies content.

Instructional Practices For English Language Learners with Disabilities There are a limited number of research studies addressing the literacy instruction of ELLs with disabilities (August & Siegel, 2006). In fact, it should be noted that most of the recommendations provided in the literature regarding effective instructional approaches for teaching reading to ELLs with disabilities are gleaned from research conducted with English language learners without disabilities or English monolingual students with disabilities (Gersten, Brengelman, & Jimenez, 1994). This section of the chapter highlights studies that have addressed the needs of ELLs with disabilities. Several of the studies included ELLs with learning disabilities or speech and language impairments as a subset of the participant pool. As with the research on ELLs without disabilities, most of the research focused on interventions in language and literacy. Some promising practices emerge in the areas of using native language to support learning, providing peer-assisted learning opportunities, and using explicit instruction. Using Native Language to Support Learning The research on native language instruction for teaching ELLs with disabilities is mixed. Of the two studies reviewed, one indicated no substantial benefit for teaching in L1, and the other showed positive gains when employing native language instruction. Rohena, Jitendra, and Browder (2002) tested think time for ELLs with disabilities under two conditions: instruction given in English and instruction given in Spanish. Participants included four Puerto Rican students aged 12–15 with intellectual disabilities. The results demonstrated that the acquisition and generalization of reading English sight words was equally effective when using a 4-second time delay procedure whether it was given in English or in Spanish for ELL students with intellectual disabilities. English sight words that students would see in department store aisles were presented to the student using a constant time delay of 4-seconds under the two conditions. Instructions, praise, and any incidental information were presented in English during the English condition, and in Spanish during the Spanish condition. Sight words being read by the students were always in English. While the 4-second time delay produced positive results for sight word reading, language of instruction in this study did not seem to make a difference. In contrast, Perozzi (1985) conducted a study using native language as one condition for teaching receptive language to Spanish- speaking preschoolers. Three Spanish speakers (one with a language delay, one with a language impairment, and one typically developing child) and three English speakers (one with a language delay and two typically developing) participated. In one condition, receptive vocabulary was taught first in L1, then in L2. In the other condition, the receptive vocabulary was taught fi rst in L2, then in L1. Results showed that teaching vocabulary fi rst in L1 and then in L2 had a significant impact upon a student’s vocabulary acquisition in English. In another study, Baker and colleagues (2012) compared the efficacy of a bilingual reading program and an English- only reading program. Researchers followed 214 1st graders for three years in the Oregon Reading First program. Paired bilingual schools provided reading instruction in both languages, while English-only schools provided reading instruction only 148

English Language Learners

in English. The results demonstrated greater gains on oral reading fluency for ELLs in the bilingual reading condition than for ELLs in the English- only condition. Educators can support native language development and its use in several ways. Teachers can provide L1 instruction in the classroom to help students learn English. Teachers can also support and encourage the development of L1 at home (Cummins, 1984). In addition, the teacher and the school can welcome the student’s native language by including it in school newsletters, school promotions, and in classroom activities. Providing Peer-Assisted Learning Opportunities For ELLs with disabilities, the opportunity to interact with peers in the learning process appears to be an effective instructional approach. Cooperative learning strategies have produced favorable outcomes for students with disabilities (Stevens, Madden, Slavin, & Famish, 1987) and for ELLs (Long & Porter, 1985). The following section describes two types of cooperative learning that have resulted in positive outcomes for ELLs with disabilities. One effective use for peer-assisted learning is in the training of comprehension strategies. In the next section, we discuss two different evidence-based intervention programs that teach comprehension strategies. Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)©. Saenz, Fuchs, and Fuchs (2005) conducted one of the fi rst studies investigating the efficacy of the PALS intervention on ELLs. The participants were 132 Spanish- speaking ELLs in grades 3–6. In each classroom, data was collected on two students with LD, three low-achieving, three average-achieving, and three high-achieving students. ELLs with LD made significant gains in reading comprehension from pre- to posttest scores. PALS appeared to be a practical method for accommodating the academic diversity of Spanish- speaking ELLs with LD and their low-, average-, and high-achieving classroom peers. Reciprocal Teaching. The reciprocal teaching model is another type of comprehension strategy intervention, and uses the peer-assisted learning format to improve comprehension for students who can decode text but have difficulty with comprehension (Palincsar & Brown, 1984). Reciprocal teaching can be used in reading instruction and in the content areas when students must read lengthy passages to learn new information. Students are taught to use prediction, summarization, question generation, and clarification. In the beginning, the teacher models these strategies by thinking out loud as she reads to the class. Next, the teacher leads the class in a discussion of the reading, using the comprehension strategies. Gradually, teacher support is phased out as students’ strategies begin to strengthen. Klingner and Vaughn (1996) conducted a study of reciprocal teaching in a predominantly Hispanic urban middle school. Twenty-six Spanish- speaking ELLs with LD participated in modified versions of reciprocal teaching. One group of participants participated in cross-age tutoring after 15 sessions of reciprocal teaching, tutoring sixth graders in the comprehension strategies that they had learned. The other group worked in cooperative learning groups with minimal support from an adult facilitator. Participants in both the cross-age tutoring and cooperative learning groups continued to exhibit improvement in comprehension even when the researcher provided only minimal support. Using Explicit Instruction There is a growing body of research regarding explicit instruction in areas of literacy. In 2010, Viel-Ruma, Houchins, Jolivette, Fredrick, & Gama tested the effects of an explicit 149

V.I. Correa and R. Miller

writing intervention on students with learning disabilities. Participants included six students in grades 9–11: three were ELLs and three were monolingual English speakers. The intervention was implemented in the resource classrooms where students were served and consisted of the script for the Direct Instruction writing program Reasoning and Writing (Engelmann & Silbert, 1991). In this study, the researchers only taught the odd numbered lessons, resulting in half of the lessons in the program being implemented. Although an abbreviated version of the intervention was used, participants in the study still showed increases in correct word sequences and length of text; however, the effects were not immediate and the rate of improvement was slow across the study, indicating that more research needs to be done in this area.

Setting the Course for Effective Inclusion As U.S. schools become increasingly diverse, general and special education teachers are facing the challenges of how to effectively teach these students. ELLs are among the fastest growing groups of diverse students in our schools and they can encounter challenges in meeting academic standards. They may not have access to the instructional strategies necessary to overcome the linguistic and cognitive demands that exist in today’s classrooms. The most critical areas of concern for their success are language and literacy skills. For ELLs with disabilities, these problems are exacerbated. This chapter has attempted to highlight the research on teaching ELLs with and without disabilities and offer examples of evidence-based strategies that general and special educators can use in inclusive classrooms. The literature reviewed in this chapter was not exhaustive and did not address instruction in content areas outside of language and literacy. Nonetheless, several areas of instruction show great promise. Teachers must begin by creating classrooms that are culturally responsive and supportive of all students. They must understand that stronger connections to the students’ background knowledge and personal experiences are critical. Providing ELLs with appropriate instructional supports means: (a) building vocabulary; (b) using visual representations to organize information; (c) teaching in an explicit manner; (d) encouraging peer assistance; and (e) capitalizing on their native language. There is much hope for the future outcomes of ELLs as more attention is placed on research to address effective instructional strategies and as teachers are given the skills that they need to address this population.

References Anderson, R. C. (1984 ). Some reflections on the acquisition of knowledge. Educational Researcher, 13 ( 9 ), 5 –10. Anderson, R.C. & Pearson, P.D. (1984 ). A schema-theoretic view of basic processes in reading. In P.D. Pearson, R. Barr, M. L. Kamil, & P. Mosenthal (Eds.), Handbook of reading research (pp. 255 –291). New York: Longman. Anthony, J. L., Solari, E. J., Williams, J. M., Schoger, K. D., Zhang, Z., Branum-Martin, L., et al. ( 2009 ). Development of bilingual phonological awareness in Spanish- speaking English language learners: The roles of vocabulary, letter knowledge, and prior phonological awareness. Scientifi c Studies of Reading, 13 ( 6 ), 535 –564. Artiles, A. J. & Bal, A. (Eds.). ( 2008 ). Dilemmas of difference: Research on minority groups in special education in four continents. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 4 – 64. Aud, S., Fox, M., & KewalRamani, A. ( 2010 ). Status and trends in the education of racial and ethnic groups (NCES 2010–015). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC : U.S. Government Printing Office. August, D. & Siegel, L. S. ( 2006 ). Literacy instruction for language-minority children in special education settings. In D. August & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in second-language learners: Report

150

English Language Learners

of the National Literacy Panel on language-minority children and youth (pp. 523 –553 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. Baker, D. L., Park, Y., Baker, S. K., Basaraba, D. L., Kame’enui, E. J., & Beck, C. T. ( 2012 ). Effects of a paired bilingual reading program on the reading performance of English learners in grades 1–3. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 737–758. doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2012.09.002 Calderón, M., Slavin, R., & Sánchez, M. ( 2011). Effective instruction for English learners. Future of Children, 21 (1), 103 –127. Cárdenas-Hagan, E., Carlson, C. D., & Pollard-Durodola, S. D. ( 2007 ). The cross-linguistic transfer of early literacy skills: The role of initial L1 and L2 skills and language of instruction. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38 ( 3 ), 249 –259. Carlo, M. S., August, D., McLaughlin, B., Snow, C., Dressler, C., Lippman, D., et al. ( 2004 ). Closing the gap: Addressing the vocabulary needs of English-language learners in bilingual and mainstream classrooms. Reading Research Quarterly, 39 ( 2 ), 188 –215. Cummins, J. (1984 ). Bilingual and special education: Issues in assessment and pedagogy. San Diego: CollegeHill Press. Cummins, J. (1996 ). Negotiating identities: Education for empowerment in a diverse society. Ontario, CA: California Association for Bilingual Education. Denton, C. A., Anthony, J. L., Parker, R., & Hasbrouck, J. E. ( 2004 ). Effects of two tutoring programs on the English reading development of Spanish-English bilingual students. The Elementary School Journal, 104, 289 –305. Denton Flanagan, K. & McPhee, C. ( 2009 ). The children born in 2001 at kindergarten entry: First findings from the kindergarten data collections of the early childhood longitudinal study, birth cohort (ECLS-b) (NCES 2010–005). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Dexter, D. D. & Hughes, C. A. ( 2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 34 (1), 51–72 . Durgunogˇ lu, A. Y. ( 2002 ). Cross-linguistic transfer in literacy development and implications for learners. Annals of Dyslexia, 52, 189 –204. Echevarría, J. & Graves, A. ( 2010 ). Sheltered content instruction: Teaching students with diverse abilities (4th Ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Echevarria, J., Vogt, M. E., & Short, D. ( 2004 ). Making content comprehensible for English learners: The SIOP model ( 2nd Ed.). Boston : Pearson Allyn & Bacon. Engelmann, S. & Silbert, J. (1991). Reasoning and writing–Level C. Chicago: SRA/McGraw-Hill. Espinosa, L. ( 2008 ). Challenging common myths about young English language learners. Foundation for Child Development : New York, NY. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Williams, D. ( 2002 ). Seven literacy strategies that work. Educational Leadership, 60 ( 3 ), 70 –73. Francis, D., Lesaux, N. K., & August, D. ( 2006 ). Language of instruction. In D. L. August, & T. Shanahan (Eds.), Developing literacy in a second language: Report of the National Literacy Panel (pp. 365 – 410 ). Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. Francis, D., Rivera, M., Lesaux, N., Kieffer, M., & Rivera, H. ( 2006 ). Practical guidelines for the education of English language learners: Research-based recommendations for instruction and academic interventions. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Retrieved from www. centeroninstruction.org/fi les/ELL1-Interventions.pdf Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Mathes, P. G., & Simmons, D. C. (1997). Peer-assisted learning strategies: Making classrooms more responsive to diversity. American Educational Research Journal, 34, 174 –206. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Thompson, A., Al Otaiba, S., Yen, L , Yang, N., et al. ( 2001). Is reading important in reading-readiness programs? A randomized field trial with teachers as program implementers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 93, 251–267. Gay, G. ( 2002 ). Preparing for culturally responsive teaching. Journal of Teacher Education, 53 ( 2 ), 106 –116. Genesee, F., Lindholm-Leary, K., Saunders, W. M., & Christian, D. ( 2006 ). Educating English Language Learners. New York: Cambridge University Press. Gersten, R. & Baker, S. K. ( 2000 ). What we know about effective instructional practices for Englishlanguage learners. Exceptional Children, 66 (4 ), 454 – 470. Gersten, R., Baker, S. K., Shanahan, T., Linan-Thompson, S., Collins, P., & Scarcella, R. ( 2007 ). Effective literacy and English language instruction for English learners in the elementary grades: A practice guide 151

V.I. Correa and R. Miller

(NCEE 2007–4011). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncee. Gersten, R., Brengelman, S., & Jiménez, R. (1994 ). Effective instruction for culturally and linguistically diverse students: A reconceptualization. Focus on Exceptional Children, 27, 1–16. González, N., Moll, L., & Amanti, C. (Eds.). ( 2004 ). Funds of knowledge: Theorizing practices in households, communities, and classrooms. Mahwah, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., & Black, C. ( 2002 ). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 69 –79. Hemphill, F., Vanneman, A., & Rahman, T. ( 2011). Achievement gaps: How Hispanic and white students in public schools perform in mathematics and reading on the national assessment of educational progress (NCES 2011–459). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC. Hill, J. D. & Flynn, K. M. ( 2006 ). Classroom instruction that works with English language learners. Alexandria, Virginia : Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Hoover, J. J., Klingner, J. K., Baca, L. M., & Patton, J. M. ( 2008 ). Methods for teaching culturally and linguistically diverse exceptional learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson. Jiang, X. ( 2012 ). Effects of discourse structure graphic organizers on EFL reading comprehension. Reading in a Foreign Language, 24 (1), 84 –105. Kame’enui, E. & Baumann, J. ( 2012 ). Vocabulary instructions: Research to practice ( 2nd ed.). New York: Guilford Press. Klingner, J. K., Boardman, A. G., Eppolito, A. M., & Schonewise, E. A. ( 2012 ). Supporting adolescent English language learners’ reading in the content areas. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 10 (1), 35 – 64. Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. (1996 ). Reciprocal teaching of reading comprehension strategies for students with learning disabilities who use English as a second language. The Elementary School Journal, 96 ( 3 ), 275 –293. Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Education Research Journal, 32 ( 3 ), 465 – 491. Ladson-Billings, G. ( 2006 ). Yes, but how do we do it? Practicing culturally relevant pedagogy. In J. Landsman & C. Lewis (Eds.), White teachers/Diverse classroom: A guide to building inclusive schools, promoting high expectations and eliminating racism (pp. 29 – 42 ). Sterling, VA: Stylus. Leafstedt, J. M. & Gerber, M. M. ( 2005). Crossover of phonological processing skills: A study of Spanish- speaking students in two instructional settings. Remedial and Special Education, 26 (4 ), 226 –235. Leafstedt, J. M., Richards, C. R., & Gerber, M. M. (2004). Effectiveness of explicit phonologicalawareness instruction for at-risk English learners. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 19 (4), 252–261. Lewis, M. ( 2009 ). Ethnologue: Languages of the world, sixteenth edition. Dallas, TX.: SIL International. Retrieved from www.ethnologue.com/ Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Hickman-Davis, P., & Kouzekanani, K. ( 2003 ). Effectiveness of supplemental reading instruction for second-grade English language learners with reading difficulties. The Elementary School Journal, 103, 3, 221–238. Little, D. C. & Box, J. A. ( 2011). The use of a specific schema theory strategy- semantic mapping-to facilitate vocabulary development and comprehension for at-risk readers. Reading Improvement, 48 (1), 24 –31. Long, M. & Porter, P. (1985). Group work, interlanguage talk, and second language acquisition. TESOL Quarterly, 19, 207–228. Lyman F. (1981). The responsive classroom discussion: The inclusion of all students. In: A. Anderson (Ed.). Mainstreaming Digest (pp. 109 –113 ). College Park, MD : University of Maryland. Madrid, L. D., Canas, M., & Ortega-Medina, M. ( 2007 ). Effects of team competition versus team cooperation in classwide peer tutoring. The Journal of Educational Research, 100 ( 3 ), 155 –160. McMaster, K., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. ( 2006 ). Research on peer-assisted learning strategies: The promise and limitations of peer-mediated instruction. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 22, 5 –26. doi: 10.1080/10573560500203491 152

English Language Learners

McMaster, K., Kung, S., Han, I., & Cao, M. ( 2008 ). Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies: A “Tier 1” approach to promoting English language learners’ response to intervention. Exceptional Children, 74 ( 2 ), 194 –214. National Reading Panel ( 2000 ). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction: Reports of the Subgroups. Washington, DC : National Institute of Child Health and Development. Retrieved from www.nichd.nih.gov/ publications/nrp/report.cfm Ortiz, A. A. (1997 ). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321–332 . Paivio, A (1969 ). Mental Imagery in associative learning and memory. Psychological Review, 76 ( 3 ), 241–263. Palincsar, A. S. & Brown, A. L. (1984 ). Reciprocal teaching of comprehension-fostering and comprehension-monitoring activities. Cognition and Instruction, 1 ( 2 ), 117–175. Pardo, L. ( 2004 ). What every teacher needs to know about comprehension. The Reading Teacher, 58 ( 3 ), 272 –280. doi:10.1598/RT.58.3.5 Passel, J., Cohn, V., & Lopez, H. ( 2011). Census 2010: 50 million Latino: Hispanics account for more than half of the nation’s growth in past decade. Pew Hispanic Center: Washington, D.C. Peña, E. E., Bedore, L. M., & Gillam, R. B. ( 2011). Two to untangle: Language impairment and language differences in bilinguals. AccELLerate, 3 ( 3 ), 7–9. Perozzi, J. A. (1985). A pilot study of language facilitation for bilingual, language-handicapped children: Theoretical and intervention implications. Journal of Speech and Hearing Disorders, 50 (4 ), 403 – 406. Quiroga, T., Lemos-Britton, Z., Mostafapour, E., Abbott, R. D., & Berninger, V. W. ( 2002 ). Phonological awareness and beginning reading in Spanish- speaking ESL fi rst graders: Research into practice. Journal of School Psychology, 40 (1), 85 –111. Reed, S. ( 2006 ). Cognitive architectures for multimedia learning. Educational Psychologist, 41 ( 2 ), 87–98. Robb, L. ( 2000 ). Teaching reading in middle school: A strategic approach to teaching reading that improves comprehension and thinking. New York: Scholastic. Roberts, T. & Neal, H. ( 2004 ). Relationships among English language learner’s oral proficiency in English, instructional experience and literacy development. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 29, 283 –311. Rohena, I. E., Jitendra, A. K., & Browder, D. M. ( 2002 ). Comparison of the effects of Spanish and English constant time delay instruction on sight word reading by Hispanic learners with mental retardation. The Journal of Special Education, 36 ( 3 ), 169 –184. Rousseau, M. K., Tam, B. K. Y., & Ramnarain, R. (1993 ). Increasing reading proficiency of languageminority students with speech and language impairments. Education and Treatment of Children, 16 ( 3 ), 254 –271. Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71 ( 3 ), 231–247. Savage, C., Hindle, R., Meyer, L. H., Hynds, A., Penetito, W., & Sleeter, C. E. ( 2011). Culturally responsive pedagogies in the classroom: Indigenous student experiences across the curriculum. Asia-Pacifi c Journal of Teacher Education, 39 ( 3 ), 183 –198. Schneider, B., Martinez, S., & Owens, A. ( 2006 ). Barriers to educational opportunities for Hispanics in the United States. In M. Tienda & F. Mitchell (Eds.), Hispanics and the future of America (pp 179 –221). Washington, DC : The National Academies Press. Shin, H. & Kominski, R. ( 2010 ). Language use in the United States: 2007, American Community Survey Reports, ACS–12. U.S. Census Bureau, Washington, DC. Slavin, R. E. & Madden, N. A. (1999 ). Effects of bilingual and English as a second language adaptations of Success for All on the reading achievement of students acquiring English. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 4 (4 ), 393 – 416. Slavin, R. E. & Madden, N. A. ( 2001). One million children: Success for All. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Slavin, R. E., Madden, N. A., Dolan, L., & Wasik, B. A. (1996 ). Every child, every school: Success for All. Newbury Park, CA: Corwin. Stevens, R., Madden, N., Slavin, R., & Famish, A. (1987 ). Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition: Two field experiments. Reading Research Quarterly, 22, 433 – 454. 153

V.I. Correa and R. Miller

Sullivan, A. L. ( 2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77, 317–334. Tang, G. (1992 ). The effect of graphic representation of knowledge structures on ESL reading comprehension. Studies in Second Language Acquisition, 14, 177–195. U.S. Census Bureau ( 2012 , September 18 ). State and county quick facts. Retrieved from http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html Ullucci, K. ( 2011). Culturally relevant teaching: Lessons from elementary classrooms. Action in Teacher Education, 33 (4 ), 389 – 405. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Linan-Thompson, S., Mathes, P. G., Carlson, C. D., Cárdenas-Hagan, E., et al. ( 2006 ). Effectiveness of a Spanish intervention and an English intervention for English language learners at risk for reading problems. American Educational Research Journal, 43, 449 – 487. Vaughn, S., Martinez, L., Linan-Thompson, S., Reutebuch, C., Carlons, C., & Francis, D. ( 2009 ). Enhancing social studies vocabulary and comprehension for seventh-grade English language learners: Findings from two experimental studies. Journal of Research on Educational Effectiveness, 2, 297–324. doi: 10.1080/19345740903167018 Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., & Pollard-Durodola, S., ( 2006 ). Effectiveness of an English intervention for fi rst-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. The Elementary School Journal, 107 ( 2 ), 153 –180. Viel-Ruma, K., Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Fredrick, L. D., & Gama, R. ( 2010 ). Direct instruction in written expression: The effects on English speakers and English language learners with disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 25 ( 2 ), 97–108.

154

12 How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools? Nancy L. Waldron,1 Janise Parker,1 and James McLeskey1

Setting the Stage Since the passage in 1975 of PL 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA), there has been a substantial increase in funding for special education programs in the U.S. (Parrish, Harr, Wolman, Anthony, Merickel, & Esra, 2004). During this same time, evidence-based research practices have been identified that have proven effective in addressing the academic and behavioral needs of many students with disabilities (Cook & Odom, 2013). Furthermore, reauthorizations of the EHA (subsequently renamed the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA]) have provided increasing support for ensuring that students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum and make progress in that content (IDEA, 2004). In spite of this broad range of support to improve the quality of special education programs, outcomes for students with disabilities remain well below desirable levels. For example, in spite of an emphasis on ensuring that all students graduate from high school with college- and career-ready skills, data indicate that most students with disabilities do not have these skills when they complete high school (National Council on Disability [NCD], 2011). Further evidence indicates that students with disabilities continue to lag far behind their general education peers in reading and math achievement, and remain much more likely to drop out of school prior to graduation than their peers without disabilities (Feng & Sass, 2012; NCD, 2011). Given these poor outcomes, most students with disabilities are not well prepared for success in work settings or post- secondary education, resulting in low employment rates and limited work and career success (NCD, 2011; Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005). The continuing poor achievement and life outcomes for students with disabilities and other students who struggle to learn in schools led to legislation (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001) that now mandates that schools be held accountable for ensuring that all students, including those with disabilities, make adequate yearly progress (AYP) related to state content standards

1 University of Florida 155

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

in reading, mathematics, and science. As a result of this legislation, most students with disabilities are now included as part of school accountability systems, while alternate assessments may be used to determine proficiency for up to 2% of all students (e.g., students with severe intellectual disabilities). It is noteworthy that for decades before these laws were passed, students with disabilities were not included in state and district assessments or accountability systems (Thurlow, Quenemoen, & Lazarus, 2012). This emphasis on holding local schools accountable for achievement outcomes for all students has produced a proliferation of tests and other sources of information that has led some to conclude that teachers are “drowning in data” (Roderick, 2012, p. 5). This has resulted in principals and teachers who once had too little data now having more than they can successfully manage, representing a very rapid and substantial change from past practice. For example, in one school system a researcher reports that “in a very short period of time we have gone from a school system in which high school principals have little access to data in their buildings to a system in which principals are inundated” (Roderick, 2012, p. 3). A related issue is that much of the data that are available are used for whole school accountability (e.g., summative, year- end assessments), and have little value for informing instruction or improving individual student outcomes. These global measures are often designed to monitor student progress (e.g., annual yearly progress [AYP]) by simplifying complex information and providing a single measure that can be used by outside groups (e.g., elected officials and other stakeholders) to make decisions about school quality and effectiveness (Weiss, 2012). These tests thus have little utility related to the identification of individual student difficulties or providing direction for possible instructional changes. In addition, even if these summative measures reveal that test scores are particularly low in math for students in 4th grade, the scores are most often provided well after the end of the school year. Thus, these high- stakes accountability measures do not provide sufficient or timely information to improve teacher practice or student outcomes (Weiss, 2012). Unfortunately, this is also the case for data that are available from most standardized tests, as these measures do not provide useful information for teachers as they seek to alter instruction and improve individual student outcomes (Supovitz, 2012). Given that external accountability systems (e.g., high- stakes, state-wide tests used to monitor AYP and evaluate schools) do not provide data that are timely or useful for improving instruction, many schools have begun to develop school-based accountability systems that are useful in planning instruction and improving student outcomes (Roderick, 2012). This allows for proactive planning as student difficulties arise, rather than waiting on external accountability measures to identify problems. Research by Elmore (2004) suggests that external accountability systems cannot succeed unless a data system internal to a school is created in order to provide information that is useful for ongoing improvement of instructional practices. Elmore and others (Fullan, 2007) have noted that one of the critical qualities of these internal accountability systems (suggesting that they are internal to the school and useful for school-based decision-making) is that they must be predictive of student performance on external accountability measures. Furthermore, the measures must be technically adequate and aligned with the school curriculum, state standards (i.e., in most states, the Common Core State Standards), and state-wide accountability measures (Roderick, 2012). When high-quality internal accountability systems are in place in schools, they become a critical component of ongoing school improvement and provide teachers with important information as they seek to improve achievement outcomes for all students (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2007; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, in press). 156

How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools?

This research suggests that if schools are to be successful in meeting the demands of highstakes external accountability systems, they must have an internal accountability system that meets several needs. First, these systems must be used to screen students and ensure that they are making progress related to learning critical core content areas (e.g., reading, writing, and mathematics in elementary schools). For students who are identified via screening measures as those who are struggling to learn core content, additional progress monitoring data must be collected to determine the extent to which interventions are effective, and how well students are progressing toward learning the critical core content. Overall, these data are used to address a range of critical decisions about the organization and delivery of instruction, such as “how to adapt lessons or assignments in response to students’ needs, alter classroom goals or objectives, or modify student-grouping arrangements” (Hamilton, Halverson, Jackson, Mandinach, Supovitz, & Wayman, 2009, p. 1). While there is an emerging consensus that all schools need a school-wide data system that provides information that is useful for teachers and administrators in making critical decisions that support the improvement of instructional practices and student outcomes, research questions related to how these systems might be developed, what components they should include, and how data should be used within these systems remain largely unanswered (Hamilton et al., 2009; Roderick, 2012). For example, a panel working with the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, reviewed available evidence and concluded “that the existing research on using data to make instructional decisions does not yet provide conclusive evidence of what works to improve student achievement” (Hamilton et al., 2009, pp. 6–7). More recently, Coburn and Turner (2012) concluded that “empirical research on data use continues to be weak. Despite the proliferation of data use interventions and the growing public attention to and enthusiasm for the idea of data use, there is shockingly little empirical research on these approaches” (p. 99). Although data are very limited on school-wide data systems for general use, a substantial amount of research has been conducted on data systems used to identify and support students who struggle to learn in schools, including students with disabilities (e.g., Shapiro, Zigmond, Wallace, & Marston, 2011). These data systems have typically used curriculumbased measures to monitor student progress in learning basic skills (i.e., reading, writing, spelling, math) that “are thought to be the most essential skills students need to develop in school” (Berkeley & Riccomini, 2011, p. 335). These progress monitoring systems have primarily been used as part of Response to Intervention (RtI) models or multi-tiered instructional support systems (MTSS) to determine if students are making sufficient academic progress, and to monitor academic growth as interventions are used (e.g., peer tutoring, intensive small group instruction) (Stecker, Lembke, & Foegen, 2008). Thus, these are not comprehensive data systems that address all curricular areas at all grade levels, but rather are used to collect a limited type of data and address student needs in a few critical core content areas. Despite these limitations, research on these progress monitoring systems provides useful information related to data systems that are particularly relevant for the development and support of effective inclusive schools. In the following section, we review research related to the use of data systems in effective, inclusive schools, followed by a brief review of research related to progress-monitoring systems that use curriculum-based measures to address the needs of students who struggle with learning basic academic skills, including students with disabilities. We then address setting the course for effective inclusive schools, as we describe the components of a progress monitoring system that uses curriculum-based measurement in an elementary school, and how teachers use these data to improve instruction and student outcomes. 157

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice Research has shown that school-based data systems that are used for internal accountability are a critical component of effective schools (Elmore, 2004; Fullan, 2007, Robinson, Lloyd, & Rowe, 2008). These data systems are used to monitor student progress in anticipation of external accountability measures, and provide information that is useful to teachers in addressing student needs on an ongoing basis. A review of research on school leadership and student outcomes in effective schools concluded that: Teachers use of data to evaluate student progress, adjust their teaching, plan their weekly program, and give student feedback was a strong indicator of level of school quality, and level of school quality had a significant influence on student achievement in reading and math. (Robinson et al., 2008, p. 662) Robinson and colleagues go on to note that in high-performing schools, teachers and administrators systematically monitor data on student progress and use this information for program improvement. After conducting a comprehensive review of research related to how achievement data are used to support instructional decision-making, Hamilton and colleagues (2009) provide insight into how school-wide data systems are used in schools. These investigators state that when educators have “data and the means to harness the information data can provide, (they) can make instructional decisions aimed at improving student achievement” (p. ix). These decisions may include addressing areas such as: • • • • • •

prioritizing instructional time; targeting additional individual instruction for students who are struggling with particular topics; more easily identifying individual students’ strengths and instructional interventions that can help students continue to progress; gauging the instructional effectiveness of classroom lessons; refi ning instructional methods; and examining school wide data to consider whether and how to adapt curriculum based on information about student strengths and weaknesses. (p. ix)

There are obvious implications of this research on teacher data use in effective schools for the development of schools that are both effective and inclusive. Indeed, many of the uses of data systems that are described by Hamilton and colleagues (2009) are relevant for students with disabilities, including the identification of student needs and the use of data to direct the use of resources and related instructional improvements. In the next section we address research related to the use of school-wide data systems in effective inclusive schools.

Research on Data Systems in Effective Inclusive Schools While research on the use of data in effective inclusive schools is only beginning to emerge, some initial investigations reveal that school-wide data systems are employed in these settings, and suggest that the use of data is a critical component of effective inclusive schools (Dyson, 158

How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools?

Farrell, Polat, Hutcheson, & Gallannaugh, 2004; Hehir & Katzman, 2012; McLeskey et al., in press; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). For example, in a case study of three effective inclusive schools (two elementary and one high school) in the northeastern U.S., Hehir and Katzman determined that in these schools “ongoing assessment is part of the culture. They do not wait for state testing to act” (pp. 94–95). These investigators go on to note how the schools had developed an internal accountability system, and that “data wise” teachers spent a significant amount of time “acting on student data concerning academic progress” (p. 94). Similar results were reported by Dyson and colleagues (2004), who conducted case studies of 12 effective inclusive elementary and secondary schools in England, and concluded that school-wide data systems were a key component in supporting the work of teachers in these settings. These researchers reported that data systems in these schools were used to provide teachers with information so that they could offer “careful mixtures of provision across a range of settings” (p. 97), and could customize instruction based upon individual student needs. A fi nal investigation reported on a case study of an effective inclusive elementary school in the southeastern U.S. (McLeskey et al., in press; Waldron et al., 2011). This investigation revealed that a school-wide data system was a key component in supporting instruction in this setting. The principal in this school noted that as the inclusive program was initially developed, the lack of a school-wide data system for internal accountability was perceived to be a major impediment to improving student outcomes. She also stated that state or district test data were not helpful for this purpose. This served as a catalyst for the teachers and other school staff to develop a data system that included information that was relevant to the curricular content and instruction provided in their classrooms. Teachers and administrators agreed that using this data system over time helped to change teachers’ frame of reference to a focus on individual student progress, and was used to guide the development and delivery of interventions to improve the academic progress of these students. Teachers and administrators agreed that the data system in this elementary school was used to drive much of the important decision-making related to classroom instructional practices. Furthermore, student data were used to guide the use of additional adults in classrooms (i.e., assignment of co-teachers and paraeducators), as well as the provision of technology and other instructional resources to support instruction. Finally, the data system was used as an integral part of teacher accountability and to determine teacher needs for professional development. As the principal noted regarding the use of these data, “How can I have conversations with teachers about their students, how they’re progressing, how well they’re teaching without individual data about students?” (Waldron et al., 2011, pp. 57–58). Based on the use of data to guide decision-making in this elementary school, the principal and teachers concluded that “School improvement was simply impossible without such a data system” (Waldron et al., 2011, p. 57). While these investigations are limited in number and only employ qualitative methods, they all provide support for the use of a school-wide data system to guide instructional decision-making and support the work of teachers in effective inclusive schools. A critical component of data systems in most elementary schools in the U.S. at present is the use of screening and progress monitoring systems to guide and improve instruction for students in basic skill areas. In the following section, we provide a review of critical components of a progress monitoring system, and examples of how these components are used in an elementary school. This is followed by a review of how teachers use data from a progress monitoring system to make critical instructional decisions that are designed to improve student outcomes. 159

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

Setting the Course for the Use of Data Systems in Effective Inclusive Schools The development of multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) and school-wide data systems is presently occurring across the United States within the context of demands for accountability and improved student achievement. While there are variations in MTSS models, the foundational components include: universal screening to identify students at differing risk levels, evidence-based tiered interventions with increasing support and intensity based on student needs, progress monitoring to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions, and use of a teambased decision-making process to drive intervention decisions (Batsche et al., 2005; Shapiro, Zigmond, Wallace, & Marston, 2011). For many schools, the implementation of MTSS has required significant changes to instructional delivery systems and increased attention to databased decision-making. Data systems used for monitoring students’ academic progress are a key component of MTSS (Algozzine et al., 2012), and are now used in most elementary schools to guide instructional decision-making and ensure that students make sufficient progress in basic skill areas (i.e., reading and math) (Fuchs & Vaughn, 2012). Thus, many schools are grappling with the need to develop data systems that permit educators to answer critical questions about who requires intervention and how instruction should be changed to meet school and student needs. Critical components of data systems that support multi-tiered systems include universal screening and progress monitoring, which are subsequently reviewed. This section then concludes with a review of how teachers use progress monitoring data for instructional decision-making.

Universal Screening in a Multi-Tiered System Universal screening is one component of a school-wide data system within a multi-tiered instructional model. In this type of screening process, all students are tested using a standard measure for determining which learners may be at risk for not meeting grade-level benchmarks and thus may be in need of more intensive instruction. Universal screening helps to ensure that every student has equal access to interventions, while also minimizing potential elements of bias in the system that may occur when schools rely on identification by referral (Shinn, Tindal, & Spira, 1987). When used in MTSS as part of a school-wide data system, screening data are typically collected three to four times per year to identify students who are not meeting benchmarks— that is, those who are at risk for failing or not progressing as expected. Screening is carried out with a range of different tools, some designed as specific skill-based measures (e.g., math facts), while others are general outcome measures (e.g., math concepts and applications) (Shinn, 2010). Schools often emphasize the importance of selecting screening measures that strongly predict a general outcome measure, such as state assessments and end of year exams (Shinn, 2010), ensuring that internal and external accountability measures are connected. Within a multi-tiered system it is also common for schools to select measures based on assessments that are already in use in general education classrooms, and ensure that these measures are aligned with core curricula in specific content areas. Researchers have documented that schools tend to employ multiple screening measures, including assessments from core reading series, published tests from intervention programs, shortened versions of district and state standard assessments, informal teacher-created assessments, and curriculum-based measures (CBMs) (Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009). 160

How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools?

Given that screening occurs with all students and is done multiple times throughout the year, attention must be given to selecting measures that are quick and easy to administer. Screening measures are typically not selected to provide extensive instructional information, but instead are used as a reliable predictor of future success (or failure) in a content area. An example of such a universal screener is a reading CBM, which has been shown to be predictive of reading performance across early elementary grades on a state reading assessment (Hintze & Silberglitt, 2005; Silberglitt & Hintz, 2005). The following description is an example of a universal screening process in reading that is used within MTSS in a highly effective inclusive elementary school. This school conducts universal screening in reading three times per year with all students in kindergarten through 5th grade. In K-2 the students are screened using the DIBELS-Next (Kaminski & Good, 2012) to assess phonemic skills and oral reading fluency. A supplementary measure of word decoding—Fox In A Box (CTB/McGraw-Hill, 2005)—is also used at these grade levels. In grades 3 to 5 the focus of screening becomes reading comprehension, and thus a different set of measures are used. The DIBELS-Next DAZE passages are administered, as well as the Gates-MacGinitie Reading Test (MacGinitie, MacGinitie, Maria, Dreyer, & Hughes, 2006). Grade-level data teams, comprised of teachers, the reading coach, administrator, and school psychologist, meet after each screening period to review the data on all students. Based on established decision rules for receiving multi-tiered instruction, students are identified for supplemental and/or intensive intervention. The decision rules used by the team are: (1) students who score in the 20th–34th percentile are considered for supplemental small group instruction, and (2) students who score below the 20th percentile are considered for intensive intervention. Intensive intervention is only provided after a documented period of supplemental instruction has been delivered for a minimum of 6 to 9 weeks.

Progress Monitoring in a Multi-Tiered System Once universal screening is completed and students are identified for intervention, progress monitoring is used to evaluate the effectiveness of instructional interventions and determine when changes in these interventions are needed (Deno et al., 2009). Despite the emphasis on accountability and monitoring student progress in recent federal legislation (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001), many schools lack a comprehensive system for progress monitoring, leading to practices that are often unspecified, haphazard, and lacking coherence (Shinn, 2010). The goal for any school, and especially those using MTSS, is to have a specified, continuous, and valid progress monitoring system (Shinn, 2010). It is important that progress monitoring measures meet several criteria if they are to be used effectively and efficiently in schools. These measurement tools must: 1) be reliable and valid; 2) be educationally meaningful (e.g., directly sample what is being taught); 3) be efficient to administer (and thus not monopolize instructional time); 4) allow for repeated administrations; 5) be sensitive to student improvement over short periods of time; and 6) link to external accountability measures such as state assessments that are used to determine adequate yearly progress (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007; National Center on Response to Intervention, 2009; Stecker et al., 2008). Curriculum-based measures meet these criteria and have emerged as the most frequently used progress monitoring tools, especially in elementary schools. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is a set of assessment measures that have been widely researched and supported as a scientifically based progress monitoring tool (Deno, 2003; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2004; Shinn, 2007). According to Shinn (2010), “CBM progress monitoring uses a general 161

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

outcome measurement approach, which samples student performance on a standardized task of consistent difficulty, over time, to determine if adequate growth is occurring.” (p. 274). Several steps are typically employed when collecting and using CBM and other progress monitoring data, including the following (Hosp at al., 2007; Stecker et al., 2008): 1 Measurements are selected that align with the content and particular skills that are being taught. 2 Technical features of measures are evaluated. Assessment measures must be reliable and valid for instructional decision-making, and sensitive to student improvement. Information on the technical adequacy of progress monitoring measures is available from the National Center on Progress Monitoring at www.studentprogress.org. 3 Measures are administered and scored. Standardized procedures must be used with CBM progress monitoring measures. This ensures that test scores are comparable over time and measure changes in student outcomes (i.e., growth or lack of growth), and not changes in administration procedures. 4 Progress monitoring data are used to set student goals. This suggests that these data should be used to determine Individualized Education Program (IEP) goals, as well as to set anticipated rates of growth for a student in a content area. 5 Progress monitoring data are then used to judge instructional effectiveness. This is the most important use of progress monitoring data, as teachers must make decisions, based on the available data, regarding changes in instructional practice. In addition, changes may relate to grouping practices, allocated instructional time, instructional materials, and use of motivational strategies. Research on the use of these types of progress monitoring systems has revealed that when teachers effectively use CBM data to make instructional changes, student outcomes improve at levels significantly higher than when teachers use their own assessment practices (Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Furthermore, CBM data can be effectively used in making a range of education decisions related to screening and identifying students who are struggling to learn academic content, evaluating interventions that are used prior to referral to special education, evaluating the effectiveness of instructional interventions, and evaluating inclusive programs (Berkeley & Riccomini, 2011; Gersten et al., 2008). The following description is an example of a progress monitoring system in reading that is used within the same effective inclusive elementary school that was used in the previous universal screening example. When the grade-level team uses universal screening data and determines the need for supplemental small group instruction in reading, progress monitoring consists of selected DIBELS-Next (Kaminski & Good, 2012) measures at grades K to 5. These measures are grade- specific, and may include Nonsense Word Fluency and Oral Reading Fluency at 2nd grade, or Oral Reading Fluency and DAZE comprehension passages at 4th grade. These progress monitoring measures are administered every 4 weeks, and grade-level data teams then meet monthly to review these data, determine student growth rates, and compare these growth rates to average growth rates for typical students. If a student does not make sufficient growth, the grade-level data team must determine if the student needs more intensive intervention. For those students who receive intensive intervention, an additional set of progress monitoring measures are administered every week and are selected to reflect individual student progress in identified skill areas that are the target of intensive intervention. These measures may include a DIBELS-Next (Kaminski & Good, 2012) measure specific to the 162

How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools?

student’s skill level, as well as intervention program assessments. For example a 2nd grader receiving intensive intervention in phonemic awareness and word decoding may be assessed weekly using DIBELS-Next Phoneme Segmentation and a measure from Wilson Fundations (Wilson Language Training, 2011) that is specific to the student’s weekly instructional goals. These data are supplemented by the other measures administered as part of universal screening and supplemental small group instruction, both of which are based on grade-level skills. At each monthly grade-level data team meeting, individual student data are reviewed and decision rules are considered to evaluate the need to maintain or alter intervention. For students receiving intensive intervention, after four data points are collected, data are graphed and examined to determine the rate of improvement. To evaluate the student’s improvement, the grade-level data team considers the student’s trend line reflecting rate of progress in comparison to goal lines established based on the rate of progress that would allow the student to close the achievement gap with typically performing peers. If a student continues to perform below an expected rate of progress, the data team must determine next steps, which may include increasing the intensity of intervention, altering the intervention plan, or gathering additional data to inform decision-making.

Progress Monitoring and Teacher Decision-Making Research has revealed that the most critical factor related to the effectiveness of using CBM for progress monitoring concerns how teachers use these data to make instructional decisions. Frequent progress monitoring alone will not improve student achievement; teachers must use these data to make changes in a student’s instructional program that are guided by the data if instructional growth is to be realized (Stecker et al., 2005). After a comprehensive review of research on teacher use of data for instructional decision-making, Hamilton and colleagues (2009) recommended a three- step, recursive process to support effective data-based decisionmaking for teachers. This includes the following steps: 1 Collect a variety of data about student learning. 2 Analyze and interpret data, and develop hypotheses regarding how to improve student learning. 3 Test the hypothesis by modifying instructional practices that are designed to accelerate student learning. After completing Step 3, the teacher then repeats the steps by collecting (Step 1) and analyzing (Step 2) data, and making a decision regarding whether the modified instructional practice is effective or whether further or different modifications of instruction are needed (Step 3) to improve student performance. A critical issue that causes difficulty related to the use of this decision-making process is that teachers are sometimes asked to use data “without receiving clear guidance on how to do so” (Hamilton et al., 2009, p. 10). These investigators recommend several approaches that may be used to support teachers in the use of data to improve instructional practices. These include: •

provide a school-based facilitator who meets with teachers and teacher teams to discuss the systematic use of data for instructional decision-making and provides professional development (including coaching) for teachers. 163

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

• •

provide structured time for teachers to collaborate related to data use and instructional decision-making. ensure that targeted professional development is regularly provided based on teacher needs to improve data literacy and data use.

These recommendations have been supported and extended by others based on research related to the use of CBM for progress monitoring (Lembke & Stecker, 2007; Gersten et al., 2009; Stecker et al., 2005). These investigators contend that the use of decision-making rules for interpreting CBM data enables teachers to make decisions regarding when instructional programs should be modified. They also note that computer applications may be employed to facilitate the use of decision-making rules, and result in increased teacher satisfaction with the use of these progress monitoring procedures. Finally, this research has revealed that teachers benefit from instructional consultation from knowledgeable consultants or computerized systems, which have produced positive effects upon the quantity and quality of instructional changes, leading to improved student outcomes.

Conclusion Given the emphasis in today’s schools on improving outcomes for all students, including those with disabilities, school-wide data systems are rapidly becoming a critical component of effective schools. These systems serve several critical functions in schools, as they are used to screen students who are not making adequate progress, make decisions about interventions that are needed to improve academic outcomes, and monitor the effectiveness of these interventions. These systems thus provide teachers and other school professionals with critical information to support data-based decision-making in their schools. While evidence suggests that school-wide data systems are a critical component in the development and support of effective inclusive schools, many schools do not have such systems in place. Furthermore, little research has been conducted regarding how these systems are developed and used over time to make instructional decisions that result in improved student outcomes. Future research is needed to provide information regarding these issues, and that begins to provide insight into basic questions about the development and use of school-wide data systems. For example, this research should address areas such as case studies that examine how data systems are developed and used in effective inclusive schools, analyses of the extent to which school-wide data systems improve student outcomes, and examination of the particular aspects of these systems (e.g., supports used for teacher decision-making) that produce these improved outcomes.

References Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M., Algozzine, K., Helf, S., & Duran, G. Z. ( 2012 ). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Children, 79, 45 – 64. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., Reschly, D., Schrag, J., & Tilly, D. ( 2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Reston, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Berkeley, S. & Riccomini, P. ( 2011). Progress monitoring. In J. Kauffman & D. Hallahan (Eds.). Handbook of Special Education (pp. 334 –347 ). New York: Routledge. Coburn, C. & Turner, E. ( 2012 ). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118 ( 2 ), 99 –111.

164

How are Data Systems Used in Inclusive Schools?

Cook, B. & Odom, S. ( 2013 ). Evidence-based practices and implementation sciences in special education. Exceptional Children, 79 ( 2 ), 135 –144. CTB/McGraw-Hill ( 2005). Fox in a Box: An Adventure in Literacy ( 2nd ed.). Monterey, CA: Author. Deno, S. L. ( 2003 ). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. Journal of Special Education, 37, 184 –192 . Deno, S., Reschly, A., Lembke, E., Magnusson, D., Callender, S., Windram, H., & Strachel, N. ( 2009 ). Developing a school-wide progress monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 44 –55. Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G., & Gallannaugh, F. ( 2004 ). Inclusion and pupil achievement. Research report RR578. London : Df ES. Retrieved from www.education.gov.uk/publications/eOrderingDownload/RR578.pdf Elmore, R. F. ( 2004 ). School reform from the inside out: Policy, practice, and performance. Cambridge Massachusetts : Harvard Education Press. Feng, L. & Sass, T. ( 2012 ). Competing risks analysis of dropout and educational attainment for students with disabilities. Working paper 12–09. Atlanta : Andrew Young School of Policy Studies. Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. ( 2004 ). What is scientifi cally based research on progress monitoring? Washington, DC : National Center on Student Progress Monitoring, American Institute for Research, Office of Special Education Programs. Fuchs, L. & Vaughn, S. ( 2012 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195 –203. Fullan, M. ( 2007 ). The new meaning of education change ( 3rd ed.). New York: Teachers College. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. ( 2009 ). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide. (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Good, R. H. & Kaminski, R. A. ( 2011). DIBELS next assessment manual. Eugene, OR: Dynamic Measurement Group. Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. ( 2009 ). Using student achievement data to support instructional decision making (NCEE 2009–4067). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Hehir, T. & Katzman, L. ( 2012 ). Effective inclusive schools: Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Hintze, J. M. & Silberglitt, B. ( 2005). A longitudinal examination of the diagnostic accuracy and predictive validity of R-CBM and high stakes testing. School Psychology Review, 34, 372 –386. Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. ( 2007 ). The ABCs of CBM. New York: The Guilford Press. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108 – 446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Kaminski, R. & Good, R. ( 2012 ). DIIBELS-Next. Longmont, CO : Cambium Learning. Lembke, E. & Stecker, P. ( 2007 ). Curriculum-based measurement in mathematics. Portsmouth, NH : RCM Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. MacGinitie, W., MacGinitie, R., Maria, K., Dreyer, L., & Hughes, K. ( 2006 ). Gates-MacGinitie reading tests (4th ed.). Rolling Meadows, IL : Riverside. McLeskey, J., Waldron, N., & Redd, L. (in press). A case study of a highly effective inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education. Mellard, D. F., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. ( 2009 ). Response to intervention screening and progressmonitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Practice, 24 (4 ), 186 –195. National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI) (2009). Review of Progress Monitoring Tools. Website of the U.S. Office for Special Education Programs. National Council on Disability (2011). National disability policy: A progress report. Washington, DC : NCD. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (2001). Public Law No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002 U.S.C. Parrish, T., Harr, J., Wolman, J., Anthony, J., Merickel, A., & Esra, P. ( 2004 ). State special education finance systems, 1999–2000. Palo Alto, CA: The Center for Special Education Finance. Robinson, V., Lloyd, C., & Rowe, K. ( 2008 ). The impact of leadership on student outcomes: An analysis of differential effects of leadership types. Educational Administration Quarterly, 44, 635 – 674. 165

N.L. Waldron, J. Parker, and J. McLeskey

Roderick, M. ( 2012 ). Drowning in data but thirsty for analysis. Teachers College Record, 114 (11), 110309. Shapiro, E., Zigmond, N., Wallace, T., & Marston, D. (Eds.) ( 2011). Models for implementing response to intervention: Tools, outcomes, and implications. New York: The Guilford Press. Shinn, M. R. ( 2007 ). Identifying students at risk, monitoring performance, and determining eligibility within RTI: Research on educational need and benefit from academic intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 601– 617. Shinn, M. R. ( 2010 ). Building a scientifically based data system for progress monitoring and universal screening across three tiers, including RTI using curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RtI (pp. 259 –292 ). Bethesda, MD : The National Association of School Psychologists. Shinn, M. R., Tindal, G., & Spira, D. (1987 ). Special education referrals as an index of teacher tolerance: Are teachers imperfect tests ? Exceptional Children, 54, 32 – 40. Silberglitt, B. & Hintz, J. M. ( 2005). Formative assessment using CBM-R cut score to track progress toward success on state-mandated achievement tests: A comparison of methods. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 304 –325. Stecker, P., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. ( 2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42 ( 8 ), 795 – 819. Stecker, P., Lembke, E., & Foegen, A. ( 2008 ). Using progress-monitoring data to improve instructional decision making. Preventing School Failure, 52 ( 2 ), 48 –58. Supovitz, J. ( 2012 ). Getting at student understanding—The key to teachers’ use of test data. Teachers College Record, 114 (11), 1–29. Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., & Lazarus, S. ( 2012 ). Leadership for student performance in an era of accountability. In J. Crockett, B. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.). Handbook for leadership and administration for special education (pp. 3 –16 ). Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza , N., and Levine, P. ( 2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities: A Report From the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. ( 2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24 ( 2 ), 51– 60. Weiss, J. ( 2012 ). Data for improvement, data for accountability. Teachers College Record, 114 (11), 110307. Wilson Language Training (2011). Wilson Fundations ( 2nd ed.). Oxford, MA: Wilson Language Training Incorporated.

166

13 How is Technology Used to Support Instruction in Inclusive Schools? Dave L. Edyburn1 and Kathy Howery2

Setting the Stage The structure of general education has always had difficulty supporting a wide variety of learner differences. This problem can be traced to lesson planning. That is, when teachers use lesson plan books that feature a single cell for planning instruction for an entire class period, they myopically focus exclusively on content. When a one- size-fits-all model of instruction is used, and when time is held constant for all learners, what varies is the amount of learning that diverse students achieve. We must remember that differences are an ordinary part of the human condition. When differences are not recognized or valued, there is a need to create accommodations. Curriculum accommodations are the direct result of a mismatch between a task and the capabilities of a learner. Unless teachers and administrators understand that academic diversity is a characteristic, and not a flaw, of every classroom, there will be an endless need for curriculum accommodations and modifications. These barriers limit access and engagement: the prerequisites for learning. Efforts to enhance the success of 21st century learners will require a fundamental shift in thinking about, and responding to, learner differences. Rose and Meyer (2002) argue that we should not think about students as being disabled, but rather consider the curriculum disabled, as it poses barriers to access, engagement, and success. Tomlinson (2004) suggests that we think about learning differences as a Möbius Strip; a continuum of knowledge and skills, with no clear demarcation on the journey from the starting point as novice and the end point as expert. McLeskey and Waldron (2007) observe that in most classrooms, the acceptable range of learner variance is very narrow, and differences outside of this band are considered to be a problem for someone else to address. Inclusive classrooms must become places where differences are ordinary, expected, supported, and celebrated.

1 Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin, Milwaukee 2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Alberta 167

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

If we begin with the premise that every classroom is composed of diverse learners, then we start from a different point than traditional instruction, wherein content is the exclusive focus. That is, we begin to think about how we could support diverse learners before they have a chance to fail (Edyburn, 2006). This mindset establishes the need for technology, as digital media offers flexibility, tools, and supports not available in the traditional instructional settings populated simply by the toolkit of the 20th century, such as the chalkboard, textbook, paper, and pencil. To achieve the goals of inclusive education, we believe that technology use in the classroom must be routine and should support student choice relative to tool use, availability of supports, and difficulty level (as per Vygotsky’s (1962) zone of proximal development). The perspective of the authors is that technology is absolutely essential for supporting the academic success of diverse learners in the 21st century, where the demands of a global society require students to know more than ever before. The goal of this chapter is to summarize relevant research and practice literature regarding the use of technology for supporting students with disabilities and those who struggle in academic settings. We specifically seek to answer the question ‘How is technology best used to support effective inclusive classrooms?’ In particular, we intend to highlight examples of how inclusive technologies can be used to provide access, expand choice, and engage students in academic tasks at an appropriate challenge level.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice The field of special education has developed considerably in the United States since the passage of P.L. 94–142 in 1975. Shortly thereafter, microcomputers became somewhat more affordable for both home and school use. As we consider the developments over the past 35 years, there are numerous connections between inclusive special education and the use of technology in society and general education. In the sections that follow we briefly describe the factors that have impacted upon the convergence of technology and inclusive instructional environments from 1975 through 2012.

Historical Trends in Special Education Service Delivery As special education programs began to take root in American public schools in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the common model of service delivery for specialized instructional services was a separate special education classroom (West & Whitby, 2008). However, by the mid to late 1980s, experts were calling on special education to ‘mainstream’ students with disabilities into appropriate classes within the general curriculum (Epps & Tindal, 1988; Leinhardt & Pallay, 1982; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Stainback, Stainback, Courtnage, & Jaben, 1985; Wang & Birch, 1984). A significant debate unfolded concerning the relationship between general and special education (Lieberman, 1985; Mesinger, 1985; Stainback & Stainback, 1985), which was amplified by a proposal that became known as the Regular Education Initiative (Will, 1986). By the time the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA; P.L. 101–476) was reauthorized in 1990, the inclusion debate had resulted in the following clarification in U.S. federal special education law: •

to the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are non- disabled;

168

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

•

•

special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occur only when the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily; and the educational placement of each child with a disability is as close as possible to the child’s home. Source: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, §300.550, §300.552, 20 U.S.C. §1412 & §1414

The issue of inclusion continued to be controversial through the 1990s as experts debated the merits and details of partial inclusion versus full inclusion (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Kauffman, 1993; Zigmond, 2003). At the same time, research on attitudes towards inclusion became very popular as researchers sought to understand the impact of inclusion from the perspective of various stakeholders, including students (Ferguson, 1997; Klingner, Vaughn, Schumm, Cohen, & Forgan, 1998; Lovitt, Plavins, & Cushing, 1999; Vaughn, Schumm, & Klingner, 1995), parents (Bennett, Lee, & Lueke, 1998; Carr, 1993; Palmer, Borthwick-Duffy, & Widaman, 1998), general education teachers (Bender, Vail, & Scott, 1995; Minke, Bear, & Deemer, 1996; Olson, Chalmers, & Hoover, 1997; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1995; Vaughn, Schumm, Jallad, Slusher, & Saumell, 1996), and administrators (Allington, McGill-Franzen, & Schick, 1997; Barnett & Monda-Amaya, 1998; Villa, Thousand, & Meyers, 1996). Not surprisingly, there are also works that document the negative effects of inclusion (Forlin, Hattie, & Douglas, 1996; Fox & Ysseldyke, 1997; Martin, 1995). However, perhaps most striking is the limited intervention research that focuses explicitly on measuring student academic achievement in segregated versus integrated classroom settings (Marston, 1996; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). By the early 2000s, inclusion was the norm as over 90% of students with disabilities spent the majority of their day in general education classrooms (McLeskey, Hoppey, Williamson, & Rentz, 2004). Thus, the history of special education has been described as a journey of helping students with disabilities gain access to educational opportunity through three stages: isolation, integration, and inclusion (Winzer, 1993, 2009). In the early 21st century, Response to Intervention (RTI) became a significant factor in special education service delivery (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007; Hoover & Patton, 2008). Within the RTI context, efforts continue to focus on the preparation of teachers and administrators to effectively meet the needs of all students by using inclusionary philosophies and interventions (Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006; Capper & Fraturra, 2009; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2013; Zigmond, Kloo, & Volonino, 2009). However, RTI has largely caught the field of special education technology unprepared for the delivery of technology supports within a tiered intervention system (Edyburn, 2009).

Educational Reform Effects Impact Students with Disabilities in General Education The rhetoric of inclusion that talks about ‘all students’ is nowhere more apparent than in the context and accountability associated with school reform. The goal of including students with disabilities in the general classroom now means that the language of school reform also applies to these students. Whereas special education has been preoccupied with issues about gaining access to the general curriculum, general education has been under the microscope with regard to a variety of initiatives designed to raise academic achievement. A close reading of American education reform efforts over the past 30 years reveals a pattern of discourse which 169

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

suggests that schools are failing and that significant reform is necessary. Interested observers will notice the increased standardization of education relative to (a) defi ning what students need to know and be able to do, (b) identifying effective instructional methods, and (c) moving assessment away from local and state control and toward national control, all justified by the intention to raise academic achievement. In 2002, President Bush signed the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 (P.L. 107–110). This landmark federal education law created expectations for closing the achievement gap by 2013–2014 by holding schools, districts, and states accountable for annual achievement gains, to be measured and reported as Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP). Essentially, each school, district and state must report annually on the achievement of its students. Historically, when test scores were reported for a school or district, the average for all children was reported. The problem with this approach is that low academic performance is lost within the process of averaging. Therefore, AYP was put in place to draw attention to four groups of students who have demonstrated chronic low academic performance. These four groups are (1) students of color, (2) students with disabilities, (3) students living in poverty, and (4) students whose fi rst language is not English. Schools, districts, and states are required to disaggregate the scores of these four sub-groups of students when reporting student performance on annual tests of academic achievement to ensure that their progress is not lost within the process of school reform. In addition, each state is required to develop a website with an interactive database that allows the public the view the results in an easy to understand format. The requirements of NCLB placed intense pressure on schools to raise academic performance, as measured by annual high- stakes tests, and outlined a series of sanctions for schools that failed to meet their annual goals. In a review that analyzed the best performing educational systems in the world, Barber and Mourshed (2007) proposed an action agenda that should be pursued by the U.S. in order to raise student achievement which looks remarkably similar to recent and current federal education policy: • • •

All of the top-performing and rapidly improving systems have curriculum standards which set clear and high expectations for what students should achieve (p. 35); All of the top-performing systems also recognize that they cannot improve what they do not measure (p. 35); You can’t have the same people who are responsible for improving education being responsible for judging whether or not that improvement has occurred (p. 36).

The Convergence of Ubiquitous Inclusive Technologies It was during the mid to late 1980s that computers began arriving in K-12 schools, and they were initially placed in labs for whole class instruction. From the beginning, it is easy to trace two sets of technology service delivery systems within schools: one for students in general education under the direction of a school-based computer coordinator, and assistive technology services for students with disabilities who may need adapted hardware and/or special software. Since the two groups of students were (at that time) educated separately, there was little initial concern about the inequity of this model. Unfortunately, today the legacy of this historical divide persists in most schools. Computer technology, when fi rst applied in special education in the 1980s and 1990s, focused on the remediation of skill deficits by utilizing computers with software known as 170

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

drill and practice (Chaffi n, Maxwell, & Thompson, 1982). However, as new insights emerged about the effective use of computers in the classroom, it was not long before calls appeared in the literature challenging special education to move beyond low-level applications such as drill and practice (Russell, Mokros, & Corwin, 1989). In time, these arguments became more persuasive as students with disabilities participated in inclusive classrooms where technology use, particularly with an emphasis on applications tools like word processing and problemsolving with databases and spreadsheets, became more routine in the late 1990s and early 2000s. As computers became commonplace in schools, individuals with disabilities encountered access problems (usually involving the keyboard, mouse, or monitor), thereby creating an obvious need for assistive technology. However, as a result of the work of Gregg Vanderheiden (1988), by the mid-1990s computer manufacturers were persuaded to install accessibility control panels on every computer shipped in the U.S. This development marks the beginning of the accessible mainstream technology movement (Bauer & Lane, 2006; Emiliani, 2006; Lodge, 2000; Sweeney, 2007; van Woerden, 2006). That is, technology developers began to explore the intrinsic barriers encountered by individuals with disabilities and sought solutions that could be built into hardware and software (e.g., keyboard shortcuts, text enlargement, text-to-speech) that would help an even wider population (e.g., young children, seniors). In time, assistive technology advocates began to view certain types of assistive technology as something that could be made available to all students in an inclusive classroom to support the access and engagement of diverse learners (Metheny, 2003; Scleef, 2003); the perspective that assistive technologies had a role in helping many students in the general classroom would become known as ‘inclusive technologies’. Inclusive mainstream technologies expanded during the late 1990s and early 2000s as a result of the explosion of the World Wide Web. Recognizing the fundamental importance of the Internet, disability advocates pushed for the development of technical standards (i.e., Web Content Accessibility Guidelines) that would ensure that web design was accessible to all (Gunderson, 1999). As a result, by the time schools began to use web-based technologies on a regular basis, web content was far more accessible than traditional print instructional materials (Wiazowski, 2010). Finally, the convergence of technology and inclusive technologies was advanced as a result of two significant developments. First, the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA included a requirement that, when planning the IEP of each student with a disability, IEP teams must ‘consider’ assistive technology as a policy initiative to ensure that the potential of technology for students with disabilities might be realized. Edyburn (2000) argued that this policy effectively expanded the notion of assistive technology as something more than an intervention for students with physical, sensory, and communication impairments. In essence, it added 3.8 million students with high-incidence disabilities to the assistive technology caseload. And, since inclusion had become the primary special education service delivery system, this altered the conversation by requiring IEP teams to consider what technology supports were needed in the general classroom in order to support the academic success of a student with a disability. Second, the emergence of Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Rose & Meyer, 2002) in the early 2000s provided a new way of thinking about technology as an embedded support that could be made available to all students (Edyburn, 2010). Whereas accessibility is one aspect of UDL, the allure of UDL was that it promised to help not only students with disabilities (the primary beneficiaries), but also to provide benefits to many other struggling students who could benefit from similar supports (secondary beneficiaries). Thus, the early 21st century 171

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

provided the perfect convergence between the academic needs of students with disabilities, concerns in general education about poor academic performance, and the potential of universal design to harness the power and potential of technology to engage and support diverse students.

Setting the Course for Effective Instruction American classrooms, at every level of education, are more diverse than ever (New York Times, 2010). However, understanding academic diversity requires insight about learner differences that goes beyond race, ethnicity, disability, and culture. Instead, we must begin to think more deeply about differences that have a profound impact upon learning. For example, we know that students learn more when they are interested in a topic, have intrinsic motivation to learn about a topic, and choose to engage in meaningful learning activities. We also know that all learners fall on a continuum that on one side might be called ‘novice’ and on the other could be called ‘expert.’ Given any topic, each of us falls somewhere on that continuum. The goal of instruction is to provide the context for the learner to move on a journey from where they were initially toward a destination that demonstrates more expertise. Edyburn (2010) has called on special educators and instructional designers to create diversity blueprints that illustrate how individual differences can be proactively valued and supported. For example, since we know that not all students in any given classroom can read at grade level, why do we not design text that has audio supports so that poor readers, nonreaders, and English as a Second Language learners can access the information? We must begin to proactively support differences before students fail in order to design instruction that allows diverse learners to be successful (Burke, Hagan, & Grossen, 1998; Coyne, Kameenui, & Simmons, 2004). The use of technology in education has evolved considerably over the past 25 years and is now a prominent feature in most classrooms. Similarly, special education has been transformed from a service provided in segregated settings to service delivery models that are characterized by inclusion and co-teaching. Despite the progress made to date in inclusive education, more work is necessary to help general and special educators mutually defi ne their responsibilities (Eisenman, Pleet, Wandry, & McGinley, 2011; Wood, 1998). In particular, with significant numbers of students with disabilities unable to demonstrate that they are achieving AYP, there is little evidence to suggest that students with disabilities have access to the appropriate and necessary assistive and instructional technologies they need to achieve the grade level standards expected through No Child Left Behind. As a result, we believe that it is necessary to highlight examples of how inclusive technologies can be used to provide access, expand choice, and engage students in academic tasks at an appropriate challenge level. We begin by describing characteristics of inclusive technology use in the classroom, and conclude with recommendations for action planning.

Characteristics of Inclusive Technology Use in the Classroom A considerable problem in the technology research community involves the short attention span of researchers, who jump from one shiny new object to the next. This intense interest in what is new means that we have a limited research knowledge base because there is little sustained research interest in technologies once they become widely 172

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

adopted. The technology platform is not so important as is routine access and the quality of the instructional design. This perspective has been summarized by Richard Clark (1983), who observed that “media are mere vehicles that deliver instruction but do not influence student achievement any more than the truck that delivers our groceries causes changes in our nutrition” (p. 445). Thus, we are concerned when we meet administrators who suggest that the goals of inclusion are being advanced simply because they have purchased the latest technologies. In order to foster conversations about whether or not we would recognize the classroom application of inclusive technologies, we have identified the following benchmarks to assist teachers and administrators. We begin with factors that are revealed through artifacts that could be collected, then information that could be gained through interviews, and fi nally items that should be observed by visiting classrooms and talking with teachers and students. Philosophy The school has a clearly articulated philosophy: special education is not a place, but a service that is delivered in inclusive general education classrooms. Emphasis on Improving Academic Achievement The school communicates the results of recent accountability measures and describes its commitment and plan for helping all students achieve high academic standards. Technology Planning The school has a technology planning team that includes individuals with expertise in instructional technology as well as assistive technology. The team operates with a single focus: acquiring and implementing technologies that enable all students to achieve high academic standards. The ability to install assistive technology on the servers is not a point of contention between assistive technology specialists and the network manager. Accessibility is a standard consideration in the review and adoption of all new products. The school has a plan to equip each classroom with appropriate 21st century technologies for learning, such as: student- owned devices; tablet, laptop, and desktop computers; interactive whiteboard; printer; and wireless internet access. Technology Use The school has clear expectations that the use of technology in the classroom is not an individual teacher preference but an expectation of all teachers to ensure that diverse students have access to 21st century tools and interact with digital resources. The use of technology will be routine and integrated into the curriculum in the ways that Milone (1998) describes: • • • • • •

An outside observer would view the use of technology as a seamless component of the lesson. Students work toward a lesson-relevant goal. The technology activity is a logical extension of the lesson. A real problem is being solved by the use of technology. You can describe how a particular student is benefiting from the technology. You would have trouble accomplishing your learning goals if the technology were removed. 173

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

• • • •

You can explain what the technology is supposed to do in a few sentences. All students are able to participate. Students are genuinely interested and enthusiastic about learning. More cool stuff is happening than you expected. (p. 7).

Professional Development The school provides professional development to all administrators, teachers, and staff concerning response to intervention (RTI) and universal design for learning (UDL). This knowledge manifests itself in instructional planning that features differentiation, and in the use of technology that requires students to make choices about tools and resources in ways that provide access and foster high levels of engagement. Evidence is available to demonstrate that differences are proactively valued and supported. Student Learning Students operate as 21st- century Goldilocks as they sample many tools and digital resources to ascertain the ‘just right’ conditions under which they can demonstrate appropriate academic performance. Assistive technologies that support physical and sensory access are available and used by those students who need them. All students appreciate the embedded supports as they recognize the need for scaffolds (i.e., training wheels) when learning something new and abandon them as they gain mastery. Students are able to articulate an advanced defi nition of fairness, such that they understand that the success of the diverse students in the classroom is dependent upon each student getting what they need (Welch, 2000; Wormeli, 2006). There is a high level of engagement, minimal off-task behavior or feelings of frustration, and formal measures of student learning reveal high levels of academic performance.

Action Planning To assist inclusive educators in charting a path to exploit the value of technology in an inclusive classroom, we summarize the key components of an action agenda. Advocacy Perhaps in the near future all instructional materials will be universally designed to support and engage diverse learners. In the meantime, a commitment to academic diversity means that all educators need to advocate for accessible instruction design. We must not tolerate the use of multimedia in the classroom that is not properly captioned for students who are deaf, the lack of accessible text for students who are blind or have a learning or reading disability, the use of touch interfaces that are inaccessible to students with physical disabilities, or the lack of cognitively accessible common core state standards curricula for students who have developmental or intellectual disabilities. Advocacy is needed to ensure that accessibility is considered from the outset when planning curricula, instruction, and assessment. Rethinking the Role of Technology to Enhance Academic Performance Why is the software product Inspiration considered assistive technology for a student with a disability but is used as instructional technology for everyone else? Existing dichotomies concerning assistive technology, instructional technology, and universal design for learning perpetuate a perspective that technology is of foremost importance. We must be vigilant about the insidious forms of discrimination (i.e., “ableism”; Hehir, 2007) that seek to denigrate performance in favor of the able-body instead of focusing on the functional 174

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

outcome regardless of method (e.g., correct spelling with the use of a spelling checker vs. correct spelling from memory) and be on guard about attitudinal barriers which suggest that assistive technology is a crutch for lowering expectations (Rapp, 2005). If we consider all forms of technology as tools that enhance human performance (Edyburn, 2003) this will eliminate the artificial boundaries between technology use by individuals with disabilities and their peers. New Approaches to Instructional Planning for Diverse Learners Discarding the one- size-fits-all lesson plan book means that teachers will need new tools to plan instruction for diverse learners (Schumm, Vaughn, & Harris, 1997). Two universal designs for learning tools we have found useful in this regard are a plan for multiple means of representation (see Table 13.1) and multiple means of engagement (see Table 13.2). When a teacher plans for multiple means of representation, it means that s/he acknowledges that students will begin the task of learning about a topic with different background knowledge, reading skills, and level of interest. Students complete the assignment by selecting an appropriate information source/medium. Likewise, when it is time for the students to engage in learning activities about the topic, the tic-tac-toe grid provides a menu of nine options, from which they must select three. These minor changes in instructional planning can have profound implications in the classroom for making differences ordinary. Academic Performance Problems Despite our best efforts, it is likely that some students within an inclusive classroom will fail to learn the intended content within the allocated time frame. Then what do we do? Whereas the RTI solution is to move the student to a Tier 2 intervention, presently there is little guidance about the role of technology within RTI delivery systems (Edyburn, 2009).

Table 13.1 Multiple Means for Representation Planning Template Topic of the Instructional Unit: Volcanoes (Middle School Science) Type

Media

Source

Alternative to the Textbook Simple English Movie

Text

Wikipedia: Volcano http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano

Text Audio Visual

Audio Interactive Activities

Audio Web

Conversion Tools

Braille Sign Language Symbols

Volcano http://simple.wikipedia.org/wiki/Volcano Volcano Movie Clips http://www.volcanovideo.com/p8vidclp.htm Volcanoes http://www.brainpop.com/science/earthsystem/ volcanoes/preview.weml VozMe http://vozme.com/index.php?lang=en Learner Interactives: Volcanoes http://www.learner.org/ interactives/volcanoes/index.html Not needed at this time. Not needed at this time. Not needed at this time.

Additional Comments: (Add here as you feel necessary.) I created this unit for a diverse middle school science class that I co-teach. We will ask students to explore all the resources during their learning activities as a means of ensuring that all students have multiple ways to access the content of the unit.

175

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

Table 13.2 Multiple Means of Engagement Planning Template Subject Tic-Tac-Toe Project Guide Each student is responsible for completing three activities from the following choices. Your three activities must follow the rules of tic-tac-toe (i.e., three in a row).

For example, consider a problem commonly found in 6th grade as students transition into middle school: keeping track of their assignments and homework as they change classes each hour. Whereas most middle schools advocate a specific assignment notebook and perhaps a Thursday folder for bringing home notes that need to be signed and returned, by early Fall it is very clear that these tools are failing a significant number of students. In the RTI inclusive classroom, who is responsible for identifying new organizational systems to help struggling students? We believe that all teachers must address this concern, and one thing that we have learned from adults is that organizational systems can be highly idiosyncratic and therefore multiple systems may need to be explored and abandoned before fi nding a system that works. Toward this end we encourage teachers to learn how to use a specific search feature within Google. For example, let’s say we heard about an online to- do list manager called Remember the Milk (www.rememberthemilk.com). Perhaps it offers a slight improvement for some of our organizationally challenged students. By entering the following search term into Google: 176

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

‘related:www.rememberthemilk.com’, users are able to view 189 similar web tools. Exploring this corpus, teachers and students will fi nd some tools that are free, some that work only on an iPhone, some that work across computers and devices so that you can access your information from anywhere, etc. If we remember that the reason we are teaching organization skills is that there is a lifelong need for these skills, we cannot give up on students who fall through the cracks of the traditional paper and pencil assignment notebook. Rather, we must increase the power of our interventions. The Google search related feature allows anyone to explore a variety of related tools to fi nd the one that is ‘just right.’ Thus, a teacher should be responsible for helping each student meet content standards, but should not worry about which tool a student uses to achieve the goal. Embedded Supports When instructional materials are designed with diverse learners in mind, we see features such as tiered text ( http://thebrain.mcgill.ca/ ), multiple challenge levels (www.literacycenter.net/ lessonview_en.php), and embedded supports. Supports such as text-to-speech allow any child to listen to text they cannot read ( http://starchild.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/StarChild/StarChild. html). When structured prompts ( http://sonofcitationmachine.net/ ) are available, students are guided through complex tasks they may not remember how to do independently. Pedagogical agents (www.sitepal.com/ ) are a promising approach for embedding advice, procedural guidance, and motivational feedback into the digital work environment. Supports such as simplified English and second language translation ( http://simple.wikipedia.org/ ) illustrate important tactics to provide diverse students with tools for accessing and engaging in the curriculum. Despite the potential of these types of embedded supports, they remain the exception rather than the norm in the world of digital learning. Indeed, considerable work remains to be done to create digital learning environments that reflect the developmental milestones (entry level, acquisition stage, proficiency, maintenance stage, generalization stage, and adaptation stage) associated with transforming learners from novices to experts (Hasselbring & Bottge, 2000). Evidence of Learning Many teachers believe that it is their job to sort students based on the quality of their academic performance. Teachers with this perspective visualize the Bell Curve as a means of sorting students in a manner similar to the distribution of a range of individual characteristics. While perhaps this was appropriate for the 20th century, it is not appropriate in the 21st century when the expectation is that all students will achieve high performance outcomes. Rather, teachers are now being asked to take poor performers and, within a relatively short period of instruction, produce learners who have exceptional performance. The learning curve associated with this expectation is known as the J-curve. The implications of these expectations are that teachers need interventions that are effective in producing the desired achievement gains, and that we must become much more engaged in the process of collecting student performance data and using dashboards and tools to visualize performance data in order to make decisions (Hattie, 2009).

Conclusion Students with disabilities have gained physical access to the general education classroom and curriculum through inclusion. However, there is little evidence to suggest that students with 177

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

disabilities have fully benefitted from the potential of technology. When differences are considered ordinary, we believe that practical applications of technology will enable educators to address the specialized needs of every student relative to access, behavior, communication, independence, learning, mobility, and/or social goals.

References Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. ( 2006 ). Improving schools, developing inclusion. NY: Routledge. Allington, R. L., McGill-Franzen, A., & Schick, R. (1997 ). How administrators understand learning difficulties: A qualitative analysis. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 223 –232 . Barber, M. & Mourshed, M. ( 2007 ). How the world’s best-performing school systems come out on top. Retrieved November 5, 2012 , from http://mckinseyonsociety.com/how-the-worlds-bestperforming- schools-come- out-on-top/ Barnett, C. A. & Monda-Amaya, L. E. (1998 ). Principals’ knowledge of and attitudes toward inclusion. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 181–192 . Bauer, S. M. & Lane, J. P. ( 2006 ). Convergence of assistive devices and mainstream products: Keys to university participation in research, development and commercialization. Technology and Disability, 18 ( 2 ), 67–77. Bender, W. N., Vail, C. O., & Scott, K. (1995). Teachers’ attitudes toward increased mainstreaming: Implementing effective instruction for students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 28, 87–94, 120. Bennett, T., Lee, H., & Lueke, B. (1998 ). Expectations and concerns: What mothers and fathers say about inclusion. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 33, 108 –132 . Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. ( 2007 ). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 ( 5), 8 –12 . Burke, M. D., Hagan, S. L., & Grossen, B. (1998 ). What curricular designs and strategies accommodate diverse learners ? Teaching Exceptional Children, 31(1), 34 –38. Capper, C. A. & Fraturra, E. M. ( 2009 ). Meeting the needs of students of all abilities: How leaders go beyond inclusion. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Carr, M. N. (1993 ). A mother’s thoughts on inclusion. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 26, 590 –592 . Chaffi n, J. D., Maxwell, B., & Thompson, B. (1982 ). ARC-ED curriculum: The application of video game formats to educational software. Exceptional Children, 49 ( 2 ) 173 –178. Clark, R. E. (1983 ). Reconsidering research on learning from media. Review of Educational Research, 53 (4 ): 445 – 459. Coyne, M. D., Kameenui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. ( 2004 ). Improving beginning reading instruction and intervention for students with LD: Reconciling “all” with “each.” Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37( 3 ), 231–239. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2010 ). Would you recognize universal design for learning if you saw it? Ten propositions for new directions for the second decade of UDL . Learning Disability Quarterly, 33 (1), 33 – 41. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2009 ). Response to Intervention (RTI): Is there a role for assistive technology? Special Education Technology Practice, 11(1), 15 –19. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2006 ). Failure is not an option: Collecting, reviewing, and acting on evidence for using technology to enhance academic performance. Learning and Leading with Technology, 34 (1), 20 –23. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2003 ). Rethinking assistive technology. Special Education Technology Practice, 5 (4 ), 16 –23. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2000 ). Assistive technology and mild disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32 ( 9 ), 1–24. Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. ( 2011). Voices of special education teachers in an inclusive high school: Redefi ning responsibilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32 ( 2 ), 91–104. Emiliani, P. L. ( 2006 ). Assistive technology (AT) versus mainstream technology (MST): The research perspective. Technology and Disability, 18 (1), 19 –29. Epps, S. & Tindal, G. (1988 ). The effectiveness of differential programming in serving students with mild handicaps: Placement options and instructional programming. In M. C. Wang, M. C. 178

How is Technology Used in Inclusive Schools?

Reynolds, & H. J. Walberg (Eds.). Handbook of Special Education: Research and Practice, Volume I (pp. 213 –248 ). NY: Pergamon Press. Ferguson, J. M. (1997 ). What students say about mainstreaming. American School Board Journal, 184 (12 ), 18 –19. Forlin, C., Hattie, J., & Douglas, G. (1996 ). Inclusion: Is it stressful for teachers ? Journal of Intellectual and Developmental Disability, 21, 199 –217. Fox, N. E. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1997 ). Implementing inclusion at the middle school level: Lessons from a negative example. Exceptional Children, 64, 81–98. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1998 ). Inclusion versus full inclusion. Childhood Education, 75, 309 –316. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994 ). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294 –309. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Stecker, P. ( 2010 ). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. Gunderson, J. (1999 ). W3C web accessibility initiative guidelines. Closing the Gap, 17( 6 ), 1, 14 –15. Hasselbring, T. S. & Bottge, B. A. ( 2000 ). Planning and implementing technology programs in inclusive settings. In J. D. Lindsey (Ed.), Technology and exceptional individuals. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. Hattie, J. A. ( 2009 ). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. NY: Routledge. Hehir, T. ( 2007 ). Confronting ableism. Educational Leadership, 64 ( 5), 8 –14. Hoover, J. J. & Patton, J. R. ( 2008 ). The role of special educator in a multitiered instructional system. Intervention in School and Clinic, 43 (4 ), 195 –202 . Kauffman, J. (1993 ). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children, 60 (1), 6 –16. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Cohen, P., & Forgan, J. W. (1998 ). Inclusion or pull- out: Which do students prefer? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 148 –158. Leinhardt, G. & Pallay, A. (1982 ). Restrictive educational settings: Exile or haven ? Review of Educational Research, 52 (4 ), 557–578. Lieberman, L. M. (1985). Special education and regular education: A merger made in heaven ? Exceptional Children, 51( 6 ), 513 –516. Lodge, J. ( 2000 ). Will the overlay board survive in the mainstream primary classroom ? Closing the Gap, 18 ( 6 ), 16 –17. Lovitt, T. C., Plavins, M., & Cushing, S. S. (1999 ). What do pupils with disabilities have to say about their experience in high school ? Remedial and Special Education, 20, 67–76, 83. Martin, E. W. (1995). Case studies on inclusion: Worst fears realized. Journal of Special Education, 29, 192 –199. Marston, D. (1996 ). A comparison of inclusion only, pull- out only, and combined service models for students with mild disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 30, 121–132 . McLeskey, J., Hoppey, D., Williamson, P., & Rentz, T. ( 2004 ). Is inclusion an illusion? An examination of national and state trends toward the education of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 19 ( 2 ), 109 –115. McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M., & Westling, D. ( 2013 ). Inclusion: Effective practices for all students (2nd ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall. McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. ( 2007 ). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 ( 3 ), 162 –168. Mesinger, J. F. (1985). Commentary on “A rationale for the merger of special and regular education”: Or is it now time for the lamb to lie down with the lion ? Exceptional Children, 51( 6 ), 510 –512 . Metheny, R. ( 2003 ). Pre-K 2003: Inclusive, not assistive technology. Closing the Gap, 22 ( 5), 1, 24 –25. Milone, M. (1998 ). How to know if your technology is integrated. Technology and Learning, August, p. 7. Minke, K. M., Bear, G. G., & Deemer, S. A. (1996 ). Teachers’ experiences with inclusive classrooms: Implications for special education reform. Journal of Special Education, 30, 152 –186. New York Times ( 2010, November 23 ). Diversity in the classroom. Retrieved November 23, 2010 from http://projects.nytimes.com/immigration/enrollment Olson, M. R., Chalmers, L., & Hoover, J. H. (1997 ). Attitudes and attributes of general education teachers identified as effective inclusionists. Remedial and Special Education, 18, 28 –35. Palmer, D. S., Borthwick-Duffy, S. A., & Widaman, K. F. (1998 ). Parent perceptions of inclusive practices for their children with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 271–282. 179

D.L. Edyburn and K. Howery

Rapp, W. H. ( 2005). Using assistive technology with students with exceptional learning needs: When does an aid become a crutch ? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 21, 193 –196. Rea, P., McLaughlin, V., & Walther-Thomas, C. ( 2002 ). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pullout programs. Exceptional Children, 68 ( 2 ), 203 –222 . Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. C. (1987 ). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53, 391–398. Rose, D. & Meyer, A. ( 2002 ). Teaching every student in the digital age. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. Russell, J. R., Mokros, J. R., & Corwin, R. (1989 ). Beyond drill and practice: Expanding the computer mainstream. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Scleef, L. ( 2003 ). Inclusive school communities: Accessible learning environments for all. Closing the Gap, 22 ( 3 ), 1, 14 –15, 28. Schumm, J. S., Vaughn, S., & Harris, J. (1997 ). Pyramid power for collaborative planning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29 ( 6 ), 62 – 66. Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1995). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59 –74. Stainback, S., & Stainback, W. (1985). The merger of special and regular education: Can it be done? A response to Lieberman and Mesinger. Exceptional Children, 51( 6 ), 517–521. Stainback, W., Stainback, S., Courtnage, L., & Jaben, T. (1985). Facilitating mainstreaming by modifying the mainstream. Exceptional Children, 52 ( 2 ), 144 –152 . Sweeney, J. ( 2007 ). Getting assistive technology into the mainstream the EASY way. Closing the Gap, 25 ( 6 ), 7– 8. Tomlinson, C. A. ( 2004 ). The Mobius Effect: Addressing learner variance in schools. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37( 6 ), 516 –524. Vanderheiden, G. C. (1988 ). Considerations in the design of computers and operating systems to increase their accessibility to persons with disabilities. Madison, WI : Trace Research and Development Center. Online at: http://trace.wisc.edu/docs/considerations/consider.txt Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Jallad, B., Slusher, J., & Saumell, L. (1996 ). Teachers’ views of inclusion. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 11, 96 –106. Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., & Klingner, J. K. (1995). Students’ views of instructional practices: Implications for inclusion. Learning Disability Quarterly, 18, 236 –248. van Woerden, K. ( 2006 ). Mainstream developments in ICT: Why are they important for assistive technology? Technology and Disability, 18 (1), 15 –18. Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., & Meyers, H. W. (1996 ). Teacher and administrator perceptions of heterogeneous education. Exceptional Children, 63, 29 – 45. Vygotsky, L. (1962 ). Thought and Language. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Wang, M. & Birch, J. (1984 ). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 50, 391–399. Welch, A. B. ( 2000 ). Responding to student concerns about fairness. Teaching Exceptional Children, 33 ( 2 ), 36 – 40. West, J. E., & Whitby, P. J. ( 2008 ). Federal policy and education of students with disabilities: Progress and the path forward. Focus on Exceptional Children, 41( 3 ), 1–16. Wiazowski, J. ( 2010 ). (in) accessible digital textbooks. Closing the Gap, 29 ( 3 ), 17–22 . Will, M. (1986 ). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52 , 411– 415. Winzer, M. A. (1993 ). The history of special education: From isolation to integration. Washington, DC : Gallaudet University Press. Winzer, M. A. ( 2009 ). From integration to inclusion: A history of special education in the 20th century. Washington, DC : Gallaudet University Press. Wood, M. (1998 ). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, 181–195. Wormeli, R. ( 2006 ). Fair isn’t always equal. Portland, ME : Stenhouse Publishers. Zigmond, N. ( 2003 ). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another? The Journal of Special Education, 37( 3 ), 193 –199. Zigmond, N., Kloo, A., & Volonino, V. ( 2009 ). What, where, how? Special education in the climate of full inclusion. Exceptionality, 17, 189 –204.

180

Section II

Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with High Incidence Disabilities Section Editors: Bob Algozzine1 and James McLeskey2

Students with learning disabilities, speech and language impairments, intellectual disabilities, and emotional disturbance have been eligible for special education since the passage of the fi rst federal special education law in the United States—the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (P.L. 94–142)—in 1975. Until recently, the category of learning disabilities included more than half of all students in special education programs. These individuals collectively represent more than 73% of those receiving special education services, and are thus referred to as students with high incidence disabilities. Over time, the growth in the numbers of students with high incidence disabilities and problems associated with this growth (e.g., cost to school districts) has caused professionals to look critically at the practices used to identify and declare these students eligible for special education. Put another way, the success of fi nding these students created problems in serving these students, and continuing efforts were undertaken to identify and declare the “right” students eligible for special education services. Toward this end, recent policies and practices have shifted from documenting discrepancies, differences, and dysfunctions in students to analyzing, monitoring, and reframing what is happening to these individuals in classrooms and to improving their responsiveness using tiers of instruction. The logic here is straight-forward: Students whose performance reflects a poor response to quality teaching are provided with increasingly more intensive instructional interventions to reshape and refocus the type of instruction and where this instruction is delivered to meet their needs. In this section, we describe the practices that have evolved in efforts to provide students with high incidence disabilities with effective education in inclusive environments. We fi rst

1 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 2 University of Florida 181

B. Algozzine and J. McLeskey

provide an overview of multi-tiered instructional systems of support, focusing on both popular and widely-used elementary and secondary models. We then describe effective literacy and reading, writing, and mathematics practices in inclusive schools. The three following chapters then address specific areas of practice that support effective inclusive schools, including collaborative approaches to addressing student needs (i.e., team-initiated problem- solving and co-teaching), as well as a school-wide system to address the behavioral needs of students (i.e., school-wide positive behavior support). We conclude this section by addressing issues related to the development of effective inclusive high schools in the 21st century.

182

14 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Inclusive Schools George Batsche1

Setting the Stage The use of multiple ‘tiers’ to deliver instruction and interventions in schools is not new; the latest iteration driven by federal intention and support, Response to Intervention (RtI), is widely practiced in America’s schools (Batsche, Curtis, Dorman, Castillo, & Porter, 2007; Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project, 2011; Gersten et al., 2009; National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2006). On the surface, multi-tiered instruction means that instruction and interventions are provided to students in varying levels of intensity based on student need. Although this defi nition appears straightforward, in practice operationalizing it has taken many turns. For example, defi nitions of ‘intensity’ may vary across districts and schools, and the question of how to deliver instruction at varying levels of intensity has not achieved national, state, or local consensus; however, some agreement on how many tiers should exist in a multi-tiered system has been achieved. Data from the Response to Intervention Adoption Survey (Spectrum K12, 2011) indicated that 92% of districts in the United States are in the process of or have already implemented Response to Intervention (RtI), and that 78% of those school districts use a three-tiered method to deliver academic and behavioral instruction and intervention to students. This is not surprising given that school districts historically triage students into a level of service using existing resources (personnel, funding, space, materials) to deliver instruction in varying intensities. The term ‘multi-tiered delivery of services’ is relatively new; the method of using multiple tiers to deliver educational services is not. Until the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 and the publication of the implementing regulations in 2006, a multi-tiered method of instructional delivery usually meant general, remedial, and special/alternative education. In other words, the tiers were places where instruction occurred. The inclusion of response to intervention (RtI) in the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 provided a new context for a multi-tiered method of service delivery. The tiers were now defi ned in terms of intensity (time and focus) of instruction rather than as a place, provider, or instructional strategy. In this new context, theoretically any tier of instruction could occur in any place. The context for increasing the intensity of instruction across the tiers was tied to 1 Institute for School Reform, University of South Florida 183

G. Batsche

the use of RtI as part of the process for eligibility for special education for students suspected of having a specific learning disability. Prior to, or as part of, the eligibility process students must be exposed to increasingly intensified instruction in an attempt to increase the rate of growth toward learning goals. When a tier was defi ned in the context of a place or provider (e.g., special education, Title I) a common understanding of the tiers was not difficult to achieve. It was a logistical defi nition. However, once tiers were defi ned in terms of the intensity of instruction, which included time, focus, and the topography of that instruction, achieving a common understanding of the tiers became more difficult. A difference exists between a multi-tiered method of delivering instruction and a multitiered system of supports. Delivering instruction using a multi-tiered method without including elements of instruction that are evidence-based, integrated, include both academic and behavior skills, and are aligned with common standards will not improve student outcomes. This is particularly important for students with disabilities. When instruction is delivered in different tiers by different providers who are focused on different priorities, use different instructional and performance strategies, and do not align instruction with common standards, then positive student outcomes cannot be expected. This chapter provides a common language/common understanding of a multi-tiered system of supports. This common language/common understanding is necessary if the goal is to implement a system of supports in a consistent manner across schools in a district or state. The adoption of the Common Core State Standards (2013) by more than 80% of states in the United States creates an opportunity to use a multi-tiered system of supports as a platform for service delivery for all students.

Historical Perspectives on Research and Practice The organization of services in education into levels or tiers has its roots in special education. The tiered or cascade model of special education services was fi rst proposed by Reynolds (1962) and refi ned by Deno (1970) prior to the passage of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975. Although the cascade system was based primarily on setting-based tiers that included both school- and non- school-based settings (general education classroom through in-patient hospital programs), the relationship between the setting and the level of intensity of services was obvious. A school-based, three-tiered model of service delivery for all students (school-wide) was subsequently described by Walker and colleagues (Walker et al., 1996) as an integrated approach to preventing behavior problems. The basic premise underlying this model was that effective and universally available instruction (prevention) would establish the foundation for interventions of increasing intensity in an efficient and effective manner (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002). This model was the foundation for the application of positive behavior supports to school-wide practice. The inclusion of response to intervention in the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 was then presented in the context of a multi-tiered model. IDEA (2004) required evidence of effective universal instruction in reading and mathematics as a prerequisite to referral to special education. This legislation further required evidence that students did not respond at an adequate level to interventions of increasing intensity in general education prior to or concurrently with a determination of eligibility for special education. This requirement to demonstrate effective instruction and response to intervention to instruction of increasing intensity in general education set the stage for a systems approach to the implementation of a multi-tiered model that included a continuum of services from prevention to intensive interventions. 184

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

The use of the terms ‘multi-tiered delivery models’ and ‘multi-tiered systems of support’ in the literature emerged rapidly following the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004. Since that time the content of multi-tiered systems in the literature has focused on descriptions of models, the impact of instruction and intervention on student outcomes, and extending the reach of interventions for specific populations of students (e.g., gifted, specific learning disabilities, English language learners, early childhood) and across settings (e.g., schools, family, community).

Models of Multi-Tiered Systems The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) published one of the fi rst comprehensive overviews of RtI describing the use of a multi-tiered system of supports following the reauthorization of IDEA (Batsche et al., 2005). This publication was disseminated to superintendents, state departments of education, boards of education, and professional associations. The book focused on the critical elements of RtI, implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports, and the policy considerations necessary to support that implementation. Researchers in the fields of special education, reading, school psychology, and systems change also described the use of RtI in a multi-tiered system of supports to address behavior and academic goals (Batsche et al., 2007; Burns, Griffiths, Parson, Tilly, & VanDerHayden, 2007; Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006; Gresham et al., 2005; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006; Sugai & Horner, 2009; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2007) in the years following the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004. The widespread acceptance of a three-tiered model of service delivery is supported by data from implementation (Hoover, Baca, Wexler-Love, & Saenz, 2008; Spectrum K12, 2011) and policy (Zirkel & Krohn, 2008) surveys.

Impact on Student Outcomes Tiers of instruction represent a continuum on which important instruction variables (e.g., instructional time, group size, focus and characteristics of the instruction) exist. The tiers represent the framework within which instruction is designed, delivered, and evaluated. What happens to students in a particular tier of instruction determines the impact of instruction on student outcomes, not the presence or absence of the tier itself. Therefore, simply identifying the number of tiers as an independent variable does not provide a valid approach to research. The majority of the research that has investigated the impact of services delivered through a multi-tiered system of supports has focused on the impact of measurable instructional variables within tiers on student outcomes. These variables include group size (very few students, Tier 3), engaged time of academic instruction (fewer minutes, lower Tier), the focus of the instruction (broad, lower Tier; narrow, higher Tier), and the characteristics of the instruction. A multi-tiered system of supports theoretically provides the opportunity for flexibility in the level of intensity of instruction, the size of the group to whom instruction is provided, and the use of frequently collected data to provide a responsive approach to intervention. A number of studies (Vaughn et al., 2010; Vaughn et al., 2008; Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fletcher, 2011) investigating the impact of supplemental instruction on reading proficiency for older students with learning disabilities have concluded that minimal gains are achieved unless the instruction is of greater intensity (more minutes per day, small group size), has less structure, is more readily responsive, and uses a wider range of reading strategies. These studies provided supplemental instruction, usually less than one hour each day using a standardized instructional protocol. The authors note that the availability of intensive 185

G. Batsche

interventions in typical schools and districts is limited, if available at all. However, research has supported the positive relationship between intensifying instruction with additional time and improved student outcomes (Harn, Linan-Thompson, & Roberts, 2008). Available qualified personnel and the funds to provide large amounts of instructional time to a small number of students are often not available in schools, even though the addition of instructional time is related to an increased rate of student growth. It will be difficult to implement robust research designs to evaluate the impact of the full continuum of tiers if, in fact, the breadth of that continuum is limited or unavailable. That said, the research does not support the effectiveness of low intensity interventions for older students with significant reading difficulties (Vaughn et al., 2010; Wanzek et al., 2011). Research investigating the use of RtI and multi-tiered systems of supports with younger students is promising. Simmons et al. (2008) investigated response to intervention and stability of reading performance in children in kindergarten through grade three. Positive changes in risk status were generally sustained over time. Given the early grade level of these students, the gap between performance and grade level was substantially less than would occur with older students. This might suggest that when the intensity of the intervention is matched to the level of student need, the response to intervention method is more successful. Less intense interventions are more likely to be available in schools due to the relatively lower cost of that level or tier. Haynes (2013) investigated the impact of a multi-tiered system of supports in schools implementing the practice, and compared overall outcomes and the outcomes for students in special education in these schools with outcomes for similar schools not implementing a multitiered system of supports. The results of this comparative, interrupted time- series design suggested early positive effects on overall third grade reading scores. The results for students receiving special education services were not positive. Once again, these results might suggest that the intensity (tier level) of the interventions must be matched to the degree of student need. Simply ‘having’ a multi-tiered system in place is insufficient; the intensity of instruction in those tiers must be sufficient to meet the needs of the students in the school. Schools vary significantly in terms of levels of student performance and need. Clearly, the intensity range for instruction and interventions must vary as well. The ‘one size fits all’ model at a district level will not be sufficiently flexible to ensure a range of effective services at the school level. The positive impact of school-wide approaches of response to intervention and multitiered systems that focus on prevention and early intervention has been demonstrated. Harn, Chard, and Kame’enui (2011) discussed the effectiveness and efficiency of implementing school-wide approaches to instructional delivery when the structures and supports for that delivery are in place. The authors focused on one district that incorporated the components of school-wide response to intervention. District results indicated that the percentage of students reading successfully in fi rst grade doubled, the identification rate of students with reading disabilities was reduced by 50%, and the passing rate on high- stakes assessments increased significantly across a four-year time period. The relationship between academic performance and student behavior has been the focus of recent research. Stewart, Benner, Martella, and Marchand-Martella (2007) conducted a meta-analysis of 11 studies to evaluate the impact of academic only, behavior only, and an integrated model on reading and behavior outcomes. The results suggested that the integrated model produced greater effect sizes on reading than the reading only and behavior only models, and larger improvements in reading skills. Research has further revealed that high-quality academic instruction can reduce problem behavior (Filter & Horner, 2009; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2009; Sanford, 2006), and the 186

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

implementation of school-wide positive behavior supports is positively related to increased academic engaged time and enhanced academic outcomes (Algozzine, Putnam, & Horner, 2012; Algozzine et al., 2012; Bruhn & Watt, 2012; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006; McIntosh, Flannery, Sugai, Braun, & Cochrane, 2008). This body of work supports an integrated model of a multi-tiered system of supports implemented as a school-wide systemic approach as a more efficient and effective method of improving the academic and behavioral performance of students.

Extending the Reach of MTSS The logic of multi-tiered systems of support as a functional way of delivering services in an organization, combined with the research supporting the effectiveness and efficiency of this model, has resulted in the implementation of the model with diverse student populations in schools and family and community settings. The research and model-building for the application of response to intervention using a multi-tiered approach in early childhood education has focused primarily on early literacy instruction, social competence, and preventing and addressing challenging behavior. Although a number of models have been identified for this purpose, common characteristics are shared across the models, including a multi-tiered system of supports (teaching and caregiving), high-quality curricula, ongoing assessment and progress monitoring, and the use of a collaborative problem- solving process (DEC/NAEYC/ NHSA, 2013). The models that align well with the components of RtI and multi-tiered system of supports include Building Blocks (Sandall & Schwartz, 2008), Recognition and Response (Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel 2006), and the Pyramid Model (Fox et al. 2010; Fox et al. 2003; Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox 2006). The Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (www.crtiec.org) supports the implementation of a multi-tiered system in early childhood. The application of MTSS has begun to be examined for application in gifted education programs. These models focus on the relevancy of a comprehensive system of learning supports, high-quality instruction, and research-based effective practices to the education of gifted students. The interface of RtI and multi-tiered systems for students identified as gifted and with a disability is important (Bianco, 2010; Rollins, Mursky, Shah-Coltrane, & Johnson, 2009). Although models have been developed, to date no research has systematically evaluated multi-tiered systems of support with gifted students. McIntyre and Phaneuf (2007) developed a three-tiered model to implement parent education and supports in early childhood settings. The components of the model were aligned with critical elements of a multi-tiered system of supports, including three tiers of service; the use of a data-based problem-solving process to develop, implement, and evaluate the services; and a multi-tiered assessment system. Tier 1 consisted of early childhood education sessions plus selfadministered parent education materials delivered in 5 sessions of 2 ½ hours each. Tier 2 supports consisted of 12 weeks of 2 ½ hour group-based sessions for parents needing additional assistance. These sessions focused on strategies to improve child behavior. Intensive supports (Tier 3) were provided using individualized support and video feedback that focused on behavior management, reinforcement delivery, developmentally appropriate play, and other topics. McCart, Wolf, Sweeney, and Choi (2009) conducted a pilot study with 30 families to assess the feasibility and effectiveness of the multi-tiered model developed by McIntyre and Phaneuf in a family-based community agency. Parent satisfaction and levels of stress were measured. The authors reported positive results for parent satisfaction and reduced levels of parental stress as a result of participating in the multi-tiered model. 187

G. Batsche

The extant literature on MTSS is weighted in the direction of journal articles, book chapters, and books that describe the development and implementation of models of service delivery. An emerging literature is investigating the degree to which multi-tiered systems of support are evidence-based. Empirical research has focused on investigating the critical elements of multi-tiered systems of support (e.g., time exposed to varying intensity of instruction and interventions, integrated models) and it is this research that should inform practice. The implementation of RtI and a multi-tiered system of supports is, in reality, a school reform process. Research on how to successfully implement a reform process is beyond the scope of this chapter. However, basic principles of school reform must be considered when implementing a multi-tiered system.

Setting the Course for Effective Inclusion All students are included in MTSS. The Common Core State Standards provides the benchmarks to be attained by all students (with some exceptions) and represent the accountability expectations for Tier 1. Regardless of the tier(s) of service that a student is receiving, it is expected that those tiers of service will improve the success of students in Tier 1 inclusive general education settings. The implementation of a multi-tiered system of supports must take into consideration implementation science (Fixen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005) if the goal is to ensure a system that has fidelity and sustainability. In addition, the practices that defi ne the model should be evidence-based and monitored for implementation sufficiency and fidelity. The purpose of this section is to identify key features and practices that are critical to implementation fidelity. The research foundations for many of these practices were identified in the previous sections of this chapter.

Common Vision/Language/Understanding Implementation science (Castillo, Batsche, Curtis, Stockslager, March, & Minch 2012; Fixen et al., 2005) would suggest that new scaling-up practices include consensus building, infrastructure development, and implementation monitoring and fidelity. Consensus is achieved and maintained by ensuring frequent communication to develop a common vision and a common language/common understanding about the practice. Clearly, professional personnel need the infrastructure (tools) to implement the practice, and implementation must be monitored and data collected to ensure that implementation outcomes are achieved. The goal of delivering services using a multi-tiered system is to ensure that all students receive instruction and intervention with sufficient intensity to be successful in Tier 1. It is the inclusion and performance of students in Tier 1 that defi nes the success of more intensive instruction and interventions in Tiers 2 and 3. The defi nition of the tiers has given rise to inconsistent application and implementation of the multi-tiered method. Questions such as ‘How much time should a student get in Tier 2?,’ ‘How long do I have to keep them in Tier 2 (or Tier 3) until I can refer to special education?,’ ‘Can we call Tier 2 “RtI Time”?’ and ‘Is Tier 2 the standard protocol approach and Tier 3 the problem- solving approach?’ are asked frequently and clearly indicate that a common understanding of a multi-tiered system of supports has yet to be achieved. In reality, tiers of instruction and intervention do not exist as fi nite entities with clear lines of demarcation. A common language/common understanding promotes the development of consensus when both the critical elements and the definition of the practice are understood and embraced (consensus). The critical elements of a multi-tiered system of supports include: 188

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

1 All instruction is evidence-based, aligned with common standards, and delivered in varying levels of intensity (tiers). 2 Instructional planning involves all instructional providers working collaboratively to align instructional focus and pacing. 3 The roles and responsibilities of all staff delivering instruction are understood, aligned, and add value to student outcomes. 4 Common assessments are used to evaluate the impact of the multi-tiered system of supports on student growth. Assessments are aligned with the common standards. 5 The multi-tiered instruction and supports are integrated across tiers to ensure that all instruction is related and relevant. 6 Instructional strategies and student engagement variables and the relationship between the two are considered when instruction is designed and delivered by all providers. 7 Students and families are informed partners in understanding, supporting, and engaging the instruction. A number of states have developed state-wide defi nitions of a multi-tiered system of supports. The state of Florida defi nes a multi-tiered system of supports as: an evidence-based model [emphasis added] of schooling that uses data-based problem-solving to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention. The integrated instruction and intervention is delivered to students in varying intensities (multiple tiers) based on student need. ‘Need-driven’ decision-making seeks to ensure that district resources reach the appropriate students (schools) at the appropriate levels to accelerate the performance of all students to achieve and/or exceed proficiency. (Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports, n.d., p. 2) The two critical elements in a multi-tiered system are the use of a data-based problem- solving process and the delivery of instruction/intervention in varying levels of intensity across multiple tiers. The fi rst critical element is the consistent use of a district- adopted evidencebased problem- solving process used across schools to develop, implement, and evaluate instruction and intervention. The district-based process will contribute to consistency in practices and procedures for all staff and parents. The four- step problem- solving process provides a structure through which student goals can be identified (Problem Identification), data-based reasons why those goals are not being met can be generated (Problem Analysis), instruction/interventions developed (Intervention), and the impact of that instruction/intervention on student outcomes evaluated (Response to Instruction/Intervention). The problem- solving process is best understood when four simple questions are asked: 1 What do we want students to know and be able to do? (Common Core State Standards, Behavior Standards); 2 Why are they not doing it? (Hypotheses about why they are not doing the desired behavior and assessments to verify hypotheses); 3 What are we going to do about it? (The comprehensive, integrated intervention plan); 4 Did it work? (Response to Instruction/Intervention data-based). These four questions use common-sense language across educators and parents with diverse backgrounds and facilitate open communication and collaboration. When everyone working with students is on the ‘same page,’ the likelihood of student success is increased. The most 189

G. Batsche

important step of this problem-solving process is the fi rst one: goal identification. When the goal focuses on what we want students to know and be able to do (rather than the problem), then problem- solving and intervention focuses on building skills and behaviors, not eliminating problems. The integration of academic and behavior goals occurs in this fi rst step. The second critical element is the delivery of instruction and supports across multiple tiers to ensure that all students receive the intensity (focus of instruction, time of instruction) necessary to achieve success. It is critical that the district (preferably the State Education Agency) develop a defi nition of the tiers of instruction. This will facilitate a common language/common understanding for all educators and parents across schools in that district. The tiers are typically defi ned as follows: Tier 1: what ALL students receive in core instruction—both academic and behavioral. For instance, in reading this might be a curriculum that includes all five components of reading: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension. For behavior it might include the school-wide prosocial behavior curriculum (e.g., Positive Behavior Supports, Safe and Civil Schools). Tier 1 is characterized by the broadest curriculum, the least amount of time (compared to other tiers—e.g., 90 minutes of reading/language arts a day), the fewest assessments (e.g., formative assessments three times/year plus end of year assessments), and the least amount of individualized attention. Tier 2: what SOME students receive, also known as supplemental instruction/intervention. Typically, this instruction/intervention is provided to students in groups and focuses on improving skill deficits (academic and behavioral) common to the students in that group. Examples would include increasing fluency in reading and student engagement behaviors with the use of direct instruction (e.g., social skills, academic behavior training). The focus of instruction is more intense. That is, the focus is narrower (only on those skills that need strengthening) and the time of this instruction is in addition to Tier 1. Assessment data are collected more frequently (e.g., monthly). The problem- solving process is typically focused on identifying, delivering, and evaluating evidence-based instruction for the skills that are being strengthened. This instruction is provided to all students in the group and individual diagnostic data typically are not collected. Tier 2 instruction/intervention can be delivered in the general education classroom or in other settings. Tier 3: what FEW students receive, also known as intensive instruction/intervention. This level of instruction is provided to students individually or in very small groups. This is the most intensive instruction (time and focus) that a student can receive in a particular building. The level of problem- solving required in this tier is student-focused and includes diagnostic assessment. Examples would include intensive and/or specially designed instruction in phonics/phonemic awareness and in behavioral areas such as anger control training and engagement behaviors to reduce the effects of a skill deficit that is not responding to instruction. Typically, intensive instruction is in addition to the time allocated for Tiers 1 and 2. For students with the greatest needs, Tier 3 might be an alternative instruction (e.g., in lieu of core instruction in reading). If this is the case, then the time allocated to this alternate instruction must be beyond the time allocated in Tier 1 for that instruction—often as much as 50–100% more time, given the severity of the student problem. Assessment data are collected more frequently in this tier of service (e.g., weekly, if appropriate) than in Tiers 1 and 2. If a student is receiving Tier 3 service, it is clear that an intense need exists and that no effective solution to resolve the need has been identified. Often intervention solutions must be tried and frequent data collection must occur to determine if those solutions are viable. If data are not collected frequently and the solution is not working, then valuable academic engaged time is being lost and student success is compromised. 190

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

It is important to defi ne the tiers consistently in terms of the focus of instruction, time, assessment, data collected, and student progress. Successful inclusion practices can be compromised when using a multi-tiered system if the instruction and supports are not integrated across the tiers, and into Tier 1 in particular. The student must perceive that the Tier 2/3 instruction is focused on Tier 1 improvement and that the work done in Tiers 2/3 is clearly and directly related to Tier 1 expectations. The impact of supplemental and intensive instruction/interventions must result in improved performance of students in core instruction. It is the responsibility of the adults to integrate instruction across the tiers—it is not the responsibility of the student to figure out how to use what is taught in Title I, remedial services, or special education to improve Tier 1 performance. The presence of the two critical elements (problem- solving and multiple tiers) is necessary but insufficient to ensure that a multi-tiered system is effective. In order for a multi-tiered system to be effective a number of factors must be considered, including: 1 The integration of academic and behavioral elements into student goals. 2 A planning or lesson study process to ensure that the instructional plan is integrated across the tiers and that the instruction/intervention is seamless for the student. 3 The treatment fidelity and sufficiency of the instruction/intervention is appropriate to ensure positive student outcomes. Integration of Academics and Behavior Student behavior in schools can be broken down into three categories: academic skills, academic behaviors, and inter-and intra-personal behaviors. Academic skills are those skills that students must know and be able to use. Academic skill progressions are aligned with the academic standards embraced by the state or district. The new Common Core State Standards expect students to be able to use traditional academic skills in an applied way through the use of reasoning, critical thinking, and problem-solving. Academic behaviors are those behaviors students must possess to engage in instruction and demonstrate academic skills. Examples include following directions, asking questions, settings goals, self-monitoring, and study skills. Excellent instructional strategies can occur in a setting with limited student engagement; the result is poor student performance. Student engagement skills are as critical as the instructional skills of the teacher. When they are absent they must be taught. Support services often provide the critical bridge between student performance and quality instruction when the engagement behaviors are absent. Inter- and intra-personal behaviors are those necessary to interact with others and remain in control of oneself. It is critical to include both the academic skill and the student engagement behaviors necessary to learn and demonstrate that skill when developing, implementing, and modifying instruction. If student engagement behaviors are left out of this process, then instructional design is occurring without identifying the student engagement factors that influence student performance. Typically, the fi rst step of the problem- solving process focuses on either the academic skills or the behavior skill. Both are necessary and should be considered simultaneously. For example, if student behavior is the focus of the problem- solving, then the goal should include the behavior to be increased and the academic skill outcome of that improvement in behavior. Increasing student on-task attention should result in an increase in productivity (number of assignments completed, amount of each assignment completed, and the accuracy of the completed work). Focusing instruction on any behavior in a school setting should have academic skill performance as an outcome, not just improvement in the behavior. 191

G. Batsche

Lesson Planning or Lesson Study Good teaching is the result of good planning. In a multi-tiered system, this becomes more complicated when multiple providers (core, supplemental, student supports) are involved in the delivery of instruction. The goal for the student is to ensure that all of that instruction is integrated and aligned (with Common Core State Standards or existing State Standards) and that the impact of Tier 2/3 instruction is evidenced in improved Tier 1 performance. The following guidelines will facilitate this goal of integrated instruction in a multi-tiered system. 1 All providers of instruction and supports must be present at the lesson planning meeting. 2 The Tier 1 teachers (e.g., 5th grade core teachers) identify the Learning Goal or Progression Level that will be the focus of instruction. Evidence-based instructional strategies are identified and selected. Student engagement behaviors (e.g., working in a group, listening, sharing, agreeing on strategies) for both the instructional time and the student performance expectations are identified. In this way, a discussion of the relationship between the instruction and student engagement expectations can take place. If students lack the engagement behaviors necessary, the team can plan strategies to teach those behaviors or select other instructional strategies consistent with the behaviors the students possess. 3 The Tier 2 and Tier 3 providers meet to plan their instruction in the context of the Tier 1 meeting they attended. This facilitates both alignment with the pacing charts of Tier 1 and ensures that Tier 2/3 instruction ‘leads’ Tier I. This will facilitate transfer of skills from Tiers 2/3 to Tier 1. It is important that Tier 2/3 providers use Tier 1 materials (to at least some degree) when applying the strategies taught to the students. This helps students to understand that the skills they are learning in Tier 2/3 are directly related to improving their Tier 1 achievement. 4 Tier 2/3 providers observe the performance of their students in the Tier 1 setting to determine the degree to which the skills are transferring from Tier 2/3 to Tier 1. 5 Tier 2/3 providers make available to Tier 1 teachers instructional strategies they have found effective. The use of those strategies by Tier 1 teachers will facilitate transfer of training for students. Monitoring and Promoting Fidelity Instruction and intervention is effective when it is delivered in sufficient amounts and in the way in which it was intended. This ensures that students receive evidence-based strategies in sufficient amounts to improve student performance. In a multi-tiered system, sufficiency is measured in the number of minutes a week that a student receives Tier 1, 2, and/or 3 instruction. If an evidence-based strategy for Tier 2 suggests that the student receives that instruction for 30 minutes per day each day of the week, then fewer minutes of instruction will likely result in slower progress. When students are not responding as expected, a review of the suffi ciency of instruction is the fi rst step. Fidelity of instruction and intervention can be supported in a number of ways. One of the more effective ways is through the use of instructional supports. Instructional support is provided through meetings with the staff charged with delivering the instruction. Three things occur during these meetings. First, student data are reviewed to evaluate the student response to instruction/intervention. Second, barriers to sufficiency or the delivery of the evidencebased instruction are discussed and addressed. Third, the critical elements of the instruction are reviewed. This process is based on a coaching model that provides teachers with both 192

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

interpersonal support and effective problem- solving. Typically, meetings occur at least once a week for the initial portion of the instruction/intervention and then as necessary to ensuring fidelity and sufficiency. In summary, it is critically important that school professionals develop a common language/ common understanding that promotes consensus regarding the critical elements and defi nition of MTSS in practice. Furthermore, while problem- solving and multiple tiers are two critical elements of MTSS, these elements alone are not sufficient to ensure that multi-tiered systems are successful. Additional factors that are important to the success of MTSS include the integration of academic and behavioral elements into student goals, a planning process that ensures the implementation of an instructional plan that is integrated across tiers and seamless for the student, and ensuring the treatment fidelity and sufficiency of instruction/ intervention to improve student outcomes.

Conclusion The use of MTSS represents a fundamental change in the approach used to deliver special education services. Rather than emphasizing the location or the provider of the instruction, emphasis is now placed on the intensity and quality of the interventions provided and on the effectiveness of them based on student outcomes. The goal of using a multi-tiered system is to ensure that all students are successful in Tier 1 inclusive general education classrooms. All students are included in the MTSS, and the Common Core State Standards provide the benchmarks to be attained by all students (with some exceptions) and represent the accountability expectations for Tier 1. It is the inclusion and performance of students in Tier 1 inclusive general education settings that defi nes the success of more intensive instruction and interventions in Tiers 2 and 3. Multi-tiered systems of support are designed to maximize the performance of ALL students in a district, provide high-quality instruction regardless of setting, and ensure successful inclusion in Tier 1. The critical components in a multi-tiered system are a data-based problem- solving process that is used to develop, implement, and evaluate instruction and intervention, and a structure to deliver instruction and supports at varying levels of intensity across multiple tiers. The implementation of these components of MTSS is only the beginning, and it does not ensure success for all students. A multi-tiered system will only be effective if the focus on instruction includes both academic and behavioral components of instruction and student performance, all providers are involved in the lesson planning process, and instructional support is provided to ensure fidelity and sufficiency of instruction/ intervention. When large- scale reform and innovative practices in education fail, professionals often argue that there was insufficient time, resources, or training provided to stakeholders and implementation agents (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Fixen et al., 2005). The success of change efforts such as MTSS is supported by attention to these and other implementation components, including: 1 Consensus across district/school staff and others regarding the need for change and the belief that they have the skills (or will have the support to attain them) to make it happen. 2 Consideration of the importance and value of the district’s and each school’s culture and history that informs practices, values, and beliefs, and accepting that change does not occur in a vacuum. 193

G. Batsche

3 Incorporation of a strong system of professional development and support (technical assistance and coaching) and involvement of all stakeholders from the beginning to ensure shared development, implementation, and evaluation. 4 Continuous monitoring and feedback of implementation as well as student outcome data. 5 Achievable expectations that support attainment of goals, rather than promises for quick success that result in failures that represent great threats to innovation in any field. (Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports, n.d.) MTSS is an evidence-based model of schooling that uses data-based problem- solving to integrate academic and behavioral instruction and intervention. When this type of integrated instruction and intervention is delivered in varying intensities (multiple tiers) based on need, ALL students succeed.

References Algozzine, B., Putnam, R., & Horner, R. H. ( 2012 ). Support for teaching students with learning disabilities academic skills and social behaviors within a response-to-intervention model: Why it doesn’t matter what comes fi rst. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 9 (1), 7–36. Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M. B., Algozzine, K., . . . . . . Duran, G.Z. ( 2012 ). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Children, 79, 45 – 64. Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Dorman, C., Castillo, J. M., & Porter, L. ( 2007 ). The Florida problemsolving/response to intervention model: Implementing a statewide initiative. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. (pp. 378 –395), New York, NY: Springer. Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse, D., . . . Tilly, D. ( 2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Reston, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Bianco, M. ( 2010 ). Strength-based RTI: Conceptualizing a multi-tiered system for developing gifted potential. Theory into Practice, 49 (4), 323 –330. Bruhn, A. & Watt, S. ( 2012 ). Improving behavior by using multicomponent self-monitoring within a targeted reading intervention. Behavior Disorders, 38, 3 –17. Burns, M. K., Griffiths, A., Parson, L. B., Tilly, W. D., & VanDerHayden, A. ( 2007 ). Response to intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Castillo, J. M., Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., & Minch, D. ( 2012 ). Problem solving/response to intervention evaluation tool technical assistance manual. Tampa, FL : University of South Florida, Florida Problem-Solving Response to Intervention Project. Coleman, M. R., Buysse,V., & Neitzel, J. ( 2006 ). Recognition and response: An early intervening system for young children at risk for learning disabilities. Full Report. Chapel Hill : The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development Institute. Common Core State Standards ( 2013 ). Common Core State Standards Initiative. Retrieved from www.commoncore.org Deno, E. (1970 ). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229 –237. Division of Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children, National Association for the Education of Young Children, & National Head Start Association ( 2013 ). Frameworks for response to intervention in early childhood: Description and implications. Retrieved from www.naeyc.org/ content/fromeworks-response-intervention Filter, K. J. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009 ). Function-based academic interventions for problem behavior. Education and Treatment of Children, 32, 1–19. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M. & Wallace, F. ( 2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL : University of South Florida, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). 194

MTSS for Inclusive Schools

Florida’s Multi-Tiered System of Supports (n.d.). MTSS Implementation Components: Ensuring common language and understanding. Retrieved from www.florida-rti.org/educatorResources/MTSS_Book_ ImplComp_012612.pdf Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project ( 2011). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support for behavior: Recommended practices for school and district leaders. University of South Florida : Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project. Fox, L., Carta, J., Strain, P. S., Dunlap, G., & Hemmeter, M. L. ( 2010 ). Response to Intervention and the Pyramid Model. Infants and Young Children, 23 (1), 3 –13. doi: 10.1097IYC.08073e3181c816e2. Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter, M. L., Joseph, G. E., & Strain, P. S. ( 2003 ). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challenging behavior in young children. Young Children, 58 (4 ), 48 –52 . Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. ( 2006 ). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41(1), 93 –99. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. ( 2009 ). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/ practiceguides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Prasse, D., et al. ( 2005). A response to intervention perspective. The School Psychologist, 59, 26 –33. Harn, B. A., Chard, D. J., & Kame’enui, E. J. ( 2011). Meeting societies’ increased expectations through responsive instruction: The power and potential of systemwide approaches. Preventing School Failure, 55, 232 –239. Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. ( 2008 ). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk fi rst graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41 ( 2 ), 115 –125. Haynes, H. A. ( 2013 ). Multi-tiered systems of supports: An investigative study of their impact on third grade reading test scores in an urban district. Dissertation Abstracts International, 73, 8A. Hemmeter, M. L., Ostrosky, M., & Fox, L. ( 2006). Social and emotional foundations for early learning: A conceptual model for intervention. School Psychology Review, 35 (4 ), 583 – 601. Hoover, J. J., Baca, L. M., Wexler-Love, E., & Saenz, L. ( 2008 ). National implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI): Research summary. University of Colorado, Boulder-BUENO Center. Retrieved from National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Website: www.nasdse.org Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. ( 2006 ). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS : National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. ( 2006 ). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior supports to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43 ( 6 ), 701–712 . McCart, A , Wolf, N., Sweeney, H. M., & Choi, J. H. ( 2009 ). The application of a family-based multitiered system of support. NHSA Dialog, 12 ( 2 ), 122 –132 . McIntosh, K., Flannery, K. B., Sugai, G., Braun, D. H., & Cochrane, K. L. ( 2008 ). Relationships between academics and problem behavior in the transition from middle school to high school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10 (4 ), 243 –255. McIntyre, L. L. & Phaneuf, L. K. ( 2007 ). A three-tier model of parent education in early childhood: Applying a problem- solving model. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 27 (4 ), 214 –222 . National Association of State Directors of Special Education. ( 2006 ). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE, Inc. Preciado, J. A., Horner, R. H., & Baker, S. K. ( 2009 ). Using a function-based approach to decrease problem behaviors and decrease academic engagement for Latino English language learners. Journal of Special Education, 42, 227–240. Reynolds, M. C. (1962 ). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367–370. Rollins, K., Mursky, C. V., Shah-Coltrane, S., & Johnson, S.K. ( 2009 ). RtI models for gifted children. Gifted Child Today, 32 ( 3 ), 21–30. 195

G. Batsche

Sandall, S. R. & Schwartz, I. S. ( 2008 ). Building Blocks for Teaching Preschoolers with Special Needs. 2nd ed. Baltimore : Brookes. Sanford, A. ( 2006 ). The effects of function-based literacy instruction on problem behavior and reading growth. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of Oregon. Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996 ). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59 –74. Simmons, D. C., Coyne, M. D., Kwok, O., McDonagh, S., Harn, B. A. & Kame’enui, E. J. ( 2008 ). Indexing response to intervention: A longitudinal study of reading risk from kindergarten through third grade. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 158 –173. SpectrumK12. ( 2011). Response to intervention adoption survey 2011. Retrieved from www.globalscholar. com/2011RTI Stewart, R. M., Benner, G. J., Martella, R. C., & Marchand-Martella, N.E. ( 2007 ). Three-tier models of reading and behavior: A research review. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, (9) 4, 239 –253. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223 –237. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. M. ( 2002 ). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches (pp. 315 –350 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C., & Francis, D. J. ( 2010 ). Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39, 3 –21. Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., & Romain, M. A. ( 2008 ). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338 –345. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996 ). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavior Disorders, 4, 194 –209. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Child, 78 (1), 73 – 87. Wanzek, J. & Vaughn, S. ( 2007 ). Research-based implications from extensive early reading interventions. School Psychology Review, 36, 541–561. Zirkel, P. A. & Krohn, N. ( 2008 ). RtI after IDEA: A survey of state laws. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40, 71–73.

196

15 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Effective Inclusion in Elementary Schools Dale L. Cusumano,1 Kate Algozzine,1 and Bob Algozzine1

Setting the Stage Ongoing legislative and educational reform efforts direct school personnel to use data-based, outcomes- driven models to support instruction that places students on a road to becoming ‘career and college ready’ (e.g., ESEA Blueprint for Reform 2010; IDEIA, 2004; NCLB, 2001). In these approaches, information about student performance drives multi-tiered cycles of continuous monitoring and improvement of instruction. Critical features include reliable and valid information about student learning, a problem- solving framework to guide decision-making, and consensus among educators about the need for such reflective practices (Castillo, Hines, Batsche, & Curtis, 2011; Curtis, Castillo, & Cohen, 2008; Small & Yasin, 2000). Providing general, special, or inclusive education services without these features or systems (and practices related to them) in place often results in less than optimal outcomes for students (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Griffiths, Parson, Burns, VanDerHeyden, & Tilly, 2007). Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) is a framework that aligns with these criteria using a hypothesis- driven orientation (problem solving) focused on delivering services (instruction, intervention) in levels of intensity that match students’ needs and responsiveness. This approach to instructional delivery is a key feature of Response to Intervention (RtI) practices that guide student success by posing ‘Did it work’ questions (Batsche, Curtis, Dorman, Castillo, & Porter, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education [NASDSE], 2006). When data indicate that skill growth was not responsive (or rates of learning were not accelerated or rates of problems not decelerated), the intensity of the instruction (interventions) is increased or layered upon existing instruction, resulting in increasing resources devoted to moving students forward. Systems and practices that address both the academic and behavioral needs of all students are implemented in states, districts, and schools using MTSS (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project, 2011; Gersten et al., 2009).

1 The University of North Carolina at Charlotte 197

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

Efficiency of time, personnel, and resources are critical factors that are moving educators to work within a multi-tiered approach to service delivery. As a framework, MTSS provides states, districts, and schools with an opportunity to organize their instructional methods based on the resources (human and material) needed and characteristics of instructional approaches (time, duration, breadth of skills addressed). This instructional ‘matrix’ is then tapped as problem- solving efforts identify student needs that must be linked to available interventions. A multi-tiered system also streamlines the process of instructional delivery and assists schools as they examine the efficacy of the instruction offered to their students. Of most importance, and vital to any structure that is built, is the foundation upon which it all rests. In elementary years, the core curriculum reflects the initial instructional unit. In many instances, initial instruction or delivery of the core curriculum will align students’ trajectory of growth with expected outcomes; however, for some students, more intensive or additional ‘tiered’ layers of instruction or intervention are required. Across all, data direct the alignment and intensity of tiered instruction (National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities, 2005) with problem solving, continuing until effective methods are documented (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). The layers that span atop the fi rst tier of core instruction serve as secondary (Tier II) and tertiary (Tier III) lines of intervention. In short, the intensity of instruction (duration, frequency, focus of skills addressed) is modified based on data-based problem solving and analysis of the responsiveness of the students’ skills coupled with hypotheses generated as for why a student(s) is not responding to previously implemented instruction. The general concept of multi-tiered instruction rests upon critical features that must be rooted in a shared vision of how students learn and progress toward agreed upon goals. First and foremost, the initial instruction or core curriculum delivered to students must be based on a solid evidence-based foundation of research that forecasts a high probability of student success (Fien, Smith, Baker, Chaparro, Preciado, & Baker, 2011; Hollenbeck, 2007; NASDSE, 2006). Also critical, teachers must be trained to deliver the content as was attested in the research supporting its merits (Abbott, Walton, Tapia, & Greenwood, 1999; Griffiths et al., 2007; Noell et al., 2005). Not to be overlooked, reliable and valid data about students’ responses to instruction and intervention are needed (i.e., universal screening and progress monitoring) as these data drive the alignment of instruction with students’ needs. Districts or schools implementing a multi-tiered model must also identify the layers of research-based intervention or resources needed to address the varying behavioral and academic needs across their population, which may differ based on the needs documented within each academic site (Florida’s MTSS, n.d.). Couched within the selected interventions is the understanding that fidelity of implementation is essential and, as a result, data must be gathered to assess the integrity with which instruction was delivered (Gresham, 1989; Noell et al., 2005). Additionally, implementation of a multi-tiered system of instruction cannot reside solely within a small subset of staff. Instead, the understanding of how instruction is aligned based on students’ responsiveness to those supports and how that drives resource deployment must be embedded in the beliefs, skill sets, and perceptions of practice across the implementing schools and/or district (Castillo, Batsche, Curtis, Stockslager, March, & Minch, 2010; Castillo et al., 2011; Small & Yasin, 2000). Finally, one of the most critical agents of change in moving and implementing an effective and efficient multi-tiered system of instruction (or any educational initiative) is leadership (NASDSE, 2006; Rogers, 2002; Senge, 1990). That is, district and site-based leaders must champion, reinforce, and sometimes deliver critical feedback to staff that move forward this common vision of student learning and resource alignment. Without this unwavering support among leaders of the initiative, old habits or practices will 198

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

return quickly when obstacles are encountered (Bernfeld, 2001; Fixsen & Blase, 1993; Lau et al., 2006; Schofield, 2004; Winter & Szulanski, 2001).

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice Prior to these more current multi-tiered initiatives that drew attention away from the issue of ‘who’ is under schools’ care and directed it instead toward the outcomes associated with educators’ efforts, students who did not present with typical learning or behavior were labeled as students whose needs were out of reach of general education. Problems plagued this philosophical mindset, referred to as the ‘pre-referral’ stage to special education placement. Ideally, the pre-referral stage reflects a time during which students experiencing academic or behavioral challenges are provided with additional instruction or intervention to break down barriers or establish foundational skills. Unfortunately, this goal was not regularly achieved (Griffiths et al., 2007). The overall belief that testing and special education placement resulted in optimized learning was countered by data that instead revealed that interventions implemented during this phase were done under the belief that they would not work (Hunley & McNamara, 2010), with those strategies selected often implemented with less than robust fidelity (Flugum & Reschly, 1994; Peterson, Horner, & Wonderlich, 1982), required skill sets beyond the implementers range of knowledge, and reflected a mindset that inadequate learning was the result of a dysfunction within the student (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Gresham, 1989; McNamara, 1998; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002; Telzrow, McNamara, & Hollinger, 2000). Most importantly, the anticipated ‘prize’ of placement in special education did not result in overall improved student outcomes (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Glass, 1983; Torgesen, Rashotte, & Alexander, 2001). On a positive note, concerns that arose during this earlier era—particularly those focused on the less than favorable outcomes associated with special education placement—prompted research to re- examine predictors of student success (e.g., Aaron, 1997; Division for Learning Disabilities, 2007; NASDSE, 2006; Vaughn, Gersten, & Chard, 2000; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2008). A common factor to emerge highlighted the urgency of aligning students’ needs with immediate and evidence-based instructional strategies. More specifically, educators possess a wide range of skills within their repertoires of instructional content and delivery that can and should be used to impact student learning as soon as the gap in skill acquisition is noted (Gersten et al., 2009; National Reading Panel, 2000; Snow, Burns, & Griffi n, 1998; Vaughn et al., 2000). Notable dissatisfaction with the earlier practices associated with the pre-referral processes that culminated in a ‘discrepancy hunt’ between a students’ intellectual ability and his or her academic achievement was touted as draining time from instruction. Additionally, data used to document an ability/achievement discrepancy failed to identify the factors that educators could control by instead placing academic and behavior challenges as dysfunction within the student (Flugum & Reschly, 1994; Fuchs et al., 2003; McNamara, 1998). Fortunately, the idea of manipulating and/or aligning instructional delivery and content, environmental conditions, and learner characteristics with student needs, all while gathering data to identify effective instruction within a problem- solving orientation, evolved in the framework of data-based problem solving.

Momentum Changing Legislation No Child Left Behind 2001, IDEA 2004, and revisions of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, among other federal mandates, clearly express the urgency that instruction 199

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

delivered to students must be selected from rigorous research that has documented its merits in positive student outcomes (Beghetto, 2003; Eisenhart & Towne, 2003). Most often referred to as research-based instruction, evidence-based practices, or scientifically based research, the critical emphasis was on empirical methods and rigorous data analysis employed to link the use of a particular curriculum or instructional practices to gains in student learning. Evidence of curriculum and instructional intervention approaches that have met this level of scrutiny can be found in electronic databases such as What Works Clearinghouse ( http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/ ) and peer-reviewed educational journals; however, Abbott, Walton, Tapia, and Greenwood (1999) remind us that simply providing evidence-based strategies is not enough to have them infused into practice. Instead, their blueprint for moving research-based practices into classrooms include partnerships that focus on mutually agreed upon problems, collaboration on common causes, and consultation and professional development that is built upon more than workshops, which also includes classroom-based practice with both corrective and supportive feedback.

Problem Solving at the Heart of Multi-Tiered Systems Aligning instruction with students’ needs requires an organized system that defi nes a series of questions to guide decision-makers in a collaborative process as they seek answers to challenges present in the learning setting. This process aligns with practices embodied within a problem- solving model, such as defi ned in the behavior consultation model (Kratochwill & Bergan, 1990) from the 1970s, and then revised and modified across the years (e.g., Barlow, Hayes, & Nelson, 1984; Bransford & Stein, 1984; Deno, 1985, 2002; Hosp & Reschly, 2004; Repp & Horner, 1999; Reschly & Ysseldyke, 1995; Tilly, 2002;). Newton, Todd, Algozzine, Algozzine, Horner, and Cusumano (see Chapter 20) describe an empirically based iteration that has demonstrated success with elementary school decision-making teams. In all of these models, data drive decisions and actions from problem identification and goal- setting to intervention and evaluation.

Decisions Driven by Data In MTSS, data drive decisions of how interventions and instruction are delivered (Bolt, 2005; Griffiths et al., 2007; NASDSE, 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). The problem- solving process typically begins with information about current levels of functioning: 1) students are screened so that those at-risk for not meeting expectations can be provided with appropriate instruction, and 2) rate of learning is assessed so that the outcomes as well as the efficiency of the instruction can be examined. Universal screening and progress monitoring data address these needs ( Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007; NASDSE, 2006). Universal screening measures assess core skills that can be used to predict students’ academic and behavioral outcomes and are typically reviewed for all students three or four times a year ( Jenkins et al., 2007). Progress monitoring data show the extent to which interventions are working for some or all students and are usually collected and reviewed at more frequent intervals, ranging from twice a week to monthly. Universal screening and progress monitoring data provide the basis for engaging MTSS by differentiating (1) students who are at risk of failure (i.e., not responding to instruction) and in need of targeted or intensive intervention, and (2) students who are responding to instruction (i.e., demonstrating adequate progress). 200

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

Before Data—Evidence-Based Core Curriculum and Instruction An evidence-based core curriculum and effective teaching practices are the foundation for positive academic and behavior outcomes (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Engelmann & Carnine, 1991; Flugum & Reschly, 1994; Kemp & Hall, 1992; Marzano & Marzano, 2003; National Reading Panel, 2000; Taylor, Pearson, Clark, & Walpole, 1999; Vaughn et al., 2000; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney, 2007). In MTSS, the core curriculum is delivered to all students in the general education classroom and is referred to as primary or universal instruction (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Vaughn, Wanzek, Woodruff, Linan-Thompson, 2007). Effective teachers use systematic methods and feedback to deliver this content and refi ne students’ understanding and acquisition of it (Baker & Baker, 2008; Kemp & Hall, 1992; Santoro, Jitendra, Starosta, & Sacks, 2006; Vaughn & Fuchs (2003). They also use information that they gather from monitoring student learning to change how they are teaching and to decide if any students need supplemental instruction. The ultimate goal of the instruction provided at this primary or universal tier is to move the majority of students’ skills toward expected levels of performance.

After Data—Strategic or Intensive Instruction A defi ning feature of MTSS is the provision of different levels of instruction based on students’ needs. When screening or progress monitoring data show students with problems (i.e., discrepancies between expected and actual performance), secondary or strategic instruction or intervention is implemented. For academic problems this may mean additional instruction in prerequisite skills or focused work to correct misguided strategy applications. For behavior problems, students may need additional instruction that focuses on specific skill training or practice, or feedback and reinforcement of acceptable behaviors. This supplemental instruction does not replace core curriculum or Tier I content interventions and it is available to all students, but is only provided to those in need of tiered support (Gersten et al., 2009; NASDSE, 2006). Tier II intervention focuses on specific skills for small groups of students (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs (2003). It provides increased opportunities for students to practice, with more frequent direct feedback and error correction from teachers and modified pacing focused on mastery of targeted skills (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Bryant, 2006; Hunley & McNamara, 2010; Gersten et al., 2009; McCook, 2006). Tier II reflects a greater allocation of resources with flexibility to build skills gradually so that they generalize to Tier I expectations (Gunn, Smolkowski, Bigler, & Black, 2002; Vadasy, Sanders, & Peyton, 2005; Vaughn et al., 2006). When primary instruction (Tier I) and secondary (Tier II) levels of intervention do not move student learning forward, tertiary (Tier III) interventions are implemented. In MTSS, this is the most intensive level of instructional change, typically focused on individualized and scaffolded skill instruction paced so that mastery is achieved even if content must be dispersed across multiple learning opportunities (Windram & Gibbons, 2011; Gersten et al., 2009; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). At this intensive tier, modeling and practice feedback remain critical, along with recognition that students’ academic learning time must be increased in deficit areas (Bandura, 1973; Fuchs, Compton, Fuchs, Bryant, & Davis, 2008; Gersten et al., 2009). In light of the fact that the upper echelon of instructional intensity is dispersed to only those students for whom all standard intervention protocol approaches have failed, direct and strategic instruction must include adjustments to task difficulty, direct 201

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

questioning or probing of skill entrenchment, and alternate avenues of content delivery (e.g., technology-based). As this occurs, it becomes necessary to closely monitor the impact (at least one time per week) so that strategies that are not setting a student’s learning on a positive course can be modified immediately. In addition, flexibility which allows students to move in and out of varying levels of support and instructional approaches becomes an underlying necessity (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2008). Motivational strategies, essential elements across all tiers of intervention, are of most importance for these students who have encountered repeated resistance to intervention and, as a result, have frequently settled into attributing their insufficient performance to characteristics within themselves, rather than being related to curriculum that has been mismatched with their learning needs (Ikeda, Rahn-Blakeslee Niebling, Allison, & Stumme, 2006). Overall, the goals for instruction at any level of MTSS must be regularly monitored. Teachers and other professionals have an urgent mission, particularly during this critical window of time for skill sets to become established—to document the fidelity with which interventions are delivered and the effects they are having on critical academic and social skills needing change.

Setting a Course for Effective Multi-Tiered Instruction in Elementary Schools When we talk about innovative practices transitioning current practices toward more effective and efficient ones, we must also address factors within this redesign process. First, we will provide a brief overview of systems change, with discussion of its components of consensus, implementation, and infrastructure. Next, we will describe the roadway to systems change or implementation science and its central drivers that infuse initiatives into existing environments. Our discussion will attend to the surface details that are needed for any discussion about moving schools (systems) in new directions. Readers who are interested in more detailed and in- depth discussions can consult writings in these areas. For example, Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005) provide a synthesis on work regarding implementation science. In addition, Curtis et al.,(2008), Fullan (2010), and Hall and Hord (2006) discuss different aspects of the many layers of systems change. The focus of change in MTSS is on the instructional system in which the individual is learning, rather than on the individual learner. This perspective requires attention not only to the procedures that schools must follow, but also to the perspectives, beliefs, and skill sets within the educators and instructional settings (Batsche et al., 2007; Curtis et al., 2008). From a systems perspective, change must occur across three stages that impact the social dynamics within the contextual fabric of an inclusive environment. First, consensus or the understanding shared by the majority of stakeholders and educators about the need and vision for change is essential. In general, consensus or ‘buy-in’ must be gained for change to withstand the many barriers and inertia that will draw it from use as challenges present themselves (Bierman et al., 2002; Felner et al., 2001; Fixsen & Blase, 1993; Schofield, 2004; Winter & Szulanski, 2001). Clearly, including students with disabilities in the same classrooms as their neighbors and peers works better when the administrators, teachers, staff, and families at the school support it. The second area of attention in systems change is implementation, which focuses on the extent to which critical factors of the initiative are adopted. In inclusive schools, the goal of problem solving, data-based decision-making, and multi-tiered systems of support is success for all students. When teachers are asked about barriers to including students with disabilities 202

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

in their classrooms, they typically report that while they believe it is important, they do not have sufficient time, skills, training, or resources to make it happen (cf. Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). MTSS helps teachers use the time, skills, training, and resources that they have to teach all students more effectively. Implementation works within and is supported by both consensus and the third element of systems change—infrastructure or the extent to which practices function within environments conducive to change. Being able to sustain and maintain an initiative requires that it becomes part of standard operating procedures for all, rather than just the passion and work of a few (Curtis et al., 2008). Avoiding the ‘pendulum swinging’ mindset can be overcome by ensuring that teams have tools that make effective problem solving possible (data collection systems, skill sets to move through problem solving and data analysis). Not surprisingly, a critical piece of infrastructure development is professional development and the advantage of looking onward so that a framework for sustaining the movement is developed. Identification of these critical aspects of systems change is important as these factors are indicators of the health and wellbeing of the infusion of the new initiative. As such, they must be monitored on a regular basis so that deficits or gaps are noted and addressed immediately before the course set by the initial efforts drifts. Research teams such as the Problem Solving and Response to Intervention Project have evaluated these factors and offer a review of the development and evaluation of indices used during the fi rst three years of their project implementation and evaluation at the state level ( http://floridarti.usf.edu/ ). Change occurs only when respect is directed toward the planning and systematic infusion of new thinking. As has been shared by Williams (1975), the process from old thinking to new mindsets and practices is neither brief nor lacking in battles countering regression to prior modes of operation. Instead, systems must move from stages of fi rst accepting that the status quo must change (No Awareness to Denial to Vague Awareness) to acceptance and implementation (Fixsen et al., 2005). During this time, leaders must step forward to prepare the setting for change and align the resources needed: monetary, material, and human skill sets. In short, overall change must take place that, although not even across all layers of an organization, shifts practices and ways of work to new frontiers (Crawford & Torgesen, 2007; Leithwood & Beatty, 2008; Rogers, 2002). Cultures change within the setting, and excitement grows as implementers enter the “initial awkward stage” ( Joyce & Showers, 2002). This is a critical time for implementation. If consensus, infrastructure, and implementation are not becoming embodied in the systemic culture, proximal and distal factors may push the initiative aside (Macallair & Males, 2004). Finally, sustainability or the establishment of the initiative as the mindset of practice (usually after 2–4 years) signals a time when data from outcome evaluations can provide meaningful and valid indicators related to the success of an initiative (e.g., student outcomes are documented) (Faggin, 1985; Fixsen et al., 2005; Gilliam, Ripple, Zigler, & Leiter, 2000). Of most importance, simply putting something new into a currently existing structure will result in less than optimal results. This outcome is often not tied to the innovation, but to how the system was prepared for the transition and the manner in which it was introduced. As stated by Felner and colleagues, “To be effective, any design process must intentionally be, from the beginning, a redesign process” (Felner et al., 2001, p. 189). Building infrastructure by ensuring that educators and stakeholders present with the skills needed to function as effective and efficient collaborators in students’ education is also a vital step. Importantly, the depth of skills needed is not the same for all within the educational setting. For example, leaders need a full understanding of a multi-tiered system of supports that is based within a problem- solving system, skills at providing feedback to educators regarding their delivery of instruction, and data analysis expertise so that they can make key 203

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

decisions at the whole school, grade, and student levels. In contrast, educators who work with students need the highest level of instructional, problem solving, and data analysis knowledge. Educators need to understand the process of identifying accurate data sources to assess their efficacy, be able to infer outcomes from data gathered at the student, class, and grade levels, and also know how to modify their instruction within the paradigm of evidence-based practices. Oftentimes, these skills are not a part of their current repertoire, and, consequently, require professional development paired with coaching and feedback to establish or hone them to effective levels. A critical issue is the awareness that even the most extensive training cannot seamlessly transfer newly acquired skills into the targeted environment (Blase, Fixsen, & Phillips, 1984; Joyce & Showers, 1995; Kealey, Peterson, Gaul, & Dinh, 2000). With as little as 10% of workshop content typically transferred to the setting ( Joyce & Showers, 2002), training alone cannot move educators’ skills to the level of fidelity that is needed to have a positive impact upon student outcomes without assistance outside the training environment. This external line of feedback and accountability amidst a sea of change can be provided through skill-focused coaching or consultation (Bernfeld, 2001; Klinger, Ahwee, Pilonieta, & Menendez, 2003). In effect, coaching is not defi ned by a person, but by a set of problem- solving activities whose goals are to shape and support newly learned and fragile skills so that their use leads to positive outcomes in student learning (Gutkin & Curtis, 2008; Joyce & Showers, 2002). Ensuring that educators have critical skills to engage in effective problem solving, data analysis, and multi-faceted instructional delivery is critical in the quest for positive outcomes for all students (Bernfeld, 2001; Fixsen & Blase, 1993; Institute of Medicine, 2001; Washington State Institute of Public Policy, 2002).

Conclusion Attention to systems change, implementation science, and skills needed to infuse instruction with necessary elements that brings about success for all students is essential to make a good idea (MTSS) an effective and efficient approach for school improvement. The elementary years are pivotal in moving learning forward or closing the gap (if present) while the margin remains narrow. To accomplish this goal, our efforts need to be based on what data tells us works, streamlined in time and resources so that our schools do not become buried deeper in process and procedures, and powerful enough to see change as soon as possible. At present, a multi-tiered, data-based, problem- solving model holds that promise. Regardless of potential merits, however, there is much baggage that must be overcome, and implementation must follow a careful and systematically planned approach so that it does not become ‘one more thing’ that will be cast aside in years to come. Careful, systematic, and explicit planning merged with multi-tiered alignment of training, consultation, and coaching to press skill development onward are not only needed at the student level, but also in the adoption of educational reform. In this chapter we have argued that MTSS is a framework for effective inclusive education practices in elementary schools. Key features for this mission include attention to the understanding that something new (working within a MTSS structure that uses data to problem solve how instruction, content, and educator practices can move students on a continually increasing trajectory of learning) cannot be infused into something old (dysfunction lies within the child) without attention to the systemic elements that supports its redesign efforts. Coupled with this understanding is the idea that inclusive educational practices applies to ALL students and ALL educators/staff/administrators. In essence, MTSS is a way to align and defi ne effective instructional approaches for all students that becomes the mindset of not only 204

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

a small group of educators or staff at a school, but the endorsed approach to education. Finally, MTSS is an effective and efficient process only if driven by a problem- solving process that identifies barriers, aligns them with effective and contextually relevant practices that are implemented with fidelity, and then monitors their impact with valid and reliable data sources. The future and promise of inclusive practices within an MTSS approach rides on these critical factors.

References Aaron, P. G. (1997 ). The impending demise of the discrepancy formula. Review of Educational Research, 67, 461–502 . Abbott, M., Walton, C., Tapia, Y., & Greenwood, C. R. (1999 ). Research to practice: A “blueprint” for closing the gap in local schools. Exceptional Children, 65, 339 –352 . Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. ( 2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 3 –16. Baker, S. K., & Baker, D. L. ( 2008 ). English learners and response to intervention: Improving quality of instruction in general and special education. In E. L. Grigorenko (Ed.), Educating individuals with disabilities: IDEA 2004 and beyond. New York: Springer. Bandura, A. (1973 ). Aggression: A social learning analysis. Englewood Cliffs, NJ : Prentice-Hall. Barlow, D. H., Hayes, S. C., & Nelson, R. O. (1984 ). The scientist practitioner: Research and accountability in clinical and educational settings. New York: Pergamon. Batsche, G. M., Curtis, M. J., Dorman, C., Castillo, J. M., & Porter, L. J. ( 2007 ). The Florida problem solving/response to intervention model: Implementing a statewide initiative. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden, (Eds.). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 378 –395). New York, NY: Springer Science. Beghetto, R. ( 2003, April). Scientifically-based research. ERIC Digest, 167. Retrieved from http:// www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/contentdelivery/servlet/ERICServlet?accno=ED475107 Bernfeld, G. A. ( 2001). The struggle for treatment integrity in a “dis-integrated” service delivery system. In G. A Bernfeld, D. P. Farrington & A. W. Leschied (Eds.), Offender rehabilitation in practice: Implementing and evaluating effective programs (pp. 167–188 ). London : Wiley. Bierman, K. L., Coie, J. D., Dodge, K. A., Greenberg, M. T., Lochman, J. E., McMahon, R., J., et al. ( 2002 ). The implementation of the Fast Track Program: An example of a large- scale prevention science efficacy trial. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 30, 1–17. Blase, K. A., Fixsen, D. L., & Phillips, E. L. (1984 ). Residential treatment for troubled children: Developing service delivery systems. In S. C. Paine, G. T. Bellamy, & B. Wilcox (Eds.), Human services that work: From innovation to standard practice (pp. 149 –165). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing. Bolt, S. E. ( 2005). Reflections on practice within the Heartland problem- solving model: The perceived value of direct assessment of students. The California School Psychologist, 10, 65 –79. Bransford, J. D., & Stein, B. S. (1984 ). The IDEAL problem solver. New York: W. H. Freeman. Castillo, J. M., Batsche G. M., Curtis, M. J., Stockslager, K., March, A., & Minch, D. ( 2010 ). ProblemSolving/Response to Intervention: Evaluation tool technical assistance manual. Retrieved from http://floridarti.usf.edu/resources/program_evaluation/ta_manual/index.html Castillo, J. M., Hines, C. M., Batsche, G. M., & Curtis, M. J. ( 2011). The Florida Problem Solving/ Response to Intervention Project: Year 3 evaluation report. Tampa, FL : University of South Florida, Florida Problem Solving/Response to Intervention Project. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bryant, J. D. ( 2006 ). Selecting at-risk readers in fi rst grade for early intervention: A two-year longitudinal study of decision rules and procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 394 – 409. Crawford, E., & Torgesen, J. ( 2007, November). Teaching all students to read: practices from schools with strong reading intervention outcomes, Summary Document. Tallahassee, FL : Florida Center for Reading Research. Curtis, M. J., Castillo, J. M., & Cohen, R. M. ( 2008 ). Best practices in system-level change. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 887–901). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists.

205

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

Deno, S. L. (1985). School psychologist as problem solver. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 471– 484 ). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists. Deno, S. L. ( 2002 ). Problem solving as “best practice.” In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 37–55). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Division for Learning Disabilities. ( 2007 ). Thinking about response to intervention and learning disabilities: A teacher’s guide. Arlington, VA: Author. Donovan, S., & Cross, C. ( 2002 ). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC : National Academies Press. Eisenhart, M. & Towne, L. ( 2003 ). Contestation and change in national policy on “scientifically based” educational research. Educational Researcher, 32, 31–38. Engelmann, S. & Carnine, D. (1991). Theory of instruction: Principles and applications. Eugene, OR: ADI Press. Faggin, F. (1985). The challenge of bringing new ideas to market. High Technology, 14 –16. Felner, R. D., Favazza, A., Shim, M., Brand, S., Gu, K., & Noonan, N. ( 2001). Whole school improvement and restructuring as prevention and promotion: Lessons from STEP and the Project on High Performance Learning Communities. Journal of School Psychology, 39, 177–202 . Fien, H., Smith, J., Baker, S. K., Chaparro, E., Preciado, J. & Baker, D. L. ( 2011). Including English Learners in a multi-tiered approach of early reading instruction and intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention. 36, 143 –157. Fixsen, D., & Blase, K. A. (1993 ). Creating new realities: Program development and dissemination. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 597– 615. Fixsen, D., Naoom, S. F., Blase, D. A., Friedman, R. M., Wallace, F. ( 2005). Implementation Research: A Synthesis of the Literature. University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Florida’s MTSS (n.d.). MTSS implementation components: Ensuring common language and understanding. Retrieved from http://www.florida-rti.org/educatorResources/documents.htm Florida’ Positive Behavior Support Project ( 2011). Implementing a multi-tiered system of support for behavior: Recommended practices for school and district leaders. University of South Florida : Florida’s Positive Behavior Support Project. Flugum, K. R., & Reschly, D. J. (1994 ). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14. Fuchs, L. S., Compton D. L , Fuchs L. S., Bryant, J., Davis, N. ( 2008 ). Making “secondary intervention” work in a three-tier responsiveness-to-intervention model: Finding from the fi rst-grade longitudinal reading study of the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21, 413 – 436. Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. ( 2007 ). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129 –136. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986 ). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta- analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199 –208. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2008 ). Progress monitoring in a multi-tiered prevention system: Best practices. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2147–2164 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychology. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. ( 2003 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171. Fullan, M. ( 2010 ). All systems go: The change imperative for whole system reform. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. ( 2009 ). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to Intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009–4045). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practiceguides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf Gilliam, W. S., Ripple, C. H., Zigler, E. F., & Leiter, V. ( 2000 ). Evaluating child and family demonstration initiatives: Lessons from the comprehensive Child Development Program. Early Childhood Research Quarterly, 15, 41–59. Glass, G. (1983 ). Effectiveness of special education. Policy Studies Review, 2, 65 –78. Gresham, F. M. (1989 ). Assessment of treatment integrity in school consultation and prereferral intervention. School Psychology Review, 17, 211–226. 206

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

Griffiths, A. J., Parson, L. B., Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A., & Tilly, W. D. ( 2007 ). Response to intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Gunn, B., Smolkowski, K., Biglan, A., & Black, C. ( 2002 ). Supplemental instruction in decoding skills for Hispanic and non-Hispanic students in early elementary school: A follow-up. The Journal of Special Education, 36, 69 –79. Gutkin, T. B., & Curtis, M. J. ( 2008 ). School-based consultation: The science and practice of indirect service delivery. In T. B. Gutkin & C. R. Reynolds (Eds.), The handbook of school psychology (4th ed., pp. 591– 635). New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. Hall, G. E., & Hord, S. M. ( 2006 ). Implementing change: Patterns, principles, and potholes ( 2nd ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Hollenbeck, A. F. ( 2007 ). From IDEA to implementation: A discussion of foundational and future responsiveness-to-intervention. Research Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 137–146. Hosp, J. L., & Reschly, D. J. ( 2004 ). Disproportionate representation of minority students in special education. Exceptional Children, 70, 185 –199. Hunley, S. & McNamara, K. M. ( 2010 ). Tier Three of the Response to Intervention Model: Problem Solving Through a Case Study Approach. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Allison, R., & Stumme, A. ( 2006 ). Evaluating evidence-based practice in response-to-intervention systems, Retrieved October 2007, from http://www. nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq348evaloutcomes.aspx. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act ( 2004 ). H.R. 1350, 108th Congress. Institute of Medicine – Committee on Quality of Health Care in America. ( 2001). Crossing the quality chasm: A new health system for the 21st century. Washington, DC : National Academy Press. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. ( 2007 ). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582 – 600. Joyce B., & Showers, B. (1995). Student achievement through staff dvelopment: fundamentals of school renewal (2nd ed.). White Plains, NY: Longman. Joyce, B., & Showers, B. ( 2002 ). Student achievement through staff development (3rd Ed). Association for Staff and Curriculum Development. Kealey, K. A., Peterson, A. V., Jr., Gaul, M. A., & Dinh, K. T. ( 2000 ). Teacher training as a behavior change process: Principles and results from a longitudinal study. Health Education & Behavior, 27 (1), 64 – 81. Kemp, L., & Hall, A. H. (1992 ). Impact of effective teaching research on student achievement and teacher performance: Equity and access implications for quality education. Jackson, MS : Jackson State University. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED 348 360) Klingner, J. K., Ahwee, S., Pilonieta, P., & Menendez, R. ( 2003 ). Barriers and facilitators in scaling up research-based practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 411– 429. Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990 ). Behavioral consultation: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press. Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., Vankeuren, B., & Marston, D. ( 2006). Perspectives on the use of the Problem-Solving Model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher from a large Midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117–127. Leithwood , K., & Beatty, B. ( 2008 ). Leading with teacher emotions in mind. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Macallair, D., & Males, M. ( 2004 ). A Failure of good intentions: An analysis of juvenile justice reform in San Francisco during the 1990s. Review of Policy Research, 21, 63 –78. Marzano, R., & Marzano, J. ( 2003 ). The key to classroom management. Educational Leadership, 61, 6 –13. McCook, J. E. ( 2006 ). The RTI guide: Developing and implementing a model in your schools. Palm Beach Gardens, FL : LRP. McNamara, K. (1998, April). Ohio’s implementation of intervention-based assessment: Reactions of key stakeholders. In C. Telzrow (Chair), Ohio’s implementation of intervention-based assessment. Symposium conducted at the meeting of the National Association of School Psychologists, Orlando, FL . National Association of State Directors of Special Education. ( 2006 ). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: NASDSE, Inc. National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. ( 2005). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Available from www.ldonline.org/njcld. 207

D.L. Cusumano, K. Algozzine, and B. Algozzine

National Reading Panel ( 2000 ). Report to the national reading panel: Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication No 00-4769). Washington, DC : US Government Printing Office. No Child Left Behind Act ( 2001). Public Law No. 107–110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002 U.S.C. Noell, G. H., Witt, J. C., Slider, N. J., Connell, J. E., Gatti, S. L., Williams, K. L., Koenig, J. L., & Resetar, J. L. ( 2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34, 87–106. Peterson, L., Horner, A., & Wonderlich, S. (1982 ). The integrity of independent variables in behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 15, 477– 492 . Repp, A. C., & Horner, R. H. (Eds.). (1999 ). Functional analysis of problem behavior. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth. Reschly, D. J. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (1995). School psychology paradigm shift. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (pp. 17–31). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists. Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. ( 2002 ). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 3 –20 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Rogers, C. G. ( 2002 ). Teacher expectations: Implications for school improvement. In C. Desforges & R. Fox (Eds.), Teaching and Learning: The essential readings (pp. 152 –170 ). Oxford : Blackwell. Santoro, L. E., Jitendra, A. K., Starosta, K., & Sacks, S. ( 2006 ). Reading well with “Read Well:” Enhancing the reading performance of English language learners. Remedial and Special Education, 27 ( 2 ), 105 –115. Schofeld, J. ( 2004 ). A model of learned implementation. Public Administration, 82, 283 –308. Scruggs, T., & Mastropieri, M. (1996 ). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion. Exceptional Children, 63 (1), 59 –72 . Senge, P. M. (1990 ). The Fifth Discipline. New York, NY: Doubleday/Currency. Small, M., & Yasin, M. ( 2000 ). Human factors in the adoption and performance of advanced manufacturing technology in unionized fi rms. Industrial Management & Data Systems, 100, 389 – 401. Snow, C. S., Burns, S. M., & Griffi n, P. (1998 ). Preventing reading diffi culties in young children. Washington, DC : National Academy Press. Taylor, B. M., Pearson, P. D., Clark, K. E., & Walpole, S. (1999 ). Beating the odds in teaching all children to read. (CIERA Rep. No. 2-006). Ann Arbor, MI : Center for Improvement of Early Reading Achievement. Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. ( 2000 ). Fidelity of problem solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443 – 461. Tilly, W. D. ( 2002 ). Best practices in school psychology as a problem solving enterprise. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology (pp. 21–36 ). Washington, DC : National Association of School Psychologists. Torgesen, J. K., Rashotte, C. A., & Alexander, A. ( 2001). Principles of fluency instruction in reading: Relationships with established empirical outcomes. In M. Wolf (Ed.), Dyslexia, Fluency, and the Brain. (pp. 333 –355). Parkton, MD : York Press. United States Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development. ( 2010 ). A blueprint for reform: The reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Washington, DC : Author. Vadasy, P. F., Sanders, E. A., & Peyton, J. A. (2005). Relative effectiveness of reading practice or wordlevel instruction in supplemental tutoring: How text matters. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 364 –380. Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L. S. ( 2003 ). Redefi ning learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. Vaughn, S., Gersten, R., & Chard, D. J. ( 2000 ). The underlying message in LD intervention research: Findings from research syntheses. Exceptional Children, 67, 99 –114. Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., Cirino, P., Carlson, C., Pollard-Durodola, S., and Francis, D. ( 2006 ). Effectiveness of an English intervention for fi rst-grade English language learners at risk for reading problems. Elementary School Journal, 107, 153 –180. Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. ( 2003 ). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? The Journal of Special Education, 37, 140 –205. 208

MTSS for Inclusion in Elementary Schools

Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. ( 2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klinger, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore: Brookes. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S. G., Fanuele, D. P., & Sweeney, J. ( 2007 ). Preventing early reading difficulties through kindergarten and fi rst grade intervention: A variant of the three-tier model. In D. Haager, S. Vaughn, & J. K. Klinger (Eds.), Validated practices for three tiers of reading intervention (pp. 186 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Wanzek, J., & Vaughn, S. ( 2008 ). Response to varying amounts of time in reading intervention for students demonstrating insufficient response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 126 –142 . Washington State Institute for Public Policy ( 2002 ). Washington State’s Implementation of Functional Family Therapy for Juvenile Offenders. Preliminary Findings (No. 02-08-1201). Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for Public Policy. Williams, C. A. (1975). A study of cognitive preferences. The Journal of Experimental Education, 43, 61–77. Windram, H., & Gibbons, K. ( 2011, February). Implementation integrity within an RtI framework: Critical roles and tools for school psychologists. National Associate of School Psychologists workshop, San Francisco, CA. Winter, S. G., & Szulanski, G. ( 2001). Replication as strategy. Organization Science, 12, 730 –743.

209

16 Multi-Tiered System of Supports for Effective Inclusion in Secondary Schools Evelyn S. Johnson1 and Daryl F. Mellard 2

Setting the Stage Multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) have the ability to ensure that the academic and behavioral needs of students are met effectively and efficiently. Response to intervention (RtI) represents the promise of MTSS and inclusive education at its best. Patterned on a public health model of prevention, the focus of RtI is on preventing and intervening for academic and behavioral challenges through a system of increasingly intensive supports, where the least intensive but most effective option is the most desirable (Baker, Fien, & Baker, 2010; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs & McKnight, 2006; Torgesen et al., 2007). When the RtI framework is well-implemented, most students are successful in the general education environment, or the primary prevention level. In the general education classroom, teachers provide quality core instruction for all students. However, even with high- quality instruction, not all students will be successful. Between 10–15% of the student population will likely need more intensive academic or behavioral support at some point during their schooling. In the RtI framework, this is typically referred to as ‘secondary prevention.’ The secondary prevention level provides a system of evidence-based intervention, designed to meet the needs of most students at-risk for poor outcomes. Secondary prevention is meant to be short in duration, focused on improving skill deficits that interfere with students’ success, and comprised of systematic rather than idiosyncratic approaches to providing student support. The goal of RtI is to address the needs of nearly all students through the primary and secondary levels of prevention in an effort to maximize student outcomes and the efficient use of resources. For some students whose needs cannot be effectively met through primary or secondary prevention, an even more intensive level of intervention will be required. Tertiary prevention consists of highly specialized interventions to support the needs of students who will require a more individualized, intensive instructional program. Through this multi-

1 Boise State University 2 University of Kansas 210

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

leveled prevention system, the RtI framework provides supports to students that are appropriate to their needs within an environment of equity, efficiency, and accountability. With a well- structured, rigorous implementation of RtI, schooling becomes much more fluid and responsive in order to meet student needs. This is achieved through the integration of assessment and instruction at all levels of prevention. Although multiple RtI models have been presented in the literature, they all share the key essential components of effective general education instruction, universal screening, progress monitoring, data-based instructional decision making, tiered levels of interventions, and fidelity of implementation (Burns, Appleton, & Stehouwer, 2005; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Johnson et al., 2006; Johnson, Smith, & Harris, 2009; Mellard & Johnson, 2008; Mellard, McKnight, & Woods, 2009; Mellard, Stern, & Woods, 2011; Shinn, 2008). Whereas each of these key components is clearly defi ned and easily understood in isolation, successful RtI models rely on the integration of these components into a cohesive system. In this chapter, we describe how the RtI framework is applied at the secondary level (Grades 6–12), review the research and practice literature that informs this application, and present an agenda to guide future RtI research and implementation to meet the unique challenges of secondary settings.

RtI at the Secondary Level There have been questions about the purpose of RtI models at the secondary levels (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2010). Some researchers argue that a preventive framework with the purpose of identifying students at-risk for learning disabilities is the purview of the elementary setting, and that by the secondary grades, schools will know which students are in need of support. However, several factors counter this thinking. First, the transitions from elementary to middle school and from middle to high school present some of the most challenging times for many students. With each transition, the demands of the curriculum and the classroom change, and for many students, these changes are extremely difficult to navigate. In addition to transition year challenges, the range of performance levels across the student body tends to increase as grade levels increase. Some students may have received more intensive support in elementary school to address skill deficiencies and may continue to require those supports as they transition to middle or high school. Other students who were just meeting performance standards in elementary school may fi nd the change in instructional paradigm overwhelming as they are expected to apply their skills to learn content. Finally, not only are the curricular and classroom demands increasing at secondary levels, but the student population is also increasingly diverse. As an example, a recent review by the National Center on Learning Disabilities indicated that while more than 80% of students with high-incidence disabilities receive instruction in the general classroom at secondary levels, fewer than 30% of these students are able to meet academic performance standards (Cortiella, 2011). Additionally, the number of students who are English language learners (ELL) has increased to a national average of 10% in recent years (Aud et al., 2012), and in certain areas serving ELL populations as high as 60–70%. There is a significant performance gap for students with high-incidence disabilities and students who are ELL (Aud et al., 2012). These students require an instructional system that is responsive to their learning needs, otherwise they are at an increased risk for dropping out of school (Cortiella, 2011). The complexities of the secondary setting call for a framework that aligns instructional decisions with the diverse needs of the student population. No single intervention can close the achievement gap, but the RtI framework allows for the identification of student needs, the alignment of intervention to address these needs, the monitoring of student 211

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

progress, and the evaluation of student outcomes to determine next steps. To ensure the RtI framework is effective in meeting these goals, practitioners need to agree upon the purpose of RtI for secondary settings (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). As mentioned above, there is considerable debate in the literature on the purpose of multi-tiered systems of instruction at the secondary level, but the two primary purposes discussed in the research include prevention and intervention. In elementary schools, the RtI framework is designed to help prevent learning difficulties from becoming intractable. Through the process of screening, data are used to predict who is at-risk for experiencing learning challenges, and then appropriate interventions are provided to reduce risk status (Scruggs & Mastropieri, 2006). Although many students with learning challenges will have been previously identified by the time they enter middle or high school, a substantial evidence base supports the notion of late emergent disabilities (Compton, Fuchs, Fuchs, Elleman, & Gilbert, 2008), which would require a similar preventive focus. At the secondary level, prevention might also focus on identifying which students are at-risk for dropping out or at-risk for failing to meet graduation requirements ( Johnson et al., 2009). Once the focus of prevention is articulated, interventions are aligned to address the identified needs. The RtI framework has the potential to offer a continuum of instructional options to remediate academic skill deficits and support student progress in the general curriculum (National High School Center, National Center on Response to Intervention, Center on Instruction, 2010). RtI holds much promise as a model of inclusive education in Grades 6–12. Due to the increased focus on RtI nationally, the support for RtI in current legislation, and the continually growing presence of RtI in elementary schools, secondary schools across the nation have begun to implement RtI in the hope of closing achievement gaps and preventing academic failure (Prewett et al., 2012; Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). This movement towards implementation at the secondary levels has left practitioners in a quandary—while there is emerging evidence and general consensus that the RtI framework presents a viable option for delivering an effective, inclusive education program, few studies of RtI have been conducted in secondary settings, and some studies report very limited student outcomes (Vaughn et al., 2008). In the next section we review what is currently known about the implementation of RtI models in secondary schools.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice At the time of this writing, the published research base on RtI models at secondary schools is limited. Two reviews of RtI practices in middle and high schools provide the most comprehensive information to date. The fi rst, conducted by the National Center on Response to Intervention, synthesized the RtI practices of 40 middle schools at various stages of RtI implementation (Prewett et al., 2012). The second review, a joint collaboration of the National High School Center (NHSC) and the National Center on Response to Intervention (NCRTI, 2010), reviews RtI practices in place at eight high schools and draws lessons learned for implementation. In addition to these reviews, an emerging research base on screening and progress monitoring in secondary schools informs some of the considerations unique to secondary schools, and is briefly synthesized in this section. Finally, while it is well beyond the scope of this chapter to provide an in-depth review of intervention practices at the secondary level, three meta-analyses on successful secondary interventions provide some context for the appropriate design of a tiered intervention system. 212

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

Middle School Evaluation Study Forty middle schools from across the nation participated in the NCRTI’s middle school evaluation study (Prewett et al., 2012). These schools were implementing a full model of RtI, to include the use of universal screening, progress monitoring, tiered levels of interventions, and systems to ensure fidelity of implementation. All schools stated that the purpose of the RtI model was to close achievement gaps in the basic skills areas, whereas no school reported using the model as a preventive framework for students at-risk for learning content. All schools also reported having universal screening procedures for reading in place, and 90% reported having procedures for math in place (Prewett et al., 2012). A variety of screening tools were used, with some schools reporting the use of state assessment data, and others reporting using standardized benchmark assessments such as AIMSweb or other districtdeveloped curriculum-based measures. Middle schools were less consistent in the design and implementation of progress monitoring (PM) systems. Sixty-three percent of schools reported using PM tools in secondary or tertiary prevention (Prewett et al., 2012). Barriers to implementing progress monitoring included the logistical challenges of fi nding time, adequate tools, and resources. Many schools reported that they collected PM data only once per month, a frequency consistent with Shinn’s (2008) recommendations. However, practitioners commented that collecting data on such an infrequent basis limited the measures’ utility to inform instruction. Most schools relied on published curriculum-based measures (CBM) such as AIMSweb or DIBELS reading measures, with some schools indicating the use of math measures that were more directly related to their specific curriculum (Prewett et al., 2012). As mentioned earlier in this chapter, some researchers have theorized that RtI models in the secondary grades will differ from elementary conceptualizations because students will come to the middle and high school with historical data about their learning abilities and needs, allowing school staff to immediately place them in appropriate levels of intervention (Fuchs et al., 2010). All schools reported using RtI frameworks that were entirely consistent with elementary models—middle schools used screening data to fi rst identify students in need of supplemental instruction, and then provided them with secondary level intervention. All schools reported that the practice of RtI helped them focus as a school in strengthening their core instructional program. Secondary prevention consisted primarily of the use of standardized, scripted programs to support literacy and numeracy skills. Most schools indicated offering these intervention classes as electives for students who required the additional support. Tertiary prevention practices varied dramatically (Prewett et al., 2012), with several schools indicating that they offered a range of services across the prevention levels— some students with disabilities received accommodations in primary prevention, whereas students with more intensive needs received instruction from a special education teacher in a pull- out model. The practice of data-based decision making also varied across schools. Most reported the use of pre- determined cut scores for decision making about benchmark and screening instruments. Cut points were largely derived from published grade-level performance standards. Seventy percent of participating middle schools reported that they gauged students’ responsiveness and based instructional and placement decisions on individual student rates of progress. The remaining 30% reported using pre- determined scores published by the developers of the PM measures in use. Instructional intervention decisions were typically made in a team setting using multiple data sources, and schools reported that staff often had to learn new techniques for using the data to make instructional decisions, such as analyzing student 213

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

progress monitoring data, identifying processes to effectively communicate students’ data, and using a decision tree to make data-based instructional decisions as a team. In summary, the middle school evaluation study supported the use of RtI as a practical and effective school-wide framework for ensuring academic and behavioral success for middle school students. Of particular interest was the level of similarity of the middle school application with those described at elementary levels. Prewett et al. (2012) did not include a review of the impact of RtI implementation on student outcomes. At the time of data collection, the participating schools may have been too new to the process to be able to report on outcomes. Future reviews that report on differences in student outcomes pre- and post-implementation would provide helpful information as to the long-term impact of the RtI process at the middle school level.

High School Tiered Interventions Initiative (HSTII) In a very similar approach to informing the field regarding secondary RtI implementation, the NHSC, the NCRTI, and the Center on Instruction collaborated to report on the RtI implementation process experienced by eight high schools across the nation. Like the middle school study, the high school review started with a defi nition of RtI that included the essential components of universal screening, progress monitoring, data-based decision making, and multi-tiered systems of support. Because RtI implementation at high school is in its preliminary stages, the fi ndings reflect a nascent implementation and research literature and are more descriptive than defi nitive in nature. Participating high schools reported using a variety of screening procedures. Some used incoming data from middle schools, whereas others used both incoming data along with confi rmation of results through Fall screening in ninth grade. High schools also tended to rely on existing data for screening decisions: for example, looking at student records to identify students with multiple failures in core courses, since failing English or algebra is highly predictive of dropping out (Christenson et al., 2008; Jimerson, Reschly & Hess, 2008). The high schools in this review also reported a wide range of measures for progress monitoring, including standardized progress monitoring tools, diagnostic measures, curriculumbased measurements, class grades, class quizzes and tests, and high school graduation tests. Selection of the most appropriate measure for each school was largely dependent upon the school’s identified needs and available resources. The frequency of progress monitoring varied, but occurred once per week for schools using CBMs and standardized PM measures. Other tools were administered less frequently, such as once per month or once per semester. Some schools reported involving students in the PM and subsequent problem- solving processes, because direct participation by students in this process can increase motivation, leading to better intervention design and greater commitment to intervention implementation (Reschly & Wood-Garnett, 2009). Some schools also reported using PM to provide differentiated instruction within the core class—performance on measures was used to group students so as to provide more targeted instruction to smaller, more homogenous groups of students. Many high schools reported focusing their instructional improvements on systems to align instruction better with standards to promote higher achievement (Kurz, Elliot, Wehby & Smithson, 2009). In other schools, content area teachers were taught how to weave researchbased instructional strategies, such as scaffolding, differentiated instruction, and ongoing formative assessment, into their instruction. Finally, several schools reported embedding literacy strategies across all content classrooms for the purpose of providing students with 214

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

better access to text, especially those students not reading at grade level. Like the middle school study, all high schools focused on developing interventions to support students with skill deficits in basic areas of reading and mathematics. Most of the interventions were offered as elective courses for which students received credit in the corresponding academic area. Participating high schools reported providing secondary prevention through large-group instruction or through smaller groups within a larger intervention classroom. Most secondary prevention efforts focused on specific academic skills, such as vocabulary development, comprehension, and study skills. Tertiary prevention (or special education) relied on the use of published, standardized programs delivered by a specialized teacher to small groups or to individual students. Across both the middle and high school reviews, several common themes emerged. First, all participating schools commented on the positive impact of RtI implementation upon improving general education instruction. Second, at both the middle and high school levels, the problem of the tyranny of time (Kame’enui, 1993) was the greatest perceived threat— students enter with significant gaps, but schools have limited time to ensure that students can close those gaps while simultaneously meeting graduation requirements. This tension means that secondary schools will have to make critical decisions about the focus, purpose, structure, and design of their programs. Third, despite the scarcity of published resources, schools were able to apply the RtI framework and implement several of the essential components in a manner consistent with their state purposes. Finally, all schools reported a need for increased resources to ensure that the level of collaboration required to successfully implement a school-wide model could take place.

Screening, Progress Monitoring, and Intervention While the synthesis reports contain useful, descriptive information on the overall RtI implementation process, other lines of research on the individual components of RtI can help guide the application of the RtI framework to the secondary school setting. Our reviews are necessarily brief, but provide a synthesis of major advancements in screening, progress monitoring, and interventions at the secondary levels, and conclude with guidance as to how these fi ndings continue to support the RtI model as an inclusive practice system suitable for secondary settings. Screening In a preventive model of service delivery, schools take a proactive approach toward the early identification of students at risk for poor academic outcomes. The screening process is guided by the identification and defi nition of the primary outcomes of interest. The goals and outcomes at secondary levels are quite different from those at elementary levels, and may not be the same for all students ( Johnson et al., 2009). However, for all students, the successful completion of high school is likely a universally shared, desired outcome. While districts and states differ on the specifics of high school graduation requirements, most include a combination of successful course and credit completion, successful performance on exit exams, and other requirements such as senior projects. These requirements help provide a common system of evaluation for all students and suggest that screening efforts should be directed toward identifying the following groups of students: 1) students who are at risk for dropping out of school; 2) students who have learning needs that require sustained intervention; and 3) students who are at risk for not meeting performance benchmarks on grade-level state assessments ( Johnson et al., 2009). 215

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

To identify students at-risk for dropping out, several research studies support the use of the NHSC’s Early Warning System (EWS) tool (Balfanz, Herzog & MacIver, 2007; Johnson & Semmelroth, 2010; Kennelly & Monrad, 2007). Students who require sustained intervention can be identified through the use of benchmark tools in reading and math, and the students at risk for not meeting grade-level performance standards can best be identified through the use of prior year state assessment data, as it has been found to be a strong predictor of subsequent performance (Allison & Johnson, 2011; Torgesen et al., 2007). While no screening tool is perfect, ensuring that the screening measures are aligned with the outcomes of interest and that the measures meet standards of reliability and validity will result in an effective means of identifying students who require secondary levels of prevention. Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring using CBM is the most common means of gauging student response to intervention. To be useful, PM measures must have high alternate form reliability, must be tied to important educational outcomes, must be sensitive to student growth, and must be administered frequently (Deno, 2003). Growth on PM measures must be highly predictive of the construct of interest. While several PM measures that meet these criteria are available for elementary levels, secondary PM measures are still generally in what Fuchs (2004) has defi ned as Stage 1 and 2 research—i.e., in which the psychometric properties of measures are still being established, and research on the reliability and validity of growth rates and the subsequent impact upon instructional decision making still requires investigation. The most comprehensive resource for guidelines for progress monitoring at secondary levels comes from the Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) at the University of Minnesota. Their recommendations include the use of maze passages to monitor reading performance (Espin & Foegen, 1996); the use of writing samples in response to narrative prompts to monitor writing (Espin et al., 2000); and the use of a vocabulary matching measure for monitoring progress in the content areas (Espin, Busch, Shin, & Kruschwitz, 2001). For math, Foegen and her colleagues provide the most comprehensive set of measures to monitor progress in algebra. Project AAIMS (Foegen, 2008) includes four different progress monitoring measures that have been found to have sufficient technical adequacy to serve as static indicators of student proficiency (Foegen, Olson, & Perkmen, 2005). The research conducted by Foegen and her colleagues to date suggests that the measures are likely to be useful for monitoring student progress among both general education students and those students receiving special education services (Foegen, 2008). The research on these algebra measures has been conducted primarily in one state, however, and further research is needed to determine whether the measures developed will be effective indicators of performance and progress in other regions. One study conducted in Idaho provides support that the measures will generalize. Johnson, Galow, and Allenger (2012) reported similar levels of technical adequacy when using the measures in both middle and high school. Intervention Meta-analyses of instructional strategies for students with learning disabilities fi nd that a combined direct instruction and strategy instruction model is an effective procedure for remediating learning disabilities relative to other instructional models (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). Other instructional components that predict treatment efficacy include sequencing, drill-repetition-practice, controlling task difficulty, segmentation of information, technology, small groups, directed questioning, and strategy cueing (Swanson & Hoskyn, 1998). 216

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

In a separate meta-analysis of reading strategies for struggling adolescents, the effectiveness of direct and strategy instruction were supported with specific considerations that: 1) older students with reading difficulties benefit from interventions focused at both the word and the text level; 2) older students with reading difficulties benefit from improved knowledge of word meanings and concepts; 3) word- study interventions are appropriate for older students struggling at the word level; 4) teaching comprehension strategies is effective; and 5) reading intervention that targets specific areas of need are more effective for students with LD (Scammacca et al., 2007). Of importance, however, is that studies examining the impact of comprehension intervention show gains on individually administered measures that do not necessarily transfer to measures of greater import for schools, such as state assessments. In a review of math interventions, Gersten, Chard, Jayanthi, Baker, Morphy, and Flojo (2009) report similar fi ndings on instructional approaches as reported for reading. When the general principles of direct and explicit strategy instruction are applied to math intervention, the effect sizes are large, with most reported effect sizes greater than 1. More specifically, Gersten et al. (2009) found that explicit instruction, the use of heuristics, and student verbalizations of their mathematical reasoning had the largest effect sizes. While it is true that we don’t know a great deal about how RtI is implemented in secondary schools, the review of practice and research presented here is promising. The research on essential RtI components and the current literature on early applications of the RtI framework within secondary schools provides information to guide practice, and highlights areas in need of further research. In the following sections, we provide guidance for practitioners based on the current knowledge base of RtI, and guidance for researchers who are interested in advancing current understandings to inform effective inclusive practice.

Setting a Course for Effective Inclusion in Secondary Schools What we currently know about (RtI) at the secondary level is that while it appears to hold promise as a means of addressing the needs of struggling learners, there remain a number of questions to which we do not have answers. Many of the questions are technical in nature— for example, we do not know much about expected growth rates on reading, writing or math measures for adolescents. We are not sure how to accurately and efficiently measure growth in more complex skills such as reading comprehension or algebra, although work in these areas is developing. We are not sure how to measure or when to expect transfer of growth in basic academic skills to improvements in the content areas. We are not sure how to easily distinguish between a student who will require temporary, targeted instructional supports from one who will require more intensive individualized instruction. In addition to these technical issues, there are also questions about implementation of the RtI system in secondary schools. Because RtI is a school-wide framework, successful implementation requires close collaboration across content areas and grade levels. Additionally, the focus of a primary prevention effort implies that secondary content area teachers may need to make dramatic changes to their instruction to better support the development of content literacy (Vaughn et al., 2008). Most secondary teachers have not received training in the processes of progress monitoring, and the collection of data across a large school with complex schedules presents obstacles that can prevent schools from moving ahead with RtI implementation. Waiting till tomorrow for answers to these questions before moving forward with inclusive educational practices is not an option for schools serving students in need. Secondary 217

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

schools are charged with helping all students successfully meet high-level performance standards, but evidence suggests that simply placing students in challenging courses without appropriate levels of support is not sufficient. Benchmarking and progress monitoring are effective ways to inform instructional decision making; but, measures for secondary reading and mathematics with a strong research base are somewhat lacking ( Johnson et al., 2012). In our work with secondary schools, an oft-heard refrain is that there are very few resources to guide secondary schools in RtI implementation. Although there are many unresolved questions about the technical and systems aspects of RTI, there are many things we do know that can help practitioners move forward in the best interests of their students. Earlier in this chapter, we described the critical components of the RtI framework. These include: a) screening; b) progress monitoring; c) tiered systems of instruction; d) data-based decision making; and e) systems. In this section, we provide guidance to practitioners on implementing RtI at secondary levels based on our current knowledge. Our guidance is targeted to school-level practitioners, because schools are the key unit when it comes to implementing change (Sherer & Spillane, 2011).

Screening Given that the purpose of screening is to predict an outcome months or years in advance ( Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007), the fi rst step in creating a screening process is to defi ne the future outcome you are trying to predict ( Johnson et al., 2009). In a prevention-focused RtI framework, secondary schools might be interested in identifying students who are at the greatest risk of dropping out from high school. Research has identified high-yield indicators ( Jerald, 2006) of dropping out such as attendance, core course performance, and credit completion. Screening tools such as the National High School Center’s Early Warning System provide schools with a way to monitor these indicators, which have been found to be highly predictive across geographical contexts (Balfanz et al., 2007; Jerald, 2006; Johnson & Semmelroth, 2010). In an intervention-focused RtI model, recommendations for screening at the secondary level include using prior year state assessment data to identify an initial risk pool of students, followed by subsequent assessment to determine the nature of the student’s difficulties (Allison & Johnson, 2011; Torgesen & Miller, 2009). Alternatively, screening can be conducted using established systems such as curriculum-based measures that benchmark student performance in reading, math, and writing. Not all academic areas have norms available through twelfth grade, though many reading measures are now normed for the upper grades, and there are algebra measures for the upper grades (Foegen et al., 2005) that have been demonstrated to predict performance on state level math assessments (Foegen et al., 2005; Johnson et al., 2012).

Progress Monitoring Progress monitoring should be used to determine both the short- and long-term outcomes of academic and behavioral interventions, primarily through the use of CBM. The short-term outcomes are monitored to determine whether an intervention is working for an individual student or whether adjustments need to be made to the student’s program. Long-term outcomes are monitored to determine overall program efficacy—is the intervention effective in supporting students’ attainment of grade-level performance benchmarks (Shapiro & Clemens, 2009)? Schools have access to numerous resources to facilitate the adoption, 218

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

implementation, and maintenance of progress monitoring systems. At the time of this writing, three national centers—the Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (www.progressmonitoring.org), the National Center on Response to Intervention (www.rti4success.org), and the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring (www.studentprogress.org)—provide materials, research briefs, webinars, and online tools to help schools select progress monitoring measures. Recommendations for progress monitoring are still not well- defi ned at the secondary level, but because rates of growth are slower for older students and because of the logistical challenges of implementing progress monitoring systems at the secondary levels, monthly schedules of progress monitoring may be sufficient. On this revised timeline, schools would want to ensure taking several measures during one testing session—for example, in reading, three ORF passages would be administered once every 3–4 weeks and the median score used for monitoring progress. This less frequent schedule has been demonstrated to produce trend lines as reliable as those based on weekly monitoring using single measures ( Jenkins, Graff, & Miglioretti, 2009).

Data-Based Decision Making (DBDM) Data-based decision making is one of the key features of MTSS and RtI. Screening and progress monitoring data is evaluated at different levels (e.g. students, small-group, class, grade-level, or school-level), to inform decisions about instruction. The data collected informs the various levels of prevention, with different data used to answer different questions about instruction (see Table 16.1). As demonstrated in the table, there are several sources of existing data that can be used to inform the RtI process at the secondary level. The systematic collection and review of data is critical for informing school-wide decisions about student progress. For school-wide systems to be effective, schools should develop a shared vocabulary to minimize misunderstandings and confl icting assumptions (Wayman, Cho, & Johnston, 2007), and this vocabulary should align with the overall focus of the RtI framework. Critical concepts to be defi ned include terms such as achievement, collaboration, data, evidence, and progress (Waters & Marzano, 2006; Wayman, Wallace, Wiley et al., 2007). Goals that are measurable, attainable and relevant can be determined by a review of the school’s current data.

Instructional Practice Successful RtI models center on school-wide instructional practices that emphasize a systematic, coordinated, and team approach to meeting the instructional and motivational needs of all students (Harn, Chard, & Kame’enui, 2011). Traditional practice in secondary schools places responsibility on individual teachers to increase student performance. With the recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards and the emphasis on literacy development across the curriculum, an alternative approach must be implemented in order to meet society’s increased expectations as well as the student needs of our ever-increasingly diverse population (Vaughn et al., 2008). One example of an instructional model that is focused on helping students meet these increased demands and is consistent with a tiered delivery system is the Content Literacy Curriculum (CLC) (Ehren, Lenz, & Deshler, 2004). Although a full review of the CLC is beyond the scope of this chapter, we briefly review the elements of the CLC here to demonstrate its potential fit within a secondary RtI framework. The CLC includes five levels of instruction that have been mapped onto a model of tiered service delivery (Lenz, Ehren, & Deshler, 2005). These levels include: 1) enhanced content 219

Does the Tier 3 program result in improved outcomes for students with disabilities?

Tier Three—Tertiary Prevention

How are my interventions supporting student progress in the Tier 1 program?

Progress Monitoring data, IEP data, outcome data

Progress Monitoring data and Tier 1 data

Small-group

Small-group Small-group Student-level

School, Grade, Class, and Student levels

Attendance data

Tier Two—Secondary Prevention

Student-level

Performance on benchmark tests, state assessments, credit completion—high yield indicators

Which students are in need of additional support in order to be successful in the core program? Are my students engaged?

School-level Grade-level/Class-level

Unit of Analysis

Review of state assessment results, benchmark measures, end of course exams, AP tests, F’s

Data Source(s)

How effective is my core instructional program?

Tier One—Primary Prevention

Question

Table 16.1 Sources of Data for Data-based Decision Making (DBDM)

Are most students receiving intervention making progress in the targeted skill area? Do students receiving Tier 3 interventions participate meaningfully or make gains in Tier 1? Is an individual student responding to intervention?

Are most students receiving intervention making progress in the targeted skill area? Do students receiving Tier 2 interventions make gains in Tier 1? Is an individual student responding to intervention?

If data shows a ‘gap’ by grade or for a particular subpopulation or content area, examine curriculum & instruction If data shows low performance, observe/review with teachers for fidelity of implementation Individual student data should be reviewed across metrics—this helps identify struggling students, and then allows schools to categorize & prioritize areas for focused intervention Analyze attendance policies Examine impact of attendance on performance, examine reasons for low attendance

Key Indicators & Decisions

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

instruction in the core curriculum through the use of intentional planning and the design of the main unit content; 2) embedded strategy instruction to provide students with a set of powerful learning strategies for improving literacy across core curriculum classes; 3) intensive strategy instruction for students who require more intensive and explicit strategy instruction to apply literacy strategies to content areas; 4) intensive basic skill instruction for students who are still developing the foundational decoding, fluency, and comprehension skills through specialized, direct, and intensive instruction; and 5) therapeutic intervention for students with language disorders to learn the linguistic, cognitive, metalinguistic and metacognitive underpinnings needed to acquire content literacy skills and strategies. At each level of instruction there are a number of strategies designed to support the development of literacy in the specific content area. Years of research support the efficacy of these strategies, as measured by content specific assessments (Graner & Deshler, 2012). The CLC necessitates the organization of the instructional system in a way that is consistent with an RtI model of tiered levels of increasingly intensive intervention informed by data. A key element of the CLC is that it includes a system for addressing the needs of all learners, including those who have not been successful. At the secondary level, students who struggle often present with both instructional and motivational issues because they have experienced such a long history of school failure (Graner & Deshler, 2012). In addition to instructional models, secondary schools implementing effective tiered service delivery systems will need to consider the question, ‘What are effective strategies for engaging students who have experienced long histories of school failure?’ Key fi ndings from the literature on motivation should be considered within the context of the instructional system. For example, when instructional practices are poorly implemented, student motivation is negatively impacted (Rutter & Maughan, 2002). The school-wide focus on ensuring high-quality instruction within the RtI framework represents one way that school staff can collaborate to improve instructional practices. Appealing to student interests to increase engagement also promotes motivation to learn (Burchinal, Roberts, Zeisel, & Rowley, 2008; Roeser, Eccles, & Sameroff, 2000). Boredom in school, low interest, and the perceived irrelevance of the curriculum predict diminished engagement and learning. Increased interest is associated with greater engagement in the task and higher levels of mastery of the material (Hattie, 2009). Interesting tasks increase intrinsic motivation to do well (Deci & Ryan, 2002) and increase the odds that students develop a strong personal identity as a committed school student (Eccles, 2009). When these concerns are addressed as part of the overall design of an effective instructional system, students are more likely to be successful. Systems As we have discussed throughout this chapter, RtI has the potential to be the pre-eminent inclusive practice model. RtI is an instructional framework, patterned on a public health model, in which the goal is the overall academic wellbeing of all students. In broad terms, this means that a continuum of instructional support options must exist to meet the needs of a diverse group of students. Working within the context of a three-tiered model, primary prevention instruction should focus on the common core standards, with a particular focus on supporting literacy within the content areas. Secondary prevention should focus on skillbuilding and providing students who need additional targeted instruction the support they need to be successful. The work done in secondary prevention should be directly supportive of the goals for primary prevention. Tertiary prevention should focus on meeting the more 221

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

intensive instructional needs of students who are most discrepant from their grade-level peers (Wanzek, Vaughn, Roberts, & Fletcher, 2011). Achieving this ideal requires a strong systems approach to implementation. Systems are comprised of organizational routines. Organizational routines have been defi ned as repetitive, recognizable patterns of interdependent actions, involving multiple actors (Feldman & Pentland, 2003). In secondary schools, examples of organizational routines to support RtI implementation include: a) a systematic process of data collection and evaluation to support instructional decision making; b) a focus on instructional practices that support content area literacy for students at all levels (Biancarosa & Snow, 2004); c) collaborative time for teachers to review instruction and data; d) hiring teachers who understand and support working within a tiered model ( Johnson et al., 2009); e) conducting teacher evaluations based on criteria that are consistent with this approach; and f ) planning school improvement (Sherer & Spillane, 2011). Effective secondary school leaders will facilitate organizational routines that support a school-wide focus on instruction (Glennan & Resnick, 2004) and facilitate the implementation of the essential components of a tiered service delivery model. At the district level, RtI implementation is supported through activities such as priority setting, resource allocation, staff development, and the development of curriculum guidelines that align with the RtI framework. Providing this type of support provides a consistent message to principals and teachers about the importance of the multi-tiered system of intervention implementation (Desimone, 2002). Districts that design systems to help schools with the difficult job of aligning what can be initially perceived as competing initiatives may be the most successful in supporting the long-term sustainability of a tiered service delivery model (Desimone, 2002). A more tangible approach through which districts can provide this alignment to support school-level implementation is offered by Shapiro and Clemens (2009), who outline a series of evaluation indices that can be used to monitor RtI implementation and effectiveness. Districts can create requirements for building leaders to report on the evaluation indices, which include things such as monitoring the percentage of students achieving benchmarks, the percentage of students in secondary prevention, the percentage of students who move from secondary to primary prevention, and so on.

Research Although researchers and practitioners collectively know a good deal about aspects of RTI, there is neither a necessary nor sufficient knowledge base to guide the implementation of RtI as a process of early intervention and disability identification across all grades, for all academic skills, in all content areas, and for all children and youth (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). With the limitations of our current knowledge base in mind, we have framed our research guidance into three sections: a) research to address technical aspects of RtI implementation; b) research to examine the impact on student outcomes for secondary implementation; and c) research addressing questions of implementation. Research to Address Technical Questions A number of technical issues regarding the essential RtI components require further research. For example, practitioners need scientifically validated instructional protocols that are likely to accelerate student progress in pivotal skills such as math and writing and in content areas (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). In the area of assessment, numerous issues require further research. For example, what are the best ways to identify students who require services beyond general education instruction? What is an accurate means for distinguishing between students who 222

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

require secondary prevention and those who might require tertiary prevention? What measures of progress are effective in documenting student improvement in reading, writing, and math? Several questions regarding progress monitoring also remain at the secondary level, such as: What is adequate progress given the use of validated instructional protocols? How often do we need to gauge progress? Does growth on measures of basic skills translate to growth in content area literacy? Finally, in addition to researching interventions to support math and writing achievement at secondary levels, logistical questions about the structure of interventions are needed to inform the design of these services within schools. For example, what is the optimal group size, duration, and frequency of interventions at the secondary level? Research to Address Impact of Implementation More studies on the middle and high school levels are needed to establish the breadth of impact for RtI programs (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). Outcomes for students with disabilities are not encouraging—a recent report by the National Center on Learning Disabilities indicates that, on average, only 30% of students with learning disabilities are meeting the achievement standards required by their state performance levels (Cortiella, 2011). Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Levine, and Garza (2006) report significant gaps on important academic measures of achievement between students with disabilities and their general education counterparts. Although the tiered framework of RtI holds significant promise for improving student outcomes, research that studies the impact of RtI implementation on the factors identified as critical for post- school success is needed. Research to Address Implementation An expanding body of research on implementation science has emerged in recent years. Despite the research base in best practices and the research base on systems implementation, there remains a disconnect between this research and what “practitioners . . . actually do under the broad banners of data use, evidence-based decision making and evidence-based practice” (Little, 2012, p. 144). Little (2012) advocates for the use of micro-process studies that would illuminate some of the complexities of implementing a multi-faceted systems reform such as RtI. These types of studies can highlight the obstacles that occur during implementation which can thwart a reform effort but which do not necessarily come to light in randomized controlled trials. Concluding Thoughts for Improving Practice Because RtI stems from the preventive sciences, in which effective instruction and early intervention is seen as essential for reducing the number of students who struggle in or leave school, RtI models focus on developing a strong general education or primary prevention program. Within primary prevention, an emphasis on curricula and instructional strategies that are backed by research can support the improved achievement of all students. This includes the use of strategies such as those outlined within the Content Literacy Curriculum (CLC). For many secondary schools, RtI will present a much-needed vehicle through which discussions about improving the curriculum and instruction can take place. These discussions are the fi rst step toward making the instructional program more inclusive of all students. The primary prevention program is accompanied by assessment procedures that help determine whether the instruction is effective. Benchmarking and screening procedures provide objective data that, when coupled with other sources of information such as 223

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

attendance and engagement in school, help schools identify and target students who will likely not make sufficient progress in the curriculum without intervention or secondary prevention. When comprehensive screening processes are employed, schools can analyze and evaluate these data in order to determine the most effective and most needed interventions based on their school populations. For example, if a screening process identifies numerous students as being in need of support for reading, the school will need to investigate and adopt an intervention program for these students as well as investigate effective ways of supporting low-achieving readers to master content in the primary prevention program. Likewise, a school that experiences high absenteeism will want to consider interventions that keep students coming to school. For most secondary schools, a secondary prevention program that provides a combination of academic and engagement interventions will be needed to support struggling students. Interventions should be research-based and aligned with students’ needs ( Johnson et al., 2009). Secondary prevention will likely present the most significant change to existing school structures under an RtI framework. Because secondary prevention can be resource-intensive, it is essential to ensure that the selected interventions are effective in supporting struggling learners. Progress monitoring of student performance and growth as they receive these interventions is crucial for ensuring student success. The frequent assessment of student performance and progress allows intervention specialists to make timely and individualized adjustments and decisions. For example, if a student is not making adequate growth, the intervention specialist can make adjustments to the instruction, either by trying a different strategy, increasing the frequency or duration of the intervention lessons, or a combination of these changes. Similarly, if a student is exceeding the expected growth rates, the performance target can be raised. Once students have achieved the desired performance levels and no longer need the intervention, continued monitoring of their performance in the primary prevention program ensures that if they experience more problems, they will be ‘caught’ and provided with additional intervention. Finally, within this system, special education or tertiary prevention can move from its common, current status of a hodge-podge of intervention and support, to become a focused program that provides research-based curricula for students with disabilities who require specially designed instruction. In an effective RtI system, special education is neither the placement to be avoided at all costs, nor is it the catch-all for any student who is difficult to teach; rather, it operates as an integral component of an inclusive system ( Johnson et al., 2009). It is aligned with general education standards, but delivered through the use of specially designed instructional practices and frequent progress monitoring of growth towards individualized education goals. When school staff are able to implement systems that adhere to the key components elaborated in this section, they are likely to realize positive gains for their students. As schools move forward with implementation, they will also need to stay abreast of the emerging research that will further inform their practices.

Conclusion In this chapter we have argued that RtI presents an ideal framework for inclusive education practices. Key features of using RtI for effective inclusion in secondary schools include an integrated instructional support system, a school-wide focus on the progress and outcomes of all students, and data-based decision making to guide the allocation of resources where and how needed. With their school-level use of data-based decision making, RtI models ensure 224

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

that student needs are considered within the context of the general curriculum and that the progress of all students is routinely evaluated in order to make adjustments in instructional programming and delivery. While the significant research on RtI at the secondary level is still lacking, early research is promising, and early evidence suggests that the extension of the RtI model as currently practiced in elementary schools to middle and high schools can serve as a viable starting point for building inclusive MTSS at secondary levels. Through a dynamic, fluid, and responsive system of instruction, students with a wide range of performance levels can efficiently and effectively have their needs met. This outcome is important at the individual student level. Equally important, however, is the emphasis that the RtI framework places on shared responsibility for student achievement, a key expectation for an inclusive education system.

References Allison, J. R. & Johnson, E. S. ( 2011). Identifying Struggling Readers in Middle School with ORF, Maze and Prior Year Assessment Data. Journal of Educational and Developmental Psychology, 1 (1), 1 35 – 44. Doi:10.5539/jedp.v1n1p35 Aud, S., Hussar, W., Johnson, F., Kena, G., Roth, E., Manning, E., et al. ( 2012 ). The Condition of Education 2012 (NCES 2012–045). U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Washington, DC. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch Baker, S. K., Fien, H., & Baker, D. L. ( 2010 ). Robust reading instruction in the early grades: Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of Tier 1 and Tier 2 instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42 ( 9 ) 1–20. Balfanz, R., Herzog, L., & MacIver, D. J. ( 2007 ). Preventing student disengagement and keeping students on the graduation path in urban middle-grades schools: Early identification and effective interventions. Educational Psychologist, 42, 223 –235. Retrieved from http://web.jhu.edu/sebin/q/b/ PreventingStudentDisengagement.pdf Biancarosa, G. & Snow, C. E. ( 2004 ). Reading next—A vision for action and research in middle and high school literacy: A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellence in Education. Burchinal, M. R., Roberts, J. E., Zeisel, S. A., & Rowley, S. J. ( 2008 ). Social risk and protective factors for African American children academic achievement and adjustment during the transition to middle school. Developmental Psychology, 44, 286 –292 . Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. J., & Stehouwer, J. D. ( 2005). Metaanalytic review of responsiveness-tointervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394. doi:10.1177/073428290502300406 Christenson, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Appleton, J. J., Berman-Young, S., Spanjers, D. M., & Varno, P. ( 2008 ). Best practices in fostering student engagement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1099 –1119 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Elleman, A. M., & Gilbert, J. K. ( 2008 ). Tracking children who fly below the radar: Latent transition modeling of students with late- emerging reading disability. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 329 –337. doi: 10.1016/j.lindif.2008.04.003 Cortiella, C. ( 2011). The state of learning disabilities. New York, NY: National Center for Learning Disabilities. Deci, E. L. & Ryan, R. M. (Eds.). ( 2002 ). Handbook of self determination theory research. Rochester, NY: University of Rochester Press. Deno, S. L. ( 2003 ). Curriculum-based measures: Development and perspectives. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 3 –12 . Desimone, L. ( 2002 ). How can comprehensive school reform models be successfully implemented? Review of Educational Research 72, 433 – 479. Eccles, J. S. ( 2009 ). Who am I and what am I going to do with my life? Educational Psychologist, 44, 78 – 89. 225

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

Ehren, B. J., Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. ( 2004 ). Enhancing literacy proficiency with adolescents and young adults. In C. A Stone, E. R. Silliman, B. J. Ehren & K. Apel (Eds.), Handbook of language and literacy development and disorders (pp. 681–701). New York: Guildford Press. Espin, C. A., Busch, T., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. ( 2001). Curriculum-based measures in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching measures as indicators of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 16, 142 –151. Espin, C. A. & Foegen, A. (1996 ). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514. Espin, C., Shin, J., Deno, S. L., Skare, S., Robinson, S., & Benner, B. ( 2000 ). Identifying indicators of written expression proficiency for middle school students. Journal of Special Education, 34, 140 –153. Feldman, M. S. & Pentland, B. T. ( 2003 ). Reconceptualizing organizational routines as a source of flexibility and change. Administrative Science Quarterly, 48, 94 –118. Foegen, A. ( 2008 ). Algebra progress monitoring and interventions for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 65 –78. Foegen, A., Olson, J. R., & Perkmen, S. ( 2005). Reliability and criterion validity of five algebra measures in Districts B and C (Technical Report 7). Ames : Project AAIMS, Department of Curriculum and Instruction, Iowa State University. Fuchs, L. S. ( 2004 ). The past, present, and future of curriculum-based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33, 188 –192 . Fuchs, D. & Deshler, D. ( 2007 ). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129 –136. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. ( 2010 ). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22 –28. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., & Young, C. ( 2003 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Defi nitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171. Gersten, R., Chard, D., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. ( 2009 ). A metaanalysis of mathematics instructional interventions for students with learning disabilities: A technical report. Los Alamitos, CA: Instructional Research Group. Glennan, T. K., Jr. & Resnick, L. B. ( 2004 ). School districts as learning organizations: A strategy for scaling educational reform. In J. T. K. Glennan, S. J. Bodilly, J. Galegher, & K. Kerr (Eds.), Expanding the reach of education reforms: Collected essays by leaders in the scale-up of educational interventions (pp. 517–564 ). Santa Monica, CA: RAND. Graner, P. S. & Deshler, D. D. ( 2012 ). Improving outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities. In B. Wong & D. L. Butler (Eds.), Learning about learning disabilities (4th ed.). (pp. 299 –323 ). New York: Academic Press. Harn, B. A., Chard, D. J., & Kame’enui, E. J. ( 2011). Meeting societies’ increased expectations through responsive instruction: The power and potential of systemwide approaches. Preventing School Failure. 55, 232 –239. Hattie, J. ( 2009 ). Visible learning. New York, NY: Routledge. Hughes, C. A. & Dexter, D. D. ( 2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50, 4 –11. Jenkins, J. R., Graff, J. J., & Miglioretti, D. L. ( 2009 ). Estimating reading growth using intermittent CBM progress monitoring. Exceptional Children, 75, 151–164. Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., & Johnson, E. S. ( 2007 ). Screening for at-risk readers in a Response to Intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36, 582 – 600. Jerald, C. D. ( 2006 ). Identifying potential dropouts: Key lessons for building an early warning data system. Washington, DC : Achieve, Inc., American Diploma Project Network. Jimerson, S. R., Reschly, A. L., & Hess, R. ( 2008 ). Best practices in increasing the likelihood of high school completion. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology ( 5th ed.). (pp. 1085 –1097 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Johnson, E. S., Galow, P., & Allenger, R. ( 2012 ). Application of algebra curriculum-based measurements for decision-making in middle and high school. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 38, doi: 10.1177/1534508412461435. Johnson, E. S., Mellard, D., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. ( 2006 ). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS : National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. 226

MTSS for Inclusion in Secondary Schools

Johnson, E. S. & Semmelroth, C. ( 2010 ). The predictive validity of the early warning system tool. NASSP Bulletin, 94, 120 –134. Johnson, E. S., Smith, L., & Harris, M. L. ( 2009 ). How RTI works in secondary schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Kame’enui, E. J. (1993 ). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don’t fi x blame; fi x the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376 –383. Kennelly, L. & Monrad, M. ( 2007 ). Approaches to dropout prevention: Heeding early warning signs with appropriate interventions. Washington, DC : National High School Center. Retrieved from www.betterhighschools.com/docs/NHSC_ApproachestoDropoutPrevention.pdf Kurz, A., Elliot, S. N., Wehby, J. N., & Smithson, J. L. ( 2009 ). Alignment of the intended, planned, and enacted curriculum in general and special education and its relation to student achievement. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 1–15. Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. ( 2005). The content literacy continuum: A school reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. Teaching Exceptional Children, 37, 60 – 63. Little, J. W. ( 2012 ). Understanding data use practice among teachers: The contributions of microprocess studies. American Journal of Education, 118, 143 –166. Mellard, D. F. & Johnson, E. S. ( 2008 ). Response to Intervention: A practitioner’s guide to implementation. Thousand Oaks : Corwin Press. Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Woods, K. ( 2009 ). Response to Intervention screening and progress-monitoring practices in 41 local schools. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 24, 186 –195. Mellard, D., Stern, A., & Woods, K. ( 2011). RTI school-based practices and evidence-based models. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43, 1–15. National Center on Response to Intervention. ( 2010 ). Essential components of RTI: A closer look at response to intervention. Retrieved from www.rti4success.org/pdf/rtiessentialcomponents_042710.pdf National High School Center, National Center on Response to Intervention, and Center on Instruction. ( 2010 ). Tiered interventions in high schools: Using preliminary “lessons learned” to guide ongoing discussion. Washington, DC : American Institutes for Research. Prewett, S., Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., Allen, J., Alexander, R., & Stern, A. ( 2012 ). Response to intervention in middle schools: Practices and outcomes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 136 –147. Reschly, D. J. & Wood-Garnett, S. ( 2009 ). Teacher preparation for response to intervention in middle and high schools. Washington, DC : Learning Point Associates, National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality. Roeser, R. W., Eccles, J. S., & Sameroff, A. J. ( 2000 ). School as a context of social- emotional development: A summary of research fi ndings. Elementary School Journal, 100, 443 – 471. Rutter, M. & Maughan, B. ( 2002 ). School effectiveness fi ndings 1979–2002 . Journal of School Psychology, 40, 451– 475. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. ( 2007 ). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. ( 2006 ). Response to “Competing views: A dialogue on response to intervention.” Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 62 – 64. Shapiro, E. S. & Clemens, N. H., ( 2009 ). A conceptual model for evaluating system effects of response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 3 –16. Sherer, J. Z. & Spillane, J. P. ( 2011). Constancy and change in work practice in schools: The role of organizational routines. Teachers College Record, 113, 661– 657. Shinn, M. ( 2008 ). Implementation in secondary schools. In S. Fernley, S. D. LaRue, J. Norlin (Eds.), What do I do when: Answer book on RTI (pp.1–17 ). Arlington, VA: LRP Publications. Swanson, H. L. & Hoskyn, M. (1998 ). Defi nition x treatment interactions for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 28, 644 – 658. Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., et al. ( 2007 ). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the Center on Instruction. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. Torgesen, J. K. & Miller, D. H. ( 2009 ). Assessments to guide adolescent literacy instruction. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. 227

E.S. Johnson and D.F. Mellard

Vaughn, S., Fletcher, J. M., Francis, D. J., Denton, C. A., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., et al. ( 2008 ). Response to intervention with older students with reading difficulties. Learning and Individual Differences, 18, 338 –345. Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Levine, P., & Garza , N. ( 2006 ). An overview of findings from wave 2 of the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Washington, DC : National Center for Special Education Research. Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Roberts, G., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2011). Efficacy of a reading intervention for middle school students with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 73 – 87. Waters, J. T. & Marzano, R. J. ( 2006 ). School district leadership that works: The effect of superintendent leadership on student achievement. Denver, CO : Mid-Continent Regional Educational Lab. Retrieved from www.mcrel.org/ Wayman, J. C., Cho, V., & Johnston, M. T. ( 2007 ). The data-informed district: A district- wide evaluation of data use in the Natrona County School District. Austin : The University of Texas. Wayman, M. M., Wallace, T., Wiley, H. I., Ticha, R., & Espin, C. A. ( 2007 ). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measures in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 85 –120. doi: 10.1177/00224669070410020401 Zirkel, P. A. & Thomas, L. ( 2010 ). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60 –73

228

17 Effective Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools Beth Harn,1 Ronda Fritz,1 and Tricia Berg1

Setting the Stage With the widespread implementation of evidenced-based core reading programs and multitiered systems of support as a function of Response to Intervention (RTI) practices, schools have an opportunity to maximize instructional time to meet the needs of a wider range of learners in elementary schools than was feasible a decade ago. The vast majority of the research on the effectiveness of RTI has been primarily in the area of reading development in elementary schools (Chard, 2012; Harn, Chard, Biancarosa, & Kame’enui, 2011). Even with the corpus of understanding, schools are still experiencing difficulties in coordinating personnel and differentiating instruction in essential skill areas (i.e., fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension) as well as by grade level (i.e., differentiating supports in lower versus upper elementary; Denton, 2012). This chapter will summarize what we know about effective practices in coordinating literacy instruction at the school level as well as provide specific instructional and behavioral practices that can be implemented to support effective inclusive practices and improve student outcomes.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice Traditionally, special education has been considered a ‘place’ or ‘location’ of instructional support, even for students with higher incidence disabilities such as learning disabilities (LD) and behavior disorders (BD). Within this view, many special education teachers were isolated from the rest of the school staff and had no knowledge of or access to materials, experiences, or expectations of what was occurring in general education classrooms (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). This led to a complete disconnect between what students were learning in the special education environment and what happened when students were in the general education classroom, which frequently led to limited improvement in academic or behavioral outcomes

1 University of Oregon 229

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

(Hallahan, Kauffman, Lloyd, Weiss, & Martinez, 2005). A common characteristic of students with disabilities is that they are the least likely to generalize skills from one setting or learning situation to another (Kame’enui & Simmons, 1998), and special education professionals have recognized the need to create more integrated learning experiences for them if they are receiving services outside of their general education setting. Creating these linkages requires schools, and all the personnel involved (general and special education, Title 1, English Language Learner, etc.), to work together to examine grade-level expectations, the materials available, parental expectations, and the skills and needs of the students to create meaningful instructional arrangements that provide academic and social benefit (Hallahan et al., 2005). The multi-tiered approach to service delivery encompasses a coordinated and more inclusive approach to education, and it has demonstrated meaningful improvements in outcomes for students with a range of disabilities. Specifically, students with LD provided with more integrated instructional experiences have demonstrated greater improvement in social skills and peer relationships and academic achievement, and have an increased likelihood of achieving annual IEP goals when compared to students receiving separate and non-linked special education services (Bennett, DeLuca, & Bruns, 1997; Hallahan et al., 2005). In the area of literacy development, Marston (1996) demonstrated that when special education teachers worked with their general education partners, students with LD demonstrated significant improvements in reading comprehension. More recent research examining practices to maximize learning outcomes for English Language Learners (ELLs) has demonstrated that they develop their language and reading skills more efficiently when included in highquality classroom experiences (Baker, Kame’enui, Simmons, Santoro, & Simonsen, 2011). These experiences include teachers prompting for active encouragement in discussion, scaffolded support of vocabulary, and coordination and linkage with ELL instruction (Baker et al., 2011; Rivera, Moughamian, Lesaux, & Francis, 2008). These instructional experiences in the general education classroom have also been found to benefit language development for students with language disorders as well as other disabilities (Cook & Tankersley, 2013). These integrated, inclusive instructional practices have also been found to benefit typically developing peers. When general education teachers have the necessary skills and support from other school personnel, typically developing peers taught in inclusive settings have demonstrated improvements in peer relationships and tolerance (Cortiella, 2009; Stainback & Stainback, 1996) as well as improvement in general leadership skills (Gillies, 2004). For these benefits for students with and without disabilities to occur, both general and special education need to be prepared to collaborate and create instructional experiences that are conducive to this development.

Setting a Course for Effective Inclusion Effective inclusion does not occur without key elements working in concert to maximize student learning within the general education classroom. An entire school system must work together, including general and special education, to ensure that student needs are met within and outside of the general education classroom. The next section will highlight the importance of planning and coordination, including coordinated supports, use of evidence-based practices, data-based decision-making, and targeted professional development.

Importance of Planning and Coordination Effective inclusion practices cannot occur without adequate planning and collaboration. In schools demonstrating the most impressive outcomes in reading achievement, inclusion 230

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

occurs as part of a comprehensive, coordinated, school-wide reading model designed to meet the needs of all students and prevent reading difficulties from occurring. This model is an instructional framework to ensure the success of all students and to plan for meaningful inclusionary experience using a multi-tiered system of support (Harn et al., 2011; Honig, Diamond, & Gutlohn, 2013). The critical components of a school-wide reading model include: • • • •

coordinated, multi-tiered systems of support use of evidence-based instructional materials for each level of support data-based decision-making systems targeted professional development

In order to adequately coordinate systems of support, teaming and collaboration are necessary. Active leadership and instructional teams are a crucial underlying component for improving literacy outcomes within a school ( Jones, Burns, & Pirri, 2010). This team provides the structure necessary for general education, special education, and intervention staff to work together to identify and solve problems, make academic and behavioral instructional decisions, and evaluate the effectiveness of school-wide systems (Denton, Fletcher, Anthony, & Francis, 2006). Ideally, administrators are part of this leadership team so that resources can be most effectively used. Without administrator support, these elements can be difficult to manipulate. An administrator often has to make decisions regarding staffi ng, schedules, and time allowed for professional development. More importantly, however, research has shown that effective school leaders focus on tasks related to improving instruction in addition to the managerial aspects of their jobs (Leithwood, Louis, Anderson, & Wahlstrom, 2004). An important fi rst dimension of coordinating supports through a leadership team is the selection and use of evidence-based reading programs/materials (EBPs) with all students, at varying levels of support. Employing EBPs in general education, typically discussed as a Tier I core reading program, is likely to decrease the number of students struggling to learn to read, as well as decrease the number of students qualifying for special education services (Chard et al., 2008). Therefore, it is critical that there is a core program in place that is evidence-based and designed to meet the needs of the majority of students that attend that school. There is also evidence that the coordination of supports with the core program may be a more effective means of meeting the needs of learners needing support beyond the core reading curriculum (Chard & Harn, 2008; Harn et al., 2011). Harn et al. (2011) documented that interventions (e.g., Tier II or III) that are selected or designed to specifically align with the content and instructional practices taught in the core reading program were differentially more effective at accelerating reading development for the most at-risk fi rst grade readers than non-aligned intervention efforts. Creating this coordinated instructional support system requires the teaming of all instructional support staff with the knowledge of the grade-level expectations and the nature of the instructional materials, as well as the skills for determining how to effectively differentiate for the range of learners, and/or collaborative skills in working with special education personnel to make the general education material accessible to all students. When considering students with more significant disabilities, the team should carefully consider the skills of the student and how supports (e.g., personnel, technology, peers, etc.) can be put into place so that the student can benefit academically from the experience. Once an evidence-based program has been selected, another important component of coordinating supports is allocating staff in a more effective way during the literacy or reading 231

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

block. Ninety-minute reading blocks are becoming a common practice within successful school-wide reading systems, but are subject to a school’s master schedule that allocates staffi ng to support classroom teachers for differentiation. An ideal schedule is designed to ensure adequate reading time within classrooms, as well as to coordinate staff to provide optimal support for differentiation within each classroom. Within that block, students might participate in whole-group reading instruction led by the classroom teacher, as well as small-group instruction focusing on specific skills led by the classroom teacher, special education or Title I teacher, or instructional assistants. It is important to consider that inclusion does not mean a lack of differentiation. This targeted differentiation is critical to the reading development of students with disabilities. Data-based decision-making is the underlying mechanism that drives the school-wide reading model and facilitates the successful inclusion of students with disabilities. Screening measures are designed to be used with all students, including students with disabilities, in order to determine the typical performance of most students, but also to provide a gauge of how discrepant some students are from the ‘expected’ performance range. The difference between typical peer performance and the included student should inform how intensive the instructional supports need to be to support that student adequately (Harn, Linan-Thompson, & Roberts, 2008; Howell & Nolet, 2000). Not only are students screened to determine needs within the classroom prior to instruction, but regular progress monitoring determines whether students are receiving services that are accelerating their learning or whether additional or different supports need to be implemented (Chard & Harn, 2008). Additionally, the school should also regularly (e.g., beginning, middle, and end of year) review grade-level performance and evaluate it in comparison to prior year performance in order to determine whether more system changes (e.g., change of program, modification of intervention supports, more professional development in comprehension, etc.) are needed ( Jones et al., 2010). Data should also inform the professional development needs of school staff. Examination of the data can determine the intensity, frequency, and duration of necessary professional development to provide the staff with support in implementing research-based practices with levels of fidelity that will improve student achievement (Honig et al., 2013; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). High-quality, evidence-based reading programs must be paired with high- quality professional development and support to improve instructional practices (Chard, 2004; Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher 2003). Collaboration and school-based literacy coaching have been shown to be effective components of professional development, with evidence suggesting that a literacy coach can provide support for teachers’ professional learning, self- efficacy, and engagement while improving instruction (Nielsen, Barry, & Staab, 2008).This may be particularly important for teachers who are including students with a wider range of skills and disabilities and/or who have limited skills and knowledge on how to effectively differentiate (Denton, 2012; Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). The fi rst goal of a school professional development plan should be to maximize the core literacy program. While many EBPs address critical skills in literacy development, targeted professional development can ensure increased fidelity of implementation and higher outcomes when coupled with effective instructional practices. Teachers need to be taught and supported to use principles of effective instruction such as: • • •

optimizing engaged time/time on task promoting high levels of success increased content coverage

232

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

• •

increased time in smaller, homogenous groups scaffolded instruction (Archer & Hughes, 2011)

These instructional practices are necessary in supporting the learning of all students and are considered essential for effective differentiation. Professional development will also need to have components to teach staff to use data to inform and support differentiated instruction. Data should drive decisions regarding grouping for effective skill instruction as well as levels of support required for different topographies of learners in evaluating response to interventions. Using data can also identify the instructional areas needing differentiation; the areas most commonly needing differentiation in the lower elementary grades are in fluency development, as well as vocabulary and reading comprehension development, which is discussed next. The next section will focus on more targeted instructional practices to maximize reading development in grades K–3, followed by a discussion of practices suited to upper elementary.

Effective Practices for Kindergarten through Third Grade Fluency Development One of the more studied areas in literacy instruction is developing fluency in reading connected text through the use of repeated reading strategies. Repeated reading has been defi ned in a number of ways, but it generally requires students to “read passages in connected text or word lists more than once” (Chard, Ketterlin-Geller, Baker, Doabler, & Apichatabutra, 2009, p. 266). This defi nition emphasizes word-, sentence-, or passage-level fluency, as recommended within factors that impact fluency development (Torgesen et al., 2001). Many core reading programs either don’t have time devoted to fluency, or the time allocated is insufficient to meet the needs of most learners. A general instructional approach that has been found to be effective at maximizing student opportunities to practice to build fluency, and which can be used with existing core reading materials, is Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS). PALS was initially designed as a strategy for use in general education classrooms to supplement comprehensive reading programs by increasing student opportunities to read aloud, receive feedback, and practice answering comprehension questions (Simmons, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 1995). Since its inception, it has been modified across grade levels (preschool, elementary, middle, and high school), content areas (reading and math), and student populations such as students with LD (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998; Simmons et al., 1995) and ELLs (Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Across each of these areas, the general steps and method of implementation are the same. The process of implementing PALS requires the teacher to create student pairs that vary in reading skill level; the higher performer is called the ‘coach’ and the lower performer is the ‘player.’ These dyads are used to provide both students with structured and efficient opportunities to practice reading letter sounds, words, or both (depending on grade/skill level), connect text, and identify and discuss the main ideas and essential information necessary to develop comprehension. The teacher trains the coach and player in how to interact (training materials provide explicit scripts for students to follow) while moving through the teacher- selected materials (i.e., each dyad has individually chosen instructional materials to maximize inclusive opportunities), and the teacher supervises and supports implementation through each of the phases of practice. When including students with 233

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

disabilities, teachers should be more cognizant in selecting dyads to ensure that the ‘coach’ best matches the skills and temperament of the student with disabilities. For example, it is not recommended to pair the student with disabilities with the highest reader in the class as the skill gap is so large it may negatively impact the students’ self-esteem, as the highest reader has never struggled with reading and has a harder time understanding the complexities of reading. It is suggested that PALS is implemented 2–3 times a week in 20–30 minute sessions (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Burish, 2000). Implementation can occur in small group or whole group situations. After the teacher trains the students on the specific approach of moving through the phases of PALS, the teacher signals the coach to begin the fi rst phase (Partner Reading) and the coach reads the words/passage while the player watches. It is assumed that the coach will have sufficient skills to complete the task accurately and will be a successful model for the player. They then switch roles and the player reads the words/passage with the coach providing feedback as needed. This reciprocal approach (coach and player taking turns and discussing) is used across the three phases of PALS: Partner Reading, Paragraph Shrinking (summarizing), and Prediction Relay (comprehension development/metacognition). For each phase, the teacher provides initial training on the essential steps and expectations of each phase. After training, the teacher will typically be the timer and facilitator to ensure that students are successful and on track. This approach provides all students an opportunity to actively engage during literacy instruction in a differentiated manner to support inclusive practices. Numerous studies have demonstrated PALS’ efficacy across grade-levels for students who are at-risk, have LD, have behavior disorders (BD), and who are ELLs (Fuchs et al., 2000; Saenz et al., 2005). Vocabulary and Reading Comprehension Instruction Inclusive classrooms have an inherently large variation in learner skills and topographies in many areas, but markedly so in levels of vocabulary development. Word knowledge challenges can stem from language or hearing impairments, reading disability, or learning English as a second language. Vocabulary development is particularly important because of the strong relationship between vocabulary and achievement in reading comprehension (Cunningham & Stanovich, 1997). Unfortunately, despite the great need for vocabulary instruction in the primary grades, vocabulary is not often explicitly taught, and frequently core reading programs do not offer this type of support in their materials either. One approach to developing vocabulary and comprehension is through storybook reading. Storybook reading is a common practice in most primary grade classrooms, but in successful inclusive classrooms storybook reading is an approach that could maximize vocabulary development and comprehension for all children. In the primary grades, evidence-based strategies for increasing vocabulary have been identified. One such strategy is dialogic reading (Whitehurst et al., 1994). Originally designed for use with preschool students, this strategy holds promise for working with children with disabilities and those at-risk for reading disabilities (Carlisle, Kenney, & Vereb, 2013). Dialogic reading is an intervention developed to accelerate language development in young children. Practice, feedback, and scaffolded interactions are carefully incorporated into storybook reading to expedite language development. Teachers (and/or parents) are trained to elicit more involved participation from children during story-time through evocative questioning techniques, providing feedback, and eliciting increasingly sophisticated descriptions from children. Eventually, the child begins to act as the storyteller. Questioning strategies are employed to prompt children in order to extend the child’s knowledge of words by targeted interaction and exploration of language (Arnold, Lonigan, Whitehurst, & Epstein, 1994). 234

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Another storybook reading strategy, developed by Beck, McKeown, and Kucan (2002), focuses on selecting rich vocabulary words that are high-utility but unlikely to be learned independently. Through a program called Text Talk, teachers use trade books to promote language development with kindergarten and fi rst grade students. The program trains teachers to explicitly identify and teach key words following storybook reading, giving the child a recognizable context in which to enhance their understanding of word meanings. These types of practices can be incorporate when using core reading materials, and have been found to benefit students that are ELL and with LD, as they provide meaningful and enriching literacy experiences.

Effective Practices for Upper Elementary Grades Roberts, Torgesen, Boardman, and Scammacca (2008) have argued that the big ideas for reading instruction that are crucial for learning in the primary grades need to be adjusted to meet the needs of readers in upper elementary, middle, and high school. The five big ideas proposed by these researchers include: 1) word study; 2) fluency; 3) vocabulary; 4) comprehension; and 5) student motivation. While the components discussed related to implementing a school-wide reading model in lower elementary grades (i.e., coordinating supports, use of EBP, data-based decision making, and professional development) also apply to upper elementary grades, this section will focus on content considerations that are most relevant to upper elementary inclusive classrooms. In the upper elementary inclusive classroom, differentiation will vary widely, based primarily on students’ skills in word analysis and fluency and what other supports (e.g., technology, personnel, etc.) are in place for students receiving special education services. An instructional focus on developing general and advanced word analysis skills (word study; Curtis, 2004) is critical to supporting students not only in reading and language art instruction, but also in the content areas (e.g., social studies, science, etc.). Advanced word analysis includes strategies to analyze words using the meaning (morphology) and structure (prefi xes, suffi xes) of their parts (Henry, 1993). Instructional practices related to fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension development will be discussed, as well as an introduction to self-regulated strategy development to target student motivation. Fluency Development Fluency instruction and practice are also important in the inclusive upper elementary classroom, but may look slightly different from fluency practice in the primary grades. Yet, as mentioned in the earlier section, PALS has been found to be effective in upper elementary grades as well (Fuchs et al., 2000). For older students the same strategies are still in play in terms of needing more scaffolded practice in reading connected text; however, we should also consider the importance of providing wide reading opportunities (e.g. high-interest materials) to maximize overall content exposure and increase motivation (Roberts et al., 2008). Vocabulary and Comprehension Development While teachers can differentiate using the core reading-program to promote word analysis, fluency, and comprehension skills, this is a significant challenge for many teachers depending on their skills and the skills of their students. Another approach may be to systematically augment the core reading program with a supplemental program. One evidence-based program that is designed to efficiently target word analysis, fluency, and comprehension skills 235

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

is the Reading Excellence Word Attack and Rate Development Strategies (REWARDS; Archer, Gleason, & Vachon, 2006). These authors have extended this targeted, integrated instructional approach by developing materials for upper elementary and middle school in social studies, science, and writing; however, less research has been conducted on the efficacy of those programs. An additional systematic instructional approach that can be integrated with literacy or content area materials for upper elementary is Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR; Klingner, Vaughn, Dimino, Schumm, & Bryant, 2001). CSR was developed specifically to provide students with learning or emotional/behavioral disabilities with greater access to the general education content through the deployment of specific instructional strategies focused on enhancing reading comprehension (Klingner et al., 2001). While related to reciprocal teaching (see previous discussion), it explicitly teaches reading comprehension strategies for use in expository text and provides scaffolded opportunities to interact with peers to maximize learning and collaboration. Reciprocal teaching includes four components: previewing text, self-reflection on what the student already knows, clarifying unclear information, and summarizing. In CSR they break it down into strategies that students should use before, during, and after reading. Before-reading strategies focus on previewing and developing/linking prior learning to the current text and explicit instruction in key vocabulary that is part of the materials to be read. Strategies in the during-reading phase focus on developing metacognitive strategies in terms of monitoring their understanding (‘Click and Clunk’) and summarizing key points (‘Get the Gist’). The after-reading practices focus on summarizing what they have learned and generating questions they may have on the content (‘Wrap-Up’). Instruction is delivered in a combination of whole class instruction with much of the time spent in smaller cooperative learning groups (8–12 students), using the strategies while reading the materials. Students are each provided with a specific role within the group as well as being taught how to interact to support the group in a meaningful manner. This approach has been used with students from grades four through middle school in both literacy and content areas (Boardman, Swanson, Klingner, & Vaughn, 2013; Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004). CSR has also been found to be effective in supporting students that are English Language Learners and students with low language abilities (Klingner & Vaughn, 2000). The authors believe that these practices may be particularly effective for ELLs because of the scaffolded peer interaction that occurs during cooperative learning, which provides students’ increased opportunity to discuss informational text in a less threatening, low anxiety situation (Boardman et al., 2013). More recent efforts indicate further investigation on the effectiveness with all ELLs, as well as with a wider range of student populations (Hitchcock, Dimino, Kurki, Wilkins, & Gersten, 2011). Self-Regulated Strategy Development In the upper elementary grades, writing instruction becomes increasingly important in terms of emphasis as well as in supporting comprehension (Harris, Graham, MacArthur, Reid, & Mason, 2011). One of the more widely researched approaches in the area utilizing mnemonic strategies is Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD). SRSD was developed by Harris, Graham and their colleagues as a way to explicitly teach students with behavioral/emotional issues to develop their writing and self-regulation strategies. SRSD has three major goals, to assist students to: (1) develop knowledge about writing and the skills and strategies involved in the writing process; (2) monitor and manage their own writing; and (3) develop positive attitudes and beliefs about writing and themselves as writers (Harris, Schmidt, & Graham, 1998). Teachers using SRSD deliver support across six stages of instruction, which 236

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

are: (1) develop and activate background knowledge; (2) discuss it; (3) model it; (4) memorize it; (5) support it; and (6) independent performance (Graham & Harris, 1996; Harris & Graham, 1992). A brief summary of each phase is provided next. Developing and activating background knowledge is critical when incorporating students with disabilities into a writing class. At this stage students develop their background knowledge and pre- skills so that they can successfully apply them to the process of writing. Students may need extra support at this stage to identify whether their writing performance is hindered by poor motivation and negative self- statements such as ‘I’m no good at this.’ By providing targeted skill support with content activation, student self-talk is redirected to be more positive in nature and linked to new skill acquisition in order to increase student motivation. During the ‘discuss it’ stage, students and teachers discuss the specific writing strategy that will be learned and establish goals and benefits from that strategy. Each step of the strategy is carefully explained, and teacher and students work together to explore how and when to use the strategies in writing. Student effort is strongly emphasized during this stage to enhance motivation and promote generalization throughout the writing process. During the ‘model it’ stage, the teacher models the use of the composing strategy and selected types of selfinstruction while writing a composition. Students may need prompts to support them at the beginning of this stage, and this should be incorporated with the teacher model. Selfinstruction strategies might include defi ning the problem, focusing attention and planning, coping and self- control, and self-reinforcement. Students are also taught the specific mnemonic, or strategy steps, across the stages so it can be memorized for current and future use. Teachers are taught to systematically scaffold support in using the steps/strategies in the ‘support it’ stage so that students master the strategy. This phase lasts as long as the student needs by potentially cycling back through the stages to support moving to the independent practice stage. During the independent practice stage, students are encouraged to use covert, ‘in your head,’ self-instructions and reinforcement. During this stage, teachers monitor to ensure that generalization and maintenance occur within the initial content area, but are also prompted for use in other content areas (e.g., science, social studies, etc.). There are many different types of instructional strategies that Harris, Graham, Mason, and Friedlander (2008) have developed to fit within these stages, including narrative, persuasive, and expository writing approaches for summarizing reading experiences. SRSD has been widely researched and found to be effective with students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, but also for students with LD, ADHD, and language impairments, as well as Aspergers and Autism spectrum disorders (Taft & Mason, 2011).

Classroom Management across Grades In order for students with disabilities to fully access their education, teachers need to be skilled at delivering instruction with classroom management. There is a strong relationship between classrooms that are well-managed and student academic outcomes (Algozzine & Algozzine, 2007; Horner et al., 2009; Lassen, Steele, & Sailor, 2006). Teachers responsible for effectively including students with disabilities need to ensure that their instructional practices include effective classroom management practices that are responsive to the needs of their learners, which is best accomplished using a multi-tiered, integrated behavioral support system (Kauffman & Hallahan, 2005; Lane, 2004). Across each tier of support, teachers must consider the physical setting, schedule, routine, and procedures, set high expectations, explicitly teach rules and expectations, and provide feedback and support on student performance. These supports may include additional practice on behavioral 237

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

expectations, or intervention supports such as a Tier II support like Check In/Check Out (CICO) or a Tier III support such as a Behavior Support Plan (BSP)—each of which need to be developed to align with the Tier I general education expectations so as to promote generalization of skills and access to the intent of general education (Strickland-Cohen & Harn, 2012). Each of these elements will be discussed in relation to what it looks like in Tier I (general education) instruction and then in terms of specific variations for supporting students needing Tier II or III supports.

Physical Setting Teachers who incorporate students with disabilities into their classrooms need to give thought to the physical arrangement of the room (Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). The physical layout of the room can have an impact upon students’ behavior. Providing adequate space around desks and centers will allow the teacher to more readily circulate the room and prevent misbehavior from occurring, and also to quickly provide feedback to students when needed. The classroom should be clear of clutter and materials that are not necessary for learning. Keeping the room clear of clutter will help students focus on their academic instruction with fewer distractions. Classrooms where clutter is kept to a minimum help students with disabilities such as Autism and Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) attend to the important stimuli related to instruction.

Schedule Teachers should carefully consider their schedule of activities throughout the day as well as within a lesson. Teachers should be mindful of students with disabilities when planning their schedules in terms of the students’ attention/persistence to task, and activity level. The types of activities should be varied and balanced, based on student needs (Beyda, Zentall, & Ferko, 2002). Teachers should also consider logical transitions when planning instructional experiences, as well as being sure to explicitly teach how to transition across activities (e.g., moving from story time to writing instruction, how to get/put away materials, etc.).

Routines and Procedures Appropriate student behavior is more likely to occur in classrooms in which routines and procedures are explicitly taught and followed regularly. Routines and procedures for all activities and transitions should be clearly defi ned by the teacher. If students engage in an activity more than once, that is a sign that the teacher should establish and teach a routine or procedure for those activities. Examples of routines and procedures that frequently occur in a classroom are: taking attendance, tardy policies, turning in homework, gathering materials for an activity, asking for assistance, lining up for recess, and returning to class. Teachers who take time to establish their expectations for routines and procedures at the beginning of the year will have more instructional time throughout the school year. Routines and procedures should be taught, reviewed, and reinforced until students show mastery over the skills, which typically means more teaching and prompting for students with disabilities (Colvin & Sugai, 1988). Classrooms that have effective routines and procedures for all activities increase the amount of instructional time available (Barbetta, Norona, & Bicard, 2005; Martella, Nelson, & Marchand-Martella, 2003). 238

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Expectations and Rules Expectations and rules need to be established and explicitly taught to students, especially students with disabilities. Student outcomes will improve when teachers take time at the beginning of the school year to teach their expectations to all of their students. Students who are unaware of the expectations will misbehave because they are unsure what is expected of them, and teachers will spend more time reprimanding/reacting to behavior, thereby losing valuable instructional time. Students with disabilities will require more practice and potentially differentiated instruction to ensure that they understand how to follow the rules, and may need to receive more feedback/reinforcement to support accurate learning (Colvin & Sugai, 1988).

Feedback and Observations Students should receive contingent feedback on their behavioral and academic performance in order to maximize learning and social/behavior development. Feedback should be provided both to confi rm correct behavior and correct misbehavior. Students with disabilities may need more frequent, specific, and positive support than their typically developing peers. Some teachers may benefit from support or training themselves in order to notice and reinforce students’ behavior when they are performing as expected. The provision of reinforcement for engaging in appropriate academic behavior (e.g., reading silently to yourself, taking notes as expected, putting name at top of paper, etc.) can support students in understanding the more complex expectations of self-regulation. This practice can also provide the necessary level of reinforcement for students with disabilities (e.g., ADHD, BD, etc.), who may need to persist to task and keep motivation optimal. Increased use of praise statements have been linked to higher rates of on-task behavior and opportunities to respond (Sutherland, Wehby, & Copeland, 2000; Sutherland, Wehby, & Yoder, 2002). The provision of corrective feedback should be viewed as an opportunity to re-teach a skill or strategy, rather than being viewed as a punishment. For example, a student who gets out of their seat without permission may need to be reminded of the classroom expectation of asking for permission before leaving their seat. Some students will need a model for how to ask for permission, potentially followed by use of a prompt when the behavior is anticipated, and then also provided with an independent practice opportunity. Just as is recommended for correcting an academic error, students should be corrected for behavioral errors (e.g., verbal prompt, individual practice of behavior, etc.) to support improved compliance. Additionally, teachers can note the type of errors in order to examine whether a pattern is occurring that may require more explicit instruction for groups of students (e.g., not submitting homework, etc). Teachers should frequently scan as well as circulate across classroom settings and seek out opportunities to provide their students with feedback, especially during initial teaching. This is particularly critical for students who teachers know require more supports. (Colvin, Sugai, & Lee, 1997; De Pry & Sugai, 2002).

Tier II Supports Effective classrooms link their Tier II support to Tier I expectations so as to increase supports in a coordinated and systemic manner (Strickland-Cohen & Harn, 2012). The support may include providing students with more opportunities to practice, changing the explicitness of the instruction, and/or providing more frequent monitoring/ 239

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

reinforcement of the skill/behavior. The two most common behavioral interventions within school-wide behavioral systems for Tier II are Check In and Check Out (CICO) and selfmanagement strategies. CICO CICO provides a structure for teachers to provide their students with positive, individual contact, feedback, and support for appropriate behaviors throughout a school day. This intervention is effective with students who respond well to adult attention (i.e., teaching, prompting, and reinforcement). This intervention has been effective in teaching students to complete assignments, use appropriate language, maintain task engagement, engage appropriately with peers, and follow directions. In general, this intervention works by identifying the specific behaviors the student needs to increase to be more successful. The child’s daily routine is organized into specific intervals (e.g., reading, computer, recess, lunch, art, etc.) and he or she receives contingent, specific feedback and reinforcement/points from the teacher, or another preferred adult, across the school day for displaying appropriate behavior. When used appropriately, it has been shown to decrease office discipline referrals (Filter et al., 2007; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; Todd, Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008). Figure 17.1 provides an example of a CICO behavior report card for a fourth grade student with EBD who frequently throws things in the classroom, is physically aggressive with other students, and does not fi nish work (will stop if he doesn’t know what to do or stares off into space instead of working). You will notice that each of these behaviors is written in a positive manner (i.e., what you want the student to do) as well as being directly tied to the general education (Tier I) expectations of being safe, responsible, and doing your personal best. The chart is placed on his desk so that the teacher can check in with him throughout the day and provide specific feedback of when he is being successful, as well as teaching appropriate behaviors. Daily goals (e.g., student earns 75% of points possible and student gets more computer time) are collaboratively developed with the teacher, parent, and student to increase motivation (Crone, Hawken, & Horner, 2010).

Check-in, Check-out Report Student _______________ 0 = Not Yet 1 = Good 2 = Excellent

Teacher___________________

Be Safe

Be Respectful

Keep Materials to Yourself

Keep Hands and Feet to Yourself

Date ________ Be Your Personal Best

Asking for Help When Confused

Completing Assignments

Reading

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Writing

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Recess

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Math

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Lunch

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Social Studies

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

0

1

2

Total Points = Points Possible = 48

Today ___________%

Figure 17.1 Sample Check-in, Check- out Daily Monitoring Form 240

Goal __________%

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

At the early elementary level, this chart can be modified, such as where a teacher fi lls in a smile or frown face based on behavior. Again, CICO can be modified/designed to address the social/behavioral needs of a student with disabilities in order to promote their use of appropriate behaviors in general education inclusive settings. Self-Management Self-management interventions may be particularly helpful for students with mild to moderate behavioral/attention difficulties, which can apply to many students with disabilities. Selfmanagement instruction is designed to teach students to control and direct their behavior by teaching them how to self-monitor, self-instruct, self-evaluate, and/or self-reinforce. For example, a student with Asperger’s, who frequently talks during teacher-led instruction, may benefit from learning how to self-monitor her hand-raising behavior. The student would be taught to record a plus sign every time she raised her hand, and a minus sign every time she talked out. At the end of the day/lesson, the teacher would check in with the student and, if the student had more plus signs than minus signs, the teacher would provide positive feedback and, potentially, some sort of reward. If the student had more minus signs, the teacher would strategize with the student how to improve performance the next time, possibly by having the teacher pre-correct between each lesson (Gumpel & David, 2000). Self-monitoring interventions focused on increasing on-task behaviors have also been associated with improved performance in multiple academic subject areas (Blick & Test, 1987; Moxley et al., 1995; Wolfe, Heron, & Goddard, 2000), and completed homework assignments (Trammel, Schloss, & Alper, 1994). Self-monitoring can also be combined with self-evaluation skills. Selfevaluation occurs when a student compares his performance with a predetermined goal, such as percentage of items completed on worksheets (Sweeney, Salva, Cooper, & Talbert-Johnson, 1993). Self-monitoring often becomes part of an intervention package where the teacher may provide the student reinforcement for meeting their goals. While there are a wide range of self-management interventions that have, or could be, developed to support students with disabilities (see review by Jolivette, Alter, Scott, Josephs, & Swoszowski, 2013), the intent of the interventions are the same: to improve and increase the student’s ability in completing necessary school-related skills (academic or behavioral). This increase in ability ensures that they are not engaging in inappropriate behaviors and have more academic learning time within an inclusive setting ( Jolivette et al., 2013).

Tier III Supports Students who need individualized supports (Tier III) may benefit from completing a functional behavior assessment (FBA) to support the design of a behavior support plan (BSP). An FBA is a systematic, evidence-based process for identifying the relationship between problem behaviors and the context/situation in which they occur (Carr, 1994; Lee, Sugai, & Horner, 1999). Functional assessments can be completed by gathering a range of data through teacher interviews, completion of rating scales, observations, and functional analysis (O’Neill et al., 1997). FBAs are usually conducted by a trained practitioner such as a school psychologist or behavior support specialist, and the following steps are involved in the process: (a) define the problem behavior; (b) identify the conditions (e.g., settings, time, etc.) under which the problem behavior is most and least likely to occur; and (c) identify the consequence(s) that are most likely maintaining the problem behavior (O’Neill et al., 1997). Once this information is gathered, an educational intervention/behavioral support team will develop an individualized BSP to match the general education teacher’s classroom expectations in order to 241

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

maximize the inclusionary experience for the student with disabilities, as well as other students (Alberto & Troutman, 2009). All BSPs should include strategies and/or interventions aimed at: (a) preventing the occurrence of problem behavior; (b) teaching appropriate replacement behaviors; and (c) reducing the pay- off for inappropriate behavior while increasing rewards for desirable behaviors through the use of consequence-based procedures. More detailed information on this process is available at the OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and at the following website: www.pbis.org. Research has shown that students with a range of disabilities who have initially intense or frequent disruptive behaviors will benefit from a properly developed and implemented BSP which will support a successful inclusionary experience for teachers and students. Frequently students with disabilities are not afforded this EBP, which is a key for many to maintaining access to a general education experience (Lane et al., 2013).

Effective Data-Based Decision Making Just as we discussed earlier in the academic section, student performance should be evaluated regularly. When considering behavior, teachers should monitor the number of times students need correction/redirection, as well as the number of office discipline referrals (ODRs) that students receive. Once a student receives more than two ODRs, this may be a signal that the student needs additional supports in the form of a Tier II intervention, and the teacher may need support from the school student-study or behavioral support team. The support team may provide a teacher with an opportunity to bring her data and share her experiences so the team can help determine the best course of action for the student, be it a Tier II or III intervention. Regardless of the intervention developed by the team, data should be collected and monitored on the student behavior. If the student does not improve as expected, then the student needs additional team support so that the inclusionary experience can be successful (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004; Todd et al., 2008).

Conclusion Multi-tiered service delivery systems afford schools the opportunity to meet the instructional needs of a wider range of students with and without disabilities more effectively. In this chapter we summarized what we know about effective practices in coordinating literacy instruction and provided specific instructional and behavioral practices that can be implemented to support effective inclusive practices and improve student outcomes. Critical features of effective inclusion practices to maximize literacy outcomes include coordination of academic and behavioral practices in a system driven by data-based decision making. The use of evidence-based practices must also be employed at all levels of instruction, with systematic professional development and supports for teachers to ensure that they are prepared to deliver quality instruction to an increasingly diverse population within inclusive classrooms.

References Alberto, P. A. & Troutman, A. C. ( 2009 ). Applied behavior analysis for teachers ( 8th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Merrill/Pearson. Algozzine, K. & Algozzine, B. ( 2007 ). Classroom instructional ecology and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 24, 29 – 47. doi: 10.1300/J370v24n01_02 Archer, A., Gleason, M., & Vachon, V. ( 2006 ). Reading excellence word attack and rate development strategies. Longmont, CO : Sopris West. 242

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Archer, A. & Hughes, C. ( 2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and effi cient teaching. New York, NY: Guilford Publication. Arnold, D. H., Lonigan, C. J., Whitehurst, G. J., & Epstein, J. N. (1994 ). Accelerating language development through picture book reading: Replication and extension to a videotape training format. Journal of Educational Psychology, 86, 235 –243. doi: 10.1037/0022-0663.86.2.235 Baker, S. K., Kame’enui, E. J., Simmons, D. C., Santoro, L., & Simonsen, B. ( 2011). Characteristics of students with diverse learning and curricular needs. In M. D. Coyne, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th Edition) (pp. 28 – 48 ). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Education, Inc. Barbetta, P., Norona, K., & Bicard, D. ( 2005). Classroom behavior management: A dozen common mistakes and what to do instead. Preventing School Failure, 49, 11–19. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. ( 2002 ). Bringing words to life: robust vocabulary instruction. New York: The Guilford Press. Bennett, T., DeLuca, D., & Bruns, D. (1997 ). Putting inclusion into practice: Perspectives of teachers and parents. Exceptional Children, 64, 115 –131. Beyda, S. D., Zentall, S. S., & Ferko, D. J. K. ( 2002 ). The relationship between teacher practices and the task-appropriate and social behavior of students with behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 27, 236 –255. Blick, D. W. & Test, D. W. (1987 ). Effects of self-recording on high- school students’ on-task behavior. Learning Disability Quarterly, 10, 203 –213. doi: 10.2307/1510493 Boardman, A. G., Swanson, E., Klingner, J. K., & Vaughn S. ( 2013 ). Using collaborative strategic reading to improve reading comprehension. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 33 – 46). Boston : Pearson. Carlisle, J. F., Kenney, C. K., & Vereb, A. ( 2013 ). Vocabulary instruction for students at risk for reading disabilities: Promising approaches for learning words from texts. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 47–59 ). Boston : Pearson. Carr, E. G. (1994 ). Emerging themes in the functional analysis of problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 393 –399. doi: 10.1901/jaba.1994.27-393 Chard, D. J. ( 2004 ). Toward a science of professional development in early reading instruction. Exceptionality, 12, 175 –191. doi: 10.1207/s15327035ex1203_5 Chard, D. J. ( 2012 ). A glass half full: A commentary on the special issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 270 –273. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442169 Chard, D. & Harn, B. ( 2008 ). Project CIRCUITS: Center for Improving Reading Competence Using Intensive Treatments Schoolwide. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.) Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 70 – 83 ). New York: Guilford Publications. Chard, D., Harn, B. A., Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enui, E. J. ( 2008 ). Core features of multi-tiered systems of reading and behavioral support. In C. R. Greenwood, T. R. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models (pp. 31–58 ). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Chard, D. J., Ketterlin-Geller, L. R., Baker, S. K., Doabler, C., & Apichatabutra, C. ( 2009 ). Repeated reading interventions for students with learning disabilities: Status of the evidence. Exceptional Children, 75, 263 –281. Colvin, G. & Sugai, G. (1988 ). Proactive strategies for managing social behavior problems: An instructional approach. Education & Treatment of Children, 11, 341–348. Colvin, G., Sugai, G., Good III., R. H., & Lee, Y. Y. (1997 ). Using active supervision and precorrection to improve transition behaviors in an elementary school. School Psychology Quarterly, 12, 344 –363. doi: 10.1037/h0088967 Cook, B. G. & Tankersley, M. (2013). Introduction to research-based practices in special education. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 1–9 ). Boston: Pearson. Cortiella, C. ( 2009 ). IDEA 2004: Improving transition planning and results. National Center for Learning Disabilities Web site. www. ncld. org/at- school/your- childs-rights/iep-aamp-504-plan/idea-2004improving-transition-planning-and-results. Published February, 24. Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. ( 2010 ). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. ( 2004 ). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York, NY: Guilford Press. 243

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

Cunningham, A. E. & Stanovich, K. E. (1997 ). Early reading acquisition and its relation to reading experience and ability 10 years later. Developmental Psychology, 33, 934 –945. Curtis, M. E. ( 2004 ). Adolescents who struggle with word identification: Research and practice. In T. L. Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.), Adolescent Literacy Research and Practice, (pp. 119 –134 ). New York, NY: Guilford. Denton, C. A. (2012 ). Response to intervention for reading difficulties in the primary grades: Some answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 232–243. doi: 10.1177/0022219412442155 Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Anthony, J. L., & Francis, D. J. ( 2006 ). An evaluation of intensive intervention for students with persistent reading difficulties. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39, 447– 466. Denton, C. A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2003 ). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201–211. De Pry, R. L. & Sugai, G. ( 2002 ). The effect of active supervision and pre- correction on minor behavioral incidents in a sixth grade general education classroom. Journal of Behavioral Education, 11, 255 –267. Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. ( 2007 ). Check in/Check out: A post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 69 – 84. doi: 10.1353/ etc.2007.0000 Fuchs, L. S. & Fuchs, D. (1998 ). General educators’ instructional adaptation for students with learning disabilities. Learning Disability Quarterly, 21, 23–33. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Burish, P. ( 2000 ). Peer-assisted learning strategies: An evidence-based practice to promote reading achievement. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 85 –91. Gillies, R. M. ( 2004 ). The effects of cooperative learning on junior high school students during small group learning. Learning and Instruction, 14, 197–213. doi: 10.1016/s0959-4752(03)00068-9 Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. (1996 ). Self-regulation and strategy instruction for students who fi nd writing and learning challenging. In C. M. L. S. Ransdell (Ed.), The science of writing: Theories, methods, individual differences, and applications (pp. 347–360 ). Hillsdale, NJ, England : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Gumpel, T. P. & David, S. ( 2000 ). Exploring the efficacy of self-regulatory training as a possible alternative to social skills training. Behavioral Disorders, 25, 131–141. Hallahan, D. P., Kauffman, J. M., Lloyd, J. W., Weiss, M. P., & Martinez, E. A. ( 2005). Learning disabilities: Foundations, characteristics and affective teaching. Boston : Allyn and Bacon. Harn, B. A., Chard, D. J., Biancarosa, G., & Kame’enui, E. J. ( 2011). Coordinating instructional supports to accelerate at-risk fi rst grade readers performance: An essential mechanism for effective RTI. Elementary School Journal, 112, 332 –355. Harn, B. A., Linan-Thompson, S., & Roberts, G. ( 2008 ). Intensifying instruction: Does additional instructional time make a difference for the most at-risk fi rst graders? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 41, 115 –125. Harris, K. R. & Graham, S. (1992 ). Self-regulated strategy development: A part of the writing process. In M. Pressley, K. R. Harris, & J. T. Guthrie (Eds.), Promoting academic competence and literacy in school (pp. 277–309 ). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., MacArthur, C. A., Reid, R., & Mason, L. H. ( 2011). Self-regulated learning processes and children’s writing. In B. J. Z. D. H. Schunk (Ed.), Handbook of self-regulation of learning and performance (pp. 187–202 ). New York, NY: Routledge/Taylor & Francis Group. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. ( 2008 ). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore : Brookes. Harris, K. R., Schmidt, T., & Graham, S. (1998 ). Every child can write: Strategies for composition and self-regulation in the writing process. In K. R. Harris, S. Graham, & D. Deshler (Eds.), Teaching every child every day: Learning in diverse schools and classrooms (pp. 131–167 ). Cambridge, MA, US : Brookline Books. Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L. ( 2007 ). Effects of the Behavior Education Program on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 94 –101. doi: 10.1177/10983007070090020601 Henry, M. K. (1993 ). Morphological structure: Latin and Greek roots and affi xes as upper grade code strategies. Reading and Writing, 5, 227–241. 244

Literacy Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Hitchcock, J., Dimino, J., Kurki, A., Wilkins, C., & Gersten, R. ( 2011). The impact of collaborative strategic reading on the reading comprehension of grade 5 students in linguistically diverse schools: Final report. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. Honig, B., Diamond, L., & Gutlohn, L. ( 2013 ). Teaching reading sourcebook ( 2nd ed.). Novato, CA: Arena Press. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009 ). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133 –144. doi: 10.1177/1098300709332067 Howell, K. W. & Nolet, V. ( 2000 ). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making ( 3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth/Thomson Learning. Jolivette, K., Alter, P., Scott, T. M., Josephs, N. L., & Swoszowski, N. C. ( 2013 ). Strategies to prevent problem behavior. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 141–152 ). Boston : Pearson. Jones, S., Burns, D., & Pirri, C. ( 2010 ). Leading literacy change. Longmont, CO : Sopris West. Kame’enui, E. J. & Simmons, D. C. (1998 ). Beyond effective practice to schools as host environments: Building and sustaining a school-wide intervention model in reading. OSSC Bulletin, 41( 3 ), 3 –24. Kauffman, J. M. & Hallahan, D. P. ( 2005). Special education: What special education is and why we need it. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. ( 2000 ). The helping behaviors of fi fth graders while using collaborative strategic reading during ESL content classes. TESOL Quarterly, 34, 738 –747. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. E., Hughes, M. T., & Leftwich, S. A. ( 2004 ). Collaborative strategic reading: “Real-world” lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial & Special Education, 25, 291–302 . Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Dimino, J., Schumm, J. S., & Bryant, D. ( 2001). Collaborative strategic reading: Strategies for improving comprehension. Longmont, CO : Sopris West. Lane, K. L. ( 2004 ). Academic instruction and tutoring interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: 1990 to the present. In R. B. Rutherford, M. M. Quinn, & S. R. Mathur (Eds.), Handbook of research in emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 462 – 486 ). New York: Guilford. Lane, K. L., Walker, H., Crnobori, M., Oliver, R., Bruhn, A., & Oakes, W. P. ( 2013 ). Strategies for decreasing aggressive, coercive behavior: A call for preventive efforts. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley (Eds.), Research-based practices in special education (pp. 192 –207). Boston : Pearson. Lassen, S. R., Steele, M. M., & Sailor, W. ( 2006 ). The relationship of school-wide positive behavior support to academic achievement in an urban middle school. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 701–712 . doi: 10.1002/pits.20177 Lee, Y.-Y., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. (1999 ). Using an instructional intervention to reduce problem and off-task behaviors. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 195 –204. doi: 10.1177/109830079900100402 Leithwood , K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., & Wahlstrom, K. ( 2004 ). Review of research: How leadership influences student learning. New York: Wallace Foundation. Marston, D. (1996 ). A comparison of inclusion only, pull- out only, and combined service models for students with mild disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 30, 121–132 . doi: 10.1177/002246699603000201 Martella, R. C., Nelson, J. R., & Marchand-Martella, N. E. ( 2003 ). Managing disruptive behaviors in the schools. Boston : Allyn & Bacon. Moxley, R. A., Lutz, P., Ahlsorn, P., Boley, N. & Armstrong, L. (1995). Self-recorded word counts of freewriting in Grades 1–4. Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 138 –157. National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author; 2006. Nielsen, D. C., Barry, A. L., & Staab, P. T. ( 2008 ). Teachers’ reflections of professional change during a literacy-reform initiative. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1288 –1303. O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R., Storey, K., & Newton, J. S. (1997 ). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook ( 2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Rivera, M. O., Moughamian, A. C., Lesaux, N. K., & Francis, D. J. ( 2008 ). Language and reading interventions for English language learners and English language learners with disabilities. Portsmouth, NH : RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction. 245

B. Harn, R. Fritz, and T. Berg

Roberts, G., Torgesen, J. K., Boardman, A., & Scammacca, N. ( 2008 ). Evidence-based strategies for reading instruction of older students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 23, 63 – 69. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2008.00264.x Saenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English Language Learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71, 231–247. Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., & Sugai, G. ( 2008 ). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 351–380. doi: 10.1353/etc.0.0007 Simmons, D. C., Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (1995). Effects of explicit teaching and peer-mediated instruction on the reading achievement of learning disabled and low-performing students. Elementary School Journal, 95, 387– 407. Stainback, S. B. & Stainback, W. C. (Eds.) (1996 ). Inclusion: A guide for educators. Baltimore, MD, US : Paul H Brookes Publishing. Strickland-Cohen, M. K. & Harn, B. A. ( 2012 ). Designing instruction and supports to prevent and decrease problem behavior. In E. E. Barton & B. A. Harn (Eds.), Educating young children with autism spectrum disorders. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. ( 2000 ). Effect of varying rates of behavior- specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8, 2 – 8. doi: 10.1177/106342660000800101 Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Yoder, P. J. ( 2002 ). Examination of the relationship between teacher praise and opportunities for students with EBD to respond to academic requests. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 5 –13. doi: 10.1177/106342660201000102 Sweeney, W. J., Salva, E., Cooper, J. O., & Talbert-Johnson, C. (1993 ). Using self- evaluation to improve difficult-to-read handwriting of secondary students. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3, 427– 443. doi: 10.1007/bf00961545 Taft, R. J. & Mason, L. H. ( 2011). Examining effects of writing interventions: Highlighting results for students with primary disabilities other than learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 359 –370. doi: 10.1177/0741932510362242 Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H. ( 2008 ). The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behaviors: Elementary school implementation of Check In-Check Out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 46 –55. doi: 10.1177/1098300707311369 Torgesen, J. K., Alexander, A. W., Wagner, R. K., Rashotte, C. A., Voeller, K. K. S., & Conway, T. ( 2001). Intensive remedial instruction for children with severe reading disabilities: Immediate and long-term outcomes from two instructional approaches. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34, 33 –58. doi: 10.1177/002221940103400104 Trammel, D. L., Schloss, P. J., & Alper, S. (1994 ). Using self-recording, evaluation, and graphing to increase completion of homework assignments. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 27, 75 – 81. doi: 10.1177/002221949402700202 Whitehurst, G. J., Arnold, D. S., Epstein, J. N., Angell, A. L., Smith, M., & Fischel, J. E. (1994 ). A picture book reading intervention in day care and home for children from low-income families. Developmental Psychology, 30, 679. Wolfe, L. H., Heron, T. E., & Goddard, Y. L. ( 2000 ). Effects of self-monitoring on the on-task behavior and written language performance of elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 49 –73. doi: 10.1023/a:1016695806663 Zigmond, N. P. and Kloo, A. ( 2011) General and special education are (and should be) different. In J. Kauffman and D. Hallahan (Eds.) Handbook of Special Education (pp. 160 –173 ). New York: Routledge.

246

18 Effective Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools Linda H. Mason1 and Elizabeth Benedek-Wood 2

Setting the Stage Many students, including students with disabilities, struggle with both the basic and higherlevel skills needed to write effectively. Fortunately, researchers have established a strong research base for what works in remediating basic skill and written comprehension performance across three instructional tiers or levels (individual, small group, and whole class instruction). Furthermore, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS, 2010) initiatives have focused attention on writing instruction as a shared responsibility for inclusive classrooms across grade levels and academic content. CCSS (2010) initiatives have a number of advantages for students with disabilities (Graham, Harris, & McKeown, 2013). First, CCSS emphasizes teaching all students to improve their writing and to use writing to support learning. Secondly, CCSS provides grade-level benchmarks with the goal of preparing students for writing in college and the workplace. Benchmarks in the elementary grades guide teachers to provide instruction for vocabulary and syntax use and for organizing and expressing ideas in short and extended personal narratives, opinion, and informative written responses. In later grades, instruction focuses on teaching students to (a) write informative, persuasive, and narrative text; (b) write to meet task, purpose, and audience; (c) plan and revise by editing or rewriting; (d) use technology for production, publication, and collaboration; (e) write both short and longer responses to demonstrate understanding; (f ) use and integrate multiple sources while avoiding plagiarism; (g) gather evidence from text to support writing; and (h) write in both short and extended time frames. Graham and Harris (2013) note that the CCSS initiatives set higher standards for writing in schools. Unfortunately, without individualized intervention, many students with disabilities will not meet benchmarks and standards. The National Assessment of Educational Progress (Salahu-Din, Persky, & Miller, 2008; National Center for Education Statistics 2012) indicates an impasse in writing achievement for all students, with approximately one-third of

1 University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill 2 The Pennsylvania State University 247

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

eighth- and twelfth-grade students failing to meet proficient skill levels. These reported results across grade levels have remained relatively stable, with no statistically significant improvement in closing score gaps for students with disabilities. Furthermore, evaluation of writing assessments in 22 states reveals that in 21 states, 50% or fewer middle school students with disabilities scored at or above proficient levels (Thurlow, Rogers, & Christenson, 2010). Data at the national and state levels would indicate a need for understanding students’ writing deficits and subsequent remediation. Students with disabilities, in particular, often lack the metacognitive skills required for effective writing, resulting in inefficient use of basic skills and strategies for planning, composing, revision, and editing (Graham & Harris, 2009). Students with learning disabilities (LD), for example, often have difficulties in generating ideas, organizing thoughts, setting goals, and self-monitoring performance. Students with cognitive deficits, severe memory deficits, and/or autism spectrum disorders may have difficultly using organizing strategies (Taft & Mason, 2011). Students with attention and behavioral difficulties may struggle with self-regulating writing (Reid, Trout, & Schwartz, 2005). For students with disabilities, who are often below the proficient level, explicit and scaffolded instruction for promoting successful learning is certainly warranted.

Historical Perspective on Basic Writing Skills Students with disabilities are often expected to plan and write short and extended compositions prior to mastering skills for transcription (i.e., handwriting, word processing, spelling) and sentence construction. Unfortunately, CCSS initiatives do not explicitly provide standards for these skills (Graham and Harris, 2013). However, writing that lacks legibility due to basic skill deficits is often categorized as poor writing despite having acceptable written content (Graham, 2006). The What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) report on writing states that best practice for transcription and sentence development includes providing students with frequent, individualized, short explicit lessons that target deficit remediation (WWC: Graham et al., 2012).

Transcription Skills In handwriting instruction, generally provided in kindergarten through third grade general education classrooms, students are taught how to use materials such as pencils and paper and are taught how to fluently write legible, well-formed letters. Approaches for teaching handwriting to students with disabilities has remained fairly consistent over time. Instruction should include explicitly teaching students to (a) form letters through teacher-led modeling, (b) compare and contrast letter features, (c) use facilitative supports such as marks for paper placement and grip molds for pencils, (d) independently evaluate and improve their handwriting, and (e) improve handwriting fluency (Graham, 1999). Troia (2006) notes that letter formation should be taught in isolation, followed by application in context. In recent years, the need for teaching word processing skills in schools has increased. In 2011, for example, the NAEP writing test, for eighth- and twelfth-grade students, was given as a computer-based assessment. From 2013, students in fourth grade and above will complete the assessment on the computer. It is critical, therefore, that typing and associated word processing skills are developed early (Graham et al., 2012). Instruction should begin in fi rst grade; by third grade, students’ typing fluency should be equivalent to their fluency in handwriting. The use of word processing impacts positively upon struggling students’ 248

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

performance [effect size (ES ) = 0.52 for writing quality, ES = 0.66 for organization, ES = 0.48 for number of words written, ES = 0.57 for mechanical correctness, and ES =1.42 for motivation; Morphy & Graham, 2012].1 Technology, however, has not eliminated the need for teaching students how to spell (MacArthur, Graham, Haynes & De La Paz, 1996). For students with disabilities, spelling is the most pervasive and difficult to remediate writing skill, often requiring individualized instruction (Moats, 2009). In contrast, spelling instruction in the inclusive classroom is integrated within a whole class test–study–test approach, wherein students are tested, provided instruction for misspelled words, and retested (Graham, 1999). Spelling, for all students, should be taught in a developmental model that starts in kindergarten, beginning with phonological awareness skills, progressing to spelling phonics in kindergarten through grade three and morphological spelling in grades two through six (Graham et al., 2012). Research-based recommendations for spelling intervention include: (a) teach words frequently used in writing; (b) emphasize multi- sensory techniques and language patterns; and (c) teach students to generate reasonable spellings for unknown words, check and correct spelling errors, and develop a desire to spell correctly (Graham, 1999). Graham further suggests that for struggling learners, word study strategies such as the Five-Step Word (say the word; write and say the word, check the word; trace and say the word; write the word from memory and check; repeat the five steps) should be used for distributive practice within the test–study–test spelling approach. Continual review of learned words and the integration of spelling words with students’ writing is recommended to support maintenance and generalization (Mason, Harris, & Graham, 2013).

Sentence Development Students’ sentence development should begin in kindergarten with language experience learning (i.e., student states a sentence, teacher writes the sentence) and teacher-led modeling, continuing through high school where students learn to focus on revision skills for improving compositions. Researchers note that instruction should be carefully selected. Sentence construction instruction has a moderate positive effect for improving performance [ES = 0.50], while rule-based instruction, such as punctuation and capitalization instruction and sentence diagramming, has a negative effect (ES = -.0.32; Graham & Perin, 2007). Three instructional practices are recommended in WWC (Graham et al., 2012): (1) sentence framing—the teacher provides frames for simple to complex sentences to develop sentence writing skills; (b) sentence expansion—the student uses a short sentence and parts of speech to write an expanded sentence; and (c) sentence combining—two short sentences are combined into one sentence or into one compound, complex, or complex-compound sentence. Two instructional research-based approaches, the Strategy Instruction Model (SIM) for sentence writing and sentence combining instruction, will be described later in this chapter.

Historical Perspective on Written Expression Several seminal literature reviews and meta-analyses have documented the effectiveness of focused strategy instruction for improving written expression performance of low-achieving students, including students with disabilities (e.g., Hillocks, 1986; Graham et al., 2013; Graham & Perin, 2007; Mason & Graham, 2008). Graham and Perin, for example, noted positive large effects for strategy instruction in remediating writing deficits (ES = 0.82) in group comparison studies. Four instructional models provide the conceptual foundation in writing practices for students with disabilities: Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CSIW: Englert, Raphael, 249

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

Anderson, Anthony, Stevens, & Fear, 1991), Interactive Dialogues (Wong, Butler, Ficzere, & Kuperis, 1996), Strategy Instruction Model (SIM: Schmidt, Deshler, Schumaker, & Alley, 1988), and Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD: Graham & Harris, 2009). Each of the models includes recommendations noted in WWC (2012): (a) teach strategies for writing process components, (b) scaffold instructional support from teacher to student, (c) teach students how to select and use writing strategies, (d) encourage flexibility in writing, (e) provide models, and (f ) teach students to write for different genres, purposes, and audiences. The effectiveness of CSIW for teaching text structure strategies for writing explanation and comparison/contrast expository essays was established in an experimental study with fourth- and fi fth-grade students (Englert et al., 1991): ES = 0.52 for writing quality across writing genres (See Graham, 2006). Students were explicitly taught to use the POWER (Plan, Organize, Write, Edit, and Revise) strategy and self- questioning think sheets to evaluate writing during planning, composing, revising, and editing. Peer conferencing and group activities supported dialoguing and collaboration. Wong and colleagues also established the effects of strategy instruction combined with dialoguing for eighth- and ninth-grade students with LDs and English language learners: ES = 1.52 to 3.50 for writing quality (Wong et al, 1996; Wong Butler, Ficzere, Kuperis, Corden, & Zelmer, 1994). Intervention components included explicit explanation and modeling for an opinion essay planning strategy, peer collaborative practice in planning, teacher evaluation of planning, typing the essay on a computer, student–teacher conferencing, pair revision for content, and individual error-monitoring. Both Englert and Wong, and their colleagues, noted the advantages for (a) including teacher–student and student–student dialogue during explicit writing instruction, (b) teaching self-regulation, and (c) teaching in meaningful contexts. SIM instruction for improving sentence- and paragraph-level skills with high school students has been established as effective in numerous single subject design studies (See Mason & Graham’s 2008 review). SIM includes eight stages of instruction: (1) pre-test skills, establish a purpose, and set goals for learning; (2) describe when and how to use the strategy; (3) teacher-led modeling by thinking out loud; (4) practice activities to support memorization; (5) scaffold practice by increasing task difficulty gradually; (6) practice in grade-level contexts; (7) post-test and obtain commitment for generalization; and (8) application of learning to the general education classroom (Schmidt et al., 1988). Both administrators and teachers provide students opportunities for generalization, opportunities for feedback, adaptation for strategy modification to meet setting demands, and periodic maintenance checks. SRSD has the largest evidence base of research study in written expression. Graham et al. (2013) found strong effect sizes (ES = 1.75 for writing quality and ES = 2.24 for structural elements) for SRSD in 28 true and quasi- experimental studies for planning, writing, and revising narrative, persuasive, and informative text. Although the majority of early studies were for students with LD (ES = 2.37), the SRSD research base has been effectively extended to include studies examining SRSD for struggling learners (e.g., Harris, Graham, & Mason, 2006) and for students with emotional and behavioral disorders, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, autism spectrum disorders, and intellectual disabilities (see Taft & Mason’s 2011 review). The model, developed by Harris (1982), promotes imbedding cognitive strategies with self-regulated learning to support reflective writing. Strategy acquisition is supported in six instructional stages (establish background knowledge, discuss it, model it, memorize it, guided practice, and independent practice). Four procedures for self-regulation (goal setting, self-monitoring, self-instruction, and self-reflection) are taught and supported throughout writing. See Figure 18.1 for description of instructional stages and self-regulation. SRSD studies have been conducted across age groups, settings, tasks, and languages. 250

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Develop Background Knowledge The teacher develops students’ background knowledge and necessary pre-skills for using the task and/or self-regulation strategies. When teaching narrative writing, for example, the teacher discusses related vocabulary and concepts such as the parts of a narrative (e.g., who, when, where). The teacher should describe the use of effective self-instructions to facilitate writing. Positive self-instructions such as “I have a strategy to help me” and “Did I follow all of the steps” support writing productivity, whereas negative self-instructions such as “I hate writing” and “I don’t know what to do” will likely interfere with the writing process. Discuss It The teacher discusses how the strategy and self-regulation components help students with their writing. The teacher discusses each step of the strategy and how and when to use the strategy. For example, when teaching persuasive writing, the teacher will introduce and discuss the strategy steps used to develop an argument. After introducing the targeted strategies, the teacher and student make a commitment and set goals to learn and use the strategy. At this time, the students’ current performance can be reviewed. Model It The teacher models how to complete each step of the strategy and how to apply the components of self-regulation by “thinking aloud” while completing the writing task. The purpose of a “think aloud” model is to show students how a skilled writer thinks and performs throughout the writing process. The teacher models self-instructions for setting goals, organizing notes, constructing a response, self-monitoring performance, evaluating performance, and using self-reinforcement. Memorize It Students should begin working on memorization as soon as the strategy is introduced. Teachers can provide students with mnemonic charts to support memorization in the beginning, but visual supports should be gradually faded over time so that students can eventually apply the strategy independently. Providing practice opportunities for memorization (e.g., asking students to recite steps at the beginning and/or end of class) can help students in remembering the steps. Teachers may decide to continue the use of visual supports (e.g., mnemonic charts, graphic organizers) for students experiencing difficulty with memorization. Support It Teachers provide students with the support that is necessary for them to be successful in applying the targeted strategies. Opportunities for guided practice are critical for students when learning the strategy and should be repeated as many times as necessary. Teachers monitor students’ performance and gradually fade support based on their performance so that students build independence in using all self-regulation procedures to perform the task successfully. Independent Performance Once teachers fade support completely, providing opportunities for independent practice is necessary for students to demonstrate their use of the strategies during the targeted writing task. During this stage, teachers should continue to monitor student performance to ensure that students have achieved independence. Additionally, this stage should also include plans for maintaining and generalizing the strategy and self-regulation procedures across content-areas.

Figure 18.1

Stages of Strategy Acquisition and Self-regulation Procedures in Self-regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) Instruction

251

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

Although the research base for both basic writing skill and written expression is smaller than for other academic skills such as reading, research findings have been consistent over time, leading to a number of instructional approaches that are well suited for the inclusive classroom.

Setting a Course for Effective Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools CCSS (2010) initiatives underscore the importance of teaching students to (a) write to text type and purpose; (b) attend to the writing production processes of planning, composing, and revision, and distribution of writing through use of technology; (c) use research to support and present knowledge in writing; and (d) write across short and extended time frames (Graham & Harris, 2013). Graham and Harris make the following recommendations for implementing these CCSS writing initiatives: (a) create a learning environment in which students will succeed, (b) implement evidence-based writing practices in inclusive classrooms, and (c) use evidence-based practices known to be effective for students with disabilities. Researchers, fortunately, have developed and validated instructional methods for teaching students the critical components of composition, from beginning with basic skills for transcribing and spelling words into sentences to the processes of planning, organizing, and revising text (Mason et al., 2013). To meet the needs of students with disabilities, and to provide a learning environment that fosters success, three tiers or levels of writing instruction (i.e., whole class, small group, and individual) are recommended.

Instruction for Beginning Writers Instructional practices for “learning to write” in the inclusive classroom are not without controversy. One approach focuses on learning these skills incidentally through immersion in literacy-rich environments (Graham, 1999). Although limited research supports the notion that all students acquire critical skills from incidental learning approaches, these approaches do play an important role when it comes to applying learned skills and building fluency (Graham, 1999). The second approach—explicit instruction for transcription and sentence writing skills, and strategy instruction for written expression—has, as noted previously, proven effective for struggling learners. For the inclusive classroom, providing instruction for writing skills, combined with natural learning opportunities for application, supports an optimal learning environment for all students. WWC (2012) recommendations for effective elementary writing instruction include (a) provide daily time for writing, (b) teach students the writing process, (c) teach students to write for a variety of purposes, (d) teach students to become fluent in basic writing skills, and (e) create an engaged community of writers. Integrating skill instruction with written expression reinforces writing as an integrated process as opposed to separate skills to be learned. Basic Skill Instruction When teaching transcription skills, Graham (1999) notes that instruction should (a) be interesting and fun, (b) focus on skills that have a high rate of return, and (c) be connected. The CASL Handwriting/Spelling Program (Graham & Harris, 2006), for example, was developed to address both handwriting and spelling skills for beginning writers (e.g., kindergarten and fi rst grade), and includes instruction for writing the letters of the alphabet, handwriting fluency, knowledge of sound–letter combinations, spelling patterns, and frequently used words. In this program, the teacher selects target words based on 252

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

misspellings from a pre-test of commonly used words as well as other words students misspell in writing. In addition to these words, a spelling phonics sequence is included in the handwriting and spelling lessons. Researchers investigated the effectiveness of CASL in three randomized control trial studies and found that students demonstrated significant improvement in both reading and spelling skills, with ES ranging from 0.54 to 1.46 (Graham, Harris, & Fink, 2000; Graham, Harris, & Fink-Chorzempa, 2002). As students learn to write and spell words with some proficiency, they should be taught proofreading strategies as part of the writing process (WWC, 2012). Students should learn how to independently check their spelling, and should be provided with integrated opportunities for applying spelling skills. Teaching students how to use tools such as dictionaries and software technology (e.g., spell checkers and word processing tools) can support independence in checking and correcting work. However, the advantages of built-in editing features in software should be carefully considered for students with disabilities. MacArthur et al., (1996) examined the limitations of spell checkers on the outcomes of students with LD, and found that (a) spell check software does not flag inappropriate or misspelled words if the incorrect version of a word exists in a dictionary (e.g., homonyms); and (b) if the student’s attempt to spell a word is too far from the correct spelling, spelling software will not supply a correct word in the list of substitutions. Young students generally learn to write sentences by creating simple sentences, mirroring sentences in early written text—for example, “The cat sat” and “The cat was sad” (Saddler, 2012). By fourth grade, students should write more complex sentences, using approximately 14 words. For many students, learning to write complex sentences occurs incidentally as they are learning to read text that contains more complex syntactical (i.e. sentence) structures. Many students with disabilities, however, will lack the syntactical control to expand sentence writing beyond the basic simple format. For these students, sentence combining instruction is recommended. The two example sentences above, for example, can be combined to read “The sad cat sat.” Effective sentence combining instruction relies heavily on (a) teacher modeling, (b) use of examples and non- examples, (c) practice in isolated activities, and (d) practice in applied activities such as during planning, composing, and revision. Graham (1999) notes that by integrating reinforcement systems and games within practice opportunities, motivation and interest in writing is increased. Incorporating games, computer-based activities, and self-regulation in the inclusive classroom can improve students’ transcription and sentence writing skills and increase their desire to learn. When students automatically and accurately write and spell words, they can focus on the content of what they are writing in sentences and paragraphs. Written Expression A process approach—planning, drafting, sharing, revising, editing, evaluating, and publishing—is generally adopted by most elementary classroom teachers (WWC, 2012). If a writer struggles with one of these phases, then other areas are likely to be affected (Hayes & Flower, 1980). Skilled writers recursively apply writing components by setting goals, generating and organizing ideas, composing text, revising text, and regulating their writing (Harris, Graham, Mason, & Friedlander, 2008.). Research indicates that providing strategy instruction for teaching written expression assists students in addressing the various phases of the writing process. Several SRSD approaches for teaching narrative and persuasive strategies to beginning writers are well tested across the elementary grade levels (Harris, Graham, Mason, & 253

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

Friedlander, 2008). The general writing strategy POW (Pick my idea, Organize my notes, Write and say more), combined with a task- specific planning strategy, such as (a) WWW, What=2, How=2 (Who, When, Where, What does the main character do or want to do? What happens next? How does the main character or other characters feel? How does the story end?) for narrative writing, and (b) TREE (Topic sentence—Tell what you believe; Reasons—three or more; Ending—Wrap it up right; and Examine—Do I have all my parts?) for opinion writing, has proven effective for all instructional tiers (Graham & Harris, 2009). For example, in one experimental study—small group instruction for struggling second grade students—students receiving SRSD, when compared to students in a control condition, improved in both the number of story elements written (ES = 0.97) and the number of persuasive elements written (ES = 1.08) (Harris et al., 2006). Learning how to write is a complex process that requires students to acquire and apply skills for transcription, sentence writing, and written expression. Formal instruction typically begins with lower-level skills and progresses to higher-level writing strategies for planning, generating organized and interesting text, and revising text across content- areas (Graham & Perin, 2007). When teachers focus instruction on these higher-level writing strategies, the goal of writing instruction generally shifts from “learning to write” to “writing to learn.”

Instruction for Adolescent Writers “Learning to write” is an unending process that begins in elementary school and continues as students learn to refi ne and expand their writing skills (Fisher & Frey, 2012). As students advance in school, “writing to learn” activities focus students’ writing to support knowledge acquisition and promote critical thinking across content-area classrooms (Deshler, Palincsar, Biancarosa, & Nair, 2007). “Writing to learn” instruction and activities should provide opportunities for exploring, recalling, clarifying, questioning, and explaining learned information (Mason, Reid, & Hagaman, 2012). In order to use writing as a catalyst for learning, students must have the ability to write effective sentences, short constructed responses, and extended constructed responses, revise their writing, and be able to write about what has been read. Sentence Writing CCSS (2010) initiatives include conventions for using English (e.g., using simple, compound, complex, and compound- complex sentences to identify relationships among ideas) and for using vocabulary (e.g., using text context for developing word meanings). Both SIM for sentence writing (Schmidt et al., 1988) and sentence combining (Saddler, Behforooz, & Asaro, 2008) can support students’ learning towards these objectives. In SIM sentence writing instruction (Schmidt et al., 1988), a mnemonic—PENS (Picks, Explores, Noted, Subject)—is used to help students remember the steps for applying 14 sentence formulas to write simple, compound, complex, and compound- complex sentence structures. In single- case study with students’ with LD, complete sentence writing skills improved after instruction with a mean percentage of non- overlapping data (PND ) of 89% (Mason & Graham, 2008).2 In sentence combining instruction, students are taught to write six different sentence types: compound sentences; sentences with adjective or adverb modifiers; sentences connected with coordinating or subordinating conjunctions; sentences that contain a modifying clause; sentences with two phrases referring to the same noun; and sentences that contain possessive 254

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

nouns (Saddler, 2012). Results of research with students with LD found that after instruction, students’ sentence writing improved (PND = 100% for sentence combining skills and 91.6% for sentence complexity) (Saddler et al., 2008). In both SIM for sentence writing and sentence combining, instruction should be explicit in terms of: (a) the purpose and benefits of instruction established; (b) teacher modeling while talking out loud about the procedures; (c) clear example and non- example sentences; (d) guided group, peer, and individual practice; and (e) writing for application. Sentence development has been imbedded within two SRSD instructional programs (De La Paz & Graham, 2002; Mason, Dunn Davison, Hammer, Miller, & Glutting, 2012). In both programs (which will be described later) sentence writing is taught as supplemental mini-lessons to support writing for those students who lack mature sentence writing skills, or is integrated with instruction for revision. Short Constructed Responses Adolescents should be taught how to refi ne, expand, and generalize paragraph-writing skills across tasks and content areas. One approach—SIM instruction for paragraph writing (Schumaker & Lyerla, 1991)—teaches students to write paragraphs using a variety of text structures, including description, temporal sequence, compare and contrast, and cause and effect. SIM instruction for paragraph writing uses the mnemonic SLOW CaPS (Show the type of paragraph in the fi rst sentence; List the type of details you plan to write about; Order the details; Write the details in complete sentences and cap off the paragraph with a Concluding, Passing, or Summary sentence) to support strategy steps. SIM paragraph writing for students with LD has been established as very effective, with 100% PND for structural elements (Mason & Graham, 2008). SRSD for quick writes is another approach for supporting paragraph responses (Mason, Benedek-Wood, & Valasa, 2009). Teachers can use quick writes across content-area classrooms to provide students with opportunities to (a) reflect on prior knowledge, (b) recall information, (c) summarize information, (d) express thoughts, and/or (e) ask questions. In SRSD for quick writing, students are taught to apply (a) strategies for constructing a response (e.g., POW+TREE with a counter argument and refute for persuasive writing), and (b) selfregulation for writing within a 10-minute time frame. Mason and colleagues have validated an SRSD one-to-one tutoring model for quick writing in five single subject studies (e.g., Mason, Kubina, & Taft, 2011) and one quasi- experimental study, ES = 1.49 for organization quality (Mason, Kubina, Kostewicz, Cramer, & Datchuk, 2013). Preliminary evidence indicates that group instruction for SRSD for informative quick writing is effective in the middle school inclusive science classroom (Benedek-Wood, Mason, Wood, & Hoffman, in press). Given the importance of writing across content areas, and the efficient nature of this approach, quick writes serve as an effective tool for providing writing opportunities in the inclusive classroom (Mason et al., 2009). Extended Constructed Responses Extended responses, such as essays, typically include multiple paragraphs that focus on a given topic. When constructing an extended response, writers must organize their thoughts within and across paragraphs in order to formulate a coherent paper that clearly communicates the information to the intended audience. Effective instructional approaches have been developed for improving students’ performance in writing expository and persuasive essays. In SIM for the ANSWER test-taking strategy (Therrien, Hughes, Kapelski, & Mokhtari, 2009), for example, students with LD were taught six steps for constructing an essay: (a) analyze the action words in the question, (b) notice the requirements of the question, (c) set up an outline, 255

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

(d) work in detail, (e) engineer an answer, and (f ) review an answer. Researchers noted large pre-test to post-test effects (ES = 1.69) in essay writing performance after instruction (Therrien et al., 2009). SRSD instruction has also been established as effective for teaching essay writing. One SRSD strategy for writing expository essays is the two-part strategy, PLAN (Pay attention to the prompt, List the main ideas, Add supporting Ideas, Number your ideas) and WRITE (Work from your plan to develop your thesis statement, Remember your goals, Include transition words, Try to use different kinds of sentences, Exciting, interesting, million-dollar words; De La Paz & Graham, 2002). PLAN is a general planning strategy that assists students in creating and organizing a plan for composing an expository essay. The second strategy, WRITE, prompts students to carry out their plan by composing an organized essay that includes a range of vocabulary words and sentence types. PLAN and WRITE supports students in organizing their writing and generating interesting content. PLAN and WRITE has been used effectively in the inclusive middle school classroom for teaching students how to write for a state exam (ES = 1.71 for essay quality and 1.13 for number of different words written). Another SRSD approach supports persuasive writing by teaching students two strategies for developing and supporting an argument (De La Paz & Graham, 1997). In the fi rst strategy, STOP, students (a) Suspend judgment by listing reasons for each side, (b) Take a side after reviewing the listed reasons, (c) Organize ideas by ranking reasons from strongest to weakest, and (d) Plan more as you write. As students write, they are taught to apply the following steps for the second strategy, DARE: (a) Develop a topic sentence, (b) Add supporting ideas, (c) Reject arguments for the other side, and (d) End with a conclusion. In study for students with LD, STOP and DARE was noted to be effective (100% PND for number of essay parts; De La Paz & Graham, 1997). Revision Revising plays a key role in the writing process (Hayes & Flower, 1980), and yet students often demonstrate difficulty in making effective revisions that improve the overall quality of their writing. Skilled writers typically revise work at the sentence and text level to enhance the content of their writing, whereas novice writers often focus primarily on surface level revisions (i.e., mechanical errors), which have less of an impact upon the content of their compositions. Researchers have found that teaching revision strategies assists students in making effective changes that improve the overall quality of their writing. The SIM strategy COPS (Capitalization and communication, Organization and layout, Punctuation and Paragraphing, Spelling and Sentence Structure; Schumaker, Deshler, Nolan, Clark, Alley, & Warner, 1981) has been used effectively across settings with 80% PND in single subject study (Mason & Graham, 2008). Using the SIM instructional procedures, students learn the COPS mnemonic, which prompts them to apply specific steps for revising and editing their work. Students are taught to ask themselves questions by applying COPS: (a) Have I capitalized the fi rst word in sentences and proper nouns? (b) Have I made any handwriting, margin, messy, or spacing errors? (c) Have I used end punctuation correctly? and (d) Do the words look like they are spelled right? In two SRSD studies (Graham & MacArthur, 1988; Stoddard & MacArthur, 1993), students were taught to write a persuasive essay and to apply a revising strategy: (1) read your essay; (2) fi nd the sentences that tell you what you believe—is it clear? (3) add two reasons why you believe it; (4) SCAN each sentence (S-does it make sense ? C-is it connected to my belief? A-can you add more? N-Note errors?); (5) make changes on the computer; and 256

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

(6) reread your essay and make fi nal changes. In both studies, researchers found large effects in students’ revising performance after completing the intervention (PND = 100%). Providing peer-revision opportunities has proven to be effective for supporting collaborative writing in classrooms (Graham & Perin, 2007). MacArthur, Schwartz, and Graham (1991) taught a peer-revision strategy for personal narratives written on a computer. The intervention included two steps: (1) read aloud and discuss narratives, reread partner’s paper, make revision notes for clarification and elaboration, and discuss recommendations; and (2) discuss changes for mechanical errors. After completing these steps, students wrote fi nal drafts on a word processor. Results indicated that after instruction, students wrote higher quality papers (ES = 1.09). Affording students the opportunity to collaborate and help each other on a task can promote academic learning as well as social interactions in the inclusive classroom. Reading and Writing Providing students with writing opportunities embedded within reading activities can serve as an effective way of supporting comprehension across content areas (Deshler et al., 2007). Researchers have found that students’ comprehension increases when given the opportunity to write about what they read (Graham & Hebert, 2010). Mason and colleagues have investigated the effects of using SRSD instruction for teaching students how to use two strategies for reading and writing strategies together—TWA (Think before reading, think While reading, and think After reading; Mason et al., 2012) and PLANS (Pick goals, List ways to meet goals, And, make Notes, Sequence notes; Graham, MacArthur, Schwartz, & Page-Voth, 1992). TWA includes nine steps for supporting self-regulation and comprehension during the following stages of reading: (a) before reading (think about the author’s purpose, what you know, what you want to learn), (b) while reading (think about reading speed, linking knowledge, and rereading parts), and (c) after reading (think about the main idea, summarizing information, and what you learned). This approach teaches students to activate prior knowledge before reading, to self-monitor reading comprehension, to take notes, and to reflect on and recall what was read. The second strategy, PLANS, facilitates goal setting for composing an informative essay of what was learned by teaching students to identify goals, to create a plan for meeting goals, and to organize their notes. Mini-lessons for vocabulary and sentence development are included in TWA and PLANS instruction. Researchers have reported positive effects: an ES ranging from 0.73 to 1.37 and 94% PND respectively, across measures of students’ knowledge (e.g., main ideas written in an informative essay), in students’ reading comprehension and writing performance after small group instruction (Mason et al., 2012; Mason, Hickey Snyder, Sukhram, & Kedem, 2006). Connecting writing opportunities to reading provides teachers with a tool for enhancing student learning.

Conclusion Results of national and state assessments are not surprising, given what is known about teacher preparation for teaching writing. Twenty- eight percent of surveyed elementary teachers (Cutler & Graham, 2008) and 71% of surveyed high school teachers (Kiuhara, Graham, & Hawken, 2009) indicated that their teacher preparation program did little to prepare them to teach writing. Fortunately, as noted in this chapter, evidence-based practices have been established for teaching low-achieving writers, with and without disabilities, how to write in special education and general education settings. It is well established that effective writing instruction should include careful progress monitoring; planning that considers flexible 257

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

groupings, adaptation, and scaffolding; appropriate pacing for individual students; plenty of opportunity to be actively engaged; and positive and facilitative feedback (Mason et al., 2013). The challenge is to get these practices translated into the inclusive classroom. In this chapter, we described three instructional tiers or levels (individual, small group, and whole class instruction) of evidence-based practice for basic skill and written comprehension instruction for the inclusive classroom. Key features of effective writing instruction in inclusive schools include explicit instruction for skill and strategy development. Teaching students to self-regulate writing performance throughout the writing processes of planning, composing, revising, and editing supports generalization and maintenance across writing tasks and genres, and across classrooms.

Notes 1 Effect sizes for group studies are considered to be small (.20), medium (.50), or large (.80), as suggested by Cohen (1988). 2 A PND of 90% and above is considered a large effect, 70–90%% a medium effect, and below 70%% indicates a small effect (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & Casto, 1987).

References Benedek-Wood, E., Mason, L. H., Wood, P., & Hoffman, K. (in press ). SRSD for quick writing in the middle school classroom. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal. Cohen, J. (1988 ). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences. Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum. Common Core State Standards: National Governors Association and Council of Chief School Officers ( 2010 ). Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/ Cutler, L. & Graham, S. ( 2008 ). Primary grade writing instruction: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 100, 907–919. De La Paz, S. & Graham, S. (1997 ). Strategy instruction in planning: Effects on the writing performance and behavior of students with learning difficulties. Exceptional Children, 63, 167–181. De La Paz, S. & Graham, S. ( 2002 ). Explicitly teaching strategies, skills, & knowledge: writing instruction in middle school classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 687– 698. Deshler, D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. ( 2007 ). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DE : International Reading Association. Englert, C. S., Raphael, T. E., Anderson, L. M., Anthony, H. M., Stevens, D. D., & Fear, K. L. (1991). Making writing strategies and self-talk visible: Cognitive strategy instruction in writing in regular and special education classrooms. American Educational Research Journal, 28, 337–372 . Fisher, D. & Frey, N. ( 2012 ). Improving adolescent literacy: Content area strategies at work, Third Edition. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Prentice Hall. Graham, S. (1999 ). Handwriting and spelling instruction for students with learning disabilities: A review. Learning Disability Quarterly, 22, 78 –98. Graham, S. ( 2006). Strategy instruction and the teaching of writing: A meta- analysis. In C. A. MacArthur, S. Graham, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.). Handbook of writing research (pp. 187–207). New York: The Guilford Press. Graham, S., Bollinger, A., Booth Olson, C., D’Aoust, C., MacArthur, C., McCutchen, D., & Olinghouse, N. ( 2012 ). Teaching elementary school students to be effective writers: A practice guide (NCEE 2012- 4058). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ ncee/wwc/publications_reviews.aspx#pubsearch Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. ( 2006). Preventing writing difficulties: Providing additional handwriting and spelling instruction to at-risk children in fi rst grade. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 64 – 66. Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. ( 2009 ). Almost 30 years of writing research: Making sense of it all with the Wrath of Khan. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24, 58 – 68. 258

Writing Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Graham, S. & Harris, K. R. ( 2013 ). Common Core State Standards, writing, and students with LD: Recommendations. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 28, 28 –37. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink, B. ( 2000 ). Is handwriting causally related to learning to write? Treatment of handwriting problems in beginning writers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 620 – 633. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & Fink-Chorzempa, B. ( 2002 ). Contributions of spelling instruction to the spelling, writing, and reading of poor spellers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94, 669 – 686. Graham, S., Harris, K. R., & McKeown, D. (2013). The writing of students with LD and a meta-analysis of SRSD writing intervention studies: Redux. In L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of Learning Disabilities ( 2nd edition, pp. 405–438). NY: Guilford Press. Graham, S. & Hebert, M. A. ( 2010 ). Writing to read: Evidence for how writing can improve reading. A Carnegie Corporation Time to Act Report. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education. Graham, S. & MacArthur, C. (1988 ). Improving learning disabled students’ skills at revising essays produced on a word processor: Self-instructional strategy training. The Journal of Special Education, 22, 133 –152 . Graham, S., MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Page-Voth, V. (1992 ). Improving the compositions of students with learning disabilities using a strategy involving product and process goal setting. Exceptional Children, 58, 322 –334. Graham, S. & Perin, D. ( 2007 ). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 445 – 476. Harris, K. R. (1982 ). Cognitive-behavior modification: Application with exceptional students. Focus on Exceptional Children, 15, 1–16. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., & Mason, L. H. ( 2006 ). Improving the writing performance, knowledge, and motivation of young struggling writers in second grade. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 295 –340. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H. & Friedlander, B. ( 2008 ). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Hayes, J. R. & Flower, L. S. (1980 ). Identifying the organization of writing processes. In L. W. Gregg & E. R. Steinberg (Eds.), Cognitive process in writing (pp. 3 –30 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Erlbaum. Hillocks, G. (1986 ). Research of written composition. Urbana, IL : ERIC Clearinghouse on Reading and Communication Skills. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service, No. ED265552). Kiuhara, S., Graham, S., & Hawken, L. ( 2009 ). Teaching writing to high school students: A national survey. Journal of Educational Psychology, 101, 136 –160. MacArthur, C., Graham, S., Haynes, J., & De La Paz, S. (1996 ). Spelling checkers and students with learning disabilities: Performance comparisons and impact on spelling. Journal of Special Education, 30, 35 –57. MacArthur, C., Schwartz, S., & Graham, S. (1991). Effects of a reciprocal peer-revision strategy in special education classrooms. Learning Disability Research and Practice, 6, 201–210. Mason, L. H., Benedek-Wood, E., & Valasa, L. ( 2009 ). Quick writing for students who struggle with writing. Journal of Adolescent and Adult Literacy, 53, 313 –322 . Mason, L. H., Dunn Davison, M., Hammer, C. S., Miller, C. A., & Glutting, J. ( 2012 ). Knowledge, writing, and language outcomes for a reading comprehension and writing intervention. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 26, 1135–115 doi: 10.1007/s11145-012-9409-0 Mason, L. H. & Graham, S. ( 2008 ). Writing instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: programs of intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 23, 103 –112 . Mason, L. H., Harris, K. R., & Graham, S. ( 2013 ). Strategies for improving student outcomes in written expression. In M. Tankersley & B. Cook (Eds.), Effective practices in special education (pp. 86 –97 ). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson. Mason, L. H., Hickey Snyder, K., Sukhram, D. P., & Kedem, Y. ( 2006 ). Self-regulated strategy development for expository reading comprehension and informative writing: Effects for nine 4th-grade students who struggle with learning. Exceptional Children, 73, 69 – 89. Mason, L. H., Kubina, R., & Taft, R. ( 2011). Developing quick writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Journal of Special Education, 44, 205 –220. Mason, L. H., Kubina, R. M., Kostewicz, D., Mong Cramer, A., & Datchuk, S. (2013). Improving quick writing performance of middle school struggling learners. Contemporary Educational Psychology, 38, 236–246. 259

L.H. Mason and E. Benedek-Wood

Mason, L. H., Reid, R., & Hagaman, J. ( 2012 ). Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Baltimore, MD : Brookes Publishing Co. Inc. Moats, L. ( 2009 ). Teaching spelling to students with language and learning disabilities. In G. A. Troia (Ed.), Instruction and assessment for struggling writers (pp. 269 –289 ). New York: Guilford. Morphy, P. & Graham, S. ( 2012 ). Word processing programs and weaker writers/readers: A metaanalysis of research fi ndings. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 25, 641– 678. National Center for Education Statistics ( 2012 ). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2011 (NCES 2012–470). Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Reid, R., Trout, A. L., & Schwartz, M. ( 2005). Self-regulation interventions for children with attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder. Exceptional Children, 71, 361–377. Saddler, B. ( 2012 ). The teacher’s guide to effective sentence writing. Baltimore, MD : Brookes. Saddler, B., Behforooz, B., & Asaro, K. ( 2008 ). The effects of sentence- combining instruction on the writing of fourth-grade students with writing difficulties. Journal of Special Education, 42, 79 –90. Salahu-Din, D., Persky, H., and Miller, J. ( 2008 ). The Nation’s Report Card: Writing 2007 (NCES 2008–468). National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, D.C. Schmidt, J. L., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Alley, G. R. (1988 ). Effects of generalization instruction on the written language performance of adolescents with learning disabilities in the mainstream classroom. Reading, Writing, and Learning Disabilities, 4, 291–309. Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., Nolan, S., Clark, F. L., Alley, G. R., & Warner, M. M. (1981). Error monitoring: A learning strategy for improving academic performance of LD adolescents (Research Rep. No. 34). Lawrence : University of Kansas. Schumaker, J. B. & Lyerla, K. D. (1991). The paragraph writing strategy: Instructor’s manual. Lawrence, KS : The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & Casto, G. (1987 ). The quantitative synthesis of single subject research: Methodology and validation. Remedial and Special Education, 8, 24 –33. Stoddard, B. & MacArthur, C. A. (1993 ). A peer editor strategy: Guiding learning- disabled students in response and revision. Research in the Teaching of English, 27, 76 –103. Taft, R. & Mason, L. H. ( 2011). Examining effects of writing interventions: Spotlighting results for students with primary disabilities other than learning disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 359 –370. Therrien, W. J., Hughes, C., Kapelski, C., & Mokhtari, K. ( 2009 ). Effectiveness of a test taking strategy on students’ with learning disabilities achievement on essay tests. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42, 14 –23. Thurlow, M., Rogers, C., & Christenson, L. ( 2010 ). Science assessment for students with disabilities in school year 2006–2007: What we know about participation, performance, and accommodations (Synthesis Report 77). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center for Educational Outcomes. Troia, G. A. ( 2006 ). Writing instruction for students with learning disabilities. In S. Graham, C. A. MacArthur, & J. Fitzgerald (Eds.), Best practices in writing instruction (pp. 324 –336 ). New York: Guilford. Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., & Kuperis, S. (1996 ). Teaching low achievers and students with learning disabilities to plan, write, and revise opinion essays. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 197–212 . Wong, B. Y. L., Butler, D. L., Ficzere, S. A., Kuperis, S., Corden, M., & Zelmer, J. (1994 ). Teaching problem learners revision skills and sensitivity to audience through two instructional modes: Student-teacher versus student- student dialogue. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 9, 78 –90.

260

19 Effective Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools Cynthia C. Griffin,1 Maggie H. Jossi,1 and Delinda van Garderen2

Setting the Stage Federal accountability mandates have served as catalysts for reform efforts designed to ensure that all students, including students with disabilities, meet high academic standards through shared responsibility among general and special education (No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB], 2001; Individual with Disabilities Education Act, [IDEA], 2004). Although improvements in academic performance have been achieved (e.g., Schiller, Sanford, & Blackorby, 2008), recent data from The National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP, National Center for Education Statistics [NCES], 2011) reveal learning deficiencies among students with disabilities, indicating areas of instructional need. In the content area of mathematics, differences between students with disabilities and their peers without disabilities are pronounced. Of fourth-grade students not identified with disabilities, 86% scored at or above Basic in 2011 on the NAEP. By contrast, only 55% of students with disabilities achieved this minimal competency level. For eighth graders, the difference between these groups of learners is even greater: for example, more than three- quarters (78%) of eighth graders not identified with disabilities scored at or above Basic, compared to only 36% of students with disabilities. A growing body of research evidence reveals that a substantial part of the variability in student achievement gains in mathematics is due to the teacher (National Mathematics Advisory Panel [NMAP], 2008). Studies reviewed in the NMAP report suggest that student learning is negatively affected by teachers’ lack of mathematical content knowledge and pedagogy. To complicate matters, the Panel also found that school districts tend to overemphasize materials, such as textbooks, and underestimate the skill required for teachers to deliver effective mathematics instruction (NMAP, 2008). To help teachers address the learning needs of all students in their charge, professional organizations, such as the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC), have created and regularly revise principles and

1 University of Florida 2 University of Missouri 261

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

standards addressing both content and pedagogy. The NCTM has produced Professional Standards for Teaching Mathematics (PSSM; 1989, 2000) and Focal Points (2006) to address both mathematics content and pedagogy. Moreover, the NCTM vision statement encourages mathematics educators to ensure “that all students have access to the highest quality mathematics teaching and learning (NCTM, 2000) . . . [because] mathematical competence opens doors to productive futures” (NCTM, 2012). Likewise, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) presents professional standards and ethics for the field of special education in What Every Special Educator Must Know (2009), providing direction for what special educators should know and be able to do (knowledge and skills). In particular, the document specifies that special educators “possess a solid base of understanding of the content areas of the general curricula . . . sufficient to collaborate with general educators” (p. 10). If special educators are teaching the secondary-level general education curriculum to students with disabilities, they must also have adequate content knowledge in order “to assure individuals with exceptional learning needs can meet state general curriculum standards” (p. 10). Recently, the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), sponsored by the National Governors Association (NGA) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) were developed and adopted by all but a few states to provide a clear and consistent understanding of what all K-12 students in the U.S. are expected to learn across content areas, including mathematics. Embedded within the CCSS for Mathematics document are six Standards for Mathematical Practice (pp. 6–8). These processes and proficiencies mirror the NCTM process standards (problem solving, reasoning and proof, communication, representation, and connections), as well as the five strands of mathematical proficiency spelled out in the National Research Council’s (2001) report Adding It Up (i.e., conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, adaptive reasoning, strategic competence, and productive disposition). Specific practices described in the CCSS for Mathematics include: 1) making sense of problems and persevering in solving them; 2) reasoning abstractly and quantitatively; constructing viable arguments and critiquing the reasoning of others; 3) modeling with mathematics; using appropriate tools strategically; 4) attending to precision; 5) looking for and making use of structure; and, 6) looking for and expressing regularity in repeated reasoning. The Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) also contributed, as statements regarding implementation of the CCSS were crafted by stakeholders (e.g., content experts, teachers, school administrators). CEC is optimistic about the CCSS, as is evident in the following statement: CEC believes the new standards will move education in the United States in the right direction for all students and will provide them with the knowledge and skills they need to succeed in college and work. We look forward to supporting the initiatives to implement the Common Core Standards. (www.cec.sped.org/Special-Ed-Topics/Hot-Topics/Common-Core-State-Standards) However, observational research conducted in standards-based general education mathematics classrooms that include students with learning difficulties and disabilities (e.g., Baxter, Woodward, & Olson, 2001; Baxter, Woodward, Voorhies, & Wong, 2002) evoke a cautious response and reinforce the importance of CEC’s role in ensuring that the needs of students with disabilities are met. In these classrooms, students who struggle to learn mathematics were observed as assuming passive roles and encountering difficulties with the cognitive load of the activities and curricular materials. These students were also more likely to report using 262

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

limited and ineffective strategies, and their progress was substantially below that of their more competent peers. Although it may appear that educators have an overabundance of published and adopted professional standards to guide their work in inclusive classrooms, an apparent lack of detail remains for discerning the specific mathematics content and teaching strategies needed by general and special educators to support high levels of mathematics competence in all of their students. This lack of detail is lamentable, as associations between teacher content knowledge in mathematics, their classroom teaching, and their students’ learning have emerged in the literature. As Koency and Swanson (2000) note, “teachers who possess a deep and broad understanding of fundamental math provide more rigorous instruction for their students, which in turn leads to higher student achievement in math” (p. 3). Researchers at the University of Michigan have conducted several studies of teacher content knowledge for teaching mathematics and its influence on the quality of mathematics teaching and student learning (i.e., Ball, Bass, Hill, Phelps, Rowan and Schilling of the Learning Mathematics for Teaching [LMT] Project ). In particular, Hill, Rowan, and Ball (2005) found that teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching (not simply teachers’ mathematics computation and problem solving abilities) was significantly related to student achievement gains in both fi rst and third graders from low socioeconomic and minority backgrounds. Understanding mathematics content and pedagogy is not all that teachers need to know and be able to do in order to create mathematics instruction capable of meeting the needs of all students. They must also understand the particular learning and behavioral problems students with disabilities may experience (Brownell, Griffi n, Leko, & Stephens, 2011; Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, & Danielson, 2010). Accumulated research evidence suggests that cognitive mechanisms, such as memory and monitoring processes, influence mathematical learning (Swanson & Jerman, 2006). Specifically, students with learning disabilities (LD) characteristically display significant memory, attention, and self-regulation problems that adversely affect their performance in both reading and mathematics (Swanson & Sáez, 2003). These problems may interfere with their ability to retrieve basic facts quickly or to disregard irrelevant features of a concept or problem (Geary, 2004). Interestingly, third-grade students’ attentive behavior has been found to be a strong predictor of mathematics competence (Fuchs et al., 2006), suggesting that teachers create opportunities for students to persevere with mathematics tasks during classroom instruction. Teachers might also use ratings of attentive behavior to screen students in need of further assistance in mathematics. Students with LD may also have: 1) background knowledge deficits that stem from a lack of number sense typically acquired in early childhood; 2) linguistic and vocabulary difficulties that may pose challenges because of the distinctiveness of mathematical vocabulary; and 3) difficulties distinguishing important symbols in mathematics that represent key concepts and principles, such as the symbols for addition and multiplication (e.g., Geary, 2004). Teachers in inclusive classroom settings also need knowledge of and skill in using evidencebased instructional practices for students with disabilities as required by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) for assessing and teaching in all content areas, including mathematics (Lembke, Hampton, & Beyers, 2012). To this end, leading researchers in the fields of special education and mathematics education have created an Institute of Education Sciences (IES) sponsored practice guide titled Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et al., 2009a). This guide includes eight recommendations for implementing research-based mathematics instructional practices within a RtI framework. The recommendations are based on evidence standards put forth by the What Works Clearinghouse (found at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/ 263

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19) and support fi ndings gleaned from a meta-analysis of effective components of mathematics instruction for students with LD conducted by Gersten et al. (2009b).

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice Given the mandate to educate all our nation’s children and youth to reach high academic standards, and the need for teachers to be adequately prepared to do so, we now turn to a discussion of the research literature. First, we will present an overview of the Response to Intervention (RtI) framework as it relates to mathematics instruction. We will then turn to a discussion of mathematics content embedded within examples of practices for inclusive mathematics education within a RtI framework.

Response to Intervention (RtI) and Evidence-Based Practice Response to Intervention (RtI) is a multi-tiered system of support used to provide systematic and effective academic and behavioral intervention in order to prevent continued failure of struggling learners. It is a student- centered assessment model that involves problem solving and evidence-based practice to identify and address learning difficulties (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009). Although many states have developed models for implementing RtI for reading instruction, its use in mathematics is not as widespread (Gersten et al., 2009a). According to Fuchs, Fuchs, and Stecker (2010), RtI models typically consist of three tiers or levels of support. The process begins by systematically screening all students at the start of the school year to identify those who may be at risk for learning difficulties. All students then begin receiving evidence-based instruction in the general education classroom, but students identified with difficulties are monitored more closely for a further 5 to 8 weeks. This approach is commonly referred to as Tier 1 instruction. After the monitoring period, the classroom teacher, occasionally in collaboration with other professionals such as a co-teaching partner, determines which students are not responding to Tier 1 instruction. This determination is typically made if students are performing below the average gain made by all students in the class (Fuchs et al., 2010). Low student performance signals the need for more intensive instruction, and these students begin receiving Tier 2 intervention. Tier 2 instruction typically takes place in the general education classroom within homogeneous small groups of students. However, Tier 2 includes greater frequency and duration of instruction that supplements Tier 1 (Berkeley et al., 2009). The additional instructional time recommended for Tier 2 is at least 30 minutes a day, four times a week, and may continue for 8 to 10 weeks (Fuchs et al., 2010). Within the small groups, teachers or other trained professionals use research-based interventions coupled with systematic and explicit instructional procedures (Bryant et al., 2008a). Bryant and colleagues also reinforce the need for “ongoing progress monitoring to assess response to treatment” (p. 48). Students who continue to struggle and demonstrate inadequate progress after receiving Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction, may then receive more intensive instruction as provided in Tier 3. Tier 3 instruction is usually delivered as one-to-one tutoring that employs a mix of instructional interventions and is individualized for each child (Gersten et al., 2009a). Fuchs and colleagues (2010) suggest that this individualized instruction should take place five times a week for 60 minutes each day. In addition, achievement goals for each student are set, which include activities and instruction designed to meet the student’s individual learning needs so 264

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

as to meet the stated goals. Rates of progress are calculated to allow the instructor to determine the amount of progress needed each week or month in order to meet the end goals in the specified amount of time. Frequent comparisons are then made between the student’s actual progress and the calculated rate of progress. If adequate progress is not achieved, instructional adjustments are made. Then, comparisons between actual and calculated progress begin again under different instructional conditions, and changes to instruction are made if needed until the student is progressing adequately. Principles of Effective Mathematics Practice Using evidence-based instructional practices is an essential feature of RtI for teaching in the content areas, including mathematics (Lembke et al., 2012). Fuchs and colleagues (2008) offer principles of effective mathematics practice for students with disabilities. Bryant et al. (2008b) suggest applying these principles to the design of Tier 3 intervention, as this level of support is characterized by instruction designed for the most at risk students. The principles include: 1) precise explanations to reduce misunderstandings; 2) the use of manipulative materials, number lines, and other concrete resources to enhance conceptual understanding; 3) drill and practice; 4) cumulative review; 5) strategies for helping students maintain attention and persistence, and regulate their behavior; and, 6) ongoing progress monitoring. Leading researchers in the fields of special education and mathematics education have further operationalized many of these principles in the creation of a practice guide sponsored by the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) in the US Department of Education: Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et al., 2009a) includes eight recommendations for teaching elementary and middle school mathematics within a RtI framework. The recommendations are based on evidence standards put forth by the What Works Clearinghouse, and support fi ndings gleaned from a meta-analysis of effective components of mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities (LD) conducted by Gersten, Chard, Jayanthi, Baker, Morphy, and Flojo (2009b). Each recommendation is accompanied by an evidence rating of either minimal, moderate, or strong based on the strength and availability of the research evidence. Although some practices may be rated low in this regard, the panel also relied on professional judgment when deciding which practices to endorse. Brief descriptions of the eight recommendations within the IES Practice Guide follow. The fi rst recommendation pertains to Tier 1 instruction, while the other seven relate mostly to Tiers 2 and 3. More detailed information for carrying out the recommendations, including explanations for overcoming potential roadblocks, are found at http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide. aspx?sid=2. 1 Screen all students to identify students at risk for mathematics difficulties. This universal screening occurs during Tier 1 instruction and should be administered to all students in the classroom (Moderate evidence); 2 Focus on developing an in- depth understanding of whole numbers with students in kindergarten through fi fth grade; and, rational numbers for students fourth through eighth grade (Minimal evidence); 3 Use instruction that is explicit and systematic, including modeling of problem solving, verbalization of thought processes, and using guided practice, corrective feedback, and frequent reviews (Strong evidence); 4 Emphasize systematic and explicit word problem solving during instruction that focuses on the underlying problem type(s) or structure(s) (Strong evidence); 265

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

5 Use intervention materials that offer students visual representations of mathematical concepts and allow students to use visual representations themselves (Moderate evidence); 6 Spend about 10 minutes each session building fluent retrieval of basic facts at all grade levels (Moderate evidence); 7 Monitor the progress of students who are considered to be at risk as well as those receiving supplemental instruction (Minimal evidence); and, 8 Include motivational strategies in Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction (Minimal evidence). Concrete–Semi- Concrete–Abstract Sequence In addition to the general recommendations included in the IES Practice Guide, we offer modified descriptions of researched approaches for teaching mathematics within a RtI framework. All students receiving Tier 1 support may benefit from lessons that employ a concrete–semi-concrete–abstract (CSA) instructional sequence for teaching mathematics. For decades, this straightforward teaching sequence has been found to be effective for teaching mathematics to students with disabilities and other struggling learners (e.g., Lock, 1996; Mastropieri, Scruggs, & Shiah, 1991; Maccini & Gagnon, 2000; Miller & Mercer, 1993) by incorporating instructional features noted in recommendations #2 and #5 above. CSA instruction also addresses the NCTM (2000) Process Standard of Representations—that is, it involves the use of pictures and concrete materials to help students understand and apply mathematical concepts. At the concrete level of the CSA sequence, concrete materials are used to represent the mathematics concept to be taught. For example, manipulative materials can be used to demonstrate the relationship between repeated-addition and multiplication. To begin, the teacher demonstrates by separating counters or poker chips into equal subsets (e.g., 5 subsets with 3 counters in each set) and writing a number sentence that reads: 5 × 3 = 3 + 3 + 3 + 3 + 3. After several similar demonstrations, students then have the opportunity to practice creating their own subsets and number sentences with teacher guidance. When students perform independent practice activities at the concrete level with 80% accuracy, instruction progresses to the semi-concrete level of the CSA sequence. Instruction at this level is the same as at the concrete level, except that it involves the use of pictures or tallies to represent the concept being taught, instead of concrete materials. Research suggests that students with disabilities should participate in three concrete and three semi- concrete lessons using about 20 problems during each lesson in order to develop understanding (Butler, Miller, Crehan, Babbitt, & Pierce, 2003). Again, when mastery is achieved at 80% accuracy on independent practice tasks at the semi- concrete level, instruction proceeds to the abstract level. The abstract level involves the use of numbers and symbols only (e.g., 5 × 3 = ?). Finally, the CSA sequence has been implemented effectively at the concrete and representational levels without the use of numbers, number sentences, or symbols, a variation in the approach that may be more appropriate for teaching young children, or students with more significant learning problems. Booster Lessons Bryant, Bryant, Gersten, Scammacca, Funk, Winter, Shih, and Pool (2008b) studied a Tier 2 intervention with 161 fi rst-grade students, 42 of whom received supplemental Tier 2 mathematics instruction. These 42 students received “booster” lessons designed by the authors, which included 20 minutes of instruction, four times a week, within small groups of 4–5 students, over 23 weeks. During the booster lessons, teachers used brisk pacing, frequent opportunities for student responding, error correction, and strategy instruction. Teachers 266

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Table 19.1 Concepts and Strategies Used During Booster Lessons Concepts

Learning Strategies

• • • • •

• Counting and Decomposition Strategies • Addition: counting on (+1, +2, +3), doubles (6 + 6), doubles +1 (6 + 5), make 10 + more (9 + 5); • Subtraction: counting back/down (−1, −2, −3)

• • • •

Counting and Number Sense Counting: rote, counting up/back Number recognition & writing: 0--99 Comparing & grouping numbers Number relationships of one and two more than/less than Part-part-whole relationships (e.g., ways to represent numbers) Numeric sequencing Place value/Relationships of 10 Addition and subtraction combinations (sums and minuends to 18)

Note: For a more complete listing of concepts and strategies included in the booster lessons, see Bryant et al., (2008b, p. 53)

also explicitly modeled the strategies taught and used the CSA graduated teaching sequence with base-ten models (concrete) and number lines and hundreds charts (semiconcrete) within booster lessons. A behavior management system was also used and daily progress monitoring was conducted as part of the lessons. Results of this Tier 2 intervention revealed a positive effect for fi rst-grade students: specifically, the 42 students’ post-test scores were significantly higher than those of students receiving Tier 1 instruction only. That is, with the intensive instruction provided in the booster lessons, struggling students were able to close the gap and surpass the overall performance of peers not identified as at risk for mathematics difficulties. Table 19.1 provides an overview of the concepts and learning strategies taught to children during the entire sequence of booster lessons. Basic Fact Fluency. Researched teaching sequences and instructional strategies are also available for helping all students learn multiplication facts, including students who struggle. For example, Woodward (2006) found that students benefit when the easiest multiplication facts are taught fi rst (i.e., 0s, 1s, doubles, perfect squares, and then 5s, 9s, and 10s). Once students are fluent with these facts, more difficult facts are taught using a doubling strategy and a number line (e.g., 6 × 7 = 6 × 6 + 6 more). Facts such as 6 × 4 can be taught using the doubling strategy and doubling again (i.e., 6 × 2 = 12 and then 12 × 2 = 24). Number lines and arrays of blocks projected visually can be used to help students create mental pictures of the fact strategies. Furthermore, Woodward recommends helping students understand and express the connections between basic facts, extended facts, the partial product algorithm, as well as methods for approximating answers to multiplication problems. To increase fact fluency, teachers may use daily, 2-minute practice worksheets containing 40 facts (50% are review, 50% are new facts). Because students with disabilities and other struggling learners have difficulties learning basic facts and retrieving them quickly (Geary, 2004), often due to immature strategy use (e.g., Bryant et al., 2008b; Jordan, Hanich, & Kaplan, 2003), developing procedural fluency, or automaticity, in math facts and algorithms remains an important 267

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

instructional component for improving students’ mathematical competence. However, procedural fluency in the absence of conceptual understanding is insufficient. Word Problem Solving. One important way to promote conceptual understanding as well as reasoning skills is through mathematical problem solving (Cai, 2003). The typical approach to instruction taken by teachers may explain why some students struggle to solve mathematics word problems. In traditional classrooms, problem- solving instruction may not occur frequently enough and may be influenced by the content of mathematics textbooks. Textbooks tend to emphasize the use of multiple, generic strategies that neglect the meaning and structure of word problems ( Jitendra et al., 2005). In particular, textbooks persistently promote the use of key word strategies that are criticized as misleading, resulting in children’s faulty reasoning and misunderstandings (e.g., Van de Walle, Karp, & Bay-Williams, 2010). Current research on solving mathematical word problems provides insights into effective instructional approaches in inclusive education. In particular, the effectiveness of schemabased strategy instruction (SBI) in mathematics with low-performing students, students with disabilities, and students of mixed-ability (Griffi n & Jitendra, 2009; Jitendra & Hoff, 1996; Jitendra et al., 2007; Xin, Jitendra, & Deatline-Buchman, 2005) suggests the flexibility of SBI for teaching across Tiers 1, 2, and 3. Further, SBI is consistent with recommendation #4 in the IES Practice Guide, which emphasizes the importance of teaching the underlying structures of word problems (Gersten et al., 2009a). Using graphic representations with SBI makes the underlying problem schemas, or structures, explicit for students, allowing them to more readily identify the problem schemas of change, group, and compare problems ( Jitendra et al., 2007). These three problem schemas, or types (i.e., change, group, compare ) characterize most addition and subtraction problems encountered by elementary school students (Marshall, 1995). Table 19.2 provides examples of change, group, and compare problems used in SBI studies. For further information about using SBI involving graphic representations to facilitate mathematics word problem solving, readers are referred to Jitendra (2002), found in Teaching Exceptional Children. Professional Collaboration. Because RtI is viewed as a general education framework of assessment and intervention that is implemented primarily within general education classrooms (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006), both general educators and special educators may work together to implement assessments and evidence-based practices designed to address the mathematics learning needs of struggling students and students with disabilities. As a result, many special educators fi nd themselves spending most of the school day in general education settings where

Table 19.2 Examples of Additive Word Problem Types Problem types

Example word problems

Change

Mitch had 12 oranges. He gave 6 oranges to his friends. How many oranges does he have left? Mitch bought 3 bananas and 4 pears. How many pieces of fruit does he have all together? Mitch has 7 peaches and 9 nectarines. How many fewer peaches does he have than nectarines?

Group Compare

268

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

professional collaboration may be not an option, but a requirement (Klingner & Vaughn, 2002; Vaughn, Wanzek, & Denton, 2007; Zigmond & Baker, 1995). Although professional collaboration is often advocated in education, it can be a difficult process fraught with challenges (Buckley, 2005; Cook & Friend, 1996; Luckner, 1999; Rice & Zigmond, 2000; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Trent, 1998; Walther-Thomas, 1997; Wood, 1998; Zigmond & Matta, 2004). A major source of tension that can erode collaborative efforts often revolves around the choice of instructional practices considered best for students struggling to learn mathematics (Hudson, Miller, & Butler, 2006; Jones & Southern, 2003; Parmar & DeSimone, 2006; Woodward & Montague, 2002). One way to address this concern is to turn to the research literature and examine practices that have been found to be effective for struggling students and students with disabilities—several of these have been discussed in this chapter. However, it is important to recognize that pertinent literature identified by a general educator might not be the same as that which a special educator may read. To explore the potential inconsistencies across literature bases, van Garderen, Scheuermann, Jackson, and Hampton (2009) summarized 50 studies of mathematics instructional interventions for struggling learners published in both general and special education journals. The authors identified recommended practices and differences that existed between the two fields in an effort to clarify the extant literature and provide a platform for educators in both fields who are involved in collaboration. Not surprisingly, differing perspectives were found when comparisons were made between the research in special education and mathematics education. For example, research published in special education journals tended to focus on specific topics such as basic computation and facts and problem solving for students with disabilities typically provided in one-to-one, small group or specialized settings. Further, the interventions tended to emphasize broad-based instructional practices, such as mnemonic techniques or cognitive strategy instruction. In contrast, research published in mathematics education journals tended to focus on the low-achieving or at risk students within the whole class setting, primarily in the topics of fractions and the process standard of Communication. The interventions also tended to focus more on the nature of the mathematics content. Clearly, special educators and mathematics educators examining research within their respective fields are likely to fi nd different solutions to their instructional dilemmas, thereby possibly thwarting, rather than aiding, collaboration. However, van Garderen et al. (2009) strongly recommend that no one field holds all the answers to the problems that practice teachers encounter when teaching mathematics to struggling students, thereby reinforcing the need for professional collaboration. By joining forces, it is possible to increase the range of information available and, potentially, the number of research-based practices that can be evaluated with students.

Setting a Course for Effective Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools Based on our account of the state of inclusive mathematics education nationally, as well as the subsequent overview we provided of researched practices in mathematics, the field appears to know much more about effective instructional practices in mathematics for struggling learners than about the specific mathematics content teachers should know and be able to teach. To continue to improve inclusive mathematics instruction, we suggest building on what is currently known from research on effective mathematics interventions (e.g., Gersten et al., 2009; Montague & Jitendra, 2012), keeping in mind that few of these studies have been 269

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

conducted in inclusive schools and classrooms. Moreover, we did not identify any studies addressing ways to modify curricular resources or materials to promote grade-level content learning (van Garderen et al., 2009). Moving research on mathematics instruction into inclusive schools is a critical fi rst step in charting a course for effective mathematics instruction in these settings. Limitations aside, we recommend beginning with the fi ndings in the Institute of Education Sciences (IES) practice guide, Assisting Students Struggling with Mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for Elementary and Middle Schools (Gersten et al., 2009a) (discussed earlier in this chapter). Special educators and mathematics educators developed this guide collaboratively by focusing on prevention and support for struggling students, the hallmarks of inclusive education. The eight practice guide recommendations listed earlier for teaching elementary and middle school mathematics within a RtI framework address important aspects of inclusive mathematics education such as: • • •

•

assessment (screen all students and monitor the progress of students considered at risk for mathematics difficulties); content (whole numbers in the early grades and rational numbers in fourth through eighth grades); instruction (use systematic and explicit instruction and visual representations, build conceptual understanding with procedural fluency, teach underlying structure of word problems, encourage students to vocalize their thought processes); and, motivation (include motivational strategies, especially in Tier 2 and Tier 3 instruction).

In addition to these practices, the general principles of effective mathematics practice discussed previously (Fuchs et al., 2008), as well as specific instructional examples of recommendations noted in the IES practice guide, offer additional consideration for moving an inclusive instructional agenda forward. Specifically, we recommend using 1) the concrete– semi-concrete–abstract (CSA) sequence for building conceptual understanding, 2) methods designed by Woodward (2006) for building fact fluency, and 3) schema-based instruction (SBI) for teaching the underlying structure of mathematics word problems. While a growing number of evidence-based practices have “emerging” or “strong” research support, most of the extant research is in only a few content strands, number and operations (van Garderen et al., 2009,) or number, operations, and measurement in studies involving students with moderate to severe disabilities (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008). A need exists to continue widening the scope of exploration into other topical areas of mathematics in order to broaden both teacher and student content knowledge, as well as identify the essential mathematics content necessary for all students to learn. With Algebra I as one of the gatekeepers of high school graduation in many states, and viewed by the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) as “an important gateway to expanded opportunities” (NCTM, 2008), the field needs to better understand how all students will participate in achieving these challenging content standards. There also is a need to determine the best way to provide remedial instruction to students who receive Tier 3 supports, including students with disabilities. Many students with disabilities need instruction that is specifically targeted to their needs. This may suggest the need for specialized, small group intensive instruction that may be provided outside the general education classroom by “highly skilled clinician-researchers. . . [capable of implementing] . . . data-based instruction or experimental teaching, which has proved effective for many students with serious learning problems” (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012, p. 271). This type of 270

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

instruction would be characterized by the careful teaching of prerequisite and foundational concepts and skills, while keeping the goal of achieving high academic standards close at hand. Further research focused on the effectiveness of experimental teaching or individualized instruction in mathematics is also indicated. Finally, it will be prudent to explore alternative instructional delivery models. Interestingly, the NMAP (2008) report calls for the use of “math specialists” at the K-5 grade levels; however, research on the effectiveness of such specialists is lacking. In the one study identified by the NMAP, no differences in mathematics gain scores were found for students who did or did not receive assistance from a math specialist. We recommend that further research be conducted to examine the use of full-time mathematics teachers in elementary schools (that is, teachers who teach only mathematics to several classrooms of students) as this may be an alternative way of increasing student learning in mathematics, as well as elementary teachers’ content knowledge, by focusing the need for expertise on fewer teachers.

Conclusion In this chapter, we discussed the mathematics content and teaching strategies needed to support high levels of mathematics competence for all students. Quality mathematics teaching and learning in inclusive settings requires coordinated efforts among many. For teachers in particular, we recommend that they work together to study their teaching, and share ideas and resources, focused on addressing gaps in knowledge and skills that each may have but must remediate in order to create instruction that reflects the key principles and evidencebased practices for teaching mathematics. Teachers must also consider a balanced approach to instruction that addresses all five areas of mathematical proficiency (NRC, 2001) (i.e., conceptual understanding, procedural fluency, strategies competence, adaptive reasoning, and productive disposition) when designing quality mathematics instruction. Finally, teaching designed to address the learning needs of students who struggle will be critical to the success of these students. Delivering instruction in ways that effectively address students’ individual needs may take place in small groups, in one-to-one situations, with assistance from support personnel such as paraprofessionals, or through peer tutoring. These instructional arrangements impact upon the degree of instructional intensity needed by some students in order to succeed and therefore deserve careful consideration. For teachers to achieve quality instruction for all students, it is necessary for national, state and local educational agencies, school building administrators, families, and communities to work together to create policies and supports that allow teachers to address their students’ needs and help them to reach their postschool goals.

References Baxter, J. A., Woodward, J. & Olson, D. ( 2001). Effects of reform-based mathematics instruction on low achievers in five third-grade classrooms. Elementary School Journal, 101, 529 –547. Baxter, J., Woodward, J., Voorhies, J., & Wong, J. ( 2002 ). We talk about it, but do they get it? Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 17, 173 –185. Berkeley, S., Bender, W. N., Peaster, L. G., & Saunders, L. ( 2009 ). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42 (1), 85 –95. doi: 10.1177/0022219408326214 Browder, D., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A. A., & Wakeman, S. ( 2008 ). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74 (4 ), 407– 432 .

271

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

Brownell, M. T., Griffi n, C. C., Leko, M. M., & Stephens, J. ( 2011). Improving collaborative teacher education research: Creating tighter linkages. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34 ( 3 ), 235 –249. doi:10.1177/0888406411404570 Brownell, M. T., Sindelar, P. T., Kiely, M. T., & Danielson, L. C. ( 2010 ). Special education teacher quality and preparation: Exposing foundations, constructing a new model. Exceptional Children, 76, 357–377. Bryant, B. R., Bryant, D. P., Kethley, C., Kim, S. A., Pool, C., & Seo, Y. ( 2008a). Preventing mathematics difficulty in the primary grade: The critical features of instruction in textbooks as part of the equation. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 21–35. Bryant, D. P., Bryant, B. R., Gersten, R. M., Scammacca, N. N., Funk, C., Winter, A., Minyi, S., & Pool, C. ( 2008b). The effects of tier 2 intervention on the mathematics performance of fi rst-grade students who are at risk for mathematics difficulties. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 31, 47– 63. Buckley, C. ( 2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between regular and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings: Vol. 18. Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 153 –198 ). Oxford, UK ; Elsevier. Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. ( 2003 ). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 ( 2 ), 99 –111. doi:10.1111/1540-5826.00066 Cai, J. ( 2003 ). What research tells us about teaching mathematics through problem solving. In F. K. Lester, Jr. (Ed.), Research and issues in teaching mathematics through problem solving (pp. 241–254 ). Reston, VA: National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1996 ). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effective practices. In E. L. Meyer, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.), Strategies for teaching exceptional children in inclusive settings (pp. 309 –330 ). Denver, CO : Love Publishing Company. Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) ( 2009 ). What every special educator must know ( 6th ed.). Arlington, VA: CEC. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. S. ( 2006 ). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93 –99. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. ( 2012 ). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263 –279. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Capizzi, A. M., Schatschneider, C., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2006 ). The cognitive correlates of third-grade skill in arithmetic, algorithmic computation, and arithmetic word problems. Journal of Educational Psychology, 98, 29 – 43. doi: 10.1037/002-0663.98.1.29 Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2008 ). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79 –92 . Fuchs, L. S., Powell, S. R., Seethaler, P. M., Fuchs, D., Hamlett, C. L., Cirino, P. T., & Fletcher, J. M. ( 2010 ). A framework for remediating number combinations deficiencies. Exceptional Children, 76, 135 –156. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. ( 2010 ). Education in a new continuum of general education placement and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. Geary, D. C. ( 2004 ). Mathematics and learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 37, 4 –15. doi: 10.1177/00222194040370010201 Gersten, R., Beckmann, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. ( 2009a). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to Intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (NCEE 2009-4060). Washington, DC : National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, USDOE . Gersten, R., Chard, D. J., Jayanthi, M., Baker, S. K., Morphy, P., & Flojo, J. R. ( 2009b). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79 ( 3 ), 1202–1242. doi:10.3102/0034654309334431 Griffi n, C. C. & Jitendra, A. K. ( 2009 ). Word problem solving in inclusive third-grade classrooms. The Journal of Education Research, 102, 187–202 . doi:10.3200/JOER.102.3.187–202 Hill, H. C., Rowan, B., & Ball, D. L. ( 2005). Effects of teachers’ mathematical knowledge for teaching on student achievement. American Educational Research Journal, 42, 371– 406. doi:10.3102/00028312042002371 272

Mathematics Instruction in Inclusive Schools

Hudson, P., Miller, S. P., & Butler, F. ( 2006 ). Adapting and merging explicit instruction within reform based mathematics classrooms. American Secondary Education, 35, 19 –32 . Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 614 et seq. Jitendra, A. ( 2002 ). Teaching students math problem- solving through graphic representations. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 34 (4 ), 34 –38. Jitendra, A. K., Griffi n, C., Deatline-Buchman, A., DiPipi, C., Sczesniak, E., Sokol, N., & Xin, Y. P. ( 2005). Adherence to mathematics professional standards and instructional design criteria for problem- solving in mathematics. Exceptional Children, 71, 319 –337. Jitendra, A. K., Griffi n, C. C., Haria, P., Leh, J., Adams, A., & Kaduvettoor, A. ( 2007 ). A comparison of single and multiple strategy instruction on third-grade students’ mathematical problem solving. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99, 115 –127. doi: 10.1037/0022–0663.99.1.115 Jitendra, A. K. & Hoff, K. (1996 ). The effects of schema-based instruction on the mathematical wordproblem- solving performance of students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 29, 422 – 431. doi: 10.1177/002221949602900410 Jones, E. D. & Southern, W. T. ( 2003 ). Balancing perspectives on mathematics instruction. Focus on Exceptional Children, 35, 1–16. Jordan, N. C., Hanich, L., & Kaplan, D. ( 2003 ). Arithmetic fact mastery in young children: A longitudinal investigation. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 85, 103 –119. doi:10.1016/ S0022-0965(03)00032-8 Klingner, J. K. & Vaughn, S. ( 2002 ). Joyce: The changing roles and responsibilities of a LD specialist. Learning Disability Quarterly, 25, 19 –32 . Koency, G. & Swanson, H. L. ( 2000, April). The special case of mathematics: Insuffi cient content knowledge a major obstacle to reform. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association, New Orleans, LA. (ERIC Document Reproduction Service No. ED444943). Lock, R. H. (1996 ). Adapting mathematics instruction in the general education classroom for students with mathematics disabilities. LD Forum, 21, 1– 8. Lembke, E. S., Hampton, D., & Beyers, S. J. ( 2012 ). Response to intervention in mathematics: Critical elements. Psychology in the Schools, 49 ( 3 ), 257–272 . doi:10.1002/pits.21596 Luckner, L. (1999 ). An examination of two co-teaching classrooms. American Annals of the Deaf, 144, 24 –34. Maccini, P. & Gagnon, J. C. ( 2000 ). Best practices for teaching mathematics to secondary students with special needs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 32, 1–21. Marshall, S. P. (1995). Schemas in problem solving. New York: Cambridge University Press. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., & Shiah, S. (1991). Mathematics instruction for learning disabled students: A review of research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 6 ( 2 ), 89 –98. Miller, S. P. & Mercer, C. D. (1993 ). Using data to learn about concrete- semi-concrete-abstract instruction for students with math disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 8, 169 –174. Montague, M. & Jitendra, A. K. ( 2012 ). Research-based mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities. In H. Forgasz and R. Rivera (Eds.). Toward Equity: Gender, Culture, and Diversity (pp. 481–502 ). New York: Springer. National Center for Education Statistics ( 2011). The Nation’s Report Card: Mathematics 2011 (NCES 2012-458). Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) ( 2012 ). NCTM Vision Statement. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=172 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) ( 2008 ). Algebra: What, when, and for whom. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCTM/Position_Statements/Algebra%20 fi nal%2092908.pdf#search=%22algebra%22 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) ( 2000 ). Executive Summary of Principles and Standards for School Mathematics. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/about/content.aspx?id=6330 National Mathematics Advisory Panel ( 2008 ). Foundations for success: The final report of the National Mathematics Advisory Panel. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education. National Research Council ( 2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington, DC : The National Academies Press. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. Parmar, R. & DeSimone, J. R. ( 2006 ). Facilitating teacher collaboration in middle school mathematics classrooms with special-needs students. In M. Montague and A. K. Jitendra (Eds.), Teaching mathematics to middle school students with learning diffi culties (pp. 154 –174 ). New York, NY: Guilford Press. 273

C.C. Griffin, M.H. Jossi, and D. van Garderen

Rice, D. & Zigmond, N. ( 2000 ). Co-teaching in secondary schools: Teacher reports of development in Australian and American classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 15, 190 –197. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. ( 2007 ). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392 – 416. Schiller, E., Sanford, C., & Blackorby, J. ( 2008 ). A national profi le of the classroom experiences and academic performance of students with learning disabilities: A special topic report from the Special Education Elementary Longitudinal Study (SRI Project P100656). Retrieved from www.seels.net/ info_reports/SEELS_LearnDisability_%20SPEC_TOPIC_REPORT.12.19.08ww_FINAL.pdf Swanson, H. L. & Jerman, O. ( 2006 ). Math disabilities: A selective meta-analysis of the literature. Review of Educational Research, 76 ( 2 ), 249 –274. Swanson, H. L. & Sáez, L. ( 2003 ). Memory difficulties in children and adults with learning disabilities. In H. L. Swanson, K. R. Harris, & S. Graham (Eds.), Handbook of learning disabilities. NY, NY: Guilford. Trent, S. C. (1998 ). False starts and other dilemmas of a secondary general education collaborative teacher: A case study. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 31, 503 –513. Van de Walle, J. A., Karp, K. S., & Bay-Williams, J. M. ( 2010 ). Elementary and middle school mathematics: Teaching developmentally ( 7th ed.). Boston : Allyn & Bacon. van Garderen, D., Scheuermann, A., Jackson, C., & Hampton, D. ( 2009 ). Supporting collaboration between general educators and special educators to teach students who struggle with mathematics: A review of recent empirical literature. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 56 –77. Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Denton, C. A. ( 2007 ). Teaching elementary students who experience difficulties in learning. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Special Education (pp. 360 –377 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage Publications. Walther-Thomas, C. (1997 ). Co-teaching experiences: The benefits and problems that teachers and principals report over time. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 395 – 407. Wood, M. (1998 ). Whose job is it anyway? Educational roles in inclusion. Exceptional Children, 64, 181–195. Woodward, J. ( 2006 ). Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy instruction with timed practice drills. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29, 269 –289. Woodward, J. & Montague, M. ( 2002 ). Meeting the challenge of mathematics reform for students with LD. Journal of Special Education, 36, 89 –101. Xin, Y. P., Jitendra, A. K., & Deatline-Buchman, A. ( 2005). Effects of mathematical word problemsolving instruction on middle school students with learning problems. Journal of Special Education, 39, 181–192 . doi: 10.1177/00224669050390030501 Zigmond, N. & Baker, J. M. (1995). Concluding comments: Current and future practices in inclusive schooling. Journal of Special Education, 29, 245 –250. Zigmond, N. & Matta, D. ( 2004 ). Value added of the special education teacher in secondary co-taught classes. In T. M. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral diffi culties (pp. 55 –76 ). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press, Inc.

274

20 Supporting Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools J. Stephen Newton,1 Anne W. Todd,1 Bob Algozzine,2 Kate Algozzine,2 Robert H. Horner,1 and Dale L. Cusumano2

Setting the Stage Teams of school personnel who regularly meet to address the academic and social behavior needs of students have been referred to in many ways, including: teacher assistance team (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979), prereferral intervention team (Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1985), instructional consultation team (Rosenfield & Gravois, 1996), mainstream assistance team (Fuchs, Fuchs, Harris, & Roberts, 1996), school-based intervention team (McDougal, Clonan, & Martens, 2000), instructional support team (Kovaleski & Glew, 2006), response to intervention team (Duhon, Mesmer, Gregerson, & Witt, 2009), and positive behavior interventions and supports team (Newton, Algozzine, Algozzine, Horner, & Todd, 2011). ‘Problem- solving teams’ is an appropriate overarching description for these groups, and ‘problem solving’ is the widely-accepted expectation for what they do to support the development of the academic and social skills of all students, including those in inclusive schools (Bahr & Kovaleski, 2006; Bahr, Walker, et al., 2006; McLeskey & Waldron, 2006; Waldron, McLeskey, & Redd, 2011). The stages of a generic problem- solving model have changed little since being described in the behavioral consultation models of Bergan (1977) and Bergan and Kratochwill (1990): problem identification, problem analysis, plan implementation, and problem evaluation. Problem- solving teams in schools have found it useful to translate, or operationalize, these steps for application in educational settings. For example, Deno (2005) modified a general model proposed by Bransford and Stein (1984) into problem- solving steps for use by school personnel: problem identification, problem defi nition, designing intervention plans, implementing intervention, and problem solution. Deno defi ned a problem as a discrepancy between current student performance and expected student performance that decision makers (e.g., members of a problem- solving team) regard as important enough to address. He described how team members’ implementation of the individual steps of the problem- solving

1 University of Oregon 2 The University of North Carolina at Charlotte 275

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

model involved both assessment (gathering data) and evaluation (using data for decision making). For example, during the problem-identification step, academic or social behavior data are gathered and used to decide whether a problem (discrepancy) exists. Then, during the problem- defi nition step, team members use the data to decide whether the magnitude or nature of the quantified discrepancy is important (or significant) enough to require development of a solution. Similarly, data gathered during the remaining problem- solving steps make it possible for the team to use the information to reach decisions about (a) the presumed best solution for a defi ned problem, (b) whether a selected solution is being implemented as intended, and (c) whether an implemented solution is succeeding at reducing or eliminating the discrepancy (i.e., resolving the problem). Using such problem- solving steps and engaging in data-based decision making have become critical features of evidence-based school reform and best practice in both general and special education (Coburn & Turner, 2012; Deno, 2005; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012; Halverson, Grigg, Prichett, & Thomas, 2007; Leithwood, Harris, & Strauss, 2010), and serve as a template for how to support problem solving in inclusive schools (McLeskey & Waldron, 2011).

Historical Perspective on Problem-Solving Research and Practice A good indicator of whether a school team is being adequately supported to engage in highquality problem solving is the extent to which team members efficiently (a) identify problems, (b) develop solutions, (c) implement solutions with fidelity, and (d) evaluate progress and outcomes for students against expectations and goals. Achieving these accomplishments typically requires implementation of an effective problem-solving model. Using the components of a problem- solving model with fidelity is often referred to as “implementation integrity” (Burns, Peters, & Noell, 2008). Achieving implementation integrity is important because a team’s use of the components of a problem- solving model should include selection of an appropriate solution. Implementation of that solution with fidelity, accompanied by monitoring of student progress, makes it possible for team members to test their hypothesis that the solution will resolve the problem, and to make adjustments if necessary. Teams that struggle to solve academic and social problems typically have not received the support they need to implement effective problem- solving practices (Burns & Symington, 2002). Although research concerning the implementation integrity achieved by school problemsolving teams is sparse, results indicate some cause for concern. In a study of prereferral teams, Flugum and Reschly (1994) asked team members to complete a questionnaire concerning their use of six quality indices (components) of prereferral problem solving during meetings. Results demonstrated that a team’s typical prereferral process failed to include a behavioral defi nition of the student target behavior, direct measure of the target behavior prior to intervention, a step-by- step intervention plan, graphing of intervention results, or direct comparison of a student’s post-intervention data and baseline data. McDougal et al. (2000) examined implementation integrity at four schools that used the School-Based Intervention Team (SBIT) prereferral consultation process. Team members completed a researcher-provided integrity checklist, rating their use of 10 SBIT components immediately after their meetings. An external observer affi liated with the researchers attended 49% of the meetings, and also completed the checklist. While observations indicated that teams were generally successful in following the steps of the SBIT process, team members rated their implementation integrity higher than did the observers, who rated the teams as failing to identify antecedents and consequences for the student problem, specify a measure of student progress, or schedule a follow-up meeting. 276

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

Telzrow, McNamara, and Hollinger (2000) evaluated the implementation integrity achieved by school multidisciplinary teams. Each team provided “best case documentation” of their use of specific problem- solving components with one student. In reviewing the documentation, the researchers found that teams used problem-solving components with varying degrees of implementation integrity, obtaining the lowest levels of implementation integrity for developing hypotheses about the reason for the problem, obtaining evidence that the intervention was implemented as designed, gathering baseline and post-intervention data, and comparing the student’s performance across baseline and post-intervention conditions. Doll, Haack, Kosse, Osterloh, and Siemers (2005) conducted a study of 13 student assistance teams (SATs). A researcher- directed evaluation team asked team members to complete a selfassessment survey concerning their use of eight problem- solving components during meetings. Each team also submitted documentation that team members believed represented their best case example of implementing the problem- solving components with a student. The evaluation team reviewed the documentation in conjunction with a team member, and then assigned a rating to indicate the extent to which each problem- solving component was implemented. Results from the self-assessment surveys showed that team members rated themselves as unsystematic in their implementation of the components, and gave themselves the lowest ratings for data collection (i.e., gathering baseline data, gathering intervention data, and comparing baseline and post-intervention data). Evaluators’ ratings of the best case documentation submitted by teams showed similar results, with the lowest evaluator ratings assigned for collection of student baseline data, collection of treatment integrity data, and comparison of baseline and post-intervention data. Cochrane and Laux (2008) focused on school-based problem- solving teams and “treatment integrity”—that is, the extent to which a solution selected by team members to address a student problem is implemented as intended. The researchers created an online survey that was completed by 806 self- selected holders of the Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) credential. Of these respondents, 56.2% strongly agreed that treatment integrity is a key factor to consider when evaluating the success of an intervention (solution), but when asked whether school-based problem- solving teams measured treatment integrity, only 1.9% responded “yes.” Reviews of published research have shown that this failure to gather or report treatment integrity data is widespread (e.g., Gresham, Gansle, Noell, & Cohen, 1993).

Identifying Barriers and Enabling Practices Improving support for team problem solving can be conceptualized as identifying and removing the barriers participants face in their effort to achieve implementation integrity, or as identifying practices that enable them to function successfully. Researchers have approached this task by holding a focus group session with problem- solving team members, reviewing relevant literature, and reflecting on practices that appeared to be most useful in achieving broad implementation of a problem- solving model in schools. In the previously described study by Doll et al. (2005), the evaluation team conducted a focus group session with the SAT members after having reviewed their self-assessment surveys and best case documentation. During the focus group session, SAT members identified and discussed barriers to their implementation of problem- solving components. Their responses revealed seven distinct barriers: (1) unfamiliar tasks (e.g., need for substantial additional training in implementation of the problem- solving components); (2) necessary role of experts (e.g., importance of including school psychologists, special educators, and reading specialists as SAT members); (3) time demands (e.g., need for release time and assigning 277

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

paraprofessionals to some tasks, such as collecting data); (4) scheduling constraints (e.g., confl icts with other scheduled faculty and committee meetings); (5) complex procedures (e.g., perceived need to modify SAT forms and to combine or omit some of the problemsolving components); (6) delayed services to students (e.g., perception that implementation of the problem- solving components, such as collecting baseline data, delayed implementation of an intervention); and (7) intervention availability (e.g., perceived lack of school resources required to implement effective interventions for student social and academic behavior problems). Nellis (2012) reviewed research literature in which barriers to the implementation of problem- solving components were identified, and concluded by offering strategies for enhancing the practices of building-level school teams within the context of a response to intervention model. Barriers included the time required for team meetings, the difficulty of managing logistics (e.g., scheduling, team membership, meeting efficiency, team procedures, and documentation), the lack of a clear purpose and goals, insufficient training and administrative support, and a lack of intervention resources and services in the school. Nellis suggested that some of these barriers might be overcome by engaging in a systems- change approach to improvement by: engaging all stakeholders during initial discussions, planning, and implementation of new team procedures; establishing clear procedures with associated documentation to guide consistent implementation; defi ning the purpose of the team; selecting the right team members for the defi ned purpose of the team; conducting efficient team meetings by having a set agenda, process, team facilitator, and note taker; providing training and follow-up coaching for team members; securing administrative support; and engaging in team improvement efforts, such as reflecting on student and school outcomes and the team’s own practices. Kovaleski and Glew (2006) summarized what was required to bring instructional support (IST) teams to scale on a statewide basis in Pennsylvania, highlighting the importance of comprehensive training for all participants, followed by trainers’ visits to schools to provide on- site demonstrations and peer coaching. They noted other features of the IST model that may be critical (although empirical research concerning which of the features may be causally related to desired outcomes had not been demonstrated): adherence to the problem- solving model’s components, team-based collaboration, infusion of curriculum-based data, team support for implementation of interventions in classrooms, and ongoing monitoring of student progress. Lau, Sieler, Muyskens, Canter, and Vankeuren (2006) described the Minneapolis Public School System’s ten years of experience in implementing a problem- solving model based on an approach developed by the Heartland Area Education Area 11 in Iowa (e.g., Ikeda et al., 2007; Tilly, 2008), which enabled schools to move from identification of student deficits and classification, to identification of instructional adaptations or modifications to help students succeed. Based on this experience, Lau et al. (2006) provided tips for effective implementation of a problem- solving model, such as ensuring that the team (a) includes significant teacher input and an array of professionals (e.g., general education teachers, school psychologists, special education teachers, and administrators); (b) receives in-depth training in the implementation of the problem- solving model (e.g., presentations, modeling, and follow-up coaching), as well as a manual that details procedures, expectations, and paperwork involved at each step of the problem- solving model; (c) has access to useful technology, such as Webbased forms and online data collection; and (d) engages in an evaluation process to identify its successes, as well as barriers to its success. Scruggs and Mastropieri (1996) reviewed 28 studies of teachers’ perceptions of teaching students with disabilities in their general education classes. While most teachers reported 278

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

supporting inclusion, only one third or less believed that they had sufficient time, skills, training, or resources to teach students with disabilities in their classrooms. These “barriers” to adopting or engaging in alternative practices are similar to those reported elsewhere (e.g., An & Reigeluth, 2011; Johnson, 2006; Lohrmann, Martin, & Patil, 2013; Singh & Muniandi, 2012). Recommendations for supporting effective problem solving share core values and key features for planning, implementing, sustaining, and disseminating evidence-based practices within the context of implementation science (cf. Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Glasgow et al., 2012). They also provide direction for administrators faced with competing initiatives and diminishing resources to provide leadership and professional development to address the difficult tasks of increasing outcomes and including students with disabilities (Lohrmann et al., 2013; Waldron et al., 2011).

Setting a Course for Effective Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools If school-based teams can generally be regarded as problem- solving teams, then a good indicator of whether a team is being adequately supported would be the success of the team in achieving valued student outcomes via implementation of effective team problem-solving practices. A broad summary of the research on improving team effectiveness and implementation integrity suggests that teams need: • • • •

A problem- solving model with a set of specific steps Access to the fidelity and outcome data that make it possible for team members to engage in data-based decision making Training and follow-up technical assistance in use of the model’s steps “Environmental supports” that facilitate organized, efficient meetings.

A brief overview of these needs is presented next, followed by a more detailed description of a specific problem- solving model within which the authors have attempted to address the needs of school-based problem- solving teams. As previously noted, school teams will need to translate a generic problem- solving model into a set of steps that are applicable for their use. Deno’s (2005) model provides an excellent example of one such operationalization. And, depending on how it is implemented, response to intervention (RTI) may also be characterized as a problem- solving model or as a “standardprotocol” approach to identifying and addressing student problems (e.g., Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003). However, it should be noted that even when RTI has been characterized by its implementers as a problem- solving model, it has been implemented in numerous ways, with differing (a) tiers of instruction, (b) criteria for defi ning “responsiveness,” and (c) measures for indexing student performance (e.g., Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005; Fuchs et al., 2012; Sugai & Horner, 2009b). A recent book by Burns and Gibbons (2008) provides one comprehensive example of a problem- solving model that can be used within an RTI framework at elementary and secondary schools. Team members need data for decision making. Within a problem- solving/RTI framework, curriculum-based measurement (CBM) is widely used for gathering student academic data for both screening and progress monitoring (Deno et al., 2009; Stecker, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). CBM data can be gathered for triannual screenings of student performance and then used (a) to identify students who are not meeting grade-level learning goals despite “core” (Tier 1) academic instruction, and (b) to make decisions about which of those students may be candidates for small-group, intensive instruction (a Tier 2 intervention), where 279

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

progress-monitoring data are gathered. These progress-monitoring data can be used to make decisions about whether a student’s response to the original or revised Tier 2 interventions has been such that small-group instruction can be reduced or discontinued, or whether the student has not responded to the interventions and thus may need to be referred for a special education evaluation (regarded as Tier 3 in some RTI models), where additional progressmonitoring data are gathered and used by a special education team to make a decision about the student’s eligibility for special education services (Brown-Chidsey & Steege, 2010). For student social behavior, tools such as the School-wide Information System (SWIS: May et al., 2003) or Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD: Severson, Walker, HopeDoolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007) can be used in a similar manner for screening and progress monitoring. Successful implementation of the steps of a problem- solving model, including data-based decision making, can be challenging. Although books and manuals that describe how to implement a problem- solving model can be very helpful, team members may need expert direct training to achieve implementation integrity. Burns and Symington (2002) conducted a pilot empirical meta-analysis of research concerning the effect of prereferral intervention teams (PITs) on four student outcomes (i.e., time on task, task completion, scores on behavior rating scales, and observations of target behavior) and five systemic outcomes (i.e., referrals to special education, new placements in special education, percentage of referrals diagnosed with a disability, number of students retained in grade, and increase in consultative or counseling activity by school psychologists). They found that the mean effect size across the nine variables for PITs that were university-based, trained, and implemented (1.32) was more than twice that of field-based PITs (0.54). This difference led Burns and Symington to speculate that the lack of consistent positive student and systemic outcomes for field-based teams might be a result of their inconsistent implementation integrity, possibly due to local school districts designing and implementing their own practices for PITs, as originally suggested in results from a survey conducted by Carter and Sugai (1989) and later replicated by Buck, Polloway, Smith-Thomas, and Cook (2003). Team members are also likely to need follow-up technical assistance after training on use of the problem- solving model has occurred. In their staff development work with teachers, Joyce and Showers (2002) found that even when a workshop includes (a) presentations that provide theory and rationale for the workshop content; (b) demonstrations or modeling of the skills that teachers are to acquire; and (c) opportunities for teachers to practice those skills, teachers’ success at transferring those skills into classrooms is minimal. However, when post-workshop coaching is also provided, a large increase in transfer typically occurs, allowing teachers to demonstrate implementation integrity in applying workshop-related skills in their classrooms. For example, Burns, Peters, et al. (2008) demonstrated that providing problem- solving team members with performance feedback (in the form of a checklist showing which critical data-based problem solving components were completed and omitted by team members during their regular meetings) was successful in improving team members’ implementation integrity at subsequent meetings. In related research, Rodriguez, Loman, and Horner (2009) documented a functional relation between per formance feedback and fidelity of teachers’ implementation of a behavior intervention program (i.e., First Step to Success). The frequency and duration of team meetings are likely to be limited due to team members’ other responsibilities. Thus team members need “environmental supports” (Gilbert, 1978) that enable meetings to be organized and efficient. Many of these supports are those previously identified as barriers to be overcome or practices that enable teams to function successfully. 280

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

Team membership should reflect the range of roles and skills that are required for relevant data-based decision making (e.g., regular and special education teachers, school psychologist, reading specialist, administrator). Teams are also likely to fi nd it useful to (a) set the meeting dates and times for the entire school year in advance, rather than on a meeting-to-meeting basis; (b) defi ne specific roles for team members (e.g., Facilitator, Minute Taker, Data Analyst); (c) standardize their meeting “products” (agenda form, meeting minutes form, summaries of relevant data made available for team decision making, etc.); (d) create documentation describing how a meeting’s standardized processes are to be implemented (e.g., the steps of the team’s problem- solving model, procedures for conducting an internal evaluation of team meetings); and (e) use technology to access and analyze student academic and social behavior data prior to and during team meetings.

Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS) In response to the need for clearly defi ned team problem- solving practices, the authors have (a) developed a problem- solving model for use by members of school-based Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS) Teams; (b) taught team members how to use the model via a workshop and follow-up technical assistance; and (c) conducted research to determine whether the training and technical assistance have resulted in teams achieving implementation integrity with regard to the problem- solving model. This model is called Team-Initiated Problem Solving (TIPS). PBIS Teams are present in schools that are implementing School-wide Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (SWPBIS; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Sugai & Horner, 2009a). SWPBIS is a systems approach for establishing a social culture and behavior supports that improve the social behavior of students, resulting in schools that are safe, effective learning environments. The systems-level implementation of SWPBIS is organized and managed at the state, regional, and district levels. As one aspect of this long-term effort, schools create PBIS Teams and school districts establish a cadre of PBIS Coaches who, over time, teach PBIS Team members how to implement SWPBIS via a series of training “modules” referenced to three tiers of prevention and intervention. Primary tier prevention and intervention is school-wide in that it is directed at all students and school staff. Primary tier prevention emphasizes defi ning, teaching, and acknowledging expected student social behavior in order to increase the likelihood that problem behaviors will be prevented, or more easily addressed and eliminated at an early stage. Secondary tier intervention focuses on those students whose behaviors have not been responsive to primary tier intervention and thus require more structured intervention practices. Tertiary tier intervention is for the small group of students with problem behaviors that have not been responsive to either primary or secondary tier intervention, and thus may require school personnel to conduct a functional behavioral assessment that will inform the creation of an individualized intervention. In schools that are implementing SWPBIS the PBIS Team meets regularly for the stated purpose of reviewing student data and identifying and addressing students’ social behavior problems. PBIS Teams have access to student data from the School-wide Information System database (SWIS: May et al., 2003). SWIS provides a methodology that enables school personnel to defi ne student misbehavior that will result in school personnel recording office discipline referrals (ODRs), and a Web-based computer application that allows for both the entry of the hand- collected ODR data and the subsequent production of pre-defi ned and custom reports and graphs concerning the referrals. 281

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

We developed TIPS to help PBIS Teams become more efficient and effective at using SWIS for data-based decision making. We recognized the need for developing a formal problem- solving model, within which SWIS data could be used for decision making, after having informally observed many PBIS Team meetings during which team members appeared to lack a systematic, consistent approach to using SWIS data to make decisions in spite of their having received SWIS training. Our observations revealed that teams were idiosyncratic and inconsistent concerning whether their meetings included a review of SWIS data, the specific SWIS data reports and graphs that were reviewed, the methods team members used to analyze data for the purpose of identifying student problems, and whether review of data resulted in identification of one or more student problems. We believed that PBIS Team members needed a formal problem- solving model that would serve as a locus for integrating their knowledge about the three tiers of SWPBIS prevention and intervention with their knowledge of how to use SWIS to produce certain reports and graphs of students’ office discipline referrals. A brief description of TIPS follows, although more detailed information has been published elsewhere (Newton, Algozzine et al., 2011; Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2009; Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2012; Todd, Horner, Newton, Algozzine, Algozzine, & Frank, 2011). The TIPS Model In the research we have conducted to date, the components (steps) of the TIPS model are: • • • •

Identify problem with precision, and with a defi ned goal; Discuss and select solution (actions) to achieve the goal; Develop and implement action plan; Evaluate progress and status of problem and revise action plan as necessary.

TIPS Training Training in the use of the TIPS model is provided to PBIS Team members during a five-hour TIPS Workshop. TIPS Workshop sessions are referenced to the components of the TIPS model. The format for each workshop session is designed to ensure that participants acquire associated skills. The TIPS trainer presents the content for a session (e.g., how to identify student social behavior problems using data from the school’s SWIS database), interspersing questions that participants answer aloud to demonstrate their ongoing understanding of the material as it is being presented. Team member participants then complete a related activity, with technical assistance as necessary, allowing them to demonstrate acquisition of the session-related skills under simulated circumstances (e.g., reviewing graphs and reports of SWIS data for a hypothetical school and identifying student social behavior problems), followed by performance feedback from the TIPS trainer. Finally, team members demonstrate acquisition of the skills in a manner directly relevant to their team (e.g., using a laptop computer each team brings to the workshop, accessing their school’s SWIS database, and identifying a problem at their school), again followed by performance feedback from the TIPS trainer. The workshop session on identifying problems with precision focuses on how to use the SWIS data to identify a student social behavior problem, defi ned as (a) a discrepancy between the current status of student behavior and its expected or desired status, that (b) team members judge to be significant enough to address (e.g., Deno, 2005). Team members learn to use the SWIS database to produce one or more reports of student office discipline referrals per day per month, analyze the trend and variability of the data, and compare the level of their 282

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

school’s data against national data on the mean and median ODR levels for schools with comparable grade levels and enrollment size. Such information makes it possible for teams to make a data-based decision about whether their school’s primary tier prevention and intervention practices are producing the desired effect, or whether a “booster session” for some aspect of that effort may be needed (e.g., re-teaching the school’s behavioral expectations to students, ensuring that procedures for regular acknowledgement or reward of students’ engagement in the expected behaviors is being implemented, etc.). Participants also learn to “drill down” into the data to produce a series of SWIS reports and graphs that allow them to identify groups of students who are not responding to the primary tier of prevention/intervention and who may benefit from receiving a secondary tier intervention. In brief, participants learn to use SWIS to create reports and graphs of ODRs by (a) problem behavior, (b) time of day, (c) location, and (d) student. The data in these reports are independent, or “stand- alone.” That is, the report of ODRs by problem behavior shows how many instances of various categories of problem behavior occurred between two user- specified dates (e.g., disruption, tardiness, physical aggression, disrespect, etc.), but provides no information about the time of day when the ODRs were recorded, the location in which the ODRs were recorded, or which students received the ODRs. Then, participants are taught how to (a) make a logical inference about possible relationships among the ODRs from the independent reports, and (b) test their inference by producing a SWIS custom report that can confi rm or disconfi rm their inference. For example, if the four independent SWIS reports show (a) a large number of ODRs recorded for disruption, (b) a large number of ODRs recorded between 11:30am and 12:00pm, (c) a large number of ODRs recorded in the cafeteria, and (d) a large number of ODRs recorded for sixth-grade students, then team members may logically infer that many disruptions by sixth-graders are occurring in the cafeteria between 11:30am and 12:00pm. The team can then test, and confi rm or disconfi rm, their inference by producing a single SWIS custom report that integrates user-requested what, when, where, and who information. If the team members’ inference is confi rmed, they can make a data-based decision about whether a significant proportion of the school’s total disruption ODRs (some of which may be occurring in other locations, at other times of days, and by other students) are accounted for in the custom report and thus represent an opportunity for a targeted secondary tier intervention that could have a significant effect by eliminating or reducing the discrepancy between the current number of disruption ODRs and an “acceptable” level of disruption ODRs in the school. If the team decides that an intervention is warranted, they write a “precise problem statement” that incorporates not only the what, where, when, and who information from the SWIS custom report, but also (a) “why” information concerning the perceived motivation for the ODRs (e.g., attain adult attention, avoid tasks/activities, etc.), which is entered by the person who records an ODR and thus can also be made to appear in the custom report; and (b) other anecdotal information that team members may already have, or may decide to gather following a meeting by observing the sixth-grade lunch period. For example, a precise problem statement might read as follows: “Many instances of disruption occurring in cafeteria between 11:30am-12:00pm, involving 6th graders; because (a) cafeteria overcrowded at this time, (b) 6th graders have received insufficient instruction in cafeteria expectations, and (c) disruption results in attention from adults and peers.” Participants then learn to write a goal statement that empirically defi nes the outcome of a successful solution (e.g., “Reduce disruptions in cafeteria between 11:30am and 12:00pm to no more than 6 per calendar month; maintain for remainder of school year. This represents a 75% reduction from the baseline rate of 24 per month”). Finally, teams learn to use SWIS reports to identify students who have received a significant proportion of a school’s 283

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

ODRs and who may have received secondary tier interventions that failed to produce desired changes. These data allow the team to make a decision about whether a tertiary tier individualized intervention is warranted. After this session’s presentation and activities have concluded, each team demonstrates acquisition of the skills by using a laptop computer to wirelessly connect to its school’s SWIS database. The team produces the series of SWIS reports, identifies at least one problem for which a precise problem statement is relevant, and writes the precise problem statement, and a goal, on a PBIS Team Meeting Minutes form that has been provided to them for this purpose. This provides the team with a problem that it can begin working on throughout the workshop, and continue working on at its next regularly scheduled meeting. (A sample of the PBIS Team Meeting Minutes form appears as an appendix.) The session on discussing and selecting solutions focuses on how to develop solutions (interventions) that are (a) consistent with the hypothesis about why a given problem is occurring, and (b) derived from the broad “solution strategy” options of preventing the problem behavior, defi ning and teaching appropriate alternative behavior, rewarding or reinforcing instances of the appropriate behavior, withholding rewards or reinforcers for the problem behavior (i.e., extinction), and taking non-rewarding or non-reinforcing corrective action if the problem behavior occurs. The session ends with participants discussing and selecting at least one possible solution action for addressing the problem described in their school’s precise problem statement, recording it on their PBIS Team Meeting Minutes form, and agreeing to continue the discussion at their next team meeting. The sessions on developing, implementing, evaluating, and revising an action plan focus on teaching team members to achieve accountability for implementing their solutions by recording, on the PBIS Team Meeting Minutes form, the name of the person who will implement (or coordinate implementation of ) each specific solution action and the date by which each solution action will be implemented.

TIPS Technical Assistance After the TIPS Workshop, follow-up technical assistance in implementation of the components of the TIPS model is provided to a team by its PBIS Coach, who is a school district employee with responsibility for providing SWPBIS-related training and technical assistance to PBIS Teams. Prior to delivering the technical assistance, the coaches attend a TIPS Workshop for PBIS Coaches, during which the researchers instruct them in use of the TIPS model and prepare them to deliver the technical assistance to teams. The coach contacts the Facilitator, Minute Taker, and Data Analyst for his or her teams and offers to provide TIPS-related technical assistance concerning the TIPS responsibilities associated with those roles prior to the team’s next meeting. The coach then attends at least the next two team meetings and provides TIPS technical assistance consisting of providing (a) the least amount of prompting required to ensure team members progress through the components of the TIPS model as time allows; (b) corrective feedback and assistance, as needed, if team members omit component processes or are unable to complete them; (c) praise as team members independently complete component processes; and (d) answers to team members’ questions.

TIPS Environmental Supports Throughout the TIPS Workshop team members are introduced to a number of environmental supports designed to provide a foundation for making their meetings organized and 284

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

efficient. Each workshop participant is provided with a binder that contains a copy of all slides shown by each session’s presenter, along with sample (and blank) copies of various forms and checklists. Chief among these is the PBIS Team Meeting Minutes form (see Appendix), which serves as an agenda, provides a history of the meeting as the team’s Minute Taker records the team’s decisions, and serves as a prompting device for moving team members through the components of the TIPS model. Other forms and checklists include (a) a list of tasks for teams to complete before their fi rst post-TIPS Workshop meeting (e.g., assigning the role of Data Analyst to a team member if such a role does not already exist); (b) a list of the specific responsibilities to be assumed by the team’s Facilitator, Minute Taker, and Data Analyst before each meeting, during each meeting, and after each meeting; and (c) the technical assistance responsibilities of the team’s PBIS Coach.

Implementation Integrity To determine whether the “TIPS intervention”—consisting of providing PBIS Teams with the TIPS Workshop, follow-up technical assistance, and environmental supports—improves team problem-solving implementation integrity, we have directly observed team meetings and gathered information on team member behavior using the Decision Observation, Recording, and Analysis instrument (DORA: Algozzine, Newton, Horner, Todd, & Algozzine, 2012; Newton, Todd, Horner, Algozzine, & Algozzine, 2009). We have demonstrated that prior to the TIPS intervention, PBIS Teams were not achieving high levels of implementation integrity in the use of recommended processes for data-based problem solving, as exemplified by the TIPS model, but after the TIPS intervention the teams demonstrated improved implementation integrity of the problemsolving processes in the context of (a) a descriptive study (Newton, Horner, Todd, Algozzine, & Algozzine, 2012); (b) a study involving four PBIS Teams examined within a single-case experimental design (Todd et al., 2011); and (c) a randomized controlled trial involving 34 PBIS Teams, half of which were assigned to a wait-list control group (Newton, Horner, Algozzine, et al., 2012).

Conclusion Our efforts describe one way to conceptualize, and operationalize, what it means to support team decision making in inclusive schools. We believe this approach has merit in that most school teams could legitimately be regarded as problem- solving teams for whom data-based decision making is essential. Providing those teams with a problem- solving model that can be implemented with integrity is an important fi rst step. However, the outcome of ultimate importance is, of course, whether team members’ implementation of a problem- solving model’s steps results in resolution of identified student problems. For researchers, this suggests a line of inquiry in which implementation integrity of the problem- solving processes extends to include not only the during-meeting behavior of team members, but also a focus on (and measurement of ) both (a) the extent to which “treatment integrity” is achieved (i.e., the team’s selected solution is implemented as intended) and (b) the extent to which targeted student problems are resolved. A recent case study that pursued this line of inquiry with a single PBIS Team has provided encouraging preliminary results (Todd et al., 2012). Team members implemented the TIPS model’s processes with integrity during their meetings and later implemented the team- developed solutions with “good” or better integrity, followed by improvement in the student behaviors that had been identified as problems. 285

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

As Sugai and Horner (2009b) have pointed out, at present it is not atypical for a school to have one team that focuses on identifying and resolving student academic behavior (e.g., an RTI team) and a second team that focuses on identifying and resolving student social behavior (e.g., a PBIS Team). This separation eliminates the kind of synergy that might be achieved if a single team focused on students’ academic and social behavior within the framework of a problem- solving model that could accommodate both. Although the relationship between students’ social behavior and academic behavior remains somewhat ambiguous (e.g. Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011), treating them separately may ignore the fact that it appears impossible for students to be both academically engaged and emitting problem behavior at the same time. A single team focused on both types of behavior might create solutions that capitalize upon that fact and achieve better inclusion outcomes as a result.

References Algozzine, B., Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine, K. M. ( 2012 ). Development and technical characteristics of a team decision-making assessment tool: Decision observation, recording and analysis (DORA). Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 30, 237–249. doi: 10.1177/0734282911423884 Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. ( 2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 3 –16. doi: 10.1177/1098300709359084 An, Y. & Reigeluth, C. ( 2011). Creating technology- enhanced, learner- centered classrooms: K-12 teachers’ beliefs, perceptions, barriers, and support needs. Journal of Digital Learning In Teacher Education, 28 ( 2 ), 54 – 62 . Bahr, M. W. & Kovaleski, J. F. ( 2006 ). The need for problem- solving teams: Introduction to the special issue. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 2 –5. doi: 10.1177/07419325060270010101 Bahr, M. W., Walker, K., Hampton, E. M., Buddle, B. S., Freeman, T., Ruschman, N., et al. ( 2006 ). Creative problem solving for general education intervention teams: A two-year evaluation study. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 27– 41. Bergan, J. R. (1977 ). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH : Merrill. Bergan, J. R. & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990 ). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York, NY: Plenum Press. Bransford, J. D. & Stein, B. S. (1984 ). The IDEAL problem solver: A guide for improving thinking, learning, and creativity. New York, NY: W. H. Freeman and Company. Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M. W. ( 2010 ). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice (2nd ed.). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Buck, G. H., Polloway, E. A., Smith-Thomas, A., & Cook, K. W. ( 2003 ). Prereferral intervention processes: A survey of state practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 349 –360. Burns, M. K. & Gibbons, K. A. ( 2008 ). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. New York, NY: Routledge. Burns, M. K., Peters, R., & Noell, G. H. ( 2008 ). Using performance feedback to enhance implementation fidelity of the problem- solving team process. Journal of School Psychology, 46, 537–550. doi:10.1016/j.jsp.2008.04.001 Burns, M. K. & Symington, T. ( 2002 ). A meta-analysis of prereferral intervention teams: Student and systemic outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 40, 437– 447. doi:10.1016/S0022-4405(02)00106-1 Burns, M. K. & Ysseldyke, J. E. ( 2005). Comparison of existing response-to-intervention models to identify and answer implementation questions. The California School Psychologist, 10, 9 –20. Carter, J. & Sugai, G. (1989 ). Survey on prereferral practices: Responses from state departments of education. Exceptional Children, 55, 298 –302 . Chalfant, J. C., Pysh, M. V., & Moultrie, R. (1979 ). Teacher assistance teams: A model for withinbuilding problem solving. Learning Disability Quarterly, 2, 85 –96. Retrieved from http://www.jstor. org/stable/1511031 Coburn, C. E. & Turner, E. O. ( 2012 ). The practice of data use: An introduction. American Journal of Education, 118, 99 –111.

286

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

Cochrane, W. S. & Laux, J. M. ( 2008 ). A survey investigating school psychologists’ measurement of treatment integrity in school-based interventions and their beliefs about its importance. Psychology in the Schools, 45, 499 –507. doi:10.1002/pits.20319 Deno, S. L. ( 2005). Problem- solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey (Ed.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (pp. 10 – 40 ). New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Deno, S. L., Reschly, A. L., Lembke, E. S., Magnusson, D., Callender, S. A., Windram, H., & Stachel, N. ( 2009 ). Developing a school-wide progress-monitoring system. Psychology in the Schools, 46, 44 –55. doi: 10.1002/pits.20353 Doll, B., Haack, K., Kosse, S., Osterloh, M., & Siemers, E. ( 2005). The dilemma of pragmatics: Why schools don’t use quality team consultation practices. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 16, 127–155. doi:10.1207/s1532768xjepc1603_1 Duhon, G. J., Mesmer, E. M., Gregerson, L., & Witt, J. C. ( 2009 ). Effects of public feedback during RTI team meetings on teacher implementation integrity and student academic performance. Journal of School Psychology, 47, 19 –37. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2008.09.002 Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. ( 2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The National Implementation Research Network (FMHI Publication #231). Retrieved from http://nirn.fpg.unc.edu/sites/nirn.fpg.unc.edu/fi les/resources/NIRNMonographFull-01-2005.pdf Flugum, K. R. & Reschly, D. J. (1994 ). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32, 1–14. doi:10.1016/0022-4405(94)90025-6 Fuchs, D. & Deshler, D. D. ( 2007 ). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22, 129 –136. doi: 10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. ( 2012 ). Smart RTI: A next-generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263 –279. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Harris, A. H., & Roberts, P. H. (1996 ). Bridging the research-to-practice gap with mainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. School Psychology Quarterly, 11, 244 –266. doi: 10.1037/h0088932 Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. ( 2003 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Defi nitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157–171. doi: 10.1111/1540-5826.00072 Gilbert, T. F. (1978 ). Human competence: Engineering worthy performance. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Glasgow, R. E., Vinson, C., Chambers, D., Khoury, M. J., Kaplan, R. M., & Hunter, C. ( 2012 ). National Institutes of Health approaches to dissemination and implementation science: Current and future directions. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 1274 –1281. doi:10.2105/AJPH.2012.300755 Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Implementing a prereferral intervention system: I. The model. Exceptional Children, 51, 377–384. Gresham, F. M., Gansle, K. A., Noell, G. H., & Cohen, S. (1993 ). Treatment integrity of school-based behavioral intervention studies: 1980–1990. School Psychology Review, 22, 254 –272 . Halverson, R., Grigg, J., Prichett, R., & Thomas, C. ( 2007 ). The new instructional leadership: Creating data- driven instructional systems in school. Journal of School Leadership, 17, 159 –194. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. ( 2010 ). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–14. Ikeda, M. J., Rahn-Blakeslee, A., Niebling, B. C., Gustafson, J. K., Allison, R., & Stumme, J. ( 2007 ). The Heartland Area Education Agency 11 problem- solving approach: An overview and lessons learned. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. (pp. 255–268). New York, NY: Springer. Johnson, C. C. ( 2006 ). Effective professional development and change in practice: Barriers science teachers encounter and implications for reform. School Science and Mathematics, 106, 150 –161. Joyce, B. R. & Showers, B. ( 2002 ). Student achievement through staff development (3rd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Kovaleski, J. F. & Glew, M. C. ( 2006). Bringing instructional support to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania Experience. Remedial and Special Education, 27, 16 –25. doi: 10.1177/07419325060270010301 Lau, M. Y., Sieler, J. D., Muyskens, P., Canter, A., & Vankeuren, B. ( 2006 ). Perspectives on the use of the problem- solving model from the viewpoint of a school psychologist, administrator, and teacher 287

J.S. Newton, A.W. Todd, B. Algozzine, et al.

from a large midwest urban school district. Psychology in the Schools, 43, 117–127. doi: 10.1002/ pits.20135 Leithwood , K., Harris, A., & Strauss, T. ( 2010 ). Leading school turnaround: How successful school leaders transform low-performing schools. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Lohrmann, S., Martin, S. D., & Patil, S. ( 2013 ). External and internal coaches’ perspectives about overcoming barriers to universal interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 15, 26 –38. doi: 10.1177/1098300712459078 May, S., Ard Jr., W., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Glasgow, A., & Sugai, G. ( 2003 ). Schoolwide information system. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. McDougal, J. L., Clonan, S. M., & Martens, B. K. ( 2000 ). Using organizational change procedures to promote the acceptability of prereferral intervention services: The school-based intervention team project. School Psychology Quarterly, 15, 149 –171. McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. ( 2006 ). Comprehensive school reform and inclusive schools. Theory into Practice, 45, 269 –278. doi: 10.1207/s15430421tip4503_9 McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. ( 2011). Educational programs for elementary students with learning disabilities: Can they be both effective and inclusive ? Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 48 –57. doi: 10.1111/j.1540–5826.2010.00324.x Nellis, L. M. ( 2012 ). Maximizing the effectiveness of building teams in response to intervention implementation. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 245 –256. doi:10.1002/pits.21594 Newton, J. S., Algozzine, B., Algozzine, K., Horner, R. H., & Todd, A. W. ( 2011). Building local capacity for training and coaching data-based problem solving with positive behavior intervention and support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 228 –245. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2011.590104 Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, R. F., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine, K. M. ( 2009 ). Using a problem- solving model to enhance data-based decision making in schools. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 551–580). New York, NY: Springer. doi/10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_23 Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, B., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine, K. M. ( 2012 ). A randomized wait-list controlled analysis of team-initiated problem solving. Journal of School Psychology, 50, 421– 441. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2012.04.002 Newton, J. S., Horner, R. H., Todd, A. W., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K. M. ( 2012 ). A pilot study of a problem- solving model for team decision making. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 25 – 49. doi: 10.1353/etc.2012.0001 Newton, J. S., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, B., & Algozzine, K., ( 2009 ). Decision observation, recording, and analysis: DORA. Unpublished instrument. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon, Eugene, Oregon. Rodriguez, B. J., Loman, S. L., & Horner, R. H. ( 2009 ). A preliminary analysis of the effects of coaching feedback on teacher implementation fidelity for First Step to Success. Behavior Analysis in Practice, 2 ( 2 ), 11–22 . Rosenfield, S. A. & Gravois, T. A. (1996 ). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York, NY: The Guilford Press. Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996 ). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958– 1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59 –74. Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. ( 2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193 –223. doi: 10.1016/j.jsp.2006.11.003 Singh, T. & Muniandi, K. ( 2012 ). Factors affecting school administrators’ choices in adopting ICT tools in schools-–The case of Malaysian Schools. International Education Studies, 5 (4 ), 21–30. doi:10.5539/ies.v5n4p21 Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. ( 2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 795 – 819. doi: 10.1002/ pits.20113 Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009a). Defi ning and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York, NY: Springer. doi: 10.1007/978-0-387-09632-2_13 Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009b). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223 –237. doi: 10.1080/09362830903235375 288

Team Problem Solving in Inclusive Schools

Telzrow, C. F., McNamara, K., & Hollinger, C. L. ( 2000 ). Fidelity of problem- solving implementation and relationship to student performance. School Psychology Review, 29, 443 – 461. Tilly, W. D., III. ( 2008 ). The evolution of school psychology to a science-based practice: Problem solving and the three-tiered model. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 17–36.). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Berry, D., Sanders, C., Bugni, M., Currier, A., . . . Algozzine, K. ( 2012 ). A case study of team-initiated problem solving addressing student behavior in one elementary school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 25, 81– 89. Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Newton, J. S., Algozzine, R. F., Algozzine, K. M., & Frank, J. L. ( 2011). Effects of team-initiated problem solving on decision making by schoolwide behavior support teams. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 27, 42 –59. doi: 10.1080/15377903.2011.540510 Waldron, N. L., McLeskey, J., & Redd, L. ( 2011). Setting the direction: The role of the principal in developing an effective, inclusive school. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 51– 60.

289

Facilitator: Aparicio

Facilitator: Aparicio

Information for Team, or Issue for Team to Address

Discussion/Decision/Task (if applicable)

05.

04.

Who?

By When?

10.

Meeting Minutes: Administrative/General Information and Issues

09.

03.

02. Inappropriate Language

05.

Piersall

04.

Ellsbury

08.

X

07.

Ortiz

03.

X

02.

Wynn

01. Disruption

X

06.

Fox

01.

X

Data Analyst: Wynn

Data Analyst: Wynn

Potential New Problems (Data Analyst’s Overview)

Fisk

X

Minute Taker: Fox

Minute Taker: Fox

Today’s New Business Items

Aparicio

X

Team Members (Place “X” to left of name if present)

Date, time, location: 02/22/2012, 3:00pm, Computer lab

Next Meeting

Date: 02/08/2012

Today’s Meeting

Appendix: Edgeville Elementary School – PBIS Team Meeting Minutes

02/15/2012; 02/22/2012

Beginning 02/22/2012

All; Wynn

All 6th grade teachers (Aparicio to observe classrooms, see if teachers remember) Aparicio

All (Wynn to observe cafeteria, see if F5 in effect) Ortiz

Reach agreement on wording of cafeteria expectations; create and post signage in cafeteria Demonstrate/teach/review expectations in 6th grade classrooms in period before lunch; continue for at least one month; remind students of “Friday 5” prior to lunch period; remind students not to pay attention to disruptive students Determine whether we can add a cafeteria supervisor to be on duty between 11:30am and 12:00pm Initiate Friday 5; ensure Friday 5 in effect for remainder of school year

02/15/2012

02/22/2012

02/15/2012

Aparicio

Determine whether change in lunch schedule is possible.

By When?

Many instances of disruption in cafeteria between 11:30am and 12:00pm, involving 6th graders, because (a) cafeteria overcrowded at this time, (b) 6th graders have received insufficient instruction in cafeteria expectations, and (c) disruption results in attention from adults and peers.

Who?

Reduce disruptions in cafeteria between 11:30am and 12:00pm to no more than 6 per calendar month; maintain for remainder of school year. This represents a 75% reduction from baseline rate of 24 per month.

Goal, Timeline, Decision Rule, & Updates

Implementation and Evaluation Solution Actions (e.g., Prevent, Teach, Prompt, Reward, Correction, Extinction, Safety)

Precise Problem Statement, based on review of data (What, When, Where, Who, Why)

Problem-Solving Action Plan

21 Effective Inclusive Schools and the Co-teaching Conundrum Wendy W. Murawski1 and Vanessa A. Goodwin1

Setting the Stage As schools move toward including more students with disabilities into general education classrooms, the need to reform the instructional methods used to support both students and teachers (McLeskey, Landers, Hoppey, & Williamson, 2011) is not in debate. There is a collective call for reform in both general and special education to include evidence-based practices that are interactive, multimodal, collaborative, dynamic, and real-world (e.g., Council for Exceptional Children [CEC], 2007; Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 2004; National Council of Teachers of English [NCTE], 2005; National Commission on Teachers of Math [NCTM], 2008; National Science Teachers Association [NSTA], 2004; No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB], 2001). Yet, despite shared goals, there remains a mismatch between the learning needs of students and the traditional instructional delivery methods actually used in classrooms (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012). Although findings in the How Teaching Matters report of 2000 demonstrated that students’ test scores on standardized assessments were higher if teachers individualized and differentiated their instruction (Pearl & Miller, 2007), research shows that teachers continue to use traditional, whole-group teaching methods even as classes become more diverse and more inclusive of students with disabilities (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012; King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011). Co-teaching as a service delivery model is gaining ground both nationally and internationally. It offers a way to provide quality services to students with special needs in general education classrooms and to increase the differentiation of instruction to benefit all students (Friend, Cook, Hurley-Chamberlain, & Shamberger, 2010; Saloviita & Takala, 2010). Co-teaching is the delivery of instruction by two or more professionals to a blended group of students in a single space (Friend & Cook, 2012). Just physically sharing a room is insufficient; in fact, Murawski (2009) clarified that for true co-teaching to occur, “co-planning, co-instructing, and co-assessing” are necessary (p. 8). Co-teaching is designed to optimize the expertise of two professionals by pairing a specialist who is highly qualified to differentiate instruction with an educator who is highly qualified in specific grade-level content 1 California State University Northridge 292

The Co-teaching Conundrum

(Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Saloviita & Takala, 2010). These professionals are expected to work as equals in the same classroom, using their parity, shared expertise, and resources to optimize outcomes for students (Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). Co-teaching is described as resulting in: smaller student–teacher ratios; more cooperative group work; a stronger emphasis on essential questions, big ideas, and real-world application of content; and an increase in the use of evidence-based practices for instructional delivery and explicit learning strategies (e.g., Austin, 2001; Friend & Cook, 2012; Murawski & Spencer, 2011). Thus, co-teaching meets the call for instructional reform in the fields of both general and special education. Although teachers have been working together for decades, research on the actual implementation and outcomes related to co-teaching as a preferred practice remains confusing at best. This chapter provides a brief synopsis of what is known about co-teaching, which can ultimately be viewed as a “three c’s conundrum” related to research and practice: confusion, contradiction, and cautious optimism.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice From no education at all, to segregated settings and institutions, to “separate is not equal,” to mainstreaming, to inclusion—the field of special education has evolved over the last century. In order to remain aligned with these changes, the role of the special educator has had to evolve as well. In many schools, the specialized instruction previously provided in selfcontained settings is now provided in a general education classroom through co-teaching (Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). Co-teaching has been referred to as a professional marriage or a dance between teachers, but often neither teachers nor their administrators are clear on what co-teaching actually requires (Murawski & Dieker, 2013). This “marriage” of special and general educators is often one to which neither bride nor groom has actually agreed, but rather one which has been arranged for them. The participants might be resistant to the marriage or have received no counseling or professional development about their respective roles (Murawski, 2009). Thus, the confusion mentioned as the fi rst of the “three c’s” begins with the predicament of developing a mutual understanding and agreement of what co-teaching entails.

Definitional Confusion The literature is replete with references to collaborative instruction, but the wide variety of names, models, and configurations make co-teaching difficult to measure. It is also important to distinguish true co-teaching from collaboration or in-class support. Many articles that refer to co-teaching later mention that the participants never planned together or that parity was non- existent, leaving one teacher to do all of the instruction. In these cases, the teams in question would not meet the defi nition of true co-teaching (Murawski, 2009), and therefore research based on their interaction would be circumspect. In other articles, insufficient information is provided to convey how the authors defi ne co-teaching (Weiss & Brigham, 2000) so it is difficult to know whether or not the teams were indeed co-teaching and which models of co-instruction they were using to engage students. Though other models have been introduced over time, the five most commonly identified approaches to co-instruction were fi rst introduced by Lynne Cook and Marilyn Friend (1995): One Teach-One Support, Team, Station, Alternative, and Parallel teaching. The intent of each approach is to enable two educators to work purposefully with students, either as a whole group (e.g., One Teach-One Support and Team) or by regrouping students into 293

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

smaller configurations (e.g., Parallel, Station, and Alternative). The goal of co-teaching is to strategically use the strengths of two educators to improve student outcomes (academically, behaviorally, and socially) in an inclusive environment. This matches the goals of related initiatives, including Universal Design for Learning (UDL), Response to Intervention (RTI), Differentiation, Specially Designed Instruction (SDI), and best practice for collaborative instruction in general education (e.g., NCTE, 2005; NCTM, 2008; NSTA, 2004). However, when articles report that co-teachers are solely using a One Teach-One Support model, to the exclusion of any others (Austin, 2001; Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007), the defi nition of true co-teaching is again called into question. Murawski and Spencer (2011) ask the essential question of co-teaching: “How is what co-teachers are doing together substantively different and better for students than what one teacher would do alone?” (p. 96). They emphasize that instruction with two teachers should look different to how it does with one. Confusion remains, however, about how to accomplish this essential question given the numerous confl icting messages in the field. For example, while defi nitions of co-teaching call for parity, NCLB calls for one highly qualified teacher of record, which may serve to marginalize the special educator’s expertise (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012). Mandated scripted lessons, pacing plans and the demand for uniformity across gradelevel classes make many teachers question whether they are even allowed to individualize and differentiate instruction, despite the fact that best practice calls for it. Other defi nitional issues include whether co-teachers can truly co-teach if they are never provided with planning time and how they will know if they are effectively co-teaching when most teacher evaluations are based on solo-teaching criteria (Friend et al., 2010; Wilson & Blednick, 2011).

Legal and Ethical Confusion There are two, sometimes confl icting, laws currently influencing the practice of special education. NCLB calls for all students to be treated the same so as to constitute an equal education, while IDEA requires individualized education for students with disabilities, with each child’s unique needs being addressed through an Individualized Education Program (IEP). Advocates of co-teaching believe that pairing a content area expert (general educator) with a pedagogy and differentiation expert (special educator) can ensure that both laws are met with integrity (Pearl & Miller, 2007; Wilson & Blednick, 2011). Much of the ethical confusion about co-teaching relates to ambivalence surrounding inclusion in general. Those who believe that all students have the right to be in a general education classroom argue that having two teachers can help accomplish this goal (Conderman & Hedin, 2012; Dieker & Murawski, 2003). Others question the ability of teachers, even two working together, to meet the individual and specialized needs of students with disabilities in the context of grade-level, standards-based instruction in a large class with typical learners (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011). There is no doubt that each of these groups is motivated to do what is best for students; the disagreement lies in how to accomplish this important goal. Ordinarily, we would turn to research in order to determine the best answer to this dilemma, or at least gain a clearer perspective. How have students in co-taught settings fared academically, behaviorally, and socially? Trying to answer this question has been a challenge for researchers.

Co-Teaching Research Confusion Much has been written about the quality, or lack thereof, of existing research. It is rare for studies on co-teaching to meet all of the standards for sound, well- defi ned, and 294

The Co-teaching Conundrum

outcome-focused research (Scruggs et al., 2007; Weiss & Brigham, 2000). Why aren’t there more rigorous, evidence-based studies on co-teaching practices? Critics have identified treatment integrity, setting and teacher characteristics, social validity, school culture, and administrative support as major factors adversely impacting sound research on co-teaching. In general, collecting data on a specific treatment should not pose a problem; however, co-teaching is a service delivery option in which collaboration, personality, and student characteristics play an integral role (Friend et al., 2010; Zigmond, Magiera, Simmons, & Volonino, 2013). These are variables that are extremely difficult to tease out and quantify. Indeed, as Zigmond and colleagues insightfully note, The lack of empirical support for co-teaching is not surprising; co-teaching may be a service, but it is not a “treatment” that can be imposed with fidelity on an experimental group and withheld with equal fidelity from a control group. (2013, p. 116). There is no question that empirical fi ndings related to co-teaching are greatly varied. Syntheses of co-teaching have attributed some of these variances to disparities in research design, criticizing studies for having insufficient quality for true comparisons. On the other hand, these syntheses of research have also served to identify commonalities and characteristics that appear essential for successful outcomes. In 2000, Weiss and Brigham provided a narrative review of co-teaching research, including over 700 books, articles, chapters, and other manuscripts. These authors cited numerous issues with the rigor, defi nitions, and specificity of the majority of co-teaching studies done at that time, resulting in only 23 studies with evaluative data focused on co-teaching between a general and special educator in the United States. Murawski and Swanson (2001) provided the fi rst meta-analysis on co-teaching, reviewing 89 articles but fi nding only six to be of adequate design and quantitative outcomes to be included in the analysis. They reported an overall positive effect size of 0.40, while concurrently minimizing the generality of results due to the ‘apples and oranges’ comparison of the six studies. Scruggs and colleagues (2007) offered the fi rst meta- synthesis of qualitative co-teaching data; their results reinforced the components cited in most literature as critical to co-teaching effectiveness. Not surprisingly, those studies that included the core components of administrative support, professional development, planning time, and teacher voice yielded more positive results than those that did not (Scruggs et al., 2007). Solis et al. (2012) recently conducted a synthesis of syntheses that addressed implications and recommendations for school psychologists supporting inclusive and co-taught classrooms. They emphasized that special educators need to have an active role in order for co-teaching to be successful. For example, when curriculum changes are collaboratively coordinated between special and general education teachers, rather than simply delivered as a set of recommendations from special education teachers, student outcomes are improved. Each of these syntheses of research highlights the promise of co-teaching outcomes, but underscores the need for particular elements that were not always present in the research. In sum, fi ndings were mixed, reporting results that both validated co-teaching and those that found a lack of evidence for its efficacy. Because of these mixed results, continued investigation to reduce confusion about co-teaching is critical. Researchers question, rightfully, whether or not co-teaching as a service delivery model is meeting its claim of improved student outcomes and increased differentiation. It is important to know what is happening in co-taught classes given the fact 295

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

that special education services are now frequently being provided in the general education classroom. Historically, the rationale for segregated special education has been that students with disabilities require unique resources and instruction substantively different from that provided to students in the general setting. However, recent research has called this ‘specialness’ into question. Causton-Theoharis, Theoharis, Orsati, and Cosier (2011) observed selfcontained special education classes and, rather than SDI, which is supposed to be the hallmark of special education, they found instead a lack of structure, a context-free/meaningless curriculum, limited time with certified special education teachers, and increased behavioral issues. If special educators are not able to provide SDI in their own segregated sites, it is no wonder that they are not integrating them into the general education classroom. If special educators are not indeed the pedagogical experts they have been called and have nothing “special” to add to the equation, naturally there will be no value added found in the research outcomes. The need for value added by the second teacher has become a common refrain in co-teaching research. Special educators must be able to provide SDI that explicitly addresses students’ varying needs, especially in the content areas (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012; King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011; Pearl & Miller, 2007). Students with disabilities in general education settings deserve high-quality instruction that meets their learning needs; all students do. Co-teaching is a service delivery option that has been primed to do so when implemented in ways consistent with best practice. For differentiation and SDI to occur in the co-taught classroom, special educators need to be proactive and work with parity with their general education counterparts, each bringing their unique areas of expertise to the relationship. Research needs to be done on the outcomes of this interaction. While this may not be easy, it is necessary and doable. Ultimately, the co-teaching conundrum boils down to this: what is happening in co-taught classrooms and how can we research it more effectively? In the following sections, we highlight the agreed-upon components for co-teaching success, suggest future directions for research, and conclude with implications for higher education, policy makers, school administrators, and co-teachers themselves.

Elements Necessary for Success Prior to sharing examples of contradictory research on outcomes, we clarify the basic ingredients needed for effective co-teaching, upon which most researchers and practitioners appear to agree and which have been validated by the various research syntheses. Many of the key elements for co-teaching success fi rst identified by Cook and Friend (1995) continue to be supported in the literature, although admittedly the defi nitions of success vary. These components include interpersonal communication and problem- solving skills (Ploessl, Rock, Schoenfeld, & Blanks, 2010); familiarity with the curriculum, including standards, content knowledge, IEP goals, and assessments (Pearl & Miller, 2007; Tankersley & Cook, 2007); planning time (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; Scruggs et al., 2007); parity (Moin, Magiera, & Zigmond, 2009); complementary personalities or styles (Murawski, 2009); relevant professional development (Buerck, 2010); a voice in partnerships (Austin, 2001; Moin et al., 2009; Murawski, Boyer, Atwill, & Melchiorre, 2009); clearly defi ned roles (Bessette, 2008; Dieker & Murawski, 2003); and administrative support (Murawski & Dieker, 2013; Wilson & Blednick, 2011). These components are not always evidenced in practice or research design, and when teachers are expected to co-teach in situations in which some of the aforementioned elements are missing, unsurprisingly the results do not yield the potential positive outcomes described in the literature (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). More research needs to be conducted in which these elements are systematically studied in order to determine their level 296

The Co-teaching Conundrum

of influence on co-teaching success. This begs the question, what constitutes co-teaching success, and leads to the second “c” of co-teaching: contradiction ?

Research Contradictions For years, co-teaching authors have ended their articles, chapters, and books with a call for more co-teaching research, stating that the empirical evidence regarding co-teaching is scant or even non- existent. This is no longer true. There is indeed research on co-teaching. The problem is not the lack per se, but rather trying to decipher the fi ndings published thus far. Co-teaching research not only lacks clarity and consistency, the fi ndings are contradictory. Many studies have investigated the effects on academic and behavioral outcomes, with mixed results. Some studies demonstrate an increase in students’ attendance and decrease in behavioral referrals for students with disabilities in co-taught settings compared to pull-out settings (Buerck, 2010; Fontana, 2005; Rea, McLaughlin, & Walther-Thomas, 2002). However, Hang and Rabren (2009) found the opposite. In their study, students in a co-taught setting accrued more absences and disciplinary referrals. Students with disabilities in co-taught settings have exhibited increased self- concept (Fontana, 2005) and stronger social acceptance by nondisabled peers (Cawley, Hayden, Cade, & Baker-Kroczyinski, 2002) than in segregated settings. Conversely, Elbaum and Vaughn (2003) noted that some students with disabilities experienced lower self-concept in inclusive settings. Some research suggests that co-teaching might even result in a lack of acceptance of students with disabilities by the general education teacher, who may defer to the special educator rather than accepting joint ownership of the students (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005; McDuffie, Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2009). Improvement in student academics is another area with contradictory results. Buerck’s research (2010) with 124 students in both solo-taught and co-taught classes found student grades statistically improved for all co-taught classes, with a medium effect size for students who were average and high-achieving and a large effect size for students who were in the low achievement category. Fontana (2005), however, found mixed results: students in co-taught classes had significantly higher grades over the prior year in co-taught middle school language arts and math, but not writing, compared to students in solo-taught classes. Klingner and colleagues likewise had mixed results, with statistically significant increases in reading achievement for all students, including those with learning disabilities, in elementary co-taught classrooms, but not in math achievement (Klingner, Vaughn, Hughes, Schumm, & Elbaum, 1998). Reading comprehension and spelling improved pre-test to post-test for high school students with learning disabilities in Murawski’s (2006) study, although results were not statistically significant and, as with Fontana, no differences were found in writing scores. Rea and colleagues (2002) found students with disabilities had improved grades in all content areas (math, language arts, social studies, and science), but mixed results on the Iowa Test of Basic Skills: higher math and language arts scores, but not for reading, science, or social studies. Just as Murawski and Swanson (2001) mentioned in their meta-analysis on co-teaching, these studies and the many others not mentioned here included students in different grades and subjects and with differing disabilities; in essence, this is another ‘apples and oranges’ comparison. Student abilities and disabilities, teacher personalities, subject area expertise, planning time, level of professional development and administrative support are just a few of the confounding factors that may have contributed to these mixed results. Contradictory research fi ndings also relate to co-teachers themselves. Dieker (2001) found that veteran co-teachers became more skilled over time, evolving from a beginning stage of collaborative interaction to a more advanced performing stage. Conversely, Magiera, Smith, 297

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

Zigmond and Gebauer (2005) found that co-teaching teams did not appear to move beyond a beginning stage, even after a few years together. Austin (2001) and Scruggs et al. (2007) reported that general education teachers tended to take a lead role in co-taught classrooms, despite the emphasis in the literature for parity between teachers (e.g., Friend & Cook, 2012; Wilson & Blednick, 2011). Researchers are also divided in terms of value in content areas: Dieker (2001) reported value added by having a co-teacher in a social studies class, while Zigmond and Matta (2004) did not. Contradictory results about co-teachers are even found across studies by the same researchers. For example, Magiera and Zigmond called a lack of co-planning time “routine” in 2005. A few years later the same authors noted that scheduling co-planning time was a critical factor that contributed to the success of co-teaching in schools in their study (Moin et al., 2009). Tankersley and Cook (2007) compare the fi ndings for inclusive practices, in which we include co-teaching, as similar to an individual’s response to medications. Two different people may have seriously different reactions to the same exact medications; what is required is a matter of individualizing and adjusting until the right combination is found. What that means for co-teaching is that the history and research to date should be viewed as neither negative nor lacking, but rather as a guide for what needs to be maintained or changed for co-teaching to work as we move forward. Given the issues of conducting co-teaching research and the frequent criticism of studies on co-teaching done thus far (e.g., Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Weiss & Brigham, 2000), we are concerned that new researchers will be reluctant to conduct additional investigations. Doing research in classroom settings is difficult at best; designing rigorous studies that address all requirements for quality research while working with multiple teacher personalities, different settings, collaborative cultures, and varying populations of students is more than daunting. Based on recommendations in the literature, co-teaching research needs to address fidelity, the impact of various essential characteristics, rigor, instructional practices of both general and special educators, and student outcomes in academics, behavior, and social skills (Friend et al., 2010; Zigmond et al., 2013). Yet every bit of research done on co-teaching adds a piece to the puzzle. The more data collected and disseminated, the more cohesive the connection between research and practice and the more we can make sense of the confl icting data collected thus far.

Setting a Course for Effective Co-Teaching in Inclusive Schools Confusion, contradiction, and mixed messages are prevalent in co-teaching literature and experts do not appear to agree on the role for special educators in today’s schools. Should special educators be specialists or generalists (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010)? While some authors advocate for increased interventionist roles, with SDI and explicit instruction as primary (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012; King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011), others state that the role of the special education teacher includes supporting and then teaching one’s differentiation “tricks” to general educators (Kloo & Zigmond, 2008). Fontana (2005) stated that it is not enough that educators simply know best practices; she emphasized that they also must be able to determine which are best with certain students at particular times and be able to switch as situations demand. We believe flexibility is key; in this era of common core standards, evolving teacher evaluations, RTI, and increased demands for collaboration, special educators need to be ready to change with the times. This leads us to our fi nal “c” of co-teaching: cautious optimism. Despite confusion in implementation, difficulties in conducting research, and contradictions in the fi ndings, co-teaching 298

The Co-teaching Conundrum

is popular. Most studies demonstrate that both teachers and students perceive co-teaching as positive and beneficial overall (Austin, 2001; Hang & Rabren, 2009; Murawski, 2006; Scruggs et al., 2007). The message that appears to be coming through loud and clear related to co-teaching is that it can be good. It can be. When the research-validated and necessary elements are present, the outcomes are typically positive. The plethora of best practice, guidance, and “how-to” articles and books tell practitioners exactly which components are needed for success; the concern is that there are too many messages out there and that many of those messages are mixed.

Focus for Higher Education In order to prepare a new generation of teachers to meet the many-faceted expectations made upon them in schools, teacher education programs must foster flexibility and empower teacher candidates to make decisions regarding students’ needs regardless of where or how they are providing those services. New special educators express fear that they are working themselves out of a job, but we disagree. Instead, teacher educators need to be prepared to reconceptualize that job, to recognize they are not solely preparing teachers to work in self- contained classrooms with smaller class sizes, but, rather, are preparing teachers to work with students across multiple settings and in collaboration with a variety of other professionals. Perhaps the answer is not to defi ne the roles themselves, or even to depend upon consistent role definitions in the field, but rather to better prepare special educators for ever- changing roles and the ability to self-advocate on behalf of whatever role is most needed to support students with disabilities. The fact that experts in both general and special education now agree that collaborative teaching, flexible grouping, differentiation, and strategy instruction are best practice (CEC, 2007; NCTE, 2005; NCTM, 2008; NSTA, 2004) should only make it that much easier for special educators to advocate for and integrate these elements into their role in the co-taught classroom. Teacher education programs need to ensure that special educators leave preparation programs with significant expertise in evidence-based strategies, SDI, and assessment techniques so that they can bring these skills into any setting to add value to instruction for students. Two particular practices are gaining momentum in higher education, both of which will serve to better prepare pre- service teachers for co-teaching roles. One practice some teacher credentialing programs have begun to implement is to model co-teaching during teacher preparation. Modeling co-teaching practices for their students provides university faculty the opportunity to mesh together general and special education curriculum and practices, drawing upon differences in content and pedagogical expertise. The benefit is not just to students; faculty themselves also gain from ongoing professional learning from one another (Nevin, Thousand, & Villa, 2009). Importantly, university faculty who are seasoned instructors themselves can demonstrate the importance of parity in a co-teaching relationship and model problem-solving in real-time for teacher candidates. Despite the fact that university faculty will likely experience barriers similar to those found at the K-12 level (Nevin et al., 2009), if faculty are unable or unwilling to practice what they preach related to best practices in differentiation, collaboration, and co-teaching, it is highly unlikely that their teacher candidates will view these skills as valuable, critical, and desirable. Another application at the university level that is attracting considerable attention is the use of co-teaching to prepare student teachers (Bacharach, Heck, & Dahlberg, 2010; Goodnough et al., 2009). In both general and special education, the pairing of a veteran ‘master’ teacher with a teacher candidate has preliminarily shown to be more beneficial to K-12 student outcomes than with either of the teachers alone (Bacharach et al., 2010). Having 299

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

elementary, secondary, and special education teacher candidates learn how to co-teach by working collaboratively with their master teachers has many potential benefits, though some experts question the term ‘co-teaching’ given the lack of true parity between student and master teachers (Friend et al., 2010; Murawski, 2009). Regardless of terminology, this type of practical introduction to co-teaching can be the vehicle through which pre-service teachers learn about the varying roles they will play in the classroom. Candidates should be introduced to techniques for changing their instructional practices from lecture to differentiated instruction and how to incorporate SDI into a typical classroom setting (Bacharach et al., 2010; Murawski & Hughes, 2009). Additional research should be conducted to validate this model of preparing teacher candidates, on the impact on the K-12 students themselves, and as an examination of the roles both master and student teacher take as they progress through stages wherein parity might become the exit condition.

Focus for Policy Makers Research has reported an inconsistency in how co-teaching is defi ned and implemented in schools and districts. While this makes research difficult, it is also a substantial challenge for practitioners. Policy makers need to officially recognize co-teaching as a valid service delivery option for students with special needs and, as such, provide clear guidelines about what co-teaching does and does not entail. The literature has numerous defi nitions, characteristics, strategies, and applications from which policy makers can draw (Friend & Cook, 2012; Ploessl et al., 2010). It would be inappropriate for policy makers to determine which specific student populations should attend co-taught classes (e.g., students with learning disabilities as opposed to those with autism), as students with the same disability label vary in their unique needs and it is the role of an IEP team to make recommendations for services (Friend et al., 2010; Murawski, 2009). That said, it is still prudent for policy makers to concretize the logistical details related to setting up and maintaining successful co-teaching classrooms. Two specific areas that need to be addressed in policy relate to the makeup of inclusive classes and the role of teacher evaluation for these inclusive classes. More and more students with disabilities are being taught in general education classes, partially because inclusion is generally accepted as best practice in the current era and partially to remain in compliance with the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) mandate (IDEA, 2004). Teachers, however, report a new issue of students being ‘dumped’ into general education classrooms without the appropriate supports in place. This placement of a disproportionate number of students with special needs into a particular general education classroom ultimately results in a class ratio that does not mirror the natural proportions of students with special needs in society (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Research on successful inclusive classes lauds the heterogeneous nature of the class as one of the keys to success; when a large percentage of the class has special needs, that criterion is no longer being met. Murawski (2009) and others have recommended optimally no more than 30% of the class should have identified disabilities for a co-taught, inclusive class. Not only will adopting this type of policy serve to support research on co-teaching by increasing the consistency of one of the variables, but it will also make teaching an inclusive class more desirable to teachers, a serious issue given today’s current focus on test scores and teachers’ evaluation on the basis of those scores. Teacher evaluation is currently a hot topic and one that impacts significantly upon co-teachers. When teachers are evaluated primarily on the basis of their students’ test scores, they are less willing to have students with disabilities in their classes. Adding an additional instructor to the mix increases the complexity of the issue even more. On what basis is each 300

The Co-teaching Conundrum

co-teacher being evaluated? Who evaluates whom? Which students will be on which teachers’ caseloads if co-teachers are supposed to view students as ‘ours’ rather than ‘yours’ and ‘mine’? Confl icting mandates in NCLB and IDEA have resulted in ambiguous and often incompatible evaluation methods. Policy makers must identify and clarify the issues surrounding teacher evaluation for co-taught and inclusive classrooms prior to asking teachers to be accountable to them (Friend et al., 2010). How can teachers work toward a standard that has not yet been defi ned?

Focus for Administrators Administrative support has repeatedly been cited as essential for co-teaching to work (Bessette, 2008; Murawski & Dieker, 2013; Wilson & Blednick, 2011). Administrators have the power to actively support co-teaching to ensure its success, to passively back co-teaching without providing necessary resources, or to eschew co-teaching altogether. Based on research fi ndings, there are three specific tasks critical for the success of co-teaching that we recommend administrators consider. The fi rst relates to the creation and maintenance of teaching teams, the second addresses the decisive need for planning time, and the third emphasizes the role of professional development. The creation and maintenance of exemplary co-teaching teams should not be left to chance or mandated top- down. Teacher voice, sometimes reported in the literature as voluntariness, is critical (Friend & Cook, 2012; Moin et al. 2009). In a study of 2800 co-teachers in West Virginia, those who reported having some say in either their co-teaching partner, the subject, or grade(s) in which they would be co-teaching were statistically more likely to report using a variety of co-teaching approaches with their partner, to feel positive about their co-teaching relationship, to believe that their co-teaching was having a significant impact upon student outcomes, and to volunteer to co-teach in the future (Murawski et al., 2009). Clearly, then, administrators who want more successful outcomes will elicit input from their teachers about what and with whom they might co-teach. Forced partnerships, though common, will not always yield the best results (Magiera & Zigmond, 2005). Murawski and Dieker (2013) admonish administrators for breaking up quality co-teaching teams. Their mantra is “Leave them alone” (p. 25). They argue that, too often, co-teaching teams are divided by administrators after just a year or two because of scheduling issues, a desire for new partnerships, a change in content focus, or just whim. This practice negates the research emphasizing that teachers need time to progress through developmental stages before they become a truly successful team. Instead of being broken up, these quality teams need to be used as models for other beginning teams (Murawski & Dieker, 2013). The next area of focus for administrators relates to helping co-teachers fi nd time to plan and then use that time efficiently. Planning time is the number one barrier to effective co-teaching reported by teachers in the research, both nationally (e.g., Austin, 2001; Murawski & Swanson, 2001; Scruggs et al., 2007) and internationally (e.g., Saloviita & Takala, 2010). Administrators who want co-teaching to succeed need to build in time for the partners to plan, in person or electronically. Many authors and researchers have provided examples of ways in which time can be built into a busy schedule (Dieker & Murawski, 2013; Friend & Cook, 2012; Ploessl et al., 2010). These include: replacing other duties, using substitute teachers, using banked time, and co-teaching only four days a week. Learning how to co-plan efficiently is one example of a topic that could be facilitated through co-teaching professional development. Regardless of how it is provided, co-planning time for teachers needs to be non-negotiable. 301

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

The importance of providing quality professional development is another critical role for administrators who seek to ensure increased outcomes for students in co-taught settings. Research has found that the more teachers know about students with disabilities, inclusion, and co-teaching, the more willing they are to buy-in to inclusive practices. Likewise, those teachers who have not participated in professional development on co-teaching are more likely to feel unprepared to collaborate or work with students with disabilities (Saloviita & Takala, 2010; Scruggs et al., 2007). Teachers need to know not only how to collaborate, communicate, differentiate, and use various co-teaching and SDI approaches (King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011; Murawski & Spencer, 2011), they also need to know how to collect data on student outcomes (Friend et al., 2010). Ideally, administrators will collaborate with researchers, university faculty, and teachers to disseminate fi ndings to the rest of the educational field as practitioners and researchers alike continue to seek evidence-based practices.

Focus for Co-Teachers The prevalent refrain in most current research on co-teaching is that special educators are not taking up their role in ensuring evidence-based SDI for students with disabilities in co-taught classes (Kennedy & Ihle, 2012; King-Sears & Bowman-Kruhm, 2011). Instead, they are merely replicating antiquated but typical whole-group teaching practices—practices that even general education associations are striving to change. What is missing is the clear and unique skill set that separates the professional special educator from any other adult. Based on this issue of role, both general and special educators need to communicate their preferences, strengths, and skills clearly and early on in their relationship. They can use tools such as the SHARE worksheet (Dieker & Murawski, 2003) to discuss pet peeves and expectations. Special education co-teachers need to be deliberate in their choices and recognize they cannot do it all. Each class of students is different; co-teachers need to work collaboratively to determine what is needed for that particular group of students and prioritize their efforts. As content becomes more specialized in the secondary grades, special educators may fi nd themselves less able to take an equal role in content knowledge (Dieker & Murawski, 2003; Moin et al., 2009). Thus, it is increasingly important that specialists self- advocate and fully employ their expertise in pedagogy, differentiation, positive behavior supports, disability manifestation, SDI, and ways to address IEP goals and objectives in the classroom. If general educators have content as their areas of expertise, each special educator must identify his or her own particular areas of strength and maximize those strengths in the classroom. Blurred roles can be an opportunity for special educators who are able to fi nd and fi ll educational gaps for students. Rather than disengaging when their role is not clear in a co-taught classroom and ‘drifting’ or ‘standing around,’ as so often identified in the literature (Scruggs et al., 2007), special educators have the unique opportunity to defi ne their particular role to best support the students in that classroom. To do so effectively, however, special educators need to be proactive and provide whatever the general education classroom needs and typically does not have. Without this ‘specialness’ about special education, the blurring between general and special education will indeed become the obscurity that Fuchs et al., (2010) caution may result in a lack of any true services for students with disabilities. Finally, Conderman and Hedin (2012) acknowledge while assessment is a driving force in teaching and while co-assessment is one of the three key components of co-teaching, very little has been written or researched in relation to co-assessment. They remind the field that purposeful co-assessment needs to occur regularly so that co-teachers can ensure that they are on the same page in terms of student outcomes. Only with this open discussion of roles, 302

The Co-teaching Conundrum

progress, process, and ultimately student product can co-teachers document what is happening through the use of this service delivery option. Ongoing and disseminated assessments of students and co-teaching teams will help the field truly determine the impact co-teaching can have upon inclusive education.

Conclusion Special education is no longer simply a place where students go. The placements and services provided to students with special needs are now more diverse than ever before. Just as the clearly articulated settings have changed, so too have the roles of special educators. The changing roles, the lack of clear defi nitions, the varying settings, and the heterogeneous and ever- changing needs of students all lead to confusion and even contradictions. However, despite this, researchers and practitioners agree that given the state of mandated standardsbased instruction, co-teaching may be the service delivery option that is the most viable for meeting all of these goals. In this chapter, we have argued that co-teaching presents potential promise for inclusive education practices. Key features of using co-teaching for effective inclusion include collaboration between teacher educators, policy makers, administrators, and co-teachers themselves, as well as an increased and documented focus on the practice to research gap. Educators engaged in co-teaching need to advocate for situations that allow them to utilize best practices by sharing the literature and recommended characteristics to their administrators, who in turn can help to ensure environments that will best allow students with special needs to prosper. This includes providing time for co-planning, professional development on co-teaching and differentiation, classrooms that support two teachers and students with varying needs, schedules that avoid “dumping” students with disabilities into the same classroom, respect for teachers’ input in the process of partner selection, and, above all, a recognition that all students have the right to a high-quality education. For inclusive practices to be successful through co-teaching, both teachers must bring unique skills to the relationship and be willing to co-plan, co-instruct, and co-assess with parity. Much is unresolved and much remains unknown about co-teaching. However, despite the confusion, the contradictions, and the ongoing need for additional research, most recent articles and books conclude with a common refrain: Co-teaching continues to show promise as a means for providing differentiated content instruction to students (McDuffie et al., 2009; Murawski, 2009). Improving these practices will not only benefit students with disabilities, but will also serve to reform education in a way that will positively benefit all students. There is still work to be done in establishing exactly how to efficiently, effectively, and consistently enact that promise to achieve maximum outcomes for students, but it is both doable and necessary. Though the role of research is more critical than ever as the field moves forward, we remain cautiously optimistic about the future of co-teaching as a means by which students, all students, can have their needs met in an inclusive setting.

References Austin, V. L. ( 2001). Teachers’ beliefs about co-teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 245 –256. Bacharach, N., Heck, T. W., & Dahlberg, K. ( 2010 ). Changing the face of student teaching through co-teaching. Action in Teacher Education, 32 (1), 3 –14 Bessette, H. J. ( 2008 ). Using students’ drawings to elicit general and special educators’ perceptions of co-teaching. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24, 1376 –1396. 303

W.W. Murawski and V.A. Goodwin

Buerck, L. E. ( 2010 ). Effects of enrollment in co-teaching classes on the academic performance of high school students without disabilities. Dissertations. Paper 153. Retrieved from http://opensiuc. lib.siu.edu/dissertations/153 Causton-Theoharis, J., Theoharis, G., Orsati, F., & Cosier, M. ( 2011). Does self- contained special education deliver on its promises? A critical inquiry into research and practice. Journal of Special Education, 24, 61–78. Cawley, J., Hayden, S., Cade, S., & Baker-Kroczynski, S. ( 2002 ). Including students with disabilities into the general education science classroom. Exceptional Children, 68, 423 – 435. Conderman, G. & Hedin, L. ( 2012 ). Purposeful assessment practices for co-teachers. Teaching Exceptional Children. (May/April, 2012). Cook, L. & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for effective practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28 ( 3 ), 1–16. Council for Exceptional Children ( 2007 ). Position on Response to Intervention (RTI): The Unique Role of Special Education and Special Educators. Retrieved from www.cec.sped.org/Standards/ Professional-Policy- and-Positions Dieker, L. A. ( 2001). What are the characteristics of “effective” middle and high school co-taught teams for students with disabilities ? Preventing School Failure, 46, 14 –24. Dieker, L. A., & Murawski, W. W. ( 2003 ). Co-teaching at the secondary level: Unique issues, current trends, and suggestions for success. High School Journal, 86, 1–14. Elbaum , B. & Vaughn, S. ( 2003 ). For which students with learning disabilities are self- concept interventions effective ? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36 ( 2 ), 101–108. Fontana, K. ( 2005). The effects of co-teaching on the achievement of eighth grade students with learning disabilities. The Journal of At-Risk Issues, 11, 17–23. Friend, M. & Cook, L. ( 2012 ). Interactions: Collaboration skills for school professionals (7th ed.). Boston : Pearson. Friend, M., Cook, L., Hurley-Chamberlain, D., & Shamberger, C. ( 2010 ). Co-teaching: An illustration of the complexity of collaboration in special education. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 9 –27. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. ( 2010 ). The ‘blurring’ of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323. Goodnough, K., Osmond, P., Dibbon, D., Glassman, M., & Stevens, K. ( 2009 ). Exploring a triad model of student teaching: Pre- service teacher and cooperating teacher perceptions. Teaching and Teacher Education 25, 285 –296. Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. ( 2009 ). An examination of Co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 259 –268. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1401 et seq. ( 2004 ). Kennedy, M. J. & Ihle, F. M. ( 2012 ). The Old Man and the Sea: Navigating the gulf between special educators and the content area classroom. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 44 –54. King-Sears, M. E. & Bowman-Kruhm, M. ( 2011). Specialized reading instruction for adolescents with learning disabilities: What special education co-teachers say. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 26, 172 –184. Klingner, J. K., Vaughn, S., Hughes, S. T., Schumm, J. S., & Elbaum , B. (1998 ). Outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 153 –161. Kloo, A. & Zigmond, N. ( 2008 ). Co-teaching revisited: Redrawing the blueprint. Preventing School Failure, 52, 12 –20. Magiera, K., Smith, C., Zigmond, N., & Gebauer, K. ( 2005). Benefits of co-teaching in secondary mathematics classes. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37 ( 3 ), 20 –24. Magiera, K. & Zigmond, N. ( 2005). Co-teaching in middle school classrooms under routine conditions: Does the instructional experience differ for students with disabilities in co-taught and solo-taught classes. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 20, 79 – 85. McDuffie, K. A., Mastropieri, M. A., & Scruggs, T. E. ( 2009 ). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non- co-taught classes: Results from content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75, 493 –510. McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Hoppey, D., & Williamson, P. ( 2011). Learning disabilities and the LRE mandate: An examination of national and state trends. Learning Disability Research & Practice, 26, 60 – 66. 304

The Co-teaching Conundrum

Moin, L. J., Magiera, K., & Zigmond, N. ( 2009 ). Instructional activities and group work in the US inclusive high school co-taught science class. International Journal of Science and Mathematics Education, 7, 677– 697. Murawski, W. W. ( 2006 ). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve ? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–247. Murawski, W. W. ( 2009 ). Collaborative teaching in secondary schools: Making the co-teaching marriage work! Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Murawski, W. W., Boyer, L., Melchiorre, B., & Atwill, K. ( 2009, April). What is happening in co-taught classes? One state knows! Presentation at American Educational Research Association (AERA), San Diego, CA. Murawski, W. W. & Dieker, L. A. ( 2013 ). Leading the co-teaching dance: Leadership strategies to enhance team outcomes. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Murawski, W. W. & Hughes, C. E. ( 2009 ). Response to Intervention, collaboration, and co-teaching: A necessary combination for successful systemic change. Preventing School Failure, 53, 67–77. Murawski, W. W. & Spencer, S. A. ( 2011). Collaborate, communicate, and differentiate! How to do it all in today’s k–12 inclusive classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. ( 2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22 ( 5), 258 –267. National Commission on Teachers of Math (2008). Equity in Mathematics Education. Retrieved from www.nctm.org/uploadedFiles/About_NCTM/Position_Statements/Equity%20fi nal.pdf National Council of Teachers of English (2005). A summary statement developed by the Multimodal Literacies Issue Management Team of the NCTE Executive Committee. Retrieved from www.ncte.org/positions/ statements/multimodalliteracies National Science Teachers Association (2004). National Science Teachers Association Position Statement: Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.nsta.org/about/positions/disabilities.aspx Nevin, A., Thousand, J. S., & Villa, R. A. ( 2009 ). Collaborative teaching for teacher educators: What does the research say? Teaching and Teacher Education, 25, 569 –574. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. §6301 et seq. ( 2001). Pearl, C. E. & Miller, K. J. ( 2007 ). Co-taught middle school mathematics classrooms: Accommodations and enhancements for students with specific learning disabilities. Focus on Learning Problems in Mathematics, 29 ( 2 ), 1–20. Ploessl, D. M., Rock, M. L., Schoenfeld, N., & Blanks, B. ( 2010 ). On the same page: Practical techniques to enhance co-teaching interactions. Intervention in School and Clinic, 45, 158 –168. Rea, P. J., McLaughlin, V. L., & Walther-Thomas, C. ( 2002 ). Outcomes for students with learning disabilities in inclusive and pull- out programs. Exceptional Children, 72, 203 –222 . Saloviita, T. & Takala, M. ( 2010 ). Frequency of co-teaching in different teacher categories. European Journal of Special Needs, 25, 289 –396. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. ( 2007 ). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392 – 416. Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. ( 2012 ). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498 –510. Tankersley, M. & Cook, B. C. ( 2007 ). An overview of the side effects of including students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 14, 217–223. Weiss, M. & Brigham, F. J. ( 2000 ). Co-teaching and the model of shared responsibility: What does the research support ? In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (pp. 217–245). Greenwich, CT: JAI Press. Wilson, G. L. & Blednick, J. ( 2011). Teaching in tandem: Effective co-teaching in the inclusive school. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Zigmond, N., Magiera, K., Simmons, R. & Volonino, V. ( 2013 ). Strategies for improving student outcomes in co-taught general education classrooms. In B. G. Cook & M. Tankersley, (Eds.), Research-based strategies for improving outcomes in academics. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson. Zigmond, N. & Matta, D. ( 2004 ). Value added of the special education teacher on secondary school co-taught classes. In T. E. Scruggs & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Research in secondary schools: Advances in learning and behavioral disabilities (Vol. 17, pp. 55 –76 ). Oxford, UK: Elsevier Science/JAI.

305

22 Delivering High Quality School-Wide Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools* George Sugai,1 Brandi Simonsen,1 Catherine Bradshaw,2 Rob Horner,3 and Timothy J. Lewis4

Setting the Stage If all students are to experience maximum benefit from learning experiences in inclusive schools, they must have access to effective classroom and school environments in which student and teacher engagement is of high quality. These experiences and environments are focused on the most important academic and social behavior student outcomes, invested in the adoption of evidence-based practices, committed to using data to guide their instructional decision making, and organized to support educators in high- quality implementation (Sugai, Horner, et al., 2000). School-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS) offers a framework for enhancing the adoption and implementation of a continuum of evidence-based practices to achieve important academic and social outcomes for all students. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the delivery of high- quality SWPBS that would include all students and support the academic mission of inclusive schools. To achieve this purpose, we address four main questions: 1 2 3 4

What is the logic and rationale of SWPBS? What do SWBS practices and systems look like? How is high- quality implementation of SWPBS achieved? What is the evidence-base for supporting the adoption of SWPBS?

* The preparation of this manuscript was supported in part by the Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports and a grant from the Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education (H326S980003). Opinions expressed herein do not necessarily reflect the position of the U.S. Department of Education, and such endorsements should not be inferred. For information about the Center, go to www.pbis.org, or for information related to this manuscript, contact George Sugai at [email protected]. 1 University of Connecticut 2 Johns Hopkins University 3 University of Oregon 4 University of Missouri 306

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

What is the Logic and Rationale of SWPBS? One of the primary goals of schools is to enable students to maximize their individual capabilities and become successful contributors and participants in school, family, work, and community. Traditionally, the social and behavioral development of students has been considered a shared responsibility of schools and families. Families were expected to teach basic social skills and values, and schools were expected to refi ne and manage these skills through reactive school discipline and classroom behavior management practices and policies. In recent years, responsibility for shaping the social skills of children and youth has become a more important component of the student’s school experience. In this section, we establish the logic and rationale of SWPBS by examining the (a) relationship between academic and social behavior success, (b) limitations of a reactive approach to school discipline and behavior management, (c) characteristics and features of a preventive approach to discipline and behavior supports, and (d) application of multi-tiered support systems (Colvin, Kame’enui, & Sugai, 1993; Horner & Sugai, 2000; Sugai & Horner, 1999; Sugai, Horner, Dunlap, et al., 2000).

Relationship between Academic and Social Behavior Success Most educators would agree that good behavior and classroom management enhance good academic teaching and learning, and vice versa (Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011). However, in practice, behavior management too often tends to be informal, reactive, and provided on an “as-needed” basis. While academic instruction is scheduled, direct, and formalized, social skills instruction is provided for only a few students, and only after documented social failures. In SWPBS, the importance of teaching, monitoring, and recognizing social behavior has equal priority as teaching reading, math, English literature, science, a foreign language, or any other academic subject. The association between academic and social behavior success is well documented. Good teaching promotes good student behavior, and good classroom management enhances student academic engagement. However, care is needed to understand the complexity of this relationship, and “causality” should not be inferred. Teaching students to read or compute math problems, for example, does not teach them how to behave more appropriately. Similarly, teaching social skills does not teach students how to read or do math. Yet, a growing body of evidence supports a strong association between academic and social behavior success (Algozzine, Putnam, & Horner, 2012; Algozzine et al., 2011; Wang & Algozzine, 2011). Students who experience preventive behavior support (social skills instruction) are more likely to be comfortable in school, academically engaged, and benefit from academic instruction. Similarly, by experiencing academic success, students are more likely to learn and display appropriate social behaviors in the classroom and at school. Algozzine, Wang, and Violette (2011) described this mutually supportive relationship between academic and social behavior success as follows: Viewed as outcomes, achievement and behavior are related; viewed as causes of each other, achievement and behavior are unrelated. In this context, teaching behavior as relentlessly as we teach reading or other academic content is the ultimate act of prevention, promise, and power underlying PBS and other preventive interventions in America’s schools. (p. 16) 307

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

The goal of SWPBS is to establish positive classroom and school-wide social cultures that maximize the impact of effective academic instruction for all students across all classroom and school settings. As such, SWPBS formally and directly emphasizes the teaching of individual, classroom, and school-wide behavior expectations and skills to all students across all school contexts by all school staff members. This SWPBS rationale shapes the inclusive school perspective in conjunction with the academic mission.

Limitations of a Reactive Approach to Discipline and Behavior Management Nearly all schools are required to have disciplinary policies and handbooks that defi ne minor and major rule violations (e.g., disruptions, noncompliance, inappropriate language, physical fighting) and delineate assigned consequences (e.g., verbal reprimands, in- school detention, out-of- school suspensions) with the intent to “punish” occurrences and inhibit future violations. If student behavior is extreme, expulsion may be recommended. These approaches have become the primary tools in the educators’ disciplinary toolbox. Some students respond to these approaches because they have the experience and skills to anticipate the potential consequences (inhibiting). In some cases, one experience of the consequence may be enough to stop future displays of the problem behavior. Most professionals agree that this reactive (“wait until problems are caught”) approach has a number of limitations. First, the behavior of a proportion of the school population is not responsive to traditional discipline systems. Instead of exploring alternatives, schools typically deliver more frequent or intense versions of the same punitive disciplinary consequences to try to “punish harder.” The result is students with high numbers of office discipline referrals, suspensions, and exclusionary consequences who continue to engage in rule-violating behavior. Second, when reactive, consequence- oriented practices occur at high rates, a negative school climate is promoted, which can encourage lower behavioral expectations, higher rates of problem behavior, and more pessimistic teacher perceptions (Mitchell & Bradshaw, in press). Third, when adults have high rates of reactive and aversive interactions with students, the quality of student–adult relationships is lessened. Fourth, relying on reactive systems results in less attention on preventive approaches, in which students are taught or re-taught what to do and recognized for what they do correctly. Finally, the more time students spend within the disciplinary system, the less time they have access to and are engaged in successful academic activities. In contrast, SWPBS strives to promote high rates of preventive and positive interactions between students such that positive relationships are established, the impact of corrective procedures is increased, and the academic mission of the school is supported.

Practices of a Preventive Approach to Discipline and Behavior Management SWPBS provides a framework for shifting emphasis from a reactive to proactive approach to school discipline and classroom management. Generally, “proactive” refers to practices that are positive and preventive—that is, catching students before they display problem behavior by recognizing what they are doing appropriately. SWPBS adopts the defi nitions and characteristics of prevention science that originated from the early public health and disease control communities (Biglan, 1995; Caplan, 1964; Mayer, 1995; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Sugai & Horner, 2008, 2002; Walker et al., 1996). Prevention practices and systems are intended to accomplish two important objectives: (a) reduce the occurrence of new cases of a problem 308

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

(incidence), and (b) reduce the frequency, intensity, and complexity of existing problems (prevalence). To achieve these outcomes, SWPBS employs a behavior analytic perspective that focuses on three main intervention actions. First, staff members teach social skills to high levels of accuracy and fluency, emphasizing multiple examples and providing opportunities to practice and receive feedback across the many contexts in which these skills are required for academic and social success. Second, all students are explicitly taught the same prosocial behavior expectations, such that students are more likely to expect, prompt, and recognize expected social behavior from each other. Third, staff members arrange teaching and learning environments to remove triggers for problem behavior and add prompts for prosocial behaviors (antecedent manipulations). Finally, staff members remove actions and activities that maintain problem behavior, and add actions and activities that promote prosocial behavior (consequence manipulations).

Application of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports SWPBS implementation is grounded in the principles and practices of a multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS) approach, which stresses systems of evidence-based practices that are adapted and aligned with students’ needs and “responsiveness-to-intervention” (Bradley, Danielson, & Doolittle, 2007; Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Sugai & Horner, 2002; 2009). The MTSS approach is reflected in SWPBS through seven key implementation principles: 1 Universally screen students for academic and/or social behavior risk and strengths. SWPBS schools administer standardized or locally developed screening procedures on a monthly, quarterly, or semesterly basis to identify students who might require additional supports to avoid failure and/or be presented with more challenging work. 2 Continuously monitor progress of students on presented academic instructions and/ or social behavior interventions. SWPBS schools administer daily, weekly, or monthly curriculum-based academic and/or social behavior measures to assess student benefit and responsiveness to a lesson or intervention (e.g., quiz, rating scale, probe). 3 Decide with data to make instructional and intervention decisions. SWPBS schools use data to determine whether (a) goals and outcomes are relevant, equitable, and challenging; (b) practices are evidence-based and aligned with goals and outcomes; and (c) systems are in place to maximize implementation fidelity and relevance. 4 Problem-solve and action plan with a team to improve actions and outcomes. Members of a leadership team represent the school and community and have the capacity and opportunity to coordinate and guide the implementation of the SWPBS framework. 5 Implement evidence-based practices with fidelity. In addition to assessing student responsiveness to interventions, SWPBS schools formally examine the accuracy and fluency of the intervention implementation. 6 Organize a continuum of evidence-based interventions and practices. SWPBS schools invest in the smallest number of evidence-based practices that can be integrated into a continuum or tiered system. This continuum is available to all; however, based on their responsiveness, some students may require additional small group or individual supports. 7 Consider local cultural context when making instructional and intervention decisions. SWPBS schools strive to establish (a) culturally valid data, (b) culturally 309

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

equitable student outcomes, (c) culturally relevant evidence-based practices, and (d) culturally knowledgeable systems. An MTSS approach enables schools to integrate their instructional and behavioral practices so that decision making and use of instructional time are more effective, efficient, and relevant. Schools adopt a SWPBS approach because they want to (a) consider the mutually supportive relationship between academic and behavior instruction and support, (b) reduce the negative effects of an over-reliance on reactive school discipline and classroom management, (c) minimize the development and severity of problem behavior, and (d) integrate all practices and systems into a multi-tiered continuum for all students.

Historical Perspective on SWPBS Research and Practice As a prevention framework, SWPBS relies on data or information to set educationally and socially important student academic and social behavior outcomes. School implementation teams comprised of the local community (i.e., students, family, neighborhood, school) work together to create teaching and learning environments that maximize achievement of these outcomes. As such, the team invests in the practices and systems that defi ne these teaching and learning environments.

What is the Evidence-base for Supporting Adoption of SWPBS? A substantial and growing evidence-base exists to support the adoption and implementation of the SWPBS framework and ranges from individual practices (e.g., function-based support, continuous progress monitoring, social skills instruction) to larger systems (e.g., school-wide teaching of expectations, whole- school positive reinforcement). In general, when universal SWPBS (Tier 1) is implemented with fidelity, schools may experience the following outcomes: • • • • • • • •

Reduced major disciplinary infractions and aggressive behavior; Improvement in academic engagement, prosocial behavior, and emotional regulation; Improvements in academic achievement; Reductions in school truancy; Enhanced perception of organizational health and safety; Reductions in teacher reported bullying behavior and peer rejection; Improved self-reports of teacher efficacy; and Improved school climate.

(Bradshaw et al., 2012; Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans, Ialong, & Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009; Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010; Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, & Leaf, 2008; Bradshaw, Waasdorp, & Leaf, 2012; Horner et al., 2009; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; Luiselli, Putnam, & Sunderland, 2002; Nelson et al., 2009; Pas & Bradshaw, 2012; Pas, Bradshaw, & Mitchell, 2011; Sadler & Sugai, 2009; Safran & Oswald, 2003; Simonsen, Eber, et al., 2011; Taylor-Greene et al., 1997; Waasdorp, Bradshaw, & Leaf, 2012). Further, empirical studies also support various Tier 2 practices, including check-in/ check- out (Fairbanks, Sugai, Guardino, & Lathrop, 2007; Hawken & Horner, 2003; Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; Simonsen, Myers, & Briere, 2011); check, connect, and expect 310

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

(Cheney et al., 2009); and social skills groups (Lane et al., 2003). Experimental studies also support individualized function-based behavior support plans (e.g., Ingram, Lewis-Palmer, & Sugai, 2005) and more intensive plans developed through a wraparound process (e.g., Scott & Eber, 2003). In addition, the evidence-base for the association between social behavior and academic success is expanding, suggesting that schools with improved school disciplinary climates (reduced problem behavior and disciplinary infractions) tend to be associated with higher academic achievement and engagement. It is important to note that this relationship is correlational and not causal (Algozzine, Putnam, & Horner, 2012; Algozzine, Wang, & Violette, 2011; Algozzine, Wang et al., 2012; Burke, Hagan-Burke, & Sugai, 2003; Horner et al., 2009; Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; McIntosh, Chard, Boland, & Horner, 2006; McIntosh, Horner, Chard, Dickey, & Braun, 2008; Nelson et al., 2009; Nelson, Johnson, & Marchand-Martella, 1996; Sadler & Sugai, 2009; Wang & Algozzine, 2011).

SWPBS Practices Practices are the interventions, instructional activities, program curricula, etc. that students experience and are provided by school staff (Horner et al., 2010). Within a SWPBS framework these practices have a number of important characteristics (Sugai, Horner, Algozzine, et al., 2010), which are summarized below. Outcome- Oriented School leadership teams should determine the outcomes they plan to achieve through implementation of SWPBS (e.g., decreased rates of office referrals or suspensions, increased percentage of students meeting or exceeding benchmarks on state-wide tests) based on available school data and identified need. Then, schools should select potential practices that align with selected outcomes. Evidence-Based Once a potential practice is selected, school leadership teams should evaluate relevant information to determine whether a practice will deliver the intended outcome. They should give priority to empirically derived quantitative evidence to determine the strength of the relationship between the practice and the intended outcome. Other sources of evidence may be considered, including quasi- experimental research, descriptive studies, qualitative examinations, implementer testimonials and case studies, etc. In addition to examining available evidence, school teams should develop a plan to collect local data to monitor the effectiveness of the practice in order to achieve the desired outcome. Relevance Practices are designed for specific purposes and tested under controlled conditions. SWPBS teams examine the extent to which the practice aligns with the characteristics of their classrooms and schools, including students (e.g., developmental levels, language, disabilities, prior learning history), settings (e.g., classroom vs. non- classroom, elementary vs. high school, large group vs. small group), school staff (e.g., experience, language, prior learning history, specializations), community (e.g., urban vs. rural, language, SES, culture), and family (e.g., SES, race/ethnicity, learning history) (Fallon, O’Keeffe, & Sugai, 2012; Sugai, O’Keeffe, & Fallon, 2012; Vincent, Swain-Bradway, Tobin, & May, 2011). 311

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

Adaptability The degree and ease with which a practice can be adapted are important for maximizing its relevance and effectiveness: (a) relevance with respect to the factors described above (student, settings, school staff, community, and family), and (b) effectiveness with respect to maintaining and/or increasing the likelihood of achieving desired outcomes. Feasibility Successful implementation of an evidence-based practice is linked to the ease with which the practice can be (a) obtained (availability, cost, etc.), (b) installed where it will be used, (c) implemented with accuracy and fluency by typical implementers, (d) adapted based on local characteristics, (d) implemented in a sustained manner with accuracy, (e) supported by developers and trainers of the practice, and (f ) evaluated so that progress can be determined. Durability If successful student outcomes are achieved, structures and procedures should be in place to ensure that these outcomes are monitored and maintained; school teams should consider how long-lasting the results will be with and without practice supports. Sustainability Accurate and fluent use of an evidence-based practice needs to be sustainable, especially in the context of other practices and initiatives that compete for resources, time, and personnel. The following factors should be considered: (a) instruments or tools for ongoing or formative assessment of implementation fidelity, (b) decision rules for determining whether implementation is of high quality and when boosters or re-training is required, (c) clearly described proactive procedures for maximizing sustained use, and (d) procedures for determining practice features and supports that can be reduced, eliminated, combined, and/or maintained. Scalability Evidence-based practices that have been shown to be successfully implemented, for example, in a particular setting, with a specific group of students, at given grade or developmental level also need to be able to be adapted, adjusted, and transported to similar and different circumstances for generalized applications. The features of useful SWPBS practices together consider effectiveness, efficiency, equity, and relevance, which will enhance outcomes for all students.

SWPBS Systems To move evidence-based practices from research to practice settings, implementers need supports that enable effective, efficient, and relevant implementation. The SWPBS framework formalizes implementation by adopting system-level working structures developed from the science of implementation and technical assistance (Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005; Fixsen, Blase, Metz, & Van Dyke, 2013; Sugai, et al., 2000; McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010; McIntosh, Horner, & Sugai, 2009; Simonsen et al., 2011; Sugai & Horner, 2006; Sugai, Horner, Algozzine, et al., 2010; Sugai, Horner, & McIntosh, 2008). Consider Phases of Implementation Implementation is a dynamic, multi- stage process (Bradshaw, Debnam, Koth, & Leaf, 2009; Fixsen et al, 2005; McIntosh, Filter, Bennett, Ryan, & Sugai, 2010; Sugai, Horner, Fixsen, & 312

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

Blase, 2010) in which school teams move through the following phases: (a) exploration : specification of the need and search for possible solutions; (b) installation : preparation of implementation personnel and setting; (c) initial implementation : pilot or trial implementation with supports to determine if full implementation is indicated and possible; (d) full implementation : accurate and fluent implementation with supports across the setting or context in which the need exists; (e) sustainability: accurate and full implementation with existing local resources and reduced external supports; and (f ) continuous regeneration : accurate and full implementation with existing local resources and with adaptations for efficiency, relevance, and context based on implementation data. These phases are important for guiding decisions about coordination, resources, training, etc. Establish School Leadership Teams Implementation is coordinated and facilitated through school leadership teams whose members are representative of the implementation community (e.g., students, families, grade level or departmental teachers, school administrators, specialists, paraprofessionals, non-classified staff; Sugai, O’Keeffe, Horner, & Lewis, 2012; Todd, Horner, Sugai, & Sprague, 1999). SWPBS leadership teams have the authority to develop data-based action plans that guide selection and facilitate implementation of SWPBS practices. Equally important, the development of the SWPBS continuum of supports is conducted in the context of integrating all behavior-related initiatives, programs, and interventions. Because of the close association between academic and social behavior success, SWPBS leadership teams work closely with academic teams. Continuum of Support Implementation emphasizes the careful selection and integration of evidence-based practices into a continuum of effective behavior support. This continuum is based on the three-tiered public health prevention logic in which (a) Tier 1 provides universal support for all students and staff across all settings, (b) Tier 2 delivers more targeted support for students whose behaviors are unresponsive to Tier 1 practices, and (c) Tier 3 specifies intensive support for students whose behaviors are unresponsive to Tier 1 and 2 practices. An essential feature of an integrated continuum of support is that practices are considered from an inclusive perspective in which selection of more specialized supports is cumulative—intensive supports are added to supplement, rather than replace, existing supports. For example, students whose behavior is not responsive to the school-wide teaching of social skill expectations would participate in additional small group social skills practice and extra performance feedback, and would continue to participate in whole-school recognition and booster activities (Bradshaw, Bottiani, Osher, & Sugai, in press). Focus on Implementation Fidelity Fidelity of intervention or practice implementation is a unique and essential systems requirement of SWPBS. Implementation fidelity refers to the accuracy and fluency with which SWPBS practice and systems are executed, and is assessed in a number of ways. In SWPBS, action plans are developed to guide implementers and can be used to self-monitor features of this plan (e.g., what activities, who is responsible, when to be completed, what resources). Another form of self-assessment relies on use of standardized tools (e.g., Team Implementation Checklist, SWPBS Self-Assessment Survey) by implementers and facilitators to highlight key features of a practice or intervention. To provide an external perspective, individuals who are not involved in practice use can conduct objective evaluations using 313

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

existing tools (e.g., School-wide Evaluation Tool, Benchmarks of Quality, Implementation Phases Inventory) (Pas & Bradshaw, 2012), and school leadership team members can use resulting information to modify and enhance their implementation of action plans. SWPBS teams understand that evaluating student progress must be done in the context of how well a given intervention or practice has been implemented. Use Data to Drive Decisions SWPBS implementation relies on data- driven decision making to improve the selection and evaluation of practices, monitoring of student progress and responsiveness, implementation fidelity, and integration with other related practices and initiatives. An important consideration is establishing capacity for efficient and effective data management (Algozzine et al., 2010; Irvin et al., 2006; Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004; Simonsen & Sugai, 2007). The development and use of SWPBS data systems emphasize (a) specification of the smallest number of most important questions; (b) measurable, mutually exclusive, and comprehensive defi nition of data to be collected; (c) tools for easy input, analysis, output, and display of data; (d) schedule for regular data review and decision making; (e) formal teaming organization and process for data utilization and decision making; and (f ) more specialized data supports for Tier 2 and 3 practices and systems. The main message about SWPBS systems is that school implementers need structures, routines, and tools that maximize the impact of evidence-based practices. One-time, didactic professional development activities may be useful for initial awareness and knowledge; however, they are insufficient for ensuring that maximum practice uptake, sustained use, continuous regeneration, and student outcomes are achieved.

Setting a Course for Effective SWPBS Implementation at the classroom and school level is related to selection and use of evidencebased practices and establishment of systems for maximizing implementation fidelity. Sustaining school-level implementation may require external supports, for example, from districts, educational service districts, and regional cooperatives. In this section, we summarize some of these system supports using a district organization (Sugai, Horner, Algozzine et al., 2010). Although “district” is used, the same systems logic and supports could be applied to “regional” models, and nomenclature are used to organize schools (e.g., education service districts, regional education consortia, county-wide networks). Similar to implementation at the school-wide level, district supports are guided by an MTSS approach, and as such, this emphasizes universal screening, continuous progress monitoring, data-based decision making, team-based action planning, implementation fidelity, continuum of evidence-based interventions, and culture-based relevance (Fallon, O’Keeffe, & Sugai, 2012; Sugai, O’Keeffe, & Fallon, 2012; Vincent, Swain-Bradway, Tobin, & May, 2011). At the district level, MTSS is applied across schools to enhance leadership teaming, coaching and professional development, behavioral competence, implementation exemplars, organizational supports (i.e., policy, funding, and political support), and data-based decision making.

District Leadership Teaming High- quality SWPBS implementation within and across schools is coordinated by a district leadership team, composed of district-level coordinators, supervisors, and leaders of projects 314

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

and programs related to supporting positive and preventive school cultures for all students (Bradshaw et al., 2012; Sugai, O’Keeffe, Horner, & Lewis, 2012). This team has many responsibilities: (a) establishing a district continuum of behavior supports, (b) developing and enacting district behavior-related policies and procedures, (c) coordinating professional development opportunities, (d) providing coaching and coordination support to school leadership teams, (e) ensuring that recurring funding is available, (f ) garnering political support from key stakeholders (e.g., school boards, community agencies, state level leaders), and (g) maintaining high- quality behavioral expertise as a resource to schools. District leadership teams meet on a regular schedule (e.g., monthly) to review data related to school-level implementation fidelity, student progress, and differentiated technical assistance based on school need. Because of the strong association between academic and social behavior success, SWPBS team members are regularly interacting and communicating with individuals who have comparable responsibilities in terms of academic instruction and curriculum.

Coaching and Professional Development To instill school-level behavioral capacity and ownership of SWPBS implementation, district teams provide professional development supports directly to school leadership teams, who in turn develop action plans for implementation in their school (Lewis, Barrett, Sugai, & Horner, 2010). This team training occurs monthly during the fi rst 2 to 3 years of SWPBS adoption and initial implementation. During this time, training is focused on the establishment of school leadership teaming and data systems, and the development and implementation of action plans addressing improvement of whole- school social culture (universal Tier 1). To support implementation fidelity and links between training and implementation, coaching support accompanies school leadership team professional development. Coaching activities include providing (a) reminders about team responsibilities (e.g., regular meeting, data review), (b) technical assistance when questions or issues arise, (c) communications between school and district teams, (d) assisting school administrators in coordinating team activities, and (e) encouragement and reinforcement for progress and accomplishments. These coaching activities can be the responsibility of one or more individuals who have opportunities to engage in coaching, have established an effective relationship with administrators and school staff, have good communication and problem- solving skills, and have an interest and background in social behavior content. When SWPBS is being initiated, the district SWPBS team also provides professional development support to coaching staff, and then maintains support by conducting monthly district-wide coaching meetings.

Behavioral Competence Successful and sustained SWPBS implementation at the school level is dependent on the presence of expert behavioral capacity at the district level. This capacity is shared across individuals to minimize impact of staff turnover and transition, and is located across disciplines, departments, and programs to avoid “silo-ing” of expertise, personnel, and practices. Behavioral competence includes the following general knowledge and implementation examples, which are applied across the MTSS continuum of SWPBS practices and systems: 315

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Data-based decision making Social skills instruction Team-based coordination and problem solving Function-based assessment and behavior intervention planning Preventive school-wide discipline Crisis and emergency readiness Behavior management in classroom and non- classroom settings School-based mental health and wraparound Cross- disciplinary collaboration and coordination.

Implementation Exemplars Schools that demonstrate successful student outcomes and implementation fidelity are supported and recognized by district leadership teams and used as demonstrations for other schools. These schools have data across multiple years documenting improved student outcomes, high implementation accuracy and fluency at school-wide and classroom levels, school leadership teaming, administrative participation, and school-based behavioral expertise. Exemplar schools also demonstrate the capacity to adapt to new conditions over time. This capacity is called “continuous regeneration” and refers to the school’s ability to (a) adjust a practice to enhance outcomes, (b) streamline support components when successful outcomes are achieved and sustainability is targeted, (c) eliminate and/or combine practices that have similar outcome objectives, (d) use local data to determine if new issues or needs require attention, and (e) enhance supports if implementation accuracy and/or fluency are not satisfactory (Sugai, Horner, Fixsen, & Blase, 2010). District leadership teams have responsibility for supporting development of school exemplars by providing professional development and coaching supports based on school implementation need. In addition, data systems and decision making criteria are needed to judge whether a school has achieved and maintained exemplar status. Finally, district leadership teams and leaders are responsible for providing regular performance feedback and positive recognition so that exemplar status is celebrated and sustained.

Organizational Supports District leadership support also involves efforts related to organizational supports, such as policy, funding, and political visibility, which are intended to ensure and encourage sustained implementation at the school level. Policy supports emphasize institutionalizing effective and relevant practices, programs, and systems, which in turn enhance decision making when personnel make transitions, new initiatives and priorities are considered, and new practices are introduced. When SWPBS is initiated, funding is often secured from multiple, short-term sources, for example grants, other initiatives, or related programs (Horner et al., in press). However, in order to support sustained and high-quality SWPBS implementation within and across schools, district leadership is encouraged to invest in funding sources that are stable line items in district and school budgets and likely to be recurring and refunded over a 3 to 5 year interval. This funding should represent investments for all students and schools, and avoid single programmatic sources, such as special education, alternative programming, mental health, or specialized student supports, which might inadvertently narrow attention to specific student populations. 316

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

Political support refers to the extent to which district leadership is informed, participating in, and leading the SWPBS implementation effort at the district and school levels. Superintendents, assistant and associate superintendents, division and department heads, school board members, parent support groups, and city government officials should have regular opportunities to receive information on implementation efforts and outcomes and for comment. These informational and advisement opportunities occur formally through reports during meetings, regularly distributed newsletters and news flashes, invitation to leadership meetings and school events, and informally through occasional communications and meetings. Having an informed and involved leadership provides additional support for the efforts of district and school SWPBS implementation teams.

District Data-based Decision Making To guide their decision making and leadership, the district SWPBS leadership collects and uses data at the student, school, and district levels, with an emphasis on monitoring student progress and implementation fidelity (Algozzine et al., 2010). Decisions derived from these data are used to develop or revise implementation action plans relative to professional development, coaching supports, policy development, funding, and status of school exemplar.

Conclusion Effective inclusive schools provide a full range of academic and behavioral supports for all students. Traditional reactive management practices are not effective with all students, and can lead to a variety of negative outcomes. Instead, SWPBS organizes behavior supports into an effective and efficient prevention continuum that gives all students and staff access to evidence-based behavioral practices across all settings. Employing an MTSS approach, SWPBS implementation emphasizes universal screening, continuous progress monitoring, data-based decision making, team-based problem solving and action planning, implementation fidelity, continuum of evidence-based practices, and cultural considerations. Priority is given to SWPBS practices that are evidence-based, relevant, adaptable, feasible, durable, sustainable, and scalable. SWPBS systems enhance the impact of evidence-based behavioral practices by considering implementation as (a) dynamic and multi-staged, (b) coordinated and facilitated through school leadership teams, (c) integrated into a continuum of supports, (d) enhanced by high implementation fidelity, and (e) empirically derived and data-informed. High-quality implementation of SWPBS at the school level is supported by strong district leadership teaming, capacity with systematic coaching and professional development; investment in establishment of local behavioral competence; demonstrations through school implementation exemplars; stable policy, funding and political supports; and district level data-based decision making. The empirical support for SWPBS implementation is increasing, especially in relation to schools that implement with high fidelity. These schools often experience improved achievement and social behavior outcomes. Recent rigorous, longitudinal randomized trials of the model have demonstrated significant, sustained effects of SWPBS on a range of student behavioral, mental health, and educational outcomes. In addition, the SWPBS framework appears to be a useful means for considering a number of educational issues (e.g., bullying behavior, disciplinary and cultural disproportionality, school violence, school climate). 317

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

References Algozzine, B., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Barrett, S., Dickey, S. R., Eber, L., Kincaid, D., et al. ( 2010 ). Evaluation blueprint for school- wide positive behavior support. Eugene, OR: National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. Retrieved from www.pbis.org Algozzine, B., Putnam, R., & Horner, R. H. ( 2012 ). Support for teaching students with learning disabilities academic skills and social behaviors within a response-to-intervention model: Why it doesn’t matter what comes fi rst. Insights on Learning Disabilities, 9 (1), 7–36. Algozzine, B., Wang, C., & Violette, A. S. ( 2011). Reexamining the relationship between academic achievement and social behavior. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 13, 3 –16. Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M. B., Algozzine, K., Helf, S. S., et al. ( 2012 ). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Children, 79, 45 – 64. Biglan, A. (1995). Translating what we know about the context of antisocial behavior into a lower prevalence of such behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 479 – 492 . Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Doolittle, J. ( 2007 ). Responsiveness to intervention: 1997 to 2007. Teaching Exceptional Children, 39 ( 5), 8 –12 . Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. P. (Eds.) ( 2002 ). Identifi cation of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ : Erlbaum. Bradshaw, C. P., Bottiani, J., Osher, D., & Sugai, G. (in press). Integrating Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) and Social Emotional Learning. In Weist, M. D., Lever, N. A., Bradshaw, C. P., & Owens, J. (Eds.). Handbook of School Mental Health: Advancing Practice and Research (2nd ed.). New York: Springer. Bradshaw, C. P., Debnam, K. J., Koth, C., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2009 ). Preliminary validation of the Implementation Phases Inventory for assessing fidelity of school-wide Positive Behavior Supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 145 –160. Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Bevans, K. B., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2008 ). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462 – 473. Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2009 ). Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-randomized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100 –115. Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2010 ). Examining the effects of schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 12 ( 3 ), 161–179. Bradshaw, C. P., Pas, E., Bloom, J., Barrett, S., Hershfeldt, P., Alexander, A., McKenna, M., et al. ( 2012 ). A state-wide collaboration to promote safe and supportive schools: The PBIS Maryland Initiative. Administration and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 39, 225 –237. Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2008 ). Implementation of school-wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education & Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26. Bradshaw, C. P., Waasdorp, T. E., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2012 ). Effects of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on child behavior problems. Pediatrics, 130, 1136 –1145. Burke, M. D., Hagan-Burke, S., & Sugai, G. ( 2003 ). The efficacy of function-based interventions for students with learning disabilities who exhibit escape-maintained problem behavior: Preliminary results from a single case study. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 26, 15 –25. Caplan, G. (1964 ). Principles of preventive psychiatry. New York, NY: Basic Books. Cheney, D. A., Stage, S. A., Hawken, L. S., Lynass, L., Mielenz, C., & Waugh, M. ( 2009 ). A 2-year outcome study of the check, connect, and expect intervention for students at risk for severe behavior problems. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 17, 226 –243. Colvin, G., Kame’enui, E. J., & Sugai, G. (1993 ). School-wide and classroom management: Reconceptualizing the integration and management of students with behavior problems in general education. Education and Treatment of Children, 16, 361–381. Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & Lathrop, M. ( 2007 ). Response to intervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Exceptional Children, 73, 288 –310.

318

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

Fallon, L. M., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Sugai, G. ( 2012 ). Consideration of culture and context in School-wide Positive Behavior Support: A review of current literature. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 209 –219, doi: 10.1177/1098300712442242 Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Metz, A., & Van Dyke, M. ( 2013 ). Statewide implementation of evidenced-based programs. Exceptional Children, 79, 213 –220. Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. ( 2005 ). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication No. 231). Tampa, FL: University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, National Implementation Research Network. Hawken, L. S. & Horner, R. H. ( 2003 ). Evaluation of a targeted intervention within a schoolwide system of behavior support. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 225 –240. Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L. ( 2007 ). Effects of the Behavior Education Program on office discipline referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 9, 94 –101. Horner, R. H., Kincaid, D., Sugai, G., Lewis, T., Eber, L., Barrett, S., Rossetto Dickey, et al. (in press) Scaling up school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports: The Experiences of Seven States with Documented Success. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions. Horner, R. H. & Sugai, G. ( 2000 ). School-wide behavior support: An emerging initiative (special issue). Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 231–233. Horner, R., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato, J., Todd, A., & Esperanza, J. ( 2009 ). A randomized, wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide positive behavior support in elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133 –145. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. ( 2010 ). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42 ( 8 ), 1–14. Ingram, K., Lewis-Palmer, T., & Sugai, G. ( 2005 ). Function-based intervention planning: Comparing the effectiveness of FBA indicated and contra-indicated intervention plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7, 224 –236. Irvin, L. K., Horner, R. H., Ingram, K., Todd, A. W., Sugai, G., Sampson, N. K., & Boland, J. B. ( 2006). Using office discipline referral data for decision making about student behavior in elementary and middle schools: An empirical evaluation of validity. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 10 –23. Irvin, L. K., Tobin, T. J., Sprague, J. R., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. G. ( 2004 ). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 131–147. Lane, K. L., Wehby, J., Menzies, H. M., Doukas, G. L., Munton, S. M., & Gregg, R. M. ( 2003 ). Social skills instruction for students at risk for antisocial behavior: The effects of small-group instruction. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 229 –248. Lewis, T. J., Barrett, S., Sugai, G., & Horner, R. H. ( 2010 ). Blueprint for school- wide positive behavior support training and professional development. Eugene, OR: National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Support. Retrieved from www.pbis.org Lewis, T. J. & Sugai, G. (1999 ). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive school-wide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31 ( 6 ), 1–24. Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Sunderland, M. ( 2002 ). Longitudinal evaluation of behavior support intervention in a public middle school. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 4, 182 –188. Mayer, G. (1995). Preventing antisocial behavior in the schools. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 28, 467– 478. McIntosh, K., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Horner, R. H. ( 2006). Demonstration of combined efforts in school-wide academic and behavioral systems and incidence of reading and behavior challenges in early elementary grades. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 8, 146 –154. McIntosh, K., Filter, K. J., Bennett, J., Ryan, C., & Sugai, G. ( 2010 ). Principles of sustainable prevention: Designing scale-up of school-wide positive behavior support to promote durable systems. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 5 –21. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Dickey, C. R., & Braun, D. H. ( 2008 ). Reading skills and function of problem behavior in typical school settings. Journal of Special Education, 42, 131–147. McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. ( 2009 ). Chapter 14. Sustainability of systems-level evidencebased practices in schools: Current knowledge and future directions. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, R. Horner, & G. Sugai (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Behavior Support (pp. 327–352 ). New York: Springer. 319

G.Sugai, B. Simonsen, C. Bradshaw, et al.

Mitchell, M. M. & Bradshaw, C. P. (in press). Examining classroom influences on student perceptions of school climate: The role of classroom management and exclusionary discipline strategies. Journal of School Psychology. Nelson, J. R., Hurley, K. D., Synhorst, L., Epstein, M. H., Stage, S., & Buckley, J. ( 2009 ). The child outcomes of a behavior model. Exceptional Children, 76, 7–30. Nelson, J. R., Johnson, A., & Marchand-Martella, N. (1996 ). Effects of direct instruction, cooperative learning, and independent learning practices on the classroom behavior of students with behavioral disorders: A comparative analysis. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 53 – 62 . Pas, E. T. & Bradshaw, C. P. ( 2012 ). Examining the association between implementation and outcomes: State-wide scale-up of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Intervention and Supports. Journal of Behavioral Health Services and Research, 39 (4 ), 417– 433. Pas, E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Mitchell, M. M. ( 2011). Examining the validity of office discipline referrals as an indicator of student behavior problems. Psychology in the Schools, 48, 541–555. Sadler, C. & Sugai, G. ( 2009 ). Effective behavior and instructional support: A district model for early identification and prevention of reading and behavior problems. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 35 – 46. Safran, S. P. & Oswald, K. ( 2003 ). Positive behavior supports: Can schools reshape disciplinary practices. Exceptional Children, 69, 361–373. Scott, T. M. & Eber, L. ( 2003 ). Functional assessment and wraparound as systemic school processes: Primary, secondary, and tertiary systems examples. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 5, 131–143. Simonsen, B., Eber, L., Black, A., Sugai, G., Lewandowski, H., Myers, D., & Sims, B. ( 2011). Positive behavioral interventions and supports in Illinois: Lessons learned for large- scale implementation. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 5 –16. Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & Briere, D. E. ( 2011). Comparing a behavioral check-in/check- out (CICO) intervention with standard practice in an urban middle school using an experimental group design. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13, 31– 48. doi:10.1177/1098300709359026 Simonsen, B. & Sugai, G. ( 2007 ). Using school-wide data systems to make decisions efficiently and effectively. School Psychology Forum, 1 ( 2 ), 46 –58. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. (1999 ). Discipline and behavioral support: Preferred processes and practices. Effective School Practices, 17 (4 ), 10 –22 . Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2002 ). The evolution of discipline practices: School-wide positive behavior supports. Child and Family Behavior Therapy, 24, 23 –50. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. ( 2006 ) (invited paper). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining the implementation of school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245 –259. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2008 ). What we know and need to know about preventing problem behavior in schools. Exceptionality, 16, 67–77. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223 –237. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson, C., Bradley, R., et al. (2010). School- wide positive behavior support: Implementers’ blueprint and self-assessment. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C. M., Scott, T., et al. ( 2000 ). Applying positive behavioral support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 2, 131–143. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Fixsen, D., & Blase, K. ( 2010 ). Developing systems-level capacity for response to intervention implementation: Current efforts and future directions. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.). Response to intervention: Empowering all students to learn—A critical account of the science and practice (pp. 286 –309 ). New York: Guilford. Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., & McIntosh, K. ( 2008 ). Best practices in developing a broad- scale system of support for school-wide positive behavior support. In A. Thomas & J. P. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (Vol. 3, pp. 765 –780 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B. V., & Fallon, L. M. ( 2012 ). A contextual consideration of culture and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 14, 197–208, doi: 10.1177/1098300711426334 320

Positive Behavior Support in Inclusive Schools

Sugai, G., O’Keeffe, B. V., Horner, R. H., & Lewis, T. ( 2012 ). Leadership and school-wide positive behavior support. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership in special education (pp. 297–314 ). New York: Taylor & Francis/Routledge. Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, T., Cohen, J., et al. (1997 ). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 99 –112 . Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Sprague, J. R. (1999 ). Effective behavior support: Strengthening school-wide systems through a team-based approach. Effective School Practices, 17 (4 ), 23 –27. Vincent, C. G., Swain-Bradway, J., Tobin, T. J., & May, S. ( 2011). Disciplinary referrals for culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without disabilities; Patterns resulting from school-wide positive behavior support. Exceptionality, 19, 175 –190. Waasdorp, T. E., Bradshaw, C. P., & Leaf, P. J. ( 2012 ). The impact of school-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports on bullying and peer rejection: A randomized control effectiveness trial. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 166, 149 –156. Walker, H. M., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J. R., Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996 ). Integrated approaches to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 4, 193 –256. Wang, C. & Algozzine, B. ( 2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100 –109.

321

23 High School Inclusion for the 21st Century Barbara J. Ehren1 and Mary E. Little1

Setting the Stage The charge of federal mandates to narrow the achievement gap of all students who struggle (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004; No Child Left Behind [NCLB], 2001) has created a climate in which the needs of students with disabilities (SWD) are on the radar screens of high school stakeholders. In this climate it is no longer possible to marginalize these students, because their success is important to the overall performance of the school. For example, prior NCLB provisions and the current implementation of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) require states to have accountability systems in place that disaggregate data by disability status in reporting Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). However positive the climate may be, the reality is that secondary and postsecondary outcomes for SWD are not stellar. Students with Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) who take general state assessment tests are often among the lowest performing (Lazarus, Wu, Altman, & Thurlow, 2010). With regard to successful high school completion, according to the most recent data available, 56.5% of students aged 14–21 who exited IDEA and school graduated with a regular high school diploma, and 26.2% dropped out (Thurlow, Quenemoen, Altman, Cuthbert, 2008; U.S. Department of Education, 2011). For postsecondary education completion, the rate for SWD has been lower than that of similar- aged students in the general population: 41% versus 52% (Newman et al., 2011). With regard to employment data, for youth aged 16–19, the rate for those with disabilities was 13.2%, compared to 25.6% for youth without disabilities; in the 20–24 age range the contrast is sharper, with 23.8% for those with disabilities and 63.6% for those without. Further, young adults with disabilities earned an average of $10.40 per hour in comparison to $11.40 per hour for young adults in the general population (U.S. Department of Labor, 2012). In contemplating these data, it is apparent that improving secondary and postsecondary outcomes for SWD is warranted. Moreover, this improvement is essential to a nation that

1 University of Central Florida 322

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

prides itself on equity of opportunity for all its citizens. In the ESEA Blueprint Supporting English Learners and Students with Disabilities, the U.S. Department of Education (2010) asserted that: Schools, districts, and states must be held responsible for educating all students, including English Learners and students with disabilities, to high standards, but more work could be done to develop and scale up effective strategies for these students. Priority may be given to programs, projects, or strategies that are designed to specifically improve the performance of English Learners or students with disabilities. (p. 41) In response to this call to improve performance of SWD, this chapter addresses programming for SWD in inclusive high school settings. It will address students with high incidence disabilities, including students with speech-language impairments (SLI) specific learning disabilities (SLD), other health impairments (OHI), and mild intellectual disabilities (MID) (U.S. Department of Education, 2011). A focus on inclusion is important because most high school SWD spend the majority of their school day in general education classrooms; for example, Newman et al. (2011) found that SWD who attended typical high schools earned, on average, 16.7 credits in general education courses and 6.1 credits in special education courses (72% and 28% of their overall credits, respectively). This chapter begins with the current landscape of rising performance expectations that impact inclusive efforts in the 21st century. What follows is an exploration of the nature of inclusion in high schools, focusing on the delivery of special education services and school-wide frameworks affecting service delivery. Next, special consideration is given to the integration of domain and literacy learning that is essential for meeting rigorous curriculum standards, followed by an examination of a few key instructional principles and practices. Finally, recommendations for 21st century inclusive education are offered.

Rising Performance Expectations Inclusive education, which gained traction in the early 90s, has had its challenges, especially at the high- school level, where buildings and staff are larger, educational demands are more complex, and adolescents have more complicated lives. However, the current landscape presents greater challenges, with rising performance expectations framed by college and career readiness (CCR) requirements, and more rigorous high school curricula in the form of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) in most states to meet the CCR demands.

College and Career Readiness The workplace for which educators are preparing students is not the place it used to be. Today’s jobs require higher levels of competence in a number of areas and, in turn, typically more than a high school education (Casner-Lotto & Barrington, 2006; Tucker, 1996). Our youth need to be better prepared to contribute to our success as a nation in the world marketplace (National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [COSEPUP], 2007; Partnership for 21st Century Skills [P21], 2008). In particular, an exigent need exists for our nation to increase the performance of our youth in the STEM disciplines (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). According to Canser-Lotto and Barrington (2006) “without high- quality, knowledge-intensive jobs and the innovative 323

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

enterprises that lead to discovery and new technology, our economy will suffer and our people will face a lower standard of living” (p. ES-1). Therefore, college and career readiness have become important targets for high school curricula. The requisite skills involve thinking critically and making judgments; solving complex, multidisciplinary, open- ended problems; creativity and entrepreneurial thinking; communicating and collaborating; making innovative use of knowledge, information and opportunities; and taking charge of fi nancial, health, and civic responsibilities (P21; 2008). These skills are grouped into two clusters: The three Rs and the four Cs. The three Rs are the traditional reading, writing, and arithmetic skills; the four Cs are critical thinking and problem solving, communication, collaboration, and creativity and innovation (P21, 2010).

Common Core State Standards (CCSS) For many years, concern over preparing a skilled workforce has resulted in a movement to standardize the K-12 curriculum across our country so that our youth can meet societal demands. The Common Core State Standards Initiative (CCSSI; 2010) was a state-led effort coordinated by the National Governors Association Center for Best Practices (NGA Center) and the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) to produce a set of standards that provide a clear and consistent framework for college and career readiness. The standards include rigorous content and application of knowledge with higher order thinking skills. To date all but four states have adopted the CCSS. Two sets of standards currently exist: (1) English Language Arts & Literacy in History/Social Studies, Science, and Technical Subjects, and (2) Mathematics. The English Language Arts standards include reading, writing, speaking, listening, language, and media and technology. Although CCR standards provide a real world context for learning for high school students, the push to achieve more rigorous and integrated CCSS will likely pose greater challenges for all students, including SWD (McLaughlin, 2012). The Council for Exceptional Children, while supportive of high expectations for SWD, raised the following questions: “Will the CCS(S) change what special educators need to know? Will the CCS(S) lend themselves to modifications for learning profi les without minimizing expectations? How will important access and transition skills be integrated into the teaching schedule?” (Council for Exceptional Children, 2011). Other questions that one might ask are: Will general educators have the tools to assist SWD in their classrooms to meet higher standards? Will more intensive, specially designed instruction be needed to support SWD? Do the necessary infrastructures exist in high schools to respond to increased curricular demands? In this milieu of increased performance expectations of high school students, inclusion of SWD is situated. An exploration of the current nature of inclusion in high schools is helpful in understanding the challenges facing secondary educators with new 21st century curriculum demands.

The Nature of Inclusion in High Schools Although federal statutes or regulations do not defi ne inclusion or inclusive practices, professional organizations and advocacy groups have developed their own defi nitions. Similar characteristics defi ne inclusive education for students with mild disabilities, such as SLD, SLI, OHI and MID: full acceptance of all students within the general education classroom community and overall school activities, as well as “specially designed instruction” (IDEA, 2004, 300.39 [a] [1]) delineated by individualized education programs (IEPs) (Cole & 324

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

McLeskey, 1997; Dukes & Lamar-Dukes, 2009). The specially designed instruction that defi nes special education is a requirement that deserves serious consideration because the intent of such instruction, along with related services as appropriate, is to provide access to the general education curriculum, which is one of the primary purposes of inclusive efforts. The key issues revolving around the nature of inclusion of students with mild disabilities in high school include: (1) Is inclusion working to help adolescents meet required outcomes? (2) How do educators deliver the special education and related services in a high school environment? (3) How does Response to Intervention (RTI) (also known as Multi-Tiered Systems of Support [MTSS]) relate to inclusion? The following section addresses these issues.

Effectiveness of Inclusion Although a plethora of practical strategies for inclusive programming are presented in the literature (see Halvorsen and Neary, 2001, among others), efficacy research about inclusion in high schools represents a significant challenge for researchers. Of particular concern are defi ning and controlling the myriad variables to conduct high- quality research; for example, specific defi nitional characteristics across settings, academic complexity, delivery of instruction, teacher attitudes and attributes, and multiple assessment measures (Mastropieri & Scruggs, 2001). Some evidence about the effectiveness of inclusion in secondary schools does exist: for example, students’ academic performance improved (Salend & Duhaney, 1999), students’ self- esteem increased (Ritter, Michel, & Irby, 1999; Casale-Giannola, 2012), and teachers’ attitudes about inclusion changed for the better with specialized skills (Ernst & Rogers, 2009). Research has also examined whether teacher professional development in inclusion is related to teachers’ attitudes toward inclusion. Most studies indicate that the extent of professional development is an important feature of teacher attitudes toward inclusion (Avramidis, Bayless, & Burden, 2000; Van Reusen, Shoho, & Barker, 2001). Van Reusen and colleagues also found that a greater number of special education courses taken by teachers, including specific knowledge and skills about inclusion, was related to more positive attitudes toward inclusion. However, on the other side of the coin, Deshler and colleagues (2004) painted a rather bleak picture of what was happening to students with disabilities in high school with respect to access to the general education curriculum. One study described student characteristics, level of participation in general education classes, current level of functioning, and student outcomes. Included were 150 SWD across urban, suburban, and rural schools in three different states. Their results showed that only a very small handful of all SWD were participating in rigorous general education classes in the participating high schools. The vast majority of SWD were in subject-area classes taught by special education teachers or general education classes that contained only low-achieving students. Regarding performance on the Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST), SWD scored in the 1st to 3rd percentile range on the reading and math sub-tests, and they had significantly lower GPAs than their normally achieving or at-risk counterparts. It would be interesting to know if this picture has improved since that study was conducted.

Delivery of Special Education Services Merely placing SWD in general education classes does not provide the access to the general education curriculum required by IDEA; students must also have the supports necessary to 325

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

meet curriculum standards. The litmus test for inclusion, then, is whether SWD are actually receiving the specially designed instruction in the general education classroom that they need in order to be successful. Further, IDEA requires that local education agencies offer a continuum of services (IDEA, 2004). That would mean that if a student’s needs cannot be met in a general education classroom, other alternatives would have to be provided to guarantee a SWD a free appropriate public education (FAPE), also a requirement of IDEA. A number of different delivery structures have been utilized in high schools. Two models will be addressed in the following sections: co-teaching and support facilitation. Because collaboration is a lynchpin regardless of delivery models, that topic will be addressed fi rst. Collaboration Collaboration is an interactive and ongoing process wherein secondary educators with diverse expertise, knowledge, and experiences work together to create solutions to problems that are impeding students’ success, as well as to carefully monitor and refi ne those solutions when SWD are included in content classrooms (Lenz, Deshler, & Kissam, 2004). “Collaboration is a process rather than a specific service delivery model” (Knackendoffel, Robinson, Deshler & Schumaker, 1992, p. 4). Through a variety of service delivery models and school organizational structures, general education teachers, special education teachers, speech-language pathologists, school psychologists, reading specialists, curriculum specialists, and other support personnel work together to analyze student assessment data, develop learning goals, implement evidence-based instruction and intervention, and continuously monitor the learning of students. Therefore, collaboration is essential to any inclusive delivery structure. Also, at the secondary level, it is important to note that a partnership with adolescents is a critical component to promote their active engagement in planning and implementing their IEPs. Co-Teaching Co-teaching is the most popular delivery model used in high school. It is defi ned as “two or more people sharing responsibility for teaching some or all of the students assigned to a classroom” (Villa, Thousand, & Nevin, 2008, p. 5) and can maximize successful inclusion of SWD (Fenty, McDuffie-Landrum, & Fisher, 2012; Mastropieri et al., 2005). In secondary schools, co-teaching often involves general education and special education teachers working together in one classroom and is used as a supplementary aid and service (Murawski, 2006). Through the use of collaboration and co-teaching structures, successful inclusion of students with disabilities in secondary classrooms is maximized (Fenty, McDuffie-Landrum, & Fisher, 2012; Mastropieri et al., 2005). In a recent meta-analysis of co-teaching research, Murawski and Swanson (2001) reviewed 89 articles, fi nding six that provided sufficient quantitative information. These six studies measured academic achievement and social and attitudinal outcomes, with a moderate effect size of 0.40 (Murawski & Swanson, 2001). Given the number of studies that met the criteria, the fi ndings of the meta-analysis should be interpreted with caution. Findings from several non- experimental studies at the secondary level have reported significant fi ndings for student attendance, grades, and state assessments. The majority of published articles focused on roles, responsibilities, models, and procedures, not empirical evidence from experimental research (Cook, McDuffie-Landrum, Oshita, & Cook, 2011).

326

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

Support Facilitation Another model—“support facilitation”—which has been around for some time (Stainback, Stainback, & Harris, 1989) should be clarified, because this approach is used in some states and school districts in a manner seemingly in confl ict with its original intent. By original design, the support facilitator was slated to engage in a three step process: (1) identify with teachers and students the types of assistance and support they would like to have, including knowledge of the various support options available; (2) collaborate with teachers and students to determine which supports might be most applicable; and (3) organize and implement those supports. If schools use this delivery model, it would be important to realize that, as part of Step 3, many students may need more direct intervention from a special educator.

School-Wide Frameworks Affecting Service Delivery Providing high school SWD with an appropriate education requires special educators, general educators, administrators, and other educational and related service personnel to share responsibility within a school-wide response (Deshler, Schumaker, & Woodruff, 2004). To accomplish this goal, secondary educators are learning and implementing school-wide systems of effective teaching and assessment practices implemented in varied delivery structures. The most prevalent school-wide framework currently employed is RTI/MTSS. Over the past decade, RTI/MTSS has emerged to promote proactive, data-based instruction and interventions by educators, including at the secondary level, to address learning difficulties using collaborative, school-wide, problem- solving approaches (Feuerborn, Sarin, & Tyre, 2011; King, Lemons, & Hill, 2012). One defi nition of RTI from the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE, 2005) is: RTI is the practice of (1) providing high- quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions to guide instruction. As a proactive and prevention-focused approach, RTI relies on teams of educators to develop dynamic instructional plans to address academic or behavioral concerns of individual students within classrooms. RTI focuses on using evidence-based instructional approaches while continuously monitoring student learning. Although features vary across RTI models (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Tilly, 2006; Vaughn & Chard, 2006), the RTI framework includes several common features. RTI models are organized in multiple tiers of instructional support, beginning with Tier 1 classroom instruction and progressing to increasingly more intensive and/or explicit interventions in Tier 2 and 3 based on student response. Screening and progress monitoring assessments provide data that enable teachers to quantify students’ response to intervention. RTI focuses on using evidence-based instructional approaches and interventions while continuously monitoring student learning. Instructional problem solving, based on assessment data, is the continuous decision-making process used throughout RTI (Little, 2013). Since the goal is to increase achievement for all students, classroom teachers must be primary participants in the RTI process. An additional point is that, regardless of the services provided in the more intensive tiers (2 and 3), all students participate in Tier 1—that is, core instruction in general education classes. Therefore, content teachers must know how to provide instruction for students who struggle, including those with disabilities, in the same way they would under the auspices of inclusion. As with other collaborative structures, RTI’s comprehensive and continuous process includes other educators who may be involved in decision-making or provision of

327

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

interventions (e.g., instructional coaches, special education teachers, reading specialists, speech-language pathologists and school psychologists) (Little, 2009). These new roles for professionals may require them to learn new methods and use new resources to provide and support instruction (Council for Exceptional Children, 2007; Ehren & Whitmire, 2009; International Reading Association, 2009).

Domain Learning and Literacy Learning Because the focus of this chapter has been on content acquisition, it is important to underscore the relationship between domain learning and literacy learning. All too often these areas are inappropriately considered as separate entities. Inclusion in high school will not be successful unless teachers understand that domain leaning and literacy learning are inextricably bound. As Heller and Greenleaf (2007) pointed out: Literacy stands at the heart of the academic content areas, and inasmuch as these content areas comprise the heart of the secondary school curriculum, content area literacy instruction must be viewed as the cornerstone of any comprehensive movement to build the kinds of thriving intellectually vibrant secondary schools that young people deserve and on which the nation’s social and economic health will depend. (p. 6) Therefore, literacy instruction within inclusive settings has to be a major focal point if students are to achieve rigorous content standards. An important trend in addressing these increased demands is disciplinary literacy; in fact, a substantive portion of the CCSS is dedicated to this area. Disciplinary literacy refers to the specific discourses of content areas, such as literature, social studies, science, and math—that is, each academic discipline has its own way of making meaning and communicating that meaning (Heller & Greenleaf, 2007; Lee & Spratley, 2009; Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008). If discourse patterns differ across subject areas, then it stands to reason that in order for students to learn the content of these disciplines, they have to understand and use each discourse. This is challenging for all students (Shanahan & Shanahan, 2008), but even more so for students struggling with language, including SWD (Ehren, Murza, & Malani, 2012). It is essential, then, that the implications of a disciplinary literacy focus for SWD be addressed, especially as it relates to instruction in content classes. Key questions in this regard include: Is a discipline specific approach to literacy sufficient by itself to facilitate acquisition of complex academic content SWD, most of whom will have language correlates to their disabilities? How should problems in foundational language and metacognitive skills be addressed with SWD to address disciplinary literacy? Ehren et al. (2012), as well as Faggella-Luby, Graner, Deshler, and Drew (2012), suggested that a focus solely on disciplinary literacy will not address the underlying language and literacy problems of SWD. For them, and others who struggle with literacy, intervention in foundational literacy skills and strategies must also be included for students who need this work. This issue is a crucial one for inclusion in high school, because educators will have to consider how best to deliver this foundational literacy intervention, while also working on integrated domain and literacy learning in general education classes.

Setting a Course for Effective Inclusion in High Schools Not only will teachers in inclusive high school classes have to integrate domain and literacy learning to meet rigorous standards, they will have to do so with high-quality 328

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

instruction. This section will focus on instructional principles and practices to facilitate learning for SWD.

Instructional Principles To meet the diverse instructional needs of high school students, it is important for secondary teachers to analyze student knowledge, interests, and needs; reflect on content knowledge and pedagogy; and make decisions about the multiple variables so that each student learns the curriculum (Little, 2013). Although there are many pedagogical principles that might frame inclusive efforts, two key principles will be addressed in the following section: differentiated instruction and universal design for learning. Differentiated Instruction Differentiated instruction is a philosophy or approach to planning, teaching, and assessing based on the premise that teachers must consider whom they are teaching (students) as well as what they are teaching (curricular content). Instructional differentiation includes ongoing assessment and adjustment, clarity of the standards and learning goals of the curriculum, use of flexible grouping, tasks that are respectful of each learner, and instruction that stretches the learner (Tomlinson, 2003). Differentiating the content refers to what is being taught, as well as how students gain access to a body of knowledge. Universal Design for Learning (UDL) Essentially, UDL is a set of principles in designing assessment and instructional methods, materials, and activities to assist individuals with wide differences in their abilities to see, hear, speak, move, read, write, understand English, attend, organize, engage, and remember. This is accomplished with flexible selection and use of materials and activities to provide alternatives for teacher instruction, student engagement, and student expression of mastery. An example of instructional procedures based on UDL principles is the Content Enhancement Routines from the University of Kansas, Center for Research on Learning, designed for enhanced content learning in general education classrooms (see Lenz, Deshler and Kissam (2004) for an in- depth discussion of that approach). Table 23.1 shows several UDL procedures linked to lesson planning. Hall, Strangman, and Meyer (2009) discussed the integration of UDL and differentiated instruction with examples of how that would work. They opined “[w]hen combined with the practices and principles of UDL, differentiated instruction can provide teachers with both theory and practice to appropriately challenge the broad scope of students in classrooms today” (p. 20).

Instructional Practices Evidence-based practices have to stem from sound pedagogical principles. They include a number of areas. Secondary teachers make choices about instructional arrangements (e.g., whole class to individual); instructional delivery methods (e.g., inquiry, direct instruction, etc.); resources and materials; student engagement techniques; technology; and supplemental interventions and procedures. The practices discussed below include explicit instruction, advanced organization and explicit practice, intensive instruction, and the use of technology. Of course, there are many more that could be addressed if length were not a limitation. 329

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

Table 23.1 Examples of UDL in Lesson Planning Lesson Component

Description

Lesson Objective Lesson Assessment Anticipatory Set

Aligned with Standard Course of Study Directly linked to lesson objective; must be observable/measurable Introduction, student “hook,” activate prior knowledge, statement of objective/ agenda, provide advance organizer, set up thinking pattern. Materials: pencil/paper, overhead, chart paper, video chip, internet links, PowerPoint, SmartBoard Write objectives on chalkboard; provide background materials; provide outline, directions, procedures; provide plan and materials; provide direct instruction; present content accurately and clearly; ask relevant questions; provide examples and non-examples. Introduce/review essential vocabulary, all time to brainstorm, share with partner/group Materials: overhead, dry erase board; record using iPads, electronic translation, personal interpreter, communication board, etc.

Teacher Input

Guided Practice

Explicit Instruction Explicit instruction is a systematic approach to instructional design and delivery that has an extensive research base across all ages, abilities, settings, and content areas (Hall, 2002) and is therefore applicable to inclusive practices in high school. Design features include: (1) Big Ideas—those concepts, principles, or heuristics that facilitate the most efficient and broadest acquisition of knowledge; (2) Conspicuous Strategies—well designed approaches to solve problems (see also Schumaker and Deshler (2006) for a more in- depth treatment of this area); (3) Mediated Scaffolding—temporary support/guidance in the form of steps, tasks, materials, and personal support during initial learning that reduces the task complexity by structuring it into manageable chunks in order to increase successful task completion; (4) Strategic Integration—the combination of essential information in ways that result in new and more complex knowledge; (5) Judicious Review—application of content at different times and in different contexts; and (6) Primed Background Knowledge—building new knowledge by accessing prior information. Delivery practices include requiring frequent student responses, maintaining appropriate instructional pacing, providing adequate processing time, and providing feedback for correct and incorrect responses. Advanced Organization and Explicit Practice In a meta-analysis conducted by Swanson and Hoskyn (2001) two instructional tactics were found to moderate treatment outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities: teaching advanced organization skills and giving explicit practice. Teaching advanced organization skills included having students preview materials prior to instruction, directing students to focus on specific points, providing background information on the task, explicitly stating instructional objectives. Explicit practice included procedures such as review and practice, repeated practice, sequenced reviews, daily feedback, and weekly reviews.

330

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

Intensive Instruction Even when teachers use evidence-based practices to differentiate and enhance instruction, some students may not reach mastery of the curriculum standards. Teachers, with the support of other educational colleagues, may need to intensify instruction and/or intervene with other resources. Mellard and colleagues (2010) recommended that educators consider ten variables when determining how to intensify instruction: These variables include three dosage-related elements (minutes of instruction, frequency, and duration), as well as instructional group size, immediacy of corrective feedback, the mastery requirements of the content, the number of response opportunities, the number of transitions among contents or classes, the specificity and focus of curricular goals, and instructor specialty and skills. (p. 219) Use of Technology Educational software is an expanding means of supporting learning for students with learning and behavioral problems. For instruction, there are software programs that provide immediate, corrective feedback to individual students, as well as record student responses for the teacher. See Table 23.2 for a description of different educational software. Assistive technology is any item, piece of equipment, or product system, whether acquired commercially off the shelf, modified, or customized, that is used to increase maintain, or improve the functional capabilities of SWD. This can include a wide array of high- and low-tech devices such as pencil grips, laptop computers for taking notes, tape recorders for listening to recorded lectures or books, and spell checkers, to name a few. As technology, both instructional and assistive, becomes more and more available in schools and classrooms, it is imperative for teachers to plan for the type of technology that will be used in instruction and intervention. It is not only important to identify the type of technology, but perhaps more importantly to identify how it will enhance the instructional methods.

Table 23.2 Categories of Educational Software Category

Description

Drill-and-Practice

Allows the learners to practice facts, relationships, problems, vocabulary, and skills that have been previously learned, until the material is automatic Provides the same type of practice as drill-and-practice but uses a game format Provides for acquisition of new knowledge through explanations, descriptions, questions, and graphic illustrations Requires students to apply higher-order strategies and synthesize knowledge from multiple areas to solve problems Allows students to interact during events or phenomena that they are not able to experience in person Are computerized resources and references Helps teachers and students become efficient and productive managers of textual, numerical, and graphical information Includes word processors, spreadsheets, databases, graphics, and presentation programs

Instructional Game Tutorial Problem Solving Simulation Reference Tool

331

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

Recommendations for 21st Century Inclusion Given the rising performance expectations which frame education in high school, and the current landscape of inclusion and best practice considerations, the following recommendations are made for shaping inclusion in the 21st century: 1 Inclusion for SWD might best be framed within the larger context of including all learners as integral members of a community of learners. High school teachers, support personnel, and administrators are responsible for creating a culture of caring, collaboration, and competence in meeting a wide variety of student needs. 2 Educators need to approach the education of high school SWD with a sense of urgency because of the shortness of time available to teach them. For the same reason, it is crucial to accurately profi le the characteristics of these students so that programs can be matched to their unique needs (Deshler, Robinson, & Mellard, 2004) 3 Integrating high school SWD into general education classes begins, but cannot end, with placing them there. Students who have already been identified as having disabilities and are placed in special education because they need services must in fact receive them. Therefore, inclusion must focus on the delivery of special education and related services in the least restrictive environment, not just the provision of seat time in general education classes. 4 The CCSS initiative provides an historic opportunity to improve access to rigorous academic content standards for SWD. However, implementation of CCSS needs to address the characteristics of students, both with and without disabilities, in the secondary school setting (McLaughlin, 2012). 5 Rigor and relevance should be the guiding principles for implementing CCSS in secondary classrooms. Applying differentiated instruction and UDL principles will provide flexibility in implementation so that rigor does not become rigidity. 6 Although the CCSS are rooted in CCR, high school educators should pay specific attention to providing the link between curricula in content areas and college and career readiness skills. Instructional activities should make that connection directly. 7 It is unlikely that some key college and career readiness skills, as important as they are, will be assessed on high- stakes assessments, because they would be difficult to assess on a large scale. Oral communication and social skills are examples. However, these skills are known to be problematic in SWD and crucial to incorporate into the curricula for SWD. Options for assessing these skills at local levels should be explored. 8 Evidence-based instructional practices are only as effective as the ability to deliver them. Therefore, careful consideration must be given to the logistics involved in delivering inclusive services so that high- quality instruction can be implemented. 9 Because collaboration is a lynchpin, as described previously, administrators must provide the infrastructures to facilitate collaborative interaction among the professionals involved. An example of this is the creation of data-based decision-making teams. 10 Knowledgeable and skilled teachers are critical to the success of inclusive education. Therefore, carefully designed and ongoing professional learning opportunities must be planned and implemented in conjunction with the adoption of inclusive instructional practices. A system of high-quality professional learning, through collaborative structures such as professional learning communities and lesson studies, must be in place. 332

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

Conclusion The focus of this chapter was the 21st-century inclusion of SWD in high school general education classes. It called for a new orientation to the pedagogy based on less than ideal secondary and postsecondary outcomes for SWD, coupled with rising performance expectations, focused on the CCSS with the goal of college and career readiness. A major issue that was highlighted is the need to integrate domain and literacy learning in the context of disciplinary literacy. The history of inclusion with these adolescents includes mixed reviews about tangible academic outcomes. There has been considerable attention to co-teaching as a promising delivery structure, but with little empirical data. It is clear that more robust research is needed to guide educators in refi ning inclusion policies and structures. However, evidence does exist regarding sound instructional principles and practices for adolescents who struggle, including those with disabilities. Therein lies a good reason for optimism. Because educators do know something about what works with SWD, the rigorous 21st- century requirements just might just be the boost the system needs to up the ante in improving secondary and postsecondary outcomes for these adolescents.

References Avramidis, E., Bayless, P., & Burden, R. ( 2000 ). A survey into mainstream teachers’ attitudes towards the inclusion of children with special educational needs in the ordinary school in one local education authority. Educational Psychology, 20, 191–211. Casale-Giannola, D. ( 2012 ). Comparing inclusion in the secondary vocational and academic classrooms: Strengths, needs, and recommendations. American Secondary Education, 40 ( 2 ), 26 – 42 . Casner-Lotto, J. & Barrington, L. ( 2006 ). Are they really ready to work? The Conference Board, Corporate Voices for Working Families, Partnership for 21st Century Skills and Society for Human Resource Management. Retrieved from www.p21.org/storage/documents/FINAL_REPORT_PDF09– 29–06.pdf Cole, C. & McLeskey, J. (1997 ). Secondary inclusion programs for students with disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 29 ( 6 ), 1–15. Common Core State Standards Initiative [CCSSI] (2010). Introduction to the Common Course Standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org Cook, B. G., McDuffie-Landrum , K. A., Oshita, L., & Cook, S. C. ( 2011). Co-teaching and students with disabilities: A critical analysis of the empirical literature. In D. P. Hallahan & J. K. Kauffman (Eds.), The Handbook of Special Education (pp. 147–159 ). New York: Routledge. Council for Exceptional Children. ( 2007 ). Position on Response to Intervention (RTI): The unique role of special education and special educators. Reston, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/ Standards/Professional-Policy-and-Positions Council for Exceptional Children ( 2011). Common Core Standards: What special educators need to know. Retrieved from http://www.cec.sped.org/AM/Template.cfm?Section=CEC_ Today1&TEMPLATE=/CM/ContentDisplay.cfm&CONTENTID=15269 Deshler, D. D., Robinson, S., & Mellard, D. F. ( 2004 ). Instructional principles for optimizing outcomes for adolescents with learning disabilities. In M. K. Riley & T. A. Citro (Eds.), Best practices for the inclusionary classroom: Leading researchers talk directly with teachers (pp. 65 –79 ). Weston, MA: Learning Disabilities Association Worldwide. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J., & Woodruff, S. K. ( 2004 ). Improving the literacy skills of at-risk adolescents: A school-wide response. In D. S. Strickland & D. E. Alvermann (Eds.), Bridging the literacy achievement gap in grades 4–12 (pp. 86 –105). New York: Teachers College Press. Dukes, C. & Lamar-Dukes, P. ( 2009 ). Inclusion by design: Engineering inclusive practices in secondary schools, Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 ( 3 ), 16 –23. Ehren, B. & Whitmire, K. ( 2009 ). Speech-language pathologists as primary contributors to Response to Intervention at the secondary level. Seminars in Speech and Language, 30, 90 –104. 333

B.J. Ehren and M.E. Little

Ehren, B. J., Murza, K. A., & Malani, M. D. ( 2012 ). Disciplinary literacy from a speech-language pathologist’s perspective. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 85 –98. Ernst, C. & Rogers, M. ( 2009 ). Development of the inclusion attitude scale for high school teachers. Journal of Applied School Psychology, 25, 305 –322 . Faggella-Luby, M. N., Graner, P. S., Deshler, D. D., & Drew, S. V. ( 2012 ). Building a house on sand: Why disciplinary literacy is not sufficient to replace general strategies for adolescent learners who struggle. Topics in Language Disorders, 32, 69 – 84. Fenty, N. S., McDuffie-Landrum , K., & Fisher, G. ( 2012 ). Using collaboration, co-teaching, and question answer relationships to enhance content area literacy. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44 ( 6 ), 28 –37. Feuerborn, L. L., Sarin, K., & Tyre, A. D. ( 2011). Response to intervention in secondary schools. Principal Leadership, 11 ( 8 ), 50 –54. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. ( 2003 ). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Defi nitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 157–171. Hall, T. ( 2002 ). Explicit instruction. Wakefield, MA: National Center on Accessing the General Curriculum. Retrieved from http://aim.cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/ explicit_instruction Hall, T., Strangman, N., & Meyer, A. ( 2009 ). Differentiated instruction and implications for UDL Implementation. National Center on Accessible Instruction Materials. Retrieved from http://aim. cast.org/learn/historyarchive/backgroundpapers/differentiated_instruction_udl Halvorsen, A. & Neary, T. ( 2001). Building inclusive schools: tools and strategies for success. Needham Heights, MA : Allyn & Bacon. Heller, R. & Greenleaf, C. ( 2007 ). Literacy instruction in the content areas: Getting to the core of middle and high school improvement. Washington, DC : Alliance for Excellent Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004, 20 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. ( 2004 ). International Reading Association (2009). Guiding principles for educators from the IRA Commission on RTI. Retrieved from http://reading.org/Libraries/Resources/RTI_brochure_web.pdf King, S.A., Lemons, C. J., & Hill, D. R. ( 2012 ). Response to intervention in secondary schools: Considerations for administrators. NASSP Bulletin, 96 (1), 5 –22 . Knackendoffel, E., Robinson, S., Deshler, D., & Schumaker, J. (1992 ). Collaborative problem solving. Lawrence, KS : Edge Enterprises. Lazarus, S. S., Wu, Y. C., Altman, J., & Thurlow, M. L. ( 2010 ). NCEO brief: The characteristics of low performing students on large-scale assessments. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Lee, C. & Spratley, A. ( 2009 ). Reading in the disciplines and the challenges of adolescent literacy. New York: Carnegie Corporation of New York. Lenz, B.K., Deshler, D. D., & Kissam, B. ( 2004 ). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA ; Pearson. Little, M. E. ( 2009 ). Response to intervention for teachers: Classroom instructional problem solving. Denver, CO : Love Publishing. Little, M. E. ( 2013 ). Response to intervention lesson planning and instructional decision-making for teachers. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources. Mastropieri, M. & Scruggs, T. ( 2001). Promoting inclusion in secondary classrooms. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 265 –274. Mastropieri, M. A., Scruggs, T. E., Graetz, J, Norland, J., Gardizi, W., & McDuffie, K. ( 2005). Case studies in co-teaching in the content areas: Successes, failures and challenges. Intervention in School and Clinic, 40, 260 –270. McLaughlin, M. J. ( 2012 ). Access for all: Six principles for principals when implementing CCSS for students with disabilities. Principal, September/October, 22 –26. Mellard, D., McKnight, M., & Jordan, J. ( 2010 ). RTI tier structures and instructional intensity. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 217–225. doi:10.1111/j.1540–5826.2010.00319.x Murawski, W. W. ( 2006 ). Student outcomes in co-taught secondary English classes: How can we improve ? Reading and Writing Quarterly, 22, 227–247. Murawski, W. W. & Swanson, H. L. ( 2001) A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data ? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258 –267. 334

High School Inclusion for the 21st Century

National Association of State Directors of Special Education ( 2005). Response to intervention. Washington, DC : Author. National Academies Committee on Science, Engineering, and Public Policy [COSEPUP] . ( 2007 ). Rising above the gathering storm: Energizing and employing America for a brighter economic future. Washington, DC : National Academies Press. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Huang, T., Shaver, D., Knokey, A-M., Yu, J., Contreras, E., et al. ( 2011). Secondary school programs and performance of students with disabilities. A special topic report of findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2012–3000). U.S. Department of Education. Washington, DC : National Center for Special Education Research. No Child Left Behind Act. ( 2001). (P.L. 107–110 ). Partnership for 21st Century Skills ( 2008 ). 21st century skills, education and competitiveness: A resource and policy guide. Tucson, AZ : Author. Partnership for 21st Century Skills ( 2010 ). Principles and recommendations for 21st century readiness for every child: A guide to the reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Tucson, AZ : Author. Ritter, C., Michel, C., & Irby, B. (1999 ). Concerning inclusion: perceptions of middle school students, their parents, and teachers. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 18 ( 2 ), 10 –17. Salend, S. J. & Duhaney, L. (1999 ). The impact of inclusion on students with and without disabilities and their educators, Remedial & Special Education, 20, 114 –127. Schumaker, J. & Deshler, D. ( 2006 ). Teaching adolescents to be strategic learners. In D. Deshler & J. Schumaker (Eds.). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general education curriculum (pp. 121–156 ). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Shanahan, T. & Shanahan, C. ( 2008 ). Teaching disciplinary literacy to adolescents: Rethinking content area literacy. Harvard Educational Review, 78, 40 –59. Stainback, S. B., Stainback, W. C., & Harris, K. C. (1989 ). Support facilitation: An emerging role for special educators. Teacher Education and Special Education, 12, 148 –153. Swanson, H. L. & Hoskyn, M. ( 2001). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities: A component and composite analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 109 –119. Tomlinson, C. A. ( 2003 ). Differentiating instruction. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Thurlow, M., Quenemoen, R., Altman, J., & Cuthbert, M. ( 2008 ). Trends in the participation and performance of students with disabilities (Technical Report 50). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Retrieved October 15, 2012 , from http://www.cehd. umn.edu/NCEO/OnlinePubs/Tech50/TR50report.pdf Tilly, W. D. ( 2006 ). Diagnosing the learning enabled: The promise of response to intervention. Perspectives, 32 (1), 20 –24. Tucker, M. S. (1996 ). Standards-based education for workplace readiness. In L. B. Resnick & J. G. Wirt (Eds.), Linking school and work: Roles for standards and assessment (pp. 23 –51). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Publishers. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation and Policy Development, ESEA Blueprint for Reform. Washington, D.C., 2010. U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. 30th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2008, Washington, D.C., 2011. U.S. Department of Labor, Office of Disability Employment Policy ( 2012 ). Youth employment rate. Retrieved from www.dol.gov/odep/categories/youth/youthemployment.htm#.UMnrUqXVnOM Van Reusen, A. K., Shoho, A. R., & Barker, K. S. ( 2001). High school teacher attitudes toward inclusion. High School Journal, 84, 7–21. Vaughn, S. & Chard, D. ( 2006 ). Three-tier intervention research studies: Description of two related projects. Perspectives, 32 (1), 30 –34. Villa, R. A. Thousand, J. S., & Nevin, A. I. ( 2008 ). A guide to co-teaching: Practical tips for facilitating student learning, 2nd Ed. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

335

This page intentionally left blank

Section III

Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with Severe Disabilities Section Editors: Fred Spooner1 and Nancy L. Waldron2

There are several functions of educating students with severe disabilities, such as furthering inclusion, independence, self- determination, and quality of life. With the advent of PL 94–142, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act in 1975, and related legislation through its reauthorization in 2004 (IDEA), we as a profession continue to believe that children with disabilities at all levels have a right to a free appropriate education in the least restrictive environment, just like other children! Since the reauthorization in 1997, the component of access to and progress in the general education curriculum is a necessary, but not sufficient condition to continue to believe that students with severe disabilities should be educated in the general education setting. The recent adoption of the Common Core State Standards by many states in English Language Arts and mathematics sets the stage for a common set of standards for all students, at some level increasing the likelihood that students with severe disabilities will not only be physically present in classrooms, but also will be exposed to similar content. Students with severe disabilities may be exposed to content, but exposure does not guarantee learning. Learning content in the general education curriculum will depend in large part on the instructional strategies which are used to impart this subject matter. In addition to access and the Common Core State Standards, there are other ground-breaking applications like School-Wide Positive Behavior Support, which increase the likelihood of students staying in school once they have been initially included. Section III of this volume will address many of the aforementioned effective strategies. For example, the underlying principles of accessing the general education curriculum and

1 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 2 University of Florida 337

F. Spooner and N.L. Waldron

other components such as high quality instruction, how to teach core content areas (literacy, mathematics, science, and social studies), and alternate assessment and progress monitoring will be examined. In facilitating the inclusion of students with severe disabilities into general education environments, the overall school environment should be structured to be accommodating, building on the concept of school-wide positive behavior support. A small percentage of students will need more highly prescribed support (Tier 3 level interventions). Another important aspect of making inclusion work is the key contribution of teacher planning and collaboration. Within this planning and collaboration is an additional support: the support of using chronological-age peers to impart instructional programs. In addition to the movement toward general curriculum access, we also are aware that functional skills continue to be a necessary part of the curriculum (e.g., self- determination and life skills and transition).

338

24 Using Principles of High Quality Instruction in the General Education Classroom to Provide Access to the General Education Curriculum Diane M. Browder1, Melissa E. Hudson2, and Leah Wood1

Setting the Stage Historically, educators assumed that students with severe disabilities needed an entirely different curriculum than their peers who were non- disabled. When the fi rst public school programs were established in the 1970s, educators made adaptations from early childhood curricula and classified some students as “trainable” (not able to learn academics) and others as “educable” (able to learn academics). When the focus shifted to teaching curricula derived from activities typically performed at home or in the community, addressing these “functional life skills” often created a school day that differed greatly from that of students without disabilities. While other students were learning to read or compute mathematics, students with severe disabilities were learning to brush their teeth, cross the street, and make a purchase at the store. Even when students were included in general education classrooms, the content of their instruction was often an IEP goal unrelated to what the rest of the class was learning. For example, while other students learned to identify parallelograms in geometry, the student with severe disabilities might be practicing communication skills or counting money. In the 21st century, students with severe disabilities are fi nally receiving the opportunity to learn what all students their age learn. Since the passage of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act amendments (IDEA, 1997), all students have access to the general curriculum and schools must assess students’ achievement of state standards. Even alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards for students with significant cognitive disabilities must align with the state’s academic content standards (U.S. Department of Education, 2005).

1 University of North Corolina at Charlotte 2 American Institutes for Research in Washington, DC 339

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

Most states have now adopted the Common Core State Standards in English Language Arts (ELA) and Mathematics (CCSS; National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers, 2010) and, as a result, states are revising their alternate assessments to reflect these new common standards. The current challenge is for educators to fi nd meaningful ways to teach these CCSS to students with severe disabilities while also providing enough instruction in non-academic life skills to meet individual student needs. Planning instruction that aligns with the state’s standards (e.g., CCSS) can be especially daunting given the lack of emphasis on academic learning in many published resources. Most research for students with severe disabilities has focused on nonacademic activities, even when addressing academic content. Until recently, research in reading was primarily focused on functional sight word instruction (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006), in mathematics on money and simple computation (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008), and in science primarily on daily living tasks (Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, & DiBiase, 2011). In this chapter, we will review recent research that has provided models for teaching state standards to students with severe disabilities. Not everyone has agreed on the current curricular priorities for students with severe disabilities. Some educators worry that teaching academic standards detracts from other life skills priorities (e.g., Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011). Others advocate for teaching grade-aligned content standards to ensure a full educational opportunity (e.g., Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012). Some educators insist that access to the general curriculum can only occur in a general education classroom (e.g., Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2008–2009). While federal law has not required that all students be served in general education classrooms, it does require that all students have access to general curriculum content (IDEA, 1997). The general education classroom is most likely where students will have the greatest access to the state standards taught by a content expert. In this chapter we focus on teaching students with severe disabilities general curriculum content in general education classrooms.

What We Know from Research on Teaching Academics in General Education In a comprehensive review of the research literature, Spooner, Knight, Browder, and Smith (2012) identified methods for teaching academic content to students with severe disabilities. In nearly all of this research, principles of behavior analysis were used, and systematic prompting with feedback was found to have a strong evidence-base. While most studies in this review were conducted in self-contained special education settings, the importance of systematic instruction was reconfi rmed in a comprehensive review of interventions provided in general education classrooms to teach academic skills, conducted by Hudson, Browder, and Wood (2013). Hudson et al. found 17 experimental studies that focused on academic learning in general education settings by students with moderate or severe intellectual disabilities. The studies varied across instructional strategies (e.g., embedded trial instruction, system of least prompts, multiple exemplars, graphic organizers), modes of delivery (e.g., peer tutors, paraeducators, general educators), and content (e.g., science, math, literacy). Despite these variations, the results indicated that students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities could learn academic content in general education settings. The strategies used in these inclusive contexts will now be described in more detail. 340

Access to the General Education Curriculum

Strategies Embedded Time Delay Instruction The fi rst strategy Hudson et al. (2013) found to be evidence-based involved embedding a systematic instructional trial in the ongoing milieu of a general education lesson. An instructional trial is an opportunity for a student to make a discrete response (e.g., read a word, identify a number) or a chained response (e.g., read a passage, solve a problem). An instructional session may be comprised of a single trial or multiple trials, depending on how many trials the student needs to adequately practice the skill. These trials can be massed together by offering several opportunities in succession in which the student makes the same or similar responses (e.g., reading a list of words or identifying the same word several times in a row). The trials can also be distributed across an activity (e.g., identifying the number 5 whenever it shows up in the course of a lesson). When these distributed trials are embedded within a naturally occurring lesson or routine, it is called “embedded instruction.” Embedding instructional trials may promote generalization of skills due to the natural fluctuation of materials, settings, and teachers throughout typical instruction. Given an opportunity to respond, students may need a prompt, such as a model of touching or saying the correct answer. Once a prompt is used, the challenge then is to fade this prompt so that the student provides the response without assistance. Time delay is an evidence-based practice that has been widely used in research on literacy for students with severe disabilities to fade prompting (Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, & Baker, 2009). When using time delay, the prompt is fi rst presented along with the discriminative stimulus that starts the instructional trial. For example, the teacher says the word “friends” while holding up a flash card with the word printed on it. This first trial is conducted at a 0-s delay to promote errorless responding. Over teaching trials, the instructor inserts small increments of time (e.g., 2 s) between presenting the target stimulus and giving the prompt. In this example, the teacher shows the flash card, waits 2 s for the student to anticipate the correct response, and, if the student does not answer, models the correct response by saying “friends.” The student then repeats the answer “friends.” Over time, the student begins to anticipate the correct response before the prompt. Researchers have used a constant time delay method in which a preset number of 0-s delay trials are given and then the prompt is delayed by a constant amount of time (e.g., 4 s). Another form of time delay used in research is progressive time delay, in which the prompt is delayed gradually across trials (e.g., 2 s, 4 s, 6 s, 8 s). As the student anticipates the correct response before the prompt, stimulus control is transferred from the prompt to the target stimulus. Time delay can be an efficient and effective method of instruction by promoting near errorless learning. Time delay methodology is primarily used in research using embedded trial instruction. These applications have been successful across grade-levels and content areas. For example, Johnson, McDonnell, Holzwarth, and Hunter (2004) used embedded trials and constant time delay to teach sight words (e.g., police, stop, danger) from a fi rst grade reading curriculum to a 7-year- old student with developmental disabilities. The special education teacher, general education teacher, and a member of the research team worked collaboratively to select words for instruction that were part of the standard curriculum being taught in the general education classroom before the words were taught to general education students. The general education teacher delivered embedded trial instruction during opening or closing activities, transitions, or breaks. Since sight word instruction was completed before the words were introduced to other students, the student with disabilities was often the fi rst to identify a sight word when it was introduced to the class. 341

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

Similarly, Jameson, Walker, Utley, and Maughan (2012) examined the effects of embedding ELA instruction to teach pre-reading skills to an elementary-aged student with developmental disabilities and autism spectrum disorder. Teachers and researchers derived target pre-reading skills from the state’s standards for phonological and phonemic awareness. The special education teacher taught the student to recognize similar and dissimilar word sounds. For instance, given a list of CVC words, the student learned to identify words with similar or dissimilar beginning or ending sounds. Embedded trial instruction has also been used to teach mathematics to elementary-aged students. Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, and Jameson (2004) conducted a study in which general education teachers delivered instruction to students with moderate intellectual disability (ID) in the second and fi fth grade. One teacher taught a student to identify the numerals 0–9, while another teacher taught time telling at 15 and 30 minutes past the hour, consistent with the second grade state mathematics standard of telling time. Research on embedded trial instruction in middle school includes skills derived from science, social studies, foreign language, and life skills content areas. Jameson, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, and Polychronis (2007) used embedded trial instruction with constant time delay to teach key vocabulary defi nitions and concepts to middle school students with developmental disabilities that related to the general curriculum content. Students received instruction in either a teen living or earth science class. A special education teacher and paraeducator embedded trials during natural opportunities (e.g., breaks, transitions) in the lesson. In another study, Riesen, McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, and Jameson (2003) taught science (e.g., gram, mass, gravity) and German vocabulary sight words (e.g., eins, zwie, drei) to seventh and eighth grade students with moderate ID. Paraeducators instructed students to either read or defi ne each target word. The constant time delay instructional trials were embedded during naturalistic opportunities (e.g., breaks, transitions) in the general education classroom. Embedded time delay instruction has also been used to teach science and social studies content to students in middle school. McDonnell et al. (2006) trained paraeducators to teach defi nitions from physics (e.g., atom: the smallest part of an element), biology (e.g., metabolism: process by which cells turn fuel into energy), and U.S. History (e.g., values: principles we live by). Paraeducators embedded instructional trials using constant time delay during natural transitions or breaks in classwide instruction. Additionally, paraeducators collected naturalistic probes during transitions or breaks using stimulus materials specific to the general education classroom. For instance, three students received target word probes on worksheets that were similar in format to worksheets completed by the other students in the class. System of Least Prompts A second prompting strategy that can be applied to academic instruction is the system of least prompts, also call “least intrusive prompting.” While most applications of time delay use one prompt, the system of least prompts includes two or more prompts given in sequence, beginning with the least intrusive level of assistance (typically a verbal prompt). For example, after giving the student the opportunity to use a calculator to add two numbers, the teacher may tell the student the fi rst step: “enter the fi rst number” (verbal prompt). If the student is successful, the teacher provides praise and moves on to the next step. If the student does not respond or begins to make an error, the teacher shows the student what to do: “enter 5 like this; now you do it” (model). The student may imitate this model and be ready to move on to the next step. If not, the teacher guides the student to respond: “let me help you press the 5” (physical prompt). 342

Access to the General Education Curriculum

Collins, Branson, Hall, and Rankin (2001) used the system of least prompts and an 11-step task analysis to teach four letter-writing components (i.e., date, greeting, body, and closing) to three high school students in a twelfth grade composition class. Although correct spelling and grammar were not target skills in this study, the general education English teacher and peer tutors instructed the students to use conventional spacing (e.g., position the date flush left), use appropriate capitalization (i.e., Dear, Sincerely, the fi rst letters in a sentence or name), insert a comma after “Dear” and “Sincerely,” and insert a space before and after the body of the letter. Through verbal and model prompts, students produced a letter to a peer on a topic provided by the general education teacher. Students received directions for writing a letter through delivery of verbal prompts (i.e., directional prompts), gestures (i.e., verbal directions with pointing to target portion of the paper), modeling (e.g., verbal directions with modeling of target skill), and physical guidance (e.g., verbal direction and physical guidance to perform target skill). All students reached criterion across skills over an average of 14 sessions. Hudson, Browder, and Jimenez (2014) developed another option for using the system of least prompts to increase the listening comprehension of adapted grade-level text. Peer tutors read aloud adapted science passages and asked factual recall and inferential comprehension questions. When students needed help to answer a factual recall comprehension question, peer tutors delivered four levels of prompts as needed, including: (a) reading selected text containing the target response again, (b) reading the sentence containing the target response again, (c) telling the target response, and (d) showing the target response. For inferential comprehension questions, the fi rst and last prompts were the same as factual recall questions, but the second and that third prompts involved a think aloud. For the think aloud, peer tutors asked participants to think about their experience as the fi rst level prompt (e.g., How do you feel when you haven’t eaten since breakfast? ). If the student did not make the correct response, the peer tutors modeled how they related to the experience (e.g., I feel hungry when I haven’t eaten since breakfast.) In a similar strategy, Hudson and Browder (in press) used the system of least prompts and read-alouds of adapted literature to teach listening comprehension to fourth and fi fth grade students with moderate ID. In this application of the system of least prompts, the initial prompt included three instructional scaffolds. First, students were told the type of “wh-” word question that was going to be asked (e.g., The next question is a who question). Second, a rule for the wh- word question was given (e.g., When you hear who, listen for a person’s name ). Third, students were told to listen for relevant information as the text was read again (e.g., Listen for who was hurt as the text is read again). All of the participating students improved their listening comprehension with this approach. Multiple Exemplars Besides prompting, another instructional strategy is to use multiple exemplars of the target material to promote generalization of the academic concept. Through exposure to multiple representations of a single concept, students are able to learn the essential component of a concept rather than fi xate on an irrelevant attribute of the presentations of the concept (Collins, 2012). For example, researchers have shown how students can acquire science concepts when materials are varied (e.g., Jimenez, Browder, & Courtade, 2009; Knight, 2010; Knight, Smith, Spooner, & Browder, 2012). Knight (2010) evaluated the effects of supported electronic text and explicit instruction on science comprehension for four middle school students with autism spectrum disorders (ASD). The expository science text was presented in an electronic book format created using Book Builder™, a free online 343

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

authoring tool. Electronic books were based on grade-appropriate science standards from the Read to Achieve: Comprehending Content Area Text (Marchand-Martella & Martella, 2010) and all the resources available in Book Builder™ (i.e., coaches, illustrations, hyperlinked vocabulary, arrows to turn the page, text-to-speech) were used. Coaches were avatars within the electronic book that provided support for comprehension (i.e., predicting, questioning, and summarizing), and students directed the amount of help that they received (i.e., a little, more, a lot). Seven questions were developed for each book, which included three vocabulary questions, three literal comprehension questions, and one generalized application question. Students selected their responses from an array of four (i.e., one correct and three distractors). Jimenez et al. (2009) used multiple exemplars along with time delay and task-analytic instruction to teach three middle school students with moderate intellectual disability to complete an inquiry-based lesson with science concepts. A science story and a KWHL (i.e., K = Know; W = Want to know; H = How to fi nd out; L = Learned) workbook were created for each of the two science concepts taught in the study (i.e., solutes dissolve faster in hot liquids; it precipitates when the liquid in clouds get heavy). The story introduced a question that became the focus of the science experiment (e.g., Why do you think it rains, snows, or sleets? Let’s fi nd out! We need to ask: what happens when the liquid in clouds get heavy?) A 15-step science inquiry task analysis was developed to complete the KWHL chart during the inquiry science lesson (e.g., points to K on the KWHL chart and reads “What do we know?”) During individual sessions, participants learned the science concept using the science story. Use of the KWHL chart was taught by asking inquiry-based questions (e.g., How would you like to learn more about precipitation?) and modeling a correct response by pointing to the “H” on the KWHL chart (i.e., 0-s delay). Following individual instruction, participants joined their peers in seventh grade science class, where the special and general education teachers co-taught an inquiry lesson. The concept was taught using different types of materials (e.g., red and yellow colored solvents) as well as varied solutes (e.g., bouillon cube, sugar cube, rock salt). Knight et al. (2012) used examples and non-examples with explicit instruction to teach 15 science descriptors (e.g., different, wet, on, change) to three elementary students with ASD and mild or moderate ID. During the model-lead-test intervention, five objects were displayed (i.e., three examples and two non- examples). The interventionist provided a model of the objects (e.g., “this is wet ” or “this is not wet ”). During the lead phase, students named or pointed to the objects with the interventionist, and during the test phase, the objects were shuffled and participants were given an opportunity to name each object. All three participants increased the number of science descriptors they acquired, and some generalized use of the science descriptors to novel objects, pictures, and an inquiry science lesson in general education. Graphic Organizers A fourth strategy to consider is the use of graphic organizers, in which visual representation of content is enhanced by organizational tools for categorizing or describing important content. The National Reading Panel (2000) identified the use of graphic organizers as one of the eight successful methods for teaching comprehension in general education settings. While the use of graphic organizers in special education is not uncommon, until recently most of the research on the effects of graphic organizers on learning has been conducted with students with learning disabilities (see the meta-analysis by Dexter & Hughes, 2011).

344

Access to the General Education Curriculum

The use of graphic organizers, however, is beginning to appear in the literature for teaching academics to students with severe disabilities (Browder, Jimenez, & Trela, 2012; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Zakas, 2011). For example, Jimenez et al. (2012) taught peers without disabilities to embed constant time delay to teach the use of a KWHL chart for students with moderate ID. The general education teacher provided inquiry science instruction to all students, including daily use of the KWHL chart, and peer tutors taught students to follow components of the KWHL chart using constant time delay instructional trials embedded in the general education science lesson. Students also received embedded instruction from their peers on the science concepts addressed in the inquiry lesson. The number of correct science responses increased for all five participants across all science units taught throughout the study. Browder et al. (2012) used task-analytic instruction, read-alouds of math word problems, and a graphic organizer to teach four middle school students with moderate ID to solve math problems derived from state middle- school math standards. Four units of instruction were created that included eight word problems for each math standard (i.e., algebra, data analysis, geometry, measurement) and an adapted math story for each problem based on activities (e.g., shopping, voting) and numbers (i.e., 1–10) familiar to students. Adapted math stories were created by pairing key vocabulary with picture symbols using picture symbol software. A graphic organizer was created for each unit that students used to interact with the math content (e.g., department store site map in the geometry unit) during instruction. Task-analytic instruction included the steps needed to solve the math problem (e.g., identify point on a map, draw line from point to point). The special education teacher used the system of least prompts as needed, and prompts included non- specific verbal direction, specific verbal direction, model, and physical guidance. Although the study by Browder and colleagues was conducted in a self- contained classroom, these math graphic organizers might be embedded in general education with peer support such as that used by Jimenez et al. (2012). Zakas (2011) also used a graphic organizer in a self-contained setting to improve comprehension of self-read history passages for three middle school students with ASD and ID. Zakas adapted grade-level social studies text by summarizing story passages and adding picture symbols for main ideas and key vocabulary. Students first learned defi nitions for the words used in the graphic organizer (i.e., event, people, location, time, detail, sequence, and outcome ) and demonstrated comprehension by matching each vocabulary word to its defi nition. Next, students learned to complete a graphic organizer using scripted lessons in which the student read the passage and answered questions to complete the graphic organizer (e.g., What was the event?). If needed, prompts were provided (e.g., stating the defi nition of the vocabulary word, rereading the text). When completed, the graphic organizer contained (a) the event, (b) the people involved in the event, (c) the location of the event, (d) three details from the passage, and (e) the outcome of the event. Generalization was measured using new passages not used for instruction.

Delivery of Instruction Although systematic prompting and feedback is an effective strategy for students with severe disabilities, fi nding ways to deliver this instruction in a general education class can be challenging. The research in inclusive settings offers several models for who might be effective in providing systematic instruction.

345

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

Peer Tutors Peers are a natural and effective means of providing support for students with disabilities in the school environment. Daily interactions with peers provide students with models for various academic and functional activities and skills. Although opportunities for peers and students with disabilities to interact are often a typical component of a school day, literature supports the practice of explicitly teaching peers skills and strategies for providing instruction to others. Within this robust body of research exists a growing subset of studies specifically showing that peers can be effective instructors for students with moderate and severe ID (e.g., Godsey, Schuster, Lingo, Collins, & Kleinert, 2008; Hudson & Browder, in press; Hudson et al., 2014; Jameson, McDonnell, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2008; Jimenez et al., 2012). Before peers can be asked to provide systematic instruction such as time delay, some method is needed to build the peers’ capacity for delivering this instruction. Consideration also needs to be given to how the peers will maintain their own academic learning. One option for building capacity for instructional delivery is to provide the peers with a manual and some training. Using a detailed manual and specific verbal feedback, Jameson et al. (2008) trained peer tutors to teach health and art concepts to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Jameson et al. developed a three-page training manual that specifically described procedures for embedding constant time delay trials in typical classroom routines. Peers may be able to learn the procedures without a manual if sample materials are provided. Jimenez et al. (2012) trained peers to embed a minimum of nine trials per session in the science classroom using constant time delay. Additionally, peers learned to embed selfmonitoring trials using a KWHL chart. A third option is to provide the peer tutor with a script to read while delivering instruction (e.g., Hudson & Browder, in press; Hudson et al., 2014; Jameson et al., 2008; Wolery, Anthony, Snyder, Werts, & Katzenmeyer, 1997). For example, Jameson et al. (2008) gave middle school peer tutors an example of an instructional script to use in providing embedded constant time delay instruction during general education class. For younger peer tutors, Wolery et al. (1997) placed target stimuli on the front of 10cm × 15cm white cards and a script for delivering time delay instructional trials on the back. The cards were bound together into a book using black comb and could be rebound as needed. Researchers using peer tutors to deliver academic instruction in general education classrooms have also evaluated the impact of peer tutoring on the peer tutors (e.g., Hudson & Browder, in press; Jameson et al., 2008, 2012). Results from these studies are consistent with previous research (e.g., Carter, Cushing, Clark & Kennedy, 2005; McDonnell, Thorson, Allen, & Mathot-Buckner, 2000) that found benefits for both students with and without disabilities. Paraeducators Often paraeducators deliver instruction and provide support to students with disabilities across all domains of a school environment. Paraeducators are an essential element of the services provided to students with severe disabilities due to the varied and intricate needs of this population. Careful and consistent collaboration between the special education teacher and the paraeducator can help ensure the likelihood that paraeducators are delivering supports and instruction with fidelity and to the appropriate extent. There is a need for caution in relying on paraeducators. For instance, one-on-one peer assistance in a general education setting may be less stigmatizing than one- on-one adult assistance. Another caveat is that paraeducators, like peer tutors, are not typically trained in delivering instruction to students with severe disabilities in a general education classroom. As students with severe 346

Access to the General Education Curriculum

disabilities are increasingly educated alongside their peers, consideration should be given to methods used to train paraeducators to promote such learning. Similarly to peers, paraeducators may benefit from having scripts, manuals, and special training sessions ( Jameson et al., 2007). General Education Teacher General education teachers need to teach academic content to a large numbers of students and may not have either the training or the time to provide one-to-one or small-group systematic instruction. However, with explicit training on embedding instruction into naturalistic classroom routines, general education teachers may have the potential to promote learning of students with severe disabilities during whole class instruction. Wolery et al. (1997) provided general education teachers with detailed training, which included explicit instruction for how to integrate these procedures into their regular teaching. Wolery and colleagues taught three general education teachers to embed instructional trials using constant time delay. A less intensive role for the general education teacher might be to provide opportunities for the student with severe disabilities to generalize learned content. Hudson and Browder (in press) taught a fi fth grade general education teacher to implement the system of least prompts during generalization probes of listening comprehension during literacy class. Another option is for the special education teacher to provide these embedded trials in a co-teaching context. Universal Design for Learning While the strategies offered so far describe ways to modify an existing general education lesson so that students with severe disabilities can learn academic content (e.g., by embedding trials), as the teaching team gets to know the needs of all learners in the classroom, lessons can be planned from the onset to be inclusive. When instruction is planned from the onset to be responsive to the needs of all learners it is called Universal Design for Learning (UDL). Universal Design for Learning originates from efforts to reduce physical barriers in architecture (e.g., curb cuts in sidewalks) and, when applied to learning, is intended to increase access to learning by reducing physical, cognitive, intellectual, and organizational barriers (Center for Applied Science Technology: www.cast.org/ ). The overarching premise of UDL is that meeting the instructional needs of all students improves the educational experience of everyone receiving instruction, not just the individual who learns differently (Rose, 2011). As a result, planning before instruction (rather than retro-fitting) generates different ways for students to acquire information and knowledge, demonstrate learning, and be challenged and motivated to learn. When planning universally designed lessons, the teacher considers multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement. For example, by providing graphics along with text on handouts and reviewing them in a read aloud, more students may be able to follow key points (multiple means of representation). Allowing students to either write out their answers, share them with a peer, or use an illustration makes it possible for more learners to show what they know (multiple means of expression). If students also have options to learn the material through a cooperative learning group, learning center, or media presentation, multiple opportunities for engagement are offered. Unfortunately, research on applying principles of UDL has been scant. Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, and Browder (2007) found that a short teacher training session on UDL enabled general and special education teachers to develop lesson plans that involved a student with a mild or severe cognitive disability. McDonnell, Mathot-Buckner, Thorson, and Fister (2001) demonstrated how preplanning by general and special education teaching 347

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

teams produced academic learning for students with and without disabilities. McDonnell and colleagues used multi- element curricula, accommodations, and peer tutoring to teach three students with moderate ID physical education, history, and pre-algebra skills.

Guidelines for Choosing an Instructional Strategy While knowing the instructional strategies available is important, it also is helpful to know when to apply a particular strategy. The fi rst rule of thumb in planning instruction for students with severe disabilities in general education settings should be “no more different than necessary.” Copeland and Cosbey (2008–2009) emphasize using existing general education practices as well as the use of practices found to be evidence-based in special education settings in general education settings. When students with severe disabilities can learn with the same activity, materials, and instruction as all students in the class, planning time is minimized and social inclusion is promoted. As described in the last section on UDL, if instruction for the entire class has been planned to have multiple means of representation, expression, and engagement, the student with severe disabilities is more likely to be able to participate. Even with UDL planning and applying the rule of “no more different than necessary,” there will be times when a student with severe disabilities needs the individualized strategies described in this chapter. This planning can be time consuming, so it may be useful to consider categories of academic tasks and strategies that may be applicable across these types of tasks. For example, when students are reviewing new terms, it may be helpful to have a specific strategy that is used for the student with severe disabilities whether the terms are in reading, math, science, or social studies. Table 24.1 provides guidelines for choosing an instructional strategy.

Table 24.1 Examples of Academic Tasks and Suggested Strategies Academic Task Type

Examples

Strategy

Vocabulary definitions

Reading vocabulary; Science definitions

Embedded time delay Collins, Evans, CreechGalloway, Karl, & Miller, 2007; Jameson et al., 2008

Generalized concepts

More/less Precipitation Science concept Taxation

Multiple exemplar

Jimenez et al., 2009; Knight et al., 2012

Multistep process

Solve an equation Use inquiry Participate in shared reading

Task analysis with system of least intrusive prompting

Jimenez et al., 2008

Comprehension of text

Adapted novel Biographies Science content Social studies

Adapted text; system of least intrusive prompting for comprehension

Hudson & Browder, in press

348

Research Example

Access to the General Education Curriculum

Summary Planning effective instruction is required for more students with severe disabilities to learn state standards in general education classrooms. This chapter has offered some starting points for teachers to build capacity to include all students in learning state standards into general education classrooms. We recommend beginning with universal design for instruction. Although the research on UDL is sparse, creating lessons for the whole class that are flexible for individual learner needs may save time and maximize learning for all students. When individual supports for learning are needed, systematic prompting strategies, multiple exemplars, and graphic organizers offer strategies for students with severe disabilities to master the content. These supports may be delivered by peers, paraeducators, or teachers.

References Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. ( 2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21. Browder, D. M., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. N. ( 2009 ). Using time delay to teach picture and word recognition to identify evidence-based practice for students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343 –364. Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B. A., & Trela, K. ( 2012 ). Grade-aligned math instruction for secondary students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 373 –388. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. ( 2008 ). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407– 432 . Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. ( 2006 ). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392 – 408. Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2005). Effects of peer support interventions on student’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15 –25. Collins, B. ( 2012 ). Systematic instruction for students with moderate and severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Collins, B. C., Branson, T. A., Hall, M., & Rankin, S. W. ( 2001). Teaching secondary students with moderate disabilities in an inclusive academic classroom setting. Journal of Development and Physical Disabilities, 13, 41–59. Collins, B. C., Evans, A., Creech-Galloway, C., Karl, J., & Miller, A. ( 2007 ). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220 –233. Copeland, S. R. & Cosbey, J. (2008–2009 ). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 214 –227. Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. ( 2012 ). Seven reasons to promote standards– based instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3 –13. Dexter, D. D. & Hughes, C. A. ( 2011). Graphic organizers and students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities, 34, 51–72 . Godsey, J. R., Schuster, J. W., Lingo, A. S., Collins, B. C., & Kleinert, H. L. ( 2008 ). Peer-implemented time delay procedures on the acquisition of chained tasks by students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 111–122 . Hudson, M. E., & Browder, D. M. (in press ). Improving listening comprehension responses for students with moderate intellectual disability during literacy class. Research and Practice for Persons with Servere Disabilities. Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M., & Jimenez, B. (2014). Effects of a peer-delivered system of least prompts intervention with adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for students with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 49, 60 –77. 349

D. M. Browder, M.E. Hudson, and L. Wood

Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M. & Wood, L. (2013). Review of experimental research on academic learning by students with moderate and severe intellectual disability in general education. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38, 17–29. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990 ) (amended 1997). Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2008–2009 ). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33–34, 175 –195. Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Riesen, T., & Polychronis, S. ( 2007 ). A comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general education classroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the special education classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 23 – 44. Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., & Riesen, T. ( 2008 ). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346 –363. Jameson, J. M., Walker, R., Utley, K., & Maughan, R. ( 2012 ). A comparison of embedded total task instruction in teaching behavior chains to massed one-to-one instruction for students with ID: Accessing general education settings and core academic content. Behavior Modifi cation, 36, 320 –340. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. R. ( 2009 ). An exploratory study of self- directed science concept learning by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34, 33 – 46. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. ( 2012 ). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with a moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317. Jimenez, B. A., Courtade, G. R., & Browder, D. M. ( 2008 ). Teaching an algebraic equation to high school students with moderate developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 43, 266 –274. Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V. N., & Hunter, K. ( 2004 ). The efficacy of embedded instruction for students with developmental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 214 –227. Knight, V. ( 2010 ). Effects of supported electronic text and explicit instruction on science comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorder. Doctoral dissertation. University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Knight, V. F., Smith, B. R, Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. ( 2012 ). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378 –389. doi: 10.1007/s10803–011–1258–1 Marchand-Martella, N., & Martella, R. C. ( 2010 ) SRA read to achieve: Comprehending content-area text. Columbus, OH : SRA/McGraw-Hill. McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., Jameson, M., & Kercher, K. (2006). Comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in general education classes with small group instruction in special education classes. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 125 –138. McDonnell, J., Mathot-Buckner, C., Thorson, N., & Fister, S. ( 2001). Supporting the inclusion of students with moderate and severe disabilities in junior high school general education classes: The effects of classwide peer tutoring, multi- element curriculum, and accommodations. Education & Treatment of Children, 24, 141–160. McDonnell, J., Thorson, N., Allen, C., & Mathot-Buckner, C. (2000). The effects of partner learning during spelling for students with severe disabilities and their peers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 10, 107–121. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School Officers. ( 2010 ). Common core state standards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/. National Reading Panel. ( 2000 ). Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. (NIH Publication No. 00 – 4754 ). Washington, DC : US Department of Health and Human Services. Polychronis, S. C., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Riesen, T., & Jameson, M. ( 2004 ). A comparison of two trial distribution schedules in embedded instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 140 –151. 350

Access to the General Education Curriculum

Riesen, T., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Jameson, M. ( 2003 ). A comparison of constant time delay and simultaneous prompting within embedded instruction in general education classes with students with moderate to severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 12, 241–259. Rose, D. ( 2011, July). From Bach to Lady Gaga: Music lessons for special education. Keynote presented at the Office of Special Education Director’s Conference, Washington, DC. Available online at www. osep-meeting.org/Keyvideos.aspx#music Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. ( 2007 ). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 108 –116. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. ( 2011). Evaluating evidence-based practice in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36, 62 –75. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., & Smith, B. R. ( 2012 ). Evidence-based practices for teaching academic skills to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374 –387. doi: 10.1177/0741932511421634 U.S. Department of Education. ( 2005). Alternate achievement standards for students with the most signifi cant cognitive disabilities: Non regulatory guidance. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education Office of Elementary and Secondary Education. Wolery, M., Anthony, L., Snyder, E. D., Werts, M. G., & Katzenmeyer, J. (1997 ). Training elementary teachers to embed instruction during classroom activities. Education & Treatment of Children, 20, 40 –58. Zakas, T. ( 2011). Teaching social studies content to students with autism using a graphic organizer intervention (Doctoral dissertation). Retrieved from ProQuest.

351

25 Providing Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas (Literacy, Mathematics, Science, and Social Studies) in Inclusive Schools Ginevra Courtade1, Bree Jimenez 2, and Monica Delano1

Setting the Stage In 1997, Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Curtin, and Shrikanth conducted a review of curricular research focused on students with severe disabilities. The authors coded studies from six prominent special education journals to determine categories of the research and the frequency with which these categories were addressed during the years 1976–1995. Of the 785 studies identified with a curricular focus, less than 10%, or between 1.2–7 studies per year, were categorized with a focus of Cognitive/Academic. However, the authors did note a shift in focus from interactions in school and community to inclusion in general education classrooms. This review reflected a period of time prior to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) 1997 which mandated that all students have access to and make progress in the general curriculum. Since 1995, much more research has been conducted that focuses on teaching core content area skills to students with severe disabilities. Literature reviews have been completed on research in core content areas that support student learning as well as offer evidence-based instructional strategies effective in literacy, mathematics, and science (e.g., Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Wakeman, & Harris, 2008; Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, AhlgrimDelzell, & Algozzine, 2006; Spooner, Knight, Browder, Jimenez, & DiBiase, 2011; Spooner, Knight, Browder, & Smith, 2012). Furthermore, as noted in Chapter 24, the principles of high quality instruction that are effective for students with severe disabilities across all curricular areas (i.e., areas other than academics) are also being used to support students in general education classrooms. This chapter begins by outlining current research on teaching core content skills to students with severe disabilities. Major literature reviews will be described, and, more importantly, the evidence-based practices that were gleaned from these reviews will be explicated.

1 University of Louisville 2 University of North Carolina at Greensboro 352

Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas

Furthermore, research in specific topic areas of core content (i.e., literacy-phonics, mathematics-algebra, science-physical science) will be discussed. The remainder of the chapter combines effective practices for teaching core content and effective inclusive practices to outline curricular supports for successful inclusion of students with severe disabilities in general education content and classrooms. The authors suggest and give examples of instructional supports that can be used across all content areas to support all students.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice Current federal education legislation (Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act [IDEA], 2004; No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 [NCLB], 2002) requires the use of evidence-based or research-based practices for the instruction of students with disabilities. Soon after these laws were enacted, prominent researchers in the field of special education developed quality indicators for different research designs and criteria for evidence-based practices using research that met the quality indicators (e.g., single-subject design: Horner et al., 2005; group design: Gersten et al., 2005). In a further discussion of evidence-based practices, Cook, Tankersley, & Harjusola-Webb (2008) emphasize the importance of educators using these practices, shown to improve student learning and behavior over time. Since Nietupski et al.’s curricular focus review (1997), there has been a substantial increase in the amount of research with a focus on teaching academics to students with severe disabilities. To date, there have been four reviews that have used the proposed quality indicators and criteria for evidence-based practices to discern strategies that educators can use to instruct students with severe disabilities in core content curriculum. In 2006, Browder and colleagues conducted a review of 128 studies (published between 1975 and 2003) on teaching reading to students with significant cognitive disabilities. The authors categorized the studies by the five components that the National Reading Panel has determined as critical for learning to read: phonics, phonemics awareness, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension (NRP, 2000). Browder et al. then applied the Horner et al. (2005) and Gersten et al. (2005) criteria for quality indicators, and fi nally reviewed the quality studies to determine if evidence-based practices could be defi ned. The results of the review not only delineated evidence-based practices by specific reading component area, but also brought to light the lack of research in areas critical to reading success. The results indicated the use of: massed trial training as an evidence-based practice for teaching vocabulary (sight words and pictures) and comprehension; time delay to teach vocabulary (sight words) and fluency; varied systematic prompting to teach vocabulary (sight words and pictures) and comprehension; and the use of pictures and functional activities to teach comprehension. The authors also noted that there were too few studies in the categories of phonics and phonemic awareness that met quality indicators and that would support the determination of evidence-based practices. Browder, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Spooner, Mims, and Baker (2009) built upon the results of the Browder et al. (2006) reading review and focused a review of the use of time delay as an evidence-based practice to teach picture and word recognition skills to individuals with severe disabilities. The authors reviewed 30 experiments published between 1975 and 2007 that explicitly stated that time delay was at least part of the intervention, picture or word recognition was a dependent variable, and that a single-subject design that demonstrates experimental control was used. The Horner et al. (2005) quality indicators were applied to the 30 experiments, and 22 were found to meet all indicators. Within these 22 studies, the criteria for evidence-based practice were also met. The authors suggest 353

G. Courtade, B. Jimenez, and M. Delano

that because of the strong evidence for the success of using time delay to teach sight words, the practice should be used to teach other types of symbols in core content areas (e.g., mathematics symbols). Similar to the Browder et al. (2006) reading review, Browder et al. (2008) conducted a literature review on teaching mathematics to individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. The authors reviewed 68 experiments published between 1975 and 2005 and categorized the experiments by strands of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards (NCTM, 2000; i.e., numbers and operations, measurement, data analysis and probability, geometry, algebra). The authors applied the Horner et al. (2005) quality indicators criteria to the 54 single- subject studies. Nineteen of the studies met all of the quality indicators. Three evidence-based practices emerged from this review: in vivo instruction (teaching a real life application of the principle; teaching in real life settings), systematic instruction (see Chapter 24), and opportunities to respond (giving the student multiple opportunities to learn and practice the skills). Similar results to the reading review were found as the specific components/strands of mathematics being taught were examined. The 19 studies that met the criteria for quality fell into only 2 of the 5 strands (13 in measurement, 6 in numbers and operations). Although evidence-based practices have been defi ned for teaching mathematics to students with severe disabilities, these practices are not being researched across all areas of the mathematics curriculum. Research in the area of science instruction for students with severe disabilities is much more limited than literacy or mathematics. In 2007, Courtade, Browder, Spooner, and DiBiase published a literature review of studies that addressed science content for students in this population. The review encompasses research published from 1985–2005. Only 11 studies were found that investigated content that aligned with the National Science Content Standards (NRC, 1996). More recently, Spooner et al. (2011) conducted a literature review of science content taught to students with severe disabilities and were able to apply the Horner et al. (2005) criteria to determine evidence-based practices. This review included research published between 1985 and 2009. Seventeen studies were located, and 14 met the criteria for high or adequate quality. Using the Horner et al. (2005) criteria, the authors determined that a systematic instructional package is an evidence-based practice for teaching science to students with severe disabilities. Specifically, task analytic instruction was strongly supported. Similar to the reading and mathematics reviews, not all science content areas were addressed. Spooner and colleagues found no studies that addressed content in the science and technology or history and nature standards. Social studies instruction for students with severe disabilities is by far the most underresearched core content area. Little to no research has been conducted on effective strategies for use in teaching social studies content to this population of students. In one of the only studies to date, Schenning, Knight and Spooner (2013) investigated the effects of structured inquiry using explicit instruction on middle school students’ comprehension of social studies content. The results of the study indicated that the students were able to comprehend the adapted grade-level social studies content as well as generalize to “real-world” applications. Additionally, research to support instructional strategies within social studies may be found in other content areas (e.g., language arts, biographies). For example, Mims, Hudson, & Browder (2012) used a modified system of least intrusive prompts on text- dependent listening comprehension for four students with both intellectual disability and autism during read-alouds of adapted grade-level biographies. Students answered comprehension questions about people in history, typically studied during middle school social studies units (e.g., Harriet Tubman, Amelia Earhart). 354

Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas

The most current review related to evidenced-based practices for teaching core content to students with severe disabilities was completed by Spooner et al. (2012). Although the results of the review were discussed in the previous chapter (Chapter 24), it is important to note that the authors specifically examined the context of the instruction. Of the 18 studies that met the Horner et al. (2005) quality criteria, seven studies were implemented in general education classrooms. Until there is more quality research on the core content instruction of students with severe disabilities in inclusive settings, we must rely on the evidence-based practices that exist and the promising practices that are evolving. “EBPs [evidence-based practices] should interface with the professional wisdom of teachers to maximize the outcomes of students with disabilities” (Cook, Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009, p. 380). The following section is meant to guide researchers and practitioners to improve the instruction of core content for students with severe disabilities by using both evidence-based practices and promising instructional supports.

Setting the Course for Effective Inclusion A clear implication of the previous section is that the research base for teaching core content skills to students with severe disabilities has grown tremendously. The evidence of social and academic student outcomes aligned to core content instruction has provided the field with greatly needed strategies to support such instruction. While the research is growing in each specific content area (e.g., science, math), a series of common strategies and supports have begun to emerge that resonate among all academic instruction (e.g., systematic instruction, the use of graphic organizers). As this chapter has previously outlined, the most recent literature reviews in the field are providing both “promising” and “evidence- based” practices that should outline strategies and supports used in the inclusive classroom to teach students with severe disabilities. While many of these strategies are not new to the field (e.g., systematic instruction), they may be new to teachers providing core content instruction to students with severe disabilities. When planning core content instruction for this population of students, it is critical to consider instructional methods and context. First, it is important to ground instruction in those methods that have been proven to be effective for students with severe disabilities, while taking into consideration the unique goals and characteristics of the content itself (e.g., science vs. American literature). Much of the current research on teaching academic content to students with severe disabilities has incorporated the use of the previously mentioned evidence-based practice and five instructional supports (see Figure 25.1). While these supports can be used to develop instruction specific to students needs in order to gain access to and make progress in the curriculum, much of the research supporting these

Adapted Text

Figure 25.1

Graphic Organizer

Key Vocabulary

Big Ideas

Comprehension Response

Five Instructional Supports to Teach Core Content in Inclusive Settings 355

G. Courtade, B. Jimenez, and M. Delano

practices and supports has been conducted in special education settings. In practice, educators need to apply evidence-based practices in general education contexts to enable students to gain access to and make progress in the curriculum. This require that practitioners negotiate a variety of complex issues related to areas such as instructional planning, collaboration, pacing, grouping, adaptations, and progress monitoring. Administrators can support teachers in providing effective core content instruction in inclusive contexts by scheduling regular co-planning opportunities, limiting the number of grade levels per caseload, and providing the professional development necessary to develop a culture of inclusion. The five supports provide a strong foundation to guide the collaborative planning of general educators and special educators. The remainder of this section gives examples of incorporating these supports into core content curricula.

Literacy Core content instruction in the area of literacy is complex. Instruction should surround reading skills (both phonemic and comprehension-based) and writing skills. Research on literacy skill-building for this population of students has focused on the use of grade-level appropriate text used to support skill acquisition in vocabulary, early literacy (e.g., opening book, identification of author), reading instruction, comprehension, research, and writing. Using the framework in Figure 25.2, adapted text (e.g., secondary grades level novel: Call of the Wild) may include picture representation of key vocabulary (e.g., Buck, John Thornton, sled), objects to represent main ideas of the chapter (e.g., sled, cold), and repeated story lines to summarize themes and major events (e.g., Call of the Wild, Chapters 1—2: “Buck loves his home”). Teachers will need to consider how and when adapted texts are used in the context of class activities. An adapted text provides a means for a student to access grade appropriate literature. However, it is important to make certain that the adapted materials do

Grade-level literature ' Informational text

Adapted Text with Key Vocabulary

Comprehension Response

• Compare/contrast • KWHL Story maps Graphic Organizer

Big ldea(s)

Questions at varied depth of knowledge

Figure 25.2 356

Supports for Inclusive Literacy Instruction

Repeated story line(s) to illustrate main idea of chapter J or book

Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas

not cause the student to be isolated during in- class instruction. Careful attention to adapting chunks of texts that match assigned readings in the original text will help students be prepared to interact with their peers based on the same content. Additionally, graphic organizers support the text and provide both a means for Representation and Expression under the planning guidelines of Universal Design for Learning (see Chapter 24 for more on UDL). Various forms of graphic organizers may be used by all students to allow visual representation of thoughts through words, pictures, and/or objects. For example, a student may gain information as a teacher represents the two characters of the book in a “compare/contrast” graphic organizer by key personality traits (e.g., Buck as a dog who is a Hero, Strong, Brave vs. Spitz as a dog who is Evil, Savage, Bully). The graphic organizer can again provide a means for the student to display understanding as an outlet to “show what he/she knows” by placing words/ pictures into the appropriate circle of the comparative graphic organizer. Communication responses in literacy are often demonstrated through question and answers responses. For students with severe disabilities, guidance has been provided on how to ask questions with varying depths of knowledge (Browder, Spooner, & Meyer, 2011). Questions can be embedded into the story itself and should provide students an opportunity to show understanding of both literal questions (e.g., Who stole Buck?) and inferential questions (e.g., How do you think Buck felt when the gardener stole him?). There are a variety of questioning procedures used in inclusive classrooms to support comprehension (e.g., SQ3R: McCormick & Cooper, 1991; Collaborative Strategic Reading: Klingner, Vaughn, Arguelles, Hughes, & Leftwich, 2004). Identifying response-prompting procedures and answer formats (e.g., multiple choice) may help students with severe disabilities benefit from these strategies (Hudson, Browder & Jimenez, in press). In addition, student generated questions can also support comprehension. Teachers may use visual supports and responseprompting procedures to cue students to ask questions during literacy activities. Writing is another form of communication that is central to literacy instruction. Combining computer assisted instruction and response-prompting procedures is a promising method for developing writing skills in students with severe disabilities (Pennington, 2009; Delano & Pennington, 2013). The use of adapted text, graphic organizers, comprehension questions, and repeated story lines provide a much-needed framework for providing literacy instruction to students with severe disabilities. As this framework is applied in inclusive settings and used with systematic instruction, practitioners will encounter additional instructional supports that are effective in teaching reading and writing to other populations of students. Some of these additional supports or modified versions of these supports may be effective for students with severe disabilities. Future research will identify such supports so that they can be added to the framework.

Mathematics Problem- solving is the emphasis of all mathematics content. When faced with a problem, students must use mathematical skills to fi nd a solution. The problem should be based in a real world context in order to provide students with the relevance and need for determining a solution. Similar to language arts, adapted text may be used to provide a “real life” problem to train a new mathematics skill (e.g., shopping at the mall; coordinate plane in geometry). Similar to an adapted novel, picture representation of key vocabulary (e.g., clothing, books) may be used to support literacy skills and build understanding of new mathematics concepts (e.g., line segment, plane). Graphic organizers provide both visual representation of concepts, 357

G. Courtade, B. Jimenez, and M. Delano

Story-based problem

Number line Linear equation graphic organizer Maps Graphs Adapted Text with Key Vocabulary

Comprehension Response

Graphic Organizer

Big ldea(s)

• Solve storybased problem in context

Figure 25.3

Problem statement

Supports for Inclusive Mathematics Instruction

as well as a means for students to organize thoughts and task-analyze steps of “solving the problem” (e.g., Step 3: Identify next point on the plane; what is the next store you need to go to in the mall?). In literacy, students often show understanding through answering questions about a novel or poem. In mathematics, students demonstrate comprehension via their ability to complete steps of the problem, as well as identify the answer or “solve” the problem. The problem statement frames this comprehension response by identifying the “big idea” of the lesson (e.g., What stores in the mall do we need to visit to buy everything on our list? What order would be best to visit them?). The big idea of this particular example is focused on coordinate planes and non-intersecting lines, with personal relevance to students when shopping in the mall and taking the most time- efficient route through the store (i.e., building spatial sense). This focus on personal meaning for students and connecting instruction to “real life” experiences is often emphasized in designing instruction for students with severe disabilities. As educators collaborate in inclusive environments this focus on making learning meaningful and applicable in daily life will benefit all students, especially in areas such as advanced mathematics, where all too often students fail to see the relevance of the content to their lives. As students with severe disabilities progress through school, they may still lack mastery of important early numeracy skills. Teachers can continue to address these skills by embedding instruction of those skills into grade-level standards. For example, when instructing students to calculate perimeter in 5th grade, teachers can continue teaching number identification. Or, when instructing students to solve simple equations, teachers can continue teaching students to identify which of two numbers is larger. Embedding target skills into core content instruction requires strong collaborative planning between special and general educators. 358

Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas

Science Exploration of the “world around us” brings science content to the classroom on a daily basis. Best practices suggest that educators use the inquiry method to guide instruction in all science classrooms (NRC, 1996). Most recently, science standards have been developed to guide the format and content being taught within all science classrooms (www.nextgenscience.org/ ). Within these standards are a framework to develop breadth and depth of content knowledge, as well as specific goals for the development of inquiry skills (e.g., posing questions, research methods to fi nd answers). The use of a KWHL graphic organizer can be used to guide students through the inquiry process. The graphic organizer asks students to identify: what they Know about the topic, what they Want to know, How they will fi nd the information, and what they Learned. In order to help students link to their prior knowledge to answer the K of the graphic organizer, a Wonder Story (i.e., scientific discovery text) may be used. The Wonder Story ( Jimenez, Browder, & Courtade, 2010) is a story with adapted text based on a science concept, which links the concept to a real life application that the student may relate to (e.g., a puddle disappearing during the day = evaporation). Science vocabulary is very important for students to master in order to show comprehension of concepts (e.g., kinetic energy, pollution). Additionally, science concepts are necessary for deeper understanding. While students may participate in a science inquiry lesson by completing steps of an inquiry task analysis (Browder et al., 2012), it is also important to make sure that students gain understanding of vocabulary and concepts (“big ideas”). Science vocabulary taught with multiple exemplars (i.e., with generalization to novel stimuli) can be used to show that students understand the meaning of the word (e.g., multiple pictures of a mountain, with generalization to new untaught pictures of mountains). The use of a concept statement may be used to identify the “big idea” of a unit of instruction. Students can demonstrate understanding of the concept by fi lling in the blank, matching pictures with the concept

>Wonder story >Scientific discovery text

KWHL chart Conceptual flow chart Adapted Text with Key Vocabulary

Comprehension Response

Graphic Organizer

Big ldea(s)

1Fill in Blank: big idea Fill in KWHL 1Prediction

Figure 25.4

A • Concept statements

J

Supports for Inclusive Science Instruction 359

G. Courtade, B. Jimenez, and M. Delano

statement, or matching concept statements with actual examples of the concept (e.g., kinetic energy is the energy of movement, matched to demonstration of a rollercoaster in action.) Science content easily lends itself to inclusive education due to its natural collaborative nature (e.g., lab experiments, cooperative group activities). Identifying specific roles for students, providing each student with an opportunity to contribute to the group’s learning goal, and ensuring individual accountability are traditional components of cooperative learning and important elements of cooperative activities in inclusive classrooms. When supporting students with severe disabilities, it is critical for teachers to carefully identify the “big ideas” and the specific knowledge and skills that a student will be expected to master. This prevents teachers from trying to get the student to “keep up with the content,” and instead enables teachers to deliver very focused instruction within the naturally occurring lesson. As outlined in Chapter 24, systematic instruction of key vocabulary, key concepts, and steps to participate (task analysis) in an academic lesson (e.g., steps to participate in inquiry lesson; KWHL) can be used to deliver this “focused instruction” within the inclusive lesson by teachers, paraprofessionals, and grade-level peers (Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012).

Social Studies The teaching of social studies aligns with the premise that all students should be taught to be responsible and effective members of their community to the greatest extent possible (National Council for the Social Studies, 2010). Social studies text is presented to students in multiple modes (e.g., text books, biographies, documents). Adding picture representation to text can provide students detailed information about the people, places, and events presented in the text. The text may be condensed, picture representation added to key vocabulary, and key facts or big ideas represented with pictures. For example, a short story about Pocahontas may have several illustrations to provide a “picture” of who she was and what her village was like. Big ideas from the story may be illustrated by “concept statements” similar to science

' Biography ’ Documents

Timeline Map Compare/contrast Adapted Text with Key Vocabulary

Comprehension Response

Graphic Organizer

Big ldea(s)

1Questions at varied depths of knowledge

V Figure 25.5 360

Supports for Inclusive Social Studies Instruction

• Concept statements • Key facts

Effective Instruction in Core Content Areas

instruction. When providing social studies instruction to students with severe disabilities, teachers can allow students to demonstrate comprehension through varying levels of questions (e.g., literal, synthesis; Hudson, Browder, & Jimenez, in press) and the completion of graphic organizers (Schenning et al., 2013). For example, a student may use key vocabulary to complete concept statements regarding the story of Pocahontas. Students may then sequence the concept statements onto a timeline (graphic organizer) to demonstrate understanding of what happened in Pocahontas’s life to lead her towards working with John Smith. A variety of cooperative learning structures are well- suited for social studies content and provide all students with opportunities to contribute to the learning of a team and develop collaborative skills. For example, in a JIGSAW structure each member of a team becomes an expert on a different topic and shares their information with their team. Students meet in their “expert groups” to learn content and plan how to teach the content to their teams. Expert groups may acquire information in ways that are well- suited to their skills and the amount and complexity of the information studied will vary by group. Some expert groups may read a grade-level chapter to acquire content, while others may watch a video clip, read an adapted story, or conduct an interview. This flexibility enables teachers to provide opportunities for all students to serve as “teachers” to their peers. In addition, simple structures such as Think-Pair-Share and Corners prepare pairs or small groups of students to share a combined response with the whole class. Priming or previewing materials with a student with severe disabilities may prepare them to engage in the small group interactions and help the group to develop a team response. Simulations are another useful strategy for engaging diverse learners in social studies instruction.

Conclusion The incorporation of evidence-based practices to teach core content and instructional supports that sustain successful inclusive education for students with severe disabilities is a must for current and future special education teachers. Future research in these areas should provide teachers with additional evidence-based practices and provide clear guidance for promoting achievement in core content in inclusive settings.

References Browder, D., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Spooner, F., Mims, P. J., & Baker, J. ( 2009 ). Using time delay to teach literacy to students with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 75, 343 –364. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Meyer, C. ( 2011). Comprehension across the curriculum. In D. M. Browder & F. H. Spooner (Eds.), Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities (pp. 141–167 ). New York, NY: Guildford Press. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Wakeman, S. Y., & Harris, A. ( 2008 ). A metaanalysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407– 432 . Browder, D., Trela, K., Courtade, G., Jimenez, B., Knight, V., & Flowers, C. ( 2012 ). Teaching mathematics and science standards to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 26 –35. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. ( 2006 ). Research on reading instruction for individuals with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392 – 408. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Harjusola-Webb, S. ( 2008 ). Evidence-based special education and professional wisdom: Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 69 –75. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum , T. J. ( 2009 ). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365 –383. 361

G. Courtade, B. Jimenez, and M. Delano

Courtade, G., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. M. ( 2007 ). Review of studies with students with significant cognitive disabilities which link to science standards. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 43 – 49. Delano, M. E. & Pennington, R. ( 2013 ). Writing instruction for students with ASD. In D. Perner & M. E. Delano (Eds.), A guide to teaching students with autism spectrum disorders (pp. 131–144 ). Arlington, VA: CEC-DADD. Gersten, R., Fuchs, L., Compton, D., Coyne, M., Greenwood, C., & Innocenti, M. S. ( 2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi- experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 149 –164. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. ( 2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165 –180. Hudson, M. E., Browder, D. M., & Jimenez, B. (in press). Effects of a peer- delivered system of least prompts intervention and adapted science read-alouds on listening comprehension for participants with moderate intellectual disability. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act Amendments of 1997, Pub. L. No. 10.5 –17.20 U. S. C §§ 1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, Pub. L. 108 – 466, 20 U. S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350. Jimenez, B., Browder, D. M., & Courtade, G. ( 2010 ). An exploratory study of self- directed science concept learning by students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34 ( 2 ), 1–14. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. ( 2012 ). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317. Klingner, J., Vaughn, S., Arguelles, M. Hughes, M., & Leftwich, S. ( 2004 ). Collaborative strategic reading: Real world lessons from classroom teachers. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 291–302 . McCormick, S. & Cooper, J. (1991). Can SSQ3R facilitate students’ comprehension of expository text? Three experiments. Reading Psychology, 12, 239 –271. Mims, P. J., Hudson, M., & Browder, D. M. ( 2012 ). Using read-alouds of grade-level biographies and systematic prompting to promote comprehension to students with moderate and severe developmental disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 27 ( 2 ), 67– 80. National Council for the Social Studies. ( 2010 ). National curriculum standards for social studies: A framework for teaching, learning, and assessment. Silver Springs, MD : Author. National Council of Teachers of Mathematics. ( 2000 ). Principles and standards for school mathematics. Reston, VA: Author. National Reading Panel. ( 2000 ). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching children to read: An evidencebased assessment of the scientifi c research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Washington, DC : National Institute for Literacy. National Research Council. (1996 ). National science education standards. Washington, DC : National Academy Press. Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Curtin, S., & Shrikanth, K. (1997 ). A review of curricular research in severe disabilities from 1976–1995 in six selected journals. The Journal of Special Education, 31, 36 –55. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107–110, 115, § 1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. (2002). Pennington, R. ( 2009 ). Exploring new waters: Writing instruction for students with autism. Beyond Behavior, 19 (1), 17–25. Schenning, H., Knight, V., & Spooner, F. (2013). Effects of structured inquiry and graphic organizers on social studies comprehension by students with autism spectrum disorders. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 7, 526–540. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D. M., Jimenez, B., & DiBiase, W. ( 2011). Evaluating evidencebased practices in teaching science content to students with severe developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 36 (1–2 ), 62 –75. Spooner, F., Knight, V., Browder, D., & Smith, B. ( 2012 ). Evidence-based practice for teaching academics to students with severe developmental disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 374 –387. doi: 10.1177/0741932511421634

362

26 Delivering Alternate Assessment and Student Progress Monitoring in Inclusive Schools Shawnee Y. Wakeman,1 Claudia Flowers,1 and Diane M. Browder1

Setting the Stage Alternate assessment based upon alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) serves as one of the most meaningful and influential reforms of the past several decades for students with significant cognitive disabilities. The expectation for states to implement an alternate assessment specifically for students with significant cognitive disabilities within The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997 (IDEA) represented the onset of incredible discussion and change for this population of students. No longer could students with significant cognitive disabilities be exempt for the end- of-year assessment process; rather, they must be included in accountability systems. It became necessary for all states to design assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities that accurately measure what students know and can do. While potentially serendipitous, the implications of other legislative efforts, such as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2006), forced educators and parents to consider the content and educational outcomes within instruction and assessment for these students. Wakeman, Browder, and Flowers (2011) identified two specific challenges in setting targets for educational outcomes for this population of students: (a) selecting the content to be assessed, and (b) setting the appropriate performance expectations. Learning targets and priorities for this population of students have changed dramatically since the 1975 federal law (PL 94–142) required the education of all students with disabilities (Browder et al., 2007). As alternate assessment has served as the impetus for change in measuring academic content knowledge, the available research for this student population provides limited information on how students acquire academic knowledge and skills (Browder, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, Harris, & Wakeman, 2008; Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006) and has provided no evidence for what are reasonable performance expectations for learning. As the field looks to implement newly designed alternate assessments developed for multiple states based upon the Common Core State Standards (CCSS), the onset of measuring growth for individual students pushes state and assessment leaders even further in

1 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 363

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

considering the unique needs of the population while reliably capturing student progress. Assessment efforts range from the summative (AA-AAS), to systematically over time within the classroom (benchmark or interim), to purposefully within each lesson (formative). Continued efforts relating to how to adequately measure student performance and progress on prioritized content requires that we reflect upon practices that have an established research base with this population of students. One such research-based practice is the use of progress monitoring tools to systematically gather student performance data. This chapter fi rst discusses the history of alternate assessment and outlines current issues surrounding the evolution of AA-AAS. A discussion of what is currently known about effective data collection for students with disabilities—including formative assessment tools, curriculumbased measures, and ongoing data collection systems—follows. Finally, recommendations on how to use what is known about effective practices with this population of students within the range of assessment are included.

The History of Alternate of Assessment Wakeman et al. (2011) provide a history of alternate assessments that begins with the fi rst mandate for AA-AAS within IDEA (1997) as a large- scale assessment option for students with the most significant disabilities. Previously, this student population had been excluded from large-scale assessments and the associated standards-based reforms. To respond to the mandate, in many states a portfolio assessment was incorporated as the AA-AAS in order to gather evidence of student performance for the prioritized content from functional curricula, such as leisure, daily living, vocational, and self-help skills. Additionally, best practice indicators with this population of students (e.g., generalization, self- determination skills, and inclusion) were often built into the AA-AAS score. As this was the fi rst large- scale assessment effort for this population of students, not much was known about how these assessments should be developed or the impact of this requirement (Browder et al., 2003). States’ alternate assessment systems have undergone frequent changes in the past decade, including the use of academic content standards, changes in assessment format, and changes within the scoring criteria (Cameto et al., 2009; Thompson, Johnstone, Thurlow, & Altman, 2005). Just four years after alternate assessments were mandated, NCLB (2001) required that states assess student performance related to grade-level content standards in reading, mathematics, and science. In 2009 Altman et al. (2010) surveyed states with regard to the content of their AA-AAS. Every state reported using academic content standards as the basis for their assessment (versus the use of functional content or IEP team determinations). This represented perhaps the most significant shift for state assessment systems and instructional efforts within classrooms. As students within this population were less likely to be included in general education classrooms (U.S. Department of Education, 2005), the assessment of academic content domains promotes more inclusive efforts for this population of students. Since the inception of the AA-AAS, many states have changed the format of their assessment. In 1999 Thompson et al. (2005) surveyed states regarding assessment format: 28 states identified using a portfolio or body of evidence format to assess student performance; by 2004, the number of portfolio states was reduced to 12, while 13 states reported using a body of evidence format with a standardized set of performance-based items, and an additional 7 states reported using a rating scale or checklist format.2 Cameto et al. (2009)

2 Nine states reported being in a revision process. 364

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

surveyed states with regard to their AA-AAS for the 2006–2007 assessment. While states could select multiple options, most states reported using a portfolio or body of evidence (30 states) followed by performance events/tasks (21 states), a rating scale or checklist (13 states), and multiple choice constructed responses (6 states). As noted earlier, and in conjunction with the changes to the assessment format, scoring criteria has also evolved over time. While Thompson et al. (2005) reported that states deliberated 12 different considerations within the scoring criteria for AA-AAS, Cameto et al. (2009) summarized criteria considered within AA-AAS into four categories: (a) accuracy of student response (n =45 states), (b) amount of independence (n =39 states); (c) generalization across settings (n = 23 states); and (d) amount of progress (n =13 states). This change was supported by data from Altman et al. (2010), who found that states considered significantly fewer non-academic skills within scoring. The reduction in the use of factors outside of student performance considerations (e.g., staff support, social relationships, self- determination, and appropriateness of materials) within student scores is evident.

Current Issues Within the AA-AAS System Several issues represent challenges within the AA-AAS system. Historically, states could provide a framework for the content within the alternate assessment. Teachers of students with significant cognitive disabilities could then work within this framework and select the concepts they considered to be important for the students to work on during the school year. This type of catalog approach appears to be no longer applicable if teachers use prioritized state standards as the basis for their instruction (Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, & Baker, 2006). The challenge for current teachers is providing students the opportunity to learn the academic content within the content standards. While states can identify priorities within the broader realm of the content standards for this population of students, the priorities may represent content that students have not been previously taught. For example, a child in middle school may be missing the foundational or prerequisite knowledge necessary to solve problems or apply concepts in context if they did not receive instruction on such knowledge and skills in elementary school. The implementation of the CCSS for all teachers represents a daunting shift in content, which again may be exacerbated for teachers and students who participate in the AA-AAS. Ensuring that special education teachers have access to and participate in CCSS district and state training promotes the inclusive efforts of teachers and students. Alternate assessment has evolved at a rapid pace since its inception in 1997. One struggle that continues to engage stakeholders is the balance of standardization vs. individualization of the assessment process (Hager & Slocum, 2005; Gong & Marion, 2006; Quenemoen, 2008). The challenge of having technical adequacy within an AA-AAS is intensified by the unique needs and abilities of the students who participate in the assessment. Considerations around flexibility relate to: (a) fi nding an item format that allows for students supports to increase independent responding; (b) having enough items that reliable and valid inferences about student performance can be made without confounding the information with student fatigue or motivation; (c) including content that students have been taught given the priorities identified for this heterogeneous group of students who participate in the AA-AAS; and (d) using materials that allow all students to respond like they would during daily instruction. While much of the focus in the past decade has been on AA-AAS, better assessment begins with the conception of assessment not as a single test, but as a coherent system of measures (Herman, 2010). For the purposes of accountability, AA-AAS are useful for determining 365

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

what students know or do not know about academic content that is linked to grade-level standards, but these assessments provide only a broad understanding of students’ knowledge and skills. The use of multiple assessments, both formative and summative, provides a richer, more thorough picture of students’ knowledge, skills, and abilities. There is a clear need for other valid measures (e.g., interim, benchmark, formative assessments) within a year to document student progress and inform teacher decision-making (Altman et al., 2010). However, little attention is paid to the design of such measures for students who participate in the AA-AAS at the district and classroom levels. The use of progress monitoring efforts within a classroom, as well as more standardized assessment efforts at designated points in time during a school year, allow teachers and students to understand the progress being made and the work that remains to be done to successfully reach academic outcomes. The Race to the Top Assessment Program was designed to develop innovative assessments that support student learning and use appropriate technology (Phillips, 2009), and included assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Two consortiums, Dynamic Learning Maps ( http://dynamiclearningmaps.org) and the National Consortium and State Collaborative (www.ncscpartners.org), were funded by the Office of Special Education Programs to develop technically sound and universally designed alternate assessments based upon the CCSS. Both consortiums have considerable plans for the use of technology within the AA-AAS system. For students and teachers in most states, this represents a shift in how items are administered and how student responses are captured (Altman et al., 2010). The use of technology to administer, score, and quickly report results provides opportunities that better model instruction and strengthen the inferences about students’ proficiencies (Bechard et al., 2010). Using the principles of universal design, assessment items and tasks can be designed using multiple representations, built-in supports and tools, and multiple methods of responding (Russell, Hoffmann, & Higgins, 2009). Computers provide support for large print, speech recognition, and text-to-speech software, as well as technology such as refreshable braille displays. Students who are unable to use a mouse or speech-to-text technology can facilitate computer input using sip and puff technology that responds to air pressure from a straw device. Using computer-based tests (CBT) allows test formats to be customized for each student without having to order special test formats in advance (Kettler, Scholz, Oderman, Hixon, & Weigert, 2010; Russell et al., 2010). While there are advantages to CBT, there also are challenges, such as high costs and the capacity of local educational agencies to implement CBT. Thurlow, Lazarus, Albus, and Hodgson (2010) provide an extensive review of CBT practices and considerations. Computer-adapted testing (CAT) methods provide an opportunity to administer items that are tailored to the student’s ability level and provide a more precise estimation of the student’s ability (Stone & Davey, 2011). Using CAT, the selection of items administered to a student is based on previous performance. One example of a CAT is a two-stage test, where students respond to a set of items and, based on their performance, receive a second set of items that best fits the student’s ability level. For example, if a student accurately answered most of the items in the fi rst stage, they would be routed to more difficult items in the second stage. This adapted method of administering testing has the potential to decrease testing time and improve information about students in the lower and higher ability levels.

Research-Based Progress Monitoring Methods of Student Performance While AA-AAS represents summative data regarding student performance, AA-AAS was not designed to measure student growth, as required in Race to the Top reform. Herman (2010) 366

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

discusses developmental coherence within an assessment system as “the extent to which learning goals, instruction, and assessment are continually intertwined over time to promote student progress” (p. 6). While the AA-AAS may be the impetus to create a more inclusive educational system for all students, it alone is not sufficient to ensure that a quality education based upon data will occur. Much of the research literature documents student progress for this population through data collection efforts that represent formative information. These methods may be better measures of student growth that represent valid and reliable performance.

Progress Monitoring The research on progress monitoring shows that providing teachers with a specific system for measuring student progress, summarizing ongoing data, and making instructional decisions based on data patterns promotes student progress. For example, Browder, Karvonen, Davis, Fallin, and Courtade-Little (2005) taught teachers to use a set of guidelines to summarize data, review data patterns, and make decisions based on these patterns. Students of teachers who received this training had higher alternate assessment scores than those who did not. Benefits such as these will likely not be realized if teachers do not use a system that includes making instructional changes based on the data (e.g., Hager & Slocum, 2005; Quenemoen, Thurlow, Moen, Thompson, & Morse, 2004). Formative Assessment The Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) has defi ned formative assessment as follows: Formative assessment is a process used by teachers and students during instruction that provides feedback to adjust ongoing teaching and learning to help students improve their achievement of intended instructional outcomes. (McManus, 2008) Seminal research by Black and Wiliam (1998) indicated that focused efforts to improve formative assessment practices produced significant gains in student learning, and these practices were generally more effective than one- on-one tutoring, intensive reading instruction, or other instructional interventions. While there is some debate about the magnitude of effectiveness of formative assessment (Bennett, 2011), almost all educators agree that in order to support student learning, teacher must evaluate students’ understanding. The crux of formative assessment is the development of student learning during the learning process rather than after the fact (Heritage, 2011). Formative assessment is likely not a graded product, but serves as a quick form of communication between teachers and students about what has and has not occurred as a result of instruction (Heritage, 2010; McManus, 2008). With an understanding of the wide variety of ways in which this type of data can be collected from students, teachers are better equipped to plan future lessons and students are recognized for what they do and do not understand or prefer. For example, by simply asking students what was the most difficult and the most successful part of a lesson, teachers are provided with information about the instructional strategies they used and specific aspects of the content that may require re-teaching using other approaches, all the while sending the message to students that their voice counts and is important in the classroom. Done correctly, formative assessment can yield a wealth of information for teachers, including 367

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

information about: (a) effective instructional practices and materials; (b) the realistic nature of the objectives covered in a lesson; (c) how well students understand the content within the current lesson; (d) the degree to which student understanding from previous lessons is maintained and utilized; and (e) the appropriateness of the sequence of the lessons taught. There are a number of formative assessment strategies that can be utilized with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Hudson and Wakeman (2012) discussed several types of formative assessment and their application to students in this population, including 5-minute strategies, rubrics, and response cards. An example of a 5-minute strategy would be to have the students write/select/state the learning objective or main concept of a lesson. Students could select the objective or concept written in words, picture symbols, photographs, or objects (e.g., “What do you think this symbol means [÷]?” or “Who ended slavery after the American Revolution?”). Teachers also could have students provide a demonstration. The assessment could be completed at the end of a step in a lesson, at the very end of a lesson, or as the warm up before the next lesson. Response cards are another simple approach to gathering information about student understanding and to measure progress. There is a wealth of research about the use of response cards with students with disabilities (Horn, 2010). This concept can easily be adapted for students with significant cognitive disabilities. For example, students could be provided two pictures on popsicle sticks: one of the Earth rotating or spinning on its axis, and another of the Earth revolving around the sun on its orbit. Students could then be asked a series of questions to distinguish between the revolving and rotating of the Earth and what happens as a result of both. Students can easily indicate an answer by raising or eye gazing at a popsicle stick, thus allowing all students to participate. Additionally the teacher can quickly scan the room and see the students’ responses in a matter of seconds. This information provides the teachers with information to make instructional decisions immediately within the same lesson or in future lessons. A rubric is a guideline that clearly defi nes both the expectations for learning (i.e., formative assessment) and the system for evaluation and grading (i.e., summative assessment; Hudson & Wakeman, 2012). There are several benefits to using rubrics for students with disabilities ( Jackson & Larkin, 2002). It allows teachers to clearly communicate student performance expectations. The rubric allows students the opportunity to monitor their own progress toward the learning objective or outcome. Additionally, the rubric can be used by the student as a fi nal checklist to ensure that they have met the requirements before turning in work. Of particular importance is the fact that rubrics can be designed to fit individual student needs. Hudson and Wakeman include an example of how to adapt a developed rubric for use with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Curriculum-Based Measures (CBM) The most well-researched form of student progress monitoring is CurriculumBased Measurement (CBM). CBM now has more than 200 empirical studies published in peer-reviewed journals supporting both its technical quality and capacity to help teachers improve student outcomes in the elementary grades (Deno, 2003). Some of the standard tasks used for CBM are reading aloud from text and selection of words deleted from text (maze) in reading, writing word sequences when given a story starter or picture in writing, writing letter sequences from dictation in spelling, and writing correct answers/digits in solving problems in arithmetic (Deno, 2003). However, CBM has rarely been applied with students with more severe disabilities who participate in AA-AAS. To some extent this has been due 368

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

to the nature of the curriculum taught to students with more severe disabilities. Historically, this curriculum has focused more on skills for daily living than on academic content. As students who participate in AA-AAS receive more academic content, CBMs may become more applicable. There are three basic types of CBMs: general- outcome measures, skills-based measures, and mastery measures (Hosp, Hosp, & Howell, 2007). In a general- outcomes measure, the student uses a variety of skills at the same time. One of the most common forms of a generaloutcome measure is oral reading fluency. When reading aloud, the student applies a variety of skills to decode and recognize vocabulary and use context clues. The advantage of a general- outcome measure is that it reduces the number of CBMs a teacher needs to use, but the disadvantage is that it may not pinpoint what skills the student lacks (e.g., which areas of decoding are underdeveloped). In a skills-based measure, a group of skills are assessed together, but with distinct items for each. A common example is a CBM in mathematics that includes different types of computation (e.g., problems in subtraction and addition with and without regrouping). A mastery measure provides the most specific information on exactly what the student is learning. To use the mathematics example again, a mastery measure might target addition facts during the time that the teacher is focused on addition. While mastery measures provide the most diagnostic information, they do not provide a long-term picture. For example, a mastery measure on addition facts does not give the teacher a year-long method to monitor progress towards the achievement of fi rst grade mathematics. Data-Based Decision Models Most progress monitoring systems for students with severe disabilities have used some form of a mastery measure. For example, the teacher may keep track of the number of sight words acquired or science defi nitions mastered. In contrast to other forms of CBM, there is an extensive research base on using ongoing data to make instructional decisions for students with severe disabilities based on mastery data (Farlow & Snell, 1994). These models are often called “data-based decisions” because they usually include information on reviewing the data to make instructional changes. To be able to use data-based decisions the teacher needs to know how to collect data on student progress. Methods of Data Collection Two primary methods for collecting data on goals that link to state standards are task analytic assessments and discrete trial assessments (Browder, Spooner, & Jimenez, 2011). Task analytic assessment uses a defi ned chain of responses needed to complete an activity (e.g., steps to solve an algebraic equation or make a purchase). Task analyses have been used to measure progress in studies on language arts (e.g., Mechling, 2004), mathematics (e.g., Cihak, Alberto, TaberDoughty, & Gama, 2006; DiPipi-Hoy & Jitendra, 2004), and science (e.g., Courtade, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2010). The second option is to use a discrete trial assessment, also called a repeated trial assessment. Many examples of using discrete trials to assess academic progress exist in the research (e.g., Mechling, Gast, & Krupa, 2007; Polychronis, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, & Jameson, 2004; Tucker-Cohen, Wolff-Heller, Alberto, & Fredrick, 2008). When administering a discrete trial assessment, data may be taken at naturally occurring times during the day (e.g., when the student would typically encounter a sight word in the environment), embedded in an academic lesson (e.g., locating science vocabulary), or given in a massed trial format (e.g., identifying math facts on fl ash cards). 369

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

As students with severe disabilities acquire more academic skills, a third option for data collection is to count the frequency of correct responses using a paper and pencil or computerized test. For example, students might be asked select the number that shows the length of a rectangle shown on the test page. Most alternate assessments use performance-based formats, so it is helpful if students have had ongoing practice with a testing format. Figures 26.1–26.3 give examples of these three methods of data collection. All three methods can be summarized on a graph as the number of correct responses (see Figures 26.1, 26.2 , & 26.3 ). Daily Data Collection One question that teachers may ask is how often data should be collected. Munger and Loyd (1989) compared frequency of data collection (i.e., daily, three times a week, twice a week, or once a week) and trends of graphed data (i.e., ascending, descending, flat, and variable) on teacher judgments about student progress and program change. Their results indicated that teachers interpreted ascending trends (progress) accurately across all frequency contingencies, but made more accurate decisions overall based on daily data. This was especially true if data were variable. Extending the work of Munger and Loyd, Munger, Snell, and Loyd (1989) investigated the effects of probe data collection frequency and graph characteristics on teachers’ visual analysis. Fifty-nine public school teachers and two program directors for students with severe disabilities visually analyzed four types of graphed data (i.e., ascending, descending, flat, variable) and indicated their judgments of student progress (i.e., 1=defi nitely

Task: Find the perimeter of a rectangle using a calculator Steps 12. Record (circle) answer

P

11. Enter =

P

10. Enter number for width

+

9. Enter +

+

8. Enter number for width

+

7. Locate width

P

6. Enter +

+

5. Enter number for length

P

4. Enter +

+

3. Enter number for length

P

2. Locate the length

P

1. Turn calculator on

+

Percent Correct Dates

50% 11/4

Figure 26.1 Task Analytic Assessment 370

11/5

11/6

11/7

11/8

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

Task: Match picture to science term Terms Heat

+

Cool

P

Condensation

P

Evaporation

P

Precipitation

P

Water cycle

+

Percent Correct Dates

33% 11/4

Figure 26.2

11/5

11/6

11/7

11/8

Discrete Trial Assessment

Task: Count the objects and circle the number

***

2

1

3

4

**

3

5

4

2

*****

5

1

4

3

*

4

1

3

2

Percent Correct Date

Figure 26.3

Frequency Correct on Skills Test

making progress; 5=defi nitely decreasing in performance) and program change (i.e., 1= defi nitely continue the program; 4=defi nitely change the program). The results suggested that when students are making progress, frequent data collection may not be needed to recognize trends, but when data are more variable, descending, or flat, more data are needed. From these studies, it seems important to collect daily data until a pattern of progress is clearly established. This may be feasible if teachers learn to collect data while providing instruction. For example, while teaching students to match pictures to science terms to show understanding of the concept (e.g., types of precipitation), each response can be scored immediately as independent correct (+), prompted correct (p), or incorrect (−). When the student shows clear progress, it may be then be practical to probe intermittently to be sure that this progress continues. 371

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

Data Summary and Review A second guideline that can be gleaned from research on data-based decisions is to use a standard method to summarize and review the data. Utley, Zigmond, and Strain (1987) found that data patterns are easier to identify with graphed data. Similarly, Snell and Loyd (1991) found that teachers were best at identifying patterns when they viewed graphed and ungraphed data together. Browder et al. (2011) have provided an example of how to superimpose the graph on the data sheet so that individual daily responses and the trend across time can be viewed together. In a series of studies, Browder and colleagues demonstrated the benefits of teachers learning a specific method for data-based decisions that was fi rst described in Browder (1987), and has since been updated in Browder et al. (2011). Briefly, these rules have teachers set a criterion for mastery, then summarize the mean and trend of a data phase, and consider whether data are accelerating, decelerating, variable, or flat. In general, if data are accelerating at a rate that will produce mastery by the target date (e.g., end of the school year), no instructional change is made. If the performance is showing regression or variability, the teacher makes changes to improve motivation. If the data suggest slow progress, the teacher makes changes to fade teacher assistance. If there has been no progress, the teacher considers methods to simplify the task or use supports such as assistive technology. When teachers have adhered to these rules, student learning has improved (Belfiore & Browder, 1992; Browder et al., 2005; Browder, Liberty, Heller, & D’Huyvetters, 1986; Browder, Demchak, Heller, & King, 1989). Using self-monitoring strategies, students may also participate in progress monitoring. Wehmeyer, Agran, and Hughes (1998) have identified research-based procedures for involving students in monitoring their own progress. Students can learn to set goals, monitor progress, and evaluate whether this progress meets a goal. Even young children may be able to learn this self-monitoring. Sainato, Strain, Lefebvre, and Rapp (1990) investigated the effectiveness of a self-evaluation treatment package on independent work behavior of three preschool children with moderate to severe autism. A set of photographs was created of the children modeling appropriate behaviors (i.e., listening to the teacher’s directions, sitting appropriately, working quietly) with captions below the photograph which described the behavior being demonstrated. The students learned to place a happy face for ‘yes’ and a frowning face for ‘no’ next to each photograph. Although this study illustrates how even very young children with developmental disabilities can learn to self-monitor their social behavior, similar methods have been used with older students (Agran, Blanchard, Wehmeyer, & Hughes, 2001), for teaching academic content (Lalli & Shapiro, 1990), and for overall self-directed learning in general education settings (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000).

Setting the Course for Effective Instruction Given the state of alternate assessment, the lack of information about the development and use of benchmark or interim assessments for students with significant cognitive disabilities, and the extensive research on progress monitoring efforts within the research literature base, there is much that can be done to promote the use of data for decision-making. While teachers routinely collect data in classrooms, it is meaningless unless there is explicit use of that data to inform instructional efforts. Fahsl and McAndrews (2012) describe a diagnostic teaching cycle in which the teacher establishes learning outcomes, plans assessment, plans instruction, implements instruction, and analyzes individual student learning. The planning of formative measures (e.g., rubrics) prior to instruction helps facilitate specific feedback

372

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

within instruction and allows for the systematic analysis of student performance data and learning. While the authors describe the use of the diagnostic teaching cycle in relation to writing, teachers can implement the cycle in every type of content area. It is the use of data that informs the next set of learning outcomes for each student. Some published curricula or published assessments offer more formative reviews of student progress. For example, within the Early Literacy Skills Builder (Attainment, www.attainmentcompany.com/elsb), a reading program designed for students with moderate to severe disabilities that addresses print and phonemic awareness, there are multiple data collection opportunities within student assessment items. Additionally, there is some emerging research literature utilizing formative measures with students with moderate to severe disabilities (e.g., Berrong, Schuster, Morse, & Collins, 2007; Horn, Schuster, & Collins, 2006; Skibo, Mims, & Spooner, 2011). Clearly the need for further study of formative methods of assessment to gather student performance data during instruction and the impact of that data upon teacher performance within current and future lessons is necessary. One area for development is the use of benchmark or interim assessments that are systematic and given at points in time prior to the AA-AAS. These types of assessment represent progress measures toward a set of learning outcomes that can provide data about teaching and learning, but do so in a manner that mirrors the summative. Interim assessments measure multiple learning outcomes for newly learned, further development of previously learned and/ or maintained knowledge and skills. The latter embodies a powerful aspect for this population of students, who commonly demonstrate regression over time. Interim assessments can serve the same purpose as formative assessments (provide teacher and student information about learning and instruction) but do so on a much larger scale with potentially more time between the instruction and assessment. There may be real benefits for using the cognitive model of assessment that interim measures provide. Kleinert, Browder, and Towles-Reeves (2009) describe how a model of cognition may apply with students with significant cognitive disabilities. Rather than a differential perspective of measuring knowledge and skills at a point in time, interim assessments can provide information about how students are developing understanding by connecting new knowledge to prior knowledge or generalizing content. There may be several reasons why the use and impact of interim assessments for this population of students are sparse in the research literature. One common characteristic of students who participate in the AA-AAS is deficits in short- and long-term memory (Bergeron & Floyd, 2006). Researchers and practitioners may not be compelled to work on another assessment for students who stakeholders worry are already being assessed too much and without at least a perceived benefit of such an assessment and data. While many districts outline expectations for the order and speed in which teachers and students should progress through general education content, there is very little in terms of what students should learn and the order in which they should do so for this population of teachers and students. As the general education expectations cover a wealth of content within one school year, developing competence of the content at that rate may present a hurdle for students who participate in the AA-AAS. As there is little information provided by states and districts in terms of what should be taught and when for this population, there is also likely no attempt to design quarterly or interim assessments. A potential reason for not determining the content and rate of delivery of instruction is the need for individualization for students within the AA-AAS. As this population may be more heterogeneous than any other population of students in schools, their abilities and needs vary greatly within classrooms and disability categories. Assessment and instruction should be conceptualized as one entity within the learning environment (Heritage, 2010; Shepard, 2006). Coherent assessment systems will require 373

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

teachers to understand the cognitive and conceptual connection that creates a foundation for learning (Herman, 2010). States who participate in Race to the Top are required to document how they are providing such a system. It is imperative that students who participate in the AA-AAS are thoughtfully considered in terms of how they and the teachers that serve them are being included beyond the summative assessment.

References Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. ( 2001). Teaching students to self-regulate their behavior: The differential effects of student- vs. teacher- delivered reinforcement. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 22, 319 –332 . Altman, J. R., Lazarus, S. S., Quenemoen, R. F., Kearns, J., Quenemoen, M., & Thurlow, M. L. ( 2010 ). 2009 survey of states: Accomplishments and new issues at the end of a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Bechard, S., Sheinker, J., Abell, R., Barton, K., Burling, K., Camacho, C., & Tucker, B. ( 2010 ). Measuring cognition of students with disabilities using technology- enabled assessments: Recommendations for a research agenda. Journal of Technology, Learning, and Assessment, 10 (4 ). Retrieved from http://ejournals.bc.edu/ojs/index.php/jtla/ Belfiore, P. J. & Browder, D. M. (1992 ). The effect of self-monitoring on teacher’s data-based decisions and on the progress of adults with severe mental retardation. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 27, 60 – 67. Bennett, R. E. ( 2011). Formative assessment: a critical review. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 18 (1), 5 –25. Bergeron, R. & Floyd, R. ( 2006 ). Broad cognitive abilities of children with mental retardation: An analysis of group and individual profi les. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 111, 417– 432 . Berrong, A. K., Schuster, J. W., Morse, T. E., & Collins, B. C. ( 2007 ). The effects of response cards on active participation and social behavior of students with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 19, 189 –199. doi 10.1007/s10882-007-9047-7 Black, P. & Wiliam, D. (1998 ). Inside the Black Box: Raising standards through classroom assessment. Phi Delta Kappan, 80, 139 –148. Browder, D. M. (1987 ). Assessment of individuals with severe handicaps: An applied behavior approach to life skills. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Browder, D., Demchak, M., Heller, M., & King, D. (1989 ). An in vivo evaluation of the use of databased rules to guide instructional decisions. The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14, 234 –240. Browder, D. M., Karvonen, M., Davis, S., Fallin, K., & Courtade-Little, G. ( 2005). The impact of teacher training on state alternate assessment scores. Exceptional Children, 71, 267–282. Browder, D., Liberty, K., Heller, M., & D’Huyvetters, K. K. (1986 ). Self-management by teachers: Improving instructional decision making. Professional School Psychology, 1, 165 –175. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Harris, A., & Wakeman, S. ( 2008 ). A meta-analysis on teaching mathematics to students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 407– 432 . Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Algozzine, B., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., Flowers, C., & Karvonen, M. ( 2003 ). What we know and need to know about alternate assessment. Exceptional Children, 70, 45 – 62 . Browder, D., Spooner, F., & Jimenez, B., ( 2011). Standards-based IEPs and progress monitoring. In D. M. Browder & F. Spooner (Eds.). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S. Y., Trela, K., & Baker, J. ( 2006 ). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309 –321. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Flowers, C., Rickelman, R., Pugalee, D., & Karvonen, M. ( 2007 ). Creating access to the general curriculum with links to grade level content for students with significant cognitive disabilities: An explication of the concept. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 2 –16. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, B. ( 2006 ). Research on reading for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392 – 408. 374

Alternate Assessment and Progress Monitoring

Cameto, R., Knokey, A.-M., Nagle, K., Sanford, C., Blackorby, J., Sinclair, B., & Riley, D. ( 2009 ). National profile on alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards. A report from the national study on alternate assessments (NCSER 2009–3014). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Cihak, D., Alberto, P. A., Taber-Doughty, T., & Gama, R. I. ( 2006 ). A comparison of static picture prompting and video prompting simulation strategies using group instructional procedures. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 21, 89 –99. Courtade, G. R., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. ( 2010 ) Training teachers to use an inquiry-based task analysis to teach science to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 378 –399. Deno, S. ( 2003 ). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 184 –192 . DiPipi-Hoy, C. & Jitendra, A. ( 2004 ). A parent- delivered intervention to teach purchasing skills to young adults with disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 144 –157. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1975). Fahsl, A. J. & McAndrews, S. L. ( 2012 ). Journal writing: Support for students with learning disabilities. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47, 234 –244. doi: 10.1177/1053451211424602 Farlow, L. J. & Snell, M. E. (1994 ). Making the most of student performance data (Innovations No. 1). Washington, DC : American Association on Mental Retardation. Gong, B. & Marion, S. ( 2006 ). Dealing with fl exibility in assessments for students with signifi cant cognitive disabilities: Synthesis report 60. National Center on Educational Outcomes. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota. Hager, K., & Slocum, T. ( 2005). Using alternate assessment to improve educational outcomes. Rural Special Education Quarterly, 24, 54 –59. Heritage, M. ( 2010 ). Formative assessment: Making it happen in the classroom. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Heritage, M. ( 2011). Formative assessment: An enabler of learning. New Horizons for Learning. Retrieved from http://education.jhu.edu/PD/newhorizons/Better/articles/Spring2011.html Herman, J. L. ( 2010 ). Coherence: Key to Next Generation Assessment Success (AACC Report). Los Angeles, CA: University of California. Horn, C. ( 2010 ). Response cards: An effective intervention for students with disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45 (1), 116 –123 Horn, C., Schuster, J. W., & Collins, B. C. ( 2006 ). Use of response cards to teach telling time to students with moderate and severe disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 382 –391. Hosp, M. E., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. ( 2007 ). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. Practical intervention in the schools series. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Hudson, M. & Wakeman, S. Y. ( 2012 ). Using formative assessment data to make instructional decisions and increase student engagement for students with intellectual disability. Manuscript in preparation. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1990 ) (amended 1997) Jackson, C. W. & Larkin, M. J. ( 2002 ). Teaching students to use grading rubrics. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 35 (1), 40 – 45. Kettler, R., Scholz, C., Oderman, E., Hixon, N., & Weigert, S. ( 2010 ). Innovative uses of technology to support assessment decision-making and curricular alignment for students with disabilities. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO). National Conference on Student Assessment, Detroit, MI. Kleinert, H., Browder, D. M., & Towles-Reeves, L. ( 2009 ). Models of cognition for students with significant cognitive disabilities: Implications for assessment. Review of Educational Research, 79, 301–326. doi: 10.3102/0034654308326160 Lalli, J. S. & Shapiro, E. S. (1990 ). The effects of self-monitoring and contingent reward on sight word acquisition. Education & Treatment of Children, 13, 129 –141. McManus, S. ( 2008 ). Attributes of effective formative assessment. Washington, DC : The Council of Chief State School Officers. Mechling, L. C. ( 2004 ). Effects of multi-media, computer-based instruction on grocery shopping fluency. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19, 23 –34. Mechling, L. C., Gast, D. L., & Krupa, K. ( 2007 ). Impact of SMART Board technology: An investigation of sight word reading and observational learning. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 37, 1869 –1882 . doi: 10.1007/s10803-007-0361-9 375

S.Y. Wakeman, C. Flowers, and D.M. Browder

Munger, G. F. & Loyd, B. H. (1989 ). Effects of frequency of data collection and graph characteristics on visual inference. Diagnostique, 14, 112 –124. Munger, G. F., Snell, M. E., & Loyd, B. H. (1989 ). A study of the effects of frequency of probe data collection and graph characteristics on teachers’ visual analysis. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 10, 109 –127. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. ( 2006 ). Phillips, G. ( 2009, December). Race to the top assessment program: A new generation of comparable state assessments. Presentation at the United States Department of Education Public Hearings, Denver, CO. Polychronis, S. C., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Riesen, T., & Jameson, M. ( 2004 ). A comparison of two trial distribution schedules in embedded instruction. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 19, 140 –151. Quenemoen, R. ( 2008 ). A brief history of alternate assessments based on alternate achievement standards (Synthesis Report 68). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Quenemoen, R., Thurlow, M., Moen, R., Thompson, S., & Morse, A. B. ( 2004 ). Progress monitoring in an inclusive standards-based assessment and accountability system (Synthesis Report 53). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Russell, M., Almond, P., Higgins, J., Clarke-Midura, J., Johnstone, C., Bechard, S., & Fedorchak, G. ( 2010, June). Technology enabled assessments: Examining the potential for universal access and better measurement in achievement. Presentation at the Council of Chief State School Officers (CCSSO) National Conference on Student Assessment, Detroit, MI. Russell, M., Hoffmann, T., & Higgins, J. ( 2009 ). Meeting the needs of all students: A universal design approach to computer-based testing. Innovate: Journal of Online Education, 5 (4 ), www.innovateonline.info/index.php?view=article&id=676 Sainato, D. M., Strain, P. S., Lefebvre, D. & Rapp, N. (1990 ). Effects of self- evaluation on the independent work skills of preschool children with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 56, 540 –549. Shepard, L.A. ( 2006 ). Classroom assessment. In R. L. Brennan (Ed.), Educational measurement (4th ed., pp. 623 – 646). Westport, CT: American Council on Education/Praeger. Skibo, H., Mims, P., & Spooner, F. ( 2011). Teaching number identification to students with severe disabilities using response cards. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 46, 124 –133. Snell, M. E. & Loyd, B. H. (1991). A study of the effects of trend, variability, frequency, and form of data on teachers’ judgments about progress and their decisions about program change. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 12, 41– 61. Stone, E. & Davey, T. ( 2011). Computer-adaptive testing for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Research Report ETS RR-11-32 . Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/RR-11-32. pdf Thompson, S. J., Johnstone, C. J., Thurlow, M. L., & Altman, J. R. ( 2005). 2005 State special education outcomes: Steps forward in a decade of change. Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Thurlow, M., Lazarus, S. S., Albus, D., & Hodgson, J. ( 2010 ). Computer-based testing: Practices and considerations (Synthesis Report No. 78). Minneapolis : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes. Tucker-Cohen, E., Wolff-Heller, K., Alberto, P., & Fredrick, R. D. ( 2008 ). Using a three- step decoding strategy with constant time delay to teach word reading to students with mild and moderate mental retardation. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 23, 67–78. U.S. Department of Education. Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. ( 2005). 26th Annual (2004) Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Vol. 1. Washington, DC. Utley, B. L., Zigmond, N., & Strain, P. S. (1987 ). How various forms of data affect teacher analysis of student performance. Exceptional Children, 53, 411– 422 . Wakeman, S. Y., Browder, D., & Flowers, C. ( 2011). Alternate achievement standards for alternate assessments: Considerations for policy and practice. In M. Russell (Ed.), Assessment in the Margins. Charlotte, NC : Information Age. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., & Hughes, C. (1998 ). Teaching self-determination to students with disabilities: Basic skills for successful transition. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Agran, M., Mithaug, D. E., & Martin, J. E. ( 2000 ). Promoting causal agency: The self- determined model of instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439 – 453. 376

27 Peer Support Interventions to Support Inclusive Schools* Erik W. Carter,1 Jennifer M. Asmus,2 and Colleen K. Moss2

Setting the Stage Conversations about effective schooling increasingly converge upon three overarching themes—rigor, relevance, and relationships (Carter & Draper, 2010; McNulty & Quaglia, 2007). Within the framework of the “new” three Rs, every student should receive the supports and encouragement needed to access the wide range of rigorous learning opportunities available within their school. Such learning opportunities should address content that has immediate and long-term relevance to students’ lives, with supports being tailored to meet individualized needs. Meaningful relationships with peers and adults should comprise both an avenue through which learning is supported and an outcome of high- quality educational experiences. Schools addressing these three elements well are presumed to provide better contexts for all students to thrive, both academically and socially. This integrated focus on rigor, relevance, and relationships holds particular promise for students with significant disabilities. As many as 1–2% of the student body in any school across the country has extensive support needs, as reflected by their eligibility for their state’s alternate assessment. Indeed, there are more than 940,000 school- age students nationally served under the special education categories of intellectual disability, autism, multiple disabilities, and deaf–blindness (U.S. Department of Education, 2010). Adopting a commitment to this focus on rigor, relevance, and relationships spurs a host of intriguing (and often difficult) questions: What exactly does it look like to support a student with a significant disability to participate fully in rigorous classes? How do educators ensure that instruction has relevance to such a heterogeneous segment of their school community? In what ways might relationships among students with complex communication challenges and their peers without disabilities be fostered? This chapter will address these questions by

* Partial support for this chapter came from the Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, through Grant R324A100391 to Vanderbilt University and the University of Wisconsin-Madison. 1 Vanderbilt University 2 University of Wisconsin-Madison 377

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

examining and discussing the ways in which peer-mediated strategies are developed, implemented, and supported within the research literature.

Inclusion and Access to the General Curriculum Most discussions about educational programming for students with significant disabilities inevitably (and often quite quickly) turn to questions about where and how. Indeed, the last two decades have been a time of fairly dramatic changes regarding the preferred location of educational service delivery for students with significant disabilities. Substantially more students are spending a greater proportion of their school day in the same classrooms as their peers without similar disabilities than ever in the past (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). The current emphasis on increasing general education class enrollment, however, is just one aspect of supporting access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities. Students must also receive the instruction, supports, and opportunities needed to meaningfully access the array of social and learning opportunities available within these settings (Ryndak, Moore, Orlando, & Delano, 2008/2009). Location certainly matters, but the manner in which students are supported to participate within inclusive classrooms is what actually makes the real difference. Absent carefully crafted supports, simply increasing students’ physical proximity to their peers without disabilities in general education classrooms is likely to be accompanied by limited engagement and social isolation (Carter, Sisco, Brown, Brickham, & Al-Khabbaz, 2008; Chung, Carter, & Sisco, 2012).

Increasing Reliance on Individually Assigned Adult Support Among the prevailing approaches used to support the general education participation of students with significant disabilities is the use of individually assigned adults, often taking the form of one-to-one paraprofessional support (Giangreco, 2010; Giangreco, Suter, & Doyle, 2010). According to the U.S. Department of Education (2010), there are now more than 400,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) paraprofessionals working with school-age children receiving special education services under IDEA. Indeed, in almost half of all states there are more paraprofessional FTEs than certified special educator FTEs (Giangreco, Hurley, & Suter, 2009). Increasingly, paraprofessionals work individually with students with significant disabilities and assume increasing responsibility for ensuring that students’ learning and social needs are being addressed within inclusive classrooms, clubs, and other school activities. For example, Fisher and Pleasants (2012) reported that more than one third (36%) of paraprofessionals spent part or all of their assignment providing one-to-one support to students. Similarly, Giangreco and Broer (2005) noted that paraprofessionals reported spending an average of 86% of their time in close proximity to students with disabilities to whom they were assigned.

The Need for Alternative Support Models The heavy reliance upon paraprofessionals and other individually assigned support models, however, has prompted growing concerns regarding the proper roles of support staff within inclusive classrooms. As noted in the literature (see reviews by Carter, Sisco, Chung, & Stanton-Chapman, 2010; Giangreco, Carter, Doyle, & Suter, 2010; Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012), research suggests that: 378

Peer Support Interventions

•

• •

• • •

Students’ academic engagement, class participation, and skill acquisition may be hindered when general educators shift instructional responsibility to paraprofessionals, who typically are provided with the least training in the school. Students may have fewer interactions with their classmates when in the presence of an adult, particularly during adolescence as peer groups take on more prominence. Students may develop unhealthy or inappropriate relationships with paraprofessionals, considering them to be among their primary friends or becoming overly dependent upon their assistance. Students may feel stigmatized by the constant presence of an adult or isolated from their classmates when provided support on the peripheries of the classroom. Students may receive fewer opportunities to develop self- determination and independence skills when adult support is constantly available to them. Students engage in challenging behavior more frequently when they have limited input regarding the supports they receive.

Like far too many educational trends, the use of individually assigned paraprofessionals is a service delivery approach currently lacking any convincing empirical support. Although paraprofessionals can serve an important supplemental role in schools, there is a paucity of research demonstrating that one-to-one adults are necessary for improving student outcomes or more effective than other approaches for supporting inclusion and general education participation. Indeed, the dominant support approach aimed at helping students access available social connections and learning opportunities within inclusive classrooms may inadvertently fail to do either. These unintended consequences are leading to calls for schools to more closely scrutinize their service delivery models and to identify alternative support approaches that contribute to better outcomes and improved school participation for students with significant disabilities (Downing, 2006; Giangreco, Suter, & Hurley, 2013; Wehmeyer, 2006).

Historical Perspectives on Research and Practice on Peer Support Interventions How might educators best meet the social and academic needs of students with significant disabilities while avoiding the potential drawbacks of prevailing support models? Peer support models are advocated as an evidence-based approach for supporting inclusive education.

Peer Support Interventions as a Promising Alternative Peer support interventions have emerged as a compelling alternative to the widespread use of individually assigned paraprofessional supports in elementary and secondary schools (Downing, 2006; Giangreco, Carter, et al., 2010). This educational support model involves equipping one or more peers to provide ongoing academic and/or social support to their same-age classmate with a significant disability while receiving needed assistance from paraprofessionals and/or educators (Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2009). This is a flexible support model that can (and should) be individually tailored to meet the unique needs of a student with a significant disability within a particular classroom context. In other words, although a core set of components and considerations should be addressed, each should be applied in personalized ways for a particular student. 379

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

Educational planning teams—with input from the student with a significant disability— typically begin by considering the specific roles peers might play in providing some (but usually not all) of the supports the student will need to participate meaningfully in a particular classroom, club, or other school activity. Although not every student will want to receive support from his or her peers, this intervention has particular relevance to students with individualized education program (IEP) goals focused on improving their social and communication skills, peer affi liations, or school participation. Next, multiple peers from within the same classroom or club are invited to become actively involved in the peer support arrangement. After agreeing to participate, these peers take part in brief orientation and training session(s) addressing their roles and responsibilities within these peer-group arrangements. As students initially begin working together, paraprofessionals or other classroom staff model support strategies, offer constructive feedback, and provide encouragement as the students learn to cooperate. Over the course of the semester, paraprofessionals strive to gradually fade their direct support as participating students gain more experience and confidence working with one another. As appropriate, paraprofessionals eventually shift to a broader support role within a classroom, providing assistance to the general educator or supporting other students as appropriate.

Emergence and Evolution of Peer-Mediated Interventions Peer support interventions as described briefly above (and in more depth later in this chapter) are neither new nor unique in their emphasis on fostering social connections and learning for students with significant disabilities. The field has a long history of designing, implementing, and evaluating a wide range of peer-mediated interventions focused on meeting the needs of students receiving special education services. For example, peer tutoring typically involves dyadic arrangements aimed at improving academic performance, cooperative learning assembles small groups of students who work together toward shared learning goals, and peer networks establish cohesive social networks to connect students socially beyond the classroom. Although peer-mediated interventions can take many forms, the defi ning feature of these approaches is the active involvement of peers in providing direct or indirect assistance to students with disabilities to promote their skill acquisition and/or school participation. Early applications of this class of interventions were focused primarily on early childhood settings, demonstrating that even young children could successfully support one another in targeted ways (McConnell, 2002; Odom, McConnell, & McEvoy, 1992). In the 1980s, these interventions were increasingly extended to elementary- and secondary-age students with significant disabilities, although the context for this work was primarily self- contained classrooms or non-instructional settings (e.g., cafeterias, hallways, gyms). Peers without disabilities—when strategically selected and appropriately trained—demonstrated considerable capacity (and willingness) to effectively support their schoolmates in learning an array of social, communication, and functional skills. As the inclusion movement gained momentum throughout the 1990s and into the 2000s, the settings for intervention delivery have similarly shifted toward general education classrooms (e.g., Carter, Moss, Hoffman, Chung, & Sisco, 2011; Jimenez, Browder, Spooner, & DiBiase, 2012; Shukla, Kennedy, & Cushing, 1998, 1999). Moreover, the focus of these interventions for students with significant disabilities has expanded beyond social-related goals to also addressing indicators of academic progress within the general curriculum. To date, more than 100 studies have explored the effectiveness of a myriad of peermediated interventions for students with intellectual disability or autism (see reviews 380

Peer Support Interventions

by Bellini, Peters, Benner, & Hopf, 2007; Carter et al., 2010; Carter, Sisco, & Chung, 2012; Chan et al., 2009). Many more studies have addressed their efficacy among students with learning, emotional, and other disabilities (Maheady, Harper, & Mallette, 2001; Rohrbeck, Ginsburg-Block, Fantuzzo, & Miller, 2003; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004). What is especially compelling about this literature is the extent to which these strategies appear to be effective across the entire grade span and with such a wide range of students with disabilities.

The Efficacy and Social Validity of Peer Support Interventions In this section, we review recent research addressing the efficacy of peer support arrangements within general education classrooms and other inclusive school settings. Schools are being asked to implement those educational services and supports most likely to make a noticeable difference in the lives of students (i.e., evidence-based strategies). Drawing upon strategies with strong empirical support increases the likelihood that students with significant disabilities will benefit socially and academically from the strategies educators utilize. However, we also consider the importance of addressing the extent to which these strategies are feasible to implement, are valued by key stakeholders (e.g., students, educators, families), and align well with other recommended school practices. Interventions with evidence of both effectiveness and acceptability may be more likely to be used—and make a difference—in everyday schools. The following overview focuses specifically on recent research addressing peer support interventions in inclusive school and community settings.

Social-Related Benefits Peer support interventions offer distinct advantages over adult- delivered support when it comes to fostering social interactions and peer relationships within inclusive settings. For example, Carter and colleagues (2007, 2011) examined the social benefits associated with peer support arrangements for high school students enrolled in either core academic or elective classes. Students with severe disabilities interacted substantially more often with their classmates—about both academic and social-related topics—when working with a peer support, compared with receiving support primarily from a paraprofessional. Shukla et al. (1998, 1999) reported similar social interaction outcomes for middle school students with significant disabilities, but also found that students accessed a wider variety of social supports (e.g., gaining information, material aid, emotional support, and companionship) from peers versus adults. Through these interactions, students with disabilities gain new opportunities to learn and practice social and communication skills (e.g., Hunt, Alwell, Farron-Davis, & Goetz, 1996; Weiner, 2005) as well as to meet more of their classmates (e.g., Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997). Sometimes, these relationships even develop into friendships (Haring & Breen, 1992; Kennedy, Cushing, & Itkonen, 1997) and contribute to a greater sense of belonging and school membership (Schnorr, 1997).

Academic-Related Benefits The potential benefits of peer support interventions also appear to extend into the academic domain. Studies suggest that these arrangements promote academic engagement in the classroom at least as well as, if not better than, individually assigned paraprofessional supports. For example, Shukla and colleagues (1998, 1999) found that some middle school students with 381

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

disabilities had higher rates of academic engagement and greater access to instructional content aligned with the general curriculum when they received support from peers instead of exclusively from adults. For other students, academic engagement did not differ depending on whether peers or adults provided direct support. Similarly, Carter, Cushing, Clark, and Kennedy (2005) showed that students with severe disabilities maintained high levels of academic engagement when working with peer supports in inclusive academic classes, suggesting that these interventions do not hinder learning and may actually enhance it. Finally, Jimenez et al. (2012) showed how peers could use systematic instruction to effectively support middle school students with intellectual disability to acquire science vocabulary and concepts in an inclusive classroom.

Benefits for Participating Peers without Disabilities The impact of these interventions also clearly extends to the peers who provide the ongoing support. Perhaps most directly, students assuming these support roles appear to benefit academically from their involvement. Although administrators and educators sometimes raise concerns about whether students may fall behind academically if expected to provide assistance to classmates, research suggests that academic improvements may actually be more likely to occur (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997; Shukla et al., 1998, 1999). Interviews with students who have participated in peer-mediated interventions highlight a number of other salient benefits. Students often report having improved attitudes toward students with disabilities, unexpected personal growth, a greater appreciation of diversity, a stronger commitment to inclusion, new advocacy skills, and lasting friendships as a result of their involvement (Carter, Hughes, Copeland, & Breen, 2001; Carter et al., 2012; Copeland et al., 2004; Kamps et al., 1998). Why is this impact so important? Interactions during the school years can shape the attitudes, expectations, and commitments of the next generation of students—young people who will be future employers, neighbors, parents, fellow congregational or civic group members, or support providers for adults with significant disabilities. Thus, the opportunities they have (or miss out on) to get to know their classmates with severe disabilities can have a long-term ripple effect.

Acceptability and Feasibility As previously emphasized, it is essential that educators are fluent in educational practices that work and are feasible to implement in their classrooms. Research suggests that peer support interventions fit both descriptions. Carter and Pesko (2008) reported that a large proportion of the paraprofessionals, general educators, and special educators they queried considered a peer-mediated intervention approach to be effective, easy to implement, and was regularly used in their schools. The flexibility of peer support interventions make them adaptable to a wide variety of classrooms with a diverse range of students. The feasibility of the strategies suggests that they may be likely to be used in everyday classrooms.

Setting the Course for Successful Implementation In the remainder of this chapter, we describe primary steps associated with implementing peer support interventions to support inclusive education for students with significant disabilities. For each step, we address key considerations and review the related research. 382

Peer Support Interventions

Planning for Meaningful Instruction and Supports in Inclusive Contexts Careful, collaborative planning is an essential element of inclusive education. The same principle is true when implementing peer support interventions. A strong peer support plan provides general educators and paraprofessionals (as well as students with significant disabilities and their peers) an initial roadmap for how students will work with and support one another during various classroom activities throughout the entire semester. An initial plan should be developed by the educational team (usually led by the special educator, with input from general educators and related service providers) prior to selecting peers and orienting them to their roles. However, peer support plans should be considered dynamic documents that evolve based upon input from team members, observations in classrooms, and feedback from participating students. Although the planning process itself has not been explicitly researched, several issues should be addressed within a plan. Cushing, Clark, Carter, and Kennedy (2005) outlined a broad planning process for inclusive classrooms that provides a useful context for considering how peers might provide support within a particular classroom. This planning process involves consideration of (a) the specific standards informing curricula, instruction, and assessment; (b) the expectations general educators hold for all students in their classrooms; (c) the IEP goals a student will work toward in a specific class; and (d) the avenues through which the student will be supported to participate in the array of learning and social opportunities existing within that classroom. First, general and special educators identify the specific grade-level standards addressed within a particular classroom and discuss the ways in which students with severe disabilities will meet each standard, as well as any modifications that may be necessary. Next, the team completes a classroom activities assessment to document the (a) extent to which various instructional formats (e.g., class discussion, small group projects, silent reading, computer work) will be employed throughout the semester, (b) avenues through which learning is assessed for all students (e.g., weekly quizzes, homework assignments, or end- of-unit tests), (c) materials all students need to access these learning activities (e.g., planners, textbooks, tablet computers), (d) forms of assistance typically provided to students during these various activities, and (e) any classroom- specific rules and routines students are expected to follow. Third, they consider which of the student’s IEP goals might be met within the class (and how). Finally, the team outlines the specific supports a student with a disability will need in order to participate in each of the identified class activities and determines which of those supports will be provided by school staff and which will be provided by peers. One practical and promising variation on this approach that focuses more specifically on delineating the roles of peers and paraprofessionals in providing support to a student was described by Carter and colleagues (2011). They used a structured planning tool to identify specific strategies and general support approaches that could be drawn upon to support a student with disabilities during different segments of the class: (a) toward the beginning of class before instruction has begun, (b) during whole- class instruction or lecture, (c) during small-group activities, (d) during independent work, and (e) toward the end of class as instruction has concluded. Within each of these five segments (that are typical of most classrooms), they identified several avenues through which the student with a significant disability could participate in ongoing class activities, specific ways peers could support the student to do so, and ideas for how the paraprofessional could facilitate interactions and promote the student’s active participation in class activities, as shown in Figure 27.1. Although every plan should be individualized on the basis of the student’s IEP goals, classroom- specific 383

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

The Biology class is a great place for Brad to work on goals related to developing social and conversational skills, as well as expanding his typing and writing skills. Below are some ideas for how Brad might become more involved in class activities during Biology, as well as some ideas for how the peers at Brad’s table could support him. At the beginning of class . . . Brad could . . .

Peers could . . .

The facilitator could . . .

• Talk quietly with his peers (when it is okay with the teacher) • Pass out worksheets or other materials to the class (if there are any that day) • Listen and respond to Ms. Hale do attendance • Boot up his laptop, if he will be taking notes in class

• Ask Brad about his day or upcoming school events • Help Brad pass out any worksheets • Make sure Brad has all of the same materials for class, such as a book, worksheets, lab materials, etc. • Help Brad get out his notebook, pen, paper, etc. for class

• Try to draw some of the peers at the table into conversation with Brad—you may have to do some modeling or give them some ideas of things they could ask about or prompt Brad to ask questions of his peers • Make sure Brad has the same materials as his classmates, such as a book, any worksheets, paper, pencil, lab materials, etc. • Look through the materials quickly to see if there are any things that could be adapted readily

When there are lectures or whole group instruction . . . Brad could . . .

Peers could . . .

The facilitator could . . .

• Listen to Ms. Hale as she presents information to the class • Quietly ask his peers questions about the materials Ms. Hale is presenting • Take notes by typing important specific key words or phrases that are being written down by a peer (preferably) or the facilitator • Copy by hand those same key words or phrases with the facilitator’s help or highlight notes • Turn off/on the lights when Ms. Hale is using the overhead projector

• Make sure Brad has all of the same materials for the activity as they do • As you are taking your own notes, copy down on a separate piece of paper some of the important words or ideas from the class discussion; Brad can then type these as his own notes or copy them down with the facilitator’s help. Write fairly large so Brad can see clearly • Periodically check to make sure Brad is doing okay with typing or writing his notes • Occasionally lean over and quietly summarize a key point or interesting fact for Brad, or ask him simple questions that help him follow along • Encourage Brad with lots of positive feedback

• Make sure Brad has the same materials as his classmates • Always brainstorm ways Brad can be engaged in the discussion: Can he answer a question? Can he share an idea? • Help Brad to take modified notes by typing key words/phrases on the laptop (preferred) or writing them out by hand • Encourage Brad to look at Ms. Hale or the whiteboard as instruction is taking place • Let the peers know when they are doing a great job interacting with or supporting Brad • Prompt Brad to ask his peers to double check his notes

384

Peer Support Interventions

When there are small group or lab activities . . . Brad could . . .

Peers could . . .

• Listen to Ms. Hale as she • Make sure Brad has all of presents instructions to the the same materials for the class activity as they do • Participate in the small • Give Brad opportunities to group or lab activity make choices about or give • Ask peers for help doing input into the activity his part of the activity • Even if Brad can’t do all of an activity, he can probably still do a part of it • Encourage Brad with lots of positive feedback

The facilitator could . . . • Make sure Brad has the same materials as his classmates for the activity • Always brainstorm ways Brad can be engaged—even in small ways—in the activity: Can he mark the group’s answers on the worksheet? Can he be asked his opinion about an answer? • Give peers ideas for questions they can ask Brad or ways they can involve him—think creatively! • Let the peers know when they are doing a great job supporting Brad • Give Brad examples of questions he can ask his classmates

When there is independent seatwork . . . Brad could . . .

Peers could . . .

• Listen to Ms. Hale as she • Before beginning your own presents instructions to the work, make sure Brad has all class of the materials he needs for • Work with the facilitator the activity to finish the worksheet or • When you are finished with other activity your own work, check in to • When other peers are see if Brad could use some done, ask them for help help finishing his own work completing his work or help double check his answers • Encourage Brad with lots of positive feedback

The facilitator could . . . • Make sure Brad has the same materials as his classmates for the activity • Work with Brad on completing the activity in a modified way. Can Brad tell you the answer if you read it to him? If you gave him the answer, could he practice typing or writing it down on the worksheet? • Is there an alternative activity Brad could complete? • Let the peers know when they are doing a great job supporting Brad

At the end of class . . . Brad could . . .

Peers could . . .

The facilitator could . . .

• Talk quietly with his peers • Ask Brad about his day, what • Make sure Brad has the same (if everyone’s work is he is doing after school, or materials as classmates completed) upcoming events • Try to draw all peers at the table • Collect any materials for • Help Brad put away his into conversation with Brad—you Ms. Hale things may have to do a little modeling • Put away his things • Walk with Brad to or part to get things stared • Shut down his computer if way to his next class he was taking notes in class

Figure 27.1

Example Peer Support Plan

Used with permission from Carter, E. W. & Asmus, J. (2010–2014). Peer Partner Project. 385

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

expectations and activities, observations of the classroom, and discussions among educational team members, prior studies suggest an array of supports that students might provide to one another within the context of these interventions. The initial plan is eventually shared with peers during the orientation session and their ideas for supporting the student’s participation in the classroom can be incorporated into the plan. Because the format of general education classes often fluctuates over the course of a semester, the plan provides paraprofessionals and peers a menu of support options that can be drawn upon at appropriate times, rather than a scripted instructional plan for any particular day. A written plan is especially helpful for paraprofessionals. Too often, they are provided with limited guidance regarding their support roles within inclusive classrooms, and many report having to make instructional decisions on their own. Paraprofessionals should not assume the role of instructional leader for the students with whom they work (Giangreco & Broer, 2005). Indeed, it is essential that students with significant disabilities have access to general and special education teachers who assume primary responsibility for making instructional decisions that are carried out with the support of well-informed and well-prepared paraprofessionals. A strong plan provides paraprofessionals with clear direction on their responsibilities within inclusive settings.

Selecting Peers to Provide Support The process of selecting and inviting peers to participate in this intervention is a critical factor influencing its impact and sustainability. Peers not only provide direct academic and social support to their classmate with a significant disability, but they also informally model appropriate social and classroom skills and strive to make connections between their partner and other students in the classroom. Thus, their capacity and commitment to carry out these various roles well will certainly impact the success of the intervention. The success of any peer support intervention depends in part on the degree to which students with and without disabilities will work well together in mutually beneficial ways. Although prior studies usually clearly describe the students with significant disabilities who have participated in these interventions, the same cannot be said about the students without disabilities who provide ongoing support. Although the research literature offers numerous examples of factors to consider when selecting peers to participate in peer-mediated interventions, there is no clear consensus on the most important or essential criteria when selecting which peers should be invited to provide support in the classroom. For example, prior studies have selected peers without disabilities on the basis of having (a) good social and interpersonal skills, (b) interests in common with the student whom they will be supporting, (c) appropriate classroom behavior, (d) consistent attendance, (e) high social status, and/or (f ) a history of being reliable and dependable (Carter et al., 2012, 2010). In other studies, priority has been given to peers whom the student with a disability wanted to get to know, who had prior experience working with students with disabilities, who regularly volunteered to help other students in the class, or who were the same gender and of similar age as the focus student. Students with highincidence disabilities or who themselves struggle academically should not be overlooked as potential support providers (Cushing & Kennedy, 1997). Although this flexibility has some distinct advantages, it also highlights the importance of being explicit about which qualities and experiences of peers will align best with the student’s individualized goals and support needs in a particular classroom. Because fostering social relationships is a prominent goal of most peer support interventions, we strongly encourage teams to consider the preferences of 386

Peer Support Interventions

the student with disabilities who will be receiving the support when determining which peers to involve. In addition to deciding whom to invite, planning teams should also consider how many students to involve in these arrangements. In prior studies, one or two peers has been most common, although as many as four peers have participated in some classroom-based interventions (Kennedy, Shukla, & Fryxell, 1997; Sasso, Mundschenk, Melloy, & Casey, 1998). Involving more than one peer in a given class can expand interaction opportunities and increase the number of individuals promoting engagement within ongoing class activities. However, involving only one peer can lead to gaps in available support when that student is absent or has other work to complete. Thus, involving multiple peers ensures that support is consistently available, but involving too many students can be counterproductive and result in peers interacting more with each other than with their partner with a disability. Carter et al. (2005) directly compared peer support configurations and found that pairing two peers with one student with a significant disability was associated with higher rates of social interaction and comparable levels of academic engagement relative to involving just one peer in providing support. A triadic arrangement also seems to be beneficial for peers, as it enables these students to share support responsibilities in flexible, balanced ways that allow them to also fi nish their own work. Invitations for peers to participate can be extended in a variety of ways. For example, educators, paraprofessionals, or other school staff can identify students whom they perceive would be effective in a support role and extend personal invitations to become involved. This appears to be the most widely used approach within the research literature. Brief class announcements might also be made about the general availability of opportunities to provide support throughout the semester, followed by an invitation for interested students to talk with the teacher outside of class for more details. The latter approach provides an avenue for students to volunteer for this role when educators might not have initially considered them. Finally, some educators have implemented peer-mediated strategies for all students in their class (e.g., class-wide peer tutoring) or opted to rotate students into and out of peer support arrangements over the course of the semester or school year. This increases the number of peers who have the opportunity to get to know and work closely with the focus student. Regardless of the approach used, it can be helpful to provide intrigued students with (a) a brief description of their proposed role, (b) an overview of the time commitment, (c) general information about the student with whom they will be working, and (d) an opportunity to ask any questions.

Orienting and Equipping Peer Supports Although inclusive educational experiences have become more widespread and student attitudes toward disability appear to be shifting in positive ways (McLeskey et al., 2012; Siperstein, Parker, Bardon, & Widaman, 2007), most students will benefit from receiving some targeted information and strategies prior to beginning their support roles in the classroom. Often, peers may not know well (or know at all) the student with whom they will soon be working. An initial orientation session can help clarify the goals of peer support arrangements, provide an overview of any expectations related to this new role, and enable students to learn more about their classmate with a significant disability and the best ways to help support his or her class involvement (Carter & Kennedy, 2006). Such a meeting can ensure that students are comfortable and confident in their new roles and feel adequately supported by school staff. 387

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

Initial orientation sessions can typically be conducted in about 30–45 minutes and usually take place outside of instructional time (e.g., during an advisory period or study hall, at lunch, before or after school). Although these sessions conceivably could be led by any school staff (e.g., case managers, counselor, general educator), they are most commonly facilitated by the person who will be directly supporting the students with and without disabilities as they work together in the classroom (usually a paraprofessional or special educator). As peer support arrangements become more widely used within a school, multiple peers from across classrooms could be brought together at the same time for shared initial orientation sessions. Because peer support interventions will be implemented somewhat differently across classrooms and students, the content addressed during training sessions should be tailored to prepare students well for the specific contexts in which they will be providing support. For example, some peers may be more active in supporting their classmates’ academic goals, while other students may be focused on social and communication goals; each would benefit from more focused attention on targeted strategies in these areas. However, there are some common topics that should be considered when planning an orientation for any student (Carter et al., 2009; Hughes & Carter, 2008). In our own recent research, we have addressed the following issues within these orientation meetings: • •

• • • • • • • • •

Primary reasons for involving peers actively in supporting their classmate with disabilities; Specific goals associated with a particular peer support arrangement (e.g., increase the number of peers with whom the student interacts, develop new friends, increase independence and involvement in class, acquire particular academic skills); Information about the interests, talents, and school activities of their partner with disabilities; The educational goals of their partner for that classroom, broadly described in ways that do not breach confidentiality; The importance of maintaining privacy and respectful language; Basic instructional and support strategies, such as modeling, reinforcing, prompting, and constructive feedback; Strategies for interacting with someone who uses technology or a communication system; Ideas for effectively motivating and encouraging their partner; Possible avenues for increasing interactions among their partner and other peers in the classroom; Guidance on when to seek assistance from educators or paraprofessionals; Any other responsibilities and expectations specific to their roles in a particular classroom, including stated emphasis on attending to and completing their own classroom work.

The peer support plan developed by the educational team provides the focus for much of this discussion. The intervention facilitator reviews key elements of the plan and discusses with peers the specific ways in which they can provide support during different types of class activities. When appropriate, the facilitator may demonstrate or role-play any of the strategies included on the plan. Peers are then encouraged to share their own ideas for additional supports that could be incorporated into the plan. Our experience has been that peers often have very creative insights into how meaningful class participation can be fostered. In addition to covering the previously mentioned topics, time should be allocated for the adult facilitator and the peers to get to know one another if they have only recently been introduced. By the end of the meeting, everyone should be clear about the next steps to be be taken in the classroom. 388

Peer Support Interventions

Monitoring and Supporting Students Shortly after the initial orientation session, peers begin working with their classmates with significant disabilities on a regular basis in the classroom. This often requires some adjustment in seating arrangements to ensure that the students are sitting in close proximity to one another. During the fi rst week or two, paraprofessionals continue supporting the student with disabilities as he or she also begins working with peers. The peers take on an increasingly more prominent role in assisting the student during small- and large-group instructional formats and interacting socially with him or her during appropriate times in class. At the same time, paraprofessionals provide ongoing support and encouragement to the students, checking in regularly with all of the students to solicit feedback and answer questions. As students gain confidence in the arrangement and greater familiarity with one another, paraprofessionals take systematic steps to fade their direct support of the students. Although paraprofessionals continue to monitor students’ progress and offer any help needed, they also begin to shift to a broader support role within the classroom and gain additional flexibility to support the teacher and other classmates in new ways. Most peers will quickly rise to their roles and become quite effective at providing support; other students will benefit from having more time and guidance before they feel confident. As students accrue experience working with one another, the focus of the supports they exchange will likely evolve over time. For example, peers may offer supports aimed at improving social interactions (e.g., initiating conversations, making introductions to other students in the class, asking about interests outside of school), promoting communication skills (e.g., modeling particular social skills, encouraging use of a communication device, reinforcing communication attempts), increasing academic engagement (e.g., sharing notes, borrowing class materials, teaching “classroom success” skills), and/or fostering learning (e.g., completing assignments collaboratively, discussing an important science concept, reviewing the accuracy of homework assignments). As paraprofessionals fade their direct support, they rarely step out of the picture altogether. Instead, paraprofessionals can implement an array of facilitation strategies to promote engagement and encourage connections with peers (Causton-Theoharis & Malmgren, 2005; Feldman & Matos, 2013). For example, they might (a) model for peers how to initiate and extend conversations; (b) show peers how to converse with someone with complex communication challenges; (c) call attention to the interests, strengths, experiences, or other things students with and without disabilities have in common; (d) prompt a student’s use of particular social interaction skills; (e) redirect students’ questions and comments away from the adults and toward one another; (f ) help peers interpret any challenging or unusual behaviors exhibited by their classmate; (g) assign responsibilities in the classroom requiring frequent interaction or joint responsibilities; (h) ask additional peers to provide targeted or timelimited supports as needed; and/or (i) encourage students to connect with one another beyond the classroom. These facilitation efforts can take place within the ongoing flow of the class, or paraprofessionals can connect with students immediately before or after class in order to share ideas.

Evaluating Impact and Acceptability Ongoing evaluation of peer support interventions is critical to promoting short- and longterm success. Even when educators and students perceive that everything is going well, a data- driven approach is important for ensuring the intervention is having the intended impact 389

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

upon the participating students. Both summative and formative data can be drawn upon to capture the process and outcomes associated with these interventions. A variety of data collection approaches can be used by educators to capture different dimensions of impact, as well as to explore how participating students and staff view the acceptability and feasibility of the strategy. One of the most direct ways to capture change associated with peer support arrangements is through direct observation. Observational measures have been widely used in school-based research (Carter et al., 2012) and can be readily adapted for use in the classroom before, during, and/or after the intervention is implemented. Periodic observations could be completed by paraprofessionals (with training), special educators, or other available staff, and focus on key outcomes most pertinent to the participating student. For example, observations might address one or more of the following areas: • • • • • • •

The nature of students’ peer interactions, such as appropriateness, reciprocity, perceived quality; The types of conversational skills used by students, such as the frequency of academic- and social-related initiations, responses, or elaborations; The modes of communication used by students, such as communication devices or signs; The persons involved in interactions, such as peer supports, other classmates, or adults; The percentage of time during which students are engaged academically; The percentage of time students work on activities aligned with the general curriculum; The percentage of time students spend in different instructional formats, such as small groups or working with a one-to-one adult support.

Observations also can extend beyond the classroom to determine whether interactions spill over to other settings (e.g., clubs, after- school programs, cafeterias, between classes). Rating scales also can be completed before and after establishing peer support interventions to capture changes that may be difficult to document through direct observation. For example, formal assessments can be used to assess changes in students’ social skills (Gresham & Elliott, 2008), adaptive behavior (Sparrow, Cicchetti, & Balla, 2005), and support needs (Thompson et al., 2004) at different points throughout the semester. Informal social network assessments (Kennedy, Shukla, et al., 1997) and sociometric approaches (Mu, Siegel, & Allinder, 2000) can be used to gauge whether students are developing new relationships and affi liations among their peers without disabilities during and beyond the school day. Academic assessments anchored to the course content can also be drawn upon to determine the extent to which students are acquiring critical content knowledge ( Jimenez et al., 2012). Similarly, progress on a student’s academic-related IEP goals in the classroom can be captured by reviewing permanent products and/or through direct observations. In addition to collecting data on student performance, it is also instructive to consider how key stakeholders view the goals, procedures, and outcomes associated with the intervention. General educators, special educators, paraprofessionals, parents, and students with and without disabilities all have unique perspectives to share about the implementation of this educational support strategy in inclusive classrooms. Students with significant disabilities should be asked about their experiences of receiving peer support, the extent to which they enjoy working with and getting to know their peer partners, and their preferences about continuing to receive such support in the future (and elsewhere). Peers should be asked about their personal experiences in this new role, the lessons they are learning, the impact they have noticed, and 390

Peer Support Interventions

their advice for making the intervention more effective and enjoyable. General educators and paraprofessionals can provide insights into the implementation requirements of the intervention within the classroom, the extent to which they feel well- equipped to deliver the strategy with adequate fidelity, the degree to which participating students are engaged and reaching intended goals, and their own recommendations for strengthening these supports. Finally, parents have a unique vantage point from which they can speak to changes in their child’s excitement about going to school, social connections taking place beyond the school day (e.g., phone calls, e-mails, or messaging with peers), or other noticeable differences related to the intervention.

Conclusion Schools emphasizing rigor, relevance, and relationships for all students within their school communities are poised to provide a learning environment where students can thrive both academically and socially. Peer-mediated interventions and, in particular, peer support arrangements, are an avenue by which students with and without significant disabilities can learn from and alongside their peers. In addition to the impact of exchanging social and academic support, making meaningful connections with those who may seem different from themselves benefits students both with and without significant disabilities. With the increasing support of research and educator and student acceptability and feasibility data, peer supports have emerged as a promising, practical, and natural intervention for promoting rigor, relevance, and relationships.

References Bellini, S., Peters, J. K., Benner, L., & Hopf, A. ( 2007 ). A meta-analysis of school-based social skills interventions for children with autism spectrum disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 153 –162 . Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15 –25. Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2009 ). Peer support strategies: Improving all students’ social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Carter, E. W. & Draper, J. ( 2010 ). Making school matter: Supporting meaningful secondary experiences for adolescents who use AAC. In D. McNaughton & D. R. Buekelman (Eds.), Transition strategies for adolescents and young adults who use augmentative and alternative communication (pp. 69–90). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Carter, E. W., Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., & Breen, C. ( 2001). Differences between high school students who do and do not volunteer to participate in peer interaction programs. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 229 –239. Carter, E. W. & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2006 ). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 284 –292 . Carter, E. W., Moss, C. K., Hoffman, A., Chung, Y., & Sisco, L. G. ( 2011). Efficacy and social validity of peer support arrangements for adolescents with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 78, 107–125. Carter, E. W. & Pesko, M. J. ( 2008 ). Social validity of peer interaction intervention strategies in high school classrooms: Effectiveness, feasibility, and actual use. Exceptionality, 16, 156 –173. Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Brown, L., Brickham, D., & Al-Khabbaz, Z. A. ( 2008 ). Peer interactions and academic engagement of youth with developmental disabilities in inclusive middle and high school classrooms. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 113, 479 – 494. Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., & Chung, Y. ( 2012 ). Peer-mediated support strategies. In P. A. Prelock & R. McCauley (Eds.), Treatment of autism spectrum disorders: Evidence-based intervention strategies for communication and social interactions (pp. 221–254 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. 391

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Chung, Y., & Stanton-Chapman, T. ( 2010 ). Peer interactions of students with intellectual disabilities and/or autism: A map of the intervention literature. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 63 –79. Carter, E. W., Sisco, L. G., Melekoglu, M., & Kurkowski, C. ( 2007 ). Peer supports as an alternative to individually assigned paraprofessionals in inclusive high school classrooms. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 213 –227. Causton-Theoharis, J. N. & Malmgren, K. W. ( 2005). Increasing peer interactions for students with severe disabilities via paraprofessional training. Exceptional Children, 71, 431– 444. Chan, J. M., Lang, R., Rispoli, M., O’Reilly, M., Sigafoos, J., & Cole, H. ( 2009 ). Use of peermediated interventions in the treatment of autism spectrum disorders: A systematic review. Research in Autism Spectrum Disorders, 3, 876 – 889. Chung, Y., Carter, E. W., & Sisco, L. G. ( 2012 ). Social interaction of students with severe disabilities who use augmentative and alternative communication in inclusive classrooms. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 117, 349 –367. doi: 10.1352/ 1944-7558-117.5.349 Copeland, S. R., Hughes, C., Carter, E. W., Guth, C., Presley, J., Williams, C. R., & Fowler, S. E. ( 2004 ). Increasing access to general education: Perspectives of participants in a high school peer support program. Remedial and Special Education, 26, 342 –352 . Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., Carter, E. W., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2005). Access to the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities: What it means and how to accomplish it. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38 ( 2 ), 6 –13. Cushing, L. S. & Kennedy, C. H. (1997 ). Academic effects on students without disabilities who serve as peer supports for students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 30, 139 –152 . Downing, J. E. ( 2006 ). On peer support, universal design, and access to the core curriculum for students with severe disabilities: A personnel preparation perspective. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 327–330. Feldman, E. K. & Matos, R. ( 2013 ). Training paraprofessionals to facilitate social interactions between children with autism and their typically developing peers. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions. 15, 169 –179. doi: 10.1177/1098300712457421 Fisher, M. & Pleasants, S. ( 2012 ). Roles, responsibilities, and concerns of paraeducators: Findings from a statewide survey. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 287–297. Giangreco, M. F. ( 2010 ). One-to-one paraprofessionals for students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Is conventional wisdom wrong? Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 48, 1–13. Giangreco, M. F. & Broer, S. M. ( 2005). Questionable utilization of paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10 –26. Giangreco, M. F., Carter, E. W., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. ( 2010 ). Supporting students with disabilities in inclusive classrooms: Personnel and peers. In R. Rose (Ed.), Confronting obstacles to inclusion: International responses to developing inclusive schools (pp. 247–263 ). Abingdon, Oxfordshire, UK: Routledge. Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. ( 2012 ). Constructively responding to requests for paraprofessionals: We keep asking the wrong questions. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 362 –373. Giangreco, M. F., Hurley, S. M., & Suter, J. C. ( 2009 ). Personnel utilization and general class placement of students with disabilities: Ranges and ratios. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 53 –56. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Doyle, M. B. ( 2010 ). Paraprofessionals in inclusive schools: A review of recent research. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20, 41–57. Giangreco, M. F., Suter, J. C., & Hurley, S. M. ( 2013 ). Revisiting personnel utilization in inclusion- oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 47, 121–132. doi:10.1177/ 0022466911419015 Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S. N. ( 2008 ). Social skills improvement system. Minneapolis, MN : Pearson Assessments. Haring, T. G. & Breen, C. G. (1992 ). A peer-mediated social network intervention to enhance the social integration of persons with moderate and severe disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 25, 319 –333. 392

Peer Support Interventions

Hughes, C. & Carter, E. W. ( 2008 ). Peer buddy programs for successful secondary school inclusion. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Hunt, P., Alwell, M., Farron-Davis, F., & Goetz, L. (1996 ). Creating socially supportive environments for fully included students who experience multiple disabilities. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 21, 53 –71. Jimenez, B. A., Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & DiBiase, W. ( 2012 ). Inclusive inquiry science using peer-mediated embedded instruction for students with moderate intellectual disability. Exceptional Children, 78, 301–317. Kamps, D. M., Kravits, T., Lopez, A. G., Kemmerer, K., Potucek, J., Harrell, L. G., & Garrison, L. (1998 ). What do the peers think? Social validity of peer-mediated programs. Education & Treatment of Children, 21, 107–134. Kennedy, C. H., Cushing, L. S., & Itkonen, T. (1997 ). General education participation improves the social contacts and friendship networks of students with severe disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 7, 167–189. Kennedy, C. H., Shukla, S., & Fryxell, D. (1997 ). Comparing the effects of educational placement on the social relationships of intermediate school students with severe disabilities. Exceptional Children, 64, 31– 47. Maheady, L., Harper, G. F., & Mallette, B. ( 2001). Peer-mediated instruction and interventions for students with mild disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 4 –14. McConnell, S. R. ( 2002 ). Interventions to facilitate social interaction for young children with autism: Review of available research and recommendations for educational intervention and future research. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 32, 351–372 . McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. ( 2012 ). Are we moving toward education students with disabilities in less restrictive settings? The Journal of Special Education, 46, 131–140. McNulty, R. J. & Quaglia, R. J. ( 2007 ). Rigor, relevance, and relationships. The School Administrator, 64 ( 8 ), 18 –24. Mu, K., Siegel, E. B., & Allinder, R. M. ( 2000 ). Peer interactions and sociometric status of high school students with moderate or severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 25, 142 –152 . Odom, S. L., McConnell, S. R., & McEvoy, M. A. (1992 ). Social competence of young children with disabilities: Issues and strategies for intervention. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Rohrbeck, C. A., Ginsburg-Block, M. D., Fantuzzo, J. W., & Miller, T. R. ( 2003 ). Peer-assisted learning interventions with elementary school students: A meta-analytic review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95, 240 –257. Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H ( 2004 ). Peer-mediated intervention studies on academic achievement for students with EBD. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 330 –341. Ryndak, D. L., Moore, M. A., Orlando, A., & Delano, M. ( 2008/2009 ). Access to the general curriculum: The mandate and role of context in research-based practice for students with extensive support needs. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33 –34, 199 –213. Sasso, G. M., Mundschenk, N. A., Melloy, K. J., & Casey, S. D. (1998 ). A comparison of the effects of organismic and setting variables on the social interaction behavior of children with developmental disabilities and autism. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 13, 2 –16. Schnorr, R. F. (1997 ). From enrollment to membership: “Belonging” in middle and high school classes. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 22, 1–15. Shukla, S., Kennedy, C. H., & Cushing, L. S. (1998 ). Adult influence on the participation of peers without disabilities in peer support programs. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 397– 413. Shukla, S., Kennedy, C. H., & Cushing, L. S. (1999 ). Intermediate school students with severe disabilities: Supporting their social participation in general education classrooms. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 130 –140. Siperstein, G. N., Parker, R. C., Bardon, J. N., & Widaman, K. F. ( 2007 ). A national study of youth attitudes toward the inclusion of students with intellectual disabilities. Exceptional Children, 73, 435 – 455. Sparrow, S. S., Cicchetti, D. V., & Balla, D. A. ( 2005). Vineland adaptive behavior scale ( 2nd ed). Livonia, MN : Pearson. Thompson, J. R., Bryant, B. R., Campbell, E. M., Craig, E. M., Hughes, C., Rotholz, D. A., et al. ( 2004 ). Supports intensity scale. Washington, DC : American Association on Mental Retardation. 393

E.W. Carter, J.M. Asmus, and C.K. Moss

Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2006 ). Beyond access: Ensuring progress in the general education curriculum for students with severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 322 –326. Weiner, J. S. ( 2005). Peer-mediated conversational repair in students with moderate and severe disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 26 –37. U.S. Department of Education. ( 2010 ). IDEA data. Retrieved from www.ideadata.org

394

28 Collaboration and Teaming in Effective Inclusive Schools Diane Ryndak,1 Donna Lehr,2 Terri Ward,3 and Hope DeBevoise4

Collaboration and Teaming in Effective Inclusive Schools Numerous descriptions of inclusive schools appear in the literature of general education, special education, and international education. Collectively, this literature describes inclusive schools as those in which all students, regardless of abilities, gender, socio- economic status, race, or other defi ning variables, are valued and active participants in all aspects of educational contexts (i.e., both academic and social) in which students that represent the majority of their society participate. Also emphasized in the literature is the critical nature of the provision of the supports and services that lead to opportunities for students to succeed across these contexts (Artiles, Kozleski, & Waitoller, 2011; Baglieri & Shapiro, 2012; Bauer & Brown, 2001; Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2010; Kluth, 2003; McLeskey, Rosenberg, & Westling, 2010). Along with U.S. legislation (IDEA, 2004; NCLB, 2001) and U.S. national initiatives (e.g., Race to the Top, 2011), this literature argues for the: (a) use of supports and services that reflect evidence-based practices (Downing, 2010; Snell & Brown, 2011) which are embedded within multi-tiered systems of support (e.g., PBIS; RtI) (Eber, Sugai, Smith, & Scott, 2002; Fisher & Frey, 2010; Lewis & Sugai, 1999; Rose & Meyer, 2002); (b) design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction by highly qualified teachers (DarlingHammond & Youngs, 2002); (c) use of high- stakes accountability measures to assess the progress of students collectively and in pre- determined sub-groups (NCLB, 2001); and (d) the evaluation of each teacher’s performance based on their students’ progress (Danielson & McGreal, 2005; NCLB, 2001). Little mention of students with severe disabilities appears in the U.S. legislation and national initiatives, and only a subset of the literature specifically addresses how this is to be accomplished given the extensive support needs of students with severe disabilities. In most states general and special education teachers are not required to develop expertise to meet the

1 2 3 4

University of Florida Boston University College of St. Rose Troy Public School District 395

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

needs of students with severe disabilities, and consequently the majority of these students remain in self- contained special education contexts and receive services by under- qualified teachers, regardless of their educational placement (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). To provide effective supports and services for students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education contexts, schools have relied on various approaches to bringing together the individuals (e.g., general and special education teachers, related services personnel, paraeducators, the students’ parents and other members of the students’ natural support networks, other school and district personnel) charged with these responsibilities. It is through collaborative teaming processes focused on designing, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of supports and services for students with severe disabilities in inclusive contexts, that team members have extended their collaboration to meet the needs of all students (e.g., those with linguistic diversity) in those contexts. This chapter is structured around four topics related to the use of collaborative teams to meet the extensive support needs of students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education contexts. First, the chapter provides a rationale for the use of highly qualified collaborative teams to meet the extensive support needs of students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education contexts, including a description of the history and evolution of teaming practices for these students. Second, it provides a brief description of the extant research and other scholarly work related to collaborative teams, including the challenges related to this type of teaming arrangement. Third, it provides an illustration of information from a synthesis of the extant research and other scholarly work related to collaborative teaming to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education contexts. Fourth, it provides recommendations for research related to highly qualified effective collaborative teams to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education contexts.

Rationale for the Use of Highly Qualified Effective Collaborative Teams Before discussing the research on, components of, and approaches to collaborative teaming, let us consider students with severe disabilities and why collaborative teaming is critical to their educational success. To do that, two topics are discussed below, including a description of students with severe disabilities in today’s general education contexts and the increased requirement for accountability.

Students with Severe Disabilities in Today’s General Education Contexts Shortly after the education of all students with disabilities was guaranteed by the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (1975), leaders in the field published the fi rst textbook focused on the education of students with severe disabilities (Sontag, Smith, & Certo, 1977). While the emphasis at that time was on the development of educational services for students with severe disabilities in any location, much of this work remains relevant today when developing effective supports and services in inclusive general education contexts. For instance, “complex” and “heterogeneous” were two key descriptors that initially helped defi ne students with severe disabilities. Today these students are just as (or even more) complex and heterogeneous, as children with more extensive medical needs are living to become students, some having severe cognitive disabilities along with their ongoing health care needs (Lehr, 1990). Over the decades the contexts in which student with severe disabilities receive supports and services have also become more complex and heterogeneous. For instance, increasingly, 396

Collaboration and Teaming

the locations in which students with severe disabilities are being educated have been shifting from segregated, self-contained classes and schools to inclusive general education classes in their neighborhood schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2008). Along with this shift in location, there has been a concomitant shift in the professional expertise needed to educate students with: (a) varying abilities (e.g., severe disabilities; gifted and talented) in these contexts; and (b) other differences due to issues associated with poverty, homelessness, and racial, ethnic, and linguistic diversity. While many states require general education teachers to have completed at least one course in special education, few such courses focus on preparing general educators to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities. Consequently, general educators most frequently lack the specialized expertise to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities enrolled in their classes (Pugach, Blanton, & Correa, 2011). This reality necessitates collaboration among general educators and other educational personnel to bring together the requisite specialized knowledge and skills.

Accountability in Today’s Schools In these complex and heterogeneous general education contexts, teachers, related services providers, parents, paraeducators, and other educational personnel must navigate a complicated system of legislated accountability for student learning and teacher performance, for the use of evidence-based instructional strategies and interventions, and for access to common core standards for all of their students, including those with severe disabilities. The importance of designing, implementing, and evaluating rigorous instructional plans has higher stakes than in the past for (a) the students, especially those in states where graduation is dependent on passing a state test; (b) their teachers and administrators, when their performance scores, professional development plans, and merit salary increases are based on student progress; and (c) their schools, districts, and states, which are rated based on annual yearly progress (NCLB, 2001). Few single teachers would be able to acquire the depth and breadth of expertise and skills required to meet the accountability expectations for all his or her students.

Extant Research and Scholarly Work History and Evolution to Collaborative Teaming In Sontag, Smith, and Certo (1977), “complex” and “heterogeneous” were used as descriptors to argue that a collaborative team was critical to designing, implementing, and evaluating educational services for students with severe disabilities. For example, in that book, Hart (1977) stated: The need for professionals from many disciplines to work with the handicapped [sic] has been advocated for years, but never has this need been as critical as it is in educating the severely and profoundly handicapped [sic ]. Because of the complexities of these children, their heterogeneity, their multiple handicaps, and their age ranges, effective programming for them must be based on a cooperative effort by a variety of experts. (p. 65) Bricker (1976) described one of the earliest approaches to bringing together expertise from multiple disciplines for educating students with severe disabilities. She described the special 397

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

educator as an educational synthesizer, “one who can draw relevant information from a variety of sources and then incorporate it into daily intervention procedures for children.” Bricker described the educational synthesizer as needing skills to acquire, organize, evaluate, and implement information from disciplines that are not incorporated daily into a student’s services. She stated that “[t]he educational synthesizer becomes the pivotal force in the overall educational program by seeking and coordinating the necessary resources to produce growth and change in the severely impaired child [sic ]” (p. 88). Bricker considered the educational synthesizer to be critical for designing, implementing, and evaluating educational services for students with severe disabilities. This model of a sole teacher gathering and integrating information from multiple disciplines, however, is typically insufficient to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities. For this reason, team approaches were developed (Cloninger, 2004). For instance, the multidisciplinary model comprised a team of specialists that applied their specialized knowledge and skills directly and independently with students. Like the multidisciplinary model, the interdisciplinary model comprises a team of specialists that work directly with students, but also interact with other team members regarding shared goals for the students. Others called for a transdisciplinary model (Cloninger, 2004; Hart, 1977; Snell & Janney, 2000), which was explained by York, Rainforth, and Giangreco (1990) in the following way: Two features that distinguish transdisciplinary teamwork from traditional more isolated team approaches are (a) a high degree of collaboration and joint decision making among team members (including parents) in conducting assessments, establishing program priorities, and designing and implementing individualized educational programs; and (b) teaching the skills traditionally associated with one discipline to other team members who function in direct service capacities and work directly with learners throughout each day across a variety of environments and activities (role release). (p. 73) When the previously mentioned first textbook (Sontag, Smith, & Certo, 1977) was published, the predominate model used for educational service delivery was that of one special educator, one or more paraeducators and, frequently, volunteers providing educational services for students with severe disabilities in self-contained special education classes, and related services personnel providing services (e.g., occupational therapy) in pull- out models that removed students from the classrooms. In 1986, as students with severe disabilities were increasingly being educated in general education classes, the then Assistant Secretary for the Office of Special Education, Madeline Will (1986), emphasized the need for general and special educators to “share responsibility” for assessment and intervention in order to meet the needs of students with disabilities, and a more collaborative approach to teaming. Since then several other approaches to collaborative teaming have emerged, and a research base has begun to be developed related to those approaches, much of it focused on students with high incidence disabilities. Critical aspects of that literature are included below, as well as that which has focused on students with low incidence severe disabilities.

Co-Teaching Arrangements and High Incidence Disabilities In co-teaching arrangements students with high incidence disabilities receive supports and services in general education settings (Little, 2011). Five models of co-teaching are prevalent in the literature and are summarized by Scruggs, Mastropieri, and McDuffie (2007). In the 398

Collaboration and Teaming

one teach and one assist model one teacher teaches, while a second teacher plays a supporting role for individual students. In the station teaching model teachers are assigned to various learning stations through which students rotate. In the parallel teaching model teachers share the responsibility for teaching the same content, but for different groups of students. In the alternative teaching model one teacher provides specialized instruction to a small group of students, while the second teacher provides instruction to the rest of class at the same time. In the team teaching model teachers share equally the responsibilities for teaching all the students. Friend and Cook (1990) pointed out that co-teaching goes far beyond the presence of two teachers in the same class. They suggested that “collaboration is a style for interaction between at least two co- equal parties voluntarily engaged in shared decision making as they work toward a common goal” (p. 72). They described six characteristics that must be present for collaborative efforts to be effective: (a) mutual goals, (b) parity, (c) shared participation, (d) shared resources, (e) shared accountability, and (f ) voluntariness (i.e., members voluntarily participate in collaborative efforts). It is when this latter model is used that students with severe disabilities will have the greatest likelihood of receiving appropriate educational services in inclusive general education contexts. However, several features are critical in order for this latter co-teaching model to be effective. After completing a meta-analysis of studies on co-teaching, Scruggs et al. (2007) stated that some of these variables included: (a) administrative support, as reflected in the availability of space and time to collaborate, as well as professional development related to collaborative teaming; (b) voluntary participation in co-teaching models; and (c) choice of and compatibility among co-teaching partners. While it may be desirable to allow teachers to volunteer to participate in co-teaching models, and to choose the colleague with whom they co-teach, these features might not be possible or even be compatible with including several students with severe disabilities across a grade level or school. Often it is the case that only one teacher with specialized expertise is employed in a school building, therefore that teacher must be on the “collaborative” team and choices are no longer an option (Ryndak, Reardon, Benner, & Ward, 2007). Additionally, allowing general education teachers to volunteer to teach a class that includes students with severe disabilities, or other extensive support needs, allows other teachers to avoid responsibility for collaborating, and limiting the extent to which a grade level or school is inclusive for all students (Ryndak et al., 2007).

Collaborative Teaming and Students with Severe Disabilities Though it is limited, there is some extant research related to two aspects of collaborative teaming for students with severe disabilities in inclusive general education settings. First, there is research that supports the overall use of education teams, individualized instruction, and the role of team members. For instance, Fisher and Frey (2001) found that collaboration among education team members was critical for ensuring access to the core curriculum and participation in general education instructional activities for one student with severe disabilities in elementary school, one in middle school, and one in high school. Hunt, Soto, Maier, and Doering (2003) found that collaborative teams designing Unified Plans of Supports for students with severe disabilities in general education classes, and implementing those plans consistently, resulted in increases in the students’ acquisition of academic skills, participation in class activities, interactions with peers, and student-initiated interactions. Research specifically supports the embedding of individualized instruction within general education instructional activities, when provided by various team members. For instance, in 399

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

a series of studies McDonnell and his colleagues found that: (a) embedding individualized interventions for students with severe disabilities into general education instructional activities led to improved student outcomes on core curriculum content, functional content, and the use of communication devices; (b) peers, paraeducators, and general and special education teachers were effective at embedding individualized instruction with fidelity; and (c) general educators “viewed embedded instruction as a practical, effective, and efficient strategy for teaching students with developmental disabilities in general education settings” ( Johnson, McDonnell, Holzwarth, & Hunter, 2004, p. 214) ( Jameson, McDonnell, Johnson, Riesen, & Polychronis, 2007; Jameson, Walker, Utley, & Maughan, 2012; McDonnell, Johnson, Polychronis, & Riesen, 2002). The extant research also supports the role of peers on collaborative teams. For instance, Fisher and Frey (2001) found that the involvement of general education peers on a student’s collaborative team was critical to ensuring access to and participation in the core curriculum. The role of peers also has been studied related to the effectiveness of individualized instruction when provided by various team members. Jameson, McDonnell, Polychronis, Riesen, and Taylor (2008) found that peers were effective implementers of embedded instruction that used constant time delay. Carter, Cushing, Clark, and Kennedy (2005) found that not only were peers critical members of collaborative teams, but also that having two peers supporting a classmate with severe disabilities in general education contexts, instead of one peer, led to “higher levels of social interaction and contact with the general curriculum” (p. 15). Finally, there is research that addresses the roles of special education teachers and paraeducators in the delivery of services for students with severe disabilities in general education classes. This research describes various models in which paraeducators are used, and raises questions about appropriate roles for paraeducators and special education teachers related to specific responsibilities (Giangreco, Broer, & Edelman, 2001; Suter & Giangreco, 2009). Some research also exists on the processes used by teams to collaborate for the design, implementation, and evaluation of the effectiveness of instruction. For instance, Giangreco (1993) adapted and field-tested variations of the Osborn-Parnes Creative Problem-Solving process for use by collaborative teams to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities in general education contexts. Several years later, Snell and Janney (2000) found that team members used several methods for collaborating to resolve concerns related to the effectiveness of services for students with severe disabilities included in general education classes. Researchers also have begun to study the impact that one effective collaborative team can have upon other teams. For instance, Hunt, Doering, Hirose-Hatae, Maier, and Goetz (2001) found that an effective collaborative team from one school could “visit” a “home” team at a second school, and teach the “home” team to use a collaborative problem- solving process to more effectively design, implement, and evaluate the effectiveness of their services for students with severe disabilities in general education contexts.

Key Factors for Collaborative Teams for Students with Severe Disabilities Beyond the extant research related to collaborative teaming for students with disabilities, the general and special education literature consistently recommends several variables that are critical to meeting the needs of these students in inclusive general education contexts. Some of these variables are presented in the following sections. 400

Collaboration and Teaming

Members with Relevant Expertise Collaborative teams are considered to be effective when they comprise members with expertise across areas relevant to the needs of the students with severe disabilities they serve. It is critical, however, that these areas include specific knowledge related to the education of students with severe disabilities, such as: 1 use of evidence-based interventions and instructional strategies and inclusive education practices (Downing, 2010; Snell & Brown, 2011); 2 methods for embedding evidence-based interventions, instructional strategies, and practices across general education contexts and activities (Kennedy & Horn, 2004); 3 use of Universal Design for Learning (UDL) principles to design, implement, and evaluate instruction for all students (Rose & Meyer, 2002); 4 use of accommodations and modifications to curriculum, instruction, materials, and contexts (Copeland & Keefe, 2007; Downing, 2010; Kluth, 2003); 5 adherence to guidelines for selecting, teaching the use of, and evaluating students’ use of assistive technology (AT), and augmentative and alternative communication (AAC) systems (Cook & Polgar, 2007); and 6 methods for embedding instruction on, and the use of, AT and AAC in inclusive general education contexts and activities (Cook & Polgar, 2007). A Common Vision of Services for all Students In order to be collaborative, team members must share the overall goals of the services they provide for all of their students. This requires that they have a common vision of services and a keen understanding of how their respective roles support the design, implementation, and evaluation of those services (Fisher, Sax, & Grove, 2000). Shared Ownership and Responsibility Members of collaborative teams have equal ownership of, and responsibility for, designing, implementing, and evaluating the effectiveness of their combined services for the students with severe disabilities they serve in inclusive general education contexts. This shared ownership and responsibility for the learning of all students and its measurement lead to shared accountability and acknowledgement for the student outcomes they achieve through their collaborative efforts (Ryndak et al., 2007). Role Release In order to use resources wisely, members of collaborative teams share their diverse expertise with each other, so that specialized uses of that expertise (e.g., positioning students with physical needs, embedding instruction, using evidence-based interventions) are implemented with fidelity by all team members across the school day. These team members also develop expertise from other team members and implement with fidelity the specialized interventions they learn. As team members engage in role release, they learn specialized expertise and implement specialized interventions that are supervised by the team member with the relevant licensure for each aspect of service (Orelove, Sobsey, & Silberman, 2004). Ground Rules for Team Functioning To function efficaciously, collaborative teams must develop and adhere to ground rules for team functioning. Some of these grounds might include (a) demonstration of mutual respect among team members, (b) establishment of team goals, (c) assignment of clear roles, 401

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

(d) individual accountability, (e) measurement of effectiveness, (f ) reflective evaluation of the team’s functioning, (g) problem- solving processes and action planning, and (h) receipt of mutual benefits from their collaboration ( Jorgensen, McSheehan, & Sonnenmeier, 2010; Pugach, Johnson, Drame, & Williamson, 2012). Only as Special as Necessary Rather than automatically adding an adult to an instructional context, collaborative teams use role release to determine how specialized use of expertise can be implemented by team members with less or different expertise (e.g., classmate, paraeducator, math teacher). In this way instruction that requires specialized expertise can be implemented across the school day by team members with less professional development, requiring team members with the specialized expertise, and whose services are most expensive, to be present for that instruction only when absolutely necessary (i.e., when they have not been able to teach other team members to use specific expertise for a student’s services). In this way, the expertise of the team member implementing services is only as special as necessary, allowing flexibility in the use of the more specialized team members, while allowing specialized instruction to occur across each school day, rather than only when a team member with specialized expertise is available (Carter, Cushing, & Kennedy, 2009; Giangreco, 2001).

Challenges to Effective Collaborative Teaming The idea of collaborative teaming is widely accepted. At the same time, however, implementing collaborative practices is perceived as challenging because of how personnel are prepared, the beliefs they hold, and how teams functions.

Differences in Professional Development and Personal Beliefs Teams comprising individuals from different disciplines sometimes experience challenges caused by individual members’ various points of view. Each professional development program addresses discipline- specific content within different theoretical and conceptual models (e.g., medical, clinical, inclusive, disability-based). The reflection of different models across programs results in individual team members who have different knowledge bases, use different terminology, envision different goals for services, and have different visions of what constitutes effective practices. Team members’ expertise and perceptions might be in harmony, but at times they might confl ict, resulting in challenges to the team’s functioning. For example, consider this difference: Central to special education practice is the concept of individualized instruction, while central to general education practice is group instruction. These different practices, and their underlying differences in beliefs about teaching and instruction, can result in team members holding different opinions about “fairness,” especially related to the use of accommodations to meet the learning needs of individual students. Consider, too, the challenges related to the differing professional vocabulary used by various team members. Occupational and physical therapists typically use more medical terminology than either general or special education teachers, while teachers use more pedagogical terminology. A lack of understanding of terminology used by other team members can be challenging to a team’s communication, shared vision, and effectiveness. Team members often are challenged by the concept of role release—that is, sharing their specialized expertise so that other team members can use that knowledge in their own practice with individual students. Some team members believe that sharing their expertise in this 402

Collaboration and Teaming

way could result in a decreased need for their specialized role, leading to an unwillingness to share their expertise with other team members. Conversely, team members might be challenged by the concept of learning new knowledge and skills from other team members, believing that this could diminish the importance of their own expertise and their ability to maximally use their own expertise with individual students. Finally, personality differences among team members also can result in challenges to team functioning and collaboration. For example, the critical variables of equal membership, shared responsibility, and shared accountability can be threatened by dominant personalities and perceptions of unequal power or rewards.

Team Functioning Teams can function well only if there is time to collaborate on the design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction, and an often-stated challenge to team collaboration is lack of sufficient time. The potential factors that inhibit time to collaborate are numerous. For instance, paraeducators might be paid only for the time they spend interacting directly with students; related service providers might travel between schools on tight schedules; general and special educators might have no planning times in common. Each of these factors makes it difficult to schedule meetings. Teams can function well when they use practices that facilitate efficient and effective use of time. To assist teams, the literature recommends practices for the use of time (e.g., assigning roles as time keeper, note taker, and facilitator; problem- solving strategies). A fi nal challenge is embedding collaborative teams within existing school-wide structures, thus ensuring that the teams enhance those school-wide structures rather than being separate from them. For example, the teams should be embedded within multi-tiered systems of support comprising PBIS and RtI school-wide practices, which provide a continuum of supports that enhance learning for all students. While models of implementing multi-tiered systems of support vary across schools, common elements include “multiple tiers of intervention service delivery, a problem- solving method, and an integrated data collection and assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery” (Averill & Rinaldi, 2011, p. 1). Illustration: James, His Inclusive Class, and His Highly Qualified Collaborative Team To assist in understanding and visualizing the complex educational needs of students with severe disabilities and the importance of highly qualified collaborative teams to the supports and services provided for these students, this section provides a description of one student who represents this small, but extremely heterogeneous set of students. James. James is eleven years old and receives special education and related services under the label of multiple disabilities. In many ways James is a typical middle-school adolescent who is moody, is interested in gaining independence from his family, wants to hang out with peers more than any other activity, and loves all that is received via a digital screen! He needs assistance, however, in accessing and participating in some of these activities, due to his multiple disabilities. For example, he uses a tablet to access information and materials, and to respond during both instructional activities and interactions with peers and adults; he has limited volitional control of his arms and legs which requires both physical support for positioning and adaptive equipment for interacting with people and participating in activities in and out of classes; he has a need for clean intermittent catheterization that requires periodic personal assistance; and he has difficulty retaining information, so requires individualized memory aids. 403

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

James is the youngest of three children and lives with his mother and siblings. His mother completed training on parental involvement and advocacy in education, which was offered by his home school district. She always has believed that James should be a member of a general education class, just like his older brother and sister; therefore, James is in 6th grade in the neighborhood school that his older siblings attended. This is his last year of elementary school, so he will be transitioning with his same age classmates to 7th grade in the local middle school that his siblings attended. James’ class. James moves between classes with the other 6th graders. The students in his classes include several students with diverse learning needs. For instance, there are 23 students in his English class, comprising one student with learning disabilities, one with attention deficit disorder, three who have English as a second language, and one with identified behavioral challenges. Clearly. the students in this English class present a combination of learning needs that goes beyond the expertise required for state licensure to teach English. James’ highly qualified collaborative team. Designing, implementing, and evaluating James’ educational program required extensive depth and breadth of expertise and skills. For instance, it required expertise and skills related to: (a) the use of assistive technology to enable James to access information and respond during instructional and non-instructional activities; (b) the provision of health care services to meet his health care needs throughout the school day, across contexts; (c) planning for his access to the Common Core Curriculum and other content taught in each class by identifying and making appropriate accommodations and modifications to the curriculum, instruction, materials, and support provided in each class; (d) identifying and making accommodations to enable him to “hang out” with peers outside of scheduled classes (e.g., during lunch, at school- sponsored activities, in the community); and (e) facilitating his peers’ interaction with him. James’ education program requires a team of highly qualified members to collaborate to design and implement solutions to challenges. In doing so, the education team identified several different approaches to collaboration. Some of these are described in a subsequent section. In addition to the education team’s efforts, the school and district administrative support team were required to identify solutions to some systemic challenges related to service delivery for James (e.g., bus transportation schedules, building accessibility), and to supporting the structures required for effective collaboration (e.g., time to collaborate). Recently James attended a field trip with his middle- school classmates and was supported by both his peers and a paraeducator. With his classmates James listened to an opening lecture, and used his handheld tablet to ask a pre-programmed question that he and his education team thought was important. He also used the camera function on the tablet to take pictures during the field trip, which he would use while he wrote about the experience when he was back at school, as well as when he told his mother and siblings about his experiences at home. What did it take for James to go on, participate in, report on, and discuss this field trip? The simple answer: an education team that uses forethought, is committed to collaboration, and understands learning and multi-tiered learning supports for various types of learners. So, how does James’ education team collaborate in order to design, implement, and evaluate supports and services for his meaningful participation? First, to deal with logistical issues, several weeks prior to the field trip James’ education team requested that the school schedule for the field trip a bus that was wheelchair accessible. In addition, the subject area general education teacher sought and obtained parental permission for all of her students to attend the field trip. Finally, the education team ensured that sufficient team members and other adults would join the field trip and provide the supports to meet the needs of all students. 404

Collaboration and Teaming

Second, related to curriculum content and instruction, the general and special education teachers met weekly to discuss the curriculum content being addressed for each upcoming unit, how this content related to the Common Core Curriculum, how this content would be delivered during class sessions and across the unit, and how this content would be expanded upon through instructional activities, assignments, and the field trip. As needed, other members of James’ education team joined the teachers to discuss the accommodations and modifications required for James’ meaningful participation in all aspects of the instructional activities, assignments, and the field trip. They also discussed individualized multi-tiered supports required for other students’ participation. The general and special education teachers rotated responsibility for facilitating the meetings, taking notes, and immediately posting the notes on an internet-based document storage site to which all of the education team members have access. The team, including James’ mother, used this site to post full- class lesson plans, multi-tiered supports for students in the class, individualized instructional procedures to be embedded in full- class instruction, and data tracking forms. The team recorded messages on James’ tablet about assignments and events that occurred at school, allowing James to share this information with his family. In addition to the weekly meetings related to curriculum and instruction, the entire education team met once a month through the use of technology. James, his teachers, paraeducator, and speech/language pathologist met at school, while his mother and the occupational and physical therapists joined them from other locations through videoconferencing software or by telephone. James ran these meetings by using pre-programed statements and questions on his computer. After each team member reported out, James asked if anyone had any questions. Then, he would present ideas that he and his mother had developed and programmed onto his tablet. When any team member could not be at a meeting, the special education teacher took responsibility for audio-taping minutes from the meeting and requesting that the team member audio-tape any questions about these issues, as well as additional ideas. These efforts resulted in James’ meaningful participation across instructional and noninstructional school activities. For example, across the school day James changed classes with his classmates. He left one class ten minutes early to work with the physical therapist on the skills required to “dress” for physical education. The physical therapist used prompting methods to ensure that he was completing as much of the task as possible on his own. During physical education, she helped all the students warm up, with she and James modeling each exercise. She also ensured that James participated meaningfully in the main activity (e.g., basketball), joined by one other peer in a wheelchair who had the task of blocking James’ shots during the game. To consistently address his need for extra time to meet his physical needs, James left the basketball game a little early to use the restroom, dress for class, and get to his next class (i.e., social studies) on time. In social studies, James activated the slides to the accompanying lecture on the people and places of ancient Egypt. His tablet held information related to using a map of Egypt, its people, and key locations. When students began to complete short answer questions regarding the lecture, James used his tablet to type sentences on the people, things, and locations depicted in the slides he had just seen in the lecture. His work was submitted for a grade related to the Common Core Curriculum and one of his IEP goals (i.e., write 3–5 word sentences about class content, e.g., “I see. . . . .,” “This is a . . .”). The paraeducator and the general education teacher kept track of his progress on data sheets maintained on the internetbased document storage site.

405

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

Conclusion and Future Research Related to Highly Effective Collaborative Teams What is clear from the extant literature and public policies is that there is agreement regarding the importance of collaborative teams for meeting the learning needs of students with severe disabilities in general education contexts. However, little research exists on the expertise required by team members, factors that support the functioning of teams, and practices that ensure the effectiveness of teams. Based on what research there is, we contend that meeting the learning needs of students with severe disabilities in general education contexts requires not just highly qualified teachers, but also highly qualified collaborative teams that also are highly effective. This concept moves beyond the preparation and performance of individual service providers and emphasizes team members’ collective expertise in collaboration for designing, implementing, and evaluating the impact of instruction for all students in inclusive general education contexts. We contend that the existence of highly qualified collaborative teams is also insufficient; the core concept must be a requirement for highly qualifi ed and effective collaborative teams. This concept combines the need: (a) for members with varying expertise; (b) for efficient and effective collaboration to design, implement, and evaluate instruction; (c) to address issues of fidelity of practice related to both teaming and instruction; and (d) to focus on the performance outcomes for all students. To achieve this desired outcome, future research would need to address several questions, including the following: 1 What makes individual team members highly qualified to meet the needs of students with severe disabilities? 2 What makes a group of highly qualified team members a highly qualified collaborative team that meets the needs of all of the students that they serve when they design, implement, and evaluate their instruction? 3 Given a highly qualified collaborative team, what logistical procedures, as well as what strategies/practices, ensure that the team will be highly effective in meeting the needs of all of the students that they serve? Given the complex and heterogeneous nature of students with severe disabilities, and the current gold standards established for educational research (Cook, Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008; Cook, Tankersley, Landrum, 2009; Horner et al., 2005), conducting research that defi nitively answers these questions is difficult; the ability to control for all relevant variables through research designs is extremely challenging, and might be impossible. Because of this, it is more likely that research on the effectiveness of collaborative teams will be conducted in a more circuitous manner. For example, future research on highly qualified and effective collaborative teams might study: (a) the impact of collaborative teams, and the individual practices the teams use, on the services provided for, and the outcomes achieved by, students with severe disabilities in general education contexts; (b) the perceptions of team members about the fidelity with which they implement evidence-based practices and about their own efficacy as team members; (c) school principals’ evaluations of teams’ functioning and effectiveness; and (d) level of satisfaction of the students’ parents related to the processes used to engage them in collaborative teaming practices, the quality of services provided for their children, and the outcomes achieved by their children. Future research is needed in two additional areas. First, there is limited research on the use of technology to enhance or improve collaboration, to gain time to collaborate, and to 406

Collaboration and Teaming

improve communication amongst team members. Given the current state of society’s use of technology to communicate, it is disconcerting that research has not been conducted on the effectiveness of electronic communication systems as an alternative or supplement to face-toface meetings. It also is disconcerting that there is limited research on the use of sharable on-line document libraries to collaboratively develop instructional activities and modifications to curricula, instruction, materials, or student products, either synchronously or asynchronously. A second important question relates to the nature and quantity of information necessary for individual team members to share for collaboration to result in effective design, implementation, and evaluation of instruction. While data-based decision making is perceived as critical to maximizing effectiveness, research is needed on the best ways for collaborative teams to collect, present, summarize, analyze, and use data efficiently.

References Artiles, A. J., Kozleski, E. B., & Waitoller, F. R. ( 2011). Inclusive education: Examining equity on five continents. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Educational Press. Averill, O. H. & Rinaldi, C. ( 2011). Multi-tier System of supports. District Administration, 47 ( 8 ), 91. Baglieri, S. & Shapiro, A. ( 2012 ). Disability studies and the inclusive classroom: Critical practices for creating least restrictive attitudes. New York, NY: Routledge. Bauer, A, M. & Brown, G. M. ( 2001). Adolescents and inclusion: Transforming secondary schools. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Bricker, D. (1976 ). Educational synthesizer. In M. A. Thomas (Ed.). Hey, don’t forget about me! (pp. 84 –97 ). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., Clark, N. M., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2005). Effects of peer support interventions on students’ access to the general curriculum and social interactions. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 15 –25. Carter, E. W., Cushing, L. S., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2009 ). Peer support strategies for improving all students’ social lives and learning. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Cloninger, C. ( 2004 ). Designing collaborative educational services. In F. P. Orelove, D. Sobsey, & R. K. Silberman (Eds.), Education children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach (pp. 1–30 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Cook, A. M. & Polgar, J. M. ( 2007 ). Assistive technologies: Principles and practice ( 3rd ed.). Philadelphia, PA: Elsevier Health Sciences. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum , T. J. ( 2008 ). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical implications. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44, 69 –75. Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum , T. J. ( 2009 ). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365 –383. Copeland, S. R. & Keefe, E. B. ( 2007 ). Effective literacy instruction for students with moderate or severe disabilities. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Danielson, C. & McGreal, T. L. ( 2005). Teacher evaluation to enhance professional practice. Alexandria, VA: Association of Supervision and Curriculum Development. Darling-Hammond, L. & Youngs, P. ( 2002 ). Defi ning “highly qualified teachers”: What does “scientifically-based research” actually tell us? Educational Researcher, 31 ( 9 ), 13 –25. Downing, J. E. ( 2010 ). Academic instruction for students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in inclusive classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Eber, L., Sugai, G., Smith, C., & Scott, T. ( 2002 ). Blending process and practice to maximize outcomes: Wraparound and positive behavioral interventions and supports in the schools. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 10, 171–181. Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) of 1975, PL 94–142, 20 U.S.C. 1400 et seq. Fisher, D. & Frey, N. ( 2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148 –157. Fisher, D. & Frey, N. ( 2010 ). Enhancing RTI: How to ensure success with effective classroom instruction and intervention. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. 407

D. Ryndak, D. Lehr, T. Ward, and H. DeBevoise

Fisher, D., Sax, C, & Grove, K. A. ( 2000 ). The resilience of changes promoting inclusiveness in an urban elementary school. The Elementary School Journal, 100, 213 –227. Friend M. & Cook, L. (1990 ). Collaboration as a predictor for success in school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 1 (1), 69 – 86. Giangreco, M. F. ( 2001). Guidelines for making decisions about I.E.P. services. Montpelier, VT: Vermont Department of Education. Retrieved from www.uvm.edu/~cdci/iepservices/pdfs/decision.pdf Giangreco, M. F. (1993 ). Using creative problem- solving methods to include students with severe disabilities in general education classroom activities. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 4, 113 –135. Giangreco, M. F., Broer, S. M., & Edelman, S. W. ( 2001). Teacher engagement with students with disabilities: Differences between paraprofessional service delivery models. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 26, 75 – 86. Hart, V. (1977 ). The use of many disciplines with the severe and profoundly handicapped. In E. Sontag, J. Smith, & N. Certo (Eds.), Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped (pp. 391–396 ). Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Horner, R. H., Carr, E. G., Halle, J., McGee, G., Odom, S., & Wolery, M. ( 2005). The use of singlesubject research to identify evidence-based practice in special education. Exceptional Children, 71, 165 –179. Hunt, P., Doering, K., Hirose-Hatae, A., Maier, J., & Goetz, L. ( 2001). Across-program collaboration to support students with and without disabilities in a general education classroom. The Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 26, 240 –256. Hunt, P., Soto, G., Maier, J., & Doering, K. ( 2003 ). Collaborative teaming to support students at risk and students with severe disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 69, 315 –332 . Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004, PL 108–446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Jackson, L. B., Ryndak, D. L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2010 ). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 33 (4 )/34 (1), 175 –195. Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Riesen, T. J., & Polychronis, S. ( 2007 ). A comparison of one-to-one embedded instruction in the general education classroom and one-to-one massed practice instruction in the special education classroom. Education & Treatment of Children, 30, 23 – 44. Jameson, J. M., McDonnell, J., Polychronis, S., Riesen, T., & Taylor, S. J. ( 2008 ). Embedded, constant time delay instruction by peers without disabilities in general education classrooms. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 346 –363. Jameson, J. M., Walker, R., Utley, K., & Maughan, R. ( 2012 ). A comparison of embedded total task instruction in teaching behavioral chains to massed one- on-one instruction for students with intellectual disabilities: Accessing general education settings and core academic content. Behavior Modifi cation, 36, 320 –340. Johnson, J. W., McDonnell, J., Holzwarth, V. N., & Hunter, K. ( 2004 ). The efficacy of embedded instruction for students with developmental disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 214 –227. Jorgensen, C. M., McSheehan, M., & Sonnenmeier, R. M. ( 2010 ). The beyond access model: Promoting membership, participation, and learning for students with disabilities in the general education classroom. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Kennedy, C. H. & Horn, E. M. ( 2004 ). Including students with severe disabilities. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Kluth, P. ( 2003 ). “You’re going to love this kid!” Teaching students with autism in the inclusive classroom. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Lehr, D. (1990 ). Providing education to students with complex health care needs. Focus on Exceptional Children, 22 ( 7 ), 1–12 . Lewis, T. J. & Sugai, G. (1999 ). Effective behavior support: A systems approach to proactive schoolwide management. Focus on Exceptional Children, 31 ( 6 ), 1–24. Little, M. ( 2011). RTI lesson plan book. Port Chester, NY: National Professional Resources. McDonnell, J., Johnson, J. W., Polychronis, S., & Riesin, T. ( 2002 ). Effects of embedded instruction on students with moderate disabilities enrolled in general education classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 363 –377. 408

Collaboration and Teaming

McLeskey, J., Rosenberg, M., & Westling, D. ( 2010 ). Inclusion: Effective practices for all students. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Prentice Hall. No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 ( 2002 ), PL 107–110, 115 Stat.1425, 20 U.S.C. §§ 6301 et seq. Orelove, F. P., Sobsey, D., & Silberman, R. K. ( 2004 ). Education children with multiple disabilities: A collaborative approach. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Pugach, M. C., Blanton, L. P., & Correa, V. I. ( 2011). A historical perspective on the role of collaboration in teacher education reform making good on the promise of teaching all students. Teacher Education and Special Education, 34, 183 –200. Pugach, M. C., Johnson, L. J., Drame, E. R., & Williamson, P. ( 2012 ). Collaborative practitioners/ Collaborative schools ( 3rd ed.). Denver, CO : Love Publishing. Race to the Top Act of 2011. S. 844–112th Congress: Race to the Top Act of 2011. In GovTrack.us (database of federal legislation). Retrieved from www.govtrack.us/congress/bills/112/s844 Rose, D. H. & Meyer, A. ( 2002 ). Teaching every student in the digital age: Universal design for learning. Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development. Ryndak, D. L., Reardon, R., Benner, S., & Ward, T. ( 2007 ). Transitioning to district-wide inclusive services: The ongoing journey and its accompanying complexities. Research and Practices for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 32, 228 –246. Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. ( 2007 ). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392 – 416. Snell, M. E. & Brown, F. ( 2011). Instruction of students with severe disabilities ( 7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson Education. Snell, M. E. & Janney, R. E. ( 2000 ). Teachers’ problem- solving about children with moderate and severe disabilities in elementary classrooms. Exceptional Children, 66, 472 – 490. Sontag, E., Smith, J., & Certo, N. (Ed.). (1977 ). Educational programming for the severely and profoundly handicapped. Reston, VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Suter, J. C. & Giangreco, M. F. ( 2009 ). Numbers that count: Exploring special education and paraprofessional service delivery in inclusion- oriented schools. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 81–93. U.S. Department of Education ( 2008 ). Thirtieth Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, Parts B and C. Will, M. C. (1986 ). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52, 411– 415. York, J., Rainforth, B., & Giangreco, M. F. (1990 ). Transdisciplinary teamwork and integrated therapy: Clarifying the misconceptions. Pediatric Physical Therapy, 2 ( 2 ), 73 –79.

409

29 Supporting Students with Behavioral Challenges in Inclusive Schools Cynthia M. Anderson1 and Billie Jo Rodriguez2

Setting the Stage Teachers frequently report that responding to and managing disruptive student behavior consumes a disproportionate amount of time and that they lack the skills to work effectively with students exhibiting challenging behavior (Oliver & Reschly, 2007). Responding to challenging behavior—even of only a few students—results in a significant loss of instructional time—for the students emitting disruptive behavior and for others in the classroom (Walker, Ramsey, & Gresham, 2003). Persistent challenging behavior can disrupt the classroom, detract from instruction for all students, and have a long-term negative effect on the achievement of the student emitting the challenging behavior. Students exhibiting challenging behavior perform significantly below average on standardized tests of learning and achievement and are viewed by teachers as less academically competent than their typical peers and students with learning disabilities (Lane, Carter, Pierson, & Glaeser, 2006). The range of behavioral problems observed in schools is large—from non-dangerous but disruptive behavior such as talking out of turn or being out of seat, to behavior that has the potential to harm the person exhibiting the behavior or others. Examples include harassment, kicking, hitting, and self-injurious behavior. Children who exhibit significant behavioral problems—those who consistently disrupt the learning of themselves or others and those whose behavior is dangerous—often qualify for special education services under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004). Common disability categories for children emitting behavioral challenges include emotional disturbance or disability, intellectual disability, developmental delay, autism spectrum disorder, and traumatic brain injury. Historically, children with significant behavior problems and a disability label were often placed in secluded settings, including self- contained classrooms and specialized schools (Stoutjesdijk, Scholte, & Swaab, 2012). This practice continues today, but there is an increasing recognition that such placements often do not result in desired student outcomes (Leone &

1 Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences, University of Oregon 2 Department of Educational Psychology, University of Texas at San Antonio 410

Functional Behavior Assessment

McLaughlin, 1995; Muscott, 1995). As a result, inclusive education is becoming more prevalent, and schools are in need of evidence-based strategies to facilitate the success of all students in inclusive settings. As is evidenced throughout this book, recent years have brought about changes in the way students with disabilities are viewed and educated in our schools. Multi-tier, preventionoriented models increase the likelihood that all students receive access to the appropriate level and intensity of intervention, including Tier I strategies to prevent the development of challenging behavior, Tier II strategies to ameliorate risk factors, and Tier III supports for students with persistent or dangerous challenging behaviors. At Tier III, functional behavioral assessment (FBA) and support planning plays a key role (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010). In this chapter we defi ne FBA and delineate the conceptual foundation for FBA and function-based support planning. We describe methods of FBA, highlighting the resources and expertise required to implement various methods effectively. Next, we review the link between FBA and effective intervention, providing examples to illustrate how interventions may be derived from the results of an FBA. We conclude by articulating the supports schools will need to have in place in order to implement effective Tier III interventions.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice: Functional Behavior Assessment A vast amount of research has been conducted in the area of challenging behavior over the past several decades, and this work has overwhelmingly indicated that most challenging behavior is learned and that it serves a function—it is occurring for a reason. This fi nding is the basis for FBA. The goal of FBA is to identify events that evoke and maintain challenging behavior in order to develop an intervention which addresses those variables. The logic behind FBA is derived directly from behavior analysis, a discipline focused on understanding the behavior of individuals from an empirical perspective (Madden, Dube, Hackenberg, Hanley, & Lattal, 2013). In behavior analysis, emphasis is placed on low-inference explanations of behavior that not only allow one to predict the occurrence of a behavior, but also, by modifying identified causal variables, actually affect the occurrence of that behavior. Behavior analysis, as a science and a practice, focuses primarily on variables outside of a person—events in the environment. This is not to say that thoughts, feelings, and other “private events” (Skinner, 1965) are not important—but rather that these events are themselves behaviors, not the causes of behavior. Understanding why a person behaves in a certain way requires an understanding of how events occurring in the environment affect that person’s behavior—including his or her thoughts, feelings, and emotions. This emphasis on environmental variables should not be taken to imply that physiological or biological variable are ignored—they are not. As was fi rst articulated by B. F. Skinner (Skinner, 1965) and has since been echoed by many behavior analysts (Baum & Heath, 1992; Chiesa, 1994; 1998; Moore, 1990, 1998, 2009), a complete explanation of all behavior will require contributions from biology, pharmacology, and neuroscience. This then begs the question: what is a “complete” explanation? In fact, the answer to that question depends upon the goal of the asker and the behavior(s) that one seeks to understand. If the goal is to develop an effective intervention for challenging behavior, more often than not, a “complete” explanation will involve identifying the environmental variables of which that behavior is a function (Baum & Heath, 1992; Moore, 1990). When environmental variables alone do not seem to adequately explain the occurrence of challenging behavior, then additional influences on behavior are identified. For example, Carr and Blakeley-Smith (2006) worked with ten students with 411

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

disabilities and documented that, for all students, physical illness increased the likelihood of challenging behavior. Attempts to elucidate variables affecting the occurrence of challenging behavior have been made for decades, but it was not until the 1960s that systematic studies documenting effects of environmental variables on the occurrence of challenging behavior emerged. Early studies were conducted almost exclusively with individuals with intellectual delay exhibiting selfinjury or other severe challenging behavior (Carr, Newsom, & Binkoff, 1976; Ferster, 1961; Lovaas, Freitag, Gold, & Kassorla, 1965; Risley, Johnston, Harris, & Allen, 1967). This research was summarized in a seminal paper by Ted Carr (1977). Examining research to date, Carr showed that self-injury might be a learned behavior, one that continued to occur because it was reinforced in some way. Consistent with the operant principles that are the basis for much of behavior analysis, he exemplified this hypothesis with numerous studies suggesting that self-injury was maintained by (a) access to reinforcing events or items, or (b) avoidance or termination of contact with certain events or activities. In the decades since this paper was published, these hypotheses have been shown to explain the occurrence of a vast number of topographies of challenging behavior across populations ranging from individuals with developmental or intellectual delay (for reviews see Hanley, Iwata, & McCord, 2003) to typically developing individuals (Bessette & Wills, 2007; Dunlap et al., 1993; Nahgahgwon, Umbreit, Liaupsin, & Turton, 2010; Lane et al., 2009; Lane, Umbreit, & Beebe-Frankenberger, 1999; Preciado, Horner, & Baker, 2008; Restori, Gresham, Chang, Lee, & Laija-Rodriquez, 2007; Scott, Liaupsin, Nelson, & McIntyre, 2005; Stage et al., 2006; Umbreit & Blair, 1997; Wehby, Symons, & Shores, 1995). Research on contextual variables affecting challenging behavior—antecedents and consequences—is, of course, the basis for FBA. Educators use FBA to better understand those environmental variables and how they might be altered to decrease challenging behavior and increase pro- social skills. In the decades since Carr’s (1977) review of early literature, a variety of methods for conducting FBAs have been developed and evaluated; these are discussed next. Further, literally hundreds if not thousands of studies have been conducted on FBA (Didden, Duker, & Korzilius, 1997; for reviews of this literature see Lilienfeld, 2005) documenting that (a) FBA is an effective method for delineating variables affecting the occurrence of challenging behavior, and (b) function-based interventions are highly effective.

Functional Behavior Assessment in Schools As a result of this vast body of research, FBA is increasingly recognized as best practice, and interventions derived from FBA are increasingly recognized as evidence-based interventions. To illustrate, the U.S. Surgeon General (Satcher, 2000) and the American Academy of Pediatrics (Myers & Johnson, 2007) endorsed FBA as best practice for individuals with disabilities. In schools, FBA and resulting support plans are mandated in some cases for individuals with disabilities exhibiting challenging behavior (IDEA, 1997). In particular, and under IDEA, if a student receiving special education services receives a long-term change of placement (including suspension) due to behavioral concerns related to the student’s disability, then FBA is mandated. Although federal guidelines currently mandate FBA only in these rather limited situations, if the goal is to promote student success in inclusive settings, then FBA should be conducted much sooner—long before a school is considering restrictive placement due to challenging behavior. If a student’s challenging behavior has not responded to existing Tier I or Tier II supports in a school within a reasonable (e.g., 2–3 month) time frame, or if the student is exhibiting behavior that is highly dangerous or disruptive to learning, 412

Functional Behavior Assessment

FBA should be implemented immediately, as delaying the FBA until problem behavior is extreme will not serve the student or the school. The steps involved in conducting FBA are briefly reviewed next (Anderson & Scott, 2009; readers desiring more information about FBA and support planning are referred to O’Neill, Horner, Albin, Storey, & Sprague, 1996).

Methods of Functional Behavior Assessment Largely due to the federal guidelines explicated in IDEA, the use of FBA in school settings has expanded greatly over the past 15 years. Perhaps because the federal regulations do not specify how FBA should be conducted, school districts vary greatly with regard to the types of FBA used—some districts mandate the use of specific checklists, observational strategies, or interviews, and others leave the decision about the type of FBA up to school personnel. Part of the confusion may be due to the range of methods of FBA available for use—each requiring differing levels of expertise and resources. Methods of FBA vary with regard to how information is collected (indirect vs. direct assessment), the level of training and expertise needed, and the amount of time required to conduct each assessment. Each method of FBA has advantages and limitations, and thus practitioners are encouraged to use multiple methods. The method used should be guided by the expertise of the person conducting the FBA and the intensity of the problem. Across methods of FBA, the outcome is the same—a clear hypothesis statement (a) defi ning the problem behavior in observable terms, (b) describing the context in which problem behavior occurs including the events that predict the occurrence of challenging behavior (antecedents), and (c) identifying the events that follow and appear to reinforce or maintain challenging behavior (consequences). Indirect methods of FBA include interviews (March et al., 2000; O’Neill et al., 1996) and rating scales (Durand & Crimmins, 1988; Paclawskyj, Matson, Rush, Smalls, & Vollmer, 2000), and entail gathering information second-hand, via an informant. Interviews and rating scales take relatively little time to conduct and allow for a great deal of information to be gathered. However, their reliability and validity is dependent upon the skill of the individual administering and interpreting the information obtained and on the informant’s ability to provide relevant and factual information. In school settings, indirect methods are useful as a fi rst step of information gathering, but hypotheses generated from an indirect FBA should be confi rmed via direct observation. Direct methods of FBA are those that allow the person conducting the FBA to gather information fi rst-hand, by actually observing the student. Commonly used direct methods of FBA include antecedent-behavior-consequence recording (Bijou, Peterson, & Ault, 1968) and structural analysis (Borrero & Borrero, 2008; English & Anderson, 2006; Umbreit & Blair, 1997; Wehby et al., 1995). Regardless of the method chosen, it is important to conduct observations during the routines (e.g., group work, recess) in which challenging behavior most often occurs. This information can be gleaned via a priori interviews. In ABC (antecedent, behavior, consequence) recording an observer records each instance of the target behavior, and the environmental events that preceded and followed the behavior. The main difference between ABC recording and structural analysis is that environmental events are not arranged in ABC recording—instead, the observer simply records instances of problem behavior and environmental events that are temporally contiguous to the behavior. In structural analysis, antecedent events hypothesized to evoke problem behavior are presented and removed systematically, and problem behavior and events that follow problem behavior are recorded. 413

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

Relative to indirect assessment, direct assessment requires more time and expertise to conduct; the skill needed to interpret results and guide intervention development is similar across methods. At a minimum, FBA should consist of an indirect method and either ABC observations or a descriptive analysis. If a conclusive hypothesis statement cannot be generated from these methods, then experimental functional analysis may be warranted. In an experimental analysis, antecedent and consequent variables are manipulated in a systematic manner using a single- subject research design (for a review of experimental analysis in schools, see Ellis & Magee, 2004). The obvious advantage of experimental analysis is the documentation of a causal relation between environmental events and challenging behavior. Experimental analyses are especially useful when other methods of FBA have not yielded consistent fi ndings. That said, however, experimental analyses require skilled professionals with expertise in behavior analysis to conduct and interpret the results, and the resources necessary to conduct such analyses are beyond what many schools can provide. Thus, experimental methods of FBA should be reserved for those few situations when interviews and confi rmatory observations do not yield a conclusive hypothesis statement. A comprehensive guide for conducting FBA in schools is provided by O’Neill and colleagues (1996). These authors provide FBA interviews and guidelines for progressing from interviews to observations (including experimental analysis) to support plans.

Linking Intervention to Functional Behavior Assessment As noted previously, a large body of research supports the utility of interventions derived from FBA (function-based assessment). Results of FBA can be used to develop interventions consisting of a single component (strategy) or multiple components—with components addressing the events that precede and seem to trigger challenging behavior and/or events that follow and maintain challenging behavior. For students with intensive needs, multicomponent interventions are generally required. Interventions can be loosely grouped as consisting of antecedent interventions, strategies to increase desired behavior, and interventions to decrease challenging behavior. Antecedent interventions are implemented prior to the occurrence of challenging behavior—the goal is to prevent the occurrence of challenging behavior altogether. Examples of commonly used antecedent interventions include changing the seating arrangement (for a review, see Wannarka & Ruhl, 2008), altering the instructional level of tasks (Kern, Delaney, Clarke, Dunlap, & Childs, 2001; Umbreit, Lane, & Dejud, 2004), temporarily reducing the amount of work required (Pace, Iwata, Cowdery, Andree, & McIntyre, 1993; Piazza, Moes, & Fisher, 1996), or providing choices about the order of tasks to complete or how they will be completed, such as independently or with peers, or using a green or blue pencil for example (Dunlap et al., 1994; Kern et al., 1998; Seybert, Dunlap, & Ferro, 1996). Antecedent interventions should directly address the event that commonly precedes challenging behavior as well as address the function of the challenging behavior. For example, if a student engages in a tantrum when presented with a difficult independent math task, function-based antecedent strategies should incorporate those that make the task less aversive (e.g., providing an alternate task at the student’s instructional level, providing help when presenting the task). An effective intervention for challenging behavior should not simply suppress that response, but should also result in increases in desired behavior. After all, and as fi rst described (albeit in a humorous manner) by Lindsley (1991), if a dead person could engage in the desired behavior (e.g., sitting quietly, absence of tantrums), then it is not a valuable skill. Intervention planning thus targets the specific skills to increase—behaviors that will enhance student success. 414

Functional Behavior Assessment

Sometimes students are already engaging in those desired behaviors, but not at the frequency that is desired or in all desired settings. At other times, students might need to be taught desired behaviors. If a new skill is to be taught, training will be most successful if some or all training occurs in the situation in which the desired behavior will ultimately occur (Albin & Horner, 1988; Stokes & Baer, 1977). Second, for all desired behaviors, the reinforcement or “pay off ” must occur more frequently, be more valued, or delivered more rapidly than reinforcement available for problem behavior (Borrero, Frank, & Hausman, 2009; Nevin, 1998). Even with antecedent interventions and strategies to reinforce desired behavior, it is likely that challenging behavior will continue occur, at least occasionally. After all, most students have been engaging in challenging behavior for some time—it is almost akin to a habit, and habits can be hard to break. Thus, it is important to have identified specific strategies that can be implemented after challenging behavior occurs in order to decrease the reinforcement or “payoff ” for challenging behavior. Consequences are often chosen without regard for the function of problem behavior—common examples include “ignoring,” loss of recess time, office referrals, and detention—although some may result in temporary reductions in problem behavior—consequences are not effective unless a sustained reduction occurs—such that the consequence is implemented less often over time. Effective consequences tend to be those linked to the function of the problem behavior—ignoring will be effective only if attention reinforces problem behavior, and a trip to the office may actually reinforce behavior maintained by avoidance of an activity in the classroom. The reality is, it often is difficult (if not impossible) for educators to identify consequences that will be effective in reducing the occurrence of challenging behavior over the long term, and emphasis should thus be placed on prevention (antecedent intervention) and making engagement in alternative behaviors more reinforcing. One way to ensure that whatever occurs after challenging behavior is less reinforcing than what follows desired behavior is to simply minimize the duration, frequency, or intensity of the reinforcing consequence following problem behavior while maximizing delivery after appropriate behavior (Kamps, Wendland, & Culpepper, 2011). If a challenging behavior is maintained by teacher attention, then a logical consequence might be a brief, neutral direction (e.g., “please sit down”). Of course, this approach will be effective only if the consequence that follows desired behavior is more reinforcing. Multi-component interventions based on an FBA will result in reductions in problem behavior and increases in desired behavior. Interventions obviously must match the function of the student’s problem behavior; however, interventions also must match the context in which they will be implemented. In most schools, students gain access to high-quality FBA and support planning if their teacher, counselor, or school psychologist happens to understand FBA or if a behavior specialist with such expertise is involved in supporting the student. Ensuring that all students have access to FBA when it is needed will occur only when systemic features within the school support effective and sustained implementation.

Systemic Features Necessary for Successful Implementation of Function-Based Support As described earlier, the logic and technology of FBA and function-based support is well supported by research. Further, examples of FBA are increasingly seen in school-based research studies, and FBA is written into policy in many districts. In spite of these advances, however, widespread adoption of evidence-based strategies for completing FBA and developing function-based intervention has not occurred (Horner et al., 2010; Scott et al., 2005). 415

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

Research on the adoption and sustainability of evidence-based interventions suggests that a key reason for the lack of widespread adoption may be an inattention to systemic features necessary to support high-quality implementation (Fixsen & Blase, 1993; Fixsen, Blase, Duda, Naoom, & Van Dyke, 2010; Forman, Olin, Hoagwood, Crowe, & Saka, 2009; Sugai, Horner, Fixsen, & Blase, 2010). If function-based support is to be adopted within a school, several systemic features must be established including (a) a multi-tiered, prevention- oriented intervention framework, (b) access to high-quality training and technical assistance, and (c) strategies for efficient and effective data-based decision-making.

Multi-Tiered Prevention as a Framework for Function-Based Support The importance of multi-tier intervention frameworks for preventing the development of challenging behavior and facilitating inclusion is emphasized throughout this book. Together, Tiers I and II supports are effective for most students, thus greatly reducing the number of students requiring Tier III interventions. This is important as implementation of Tier III interventions can necessitate a great deal of time, expertise, and resources. Another benefit of a multi-tiered, prevention- oriented system is that it shifts the culture of a school away from a reactive, problem-focused approach and toward a proactive, skill-building focus (Horner et al., 2010; Sugai & Horner, 2009a, 2009b). Schools implementing multi-tiered prevention adopt an inclusive philosophy within which all students in the school deserve and receive intervention at the intensity necessary to facilitate success.

Access to High-Quality Training and Technical Assistance As should be evident by now, FBA and function-based support require a sophisticated level of understanding of both the principles of behavior analysis and the technology of FBA and support planning. Few educators receive such intensive training prior to completing their degrees, and one or even a series of workshops will not result in sufficient skill to guide implementation of FBA and support planning within a school. Instead, schools need access to ongoing training and technical assistance in the implementation and practice of FBA and support planning. This level of support should be provided by one or more individuals fluent in the science and practice of behavior analysis in school settings, with both children with disabilities and typically developing children. Individuals providing training and technical assistance will need to be familiar with a variety of methods of FBA—both direct and indirect—and be skilled in determining the type of FBA that is most appropriate for a given student, teacher, and classroom. Further, the individual must be able to work effectively with teachers to develop interventions that are both linked logically to the FBA and are practical and palatable to the teacher. Benazzi, Horner, and Good (2006) showed that when educators developed support plans without consulting with someone with such specialized expertise, the plans were perceived by teachers as appropriate and easy to implement; however, the plans were not technically adequate, and thus not likely to be effective. In contrast, if individuals with specialized expertise in FBA and support planning developed plans in isolation of teachers, the plans were technically adequate, but were perceived by teachers as infeasible. It was only when behavior specialists and teachers worked together that plans were both technically adequate and perceived by teachers as feasible and appropriate. It is unlikely that schools will be able to identify and hire individuals with such expertise independent of the district. Thus, districts play a key role in facilitating the adoption of function-based support planning in schools. School districts can assist in hiring by developing 416

Functional Behavior Assessment

position descriptions requiring a specific skillset—such as expertise in a range of methods of FBA and experience guiding support planning in schools. Successful candidates for such positions should be able to document their experiences—for example by providing de-identified FBAs and support plans and by accurately making recommendations in vignettes given during interviews. Our recent experiences guiding implementation of function-based support in districts suggests that one individual can work effectively with 2–4 schools beginning implementation of Tier III supports, and with about 6–8 schools who have experience in function-based supports and some internal capacity to conduct indirect methods of FBA and confi rmatory ABC observations.

Efficient and Effective Decision-making Schools implementing high-quality function-based support will also require access to information to guide decisions about student progress and the overall effectiveness of the Tier III system. Data-based decision-making is increasingly occurring within academic systems, largely due to the widespread adoption of response to intervention (Kratochwill, Volpiansky, Clements, & Ball, 2007; Pyle & Vaughn, 2012). Unfortunately, parallel systems for social behavior have largely been absent. At Tier III, schools use data to guide decisions about individual student outcomes and the overall Tier III intervention system. Decision- Making for Students Receiving Tier III There are three decision points for which data are required for students receiving Tier III supports. They include (a) determining whether a student might benefit from a Tier III intervention, (b) conducting the FBA to identify the appropriate intervention (described previously), and (c) determining whether the student is making adequate progress and what additional steps are needed. First, schools implementing multi-tier systems in general, and Tier III supports in particular, will need strategies to ensure that all students in need of intervention are identified. This can be accomplished via periodic school-wide screening using office referral patterns, teacher requests for assistance, or behavioral screening measures (Severson, Walker, Hope-Doolittle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007). Most schools generate office discipline referrals for students who have violated school rules, and office discipline referral patterns can be used to identify students in need of additional supports (Campbell & Anderson, 2011; Sugai, Sprague, Horner, & Walker, 2000). Although a seemingly efficient screening tool, the reliability and validity of office discipline referrals is questionable if educators in a school have not operationally defi ned rule violations and developed standard procedures for the generation of office discipline referrals (Nelson, Gonzalez, Epstein, & Benner, 2003). Teacher-generated requests for assistance are another strategy for identifying students in need of additional support. A formal mechanism of requesting support will ensure that all teachers know how to request help and that those students in need of intervention receive assistance in a timely manner. Behavioral screening measures are norm-referenced tools (usually rating scales) which can be administered across groups of students (e.g., all 11th graders) or the entire school. Behavioral screening tools can be completed quickly by teachers and are an efficient means of gathering information about the social behavioral “health” of all students. Examples include the Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (Walker et al., 1990), the Social Skills Improvement System Rating Scale (Gresham & Elliott, 2007), and the Behavioral and Emotional Screening System (Reynolds & Kamphaus, 2007). Regardless of the methods chosen, schools will need to develop a process for matching students with appropriate interventions. The person(s) holding 417

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

this responsibility must be knowledgeable about available Tier II and III interventions and must be aware of which intervention is appropriate for a given student. If a student’s behavior is dangerous, results in a great deal of disruption to classroom routines, or has not responded to less intensive efforts, then FBA and function-based (Tier III) intervention is appropriate (Burke et al., 2012; Feeney-Kettler, Kratochwill, Kaiser, Hemmeter, & Kettler, 2010; Lane, Robertson Kalberg, Lambert, Crnobori, & Bruhn, 2010; Severson et al., 2007). Once a function-based intervention has been developed and is in place, it is important that data are collected regularly to assess whether the intervention is successful. This will require that, prior to implementation, goals are set for the intervention and a plan for progress monitoring is developed. Goals should focus on measurable and positive outcomes, targeting both desired and challenging behaviors. Goals also should identify a specific criterion for success and a timeframe for accomplishment. For students with persistent behavioral challenges, it may be necessary to set both short- and long-term goals. The long-term goal is the desired outcome—what is necessary if the student is to be successful in inclusive settings with minimal support. Short-term goals are the steps along the way. The fi rst author recently worked with a student who engaged in disruptive behavior (talking out of turn, banging objects, out of seat) after about 2 minutes of independent work and continued to do so until the teacher came to her desk and directed her back to the assignment; this pattern repeated throughout the work period. The long-term goal, to be reached within 4 months, was that the student completes independent work assignments with no instances of disruptive behavior and no more than two appropriate requests for attention (hand raises) during a 20-minute independent work session. Given the frequency of disruption, it seemed unlikely that this goal would be met quickly and so intermediate goals were set. The teacher began by drawing a line on the student’s worksheet after two problems (the average amount of work completed prior to disruptive behavior) and telling the student to raise her hand after completing the problems. When the student raised her hand the teacher came to her, reviewed her work, provided positive feedback, and drew a line after the next two problems. The teacher continued this for about a week and then increased the number of problems to four. Over the next few months, the teacher gradually increased the work requirement, and the student was able to meet the long-term goal within four months. Assessing progress toward short- and long-term goals requires that educators have efficient means of progress monitoring. If a goal involves a permanent product such as work completion, then the task of progress monitoring is fairly simple; monitoring behavior during an activity, however, may require more effort. Two strategies for progress monitoring that do not require inordinate teacher effort are point cards (Chafouleas et al., 2010) and momentary time sampling (Shumate & Wills, 2009; Stage et al., 2008). Point cards are most often used when a challenging behavior occurs across activities or classes. On a point card, student behavior is rated at pre-determined times (e.g., the end of a class period) using a Likert-style scale. Behavior ratings are based on the entire period between the previous rating and the current rating, and thus are the teacher’s estimate of student progress. Ratings can be summed across class periods or days and then graphed to assess progress. Another option is momentary time sampling: using this method, teachers briefly observe the student at pre-determined times (e.g., once every 10 minutes) and rate the student’s behavior at that moment. As with pointcard data, ratings obtained via momentary time sampling can be graphed to monitor progress over time. If progress toward goals is not being made, the fidelity with which the intervention is implemented should be assessed before an intervention is abandoned. Fidelity of implementation (or treatment integrity) refers to the extent to which a procedure is implemented as 418

Functional Behavior Assessment

designed, and is a key but under- evaluated determinant of student outcome (Cook et al., 2012; Detrich, Keyworth, & States, 2010; Sanetti & Kratochwill, 2007). Fidelity can be evaluated by reviewing intervention components with the teacher and asking whether each component was implemented as designed, thus providing the teacher with an intervention checklist upon which the extent to which each feature was implemented can be rated, or having another individual sit in and observe implementation. If the intervention is not being implemented as designed, it will be important to determine why this is the case. Poor fidelity could be due to insufficient training (the teacher does not know how to implement the intervention), a lack of time or resources (including coaching) necessary for implementation, or a mismatch between the intervention and teacher skills or values (Allen & Warzak, 2000). Evaluating the Tier III System It is important to monitor not just the extent to which a given intervention is implemented with fidelity, but also the overall fidelity of the system—in this case, Tier III supports (Detrich et al., 2010). To our knowledge, there are currently two evaluation tools available for use by schools in assessing the overall implementation fidelity of Tier III social behavior supports: the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (Anderson, Lewis-Palmer, et al., 2011), and the Benchmarks of Advanced Tiers (Anderson, Kincaid, et al., 2011). Both are available at no charge from www.pbis.org. Both assessments are designed to assess key systems-features of Tier III, including team-based planning, access to technical assistance, and—for the Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool—the match between existing FBAs and support plans in the school and best practice. In addition to monitoring the fidelity of implementation, schools can assess outcomes across all students receiving Tier III supports. A gross measure of outcomes is to divide the number of students who are meeting set goals in a given month or quarter by the total number of students receiving Tier III supports. A more fi ne-grained analysis could be conducted by calculating this proportion by student placement (e.g., special education versus regular education) or type of FBA conducted.

Setting the Course: Next Steps in Promoting Inclusion Through Function-Based Support Function-based support is an evidence-based practice increasingly adopted in schools. Although FBA has been widely used in empirical studies, schools have been slower to adopt FBA and function-based support in a widespread manner. This is likely due to at least two factors: (a) lack of access to individuals with expertise in behavior analysis and FBA in schools, and (b) inattention to systems-features necessary for sustained implementation. It is our hope that the increasing prevalence of board- certified behavior analysts (see www.bacb.com) might begin to ameliorate the fi rst problem; however, most certified behavior analysts work almost exclusively with individuals with autism spectrum disorder or other disabilities. If the application of behavior analysis is to become more widespread in schools, this situation will have to change; training programs must begin to teach behavior analysts to work with students with and without disabilities and in both inclusive and specialized settings. There also is a need for well- documented processes for conducting FBA in school settings. Documentation is needed, not simply to show that a given method may or may not produce a fi rm hypothesis statement, but also for delineating when various methods are and are not appropriate. In addition, training and expertise needed to conduct various methods must 419

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

be better documented, as must outcomes with typically developing students in inclusive settings. We also would like to see more systems-level examinations of Tier III, functionbased support in the literature. Studies documenting features necessary for successful and sustained implementation of FBA and support planning implemented by educators in a successful and sustained manner are sorely needed. There is no doubt that FBA and functionbased support is effective and can be implemented in schools—but educators need guidance in how to implement this evidence-based practice, for all students and in all settings.

References Albin, R. W. & Horner, R. H. (1988 ). Generalization with precision. In R. H. Horner, G. Dunlap, & R. L. Koegel (Eds.), Generalization and maintenance: Life-style changes in applied settings (pp. 99 –120 ). Baltimore, MD : Brookes. Allen, K. D. & Warzak, W. J. ( 2000 ). The problem of parental nonadherence in clinical behavior analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 33, 373 –391. Anderson, C. M., Kincaid, D. K., Horner, R. H., George, H. P., Todd, A. W., Sampson, N. K., & Spaulding, S. A. ( 2011). Benchmarks for advanced tiers. Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon and the University of South Florida. Anderson, C. M., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G. M., & Sampson, N. K. ( 2011). Individual student systems evaluation tool. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Anderson, C. M. & Scott, T. M. ( 2009 ). Implementing function-based support within schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G., Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. H. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support. (pp. 705 –728 ). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co. Baum, W. M. & Heath, J. L. (1992 ). Behavioral explanations and intentional explanations in psychology. American Psychologist, 47, 1312 –1317. Benazzi, L., Horner, R. H., & Good, R. H., III. ( 2006 ). Effects of behavior support team composition on the technical adequacy and contextual fit of behavior support plans. The Journal of Special Education, 40, 1–12 . Bessette, K. K. & Wills, H. P. ( 2007 ). An example of an elementary school paraprofessional-implemented functional analysis and intervention. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 192 –210. Bijou, S. W., Peterson, R. F., & Ault, M. H. (1968 ). A method to integrate descriptive and experimental field studies at the level of data and empirical concepts. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 1, 175 –191. Borrero, C. S. W. & Borrero, J. C. ( 2008 ). Descriptive and experimental analyses of potential precursors to problem behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 41, 83 –96. Borrero, J. C., Frank, M. A., & Hausman, N. L. ( 2009 ). Applications of the matching law. In W. O’Donohue & J. E. Fisher (Eds.), General principles and empirically supported techniques of cognitive behavior therapy (pp. 415 – 424 ). Hoboken, NJ, US : John Wiley & Sons Inc. Burke, M. D., Davis, J. L., Lee, Y.-H., Hagan-Burke, S., Kwok, O.-M., & Sugai, G. M. ( 2012 ). Universal screening for behavioral risk in elementary schools using SWPBS expectations. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20 (1), 38 –54. Campbell, A. L. & Anderson, C. M. ( 2011). Check-in/check- out: A systematic evaluation and component analysis. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 44, 315 –326. Carr, E. G. (1977 ). The motivation of self-injurious behavior: A review of some hypotheses. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 800 – 816. Carr, E. G. & Blakeley-Smith, A. ( 2006 ). Classroom intervention for illness-related problem behavior in children with developmental disabilities. Behavior Modifi cation, 30, 901–924. Carr, E. G., Newsom, C. D., & Binkoff, J. A. (1976 ). Stimulus control of self- destructive behavior in a psychotic child. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 4, 139 –153. Chafouleas, S. M., Briesch, A. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., Christ, T. J., Black, A. C., & Kilgus, S. P. ( 2010 ). An investigation of the generalizability and dependability of Direct Behavior Rating Single Item Scales (DBR-SIS) to measure academic engagement and disruptive behavior of middle school students. Journal of School Psychology, 48, 219 –246. Chiesa, M. (1994 ). Radical behaviorism: The philosophy and the science. Boston, MA, US : Authors Cooperative. 420

Functional Behavior Assessment

Chiesa, M. (1998 ). Beyond mechanism and dualism: Rethinking the scientific foundations of psychology. British Journal of Psychology, 89, 353 –370. Cook, C. R., Mayer, G. R., Wright, D. B., Kraemer, B., Wallace, M. D., Dart, E., Collins, T., et al. ( 2012 ). Exploring the link among behavior intervention plans, treatment integrity, and student outcomes under natural educational conditions. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 3 –16. Detrich, R., Keyworth, R., & States, J. ( 2010 ). Treatment integrity: A fundamental unit of sustainable educational programs. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 11 (1), 4 –29. Didden, R., Duker, P. C., & Korzilius, H. (1997 ). Meta-analytic study on treatment effectiveness for problem behaviors with individuals who have mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 101, 387–399. Dunlap, G., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Wright, S., Wright, R., . . . & Gomez, A. (1994 ). Choice making to promote adaptive behavior for students with emotional and behavioral challenges. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27, 505 –518. Dunlap, G., Kern, L., dePerczel, M., Clarke, S., Wilson, D., Childs, K. E . . . & Falk, G. D. (1993 ). Functional analysis of classroom variables for students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 18, 275 –291. Durand, V. M. & Crimmins, D. B. (1988 ). Identifying the variables maintaining self-injurious behavior. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 18 (1), 99 –117. Ellis, J. & Magee, S. ( 2004 ). Modifications to basic functional analysis procedures in school settings: A selective review. Behavioral Interventions, 19, 205 –228. English, C. L. & Anderson, C. M. ( 2006 ). Evaluation of the treatment utility of the analog functional analysis and the structured descriptive assessment. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8, 212 –229. Feeney-Kettler, K. A., Kratochwill, T. R., Kaiser, A. P., Hemmeter, M. L., & Kettler, R. J. ( 2010 ). Screening young children’s risk for mental health problems: A review of four measures. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 35, 218 –230. Ferster, C. B. (1961). Positive reinforcement and behavioral deficits of young children. Child Development, 32, 437– 456. Fixsen, D. L. & Blase, K. A. (1993 ). Creating new realities: Program development and dissemination. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 597– 615. Fixsen, D. L., Blase, K. A., Duda, M., Naoom, S. F., & Van Dyke, M. ( 2010 ). Sustainability of evidence-based programs in education. Journal of Evidence-Based Practices for Schools, 11 (1), 30 – 46. Forman, S. G., Olin, S. S., Hoagwood, K. E., Crowe, M., & Saka, N. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based intervention in schools: Developers’ views of implementation barriers and facilitators. School Mental Health, 1 (1), 26 –36. Gresham, F. M. & Elliott, S. N. ( 2007 ). Social skills improvement system rating scale. Upper Saddle River, NJ : Pearson. Hanley, G. P., Iwata, B. A., & McCord, B. E. ( 2003 ). Functional analysis of problem behavior: A review. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 36, 147–185. Horner, R. H., Sugai, G. M., & Anderson, C. M. ( 2010 ). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1–16. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, 120 U.S.C. §1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108-466, 20 U. S. C. §1400, H. R. 1350. Kamps, D. M., Wendland, M., & Culpepper, M. ( 2011). Active teacher participation in functional behavior assessment for students with emotional and behavioral disorders risks in general education classrooms. Behavioral Disorders, 31, 128 –146. Kern, L., Delaney, B., Clarke, S., Dunlap, G., & Childs, K. ( 2001). Improving the classroom behavior of students with emotional and behavioral disorders using individualized curricular modifications. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 9, 239 –247. Kern, L., Vorndran, C. M., Hilt, A., Ringdahl, J. E., Adelman, B. E., & Dunlap, G. (1998 ). Choice as an intervention to improve behavior: A review of the literature. Journal of Behavioral Education, 8, 151–169. Kratochwill, T. R., Volpiansky, P., Clements, M. A., & Ball, C. ( 2007 ). Professional development in implementing and sustaining multitier prevention models: Implications for response to intervention. School Psychology Review, 36, 618 – 631. 421

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

Lane, K. L., Carter, E. W., Pierson, M. R., & Glaeser, B. C. ( 2006 ). Academic, social, and behavioral characteristics of high school students with emotional disturbances or learning disabilities. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 14, 108 –117. Lane, K. L., Eisner, S. L., Kretzer, J., Bruhn, A. L., Crnobori, M., Funke, L., Lerner, T., & Casey, A. (2009). Outcomes of functional assessment-based interventions for students with and at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in a job-share setting. Education & Treatment of Children, 32, 573 – 604. Lane, K. L., Robertson Kalberg, J., Lambert, E. W., Crnobori, M., & Bruhn, A. L. ( 2010 ). A comparison of systematic screening tools for emotional and behavioral disorders: A replication. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18, 100 –112 . Lane, K. L., Umbreit, J., & Beebe-Frankenberger, M. E. (1999 ). Functional assessment research on students with or at risk for EBD: 1990 to the present. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 101–111. Leone, P. E. & McLaughlin, M. J. (1995). Appropriate placement of students with emotional or behavioral disorders: Emerging policy options. In J. M. Kauffman, J. W. Lloyd, D. P. Hallahan, & T. A. Astuto (Eds.), Issues in educational placement: Students with emotional and behavioral disorders, Issues in educational placement: Students with emotional and behavioral disorders (pp. 335 –359 ). Hillsdale, NJ : Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc. Lilienfeld, S. O. ( 2005). Scientifically unsupported and supported interventions for childhood psychopathology: A summary. Pediatrics, 115, 761–764. Lindsley, O. R. (1991). From technical jargon to plain English for application. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 24, 449 – 458. Lovaas, O. I., Freitag, G., Gold, V. J., & Kassorla, I. C. (1965). Experimental studies in childhood schizophrenia: Analysis of self- destructive behavior. Journal of Experimental Child Psychology, 2, 67– 84. Madden, G. J., Dube, W. V., Hackenberg, T. D., Hanley, G. P., & Lattal, K. A. (Eds.). ( 2013 ). APA handbook of behavior analysis, Vol. 1: Methods and principles. Washington, DC : American Psychological Association. March, R. E., Horner, R. H., Lewis-Palmer, T., Brown, D., Crone, D. A., Todd, A. W., & Carr, E. G. ( 2000 ). Functional assessment checklist for teachers and staff (FACTS). www.pbis.org : Educational and Community Supports, University of Oregon. Moore, J. (1990 ). On the “causes” of behavior. The Psychological Record, 40, 469 – 480. Moore, J. (1998 ). On behaviorism, theories, and hypothetical constructs. Journal of Mind and Behavior, 19, 215 –242 . Moore, J. ( 2009 ). Why the radical behaviorist conception of private events is interesting, relevant, and important. Behavior and Philosophy, 37, 21–37. Muscott, H. S. (1995). A process for facilitating the appropriate inclusion of students with emotional/ behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 18, 369 –386. Myers, S. M. & Johnson, C. P. ( 2007 ). Management of children with autism spectrum disorders. Pediatrics, 120, 1162 –1182 . Nahgahgwon, K. N., Umbreit, J., Liaupsin, C. J., & Turton, A. M. ( 2010 ). Function-based planning for young children at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. Education & Treatment of Children, 33, 537–559. Nelson, J. R., Gonzalez, J. E., Epstein, M. H., & Benner, G. J. ( 2003 ). Administrative discipline contacts: A review of the literature. Behavioral Disorders, 28, 249 –281. Nevin, J. A. (1998 ). Choice and behavior momentum. In W. T. O’Donohue (Ed.) Learning and behavior therapy, Learning and behavior therapy (pp. 230 –251). Needham Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon. Oliver, R. M. & Reschly, D. J. ( 2007 ). Effective classroom management: Teacher preparation and professional development. Washington, DC : National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Storey, K., & Sprague, J. R. (1996 ). Functional assessment and program development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole. Pace, G. M., Iwata, B. A., Cowdery, G. E., Andree, P. J., & McIntyre, T. (1993 ). Stimulus (instructional) fading during extinction of self-injurious escape behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 26, 205 –212 . Paclawskyj, T. R., Matson, J. L., Rush, K. S., Smalls, Y., & Vollmer, T. R. ( 2000 ). Questions about behavioral function (QABF): a behavioral checklist for functional assessment of aberrant behavior. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 21, 1–7. 422

Functional Behavior Assessment

Piazza, C. C., Moes, D. R., & Fisher, W. W. (1996 ). Differential reinforcement of alternative behavior and demand fading in the treating fading in the treatment of escape-maintained destructive behavior. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 29, 569 –572 . Preciado, J. A., Horner, R. H., & Baker, S. K. ( 2008 ). Using a function-based approach to decrease problem behaviors and increase academic engagement for Latino English language learners. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 227–240. Pyle, N. & Vaughn, S. ( 2012 ). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 273 –284. Restori, A. F., Gresham, F. M., Chang, T., Lee, H. B., & Laija-Rodriquez, W. ( 2007 ). Functional assessment-based interventions for children at-risk for emotional and behavioral disorders. California School Psychologist, 12, 9 –30. Reynolds, C. & Kamphaus, R. W. ( 2007 ). BASC II-behavioral and emotional screening system. San Antonio, TX: Pearson. Risley, T., Johnston, M., Harris, F., & Allen, E. (1967 ). Application of operant conditioning procedures to the behavior problems of an autistic child: A follow-up and extension. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 5 ( 2 ), 103 –111. Sanetti, L. M. H. & Kratochwill, T. R. ( 2007 ). Treatment integrity in behavioral consultation: Measurement, promotion, and outcomes. International Journal of Behavioral Consultation and Therapy, 4, 95 –114. Satcher, D. ( 2000 ). Mental health: A report of the Surgeon General—Executive summary. Public Health Reports, 115 (1), 89 –101. Scott, T. M., Liaupsin, C. J., Nelson, C. M., & McIntyre, J. ( 2005). Team-based functional behavior assessment as a proactive public school process: A descriptive analysis of current barriers. Journal of Behavioral Education, 14, 57–71. Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. ( 2007 ). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193 –223. Seybert, S., Dunlap, G., & Ferro, J. (1996 ). The effects of choice-making on the problem behaviors of high school students with intellectual disabilities. Journal of Behavioral Education, 6, 49 – 65. Shumate, E. D. & Wills, H. P. ( 2009 ). Classroom-based functional analysis and intervention for disruptive and off-task behaviors. Education & Treatment of Children, 33, 23 – 48. Skinner, B. F. (1965). Science and human behavior. New York, NY: Macmillian. Stage, S. A., Jackson, H. G., Jensen, M. J., Moscovitz, K. K., Bush, J. W., Violette, H. D., Pious, C., et al. ( 2008 ). A validity study of functionally-based behavioral consultation with students with emotional/behavioral disabilities. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 327–353. Stage, S. A., Jackson, H. G., Moscovitz, K. K., Erickson, M. J., Thurman, S. O., Jessee, W., & Olson, E. ( 2006 ). Using multimethod-multisource functional behavioral assessment for students with behavioral disabilities. School Psychology Review, 35, 451– 471. Stokes, T. F. & Baer, D. M. (1977 ). An implicit technology of generalization. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 10, 349 –367. Stoutjesdijk, R., Scholte, E. M., & Swaab, H. ( 2012 ). Special needs characteristics of children with emotional and behavioral disorders that affect inclusion in regular education. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 20 ( 2 ), 92 –104. Sugai, G. M. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009a). Defi ning and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326 ). New York, NY: Springer Publishing Co. Sugai, G. M. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009b). Responsiveness-to-intervention and school-wide positive behavior supports: Integration of multi-tiered system approaches. Exceptionality, 17, 223 –237. Sugai, G. M., Horner, R. H., Fixsen, D., & Blase, K. ( 2010 ). Developing systems-level capacity for RTI implementation: Current efforts and future directions. In T. A. Glover & S. Vaughn (Eds.), The promise of response to intervention: Evaluating current science and practice (pp. 286 –309 ). New York, NY: Guilford Press. Sugai, G. M., Sprague, J. R., Horner, R. H., & Walker, H. M. ( 2000 ). Preventing school violence: The use of office discipline referrals to assess and monitor school-wide discipline interventions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 8 ( 2 ), 94 –101. Umbreit, J. & Blair, K.-S. C. (1997 ). Using structural analysis to facilitate treatment of aggression and noncompliance in a young child at-risk for behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 22 ( 2 ), 75 – 86. 423

C.M. Anderson and B.J. Rodriguez

Umbreit, J., Lane, K. L., & Dejud, C. ( 2004 ). Improving classroom behavior by modifying task difficulty: Effects of increasing the difficulty of too- easy tasks. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6, 1–10. Walker, H. M., Ramsey, E., & Gresham, F. M. ( 2003 ). Heading off disruptive behavior: How early intervention can reduce defiant behavior and win back teaching time. American Educator, 26, 6 – 45. Walker, H. M., Severson, H. H., Todis, B. J., Block-Pedego, A. E., Williams, G., Haring, N. G., & Barckley, M. (1990 ). Systematic screening for behavior disorders (SSBD): Further validation, replication, and normative data. Remedial and Special Education, 11 ( 2 ), 32 – 46. Wannarka, R. & Ruhl, K. ( 2008 ). Seating arrangements that promote positive academic and behavioural outcomes: A review of empirical research. Support for Learning, 23 ( 2 ), 89 –93. Wehby, J., Symons, F. J., & Shores, R. E. (1995). A descriptive analysis of aggressive behavior in classrooms for children with emotional and behavioral disorders. Behavioral Disorders, 20 ( 2 ), 87–105.

424

30 Self-Determination and Inclusive Schools Michael L. Wehmeyer1

Setting the Stage Promoting the self- determination of youth with disabilities has become best practice in secondary and transition education for students receiving special education services since the mid-1990s (Wehmeyer & Field, 2007). With the emergence of federal school reform efforts in the early 2000s, though, the importance of promoting self- determination to other valued educational outcomes, specifically access to the general education curriculum and inclusive practices, began to be recognized (Konrad, Walker, Fowler, Test, & Wood, 2008; Wehmeyer, Field, Doren, Jones, & Mason, 2004). In fact, Spooner, Dymond, Smith, and Kennedy (2006) suggested that promoting self- determination is one of several theoretically valid means of promoting such access. This chapter will present the case that, over the past decade, it has become increasingly obvious that if students with extensive support needs receiving special education services are to be effectively included in both the general education classroom and the general education curriculum, there is a need to focus on issues pertaining to self- determination. To understand the critical link between promoting self- determination and inclusion, it is important to understand how advances in policy and practice in the field have led the field to what we (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer, & Shogren, 2013; Wehmeyer, 2009) have referred to as a third generation of inclusive practices. As readers of this text will know, the 1997 amendments to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act required that the IEP of students with disabilities include a statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services to be provided to the student and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that would be provided for the student to: (a) advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals; (b) be involved and progress in the general curriculum; and (c) to be educated and participate with disabled and non- disabled children. The 2004 amendments to IDEA contained all of the original IDEA 1997 mandates and added several new requirements, including that schools ensure that the IEP team includes

1 University of Kansas 425

M.L. Wehmeyer

someone knowledgeable about the general education curriculum and that the team meet at least annually to address any lack of expected progress in the general education curriculum. With regard to the requirements for special education and related services, supplementary aids and services, and modifications or supports to achieve goals, ensure progress in the general education curriculum, and participate with non- disabled peers, the only new requirement in that list pertained to involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum. IDEA has always required that the IEP be written to ensure that students achieve goals and that students be educated with their non- disabled peers to the maximum extent appropriate (to use IDEA terms). The education with non- disabled peers clause must be interpreted within the context of the IDEA Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) language. In Sec. 300.114(a)(2), IDEA requires: (i) To the maximum extent appropriate, children with disabilities, including children in public or private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are nondisabled; and (ii) special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of children with disabilities from the regular educational environment occurs only if the nature or severity of the disability is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. For much of the history of IDEA, the LRE requirements were interpreted or implemented as if they read that students could only be removed if the nature or severity of their disability dictates such action ( Jackson, Ryndak, & Wehmeyer, 2010). The fact that the section following the so- called LRE requirements discusses the required continuum of alternative placements (Sec. 300.115) perhaps reinforces the idea that students should be educated in alternative settings as a function of the severity of their disability. In fact, IDEA’s LRE requirements state that students should be removed from the general education classroom only when supplementary aids and services provided to students are not sufficient to ensure an appropriate education. Access to the general education curriculum requirements added a new level of importance to efforts to educate students with disabilities in the general education classroom by focusing not on where a student was educated, but on what the student was being taught. First generation inclusive practices essentially focused on moving students from alternative placements into the general education classroom in their neighborhood school. Second generation inclusive practices focused on developing instructional strategies and supports to enable students to be taught in these settings (e.g., differentiated instruction, collaborative teaming, cooperative learning, etc.). Third generation inclusive practices assume that both of the preceding generation’s foci are in place (e.g., student educated in general education setting in neighborhood school using second generation strategies), but turn our attention to what students are taught, requiring that all students be involved with the general education curriculum. Research generated by this shift in policy has shown that the place where students with disabilities have access to the general education curriculum is the general education classroom (Lee, Soukup, Little, & Wehmeyer, 2009; Soukup, Wehmeyer, Bashinski, & Bovaird, 2007; Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003). Simply put, if students with disabilities are to achieve greater access to the general education curriculum, it will be in the context of the general education classroom with students receiving the supports—including highquality instruction and curriculum modifications—they need to succeed. And, it is in considering how we promote access to the general education curriculum in the general education classroom that a focus on promoting self- determination becomes 426

Inclusion and Self-Determination

important. As Wehmeyer and colleagues (2004) noted, there are two primary reasons why promoting self- determination is important to achieve access and, as such, inclusion. First, most state and local content and student achievement standards across multiple content areas contain language pertaining to component elements of self- determined behavior, such as goal- setting, problem- solving, and decision-making, the promotion of which is an important component of the educational programs of many students with disabilities and is potentially as important for all students. Second, research shows that students who are more self- determined perform more effectively in the general education curriculum. There is a clear evidence base that teaching students to self-regulate their learning or teaching students self- directed learning strategies such as self-monitoring or self-instruction has beneficial outcomes for students with severe disabilities in student goal attainment, problem- solving, and engagement (Agran, Blanchard, Hughes, & Wehmeyer, 2002; Agran et al. 2005; Fowler, Konrad, Walker, Test, & Wood, 2007; Hughes et al., 2002). Further, the application of instruction to teach and implement these strategies has been validated as effective in promoting standards-based learning for students with severe disabilities (Wehmeyer, Hughes, Agran, Garner, & Yeager, 2003). Finally, as will be elaborated upon later, Wehmeyer and colleagues have provided evidence that teaching students to self-regulate their learning using the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (Wehmeyer, Palmer, Agran, Mithaug, & Martin, 2000) results in the attainment of goals linked to the general education curriculum (Agran, Wehmeyer, Cavin, & Palmer, 2008, 2010; Lee, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, & Little, 2008; Lee, Wehmeyer, Soukup, & Palmer, 2010; Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004). The following section provides a brief overview of self- determination and its application to the education of students with severe disabilities, and the final section discusses evidencebased practices leading to more positive educational outcomes for students with extensive support needs in the general education classroom.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice in Self-Determination Several theoretical models have been developed, and, to some degree, evaluated, based upon research in special education over the past two decades (Wehmeyer, Abery, Mithaug, & Stancliffe, 2003). Although they vary as a function of how the construct is understood or framed, they all share common elements. Wehmeyer and colleagues (Wehmeyer, Abery et al., 2003; Wehmeyer et al., 2007) proposed a functional model of self-determination in which self- determination is conceptualized as a dispositional characteristic (enduring tendencies used to characterize and describe differences between people) based on the function a behavior serves for a person. Self- determined behavior refers to “volitional actions that enable one to act as the primary causal agent in one’s life and to maintain or improve one’s quality of life” (Wehmeyer, 2005, p. 117). Causal agency implies that it is the individual who makes or causes things to happen in his or her life and that the individual acts with an eye toward causing an effect in order to accomplish a specifi c end or to cause or create change. Self- determination emerges across the life span as children and adolescents learn skills and develop attitudes and beliefs that enable them to be causal agents in their lives. These skills and attitudes are the component elements of self- determined behavior, and include choicemaking, problem- solving, decision-making, goal- setting and attainment, self-advocacy, and self-management skills. The model has been empirically validated (Shogren et al., 2008; Wehmeyer, Kelchner, & Richards, 1996); operationalized by the development of an assessment linked to the theory (Shogren et al., 2008); and served as the foundation for 427

M.L. Wehmeyer

intervention development and provided impetus for a variety of research activities (see Wehmeyer et al., 2007). Field and colleagues (Field & Hoffman, 2002; Hoffman & Field, 2005) proposed a five-step model for promoting self-determination in which self- determination is either promoted or discouraged by factors within the individual’s control (e.g., values, knowledge, skills) and variables that are environmental in nature (e.g., opportunities for choice making, attitudes of others). The model has five major components: Know Yourself and Your Environment, Value Yourself, Plan, Act, and Experience Outcomes and Learn. This five- step model was developed over a three-year effort (Hoffman & Field, 2005) that included over 1,500 student observations and interviews with more than 200 individuals. The model has provided the framework for intervention development, particularly the Steps to Self-Determination curriculum (Hoffman & Field, 2005) and its related assessment tools (Field, Hoffman, & Sawilowsky, 2004). Abery and colleagues (Abery & Stancliffe, 1996; Stancliffe, Abery, & Smith, 2000) proposed an ecological model of self-determination that defines the self-determination construct as “a complex process, the ultimate goal of which is to achieve the level of personal control over one’s life that an individual desires within those areas the individual perceives as important” (p. 27). The ecological model views self-determination as being driven by the intrinsic motivation of all people to be the primary determiner of their thoughts, feelings, and behavior. Accordingly, self-determination is the product of both the person and the environment—of the person using the skills, knowledge, and beliefs at his/her disposal to act upon the environment with the goal of obtaining valued and desired outcomes. The ecological model within which people develop and lead their lives is viewed as consisting of four levels: microsystem, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem (See Wehmeyer, Abery et al., 2003 for more detail). The ecological model has been empirically evaluated (Stancliffe et al., 2000), operationalized in the development of assessments (Abery, Stancliffe, Smith, McGrew, & Eggebeen, 1995a,b), and has also provided a foundation for intervention (Abery et al., 1994) and research (Stancliffe et al., 2000). Mithaug (Wehmeyer, Abery et al., 2003) hypothesized that self- determination is an unusually effective form of self-regulation, markedly free of external influence, in which people who are self- determined regulate their choices and actions more successfully than others. Mithaug suggested that individuals are often in flux between existing states and goals or desired states. When a discrepancy exists between what one has and what one wants, an incentive for self-regulation and action becomes operative. The ability to set appropriate expectations is based on the person’s success in matching his or her capacity with present opportunity. Capacity is the person’s assessment of existing resources (e.g., skills, interests, motivation), and opportunity refers to aspects of the situation that allow the individual to achieve the desired gain. The experience generated during self-regulation is a function of repeated interaction between capacity and opportunity. Mithaug (1998) suggested that “self- determination always occurs in a social context” (p. 42) and that “the social nature of the construct is worth reviewing because the distinction between self- determination and other-determination is nearly always in play when assessing an individual’s prospects for controlling their life in a particular situation” (p. 42).

Importance of Self-Determination to Special Education Practices Promoting self- determination has become best practice in special education for several reasons, including the construct’s linkages to access to general education, as discussed in the previous section. Perhaps most important, however, is data reflecting the positive impact of 428

Inclusion and Self-Determination

enhanced self-determination on student academic, behavioral, and functional outcomes and quality of life. A number of studies have established a relationship (e.g., correlational evidence) between self- determination status at the time of graduation from high school and more positive employment, independent living, and community inclusion-related outcomes (Powers et al., 1998; Wehmeyer & Palmer, 2003; Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997). Recently, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Shogren, Williams-Diehm, and Soukup (2013) conducted a randomized trial control-group study of the effect of multiple interventions to promote self-determination on the self- determination of high school students receiving special education services under the categorical areas of intellectual disability and learning disabilities. Students in the treatment group received instruction using a variety of instructional methods to promote self- determination and student involvement in educational planning meetings over three years—which will be detailed in a subsequent section—while students in the control group received no such intervention. The self-determination of each student was measured using two instruments: The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale (Wehmeyer & Kelchner, 1995), and the AIR Self-Determination Scale (Wolman, Campeau, Dubois, Mithaug, & Stolarski, 1994) at baseline, after 2 years of intervention, and after 3 years of intervention. Analysis using latent growth curve analysis determined that students with cognitive disabilities who participated in interventions to promote self-determination showed significantly more positive patterns of growth in their self- determination scores than did students not exposed to interventions to promote self- determination. Subsequently, in a follow-up study of the treatment and control-group students from Wehmeyer et al. (2013), Shogren, Wehmeyer, Palmer, and Little (2012) investigated adult outcomes one year and two years after leaving school. These researchers measured employment, community access, fi nancial independence, independent living, and life satisfaction outcomes. Results indicated that self- determination status at the end of high school significantly predicted more positive employment, career goal, and community access outcomes. Students who were self- determined were significantly higher in all of these areas. These two studies study provided causal evidence that promoting self- determination results in enhanced self- determination, and that enhanced self- determination results in more positive adult outcomes, including employment and community inclusion. The following section will identify evidence-based practices that can be implemented in general education settings to promote self- determination and inclusion. It is worth noting, though, that there are other interventions that show evidence of efficacy and promote selfdetermination, but which are not designed to be implemented specifically in the general education classroom. For example, TAKE CHARGE for the Future (Powers et al., 1996; Powers, Turner, Matuszewski, Wilson, & Phillips, 2001) is a student- directed, collaborative model to promote student involvement in educational and transition planning. TAKE CHARGE uses four primary components or strategies to promote development of selfdetermination: (a) skill facilitation; (b) mentoring; (c) peer support; and (d) parent support. For example, TAKE CHARGE introduces youth to three major skills areas needed to take charge of one’s life: (a) achievement skills; (b) partnership skills; and (c) coping skills. Youth involved in the TAKE CHARGE process are matched with successful adults of the same gender who experience similar challenges, share common interests, and are involved in peer support activities throughout (Powers et al., 1998). Parent support is provided via information, technical assistance and written materials. Powers et al. (2001) conducted a control-group study and found that the TAKE CHARGE materials had a positive impact upon student involvement in planning. More recently, Powers et al. (2012) conducted a longitudinal, randomized trial study of the effect of the TAKE 429

M.L. Wehmeyer

CHARGE model on self- determination and transition-related outcomes for youth in foster care receiving special education services. Assessment at baseline, post-intervention, and one year follow-up indicated moderate to large effect sizes at post-intervention and one year follow-up for differences between groups on self- determination, quality of life, and utilization of community transition services. Youth in the intervention group also completed high school, were employed, and carried out independent living activities at higher rates than did their peers in the control group (Powers et al., 2012, p. 2179). An important area of focus in efforts to promote self- determination has been promoting student involvement in the educational planning process. Test and colleagues (2004) reviewed the literature pertaining to student involvement and determined that students across disability categories can be successfully involved in educational planning. Martin, Marshall, and Sale (2004) conducted a 3-year study of middle, junior, and senior high school IEP meetings and found that the presence of students at IEP meetings had considerable benefits, including increased parental involvement and improved probability that a student’s strengths, needs, and interests would be discussed. At least two programs to promote student involvement in educational planning and decision making can be considered evidence-based practices. Martin et al. (2006) conducted a randomized trial control-group study of The Self-Directed IEP (SDIEP, Martin, Marshall, Maxson, & Jerman, 1997). Students in the treatment group that received SDIEP lessons, which teach students the leadership skills necessary to run their IEP meeting, attended more IEP meetings, increased their active participation in the meetings, showed more leadership behaviors in the meetings, expressed their interests, skills, and support needs across educational domains, and remembered their IEP goals after the meeting at greater rates than did students in the control group, who received no such instruction. Wehmeyer, Palmer, Lee, Williams-Diehm, and Shogren (2011) conducted a randomizedtrial, placebo control-group design study of the Whose Future is it Anyway? (WFA) process on self- determination and transition knowledge and skills. The WFA process (Wehmeyer et al., 2004), consists of 36 sessions enabling students to self- direct instruction related to: (a) self- and disability-awareness; (b) making decisions about transition-related outcomes; (c) identifying and securing community resources to support transition services; (d) writing and evaluating transition goals and objectives; (e) communicating effectively in small groups; and (f ) developing skills to become an effective team member, leader, or self-advocate. Wehmeyer et al. (2011) found that instruction using the WFA process resulted in significant positive differences in self- determination when compared with a control group and those students who received instruction gained transition knowledge and skills. Palmer, Wehmeyer, Shogren, Williams-Diehm, and Soukup (2012) conducted a randomized trial, control-group study of the effect of the Beyond High School (BHS) model—designed to actively engage students with intellectual and developmental disabilities in planning and goal setting in post-high school settings. The BHS model incorporates multiple stages, beginning with student involvement in a self-regulated planning process using the WFA process. Palmer and colleagues determined that students in the treatment group had greater gains in self- determination than did their peers in the treatment group. As noted, interventions to promote student involvement are not as directly linked to promoting inclusion, and there is no research linking student involvement directly to inclusion. Williams-Diehm, Wehmeyer, Palmer, Soukup, and Garner (2008) did provide a direct link between student self- determination and student involvement, however, determining that there was a reciprocal interaction between the two (e.g., enhanced self- determination predicted greater student involvement, greater student involvement predicted higher 430

Inclusion and Self-Determination

self- determination). Since enhanced self- determination has been linked directly to enhanced access to general education (Shogren, Palmer, Wehmeyer, Williams-Diehm, & Little, 2012), then one might link student involvement indirectly to enhanced inclusion.

Setting the Course for Effective Inclusion through Promoting Self-Determination This section describes evidence-based interventions to promote self- determination for students with more extensive support needs that promote inclusion and access to the general education curriculum. These interventions include efforts to promote component elements of self- determined behavior, the use of self- directed learning strategies, and the implementation of a model of teaching to promote self-regulated problem- solving to set and attain educational goals and promote self- determination.

Component Elements of Self-Determination Wehmeyer and colleagues (2007) identified a set of component elements of self- determined behavior that, corporately, can be seen as research-based practices to promote selfdetermination in inclusive settings. As noted previously, promoting self-determination has the benefit of teaching students skills that can enable them to more successfully participate in and succeed in the general education classroom. These component elements, which include self-advocacy, goal setting and attainment, self-awareness, problem- solving skills, and decision-making skills, are, in and of themselves, useful in inclusive settings and have been linked to self- determination. Further, parents and teachers of students with extensive support needs identified multiple opportunities at home and school for students to learn and practice these skills (Carter, Owens, Trainor, Sun, & Swedeen, 2009). Evidence for the effect of instruction in these component elements comes from metaanalytic studies of the impact of such instruction. Algozzine, Browder, Karvonen, Test, and Wood (2001) conducted group- and single- subject design meta-analyses of studies in which individuals with disabilities had received some intervention to promote component elements of self- determined behavior, specifically choice-making skills, decision-making skills, goal- setting and attainment skills, self-advocacy knowledge or skills, problem-solving skills, and self-awareness skills. The median effect size across 100 group intervention comparisons was 1.38, interpreted as a moderate effect. For the single- subject design studies, the median percentage of non-overlapping data (PND) was 95%, with seven interventions with a PND of 100%. This is interpreted as a strong effect. Subsequently, Cobb, Lehmann, NewmanGonchar, and Alwell (2009) conducted a narrative metasynthesis—a narrative synthesis of multiple meta-analytic studies—covering seven existing meta-analyses examining self- determination, and concluded that there is sufficient evidence to support interventions to teach or promote choice-making, problem- solving, decision-making, goal- setting and attainment, and self-advocacy skills as effective practices to promote self- determination.

Self-Directed Learning Strategies A second class of instructional strategies, which were not included in the Algozzine et al. (2001) meta-analysis because of the high number of studies in the area, involve studentdirected learning strategies. These strategies, which include self-instruction, self-monitoring, self- evaluation, self-reinforcement, and antecedent cue regulation, teach students to 431

M.L. Wehmeyer

self- direct learning. These have obvious application to promoting inclusion. In fact, Wehmeyer, Agran, Hughes and colleagues (Agran et al., 2002, 2005, 2008, 2010; Hughes et al., 2002; Wehmeyer, Hughes et al., 2003) conducted a series of single- subject design studies showing that students with extensive support needs could implement single or multiple student- directed learning strategies (self-monitoring, self-instruction, self-evaluation) in inclusive settings in order to achieve educationally relevant goals. Multiple reviews of the literature exist which document the efficacy of these procedures with students with extensive support needs across multiple settings and age ranges (Harchik, Sherman, & Sheldon, 1992; Hughes, Korinek, & Gorman, 1991). McDougall (1998) found more than 240 studies examining the efficacy of student- directed learning strategies (e.g., self-management strategies) in the literature, though only a few of them, at that time, had been conducted in general education settings. McDougall reviewed those studies in general education settings and, as in the fi ndings by Wehmeyer, Agran, Hughes, and colleagues, found moderate to strong improvements in student performance as a result of the intervention. Mitchem and Young (2001) reviewed the literature on self-management programs and recommended that these could form a basis for classroom-wide interventions. Finally, the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction, discussed next, incorporates the use of student- directed learning strategies.

Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction A specific instructional strategy that can be implemented with students with and without disabilities in general education classrooms and which has evidence of causal impact upon self- determination, educational goal attainment, and access to general education, is the SelfDetermined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI; Wehmeyer et al., 2000). The SDLMI is based on the component elements of self- determined behavior and research on studentdirected learning (both mentioned previously) and is a model of teaching designed to enable teachers to teach students to set and attain goals in multiple content areas, from academic to functional to behavioral. Implementing the SDLMI consists of a three-phase instructional process: Set a Goal (Phase 1), Take Action (Phase 2), and Adjust Goal or Plan (Phase 3). Each instructional phase presents a problem to be solved by the student. The student solves this problem by posing and answering a series of four Student Questions per phase. Teachers support students to learn these questions, modify them to make them their own, and apply them to self- selected goals. Each question is linked to a set of Teacher Objectives and a list of Educational Supports that teachers can use to enable students to self- direct learning. In each instructional phase, the student is the primary causal agent for choices, decisions, and actions, even when actions are teacher- directed (see Wehmeyer, Abery et al., 2003). More than a dozen quasi- experimental or single- subject design studies have shown the potential efficacy of the SDLMI to promote self- determination and goal attainment (Wehmeyer et al., 2007). Two recent studies establish it as an evidence-based practice. Wehmeyer, Shogren, Palmer, Williams-Diehm, Little, and Boulton (2012) conducted a switching replication, randomized trial control-group study on the impact of intervention with the SDLMI upon student self- determination. Data on self- determination using multiple measures was collected with 312 high school students with cognitive disabilities in both a control and treatment group. Wehmeyer and colleagues examined the relationship between the SDLMI and self- determination using structural equation modeling. After determining strong measurement invariance for each latent construct, these researchers found significant differences in latent means across measurement occasions and differential effects attributable to the SDLMI. This was true across disability categories, though there was variance across 432

Inclusion and Self-Determination

disability populations. In other words, instruction using the SDLMI resulted in enhanced self- determination. Next, Shogren, Palmer et al. (2012) reported fi ndings from a cluster or group randomized trial control-group study examining the impact of the SDLMI on student academic and transition goal attainment and access to the general education curriculum for students with intellectual and learning disabilities. Students in the treatment group had significantly higher levels of goal attainment and access than their peers in the control group.

Conclusions By and large, existing models for the promotion of inclusive practices have implemented interventions to promote the self- determination of students with disabilities to a limited extent. As this chapter shows, however, there is sufficient evidence and theoretical justification to state that promoting self- determination should become a classroom-wide practice for students with and without disabilities—including students with extensive support needs—so as to achieve not only enhanced self- determination, but also greater capacity to succeed in the general education curriculum and the general education classroom.

References Abery, B. H., Arndt, K., Greger, P., Tetu, L., Eggebeen, A., Barosko, J., . . . & Rudrud, L. (1994 ). Selfdetermination for youth with disabilities: A family education curriculum. Minneapolis MN : University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration. Abery, B. H. & Stancliffe, R. J. (1996 ). The ecology of self- determination. In D. J. Sands & M. L. Wehmeyer (Eds.), Self-determination across the life span: Independence and choice for people with disabilities (pp. 111–145). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Abery, B. H., Stancliffe, R. J., Smith, J., McGrew, K., & Eggebeen, A. (1995a). Minnesota opportunities and exercise of self-determination scale (Adult ed.). Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, Research and Training Center on Community Living. Abery, B. H., Stancliffe, R. J., Smith, J., McGrew, K., & Eggebeen, A. (1995b). Minnesota selfdetermination skills, attitudes, and knowledge evaluation scale (Adult ed.). Minneapolis, MN, University of Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration, Research and Training Center on Community Living. Agran, M., Blanchard, C., Hughes, C., & Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2002 ). Increasing the problem- solving skills of students with severe disabilities participating in general education. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 279 –288. Agran, M., Sinclair, T., Alper, S., Cavin, M., Wehmeyer, M., & Hughes, C. ( 2005). Using selfmonitoring to increase following- direction skills of students with moderate to severe disabilities in general education. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 40, 3 –13. Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. ( 2008 ). Promoting student active classroom participation skills through instruction to promote self-regulated learning and self- determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 106 –114. Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M., Cavin, M., & Palmer, S. ( 2010 ). Promoting active engagement in the general education classroom and access to the general education curriculum for students with cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 163 –174. Algozzine, B., Browder, D., Karvonen, M., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. ( 2001). Effects of interventions to promote self- determination for individuals with disabilities. Review of Educational Research, 71, 219 –277. Carter, E. W., Owens, L., Trainor, A. A., Sun, Y., & Swedeen, B. ( 2009 ). Self- determination skills and opportunities of adolescents with severe intellectual and developmental disabilities. American Journal on Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 114, 179 –192 . Cobb, B., Lehmann, J., Newman-Gonchar, R., & Alwell, M. ( 2009 ). Self- determination for students with disabilities: A narrative metasynthesis. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 108 –114.

433

M.L. Wehmeyer

Field, S. & Hoffman, A. ( 2002 ). Lessons learned from implementing the Steps to Self-Determination curriculum. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 90 –98. Field, S., Hoffman, A., & Sawilowsky, S. ( 2004 ). Self-determination assessment battery. Detroit, MI : Wayne State University. Fowler, C. H., Konrad, M., Walker, A. R., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. ( 2007 ). Self- determination interventions’ effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 270 –285. Harchik, A. E., Sherman, J. A., & Sheldon, J. B. (1992 ). The use of self-management procedures by people with developmental disabilities: A brief review. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 13, 211–227. Hoffman, A. & Field, S. ( 2005). Steps to self-determination (2nd ed.). Austin, TX: ProEd. Hughes, C., Copeland, S. R., Agran, M., Wehmeyer, M. L., Rodi, M. S., & Presley, J. A. ( 2002 ). Using self-monitoring to improve performance in general education high school classes. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 262 –271. Hughes, C. A., Korinek, L , & Gorman, J. (1991). Self-management for students with mental retardation in public school settings: A research review. Education and Training in Mental Retardation, 26, 271–291. Jackson, L., Ryndak, D., & Wehmeyer, M. ( 2010 ). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research and Practice in Severe Disabilities, 34, 175 –195 Konrad, M., Walker, A. R., Fowler, C. H., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. ( 2008 ). A model for aligning self- determination and general curriculum standards. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 40 ( 3 ), 53 – 64. Lee, S. H., Soukup, J. H., Little, T. D., & Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2009 ). Student and teacher variables contributing to access to the general education curriculum for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. The Journal of Special Education, 43, 29 – 44 Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., & Little, T. D. ( 2008 ). Self- determination and access to the general education curriculum. The Journal of Special Education, 42, 91–107 Lee, S. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Soukup, J. H., & Palmer, S. B. ( 2010 ). Impact of curriculum modifications on access to the general education curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 76, 213 –233. Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., Maxson, L. M., & Jerman, P. L. (1997 ). The self-directed IEP. Longmont, CO : Sporis West. Martin, J. E., Marshall, L. H., & Sale, P. ( 2004 ). A 3-year study of middle, junior high, and high school IEP meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 285 –297. Martin, J. E., Van Dycke, J. L., Christensen, W. R., Greene, B. A., Gardner, J. E., & Lovett, D. L. ( 2006 ). Increasing student participation in IEP meetings: Establishing the self- directed IEP as an evidenced-based practice. Exceptional Children, 72, 299 –316. McDougall, D. (1998 ). Research on self-management techniques used by students with disabilities in general education settings: A descriptive review. Remedial and Special Education, 19, 310 –320. Mitchem, K. J. & Young, K. R. ( 2001). Adapting self-management programs for classwide use: Acceptability, feasibility, and effectiveness. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 75 – 88. Mithaug, D. (1998 ). Your right, my obligation? The Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 23, 41– 43. Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. ( 2004 ). Promoting access to the general curriculum by teaching self- determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70, 427– 439. Palmer, S. B., Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K., Williams-Diehm, K., & Soukup, J. ( 2012 ). An evaluation of the Beyond High School model on the self- determination of students with intellectual disability. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 35, 76 – 84. Powers, L. E., Geenen, S., Powers, J., Pommier-Satya, S., Turner, A., Dalton, L., . . . Swand, P. ( 2012 ). My Life: Effects of a longitudinal, randomized study of self- determination enhancement on the transition outcomes of youth in foster care and special education. Children and Youth Services Review, 34, 2179 –2187. Powers, L. E., Sowers, J., Turner, A., Nesbitt, M., Knowles, E., & Ellison, R. (1996 ). TAKE CHARGE! A model for promoting self- determination among adolescents with challenges. In L. E. Powers, G. H. S. Singer, & J. Sowers (Eds.), On the road to autonomy: Promoting self- competence in children and youth with disabilities (pp. 291–332 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. 434

Inclusion and Self-Determination

Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Matuszewski, J., Wilson, R., & Phillips, A. ( 2001). TAKE CHARGE for the future: A controlled field-test of a model to promote student involvement in transition planning. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 24, 89 –103. Powers, L. E., Turner, A., Westwood, D., Loesch, C., Brown, A., & Rowland, C. (1998 ). TAKE CHARGE for the future: A student- directed approach to transition planning. In M. L. Wehmeyer & D. J. Sands (Eds.), Making it happen: Student involvement in education planning, decision making and instruction (pp. 187–210 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Shogren, K., Palmer, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Williams-Diehm, K., & Little, T. ( 2012 ). Effect of intervention with the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on access and goal attainment. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 320 –330. Shogren, K., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., & Little, T. ( 2012 ). Postschool outcomes of youth with disabilities: The impact of self-determination. Manuscript submitted for publication. Shogren, K. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Soukup, J. H., Little, T., Garner, N. . . . Lawrence, M. ( 2008 ). Understanding the construct of self- determination: Examining the relationship between The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale and the American Institute for Research Self-Determination Scale. Assessment for Effective Instruction, 33, 94 –107. Soukup, J. H., Wehmeyer, M. L., Bashinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. ( 2007 ). Classroom variables and access to the general education curriculum of students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120. Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C. ( 2006 ). What we know and need to know about access to the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283. Stancliffe, R. J., Abery B. H., & Smith, J. ( 2000 ). Personal control and the ecology of community living settings: Beyond living-unit size and type. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 105, 431– 454. Test, D. W., Mason, C., Hughes, C., Konrad, M., Neale, M., & Wood, W. ( 2004 ). Student involvement in individualized education program meetings. Exceptional Children, 70, 391– 412 . Turnbull, A. P., Turnbull, H. R., Wehmeyer, M. L., & Shogren, K. A. ( 2013 ). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. Columbus, OH : Pearson. Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2005). Self- determination and individuals with severe disabilities: Reexamining meanings and misinterpretations. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 30, 113 –120. Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2009 ). Autodeterminacion y la tercera generacion de la practices de inclusion [Selfdetermination and the third generation of inclusive practices] . Revista de Educacion [ Journal of Education ] , 349, 45 – 67 (Spain). Wehmeyer, M. L., Abery, B., Mithaug, D. E., & Stancliffe, R. J. ( 2003 ). Theory in self-determination: Foundations for educational practice. Springfield, IL : Charles C. Thomas Publisher, LTD. Wehmeyer, M. L., Agran, M., Hughes, C., Martin, J., Mithaug, D. E., & Palmer, S. ( 2007 ). Promoting self-determination in students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford Press. Wehmeyer, M. L. & Field, S. ( 2007 ). Self-determination: Instructional and assessment strategies. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Wehmeyer, M. L., Field, S., Doren, B., Jones, B., & Mason, C. ( 2004 ). Self- determination and student involvement in standards-based reform. Exceptional Children, 70, 413 – 425. Wehmeyer, M. L., Hughes, C., Agran, M., Garner, N., & Yeager, D. ( 2003 ). Student- directed learning strategies to promote the progress of students with intellectual disability in inclusive classrooms. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 7, 415 – 428. Wehmeyer, M. L. & Kelchner, K. (1995). The Arc’s Self-Determination Scale. Arlington, TX: The Arc National Headquarters. Wehmeyer, M. L., Kelchner, K., & Richards, S. (1996 ). Essential characteristics of self- determined behavior of individuals with mental retardation. American Journal on Mental Retardation, 100, 632 – 642. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. ( 2003 ). Access to the general curriculum of middle- school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24, 262 –272 Wehmeyer, M., Lawrence, M., Kelchner, K., Palmer, S., Garner, N., & Soukup, J. (2004). Whose Future is it Anyway? A student-directed transition planning process (2nd ed.). Lawrence, KS: Beach Center on Disability. 435

M.L. Wehmeyer

Wehmeyer, M. L. & Palmer, S. B. ( 2003 ). Adult outcomes for students with cognitive disabilities threeyears after high school: The impact of self- determination. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 38, 131–144. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Agran, M., Mithaug, D., & Martin, J. ( 2000 ). Promoting causal agency: The Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction. Exceptional Children, 66, 439 – 453. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S. B., Lee, Y., Williams-Diehm, K., & Shogren, K. A. ( 2011). A randomizedtrial evaluation of the effect of Whose Future is it Anyway? On self- determination. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 34, 45 –56. Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Shogren, K., Williams-Diehm, K., & Soukup, J. ( 2013 ). Establishing a causal relationship between interventions to promote self- determination and enhanced student selfdetermination. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 195 –210. Wehmeyer, M. L. & Schwartz, M. (1997 ). Self- determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245 –255. Wehmeyer, M. L., Shogren, K., Palmer, S., Williams-Diehm, K., Little, T., & Boulton, A. ( 2012 ). The impact of the Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction on student self- determination. Exceptional Children, 78, 135 –153. Williams-Diehm, K., Wehmeyer, M. L., Palmer, S., Soukup, J. H., & Garner, N. ( 2008 ). Selfdetermination and student involvement in transition planning: A multivariate analysis. Journal on Developmental Disabilities, 14, 25 –36. Wolman, J., Campeau, P., Dubois, P., Mithaug, D., & Stolarski, V. (1994 ). AIR self-determination scale and user guide. Palo Alto, CA: American Institute for Research.

436

31 Supporting Life Skills and Transition Instruction in Inclusive Schools David W. Test1, Jennifer Cease-Cook1, Audrey Bartholomew2, and La’ Shawndra C. Scroggins1

Setting the Stage The purpose of IDEA 2004 is “to ensure that all children with disabilities have available to them a free appropriate public education that emphasizes special education and related services designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further education, employment, and independent living” (IDEA, 34CFR 601(d)(1)(A)). In order to provide students with a roadmap to achieve their desired post- school goals, beginning at age 16, IDEA 2004 mandates that transition services be part of a student’s IEP. The term transition services means a coordinated set of activities for a child with a disability that is designed to be within a results-oriented process, that is focused on improving the academic and functional achievement of the child with a disability to facilitate the child’s movement from school to postschool activities, including postsecondary education, vocational education, integrated employment (including supported employment), continuing and adult education, adult services, independent living, or community participation. (IDEA, 34CFR 602(32)(A)). While early transition education movements (1960–1980) focused on cooperative work study programs and career education (Halpern, 1992), and Madeleine Will’s (1984) model of transition had employment as the primary outcome of the secondary transition process, Halpern’s (1985) transition model expanded the focus to include ‘community adjustment.’ Halpern suggested that community adjustment rested on three pillars: residential environment, employment, and social and interpersonal networks. Since then, the field of secondary transition has continued to recognize that there is more to life than just work. Despite the focus on transition services in IDEA, post- school outcomes for students with disabilities continue to be disappointing. For example, recent data from Wave 5 of the NLTS2 (Newman et al., in press) indicates while the overall gaps between students with 1 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 2 University of New England 437

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

and without disabilities for post- school outcomes in postsecondary education, employment, and independent living are narrowing, differences still exist.

Postsecondary Education In terms of enrollment in postsecondary education, Wave 5 data indicate that a greater percentage of students with disabilities were enrolled: (a) at some time in a 2-year college than students without disabilities (44.2% vs. 20.6%); and (b) in vocational, business, or technical school (32.3% vs. 20.3%). However, a greater percentage of students without disabilities were enrolled in 4-year colleges (40.2% vs. 18.8%).

Employment In terms of employment, Wave 5 data indicated that 60.2% of students with disabilities were employed, versus 66.1% of students without disabilities. In addition, young adults with disabilities earned an average of $1.00 per hour less than young adults without disabilities ($10.40 vs. $11.40).

Independent Living Recent data from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2, Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009) indicated that in the fi rst few years after leaving high school only 25% of students with disabilities lived independently (on own or with spouse, partner, or roommate) and 6% lived semi-independently (in college dorm or military). Other fi ndings related to life skills indicated that 46% of students with disabilities had a checking account (compared to 68% of the general population) and 28% had a credit card in their name (compared to 50% in the general population). Finally, 69% had either a driver’s license or learner’s permit and 67% had voted. Clearly there is a need to better prepare students with disabilities for education, employment, and independent living. As a result, it would seem logical to focus on these important skills while students are in high school. However, because of changes made in IDEA 1997 this must all occur within the focus of “access to the general curriculum.” While the debate about the balance between general curriculum access and teaching more functional skills continues (Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2011; Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers, 2012; Courtade, Spooner, Browder, & Jimenez, 2012), it is important that teachers who work with transitioning students do not sacrifice teaching either academic or transition skills. As a result, teachers, students, and families must seek creative ways to allow students access to the general curriculum, while at the same time teaching students the skills needed to successfully achieve their desired post- school outcomes.

Historical Perspective on Research and Practice The following section provides a comprehensive (but not exhaustive) review of what is currently known about supporting life skills and transition instruction within inclusive settings. It begins with early practices and ends with current opportunities.

Early Practices in Teaching Life Skills The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990 (IDEA; P.L. 101-476) emphasized the importance of life skill instruction as a major educational outcome (Clark, Field, Patton, 438

Life Skills and Transition Instruction

Brolin, & Sitlington, 1994). As a result, life skills instruction has been implemented in both the classroom and community. Classroom-Based Instruction In a Division on Career Development and Transition position statement, Clark et al. (1994) proposed that life skill instruction should take place in the general education classroom. Strategies for providing accommodations for students with academic content should be considered during life skills instruction, such as: (a) outcomes-based education including life skills goals, (b) curriculum matrixing with life skills, (c) cooperative learning on applied problems, (d) peer tutoring on specific life skills, (e) mastery learning of life skills content, (f ) specialized curriculum materials, (g) infusion of life skills topics into existing curriculum materials, (h) learning strategies on life skills tasks, (i) collaborative teaching on life skills applications, and ( j) collaborative planning among general and special education teachers and families on specific life skills content. Community-Based Instruction At the same time, it was also recommended that life skills be taught in the community. Using community-based instruction to teach life skills was recommended as an effective way to provide (a) training in employment skills, (b) consumer education, and (c) skills on effective participation in the community (Clark et al., 1994). Instruction taking place in the community provides individuals with a realistic approach to learning through (a) utilization of actual resources to be used during employment, (b) real-life situations that may occur in the work environment, and (c) opportunities to participate/be engaged in an inclusive setting (Clark et al., 1994). In natural settings, individuals with disabilities are able to receive supports which they may need in the same manner in which individuals without disabilities receive supports (Butterworth, Whitney-Thomas, & Shaw, 1997). Combining Classroom and Community- Based Instruction Despite the challenges which exist in designing and implementing both classroom and community-based instruction, skills for community participation are essential for students with disabilities. The solution is to combine instruction that integrates both community and classroom settings when teaching transition and life skills to students with disabilities (Alberto et al., 2005). Further, recent research indicates that community-based instruction paired with classroom instruction is more effective than either simulated instruction alone or CBI alone (Cihak, Alberto, Kessler, & Taber, 2004). So, teachers of students with disabilities who cannot provide all instruction in the community should provide concurrent instruction in both settings to support skill acquisition (Nietupski, Hamre-Nietupski, Clancy, & Veerhusen, 1986). Several community skills have been taught using a combination of simulated and community-based instruction (CBI), including safe street crossing (i.e., simulated instruction including photos of streets and CBI on public streets; Pattavina, Bergstrom, MarchandMartella, & Martella, 1992) and making cell phone calls when lost (i.e., simulated instruction including learning skills in the classroom before additional practice in a grocery store, public library, and a department store; Taber, Alberto, Hughes, & Seltzer, 2002). Furthermore, in order to gauge a students’ skill generalization, data must ultimately be collected in natural settings (e.g., Alberto et al., 2005; Mechling & Cronin, 2006).

439

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

Evidence-based Practice Movement While No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001) and IDEA mandate the use of scientifically based research strategies in instructional practices for general and special educators, researchers have attempted to identify “best practices” for many years. One of the fi rst attempts was done by Kohler (1996). She developed the Taxonomy for Transition Programming, a framework of effective practices that were identified to have improved post- school outcomes for students with disabilities. The Taxonomy for Transition Programming is a “comprehensive, conceptual organization of practices through which transition-focused education and services are developed and delivered” (Kohler & Field, p. 176, 2003). This framework is divided into five effective educational practices (a) student-focused planning, (b) student development, (c) interagency collaboration, (d) family involvement, and (e) program structure. More recently, one of the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center’s (NSTTAC) tasks has been to identify the evidence-based practices for the field of secondary transition. To do this, NSTTAC conducted a two part review of literature. In Part I, evidencebased practices based on quality experimental (both group and single subject designs) studies were identified (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). However, while the evidence-based practices were designed to teach students specific transition-related skills, to date the experimental literature has not attempted to measure the impact of these skills upon post-school outcomes. As a result, in Part II, the review was expanded to include rigorous correlational research in secondary transition to identify evidence-based predictors that are correlated with improved post-school outcomes in education, employment, and/or independent living (Test, Mazzotti et al., 2009). Initially, Test, Fowler, and colleagues (2009) identified 32 evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Since then, NSTTAC reorganized practices by the intervention implemented, rather than the skill taught. This restructuring, combined with annual updates to the literature review, has resulted in identifying 64 evidence-based practices to teach 26 different skills. The 64 practices have been categorized using Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming. Of the 64 practices, six are in the area of Student-Focused Planning, 57 are in Student Development, one in Family Involvement, and three in Program Structure. No evidence-based practices have been identified in the area of Interagency Collaboration. Finally, NSTTAC has identified 16 evidence-based predictors of post- school employment, education, and independent living success from the correlational research (Test, Mazzotti, et al., 2009). These predictors include (a) career awareness, (b) community experiences, (c) exit exam requirements/high school diploma status, (d) inclusion in general education, (e) interagency collaboration, (f ) occupational courses, (g) paid employment/work, (h) parental involvement, (i) program of study, ( j) self-advocacy/self- determination, (k) self- care independent living, (l) social skills, (m) student support, (n) transition program, (o) vocational education, and (p) work study. All predictors improved post- school employment, 11 improved post- school education, and four improved independent living.

Review of Research on Teaching Academic and Transition Skills Together Research has indicated that students with disabilities can learn both academic and transition skills simultaneously. For example, Fowler, Konrad, Walker, Test, and Wood (2007) conducted a literature review which examined research investigating the effects of pairing selfdetermination strategies and academic skills for students with disabilities. They found 11 studies involving 18 academic variables in the areas of language arts and math. Outcomes included both quality (e.g., accuracy of labeling items) and productivity (e.g., number of math 440

Life Skills and Transition Instruction

problems completed), with quality of language arts assignments being the most frequently identified academic outcome. Self-determination strategies varied and included selfmanagement, self-advocacy, choice-making, goal-setting, and multiple component packages. However, these studies investigated the effects upon academic skills only, rather than making an examination of whether students were able to improve both academic and selfdetermination skills. Considering the positive long-term effects self- determination has for students with disabilities (Wehmeyer & Schwartz, 1997), it is critical that research identifies ways to improve self- determination skills and academics rather than just using selfdetermination as a vehicle to provide academic instruction. Although the majority of research has neglected to measure both skills, there is some research that has investigated the effects of an intervention on both academic and self- determination skills. First, Collins, Evans, Creech-Galloway, Karl, and Miller (2007) examined the effects of constant time delay to teach middle school students with moderate to severe disabilities academic skills (e.g., how to read ‘president’) and how to apply those academic skills (e.g., name the president). An adapted alternating treatments design indicated that students were able to increase their skills in both the academic and applied skills and also generalize and maintain their skills over time. Second, Falkenstine, Collins, Schuster, and Kleinert (2009) investigated the effects of modeling, constant time delay, and teaching in small groups with high school students with moderate disabilities. Students were taught one targeted skill that was either functional (e.g., telling time) or academic (e.g., identifying state capitals). Because students were taught different skills in groups, data were collected on their ability to learn both their targeted skill and the skill they observed being taught to the other group members. Although a multipleprobe across behaviors design indicated that students were able to acquire their one targeted skill, pre- and post- data indicated that two students acquired both their targeted skill and an additional skill (e.g., telling time and identifying state capitals, and defi ning academic vocabulary and setting a wristwatch). Third, Collins, Hager, and Galloway (2011) examined the effects of constant time delay on the acquisition of academic skills and their functional application for middle school students with moderate intellectual disabilities and/or autism. Students were taught academic skills (e.g., properties of elements) and then taught to apply them (e.g., appropriate clothing for different properties of precipitation). A multiple-probe design across behaviors (i.e., tasks) indicated a functional relation between constant time delay and both academic and functional skills for all three students. Additionally, students were able to maintain and generalize their skills to alternate assessment tasks. Finally, two studies were conducted examining the effects of teaching students writing skills on the content of IEP goal paragraphs (Konrad & Test, 2007; Konrad, Trela, & Test, 2006). Both studies used a mnemonic—GO 4 IT . . . NOW!—to teach students with disabilities to write IEP goal paragraphs and generalization paragraphs on unrelated topics. Results for both studies indicated a functional relation between the mnemonic and students’ ability to write IEP goal paragraphs; however, in only one of the studies (Konrad & Test, 2007) were students able to generalize their writing skills to writing paragraphs on unrelated topics.

Setting the Course for Effective Inclusion The following section is designed to provide direction for practitioners about what can be done to improve research and practice as a result of what is currently known. Suggestions will be made for teachers, parents, policymakers and administrators, and researchers. 441

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

Teachers In order for students to be provided with effective instruction that maximizes time by including both academics and transition skills, teachers must be provided with support and resources. One possible way to design instruction targeting both kinds of skills is the use of Universal Design for Transition (UDT; Thoma, Bartholomew, & Scott, 2009). UDT is based on Universal Design for Learning (UDL; Center for Applied Special Technology, 2010), which is an instructional framework facilitating access to the curriculum. UDL is based on three principles (a) provide multiple methods of representation in a variety of formats and media, (b) provide multiple methods of expression and pathways for students to demonstrate their knowledge and skills, and (c) provide multiple methods of engagement to hook and maintain students’ interest. By using these three principals to guide instruction, teachers can design lessons that include minimal barriers to learning for students with a wide variety of disabilities (Council for Exceptional Children, 2005). Thoma et al. (2009) identified the purpose of UDT as facilitating the accessibility of curricula by linking academic content to transition planning, instruction, and goals. UDT is based on the three principles of UDL, but expands those principles to also include (a) multiple life domains, (b) multiple means of assessment, (c) student self-determination, and (d) multiple resources/perspectives. As a result, UDT extends academic instruction to include multiple life domains, which could include both a real-world application of the academic skill and additional transition-based instruction in the same lesson. For example, students may be involved in a lesson on learning how to identify the properties of different types of rocks and how they are formed. To develop the lesson using the UDT framework, teachers should fi rst identify the academic content and then identify ways to bring in transition-related instruction. Table 31.1 provides an example of a UDT lesson with both academic content and transition-related skill instruction. Another way to merge transition and academic instruction is through applied academics (Patton & Trainor, 2002). Applied academics involve teachers identifying skills and knowledge typically associated with academic content and then applying them to real-life contexts and situations. In order to do this, teachers begin by identifying the academic standard or objective they are trying to achieve and then designing instruction to make it relevant for all learners by integrating transition skills instruction. See Table 31.2 for an example of the use of applied academics. Finally, a third way to provide instruction in both academics and transition is by fi rst identifying the transition skill needed to teach and then integrating academic content into the lesson (Bassett & Kochhar-Bryant, 2006). For example, when teaching students food preparation skills, they could also be provided with math instruction in areas such as fractions. This could take the form of starting with a student’s existing IEP life skills goal(s) and expanding the instructional plan to include academic instruction (see Table 31.3).

Parents Although IDEA, 2004 mandates parental involvement for students with disabilities (IDEA, 2004) and research has indicated that it is a predictor of post- school success (Kraemer, McIntyre, & Blacher, 2003), families are not well represented in their child’s transition planning (Stineman, Morningstar, Bishop, & Turnbull, 1993). Research has shown that families felt that they did not play a role in planning for transition with the school and that roles were not established for them in the transition planning (Cooney, 2002). The NLTS2 (2007) 442

Life Skills and Transition Instruction

Table 31.1 Example of a UDT Lesson Planning Questions for UDT

Lesson Content

What are the overall goals of the lesson?

Identify the properties of igneous rocks Identify how igneous rocks are formed

How can multiple transition domains be addressed in this lesson?

Learning to work together in a group Critical thinking and prediction skills when identifying what will happen to the sugar (lava) Employment: careers working outside in nature Daily living skills: food preparation and safety skills when cooking

How can self-determination be addressed in this lesson?

Students can assess their strengths and needs and identify nature-related career goals

How can students be provided with multiple means of representation, engagement, and expression?

Representation Read chapter with a partner or use a text-audio reader Listen to a presentation delivered by a park ranger Watch videos of volcanoes and lava cooling Expression Complete a lab activity making “igneous rock” (toffee) Complete diagrams detailing how igneous rock is formed Engagement Use technology to watch video clips, research nature-related careers, etc Work in groups to complete cooking activity

Table 31.2 Example of Using Applied Academics Academic Standard

Transition-Related Content/Skill

Demonstrate conventions of English language through writing

Write a cover letter in application for employment

Deliver a presentation using appropriate presentation skills

Teach students to lead an educational (e.g., IEP) meeting

Convert percentages to whole numbers

Calculate tax and tip

Identify the causes of the Civil War

Identify how to get along in a conflict

Identify properties of acid rain

Identify weather appropriate clothing

Table 31.3 Example of Linking Transition Content to Academic Standards Transition-Related Content/Life Skill

Academic Standard

Read about housing options

Read text and identify explicit information and logical inferences

Identify the next dollar of prices

Convert rational numbers (e.g., decimals) to whole numbers

Identify a career in food preparation

Summarize the history of farming in the U.S.

Identify household maintenance tools

Identify characteristics of gravity relative to various household objects

443

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

reported that only 11.5% of parents surveyed attended training on transition planning, and, of those who did attend, 86.5% found it helpful. Parental involvement in transition planning is essential (Powers, Geenan, & Powers, 2009). As the shift from transition to standards-based education has occurred and there is more of a focus on inclusive educational opportunities, a shift in priorities may also occur, thereby causing the elimination of instruction in the life skills students need for postsecondary success. Of all students with disabilities, students with intellectual disabilities have the poorest post-school outcomes in education and training, employment, and independent living (Simenson, 2010). Without instruction in these life skills, students may leave school with less than adequate life, employment, and self- determination skills. The burden of this instruction could possibly be placed on parents. Other barriers to parental involvement in transition planning include cultural and linguistic diversity. Parents from diverse backgrounds often do not understand the educational jargon used, including the phrase ‘transition planning’ (Landmark, Zhang, & Montoya, 2007). It is therefore critical that parents of students with disabilities be involved at the secondary level and request training from the school if none is provided. Parents should educate themselves on whether their state has adopted the common core state standards and how their local education agency plans to instruct students with disabilities. Parents should be aware of the full range of services and should work with their school to ensure that their son or daughter is receiving instruction based on goals that are individualized to accommodate what the student and the family wants and needs. Parents should make sure that their child in included in the transition planning process. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) legislation mandated the involvement of students who are 16 years or older in the Individual Education Program (IEP) process (IDEA, 2004). Inviting students to participate in their IEP meetings provides them with an opportunity to communicate their strengths, needs, and future goals. However, this has to include more than just attending the IEP meeting: the student also has to be an active participant in the entire transition planning process. It has been shown that students can learn the skills necessary to enhance self- determination (Karvonen, Test, Wood, Browder, & Algozzine, 2004) and that quality transition services should include person- centered or student- directed goals (Agran & Hughes, 2008). Finally, schools must develop a plan for increasing parental involvement in, and knowledge of, the transition process. Strategies for increasing parental involvement include (a) positive communication between parents and service providers, (b) preparing for transition at earlier ages, (c) information and training on school-based transition planning, (d) use of parent advocates, (e) emotional support for families, and (f ) meeting flexibility (Geenan, Powers, & Lopez-Vasquez, 2001). Next, Rowe and Test (2010) suggested that parent training materials should include (a) materials that are easy for parents to understand, (b) no educational jargon, (c) short training sessions that address one topic at a time, and (d) a method for determining whether parents use the information.

Policymakers and Administrators Today’s reform policies are shaped by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) and the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA; also known as No Child Left Behind (NCLB, 2001)). The key principles contained in IDEA guarantee each student with a disability a free appropriate public education (FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). Changes were made in 1997 in order to begin to align IDEA with the 444

Life Skills and Transition Instruction

larger standards- driven reforms. IDEA (1997) required that school districts ensure participation in the general curriculum for students with disabilities. The IDEA regulations defi ne the term ‘general curriculum’ as referring to “the same curriculum as for nondisabled children,” and note that it is expected that students with disabilities educational programs will be derived from this general curriculum “to the maximum extent appropriate to the needs of the child” (Rules and Regulations, 64 C.F.R. 12592, 1999). Access to the general curriculum is often promoted through inclusion in general education classes (Fisher & Frey, 2001). The IDEA access mandates are intended to ensure that students with disabilities are included in the school accountability system. This focus on access to the general curriculum and participation in testing is also intended to ensure that students are held to high expectations (Palmer, Wehmeyer, Gipson, & Agran, 2004). To help students with disabilities access the general curriculum, educators have advocated for educational practices to include social competence, networking, and self- determination (Agran, Alper, & Wehmeyer, 2002). With a focus on academic curricula, it appears that less time will be directed at development of these important functional skills. However, Browder, Spooner, Wakeman, Trela, and Baker (2006) suggest that a reason to teach grade-aligned academic content is to give students increased means and opportunities for self- determination. For students with limited communication skills, their preferences must be accessed through responses to activities and opportunities; without exposure to these academic skills their abilities and preferences would be unknown in these areas (Browder et al., 2006). The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also currently emphasizes the need for high quality, scientifically based instruction and interventions, as well as a measure of school improvement through accountability and adequate yearly progress. As ESEA is reauthorized, the legislators should consider funding for research to help close the research to practice gap by providing additional funding for those SEAs and LEAs that welcome researchers into their schools, which would contribute to the pool of research and evidencebased interventions available to practitioners.

Researchers The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) also emphasizes the need for high quality, scientifically based instruction and interventions. With federal policies and initiatives focused on identifying and implementing scientifically based instruction and interventions, the need for rigorous intervention studies remains a priority. Systematic reviews from NSTTAC suggest that there are many instructional practices that have presented ‘potential’ and ‘moderate’ levels of evidence of efficacy (Test, Fowler, et al., 2009). Future researchers should conduct rigorous experimental studies which address those practices that hold potential to improve the quality of life for individuals with disabilities. It is important to report findings for students representing all disability categories and diverse backgrounds in order to increase the generality of educational practices. High quality research is needed to move the remaining evidence-based practices from moderate or potential to strong. The practices identified by NSTTAC were categorized using Kohler’s Taxonomy for Transition Programming. Practices were identified in the area of Student-Focused Planning, Student Development, Family Involvement, and Program Structure, but no practices have been identified in the area of Interagency Collaboration. Researchers should focus on identifying practices in the area of Interagency Collaboration. In addition to experimental research, there is a need for high quality multivariate correlational research. This research would provide a more comprehensive understanding of in-school predictors of post- school success for students with disabilities. Also, researchers 445

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

should collect longitudinal data on the effects of secondary practices on in- school and postschool outcomes. This research would help determine whether predictor variables identified by NSTTAC hold up over multiple points in time. Longitudinal research would also link the impact of specific practices and programs to long-term student outcomes. Together, these improvements will help the field convincingly link practices with meaningful improvements in the lives of young people with disabilities.

References Agran, M. & Hughes, C. (2008 ). Asking student input: Student’s opinions regarding their Individualized Education Program involvement. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31, 69–76. Agran, M., Alper, S., & Wehmeyer, M. ( 2002 ). Access to the general curriculum for students with significant disabilities: What it means to teachers. Education and Training in Mental Retardation and Developmental Disabilities, 37, 123 –133. Alberto, P. A., Cihak, D. F., & Gama, R. I. ( 2005). Use of static picture prompts versus video modeling during simulation instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 26, 327–339. Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. ( 2011). I can identify Saturn but I can’t brush my teeth: What happens when the curricular focus for students with disabilities shift. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 11–21. Ayres, K. M., Lowrey, K. A., Douglas, K. H., & Sievers, C. ( 2012 ). The question still remains: What happens when the curricular focus for students with severe disabilities shifts ? A reply to Courtade, Spooner, Browder, and Jimenez (2012). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 14 –22 . Bassett, D. S. & Kochhar-Bryant, C. A. ( 2006 ). Strategies for aligning standards-based education and transition. Focus on Exceptional Children, 39, 1–19. Browder, D., Spooner, F., Wakeman, S., Trela, K., & Baker, J. N. ( 2006 ). Aligning instruction with academic content standards: Finding the link. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 309 –321. Butterworth, J., Whitney-Thomas, J., & Shaw, D. (1997 ). The changing role of community based instruction: Strategies for facilitating workplace supports. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 8, 9 –20. Center for Applied Special Technology (2010, November). What is Universal Design for Learning? Retrieved from www.cast.org/research/udl/index.html Cihak, D. F., Alberto, P. A., Kessler, K. B., & Taber, T. A. ( 2004 ). An investigation of instructional scheduling arrangements for community-based instruction. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 25, 67– 88. Clark, G. M., Field, S., Patton, D. E., Brolin, D. E., & Sitlington, P. L. (1994 ). Life skills instruction: A necessary component for all students with disabilities a position statement of the Division on Career Development and Transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 17, 125 –134. Collins, B. C., Evans, A., Creech-Galloway, C., Karl, J., & Miller, A. ( 2007 ). Comparison of the acquisition and maintenance of teaching functional and core content sight words in special and general education settings. Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 22, 220 –233. Collins, B. C., Hager, K. L., & Galloway, C. C. ( 2011). Addition of functional content during core content instruction with students with moderate disabilities. Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 46, 22 –39. Cooney, B. F. ( 2002 ). Exploring perspectives on transition of youth with disabilities: Voices of young adults, parents, and professionals. Mental Retardation, 40, 425 – 435 Council for Exceptional Children ( 2005). Universal design for learning: A guide for teachers and education professionals. Upper Saddle, NJ : Prentice Hall. Courtade, G., Spooner, F., Browder, D., & Jimenez, B. ( 2012 ). Seven reasons to promote standardsbased instruction for students with severe disabilities: A reply to Ayres, Lowrey, Douglas, & Sievers (2011). Education and Training in Autism and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 3 –13. Falkenstine, K. J., Collins, B. C., Schuster, J. W., & Kleinert, H. ( 2009 ). Presenting chained and discrete tasks as non-targeted information when teaching discrete academic skills through small group instruction. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 44, 127–142 .

446

Life Skills and Transition Instruction

Fisher, D., & Frey, N. ( 2001). Access to the core curriculum: Critical ingredients for student success. Remedial and Special Education, 22, 148 –157. Fowler, C. H., Konrad, M., Walker, A., Test, D. W., & Wood, W. M. ( 2007 ). Self- determination interventions’ effects on the academic performance of students with developmental disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 42, 270 –285. Geenan, S., Powers, L., & Lopez-Vasquez, A. ( 2001). Multi- cultural aspects of parent involvement in transition planning. Exceptional Children, 67, 265 –282. Halpern, A. (1985). Transition: A look at the foundations. Exceptional Children, 51, 479 – 486. Halpern, A. (1992 ). Transition: Old wine in new bottles. Exceptional Children, 58, 202 –211. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. ( 2004 ) (reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990). Karvonen, M., Test, D., Wood, W. M., Browder, D., & Algozzine, B. ( 2004 ). Putting self- determination into practice. Exceptional Children, 71, 23 – 41. Kohler, P. D. (1996 ). A taxonomy for transition programming: Linking research and practice. Champaign, IL : Transition Research Institute, University of Illinois. Kohler, P. D., & Field, S. ( 2003 ). Transition-focused education: Foundation for the future. The Journal of Special Education, 37, 174 –183. Konrad, M., & Test, D. W. ( 2007 ). Effects of GO 4 IT . . . NOW! strategy instruction on the written IEP goal articulation and paragraph-writing skills of middle school students with disabilities. Remedial and Special Education, 28, 277–291. Konrad, M., Trela, K., & Test, D. W. ( 2006 ). Using IEP goals and objectives to teach paragraph writing to high school students with physical and cognitive disabilities. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities, 41, 111–124. Kraemer, B. R., McIntyre, L. L., & Blacher, J. ( 2003 ). Quality of life for young adults with mental retardation during transition. Mental Retardation, 41, 250 –262 . Landmark, L., Zhang, D., & Montoya, L. ( 2007 ). Cultural diverse parents’ experiences in their children’s transition: Knowledge and involvement. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 30, 68 –79. Mechling, L. C., & Cronin, B. ( 2006 ). Computer-based video instruction to teach the use of augmentative and alternative communication devices for ordering at fast food restaurants. The Journal of Special Education, 39, 234 –245. National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 ( 2007 ). Transition plan [Data fi le] . Retrieved from http://ies. ed.gov/ncser/projects/nlts2/ Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. ( 2009 ). The post-high school outcomes of youth with disabilities up to 4 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2009-3017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A.-M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, . . . Schwarting, M. (in press). The post-high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 8 years after high school. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Nietupski, J., Hamre-Nietupski, S., Clancy, P., & Veerhusen, K. (1986 ). Guidelines for making simulation an effective adjunct to in vivo community instruction. Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 11, 12 –18. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. § 6301 et seq. ( 2006 ). Palmer, S., Wehmeyer, M. L., Gipson, K., & Agran, M. ( 2004 ). Promoting access to the general curriculum by teaching self- determination skills. Exceptional Children, 70, 427– 439. Pattavina, S., Bergstrom, T., Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (1992 ). “Moving on”: Learning to cross streets independently. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 25 (1), 32 –35. Patton, J. R., & Trainor, A. A. ( 2002 ). Using applied academics to enhance curricular reform in secondary education. In C. Kochhar-Bryant & D. S. Bassett (Eds.), Aligning transition and standardsbased education: Issues and Strategies. Reston, VA: Division on Transition and Career Development, The Council for Exceptional Children. Powers, K., Geenan, S., & Powers, L.E. ( 2009 ). Similarities and differences in transition expectations of youth parents. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 3, 132 –144. Rowe, D., & Test, D. ( 2010 ). The effects of computer-based instruction on the transition planning process knowledge of parents of students with disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 35, 102 –115. Rules and Regulations, 64 Fed. Reg. 12, 592 (March 12, 1999). 447

D.W. Test, J. Cease-Cook, et al.

Simenson, M. ( 2010 ). Predictors of supported employment for transitioning youth with developmental disabilities (unpublished doctoral dissertation) University of Maryland, College Park. Stineman, R. M., Morningstar, M. E., Bishop, B., & Turnbull, H. R. (1993 ). Role of families in transition planning for young adults with disabilities: Toward a method of person- centered planning. Journal of Vocational Rehabilitation, 3, 52 – 61. Taber, T. A., Alberto, P. A., Hughes, M., & Seltzer, A. ( 2002 ). A strategy for students with moderate disabilities when lost in the community. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 27, 141–152 . Test, D. W., Fowler, C. H., Richter, S. M., White, J., Mazzotti, V, . . ., & Kortering, L. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based practices in secondary transition. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 115 –128. Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving postschool outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 32, 160 –181. Thoma, C. A., Bartholomew, C. C., & Scott, L. A. ( 2009 ). Universal design for transition: A roadmap for planning and instruction. Baltimore, MD : Brookes Publishing. Wehmeyer, M., & Schwartz, M. (1997 ). Self- determination and positive adult outcomes: A follow-up study of youth with mental retardation or learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 63, 245 –255. Will, M. (1984 ). OSERS programming for transition of youth with disabilities: Bridges from school to working life. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education.

448

Section IV

Supporting Effective Inclusive Schools: Emerging Trends and Future Directions Section Editors: James McLeskey1 and Fred Spooner 2

The previous chapters reveal many reasons for optimism regarding schooling for students with disabilities, and the potential for improved outcomes in school and in life for these individuals. In the U.S., more students with disabilities are currently included in general education settings than ever before. This includes students with a full range of disabilities, from mild (e.g., learning disabilities) to severe (e.g., severe intellectual disabilities). Advances in the use of evidence-based instructional and behavioral interventions, as well as in the use of technology to support student needs, have improved outcomes for many students with disabilities. Furthermore, substantial changes are occurring in schools, as major initiatives are underway to alter the structures in which services are delivered to students with disabilities (e.g., multi-tiered systems of support), and how accountability is monitored to ensure the effectiveness of interventions and the progress that students make academically and behaviorally. In this section, we seek to extend on the information that has been provided in previous chapters. To do this, we have asked leaders in special education to address emerging trends and speculate regarding the future as we seek direction for improving policies and practices to better meet the needs of individuals with disabilities. This section begins by addressing how the as yet unrealized potential of technology may be utilized in the future to provide individuals with disabilities and their teachers the supports needed to substantially improve student outcomes. This is followed by chapters that address emerging trends and future directions for educating students with disabilities in elementary and secondary schools. These chapters address a range of important topics, including the complex relationships among race, socioeconomic status (SES), and special education placement; how students with extensive

1 University of Florida 2 University of North Carolina at Charlotte 449

J. McLeskey and F. Spooner

support needs might better be supported in inclusive schools; and emerging trends in secondary schools as we seek to better prepare and transition students with disabilities into the many opportunities that await them after completion of their K-12 education. In addition, one of these chapters addresses a major effort supported by the U.S. Department of Education to better understand the qualities of schools that are effective and inclusive, and how emerging knowledge related to implementation science may be used to support the scaling-up of such schools across several states. Finally, two chapters by leaders in special education from Scotland and Italy address emerging trends related to policies and practices to support effective, inclusive schools from an international perspective. These chapters reveal that while we share much in common, there is not a shortage of good, often provocative ideas regarding how we might organize and support schools to better meet the needs of all students, including those with disabilities.

450

32 What Technology Trends Could Significantly Alter the Future of Special Education?* Dave L. Edyburn1

Setting the Stage I have a vested interest in the future, because I plan on living there. Neil Gersenfeld Predicting the future is a risky business. As a result, futurists engage in various forms of trend analysis to discern change that is still in a formative stage (Burrus, 2011, 1994; Laermer, 2002; Naisbitt, Phillips, & Naisbitt, 2001; Popcorn & Hanft, 2001). Futurists then “analyze” the data by creating multiple scenarios. Scenarios offer concrete examples of how “what if ” questions could unfold in the short- and long-term. Strategic leadership involves weighing the costs, benefits, and risks associated with each scenario, and determining if one or more scenarios warrant action. Futurists often call attention to incremental change (Burrus, 2011), which is predictable and enthuses a high degree of confidence that the scenario will become a reality. For example, an individual searching for home care services for aging parents may fi nd few resources in the parents’ community. Demographic data document the growing size of the aging senior population. If a technologist connected these two trends, she may wonder aloud: “Why not redesign the technology of baby monitors to serve as ‘grandma monitors?’ That would allow family members to check on the health and well-being of elderly parents living independently.” Clearly there are significant opportunities and advantages to discerning this type of incremental change and being among the fi rst to act. And, naturally, there is some due diligence that must be done in the process of creating a business plan to determine the

* Purpose : Special education has always prided itself on the provision of specialized individual instruction for students with disabilities. However, what if this specialized knowledge was captured in algorithms and delivered via technology? The purpose of this chapter is to highlight a series of recent technological advances and present a series of scenarios, which if they come to fruition, could produce a significantly different future for the special education profession. 1 Department of Exceptional Education, University of Wisconsin-Milwawkee 451

D.L. Edyburn

viability of the idea (i.e., Is this a worthwhile service or product? Is there really a need for this product when I can Skype with grandma?). In the end, insight concerning incremental change offers evidence that may contribute to a compelling business plan. A major shortcoming of focusing only on incremental change is that trend analysis alone failed to predict the emergence of business opportunities such as those created by Amazon, Facebook, Google, or Wikipedia—pillars of 21st- century life. To understand the context of change that led to the development of these businesses, we must study what is known as disruptive change (Burrus, 1994; Christensen, 1997): that is, what happens when technologies converge in ways that create completely new business opportunities or alter the rules of the game? For example, Netfl ix was a newcomer to the home video marketplace and disrupted the rules of the industry by providing customers with discs through the mail with no late fees. As Netfl ix recognized the possibilities for video on demand, their business model adapted and eventually put the industry leader, Blockbuster, out of business. During this period, Netfl ix’s balance sheet went from $288 million in 2002 to an estimated $9.18 billion at the end of 2010 (Netfl ix, 2011). Research has shown that when a business harnesses disruptive technologies, it is not necessarily the fi rst, or the one with the best technology, that achieves market dominance. Rather, they succeed because the rules of the game changed while others were still playing by the old rules (Burrus, 1994; Christensen, 1997). Special education has always prided itself on the provision of specialized individual instruction for students with disabilities. However, what if this specialized knowledge were captured in algorithms and delivered via technology? Clearly special education as we know it would look much different or be eliminated. A characteristic for understanding change is the ability to monitor trends, fi nd patterns, and connect the dots in order to gain advantage in preparing for a future we cannot see (Edyburn, 2007, 2004). The purpose of this chapter is to summarize selected technology trends and speculate with regard to how various patterns of convergence could create futures that are very similar to life today or create a future where special education is very different. Readers will be introduced to scenarios that reflect the future of inclusive special education. The goal is to help special education professionals understand the role of technology in producing both incremental and disruptive change and to be alert to both types of possibilities.

Emerging Technology Trends and Their Implication for Inclusive Education Technology has the shelf life of a banana. Scott McNealy

Glimpses of the Future Whether one is a researcher, practitioner, or educational leader, we all share a concern about planning for the future. The special education technology literature reveals several attempts by experts to offer a contemporary lens for understanding the future of technology as related to individuals with disabilities. Blackhurst (1997) describes historical efforts to enhance the functional performance of individuals with disabilities. His descriptions illustrate the historical commitment of society to providing access to new and emerging technologies. For example, by understanding the efforts required to make radio, movies, and television accessible to individuals with 452

Technology Trends

sensory impairments, after the products were widely adopted in society, one recognizes the importance and significance of advocacy efforts demanding Web accessibility standards when the World Wide Web fi rst emerged. Hasselbring (2001) provides a perspective on the future by clarifying the convergence of trends in the technology marketplace. He argues that new technological developments offer platforms for implementing recent advances in the learning sciences knowledge base. He cites examples of how Moore’s Law (i.e., computing power doubles approximately every two years), wireless computing, and the Web converge to offer unimaginable possibilities for students to access and utilize information. Edyburn (2004) posed the question, what if the future allowed everyone to use assistive technology? Using a technique developed by Burrus (1994), he outlined a process for readers to create their own future scenarios by (a) selecting an instructional trend, (b) aligning it with a technology trend, and (c) selecting a technology adoption rule. One example he offered concerning the process of mixing and matching trends and rules (instructional trend = accountability + technology trend = software agents + adoption rule = allure of technology to save time) could result in a future where software agents prepare personalized lesson plans, based on student progress-monitoring data to reduce special education costs. Obviously, time will tell if there is any merit in such a scenario. While special education has been considered in terms of the accessibility of technology, popular culture has exercised a greater level of influence and inspiration about how the technologies of the future may look. Cartoons such as The Flintstones and The Jetsons illustrate how much fun it might be to live in a different era and complete routine tasks with state- of-the-art technology. For example, consider the conveniences found in the Stone Age when Wilma Flintstone washes the dishes with the assistance of a talking elephant and Fred Flintstone trades wisecracks with a pelican trash compacter each time he takes out the garbage. Or how in the future everyone will have a family robot like Rosie, who manages the entire Jetson’s household by vacuuming, cooking, and serving as the personal assistant to George, Jane, and their two children. Hollywood has also used the concept of time travel to help us experience various types of technology in different historical, cultural, and social settings. In the movie Bill and Ted’s Excellent Adventure we see how historical knowledge, cultural mis-steps, and technological know-how can alter the course of human history. Back to the Future illustrates how awkwardly we behave in the face of new and unknown technologies and social rules. Especially amusing is the culture clash that occurs as a result of time travel in the movie The Flintstones Meet the Jetsons. Time, technology, and change can also be understood in the context of one’s family. Think for a moment about the three generations that surround you. First, consider the world as it was when your parents grew up. Next, think about the changes that have occurred in your lifetime. Then, consider the world as it appears through the eyes of the children around you who have grown up in a digital world. Finally, think about how each generation might complete a routine task such as planning for a long- distance car trip. What types of tools might each generation use (i.e., paper map stored in the glove box of the car, call AAA and have them prepare customized maps, use Google Maps to plan a route, or simply get in the car and turn on the GPS)? This example illustrates how one task has remained constant across three generations, but we now have an array of technology tools that facilitate our work. When viewing change through a historical lens, change appears to be the result of a natural and logical series of advancements that is often called progress. However, when change is viewed through the lens of a generation, we begin to understand the nuances of social and 453

D.L. Edyburn

technological change (Edyburn, 2010). Naturally, technology advocates always want to adopt the latest technologies. However, some critics argue that technology is being used to lower expectations in schools by undermining the rigors of memory and thinking (Bauerlein, 2008; Carr, 2008, 2010). As educators, how do we understand which tasks stand the test of time and which become unnecessary, or fundamentally altered, as a result of new technologies?

Trends and Issues: Seeing the Forest Through the Trees To connect the dots between factors that could significantly alter the future of special education we must consider two sets of variables. The following sections will briefly summarize selected factors concerning trends and issues in (a) education and (b) technology that influences the education of students with disabilities in inclusive settings. One of the core principles of inclusion is the notion that individuals with disabilities should be included as valued, active participants in mainstream society and classrooms (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994; Kauffman, 1993; Reynolds, Wang, & Walberg, 1987; Wang & Birch, 1984; Will, 1986; Zigmond, 2003). Rather than treating differences as something that need to be addressed in segregated environments, the premise is that individual differences should be considered an ordinary feature of inclusive classrooms and addressed in ways that are a typical part of classroom instruction (McLeskey & Waldron, 2007). Efforts to include students with disabilities over the past 20 years have generally been successful, as most students with disabilities are now included in general education classrooms for much of the school day (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). One consequence of this change in educational settings for students with disabilities is that, as a practical matter, the future of special education is largely no longer under the sole control of the profession, but rather is embodied in the larger context of general education reform efforts. While some argue that disruptive change in education is long overdue (Christensen, Horn, & Johnson, 2008; Christensen & Eyring, 2011), others suggest that the changes being expected of education are the natural consequence of a wired world where educational productivity must be viewed in a global context (Collins & Halverson, 2009; Friedman, 2005). Nonetheless, the future of special education will be directly affected by changes that occur in the larger context of contemporary educational reform efforts. Table 32.1 provides a brief summary of selected contemporary trends and issues impacting education

Table 32.1 Selected Educational Trends and Issues That will Directly Impact the Future of Special Education Trends & Issues

Description

Academic Achievement

What does a student know, and what are they able to do, relative to their peers? How do students compare to similar students around the world? Educational reform is keenly focused on raising students’ academic achievement.

Accountability

Emphasis on evidence-based practice and reporting of student achievement levels is likely to continue in an effort to demonstrate progress in closing achievement gaps among different groups of students (e.g., those with disabilities, students from certain ethnic groups and from high poverty backgrounds).

454

Technology Trends

Aging Faculty

In K-12 and higher education there is an aging bubble of faculty that will retire in the next few years, leading to potential shortages of teachers and teacher educators.

Classroom Demographics

American classrooms are more diverse than ever before. This trend will challenge the educational system to diversify its teaching staff. Demographic bubbles suggest the student population cohorts at the secondary and post-secondary levels will be smaller in the short term.

Common Core State Standards

New national content standards have replaced state standards. Some experts predict new curriculum and instruction materials will be needed. This will provide an opportunity to implement digital curricula.

Differentiated Instruction

Current educational practices that standardize curricula, instructional methods, assessment, and time appear to be inadequate to produce high academic achievement by diverse learners. Differentiation provides multiple pathways for students to achieve instructional goals.

Engaged Learning

Attention is shifting focus from teacher-centered classrooms to learner-centered practices. New approaches for increasing student motivation, time-on-task, and depth of engagement are sought.

High-Stakes Testing

A new generation of computer-based high-stakes assessments is in development. Advocates argue that rigorous third-party tests are needed to benchmark academic achievement.

School Choice

The educational landscape illustrates a variety of innovations concerning school vouchers, charter schools, and virtual schools. School-choice options are expected to increase.

Teacher Shortages

Teacher shortages in rural areas and some disciplines—notably special education—challenge the educational community to provide quality education for all students. New initiatives will be needed to attract and retain qualified educators since the pipeline is not adequate to meet the pending wave of expected retirements.

Teacher Quality

Research shows that the negative effect of a poor teacher can cause a multi-year deficit in student achievement. A variety of efforts are underway to enhance the quality and effectiveness of the teaching workforce.

Universal Design for Learning

The goal of UDL is to proactively anticipate and support student differences. UDL is a key component of response to intervention Tiers 1 and 2 approaches that are used in general education classrooms.

What’s Worth Knowing?

The current standards movement provides one answer to this critical question. Advances in technology will periodically require society to reexamine its response. For example, some schools have eliminated instruction in cursive writing to allow more time for teaching skills such as keyboarding.

455

D.L. Edyburn

that illustrate the contemporary context of educational reform and the complex changes that are being explored. A second domain of change involves technology advances that move from the research and development lab to the commercial marketplace. As anyone who has recently purchased a new technology device and wondered how long before it would be obsolete will recognize, the pace of technological change can be dizzying. Table 32.2 provides a list of selected mainstream technology developments that have the potential for a major impact upon education in general and the inclusive education of students with disabilities in particular.

Table 32.2 Emerging Technologies with Potential Implications for Inclusive Education Emerging Technology

Description

3 Screens and a Cloud

Metaphor for digital work. Refers to the fact that many people are now using a smartphone, a tablet or laptop computer, and a desktop computer (3 screens). To share information among devices the information is stored in the cloud. This trend has profound implications for the design of webbased software and services.

Apps

Apps are software programs that run on mobile devices such as smartphones and tablet computers. Apps have sparked a surge in creative development.

Cloud Computing

A paradigm shift that involves storing information remotely rather than on a specific device. The need for cloud computing has emerged because of mobile devices with limited storage space and because of the need for different interfaces when users access their information via smartphone versus desktop computers.

Cognitive Prostheses

The use of technology to augment cognitive functioning (i.e., memory, problem solving). This is a relatively new way to think about assistive technology.

Data Logging

A vast array of sensors makes it possible to collect data and transmit the information to computer systems for storage and analysis. It is already possible to build inexpensive devices that continuously gather data— known as data logging—about when, how, and by whom the device was used (e.g., electronic tolls, credit card transactions, health-care records).

Data Mining

Data are available in many forms: bar codes, credit card transactions, global positioning systems (GPS), and radio frequency identification (RFID). This abundance of data will lead to greater emphasis on tools that track and visualize data. A critical related issue is privacy, since data can be extracted to produce a transaction profile that illustrates where you have been and what you have done.

Digitization

A considerable media shift is underway as information is created in or converted to digital format. Tools for creating digital materials (e.g., DVD burners, digital cameras, scanners) are selling well. Not only does digitized media offer high quality, it is easily stored, manipulated, and transmitted. The conversion of health-care records is an example of one sector of society that is undergoing significant change. Education will likely follow this path.

456

Technology Trends

eBooks

Digital books now outsell print books. This trend has largely been focused on adult readers, but sets the stage for the adoption of eBook readers to replace textbooks.

Learning Analytics

The success of Amazon and Netflix has illustrated the importance of algorithms. Learning analytics is a field that seeks to develop and implement prediction algorithms to improve students’ pathways through a digital curricula in order to optimize learning.

Mobile Devices

“Mobile device” is a generic term that refers to hand-held devices such as cell phones and smart phones, and small portable computing devices such as tablet computers and laptop computers. The key issue about a mobile device is that a person is always connected and can theoretically work at any time and any place.

Massive Open Online Course (MOOC)

A new direction in online learning. MOOCs seek to enroll hundreds of thousands of students in free coursework. Grading and feedback is provided via sophisticated answer judging tools and programs. Very clearly a disruptive technology that threatens traditional higher education programs.

Online Learning

Also known as distance education. Refers to the use of technology for learning that is more self-directed and technology mediated than traditional instruction. May also be available in hybrid and flipped configurations.

Open Source

Creative commons licensing offers alternatives to traditional copyright. This has led to a surge of tools and content that is placed in the public domain (open). Examples include the Mozilla web browser, Linux programming language, and Wikipedia. Small-scale efforts have sought to make educational curricula open-source content.

Personalized Learning

Personalized learning algorithms promise that the curriculum will be “just the right challenge level for optimal learning.” Requires that curriculum and instruction be transformed from the current paper and pencil methods used in classrooms to a digital platform.

Special education professionals are often well-versed in the trends outlined in Table 32.1, and are at least aware of some of the trends summarized in Table 32.2. However, the fundamental challenge is to consider how new technologies could converge with educational trends to produce a markedly different future. Is it possible to help educators discern the difference between technologies that produce incremental, and perhaps inconsequent change, with technologies that will produce profoundly disruptive effects in order to plan for the future of inclusive education?

Future Directions Faced with the choice between changing one’s mind and proving that there is no need to do so, almost everyone gets busy on the proof. John Kenneth Galbraith 457

D.L. Edyburn

Burrus (1994) contends that new futures are created from a mix of technological innovations and new rules that change the nature of the game. He uses the metaphor of a card game to illustrate what happens when the game is played by conventional rules (the future will be similar to life as it is now). However, he periodically introduces new cards and new rules into the game, injecting the appropriate level of chaos that real change brings. (Ever notice how hard it is to win a game when you don’t know the rules?) Focusing exclusively on trends may point to predictable change, but new rules and tools can fundamentally alter the way systems work. Using the information presented in Tables 32.1 and 32.2, I believe it is possible to engage the special education community in a process of recognizing trends in education and technology that will have a significant impact upon the future of inclusive education. In the sections below, I will model the process of selecting a trend from each of the tables and then using the information to frame a description of a scenario of the future related to inclusive education.

Scenarios That Illustrate a Future Based on Incremental Change We will begin by describing futures that involve incremental change because this serves as an excellent warm-up for the brainstorming required for future visioning activities. Such visions of the future are safe for individuals and groups to consider because we merely connect some dots among trends that are already apparent. Incremental Change Scenarios Concerning the Future of Inclusive Education Technology as it is currently used in schools involves a number of applications used by students on a daily basis, including productivity tools such as Microsoft Office and a Web browser. Teachers may engage the class in a lesson with an interactive whiteboard. Online learning may be relatively limited to things such as homework help pages where a teacher posts homework assignments and links. Students with disabilities may use assistive technologies or encounter embedded supports in classrooms that implement differentiated instruction. Some schools are exploring the use of student-owned devices and tablet computers. If we anticipate change as occurring slowly and incrementally, than the future will simply evolve from where we are today. Teachers and administrators who plan for the future of technology by focusing on a single trend might take actions found in the following scenarios: Scenario #1 Trend : Ebook adoption is beginning to out-pace sales of traditional print books. Scenario of the Future : A teacher might argue for the need to begin adopting ebooks in English classes next school year in order to make text more accessible (i.e., alter font size, turn on text to speech support) and engaging (i.e., online note taking, vocabulary lookup) for diverse learners. Implications : A school implementing an expanded ebook program is likely to attract positive attention for implementing a 21st- century instructional practice. However, concerns may be raised about digital equity for students who may not have computers or ebook readers. Overall, many educators will argue that well- designed ebooks represent a universal design for learning initiative that has the potential to improve the reading experience for all students. Scenario #2 Trend : Open source software provides an alternative to commercial software. 458

Technology Trends

Scenario of the Future : As school budgets continue to be tight, some educators may advocate for replacing costly software licenses with free open source software (e.g., office productivity suite, Web browser). Implications : Functionally, there is little difference between some open source software and their commercial counterparts. As a result, this decision may be made in the context of a school district’s fi nancial management policies. Families may benefit from this decision since they can install the same open source software on their home computer. However, some students with disabilities may experience hardship if the open source software is not fully compatible with their existing assistive technology. In this case, it may require that the student use specialized software. Scenarios 1 and 2 represent logical and conservative actions to positively utilize technology in a way that improves education in the future. Each scenario represents incremental change that may be resisted by some, but will, in general, be supported by many as a means to plan for the future by adopting emerging technology tools. Special educators are likely to support each of these types of developments as a means of improving services for students with disabilities within the inclusive classroom. Incremental Change Scenarios With Convergence Concerning the Future of Inclusive Education A more challenging task involving incremental change relates to the impact of the convergence of multiple trends. Whereas there can be an element of predictability in this process, the convergence of trends has the potential to foster significant change in the daily operation of inclusive education. Consider the following scenarios that illustrate the process of combining trends in ways that are not initially obvious (or perhaps deemed desirable by the status quo): Scenario #3 Trends : Teacher shortage + online learning Scenario of the Future : Online learning will expand as a cost- containment strategy to fi ll the void caused by special education teacher shortages. Implications : The prediction of massive retirements in special education will leave the field with a shortage of K-12 special education teachers and special education teacher educators in higher education. This situation creates the perfect storm for an enterprising organization to develop an online learning program/system that is uniquely designed to deliver specialized instruction to students with disabilities in ways that are comparable to, or more effective than, traditional special education services. The net result of this scenario is a reduction in the number of special education teachers employed and significant salary savings to relieve stress on school district budgets. Scenario #4 Trends : Accountability + learning analytics Scenario of the Future : IEPs will become obsolete because of their cumbersome format and inability to dynamically inform instruction on a daily basis. IEPs will be replaced by digital dashboards. Password access will make the progress and achievement of all students available 24x7 (in sharp contrast to the quarterly reporting now used in schools). Algorithms will optimally adjust the challenge level so that the student 459

D.L. Edyburn

can progress through the curriculum at a level where s/he can obtain maximum success. Implications : As students engage in more schoolwork in a digital format, their behavior (i.e., key clicks, efficacy/engagement) will be available to teachers, parents, and administrators in digital dashboards. Academic progress will be provided in visual format and detailed data can be obtained by drilling down in the report template. The evolution of learning analytics suggests that algorithms will become more sophisticated and effective in ensuring that each student experiences optimal success within a personalized curriculum. Perhaps some educational leaders already see the emergence of scenarios 3 and 4 and believe that the future of inclusive education will look this way within 2–5 years. Others may have a difficult time envisaging the future unfold in these directions. Certainly, we could debate the likelihood of each scenario; however, the point here is to understand that the convergence of trends is a complex matter beyond the control of any one individual or group. The question for special education professionals is to consider whether a scenario is a viable description of a possible future and determine whether or not an organization should take action to move in that direction or wait until more evidence is available to connect the dots. Disruptive Change Scenarios Concerning the Future of Inclusive Education Individually, any one of the scenarios outlined above could affect (positively or negatively) the future of inclusive education. However, when scenarios become bundled to reveal a convergence of multiple changes, the implications for the future could be quite profound. In this fi nal section, I have outlined some disruptive change scenarios that I believe have the potential to emerge from the current chaos of education reform initiatives and innovation in the technology marketplace: Scenario #5 Trends : 3 screens and a cloud + engaged learning + big data + online learning Scenario of the Future : Daily attendance at school becomes optional as students use the Web to access digitized (online) curriculum materials via their own personal mobile device. Their performance is monitored to ensure high levels of engagement in challenging instructional content to accumulate academic credits. Implications : When curricula are available online, and each student has an appropriate mobile device for accessing instruction, the current organization of schools (i.e., grade level classrooms, strict bell schedule) is called into question. This may allow schools to develop more flexible learning spaces (i.e., comparable to mobile professionals working in a coffee shop) and alter how teachers spend their time (i.e., designing instruction rather than delivering instruction; tutoring). However, while this model may work for motivated and talented students, it could be problematic for some students with disabilities. If this happens, will we see a resurrection of self-contained special education classrooms? Scenario #6 Trends : Teacher shortages + common core state standards + learning analytics + personalized learning Scenario of the Future : The shortage of special education teachers prompts a move to eliminate the need for special education since all students are being held responsible for 460

Technology Trends

achieving the same high standards found in the common core. Specialized instructional expertise has been programmed into personalized learning systems that feature universal design for learning supports, and the interactive decisions teachers formerly made are now codified as learning analytics. Algorithms become smarter than any one individual because of the immense amount of student performance data fed into the system. This means that the learning system can personalize learning to a far greater level, and produce quantifiable evidence of student success, in ways that special education has been slow to demonstrate. Implications : In my view, this scenario describes the demise of special education: that is, if the goals of personalized instruction are met in the context of an accessible general education curriculum, in ways that produce quantitative evidence of student academic growth, what is the future of inclusive special education? Whether or not this scenario unfolds in 3 years or in 20 years is not as important as discussing whether or not the scenario is plausible. And if it is, how should we begin preparing for a future in which inclusive education is very different than it is today?

Conclusion The best way to predict the future is to invent it. Alan Kay I have become concerned of late that efforts to harness the potential of technology in special education has caused the profession to compartmentalize technology as something we do in the classroom (e.g., use iPads, use an interactive whiteboard, write using word processors). This myopic focus means that we are missing an emerging paradigm shift that involves the commercialization of student performance data in ways that could render special education obsolete. Consider the following: • •

•

•

Each student currently has a unique national ID that is used to track a student between educational systems (see https://ceds.ed.gov/). Digitalization of the curriculum means that for-profit organizations will own the key click data of every student and then use that data in ways that generate new revenue streams (see www.ted.com/talks/view/lang/en//id/1091). Personalized learning will eliminate the need for special education as our knowledge of specialized interventions will be coded into a blackbox that optimizes learning pathways using sophisticated learning analytics (see www.knewton.com). Data mining means that data will be aggregated from many different sources to produce a proprietary profi le about each person (see: www.aclu.org/ordering-pizza).

We can passively wait until the future becomes the present, or we can work to actively influence the future. Whereas the trends and issues outlined in this chapter represent the viewpoint of one individual, when these source materials are used in the context of personnel preparation or leadership training, they will provoke spirited discussions and perspectives of what the future of inclusive education will look like and how we might prepare for, or shape, its arrival. Derrida (1981) in his essay, “Plato’s Pharmacy,” describes the Greek word pharmakon. It means a substance that is both a poison and a remedy/cure. Technology is a pharmakon. 461

D.L. Edyburn

As we look to the future of inclusive special education we must decide whether technology will be a poison that is used to control, track, and limit individuals, or whether technology is a cure for the historical limitations posed by disability. If we view technology as a strategic tool to achieve the goals of inclusive education by supporting students with disabilities, the future looks very promising—if we are willing to advocate and act on our beliefs.

References Bauerlein, M. ( 2008 ). The dumbest generation: How the digital age stupefi es young Americans and jeopardizes our future (Or, don’t trust anyone under 30). NY: Penguin. Blackhurst, A. E. (1997 ). Perspectives on technology in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 29 ( 5), 41– 48. Burrus, D. (1994 ). Technotrends: How to use technology to go beyond your competition. NY: HarperBusiness. Burrus, D. ( 2011). Flash foresight. NY: HarperBusiness. Carr, N. ( 2008 ). Is Google making us stupid ? Atlantic Magazine. 301( 6 ). Available at: www.theatlantic. com/magazine/archive/2008/07/is-google-making-us-stupid/306868/ Carr, N. ( 2010 ). The shallows: What the Internet is doing to our brains. NY: W. W. Norton and Co. Christensen, C. M. (1997 ). The innovator’s dilemma: When new technologies cause great firms to fail. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Business Review Press. Christensen, C. & Eyring, H. ( 2011). The innovative university: Changing the DNA of higher education from the inside out. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Christensen, C. M., Horn, M. B., & Johnson, C. W. ( 2008 ). Disrupting class: How disruptive innovation will change the way the world learns. NY: McGraw-Hill. Collins, A. & Halverson, R. ( 2009 ) Rethinking education in the age of technology: The digital revolution and schooling in America. NY: Teachers College Press. Derrida, J. (1981) “Plato’s Pharmacy,” in Dissemination (trans. B. Johnson). Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2004 ). Assisted learning: How assistive technologies developed for people with disabilities will affect learning for everyone. Threshold, 2 ( 2 ), 22 –25. Edyburn, D. L. ( 2007 ). Understanding current and emerging technology trends. Journal of Special Education Technology, 22 ( 2 ), 65 – 67. Edyburn, D. ( 2010 ). Making sense of technological change. Special Education Technology Practice, 12 (1), 15 –21. Friedman, T. L. ( 2005). The world is fl at: A brief history of the twenty-first century. NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux. Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (1994 ). Inclusive schools movement and the radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60 (4 ), 294 –309. Hasselbring, T. S. ( 2001). A possible future of special education technology. Journal of Special Education Technology, 16 (4 ), 15 –21. Kauffman, J. (1993 ). How we might achieve the radical reform of special education. Exceptional Children, 60 (1), 6 –16. Laermer, R. ( 2002 ). Trendspotting: Think forward, get ahead, and cash in on the future. New York: Perigee. McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williams, P., & Hoppey, D. ( 2012 ). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings ? Journal of Special Education, 46 ( 3 ), 131–140. McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. ( 2007 ). Making differences ordinary in inclusive classrooms. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42 ( 3 ), 162 –168. Naisbitt, N., Phillips, D., & Naisbitt, J. ( 2001). High tech/high touch: Technology and our accelerated search for meaning. NY: Nicholas Brealey. Netfl ix ( 2011). Fast Company. Retrieved November 5, 2012 from www.fastcompany.com/ most-innovative-companies/2011/profi le/netfl ix.php Popcorn, F. & Hanft, A. ( 2001) Dictionary of the future: The words, terms, and trends that define the way we live, work, and talk. NY: Theia/Hyperion. Reynolds, M. C., Wang, M. C., & Walberg, H. C. (1987 ). The necessary restructuring of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53 ( 5), 391–398.

462

Technology Trends

Wang, M. & Birch, J. (1984 ). Effective special education in regular classes. Exceptional Children, 50 (4 ), 391–399. Will, M. (1986 ). Educating children with learning problems: A shared responsibility. Exceptional Children, 52 ( 5), 411– 415. Zigmond, N. ( 2003 ). Where should students with disabilities receive special education services? Is one place better than another? Journal of Special Education, 37( 3 ), 193 –199.

463

33 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Effective Inclusive Schools for Students with High Incidence Disabilities? Festus E. Obiakor1, Cheryl A. Utley2, Tachelle Banks3, and Bob Algozzine4

Setting the Stage The history of educating students with disabilities in the United States parallels other groups in our society that have been excluded from services, including those from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds. Typically, three stages of “care” have emerged in relation to marginalized students: • • •

protection through exclusion by law or regulation inclusion based on judicial and/or legislative mandates, and integration through policies and practices.

The integration stage includes (a) escalation of conversations about school reform and “big ideas” associated with the nature of society and the purposes of schooling, (b) progression of concerns and issues related to law and court decisions, (c) documentation of disproportionate representation or burgeoning numbers in special education, (d) reduction of emphasis on medical or deficit models of disability, and (e) implementation of evidence-based instruction for students with disabilities in general education classrooms (Lipsky & Gartner, 1997; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000). This chapter presents a historical overview of the inclusive education movement as a context for emerging trends and future directions in the education of students with high incidence disabilities in effective inclusive schools.

1 2 3 4

Valdosta State University University of Kansas Cleveland State University University of North Carolina

464

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

Setting the Stage: Unlocking the Doors of Exclusion Since 1975, there have been two major developments for students with mild/moderate disabilities in special education programs in U.S. schools. First, the number of students served steadily increased, from approximately 3.7 million to over 6 million, reflecting an extraordinary achievement in terms of access (U.S. Department of Education, 1995, 2005, 2012). Second, the placement patterns for these students served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) of 2004 reflected high enrollment in general education classes. For example, the national average for the percentage of students (ages 6–21) who spent at least 80% of their time in general education classrooms grew from 31.6% in 1989 to 51.9% in 2004 (U.S. Department of Education, 2005); some states (e.g., Vermont, North Dakota, Oregon, and Colorado) significantly exceeded this national average by supporting more than 70% of their students with disabilities in general education settings (U.S. Department of Education, 2005); also, more than 90% of students aged 6–21 were educated in regular classrooms for at least some portion of the school day (U.S. Department of Education, 2012). In addition to advancing the inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms, the academic performance of students with high incidence disabilities has been increasingly evaluated. Federal laws have mandated that students with disabilities participate on state tests, and that states report these test results to the public (Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), 1997). Unfortunately, IDEA imposed no consequences on states that did not comply with these mandates, and many were slow to meet the law’s mandates. It was not until the passage of the No Child Left Behind Act (2001) that states enacted significant, large-scale changes to their testing and accountability systems in order to increase participation of students with disabilities in the core curriculum and ensure that the progress of these students was monitored and reported. The 2004 reauthorization of IDEA expanded testing requirements at the state level for students with high incidence disabilities, as local school districts were required to develop and implement alternate assessments aligned with the state’s academic content standards. In addition, states reported the following: (a) the number and performance of students with disabilities taking regular state assessments and how many of them received accommodations to participate in those assessments; (b) how many students with disabilities participated in alternate assessments aligned with the state standards; and (c) the number of students with disabilities taking alternate assessments aligned with alternate achievement standards. Lastly, the performance of students with high incidence disabilities must be compared with the achievement of all children, including children without disabilities, on those assessments. The No Child Left Behind Act—a reauthorized version of the Elementary and Secondary Act, the flagship federal law in the U.S. governing K-12 education—built on the requirements initially established by IDEA, but added accountability measures. Under the No Child Left Behind Act, states must test at least 95% of their students with disabilities. They also have to incorporate test scores for all subgroups of students, including those with disabilities, into school ratings and provide test results to the public on school report cards. The law’s long-term goal was to have all students performing at the proficient level on state tests by 2013–2014. Schools that do not make “adequate yearly progress” toward that goal face a series of sanctions, the severity of which grows with the increasing number of years they fail to meet their achievement targets. The public and education professionals have reacted strongly to these new requirements. Some policymakers view the inclusion of students with high incidence disabilities in state testing and accountability systems as important next steps in ensuring that every child receives 465

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

a high-quality education (Thurlow, Elliott, & Ysseldyke, 2002). Student testing and related data collection is the only way to determine if students with disabilities are progressing in school. Critics of the No Child Left Behind Act view the law as not being flexible enough to account for the individual needs of some students with disabilities (Schrag, 2003). In spite of this criticism, placement in inclusive classroom settings and access to the general education curriculum are important issues for all students with disabilities, but especially for African-American and Latino students (Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, in press; Skiba, Peterson, & Williams, 1997). The overrepresentation of African-American and Latino students in special education placements typically occurs in the categories of disability that are most subjectively identified: that is, categories of mental retardation, emotional disturbance, and learning disabilities (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Current fi ndings suggest that the relationships among race, socioeconomic status (SES), and special education placement are highly complex, vary considerably by disability category, and are sometimes in direction opposition to expectations. For the high incidence disability categories, such as intellectual disability, poverty appears to make a significant contribution to the disproportionate placement of students in special education programs (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Nguyen, 2001). Similarly, for emotional disturbance, African Americans have been often found to be overrepresented in low poverty districts (Oswald, Coutinho, Best, & Singh, 1999; Zhang & Katsiyannis, 2002). To understand the significance of the issue of overrepresentation, it is critical to understand and address the broader context of American society and American education. Extensive research has been conducted to examine the (a) devastating effects of biological, social, and environmental factors (e.g., low birth weight, nutrition and development, fetal exposure to alcohol, tobacco or drugs, and exposure to lead) on the cognitive and behavioral functioning of children; (b) transactional nature of genetic and environmental influences on development; (c) social and environmental factors related to low socioeconomic status (SES) and the particular stressors associated with poverty (e.g., quality of parenting interaction, family interactions, language development, maternal depression, child care quality, and other risk factors); and (d) the relationship between socio- demographic risk factors and academic deficits at school readiness. School-related factors that influence overrepresentation include: • • • • •

recruitment and hiring of teachers with less experience and expertise in schools schools that are poorly funded and that have limited resources and larger student-teacher ratios lowered teacher expectations by race or a cultural mismatch between expectations concerning many students’ abilities denial of the existence of racial disparities in the schools, and structural disadvantages of schools (e.g., older, inadequate buildings, and out- of-date and insufficient supplies, curriculum, and equipment).

Some scholars attribute the overrepresentation of African-American and Latino students in special education to the use of identification tools that are culturally biased, such as intelligence tests (Losen & Orfield, 2002). For example, when Congress reauthorized IDEA in 1997, it added a provision requiring school districts to monitor the racial and ethnic breakdown of students receiving special education services. In the 2004 reauthorization of IDEA, another provision was added to take the monitoring process further. Districts with overrepresentation in special education must set aside 15% of their federal aid for students, 466

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

particularly those in grades K-3, who need “additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in a general education environment” (IDEA, 2004). This reauthorization also required states to allow districts to use multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) strategies, such as response-to-intervention (RTI) and positive behavior supports (PBS), for determining if a child has a specific learning disability or behavioral disability. RTI involves early identification of students’ learning problems and the use of increasingly intensive lessons, or interventions, to address those problems before they become entrenched (Samuels, 2011). The RTI three-tiered conceptual model is designed to shift the focus of educators from fi nding a disability or within- child deficits to focusing on providing the best instruction for all students in the general education classroom. The RTI model emphasizes early intervention, with a focus on making sure children receive appropriate instruction at the “fi rst tier” or general education classroom level, and the push to match instruction to a student’s needs based on ongoing classroom assessment (Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003; Vaughn, Mathes, Linan-Thompson, & Frances, 2005; Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, & Hickman, 2003; Vellutino, Scanlon, Small, & Fanuele, 2003). Positive behavior support (PBS) includes (a) the development of positive behavioral expectations, (b) specific methods to teach these expectations to staff and students, (c) proactive supervision or monitoring of behaviors, (d) contingency management systems to reinforce and correct behavior, and (e) methods to measure outcomes and to evaluate progress across three tiers with specific core elements at different levels. These levels are: (1) primary prevention/school-wide level, including universal school-wide management strategies to reduce disruptive behavior and teach prosocial skills to all students; (2) secondary prevention level, including targeted or group-based intervention strategies for students at risk of developing more serious antisocial behaviors (about 5% to 10%); and (3) tertiary prevention level, including functionally derived treatment strategies for the small number of students (about 1–3%) who engage in more chronic patterns of antisocial behavior (Horner, Crone, & Stiller, 2001; Horner, Sugai, & Lewis, 2005).

Current Trends: Toward Effective Inclusive Models The previously described mandates, as well as the development of evidence-based approaches to instruction and behavior support, have served to pave the way for marching toward successful inclusion of students with disabilities in general education classrooms. No longer were students with high incidence disabilities separated from mainstreamed students (Praisner, 2003); instead, efforts were made to provide an effective education for students with disabilities in inclusive general education classrooms. The professional literature began to focus on the preparedness of educators and administrators to develop and implement effective inclusive programs and supports within their general education classrooms (Bateman, Bright, O’Shea, O’Shea, & Algozzine, 2007; Fisher, 2011; Obiakor, Harris, Mutua, Rotatori, & Algozzine, 2012). In order for inclusion to be effective, there must be collaboration between general and special education teachers. However, these two teacher groups have not always been effective in teaming together. Research has shown that teacher expectations influence student behavior, self- esteem, and achievement; therefore, if a teacher has a negative attitude toward students with disabilities, then those students most likely will not be successful in that teacher’s classroom (Obiakor, 1999). Research has also shown that administrators’ attitudes toward students 467

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

with disabilities are important for successful inclusion, since they are most influential in developing and operating educational programs in their schools. Research also has shown that many school districts implement inclusion without adequate professional development or preparation for using interventions beforehand (Obiakor et al., 2012). Successful models for effective inclusive schools and classrooms need to be analyzed and described in ways that are useful for practitioners in their classrooms. Researchers of peerreviewed literature often write of the positive impact of inclusive education, focusing on the social skills learned by students, the sharpening of pedagogical skills by teachers, and the role of inclusive education in the promotion of Civil Rights (Broderick, Mehta-Parekh, & Reid, 2005; Polat, 2010; Soodak, 2003). Most importantly, research has shown how students with disabilities benefit academically from inclusive education. The professional development literature has also reflected the need for teachers to receive preparation in inclusive education as part of their teacher education programs (Florian & Linklater, 2010; Jordan, Schwartz, & McGhie-Richmond, 2009). Scholarly articles have made suggestions on implementing inclusive education, but descriptions of such approaches are typically minimally discussed and do not provide sufficient direction for teachers and other school professionals. Several studies have provided information that is useful for practitioners in understanding the complex range of issues they must address in schools as they develop and implement inclusive practices. For example, Daane, Beirne-Smith, and Latham (2000) examined administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades by conducting a survey of 324 elementary general education teachers, 42 special education teachers, and 15 building administrators. The results showed that teachers and administrators agreed that while collaboration is essential to support inclusive education, collaboration was often not a comfortable experience for many professionals due to (a) confl ict of personalities, (b) lack of planning time, and (c) limited time in the classroom by the special education teacher. Survey responses further revealed that both general and special education teachers believed that the inclusive classroom was not the most effective environment for students with disabilities, although administrators believed that it was. Respondents also felt that general education teachers were not prepared to teach students with disabilities, and these teachers lacked the confidence and support needed in addressing the needs of these students (Daane et al., 2000). This investigation provides critical information for practitioners that must be addressed as they work to develop and implement effective inclusive programs. In another investigation that provided a rich description of inclusive education, Idol (2006) described how special education services were provided in four elementary schools and four secondary schools in a large metropolitan school district. The schools were purposefully selected as settings with well-developed special education programs in which the staff believed they provided strong and supportive programs for educating students with disabilities. The schools were also selected so that one half were from the top and one half from the bottom of a continuum from no inclusion to full inclusion. Idol thus provides a description of a range of perspectives on providing high- quality educational services for students with disabilities in a cross- section of schools that are similar to those in many local education agencies. The results of this investigation (Idol, 2006) revealed that only one of the elementary schools had placed an emphasis on special education and inclusion in their school improvement plan, and included students with disabilities within the general education classroom for all of the school day. Many students with disabilities in the other three elementary schools were educated for some or most of the school day in separate special education classrooms. Administrators in these schools were asked how students with disabilities were best educated. 468

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

Three of the building administrators were in favor of inclusion only if an instructional assistant or a special educator were provided to support the general education teacher. Teachers and instructional assistants in all four elementary schools stated that they were applying the skills necessary for effective inclusion, which included (a) adaptation of instruction, (b) modification of curriculum, and (c) classroom management and student discipline. Many teachers in the four elementary schools had additional comments that were generally positive about students with disabilities and inclusion. For example, these teachers indicated that they liked having instructional assistants and valued special education teachers in their classrooms; believed that statewide test scores were not affected by inclusive programs; did not like pull- out programs; liked inclusive programs; and felt that mainstreaming be used rather than inclusion for students with more serious emotional problems. These teachers also stated that there was a need for more professional development related to inclusion; more opportunities were needed to visit schools with successful inclusive programs; better training for instructional assistants was required; and more use of mainstreaming rather than inclusion for students with serious emotional problems. Finally, elementary teachers addressed the need to respect “the special challenges [inclusion] presented to the classroom teacher and providing support” (Idol, 2006, p. 85) to these teachers. For secondary settings, in the schools that were more inclusive (one middle school and one high school), referral rates to special education were much lower than at the other two schools. Possible reasons for this were providing more support by special educators and other support personnel for students with disabilities in the general education classrooms; providing support programs for tutoring, counseling, and career development; and the use of consulting teachers to support instruction. In addition, support services in these schools were typically provided for all students who needed assistance, and not just for students with disabilities. In contrast, the schools that were less inclusive had higher referral rates. Possible reasons for this included provision of more separate classes and resource programs for students with disabilities; providing fewer classes with support in the general education classroom; and providing classroom resources only for students with disabilities. All secondary administrators reported that they were supportive of inclusion, but only if support services were provided in the general education classroom. Interestingly, while four administrators reported that they were good collaborators and worked well with teachers, the administrator in the most inclusive secondary school said that he was a good collaborator who worked well with most teachers, but not all of them. Secondary teachers perceived that they were skilled at adapting instruction and modifying the curriculum for student needs, addressing student discipline and classroom management issues, and collaborating with other professionals. In three of the secondary schools, the majority of teachers favored educating students with disabilities in general education classes with assistance from a special educator. However, in one high school, equal proportions of teachers supported inclusion and parttime special education classroom support. Across all schools, a large majority of teachers felt that supports provided in the general education classrooms should be for all students, and not just those with disabilities. Most secondary educators felt that students with disabilities did not adversely affect the education of typical students. Additional comments from these educators indicated that they made distinctions between including students with academic versus behavioral problems, and felt that they could better manage and support students with academic problems. Many of the teachers also noted that more personnel were needed to provide adequate support in general education classrooms for students with disabilities. Finally, many of these teachers indicated the need for additional professional development related to inclusion. 469

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

Idol (2006) noted that this investigation provided strong “support for including students with special education challenges in general education programs” (p. 94). However, she also provided several recommendations from educators in these settings to support inclusive practices, including more professional development for teachers in areas that support effective classroom practice, visits to successful inclusive schools, use of heterogeneous learning groups, and more professional development for instructional assistants. Finally, teachers across the schools made recommendations for policy and practice, including: • • • •

• •

Reconsider the viability of self- contained classes for students with disabilities; Consider mainstreaming rather than inclusion for some students with emotional/behavior disorders; Consider redistributing all students with disabilities to their neighborhood schools for more equitable distribution of students with different types of disabilities; Provide open and clear communication regarding why some students are provided more assistance in the general education classroom, including those who are provided instructional or curricular modifications; Ensure that the entire school staff is well prepared in terms of the use of consulting teachers, instructional assistants, and cooperative teaching; Make sure that special education teachers work with the principal and other professionals to determine how to best use their professional time working with students.

The studies by Daane and colleagues (2000) and Idol (2006) provide rich, descriptive information that is useful for practitioners as they develop and implement effective inclusive programs in their schools and classrooms. These investigations serve to provide practitioners with a realistic picture of what should be expected as they work in inclusive settings, and of some of the complexity that is associated with these activities. More investigations are needed that provide this type of information, which is usable by teachers and principals as they work to provide more effective inclusive schools and classrooms for all students with disabilities.

Future Directions: Setting the Course for Effective Inclusive Schools Likewise, the inclusion of children with disabilities at the O’Hearn—a step that some people had doubted could be successful—ultimately helped the school community develop into a more effective learning environment for everyone. Most important, including students with a range of disabilities became the catalyst for the transformation of general education at our school. Students who have disabilities, and particularly those with significant challenges, are often blamed for lowering standards and performance in schools. On the contrary, their inclusion at the O’Hearn helped us figure out how to improve teaching and learning for everyone. (Henderson, 2011, p. 7) Individuals with disabilities are responsible, productive, and valued citizens in communities across the country and around the world. This is how it should be, as the exclusion and stigma that once were common for some have been replaced by beliefs and practices which direct that any service or benefit available to one is available to all. In effective inclusive schools, students with disabilities are responsible, productive, and valued “citizens” who receive the 470

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

supports they need to succeed embedded in academic, social, and extra-curricular activities with their neighbors and peers.

Making Inclusion Work The challenges for school leaders seeking to successfully manage change are in creating conditions where what is known about “evidence-based practices” can be put to work to benefit children and youth. General education teachers often doubt—and sometimes resist— the possibility of having students with disabilities in their classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012; Ysseldyke, Algozzine, & Thurlow, 2000). The prospect of implementing an inclusive education program often generates fear and resistance, mainly from teachers who believe that the preparation and support they believe they need will not materialize (Henderson, 2011; Solis et al., 2012). Many general education teachers doubt the practicality of inclusive education and resist the idea of having students with special needs in their classrooms (Avramidis & Norwich, 2002; Scruggs & Mastropieri, 1996). Special educators are also fearful of inclusion. They are concerned that administrators may see inclusion as a means to eliminate their jobs and save money. Others wonder if they have the knowledge and skills needed to assist general education teachers with inclusion (cf. Buell, Hallam, GamelMcCormick, & Scheer, 1999). The implementation of inclusive education needs to reflect a successful relationship among collaborating teachers. The general education teacher needs to understand each student’s IEP and prepare and execute lessons accordingly. Additionally, the collaborative special teacher must be practiced in the content area and in special education to ensure that every lesson’s objectives are met. For example, teachers need to be able to discuss IEPs and collectively develop strategies to properly implement differentiated instruction ( Janney & Snell, 2006). Additionally, fieldwork and early exposure to inclusive education for both general and special educators are beneficial in learning how and when to apply instructional modifications (Florian & Linklater, 2010). Teachers must also maintain a consistent and open relationship with parents. Keeping parents up to date with their children’s progress is essential for a number of reasons, but the most important reason is so that the teacher can communicate with the students and their parents effectively and maintain a positive relationship. An open rapport is important between parents and teachers so that the teachers are made aware if there is a problem outside of school. There are a number of methods a teacher can employ to effectively communicate with parents (Campbell, Wang, & Algozzine, 2010; Carter, Prater, & Dyches, 2009; Dyches, Carter, & Prater, 2011). Apart from traditional methods, such as email and phone conversations, weekly “newsletters” are sometimes used, discussing group work and highlighting personal achievements. Other teachers send home hand-written notes to add a personal effect. A more regimented way is to have parents sign graded schoolwork and exams. Teachers need to decide what method works best for their learning environment. In addition to teacher responsibilities, administrators play a vital role in the successful implementation of inclusion (Bateman et al., 2007; Henderson, 2011; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). Villa and Thousand (2003) have noted that administrators must take action to publicly articulate the vision of inclusion, build consensus for the vision, and lead all stakeholders to active involvement. Principals must advance the integration, success, and acceptance of all students in order for inclusion to be effective and successful (Henderson, 2011). The attitudes 471

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

of the principal can either increase or decrease inclusion opportunities for students with disabilities. In a study of 32 inclusive school sites, Villa and Thousand found that the degree of administrative support and vision was the most powerful predictor of general educators’ attitudes toward inclusion. Administrators can provide four types of support that have been identified as important by general and special educators: 1 2 3 4

Personal and emotional support (i.e., being willing to listen to concerns) Informational support (i.e., providing training and technical assistance) Instrumental support (i.e., creating time for teachers to meet), and Appraisal support (i.e., giving constructive feedback related to implementation of new practices). (Villa & Thousand, 2003)

Clearly, the implementation of inclusion may require a great deal of extra work for teachers and administrators (cf. Henderson, 2011; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002). If inclusion is to be successful, leadership teams need to be established to assure that there are varied and systematic supports available for all teachers. It is also important that the school principal be involved in the collaborative process of planning and review (Henderson, 2011; Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013; Perner, 1991; McLeskey & Waldron, 2002, 2006; Voltz & Collins, 2010). In an inclusive environment, teachers’ abilities should grow continually. Special education preparation helps teachers teach to all levels, not just to those students with special needs. By extension, all future educators should build their pedagogical method repertoire to make sure that inclusive practices are upheld.

Moving Forward By Looking Back Teaching is a profession of ever-changing demands, and the need to develop new skills and approaches to use with students is considered to be essential. Teachers prepared in isolation fail to produce significant transformations in the school culture (Blanco, 1999). Considerable evidence has indicated that both general and special educators believe that they are inadequately prepared to serve students with disabilities in general education classrooms. Many general education teachers are not prepared to provide the differentiated and diversified instructional methods that are needed in inclusive classrooms. To facilitate confidence and competence, “teachers need systematic and intensive training that includes research-based best practices in inclusive schools” (Burstein, Sears, Wilcoxen, Cabello, & Spagna, 2004, p. 105). Teachers must engage in ongoing professional development as an part of their professional role (Fisher, 2011; Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003). A number of areas of professional development are important, but research done by Fisher et al. (2003, pp. 46–47) suggests five high priority focus areas. These are: 1 Collaborative teaming and teaching. Instructional responsibilities are embedded into natural settings in which students with disabilities are educated with their neighbors and peers. 2 Curricular and instructional modifications. Accommodations that maintain the “integrity of the lesson while addressing the unique learning needs of the student” are part of classroom teaching practices. 3 Assistive technology. Devices that enhance communication, mobility, and learning tailored to the individual needs of students are an integral part of all aspects of schooling. 472

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

4 Positive behavioral supports. Interventions addressing improvement of social skills are identified by problem- solving teams and implemented with fidelity across school and classroom settings. 5 Personal supports. Friendships and social relationships are a valued part of every child’s education. If implemented properly, inclusive education services can (a) be less expensive to implement and operate than special education services, (b) have a broader reach than traditional special education in terms of positive educational and social impacts on children, (c) contribute significantly to the ongoing professional development and job satisfaction of educators, and (d) produce better morale and team effort in the school environment (Henderson, 2011). Legislative and policy provisions are also important for the development of inclusive schools and supportive communities (see www.wrightslaw.com/advoc/articles/idea.lre.fape.htm; Pacer Center, 2009; Wright & Wright, 2007, 2009). These general principles must be backed up by operational strategies that can get the key officials and leaders to fully commit to implementing inclusion (Obiakor et al., 2012). If any area demands accountability, it is the education system that shapes our future and the future of our children and youth. Below are quality indicators that inform what inclusion must look like in the future: 1 Leadership. The principal is the instructional leader of the school and actively fosters open communication among teachers and other professionals, families, and community members and school-wide practices that support and promote improvement of teaching and learning. 2 School climate. Learning opportunities and supports available to one student are available to all students. 3 Collaborative planning. Instructional and other personnel participate in teaching and learning processes and share responsibility for academic, social, and extra- curricular success. 4 Program planning and implementation. School personnel discourage unproductive grouping and support non-categorical policies, systems, and practices. 5 Curriculum, instruction, and assessment. School personnel work in teams to plan, deliver, and systematically monitor progress and outcomes of academic, behavior, and extracurricular instruction. 6 Individual student supports. School personnel use differentiation and strategies that provide multiple options for how content is presented and how students demonstrate their understanding of it. 7 Family–school partnerships. School personnel provide authentic opportunities for parents, siblings, and other family members to participate in the development and delivery of effective educational programs. 8 Professional development. School personnel actively participate in learning communities and other instructional opportunities that support teaching and improve academic, behavior, and extra-curricular instruction. 9 Planning for continued best practice. Local education agency policies and practices support and sustain individualized school improvement.

Conclusion Segregated education has entrenched a way of thinking that tends to perpetuate the separation of people with disabilities throughout their life. Arguably, the systematic separation of 473

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

certain people from the mainstream of society rips at the social fabric and dilutes the diversity of civil society as a whole. The purpose of education in general, and of inclusion in particular, is to advance the cause of social justice and equity. Inclusive education supports the notion that all children should be provided a free appropriate public education (FAPE) and educated in the Least Restrictive Environment (LRE), whether or not the student has a disability or is different in any way. The LRE mandate directs that students with disabilities should be taught and included in the general education classroom whenever appropriate. This mandate is widely supported by parents, school professionals, researchers, and advocates (Pacer Center, 2009; Ysseldyke et al., 2000). It is important to note that effective inclusive education requires sustained contact between the pedagogical specialists (special education teachers) and content specialists (general education teachers). The success of an inclusive program cannot be entirely placed on the school system itself; some pressure must also be placed on the individual teacher to do his/her part in making inclusion successful. Both special and general educators must be prepared to deal with students with disabilities. General and special educators plan and implement the curriculum and, together, they provide support to students with and without disabilities who need assistance. We know that inclusive education was popularized just over 20 years ago, and the benefits of this reform effort far outweigh its problems. Clearly, inclusive classrooms buttress the collaboration of general and special educators, especially when it comes to providing the best education to all students. School principals are responsible for leading, designing, managing, and implementing programs for all students, regardless of disability status. Additional research needs to be done to discover the most effective methods to implement this form of education. Successful inclusion is dependent on the amount of support given to classroom teachers, students, and parents. To make this inclusion effective, and thus successful, the general education curriculum should be modified to meet the diverse needs of all students. And professional development must be provided to help teachers acquire the skills necessary to teach and successfully meet the needs of this diverse group of students.

References Avramidis, E. & Norwich, B. ( 2002 ). Teacher’s attitudes towards integration/inclusion: A review of the literature. Special Needs Education, 17, 129 –147. Bateman, D. E., Bright, K. L., O’Shea, D. J., O’Shea, L. J., & Algozzine, B. ( 2007 ). The special education program administrator’s handbook. Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc. Blanco, R. (1999 ). Towards schools for all with the involvement of all. In BULLETIN 44, December 1997, The major project of education (pp. 80 – 84 ). Paris : UNESCO. Broderick, A., Mehta-Parekh, H., & Reid, D. K. ( 2005). Differentiating instruction for disabled students in inclusive classrooms. Theory Into Practice, 44, 194 –202 . Buell, M. J., Hallam, R., Gamel-McCormick, M., & Scheer, S. (1999 ). A survey of general and special education teachers’ perceptions and inservice needs concerning inclusion. International Journal of Disability, Development And Education, 46, 143 –56. Burstein, N., Sears, S., Wilcoxen, A., Cabello, B., & Spagna, M. ( 2004 ). Moving toward inclusive practices. Remedial and Special Education, 25, 104 –116. Campbell, P., Wang, A., & Algozzine, B. ( 2010 ). 55 tactics for implementing RTI in inclusive settings. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Carter, N., Prater, M. A., & Dyches, T. T. ( 2009 ). What every teacher should know about making accommodations and adaptations for students with mild to moderate disabilities. Upper Saddle River, N.J : Pearson. Daane, C. J., Beirne-Smith, M., & Latham, D. ( 2000 ). Administrators’ and teachers’ perceptions of the collaborative efforts of inclusion in the elementary grades. Education, 121, 331–338. 474

Students with High Incidence Disabilities

Donovan, M. & Cross, C. ( 2002 ). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington DC : National Academy Press. Dyches, T. T., Carter, J. J., & Prater, M. A. ( 2011). A teacher’s guide to communicating with parents: Practical strategies for developing successful relationships. Upper Saddle River, N.J : Pearson. Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq. (1975). Fisher, M. ( 2011). We’re all in this together: Identifying meaningful outcomes for K-6 students of teacher candidates. Teacher Education & Special Education, 34, 152 –175. Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. ( 2003 ). What do special educators need to know and be prepared to do for inclusive schooling to work? Teacher Education and Special Education, 26, 42 –50. Florian, L. & Linklater, H. ( 2010 ). Preparing teachers for inclusive education: Using inclusive pedagogy to enhance teaching and learning for all. Cambridge Journal of Education, 40, 369 –386. Henderson, B. ( 2011). The blind advantage: How going blind made me a stronger principal and how including children with disabilities made our school better for everyone. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. ( 2013 ). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. Journal of Special Education, 46, 245 –256. doi: 10.1177/0022466910390507 Horner, R. H., Crone, D.A., & Stiller, B. ( 2001). The role of school psychologists in establishing positive behavior support: Collaborating in systems change at the school-wide level. NASP Communique, 29 ( 6 ). Retrieved from www.nasponline.org/publications/cq/cq296pbs.aspx Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., & Lewis, P.T. ( 2005). School- wide PBS evaluation template. Eugene, OR: University of Oregon. Idol, L. ( 2006 ). Toward inclusion of special education students in general education. Remedial & Special Education, 27, 77–94. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (1990, 1991, 1997, 1999). 20 USC §1400 et. seq. (statute); 34 CFR 300 (regulations), Regulations Implementing IDEA (1997) (Federal Register, 1999, March 12, 1999, vol. 64, no. 48). Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. ( 2004 ). IDEA 2004 news, information and resources. Retrieved from www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html Janney, R. E. & Snell, M. E. ( 2006 ). Modifying schoolwork in inclusive classrooms. Theory into Practice, 45, 215 –223. Jordan, A., Schwartz, E., & McGhie-Richmond, D. ( 2009 ). Preparing teachers for inclusive classrooms. Teaching and Teacher Education: An International Journal of Research and Studies, 25, 535 –542 . Lipsky D.K. & Gartner, A. (1997 ). Inclusion and school reform: Transforming America’s classrooms. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes. Losen, D. & Orfield, G. ( 2002 ). Racial inequality in special education. Cambridge, MA: The Civil Rights Project, Harvard Education Publishing Group. McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. L. ( 2002 ). School change and inclusive schools: Lessons learned from practice. Phi Delta Kappan, 84 (1), 65 –72 . McLeskey, J. & Waldron, N. ( 2006 ). Comprehensive school reform and inclusive schools: Improving schools for all students. Theory into Practice, 45, 269 –278. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. ( 2002 ). Public Law No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425, 2002 U.S.C. Obiakor, F. E. (1999 ). Teacher expectations of minority exceptional learners: Impact of “accuracy” of self- concepts. Exceptional Children, 66, 39 –53. Obiakor, F. E., Harris, M., Mutua, K., Rotatori, A., & Algozzine, B. ( 2012 ). Making inclusion work in general education classrooms. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 477– 490. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Nguyen, N. ( 2001). Impact of sociodemographic characteristics on the identification rates of minority students as having mental retardation. Mental Retardation, 39, 351–367. Oswald, D. P., Coutinho, M. J., Best, A. M., & Singh, N. N. (1999 ). Ethnic representation in special education. Journal of Special Education, 32, 194 –206. Pacer Center. ( 2009 ). Least restrictive environment: A simplifi ed guide to key legal requirements. Minneapolis, MN: Author. Retrieved from www.pacer.org/parent/php/php- c7.pdf Perner, J. (1991). Understanding the representational mind. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press. Polat, F. ( 2010 ). Inclusion in education: A step towards social justice. International Journal of Educational Development, 31 (1), 50 –58. Praisner, C. L. ( 2003 ). Attitudes of elementary school principals toward the inclusion of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 135 –145. 475

F.E. Obiakor, C.A. Utley, T. Banks, et al.

Samuels, C. A. ( 2011, March). RTI: An instructional approach expands its reach. Education Week, p. 9. Schrag, J. A. ( 2003 ). No Child Left Behind and its implications for students with disabilities. The Special Edge, 16 ( 2 ), 1, 10 –12 . Scruggs, T. E. & Mastropieri, M. A. (1996 ). Teacher perceptions of mainstreaming/inclusion, 1958–1995: A research synthesis. Exceptional Children, 63, 59 –74 Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (in press). The color of discipline: Sources of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review. ( http://www.indiana. edu/~safeschl/cod.pdf ) Skiba, R. J., Peterson, R. L., & Williams, T. (1997 ). Office referrals and suspension: Disciplinary intervention in middle schools. Education and Treatment of Children, 20, 295 –315. Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & McCulley, L. ( 2012 ). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co-teaching. Psychology In The Schools, 49, 498 –510. Soodak, L. C. ( 2003 ). Classroom management in inclusive settings. Theory into Practice, 42, 327–333. Thurlow, M. L., Elliott, J. L., & Ysseldyke, J. E. ( 2002 ). Testing students with disabilities: Practical strategies for complying with district and state requirements ( 2nd ed). Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin. Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. ( 2011). Culturally responsive practices for culturally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9 (1 ), 5 –18. U.S. Department of Education. (1995). Seventeenth annual report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Washington, DC : Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department of Education. ( 2005). Twenty-sixth annual (2004) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (Volume 1). Washington, DC : Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department of Education. ( 2012 ). Thirty-first annual (2004) report to Congress on the implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2009 Washington, DC : Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs. Vaughn, S. & Fuchs, L. ( 2003 ). Redefi ning learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 18, 137–146. Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. ( 2003 ). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69, 391– 409. Vaughn, S., Mathes, P., Linan-Thompson, S., & Frances, D. J. ( 2005). Teaching English language learners at risk for reading disabilities to read: Putting research into practice. Learning Disabilities: Research & Practice, 20, 58 – 67. Vellutino, F. R., Scanlon, D. M., Small, S., & Fanuele, D. ( 2003, December). Response to intervention as a vehicle for distinguishing between reading disabled and non-reading disabled children: Evidence for the role of kindergarten and first grade intervention. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. Villa, R. A. & Thousand, J. S. ( 2003 ). Making inclusive education work. Educational Leadership, 61 ( 2 ), 19 –23. Voltz, D. L. & Collins, L. ( 2010 ). Preparing special education administrators for inclusion in diverse, standards-based contexts: Beyond the Council for Exceptional Children and the Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33, 70 – 82 . Wright, P. W. D. & Wright, P. D. ( 2007 ). Special education law ( 2nd ed.). Hartfield, VA : Harbor House Law Press, Inc. Wright, P. & Wright, P. ( 2009 ). Least restrictive environment and FAPE. Retrieved from www.wrightslaw. com/advoc/articles/idea.lre.fape.htm Ysseldyke, J. E., Algozzine, B., & Thurlow, M. L. ( 2000 ). Critical issues in special education. Boston : Houghton Miffl in. Zhang, D. & Katsiyannis, A. ( 2002 ). Minority representation in special education: A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 180 –187.

476

34 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Effective Inclusive Elementary Schools for Students with Extensive Support Needs? Melinda Mitchiner,1 Amy McCart,1 Elizabeth Kozleski,1 Holly Sweeney,1 and Wayne Sailor1

Setting the Stage In this chapter, we examine emerging trends and future directions for effective, inclusive elementary schools within a comprehensive framework for schoolwide reform. We begin with a brief historical perspective which provides a look at phases of educational reform since the passing of PL 94-142 in 1975. Next, we consider the emergence of key educational practices required for the development of inclusive education, including the use of universal design for learning (UDL) strategies and multi-tiered systems of support with embedded response to intervention (MTSS/RTI) that includes schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS). We then elaborate and discuss a particular model of inclusive schoolwide reform which has been implemented in several of the lowest performing schools across the United States with promising results. Finally, as an example of a prominent emerging trend, we conclude with an examination of the proposed work of the new Office of Special Education (OSEP)-funded National Center on Schoolwide, Inclusive School Reform, called the Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center, awarded to the authors at the University of Kansas and operational as of October 15, 2012 to run for five years.

Historical Perspective and Current Practices Prior to 1975, over four million children considered to have disabilities received either an inadequate or inappropriate education, and in many cases were completely excluded from

1 National Technical Assistance Center on Schoolwide Inclusive School Reform: The SWIFT Center at the University of Kansas 477

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

their public schools and participation in mainstream community life ( Jackson, Ryndak, Wehmeyer, 2010; Pulliam & Van Patten, 2006). With the enactment of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) in 1975, a small, but important shift began to take place. For students with extensive support needs, then referred to as “severely handicapped students” or “students with severe disabilities,” the right to a free, appropriate public education in the least restrictive environment (LRE) became a policy outcome. However, the law contained other competing provisions that allowed local and state education agencies to continue to provide segregated classrooms and special schools, where students often learned to complete routinized meaningless tasks described as “functional skills” training, as well as pre-vocational skills such as sorting, matching, and counting that were intended to lead to repetitive, lowskilled adult jobs in assembly-line piecework. This left multiple generations of children with disabilities without access to instructional opportunities in reading, writing, mathematics, history, science, and other academic content areas. Educational reform for children requiring specialized supports and services followed four distinct phases: (1) mainstreaming; (2) the “regular education initiative”; (3) inclusion; and (4) inclusionary schoolwide reform (Turnbull, Turnbull, Wehmeyer & Shogren, 2013). In the 1970s, mainstreaming students considered to have disabilities provided opportunities to move students into general education classrooms, although they were typically involved in non-academic content. These students had access to the general education classroom alongside their nondisabled peers to “the maximum extent appropriate,” which entailed, at best, minimal opportunities to interact and learn alongside typical peers. When the provision of adequate supports and services for a student seemed too challenging for the classroom, students were returned to more restrictive, segregated settings (Kavale & Forness, 2000). The 1980s brought the Regular Education Initiative (REI), introduced by former Assistant Secretary of Education Madeline Will. REI provided a unified approach to supporting students with extra support needs, specifically by asking general educators to assume a greater role in their education (Gartner & Lipsky, 1987). Numerous assumptions drove the REI. Special instruction was considered unnecessary in many cases, suggesting that students shared more similarities than differences, so that competent general education teachers could address students both with and without special needs (Kavale & Forness, 2000). Further, special education categories were deemed unnecessary because all students could be provided a quality education without their use, eliminating the discrimination and inequality that were inherent in education provided in segregated settings (Wang, Reynolds, & Walberg, 1988). However, this initiative was eventually considered a failure because the special education community failed to engage general educators, who continued to live in “blissful ignorance” of REI (Sailor, 2002). In the 1990s, the term “inclusion” surfaced in special education literature as an approach to placing and supporting students with support needs together with nondisabled peers in age-appropriate general education classrooms (Sailor, Gee, & Karasoff, 1993). During this period students who experienced inclusion often attended their neighborhood school, defi ned as the school they would have attended if nondisabled. As inclusion surfaced, some advocates in the special education community felt that all students, no matter how extensive their support needs, should be included full-time in general education. This became known as “full inclusion,” and concentrated on the social development of students with significant support needs rather than on their academic requirements and performance (Sapon-Shevin, 1996). The term “inclusive education,” which appeared in the literature at about the same time, extended the focus beyond the individual child (Artiles, Kozleski, Dorn, & Christensen, 478

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

2007). Inclusive education is more than simply physical inclusion in the general education classroom. With inclusive education, the unit of analysis becomes the whole school (Hehir & Katzman, 2012; Sailor & Roger, 2005). In inclusive environments, students experience classrooms and facilities that are accessible, and are in accordance with a school community culture that is welcoming and moves “beyond tolerance to acceptance” (Peters, 2007, p. 99). Additionally, in inclusive schools, services and supports are provided in such a way that there is a benefit for all students, not just those involved with special education (Sailor, 2009). In a recent report of 18 studies investigating placement of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings, inclusion was significantly favored over separate placement (Canadian Council on Learning, 2009). In fact, placement of students with disabilities into separate schools, separate classes, and pull- out programs has decreased significantly over the past two decades (McLeskey, Landers, Williamson, & Hoppey, 2012). Close to 95% of students with disabilities are being educated in general education settings for some portion of the school day, with 75% of those students receiving a combination of inclusion and pull- out resource services (U.S. Department of Education, 2013). Unfortunately, this often does not include students with extensive support needs, who remain for the most part in self-contained classrooms and other separate settings away from general education, with special educators who have little contact with the general education curriculum providing their instruction (Furney, Hasazi, Clark-Keefe, & Harnett, 2003; Jackson et al., 2010; Lombardi, 1999). For these children, the level of inclusion continues to remain low. Less than one-fi fth, or 20%, of students with severe disabilities are included in grade-level or content classes for at least 80% of the day (National Center for Educational Statistics, 2013).

Emerging Trends and Future Directions To make a meaningful difference in providing inclusive education for students with the most extensive support needs, an approach is required that maximizes evidence-based practices and is driven by a fully integrated framework for education guided by teams made up of both general and special educators working collaboratively, and implemented in a manner that results in measurable gains for all students, including all subgroups (Sailor, 2009). We describe this framework later in this chapter. Here, we begin with a discussion of the following emerging trends that support the development of effective inclusive elementary schools for students with extensive support needs: universal design for learning (UDL), schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS), and multi-tiered systems of support with embedded response to intervention (MTSS/RTI).

Universal Design for Learning (UDL) The use of inclusive educational practices for students with extensive support needs has been associated with increased academic, social, and developmental outcomes (Copeland & Cosbey, 2009; Wehmeyer, Lattin, Lapp-Rincker, & Agran, 2003). Through the use of educational supports such as UDL, both the teaching process and the learning process for students are enhanced (Center for Applied Special Technology, 2011). UDL provides a framework that is scientifically valid and allows flexibility in how information is presented, so that it matches the needs of the learner. With UDL, barriers are removed and access to the general education curriculum is facilitated through a) providing multiple means of representation (content); b) multiple means of expression (product); and c) multiple means 479

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

of student engagement (process) (Curry, 2003). Introducing educational supports into general education classrooms through accommodations for students with a variety and range of support needs provides a direct benefit not only for students with severe disabilities, but for general education students as well (Lenz, Deshler, & Kissam, 2004; Luiselli, Putnam, & Handler, 2005; Manset & Semmel, 1997; Sailor, McCart, & Choi, 2012). When UDL strategies such as innovative uses of technology are implemented by effective educators, higher levels of student academic performance are achieved through instruction designed and planned to meet each student’s specific learning needs, thus allowing all students to experience greater success in the general education classroom (Curry, 2003).

Schoolwide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (SWPBIS) SWPBIS is defi ned as “a decision-making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of the best evidence-based academic and behavioral practices for improving important academic and behavior outcomes for all students” (National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support, 2012, p. 1). SWPBIS has evolved from work dating back to the 1980s, when researchers became interested in developing an approach to dealing pedagogically with difficult, atypical behavior through careful scientific study (Dunlap, Sailor, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). The ultimate goal with SWPBIS is to improve the social climate of the school through universal applications to all students (tier one), as well as to make it available to professionals who serve individuals whose behavior impedes their learning process, so that they have strategies for teaching socially appropriate behavior to replace the problematic behavior (tiers two and three). SWPBIS is thus designed to provide support for the behavioral, emotional, and social needs of all students in a school utilizing a multi-tiered approach (Sugai & Horner, 2009). SWPBIS focuses on providing support for all students, at varying levels of intensity depending on their need for instructional support. Universal supports are provided for all children, with additional support added for children who are at risk for problem behavior, and intensive support provided for children who exhibit ongoing, persistent problem behavior. Implementation of SWPBIS has been increasing annually in schools across the United States such that, at the time of this writing, more than 18,000 U.S. schools are engaged in implementation (National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support, 2012).

Response to Intervention (RTI) RTI has emerged as an approach that offers screening, progress monitoring, and three tiers of increasingly intensive intervention for academics, particularly for reading acquisition. RTI offers evidence-based supplementary data, that, when added to psycho- educational test results, provides a fi rm basis for eligibility determination for special education services (National Center on Response to Intervention, 2010; Schumaker & Deshler, 2010) when a disability is suspected. RTI in its various forms (including multi-tiered systems of support [MTSS], subsequently described) is rapidly gaining momentum in application from preschool through high school (Sailor, Doolittle, Bradley, & Danielson, 2009). With the re-authorization of IDEA in 2004, language requiring the significant discrepancy formula for learning disabilities classification based on IQ scores (called “IQ discrepancy”) was removed. School districts were subsequently allowed to use alternative models for identification, including RTI. Since that time, several different models of RTI have been 480

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

introduced into the literature (Mellard, Stern, & Woods, 2011). However, two models exist which are most widely recognized: standard protocol and problem-solving RTI (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010). Standard protocol RTI utilizes a process of assessment and intervention to monitor student progress systematically in order to make decisions about the need for instructional modifications for increasingly intensified services based on progress monitoring data ( Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006). In standard protocol RTI, decisions are made and evidence-based interventions are selected and implemented under rigorous evaluation conditions so that a determination can be made regarding the most efficient way to assist students to progress in the grade-level curriculum. Problem- solving RTI, on the other hand, involves having a school-based team consider student performance (“progress monitoring”) data to (a) identify and defi ne learning problems, (b) develop interventions to solve those problems, and (c) evaluate the effects of the interventions on the defi ned problem or problems. Where standard protocol RTI provides specific interventions based on progress monitoring data, the problem- solving approach leaves the nature of the intervention to be selected to the judgment of the team of professionals. Common features, as well as significant distinctions, exist between the two models. Features shared by both models include effective high- quality general education instruction, universal schoolwide screening, frequent progress monitoring for those determined on the basis of screening to be at risk, and three tiers of evidence-based interventions carried out with fidelity ( Johnson et al., 2006). A major difference lies in the perception of each model’s primary purpose. Fuchs et al. (2010) identified two large, loosely configured camps, which they referred to as the “Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) group” and the “No Child Left Behind (NCLB) group.” They suggested that the two groups hold different perspectives regarding the nature and purpose of RTI in the context of special education by arguing that the “IDEA group” uses RTI for the promotion of early intervention and disability identification, while the “NCLB group” believes that RTI emphasizes early intervention through a reformed system of service delivery which seeks to unify general and special education. Sailor (2009) characterized standard protocol RTI as “special education RTI” because it is used to determine the eligibility of students to receive a diagnosis of a disability and thus become eligible for services under IDEA. It is seen as a more scientifically advanced process than IQ discrepancy for identifying the presence of a learning disability, placing emphasis on identifiable limitations that are a characteristic of the individual child (the disability) rather than focusing on environmental contributions to the problems in learning. Problem- solving RTI, on the other hand, often applied schoolwide to all students, is considered “general education RTI” because the focus is shifted more to the context in which limitations arise. As schools move forward with effective, inclusive education, a framework that incorporates features of both standard protocol and schoolwide applications of problem-solving RTI is emerging. This broader, more balanced framework will enable all students to receive maximum educational benefit. Called multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS), this schoolwide application of problem- solving RTI enables the conceptual framework of RTI to be extended to all students. Since there is a much slimmer evidence base for schoolwide applications, standard-protocol interventions are not yet feasible for the general education population, but remain feasible for the determination of eligibility for special education 481

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

services and supports. So, under these emerging frameworks, RTI is embedded within the broader framework of MTSS, hence the term MTSS/RTI. One example of the employment of MTSS/RTI as a framework for school reform is the Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) (Sailor, 2009; Sailor & Roger, 2005; Sailor et al., 2006). This model is being field tested in the Ravenswood City School District in East Palo Alto, California (10 schools) and the Washington, DC School District (15 schools). SAM, over time, permits the phasing- out of self- contained special education classrooms as students with varying levels of support needs are served in a variety of school (and sometimes community) environments in accordance with tiered intervention strategies. Further, the model permits collaborative teaching opportunities involving general and special educators in accordance with a detailed schedule of schoolwide activities. Another emerging model, just funded by the Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) as this chapter was being written, is the National Technical Assistance Center on Schoolwide, Inclusive School Reform, called the SWIFT (Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation) Center. The activities of this Center will be directed to the provision of technical assistance to numerous schools across several states (as yet to be identified as of this writing) over the period of fall 2013 to fall 2017.

Future Directions: Addressing the Problem and Improving Practice In this section, we describe the SWIFT Theory of Change model and resultant expected outcomes in some detail as a likely, high-profi le example of the emerging trend toward the provision of schoolwide inclusive educational supports and services. Initially the SWIFT Theory of Change, which is based on six key issues for school reform is described. This is followed by a description of twelve organizational features that are linked to the six key issues which will be explored. Finally, we describe the inclusive operations of an effective, inclusive elementary school.

The SWIFT Theory of Change SWIFT Key Issues for School Reform To begin, chronically low-performing public schools face many challenges and critical issues. The SWIFT Theory of Change model considers six issues to be critical: 1) fragmented supports and lack of family engagement; 2) achievement gap; 3) student engagement and behaviors that impede learning; 4) lack of implementation with fidelity of evidence-based interventions; 5) lack of sustainability and replication; and 6) lack of knowledge- sharing and resource availability. Fragmented Supports and Lack of Family Engagement. In chronically low-performing public schools, much needed resources are often encapsulated in specialized programs devoted to only a few students. States and districts attempt to enforce change by offering incentives, yet low-performing schools continue to produce low-performing students (Stuit, 2012). When families are not involved with the school, the risk of disengagement from learning is greater for the child. To address this, school leadership and staff must integrate and focus all school resources for the benefit of all students with parent engagement and community involvement seen as priority efforts to be supported (Bryk, Bender-Sebring, Allensworth, Luppescu, & Easton, 2010; Turnbull et al., 2010). Additionally, leadership at the state and district levels must work collaboratively to help the schools experience success that is sustained over time. 482

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

In schools undergoing a MTSS/RTI transformative process, such as that offered through SWIFT, current special classroom teaching practices are replaced. In addition, schoolwide and district level policies and practices change because principals, local education agency (LEA), and state education agency (SEA) administrators understand and come to value and support an integrated system approach to school reform. Achievement Gap. Despite actions at the state and federal level over the past 35 years to close the achievement gap for students with disabilities, educational outcomes have not improved significantly. For students on the cusp of receiving average scores there has been some benefit. However, for those students who were most behind, no benefit has been seen (Manna, 2008). To improve outcomes and close the measured achievement gap between students with mild, moderate, and intensive support needs and their grade-level peers, a very specific focus on increasing contact with grade-level peers and the grade-level curriculum is necessary. Student Engagement and Behavior that Impedes Learning. Student misconduct and behavior that impedes learning infect chronically low-performing schools (Luiselli et al., 2005; Warren et al., 2003). Lowered test performance and lost classroom instructional time result from office discipline referrals that include detentions, suspensions, and expulsions (Kerr & Valenti, 2009). Through a transformation process embodied in the SWIFT change model, this behavior is addressed through three tiers of intervention using schoolwide positive behavioral interventions and support (Dunlap et al., 2009). Lack of Implementation with Fidelity of Evidence-Based Interventions. Academic and social gains cannot be guaranteed by simply including students with extensive support needs in the general education classroom. Targeted evidence and research-based interventions, which are consistent with an MTSS/RTI framework, must be implemented with fidelity by teachers and staff in order for schools to experience academic and social benefits (Aladjem & Borman, 2006). A logical system must be in place in schools for collecting and analyzing data, sharing information and monitoring implementation, coaching district- and school-based staff, engaging families, and making decisions to support implementation (Irvin, Tobin, Sprague, Sugai, & Vincent, 2004). Lack of Sustainability and Replication. Fullan (2007) tells us that to produce educationally and socially significant benefits, interventions implemented with fidelity must be scaled-up for use at the district and state levels. Technical assistance that is specific and targeted to building capacity at the level of SEAs and LEAs must accompany schoolwide efforts to ensure a spread of effect and sustainability of transformed schools. Additionally, infrastructures must be developed to support implementation of MTSS/RTI, including SEA regional administrative and support teams, as well as support teams at the local level (Fixsen, Blasé, Horner, & Sugai, 2009). Lack of Knowledge-Sharing and Resource Availability. The absence of an effective avenue of communication and dissemination is problematic for both transfer of new knowledge from research to practice and sustainability of implementation (Galanouli & Collins, 2000; Hiss, 2004; Thorpe, 2008; Welsh, Wanberg, Brown & Simmering, 2003). To address this issue the SWIFT Center will work in partnership with other national centers to offer direct evidencebased information on effective supports for educators, families, and students with disabilities. This will be done in an effort to engage (in new ways) a community of professionals, families, and students focused directly on improving academic and social success through inclusive schoolwide reform. 483

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

SWIFT Organizational Features of Effective Inclusive Schools Embedded within the six critical features of the SWIFT Theory of Change are twelve evidence-based organizational features. These organizational features are designed to increase student academic outcomes, particularly for students with extensive support needs. When these organizational features are addressed holistically, a decrease in the achievement gap for all students with significant support needs becomes possible through school, and ultimately, through district cultural transformation. Each of these features are described below and in Table 34.1. Strong and engaged site leadership that is committed to inclusive educational processes is essential for transformation with sustainability as schools move from traditional organizational arrangements to MTSS/RTI-driven, inclusive, schoolwide systems (Burrello, Hoffman, & Murray, 2005; Marzano, Waters, & McNulty, 2005). The process of transformation is greatly dependent upon the quality and commitment of leadership at the school level, but also at the district and state levels. To achieve lasting change and transformation, and for teaching staff

Table 34.1 Elements of a Transformed Inclusive Elementary School SWIFT school features

What SWIFT will look like in a transformed school

A strong and engaged site leadership committed to SWIFT processes

• Under direction of the principal, the Leadership Team (LT) supports the school’s vision and promotes a clearly articulated schoolwide focus on systems and practices. • The LT fosters distributed leadership by utilizing staff-driven committees to problem solve, design and implement SWIFT systems and practices. • The LT uses and analyzes multiple sources of school data and fidelity tools to monitor SWIFT systems and practices, set goals and follow through on implementation. • The LT supports the use of non-categorical lexicon through policy and by example to describe both personnel and teaching/learning functions. • The LT applies active processes to remove barriers to the implementation of SWIFT.

An evidence-based curriculum taught with fidelity

• The school uses an evidence-based curriculum taught with fidelity that utilizes multi-tiered systems of support including response to intervention (MTSS/RTI) with evidenced-based tools with embedded UDL practices. • Direct and explicit instruction is used to maximize the amount of time students are actively engaged in the learning process.

All instruction is delivered through a schoolwide, multi-tiered, system of supports

• The school ensures screening and frequent progress monitoring using reliable and valid benchmark assessments, curriculum-based measures and grade-level annual assessments. • Tier 2 and tier 3 interventions are in place to supplement core instruction for both reading and math. • Co-teaching practices, flexible grouping, and differentiated instruction strategies are utilized. • Curricular and/or schedule adaptations and modifications are used as needed for students with extensive support needs enabling them to participate and be academically engaged.

484

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Citizenship, social development, and behavior as legitimate teaching objectives at all levels (e.g., SWPBIS)

• The school has established positively stated schoolwide behavioral expectations. • All school staff and students actively teach and model these expectations. • The school has a positive and friendly climate where all students and adults are treated with respect. • The school has evidence-based tier 2 and 3 intensive, individualized interventions in place for behavior support. • The school experiences a significant decrease in the number of disciplinary actions for students with high needs and increased student involvement in all extra-curricular school activities. • The school has effective bully prevention and utilizes culturally responsive practices.

Community-school approach

• An active partnership exists between school and district staff on the one hand (“professionals”) and families, family associations, and businesses (“family and community partners”) on the other. • Positive working partnerships exist with families that encourage active family support of social and academic achievement strategies within the school. • Parents are school-leadership partners and work to link families and communities together in meaningful ways. • The school assesses parent satisfaction and empowers families to communicate and set top priority goals for school improvement resulting in an action plan by the LT.

A strong teacher-support system

• Teachers are supported through grade-level teams, instructional coaching and facilitative instructional leadership to provide constructive feedback to help them to become successful. • Teachers serve on the LT so teacher perspectives are included in problem solving and decision making.

A fully integrated organizational structure

• The school has an organizational structure that discourages formation of silos and facilitates collaborative teaching at all grades, all levels of intervention. • All students at the school are considered general education students and general education teachers assume responsibility for all students. • The LT ensures a structured system of collaboration between support and grade level teachers. • The school experiences a significant increase in the number of students with disabilities (including those with extensive needs) having exposure to and engagement with meaningful instruction in integrated, grade-level settings. • The school provides structures and strategies to promote peer support and involvement for students with IEPs.

A schoolwide, data-based decision model

• The school LT ensures the use of an established data driven decision-making process (i.e., a Dashboard facilitated by the SWIFT Center) to design and monitor interventions that are consistently followed. • Data driven systems are embedded in the practices of the school and are part of the school culture. (Continued )

485

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

SWIFT school features

What SWIFT will look like in a transformed school

A community of practice that includes all school personnel

• All personnel at the school (e.g., security personnel, paraprofessionals, psychologists, secretaries) are part of a community of practice such that they participate in the teaching/learning process and are valued for their respective contributions to pupil academic and social outcomes.

A professional learning community of teachers

• Teachers regularly seek professional development to improve their practice and are responsive to team recommendations and coaching. • All teachers have knowledge and skills to implement inclusive schoolwide reform. • Rigorous and reliable teaming processes are used to ensure effective problem-solving.

A policy framework at the school, district, state, and federal levels that is fully aligned

• The policy framework includes the use of common core standards and related assessment and curricula. • Interventions are scaled up for use at the district and state levels. • Technical assistance that is specific and targeted to building capacity at the level of state education agencies (SEAs) and local education agencies (LEAs) accompanies schoolwide efforts to ensure a spread of effect and sustainability of transformed schools. • Infrastructures are developed to support implementation of MTSS/RTI including SEA regional administrative and support teams, as well as support teams at the local level.

Strong supportive relationship between school and district office

• School resource decisions become a matter of trust and mutual respect. • School administration and faculty are supported at the district level.

to believe in and support the process, it is necessary for the Principal to be philosophically committed, as well as knowledgeable regarding inclusive educational practices (Fritz & Miller, 1995). An evidence-based curriculum, taught with fidelity at each grade level (e.g., O’Donnell, 2008), is essential. It is also necessary to have all instruction delivered through a schoolwide, multitiered system of support including response to intervention (MTSS/RTI) with embedded UDL practices and evidence-based evaluation tools (e. g., Sailor, 2009). Citizenship, social development, and behavior are also essential and are thus included within MTSS/RTI as legitimate teaching objectives at all levels (e.g., SWPBIS) (i.e., Durlak, Weissber, Dymnickis, Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). A community-school approach where a partnership between school and district staff as “professionals” on the one hand and families, family associations, and businesses as “family and community partners” on the other hand ensures active participation by all partners in schoolreform activities (Lawson & Sailor, 2000). A strong teacher-support system that utilizes gradelevel teams, coaches, and facilitative instructional leadership, and provides constructive feedback to assist teachers to become successful is another critical feature of the MTSS/RTI process (e.g., Bedell & Burrello, 2006). Further, a fully integrated organizational structure that dissuades formation of “silos” and facilitates collaborative teaching at all grades and at all levels of intervention is necessary (e.g., Hang & Rabren, 2009). In this structure, general and special educators work collaboratively to provide support for all students. Students may be supported while working in collaborative 486

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

groups, or some students may receive small group support while others are engaged in large group instruction. In all cases, general and special education teachers work collaboratively to meet each student’s needs (McLeskey, Waldron, & Redd, in press). A schoolwide, data-based decision model is needed that relies on the collection of reliable and valid behavioral and academic data to guide interventions applied to all students in all MTSS/ RTI tiers (e.g., Lane, Oakes, & Menzies, 2010; Newton, Horner, Algozzine, Todd, & Algozzine, 2009). The decision-making model makes data available to grade-level teams and other decision makers, enhances interpretation, and suggests continuous improvement actions (e.g., Bajzek, Brown, Lovett & Rule, 2007). In a school implementing inclusive education, a community of practice that includes all school personnel (e.g., secretaries, security personnel, paraprofessionals, psychologists, custodians) in the teaching-learning process by encouraging the discovery and use of each team member’s talents in the educational endeavor is absolutely necessary (Wenger, 2000). A professional learning community of teachers is also essential. This learning community needs to include specialized teachers such as grade-level content specialists and others who are responsive to team recommendations and to coaching, and who regularly seek professional learning to improve their practice (e.g., Vescio, Ross, & Adams, 2008; McLeskey et al., in press). It is also essential to have a policy framework at the school, district, state, and federal levels that is fully aligned (i.e., common-core standards; assessments, curricula) and removes barriers to successful implementation (Kozleski & Smith, 2009). Finally, a strong and supportive relationship between individual schools and their district central offi ces through which school resource decisions can become a matter of trust and mutual respect is critical for transformation to an effective, inclusive school (Bryk et al., 2010).

Discussion and Conclusion In this chapter, we set out to examine emerging trends in providing inclusive educational opportunities to students requiring extensive supports and services to achieve a free and appropriate public education at the elementary school level. We began with a brief look at the history of inclusion efforts since the passage of PL 94-142. We examined some of the distinctions among various approaches to inclusion with their distinct terminologies and presented the case for using the term “inclusive education” as an ongoing framework. We briefly reviewed some of the most recent promising as well as evidence-based practices, including UDL, MTSS/RTI, and SWPBIS. Finally, we provided the extant theory of change of the newly-funded National Center on Schoolwide Inclusive School Reform funded to the University of Kansas and its partners. Called the SWIFT Center, this sizeable consortium will provide technical assistance to 64 schools across 16 districts within 4 states from October 2013 to October 2017. We reviewed the key issues to be addressed through technical assistance in order to achieve inclusive educational practices in elementary schools. We concluded with an examination of 12 organizational features that characterize the “fi nished product” of a school implementing inclusive education in accordance with the SWIFT model. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975, what we now know as the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), was crafted in a period of our nation’s history that can be characterized as the age of specialization. The human services professions, including medicine, were rapidly sub- dividing into highly specialized areas of service. Special education in this period chose to adopt a quasi-medical model for its service delivery system. Problems of learning were thought to be largely lodged within the individual and discrete 487

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

categories of disability (“handicap”) could be identified through diagnostic testing and services “prescribed” to be addressed to each child on the basis of categorical identification. Over time, this model has led to highly circumscribed service arrangements with separate classroom curricula, teachers, and expected outcomes. Four decades of research have suggested the need for a model that more clearly acknowledges the role of the environment in addressing problems of learning. Many of the problems associated with outcomes from the teaching/ learning process have turned out to affect a wider range of students than just those found eligible for IDEA supports and services. Inclusive school reform has become a much broader issue than asking general educators to accept “our” students in their grade-level classrooms. We are optimistic that the face of public education is beginning to change where equity issues are at stake. We are hopeful that movement away from a model of specialized, siloed services and toward blended systems of support, wherein measured problems of learning are addressed through appropriate instructional matches, will transform available resources and provision of designated services into a cohesive system where all kids benefit from all available services and technologies. The work of the SWIFT Center will be focused on assisting schools and their districts to bring about a system where all resources become available to, for, and so that all kids can benefit from all available services and technologies.

References Aladjem, D. K. & Borman, K. M. (Eds.). ( 2006 ). Examining comprehensive school reform. Washington, DC : Urban Institute Press. Artiles, A., Kozleski, E. B., Dorn, S., & Christensen, C. ( 2007 ). Learning in inclusive education research: Remediating theory and methods with a transformative agenda. Review of Research in Education, 30, 1–30. Bajzek, D., Brown, W., Lovett, M., & Rule, G. ( 2007 ). Inventing the Digital Dashboard for Learning. In C. Montgomerie & J. Seale (Eds.), Proceedings of World Conference on Educational Multimedia, Hypermedia and Telecommunications 2007 (pp. 1084 –1092 ). Chesapeake, VA: AACE. Bedell, C. P. & Burrello, L. C. ( 2006 ). A cultural shift toward distributed leadership. Journal of School Leadership, 16 ( 6 ), 740 –771. Bryk, A., Bender-Sebring, P., Allensworth, E., Luppescu, S., & Easton, J. ( 2010 ) Organizing schools for improvement: Lessons from Chicago. Chicago: University of Chicago Press. Burrello, L. C., Hoffman, L. P., & Murray, L. E. ( 2005). School leaders building capacity from within. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Canadian Council on Learning. ( 2009 ). Does placement matter? Comparing the academic performance of students with special needs in inclusive and separate settings. Retrieved from www.ccl- cca.ca/pdfs/ LessonsInLearning/03_18_09E.pdf Center for Applied Special Technology (CAST) ( 2011). Universal Design for Learning Guidelines version 2.0. Wakefield, MA: Author. Retrieved from www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/udlguidelines Copeland, S. R. & Cosbey, J. ( 2009 ). Making progress in the general curriculum: Rethinking effective instructional practices. Research and practice for persons with severe disabilities, 33/34 (4 ), 214 –227. Curry, C. ( 2003 ). Universal design accessibility for all learners. Educational Leadership, 61 ( 2 ), 55 – 60. Dunlap, G., Sailor, W., Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. ( 2009 ). Overview and history of positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.). Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 3 –16 ). New York: Springer. Durlak, J., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnickis, A., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. ( 2011). The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82 (1), 405 – 432 . Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (P.L. 94-142), 20 U.S.C. Sec. 1400(d). Fixsen, D. L., Blasé, K. A., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. ( 2009, February). Scaling-up evidence-based practices in education. Scaling-up Brief #1. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina, Frank Porter Graham Child Development Institute, State Implementation and Scaling Up of Evidence Based Practices (SISEP). Retrieved from www.fpg.unc.edu/‘sisep/docs/SISEP_Brief_1_ScalingUp_2009.pdf 488

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Fritz, M. F. & Miller, M. (1995). Challenges of the inclusive classroom: Roles and responsibilities. The struggle to implement inclusion. Contemporary Education, 66 (4 ), 211–214. Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., & Stecker, P. ( 2010 ). The blurring of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76 ( 3 ), 301–323. Fullan, M. ( 2007 ). The new meaning of educational change. (4th ed.). New York, NY: Teachers College Press. Furney, K. S., Hasazi, S. B., Clark-Keefe, K., & Hartnett, J. ( 2003 ). A longitudinal analysis of shifting policy landscapes in special and general education reform. Exceptional Children, 70 (1), 81–94. Galanouli, D. & Collins, J. ( 2000 ). Using unmediated computer conferencing to promote reflective practice and confidence-building in initial teacher education, Journal of Information Technology for Teacher Education, 9 ( 2 ), 237–254. Gartner, A. & Lipsky, D. K. (1987 ). Beyond special education: Toward a quality system for all students. Harvard Educational Review, 57, 367–395. Hang, Q. & Rabren, K. ( 2009 ). An examination of co-teaching: Perspectives and efficacy indicators. Remedial and Special Education, 30 ( 5), 259 –268. Hehir, T. & Katzman, L. ( 2012 ). Effective inclusive schools. Designing successful schoolwide programs. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass Hiss, R. G. ( 2004 ). Translational research—two phases of a continuum. In National Institutes for Health and the Center for Disease Control and Prevention (Ed.), From clinical trials to community: The science of translating diabetes and obesity research (pp. 11–14 ). Bethesda, MD : National Institutes of Health Irvin, L., Tobin, T., Sprague, J., Sugai, G., & Vincent, C. ( 2004 ). Validity of office discipline referral measures as indices of school-wide behavioral status and effects of school-wide behavioral interventions. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 6 ( 3 ), 131–147. Jackson, L., Ryndak, D., & Wehmeyer, M. ( 2010 ). The dynamic relationship between context, curriculum, and student learning: A case for inclusive education as a research-based practice. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 34 (1), 175 –195. Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. ( 2006 ). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS : National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Kavale, K. A. & Forness, S. R. ( 2000 ). What defi nitions of learning disability say and don’t say: A critical analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 33, 239 –256. Kerr, M. M. & Valenti, M. W. ( 2009 ). Controls from within the classroom: Crises or conversations ? Reclaiming Children and Youth, 17 (4 ), 30 –34. Kozleski, E. B. & Smith, A. ( 2009 ). The role of policy and systems change in creating equity for students with disabilities in urban schools. Urban Education, 44, 427– 451. Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., & Menzies, H. M. ( 2010 ). Systematic screenings to prevent the development of learning and behavior problems: Considerations for practitioners, researchers and policy makers. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 21 ( 3 ), 160 –172 . Lawson, H. & Sailor, W. ( 2000 ). Integrating services, collaborating, and developing connections with schools. Focus on Exceptional Children, 33 ( 2 ), 1–22 . Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., & Kissam, B. R. ( 2004 ). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston, MA: Pearson Education. Lombardi, T. P. (Ed.). (1999 ). Inclusion policy and practice. Bloomington, Indiana : Phi Delta Kappa Educational Foundation. Luiselli, J. K., Putnam, R. F., & Handler, M. W. ( 2005). Whole- school positive behavior support: Effects on student discipline problems and academic performance. Educational Psychology, 25 ( 2 –3 ), 183 –198. Manna, P. ( 2008 ). Federal aid to elementary and secondary education: Premises, effects, and major lessons learned (p. 61). Williamsburg, VA: College of William and Mary, Department of Government and the Thomas Jefferson Program in Public Policy. Manset, G. & Semmel, M. I. (1997 ). Are inclusive programs for students with mild disabilities effective? A comparative review of model programs. Journal of Special Education, 97 ( 31), 155 –180. Marzano, R. J., Waters, T., & McNulty, B. A. ( 2005). School leadership that works: From research to results. Alexandria, VA: ASCD. McLeskey, J., Landers, E., Williamson, P., & Hoppey, D. ( 2012 ). Are we moving toward educating students with disabilities in less restrictive settings ? Journal of Special Education, 46 ( 3 ), 131–140. doi:10.1177/0022466910376670 489

M. Mitchiner, A. McCart, E. Kozleski, et al.

McLeskey, J., Waldron, N., & Redd, L. (in press). A case study of a highly effective, inclusive elementary school. Journal of Special Education, Advance online publication. doi:10.1177/0022466912440455 Mellard, D., Stern, A., & Woods, K. ( 2011). RTI school-based practices and evidence-based models. Focus on Exceptional Children, 43 ( 6 ), 1–15. National Center for Educational Statistics ( 2013 ). Children and youth with disabilities. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cwd.asp National Center on Response to Intervention (2010, March). Essential components of RTI—A closer look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC : U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention. National Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavior Support ( 2012 ). What is school- wide positive behavioral interventions and supports? Retrieved October 5, 2012, from www.pbis.org Newton, J. S., Horner, R., Algozzine, B., Todd, A. W., & Algozzine, K. M. ( 2009 ). Using a problem- solving model to enhance data-based decision making in schools. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of Positive Behavior Support, (pp. 551–580 ). NY: Springer. O’Donnell, C. L. ( 2008 ). Defi ning, conceptualizing, and measuring fidelity of implementation and its relationship to outcomes in K–12 curriculum intervention research. Review of Educational Research, 78 (1), 38 – 84. Peters, S. J. ( 2007 ). “Education for all?” A historical analysis of international inclusive education policy and individuals with disabilities. Journal of Disability Policy Studies, 18 ( 2 ), 98 –108. Pulliam, J. & Van Patten, J. ( 2006 ). History of education in America. ( 9th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Prentice Hall. Sailor, W. ( 2002 ). Devolution, school/community/family partnerships, and inclusive education. In W. Sailor (Ed.). Whole school success and inclusive education: Building partnerships for learning, achievement, and accountability (pp. 7–25). New York: Teachers Press College. Sailor, W. ( 2009 ). Making RTI work. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. Sailor, W., Doolittle, J., Bradley, R., & Danielson, L. ( 2009 ). Response to intervention and positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, R. H. Horner, & G. Sugai ( 2009 ). Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 729 –754 ). New York: Springer. Sailor, W., Gee, K., & Karasoff, P. (1993 ). Full inclusion and school restructuring. In M. E. Snell, Instruction of students with severe disabilities (4th Ed.). New York: Charles Merrill Publishing Co. Sailor, W., McCart, A., & Choi, H. ( 2012 ). A comparison of academic outcomes and implementation of the schoolwide applications model in Washington DC. Department of Special Education, University of Kansas, Lawrence, KS. Sailor, W. & Roger, B. ( 2005). Rethinking inclusion: Schoolwide applications. The Phi Delta Kappan, 86 ( 7 ), 503 –509. Sailor, W., Zuna, N., Choi, J. H., Thomas, J., McCart, A., & Roger, B. ( 2006 ). Anchoring schoolwide positive behavior support in structured school reform. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31 (1), 18 –30. Sapon-Shevin, M. (1996 ). Full inclusion as disclosing tablet: Revealing the fl aws in our present system. Theory into Practice, 35 (1), 35 – 42 . Schumaker, J. B. & Deshler, D. D. ( 2010 ). Using a tiered intervention model in secondary schools to improve academic outcomes in subject- area courses. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI (pp. 609 – 632 ). Bethesda, MD : National Association of School Psychologists. Stuit, D. ( 2012 ). Turnaround and closure rates in the charter and district sectors. Journal of Education for Students Placed at Risk, 17 (1–2 ), 40 – 45. Sugai, G. & Horner, R. H. ( 2009 ). Defi ning and describing school-wide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior supports (pp. 307–326 ). New York: Springer. Thorpe, M. ( 2008 ). Effective online interaction: Mapping course design to bridge from research to practice. Australasian Journal of Educational Technology, 24 (1), 57–72 . Turnbull, A., Zuna, N., Hong, J., Hu, X., Kyzar, K., Obremski, S., Summers, J., et al. ( 2010 ). Knowledge-to-action guides. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42 ( 3 ), 42 – 63. Turnbull, A., Turnbull, H. R., Wehmeyer, M., & Shogren, K. ( 2013 ). Exceptional lives: Special education in today’s schools. ( 7th ed.). Upper Saddle River, NJ. Pearson. U.S. Department of Education ( 2013 ). Data Accountability Center. Retrieved from www.ideadata.org 490

Emerging Trends and Future Directions

Vescio, V., Ross, D., & Adams, A. ( 2008 ). A review of research on the impact of professional learning communities on teaching practice and student learning. Teaching and Teacher Education, 24 (1), 80 –91. Wang, M., Reynolds, M., & Walberg, H. (1988 ). Integrating children of the second system. Phi Delta Kappan, 70, 248 –251. Warren, J. S., Edmonson, H. M., Griggs, P., Lassen, S. R., McCart, A., Turnbull, A., & Sailor, W. ( 2003 ). Urban applications of school-wide positive behavior support: Critical issues and lessons learned. In L. M. Bambara, G. Dunlap, & I. S. Schwartz (Eds.), Positive behavior support: Critical articles on improving practice for individuals with severe disabilities (pp. 376 –387 ). Pro-Ed and TASH, Austin, Texas. Wehmeyer, M. L., Lattin, D. L., Lapp-Rincker, G., & Agran, M. ( 2003 ). Access to the general curriculum of middle school students with mental retardation: An observational study. Remedial and Special Education, 24 ( 5), 262 –272 . Welsh, E. T., Wanberg, C. R., Brown, K. G., & Simmering, M. J. ( 2003 ). E-learning: Emerging uses, empirical results and future directions. International Journal of Training and Development, 7, 245 –258. Wenger, E. ( 2000 ). Communities of practice and social learning systems. Organization, 7 ( 2 ), 225 –246.

491

35 What are Emerging Trends and Future Directions in Inclusive Secondary Schools? Paul Wehman,1 Carol Schall,1 Staci Carr,1 Pam Targett,1 and Michael West1

Setting the Stage There was a time in the not too distant past when inclusive high schools for youth with significant disabilities were unthought of, as special schools for “the handicapped” proliferated (Brown et al., 1989). Youth with significant disabilities were seen as learning better in small classes with other youth who had similar disabilities, and, administratively, it was viewed as more convenient to keep all of these students in the same building. Philosophically, a “separate but equal” mentality seemed to guide practice (Brown v. Board of Education, 1954). At the high school level, many students with and without disabilities often present a variety of behavioral challenges, and this contributed to the nature of segregated programs. Additionally, there are many more extracurricular activities that are available in secondary than in elementary schools, and these activities were not seen as appropriate for youth with disabilities. Within the past decade these perspectives on inclusion and related service delivery practices have begun to change (Spence-Cochran, Pearl, & Walker, 2013). Increasing numbers of youth with disabilities are being educated in high school classes with their nondisabled peers (Wehman, 2013). As so often happens when paradigms shift, those issues that were formerly seen as deterrents to inclusion are now presented as opportunities for growth and development. Restructuring efforts have been designed to: • • • •

Make schools more responsive to all students’ needs; Hold all students to high standards while recognizing that learning and development do not occur at the same rate for all students; Provide students with the skills to effectively participate in work and other aspects of life; Teach students the critical skills of collaboration and cooperation through modeling and discourse among students and between students and teachers.

1 Virginia Commonwealth University, Rehabilitation Research and Training Center, Richmond, Virginia 23284 492

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

Historical Perspectives and Current Trends Toward the Restructuring of High Schools Several factors have likely contributed to the increasing number of inclusive high schools that have been developed in recent years. First, research studies have demonstrated that students with disabilities who are educated in inclusive classrooms fare better academically and socially, are more likely to form friendships with peers without disabilities, and are more likely to be successful in employment and continuing education (Anderson, Yilmaz, & Washburn-Moses, 2004). Second, the precedent established by both legislation and litigation is also a compelling argument in support of inclusive educational practices. In 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court, in a unanimous decision in Brown v. Board of Education, ruled that school segregation was immoral and that it would “retard” the educational and moral development of those being segregated. This important ruling is often cited in cases involving protecting the rights of students with disabilities. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 (PL 94-142) was replaced by the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 1990 (PL 101-476), which was in turn amended in 1997 (PL 105-17) and reauthorized in 2004 (PL 108-446). This law establishes the legal framework for the provision of inclusive education as part of the Least Restrictive Environment mandate, which states that all students with disabilities are guaranteed an education in such an environment that: To the maximum extent appropriate, handicapped children, including those children in public and private institutions or other care facilities, are educated with children who are not handicapped, and special classes, separate schooling, or other removal of handicapped children from the regular educational environment occurs only when the nature or severity of the handicap is such that education in regular classes with the use of supplementary aids and services cannot be achieved satisfactorily. (PL 105-17, § 1412[5][b]). Third, youth with disabilities seem to form friendships with their peers better when they are in close physical proximity and have frequent opportunity to be together (Carter & Hughes, 2008). When students with disabilities are sent outside of their neighborhood to go to schools and receive specialized services, they have more difficulty in forming friendships with their peers who live close to them. Fourth, schools are a microcosm of society and offer students opportunities to learn about how society is organized and what is and is not tolerated. When segregation is permitted through segregated classes and schools for students with disabilities, students without disabilities may believe that excluding people with disabilities is acceptable because the adults in charge of the school are doing it. This can have a very powerful and lasting effect on students without disabilities, making it difficult and uncomfortable to relate to people with disabilities. Inclusive schools provide a setting in which students without disabilities can better understand and learn to get along with students with disabilities in a natural setting (Allen & Cowdery, 2004; Brown, Hemmeter, & Pretti-Frontczak, 2005). In this chapter we focus on several main aspects of inclusive high schools. We initially look at access to the general education curriculum. Next, promoting participation in extracurricular activities is discussed. This is followed by a review of administrative challenges in developing and implementing inclusive high schools. We then conclude by examining employment and post- secondary issues that students with significant disabilities face. 493

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

Access to the General Education Curriculum and Other School Activities The 1997 IDEA amendments added language requiring the individualized education program (IEP) of any student receiving special education services to describe how the student would be involved with and progress in the general education curriculum. The 2004 IDEA amendments maintained this mandate, and also required that IEPs of all students receiving special education services identify specific accommodations and curriculum modifications to ensure student involvement with and progress in the general education curriculum. IDEA also addresses the involvement of students receiving special education services in nonacademic and extracurricular activities, though the requirements are less rigorous. Educational systems must take steps to provide aids and services as determined necessary by each student’s IEP team to afford the student with equal opportunities to participate in nonacademic and extracurricular services and activities. Access to the general education curriculum and nonacademic and extracurricular activities is less of an issue for students with high-incidence disabilities such as learning disabilities. However, as Spooner, Dymond, Smith, and Kennedy (2006) write, many barriers remain for students with significant disabilities at the middle and secondary levels, including: a) General education personnel inadequately prepared to work in inclusive schools; b) Recruitment and retention of qualified personnel; c) Special education teachers lacking content background to be active in general education settings; d) Inability to modify curriculum and instruction to meet the needs of diverse learners; e) Logistical issues related to the Least Restrictive Environment, such as students with significant intellectual disabilities who are often located in separate sites. Relative to logistical issues, Soukop, Wehmeyer, Boshinski, and Bovaird (2007) observed students with intellectual disabilities in various classroom settings and found that the students were more likely to have access to the general education curriculum when they were in general education classes. While in special education classes, instruction focused more on IEP goals and objectives that were disconnected from the general education curriculum. However, they noted that inclusion alone was not sufficient to promote access; supplemental aids and services were also required to enable the students with disabilities to be engaged in the general education curriculum. General education teachers must not only adapt their instructional strategies in the general education classroom to accommodate students with disabilities, they must also have a working knowledge of possible supports. While school inclusion and access to the general education curriculum and nonacademic activities have long been touted as beneficial for both students with and without disabilities, emerging evidence indicates that there are long-term benefits as well. A systematic review of research by Test et al. (2009) found moderate evidence that participation in the general education curriculum contributed to post- school employment. In addition, a study by Baer, Daviso, Flexer, McMahan Queen, and Meindl (2011) found that participation in general education environments for at least 80% of the school day was a significant predictor of employment following school exit for students with significant intellectual disabilities. Various methods have been used by educational systems to provide access to the general curriculum and nonacademic activities for students with disabilities, including those with 494

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

significant intellectual disabilities. These include (a) accommodations, (b) Universal Design for Learning, (c) reorganization of the school day using block scheduling, and (d) peermediated approaches. Accommodations An accommodation can be defi ned as any change that helps a student overcome or work around the limitations imposed by the disability (National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities, 2010). Accommodations for persons with disabilities have been legislatively mandated since the passage of the Rehabilitation Act Amendments of 1973, which required non- discrimination and accommodation of disability by all entities receiving federal funds. The Education for All Handicapped Children Act of 1975 also required such accommodations based on needs identified by the student’s IEP team. Universal Design for Learning While accommodations can be effective in promoting inclusion of students from physical and educational perspectives, they can also stigmatize the student and impede full acceptance by other students. One method for lessening stigma is through incorporation of universal design (UD) in the classroom. UD is defi ned in the Assistive Technology Act of 1998 as “a concept or philosophy for designing and delivering products and services that are usable by people with the widest possible range of functional capabilities” (pp. 8–9). As an extension of the UD model, Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has been proposed as a means to promote access to the general education curriculum (Spooner, Baker, Harris, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Browder 2007). Hitchcock, Meyer, Rose, and Jackson (2002) describe a UDL curriculum thusly: (a) goals provide an appropriate challenge for all students; (b) materials have a flexible format and support transformation for multiple presentations; (c) methods are flexible and diverse to provide appropriate experiences and challenges to all students; and (d) assessment is sufficiently flexible to provide accurate, ongoing information to help the teacher maximize learning. They also note that the use of digital media allows the instructor to create instructional content and develop multiple presentations that include text, speech, video, fonts of varying sizes and colors, and so forth. Use of UDL in classrooms presupposes that teachers and other school personnel can learn to incorporate it into educational planning. Spooner et al. (2007) developed a one-hour presentation on UDL and conducted a randomized trial with 72 graduate and undergraduate students (both general and special education), the majority of whom were unfamiliar with UD or UDL, in four educational courses. They found that after only a one-hour introduction to UDL, the participants were able to develop a lesson plan that would be accessible for all students. This study provides evidence that even without extended training or technology, teachers can create lesson plans that involve students on all levels using UDL. Block Scheduling Block scheduling, or extended block scheduling, has been implemented in middle and secondary schools since the 1990s. Under a block scheduling schema, classes are taught in increased blocks of time, often with combined classes, as a means of utilizing time and staff more efficiently. For example, use of block scheduling has been found to (a) reduce the teacher- student ratio from approximately 180 students per teacher to 80, (b) minimize the number of transitions between classes, and (c) offer more opportunities for individualized instruction (Villa, Thousand, Nevin, & Liston, 2005). 495

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

While block scheduling was not designed specifically to promote inclusion, the benefits to students with disabilities in the general education curriculum have been noted (Villa et al., 2005). When special educators and other support personnel are added to the block- scheduled teaching team, students with and without disabilities are provided with more personal attention and hands- on instruction, active learning, and support. Peer-Mediated Approaches Using students without disabilities to support students with disabilities in general education settings is a time-tested strategy for promoting inclusion. In recent years, however, peer support has increasingly been focused on assisting schools in meeting IDEA mandates related to access to the general education curriculum and to extracurricular activities. Carter and Kennedy (2006) describe the process in developing and implementing peersupport strategies. Non-disabled peers are recruited and selected based on their interests and those of students with disabilities, and receive training in basic strategies such as adapting tasks and materials, providing positive feedback, modeling age-appropriate communication, and facilitating interactions with other students. Following training, peers assume a primary support role, which may include paraphrasing lectures, clarifying instructions, asking comprehension questions, modifying class materials, reviewing work, and supporting partial participation in classroom and school activities.

Promoting Participation in Extracurricular Activities Participating in extracurricular activities will also promote inclusion. Consider Alonzo who, as a third grader with autism, was very difficult to manage. He had an intense interest in electricity and frequently wandered from the classroom to look at the electrical closet in his elementary school. This caused great concern for his educators. First, they wanted him to be safe and feared that his intense interest in electricity would result in severe injury to himself or to others. Second, they wanted him to “fit in” with his peers in general education, and so they wanted to discourage this unusual interest since it was not shared by other children in the third grade. They tried to entice him to play childhood games such as tag and hide-n-seek during recess to no avail. Instead, they restricted his access to electricity and managed his challenging behavior around his interest. There was a dramatic change in this educational approach as Alonzo entered high school, though. Specifically, the oddity of his special interest in electricity changed from being a problem to offering a valued skill. In high school, Alonzo joined the theatre club and became the “go-to wiring” person whenever there was a presentation or play that required lighting or sound management. In high school, his eccentricity was valued and used to enhance the school community. Alonzo’s story is an important one as we consider inclusion in high school extracurricular activities. Rather than presenting deficits, Alonzo presented an area of strength that enhanced the high school community. Too often, discussions of inclusion in high school settings focus on the deficits of students with disabilities and the strategies implemented to differentiate instruction to meet all learners’ needs. In the case of inclusion in extracurricular activities, students with disabilities can offer valuable knowledge, skills, and perspectives. While this is true of all inclusion opportunities, it is arguably most apparent when students with disabilities are included in extracurricular activities. Thus, one very good reason for high schools to include youth with disabilities in extracurricular activities is to highlight the gifts such students have to offer to their peers without disabilities. 496

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

In fact, extracurricular activities serve a very important role in the relationship that all students have to their schools and their peers in school. High school is much more of a community than an organization because of extracurricular activities. These activities lead to the solidifying of important relationships with peers and adult mentors outside of their homes for students at a critical time in their development. This is particularly true for individuals with disabilities. Participation in extracurricular activities is an important means by which students with disabilities improve their quality of life, make friends, increase community integration, and increase the likelihood of post-school success. Any consideration of high school inclusion, then, must include a review of how schools can increase inclusion in extracurricular activities. While youth with disabilities have much to offer in the context of extracurricular activities in high school, they also often require support and instruction during these activities. This need is emphasized in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 where the Individualized Education Program (IEP) is required to include: A statement of the special education and related services and supplementary aids and services based on peer-reviewed research to the extent practical, to be provided to the child or on behalf of the child, and a statement of the program modifications or supports for school personnel that will be provided for the child– aa) to advance appropriately toward attaining the annual goals, bb) to be involved in and make progress in the general education curriculum in accordance with the subclause (I) and to participate in extracurricular and other nonacademic activities [italics added]. (Sec. 614 (d)(1)(A)(i)) IDEA thus acknowledges the need for the provision of direct instruction, modifications, and supports for students with disabilities to increase participation in extracurricular activities. At the same time, only 46% of transition-aged youth between the ages of 13 and 26 with disabilities reported participating in extracurricular activities in the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (Wagner, Cadwallader, Garza, & Cameto, 2004). This figure was slightly smaller than the percentage of youth with disabilities who participated in community-based recreation and leisure activities. Kleinert, Miracle, and Sheppard-Jones (2007) surveyed teachers and found that only one student out of eight with a moderate to severe disability participated in extracurricular activities. In addition, teachers indicated that most of these students participated in community-based recreation and leisure activities. This suggests that students with moderate to severe disabilities are more often included in extracurricular activities in their communities, rather than in their high schools where most of their peers without disabilities participate. Teachers also reported that students receive primary support in these activities through personal assistance provided by their parents, special education teachers, general education teachers, paraprofessionals, and, least often, their peers without disabilities (Kleinert et al., 2007). In essence the majority of supports in extracurricular activities were provided by adults who may facilitate participation, but may not be as adept at facilitating social interaction among youth with and without disabilities. A few interventions have been developed to increase participation by youth with disabilities in high school extracurricular programs. The most adaptable of these interventions for extracurricular activities include peer- support programs and direct social skill instruction programs (Carter & Pesko, 2008; Laugeson, Frankel, Gantman, Dillon, & Mogal, 2012), which are subsequently described. 497

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

Peer Support to Increase Inclusion in Extracurricular Activities Peer- support programs provide one of the most promising ways to increase inclusion of youth with disabilities in high school sponsored extracurricular activities (Carter & Hughes, 2013; Carter & Pesko, 2008). These programs rely on teaching youth without disabilities to provide interaction and supports to their peers with disabilities in general education settings and they are relatively easy to implement. At the same time, while peer- support programs have been implemented in extracurricular settings, the literature on the subject has not described their impact or discussed issues related to the implementation of this support. Nevertheless, Copeland et al. (2004) completed focus groups to identify the perspectives of participants without disabilities in high school peer- support programs, which provide preliminary evidence to support the effectiveness of such programs. Findings from this research indicated that peers without disabilities were able to implement interventions to increase students’ with disabilities access to social and academic environments. They did this by taking the lead in interaction opportunities, advocating for students with disabilities, modeling acceptance for peers without disabilities, improving their own support skills through reading and study of disabilities, and adjusting their support role from friend to model to tutor. Additionally, these high school youth without disabilities made four recommendations to increase access to general education, and by extension, extracurricular activities. These recommendations were increasing students’ awareness of the peer- support program, providing training to peers on how to appropriately provide supports, encouraging friendships, and providing structure, especially initially, to assist them in interacting and feeling comfortable in their role as peer supports (Copeland et al., 2004). Given the lack of professional supports and the likelihood that such adult-driven supports might impede peer-to-peer friendships, peer-support models are one of the most promising methods for increasing inclusion for youth with disabilities in extracurricular activities. Continued focus on developing effective peer- support models is essential for the future of social programming for youth with disabilities. Adding to this research will afford professionals the opportunity to choose and include effective strategies in their development of peer- support models. Direct Social Communication Skill Instruction Programs While peer- support programs are very helpful in increasing access to extracurricular activities, some students with disabilities will require direct instruction to participate successfully. These programs provide direct instruction in a variety of social and communication skills to youth with disabilities and often provide practice in these skills in natural environments and activities (Carter & Hughes, 2013). The UCLA PEERS Program is designed to provide this direct instruction for high school students with high functioning autism spectrum disorder (Laugeson et al., 2012). This program has 14 didactic lessons on topics such as conversational skills, electronic communication, get-togethers, dealing with gossip and bullying, and appropriate use of humor. Each lesson also has homework and requires parent involvement in the practice and delivery of the intervention. The entire program takes approximately 14 weeks to complete. In a treatment/delayed treatment randomized control design, this program was associated with improvements in social competence and friendship skills for students with autism spectrum disorders (Laugeson et al., 2012; Laugeson, Frankel, Mogil & Dillon, 2009). This type of curriculum could bridge the gap between classroom-based instruction and afterschool extracurricular activities. Specifically, the didactic portion of this curriculum could be offered during the school day, with the homework completed during afterschool activities. 498

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

Peers could facilitate the homework assignments in place of parent support, or there could be a combination of parent/peer supervision of homework assignments. In fact, through our Virginia Commonwealth University Autism Center for Excellence, we provided support to a school division who used this model to implement a summer social skills program for high-school-aged youth with autism and intellectual disabilities. In this program, youth with disabilities attended a morning summer school session with direct instruction from a special educator. In the afternoon, peers without disabilities joined them to engage in school and community-based summer recreation and leisure activities. The peers volunteered to participate in the program and received basic instruction in the activities and the needs of the students with disabilities. The program was so popular with peers without disabilities that, after accepting two peers without disabilities to every person with a disability, the director of the program had to refuse additional student volunteers. This program has continued into the school year as the students with and without disabilities returned to school and engaged in the regular array of extracurricular activities. Peer supports and direct instruction in social communication skills are essential for youth with disabilities to increase access to extracurricular activities. Youth with and without disabilities who participate in these types of experiences increase their skills and their potential for success in the future. At the same time, implementation of these types of programs requires administrative support.

Administrative Challenge of Strategies for Change The supports and services described above require a coordinated approach to education that allows for professionals across disciplines and fields of expertise to collaborate extensively to support students with disabilities in inclusive environments. This kind of collaboration requires informed administrative support. As Spence-Cochran, Pearl, and Walker (2013) note, Successful implementation of inclusion requires that school administrators and teachers make changes in the ways in which they assign students to classrooms, schedule classes, set up teams, allocate resources, design curriculum, deliver instruction and assess student progress. (p. 182) All of these tasks require leadership of a strong and knowledgeable administration. Strong administrative leadership is an important variable in successful inclusion at all levels (Eisenman et al., 2011). More than the day-to-day operation of the school, administrators are responsible for the culture they cultivate and the opportunities for growth they offer to the educational staff (Hoppey & McLeskey, 2013). According to Lin (2012), administrators are the cultural role model, facilitator, central manager, visionary, and community builder. They accomplish all of these roles through specific actions that define the success of the school. These actions include: • • • • • • •

leading by personal example setting the school vision building team consensus developing an effective and organized school structure maintaining functional facilities empowering a high quality administrative team encouraging whole staff participation 499

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

• • • • • • • •

establishing authentic communication among staff enhancing professional development focusing on student learning encouraging cross staff observation and learning enhancing teacher quality soliciting and deploying family and community resources learning from other successful schools rewarding caring and positive relationships. (Lin, 2012)

The role that the high school principal plays in encouraging and supporting an inclusive learning community is as critical as any in the school building (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). This role is even more important considering the stage- of-life development for high school students. As the last school experience that students will have prior to transitioning to adulthood, principals bear the responsibility for establishing a learning environment where students with disabilities have the same opportunities as all other students to achieve their life goals. These curriculum and administrative changes are an important prerequisite to ensuring meaningful career and post-secondary education outcomes for all high school students, but especially those with disabilities.

Career and Post-Secondary Outcomes Since the mid 1980s, disability policies have been aimed at improving employment opportunities for young people with disabilities as they leave secondary education. The goals of these policies have been to improve equal opportunity, inclusion, economic sufficiency and independence. Some of the strategies used to make these improvements have been geared toward: • • • • • • • • • •

removing structural barriers changing attitudinal barriers developing new employment support strategies for both youth with disabilities and potential employers fi nding ways to better partner with area businesses to hire and support youth with disabilities in their workplaces improving strategies for accessing post-secondary education developing ways to improve transition planning implementing supported employment in a holistic and individualized way enhancing interagency cooperation and collaboration to help ensure a range of student needs (health, social, community living, and transportation) are met as needed expanding funding, and enhancing student employment outcomes. (Wehman, 2013)

Despite the progress that has been made, we still have a long way to go in order to improve labor participation of working-age youth with disabilities. Professionals at both the state and local levels must know and apply the strategies needed to increase employment opportunities for youth with disabilities. They must be knowledgeable with regard to and willing to embrace promising practices, because no inclusive high school will be effective without good college and employment outcomes. The following sections will address what is necessary for 500

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

schools to influence post-school success. The issues and challenges will be briefly described, along with outcome data from the NLTS-2 and state Indicator 14 data (National Post-School Outcomes Center, 2012). Then, future directions related to effective inclusive secondary schools will be addressed, including strategies to promote employment and post-secondary education.

Issues and Challenges There is a large body of research that reveals poor educational and post-school outcomes of students who have received special education (Newman, Wagner, Cameto, & Knokey, 2009; Newman, Wagner, Knokey, Marder et al., 2011). For example, a Current Population Survey (CPS), a monthly survey of households conducted by the Bureau of the Census, indicated a 72% employment rate for individuals aged 20 to 24 without a disability, compared to 44% for the same aged individuals with a disability (U.S. Department of Labor, 2010). One of the largest studies to examine post- school outcomes for students with disabilities is the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS-2), which was commissioned to begin in 2001 by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP 2001–2011) and the Institute of Education Sciences. For ten years, the NLTS-2 followed over 11,000 youth aged 13 to 16, enrolled in grade 7 or above, and receiving special education. Over the years, data were collected from parents, youth, and schools. The fi ndings offer a national picture of the post-high school outcomes and experiences of young adults with disabilities who had left high school up to 8 years earlier, and were aged 21 to 25 years. Below are some brief highlights on employment and post- secondary education outcomes from the fi fth or fi nal wave of data collection for the NLTS-2 study for individuals with intellectual and multiple disabilities. The full report of the NLTS-2 study is available at www. nlts2.org/reports/. Young adults with intellectual disabilities (39%) or multiple disabilities (39%) were less likely to have been employed at the time of the interview than young adults with other health impairments, speech language impairments, learning disabilities, or hearing impairments (57% to 67%). In addition, they did not work as many hours per week on average and earned less per hour than other disability groups. Finally, individuals with intellectual disabilities (60%) or multiple disabilities (72%) were more likely to report that their employers were aware of their disability than young adults with other disability labels. Finally, young adults with intellectual disabilities or multiple disabilities (33% to 29%) were less likely to be in post- secondary programs as compared to those with other disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education provides Indicator 14 data (National Post-School Outcomes Center, 2012) related to the percentage of youth who are no longer in secondary school, had Individualized Education Programs (IEPs) in effect at the time they left school, and were: (a) Enrolled in higher education within one year of leaving high school. (b) Enrolled in higher education or competitively employed within one year of leaving high school. (c) Enrolled in higher education or in some other post- secondary education or training program; or competitively employed or in some other employment within one year of leaving high school. (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)) 501

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

Indicator 14 data provide a method to track youth with disabilities, and may be used to inform improvements related to transition planning in all states. A report by the National PostSchool Outcomes Center (2012a) provides insight into how states are doing with these measures. All states reported baseline data for FFY 2009. The median percent of youth enrolled in higher education or some other post- secondary education or training program, or competitively employed or in some other employment, was 72.45% (sd = 15.35) with a range from 0% to 100% across states.

Future Directions for Effective Inclusive Secondary Schools Transition to Work Providing inclusive activities in the community to prepare students to pursue a productive adulthood is critical. While inclusive general education is also an important goal, the critical need to prepare students for work must also be emphasized. There continues to be a push for comprehensive inclusive transition programs that will prepare all students for adulthood (Wehman, 2013). Many agree that creative new approaches are needed to blend federal and state accountability standards with students’ needs (Test, Mazotti, Mustian et al., 2009). Developing and implementing a functional curriculum is a proven way to help prepare students with disabilities for work (Wehman & Kregel, 2011). However, general education teachers often find it challenging to provide appropriate functional curriculum in their classrooms (Soukup et al., 2007). Careful team planning and collaboration between special and general educators is required to ensure student goals are addressed, along with mastery of associated skills (Soukup et al., 2007). Student instructional needs must be prioritized in order to determine which life skills need to be taught to improve inclusion in the community. Parrish and Stodden (2009) recommend a process of backward design planning to achieve this goal. This involves: identifying the standards and desired learning, determining evidence of progress towards the standard, and developing instructional plans and learning experience to move the student toward the standard. Another method of providing specialized instruction in general education courses is to use an infused skills grid (Wehman, 2013). The grid illustrates where skills will be taught during the day and which team members have targeted the skills for instruction. We know that students with significant disabilities benefit from interacting with peers without disabilities (Hughes & Carter 2012). They also benefit from inclusive opportunities such as community-based instruction or training (Wehman, 2013). This is a type of vocational instruction where students learn about work within the community where they are likely to seek future employment. For decades research has shown that youth with disabilities who participate in work experiences while in school, especially paid work experiences, are significantly more likely to hold jobs when they exit school than those who do not have these experiences (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, & Levine, 2005). This is especially important for students with significant intellectual disabilities, since being educated within such settings increases the likelihood of post- school employment. Critical in supporting students as they participate in work experiences is identifying what types of supports students need to be successful, and teaching job-related skills across various work settings. This strategy helps students generalize the skills to other work environments (Wehman & Kregel, 2011). According to the National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) (2012), several practices to teach job specific employment skills have been identified as evidence-based. These include: least to most prompting, selfmanagement, computer assisted instruction, community-based instruction, and response 502

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

prompting. Mnemonics has also been show to be effective in teaching students with disabilities to complete job applications. These secondary level evidence-based practices are designed to increase the employment skills of students with disabilities and should be implemented in the classroom and community. One example of inclusive community programming that is being replicated across the United States is Project SEARCH (2011), which was started in 1996 at Cincinnati Children’s Hospital. Today there are more than 150 sites in 39 states that use this project. Project SEARCH offers an inclusive community programming alternative for student with significant disabilities. The students rotate through three on-site internships during their last year of school. Through targeted instruction students learn skills to enable them to apply for related positions upon completing the program. Students also have the opportunity to further develop “soft” skills needed in the workplace such as team-work and communication, among other things. To promote access to quality work experiences for students with disabilities, policies and practices must be evaluated and changed as needed. This includes a concerted effort to fi nd ways to meet academic standards and build work-based learning experiences into the curricula. This will require creating alternative opportunities through youth employment programs, summer jobs programs, and other resources. In addition, convenient pre-service and in-service programs are needed to prepare professionals to address these needs, but few options exist. Such preparation must focus on topics such as employer engagement, promoting employer partnerships, and how to connect work experience with other curricular requirements. Schools must also make connections with and work with adult agencies and other services to help ensure a seamless transition from school to work. Integrating service provision helps ensure success. Schools must embrace the need to expose youth to career development activities early on and ensure that every student has the opportunity to have at least one paid job prior to leaving secondary school. Even those going on to post- secondary education should have a paid work experience. Finally, schools must raise expectations and embrace the notion that no student is too disabled to work—and that anyone who wants to work can work.

Transition to Post-Secondary Education Although Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973 prohibits discriminatory practices toward individuals with disabilities by entities receiving federal funding, and specifically describes mandatory protections for students with disabilities in post-secondary education (PSE), there is evidence to indicate that in many PSE options, services for students with disabilities are insufficient and uncoordinated (White, Ollendick, & Bray, 2011). Despite this fact, young adults with disabilities are increasingly enrolling in post-secondary education following high school (White et al., 2011). Post-secondary education has multiple benefits. For example, it typically leads to more employment options and earnings, and can also increase the individual’s self-confidence, self-esteem, and self-determination (Hart, Grigal, & Weir, 2010). Information and resources are needed to improve planning and preparation for the transition to higher education. Students must make sure that they are academically prepared for college, and meet the requirements for college entry. Students who plan to pursue postsecondary education options must take courses in the general curriculum offered in inclusive classroom settings (Kochhar-Bryant, Bassett, & Webb, 2009). They will also need to take standardized college admission tests. To prepare for these tests, they will be advantaged by taking practice tests and becoming aware of how to request any needed accommodations for such tests. These students also need to explore post- secondary education settings to fi nd a good match for their needs, and explore the supports that are available in these settings. 503

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

The use of technology enables success in higher education and improves career outcomes for students with disabilities (Getzel & Thoma, 2008). It is thus important to ensure that students are aware of advances in technology that may be available to assist in creating an engaging, relevant, and personalized learning experience. This requires that students learn about and customize technology to their needs. Teachers can also assist students in preparing for post- secondary education by helping develop essential skills needed for college. This includes the development of self- determination skills starting in early years and continuing through secondary school. Ensuring that students are actively engaged in the IEP process is another way to build these important skills. Selfmanagement skills are critical for students who attend post- secondary education. These include time management, organizational skills, and study skills (Getzel & Thoma 2008). Another important part of transition planning for those who plan to attend PSE relates to career development and setting career goals. Although students with disabilities have similar challenges as their non- disabled peers, there are some possible differences that students, families, and educators should note, such as awareness of rights and responsibilities in the workplace, understanding pros and cons associated with disclosing one’s disability, and knowledge of accommodations to improve performance and how to request these accommodations.

Conclusion In the not too distant past, secondary students with significant disabilities were educated in small classes with other students who had similar disabilities. At this time, a “separate but equal” mentality seemed to guide practice. Fortunately, this philosophy is changing, as increasing numbers of high school youth with disabilities are being educated with their nondisabled peers. In this chapter we have focused on the qualities of effective inclusive high schools, and how “all together is better” for all students in these settings, including those with significant disabilities. This chapter began with an examination of reasons for the move toward more inclusive high schools for students with significant disabilities. This was followed by a review of access to the general education curriculum and strategies for promoting participation in this curriculum as well as other school activities for students with significant disabilities. We then summarized the administrative challenges that must be addressed to support effective inclusive schools, and reviewed strategies for change that may be used for improving schools. Finally, we addressed issues and barriers related to achieving success in employment and postsecondary education for students with significant disabilities.

References Allen, K. E. & Cowdery, G. E. ( 2004 ). The exceptional child: Inclusion in early childhood. Albany, NY: Delmar. Anderson, S., Yilmaz, O., & Washburn-Moses, L. ( 2004 ). Middle and high school students with learning disabilities: Practical academic interventions for general education teachers—A review of the literature. American Secondary Education, 32 (2), 19 –38. Assistive Technology Act of 1998, 29 U.S.C. § 3001 et seq. Baer, R. M., Daviso, A. W., Flexer, R. W., McMahan Queen, R., & Meindl, R. S. ( 2011). Students with intellectual disabilities: Predictors of transition outcomes. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 10.1177/0885728811399090, fi rst published online on March 7, 2011. Brown v. Board of Education, 347 U.S. 483 (1954 ). Brown, J. G., Hemmeter, M. L., & Pretti-Frontczak, K. ( 2005). Blended practices for teaching young children in inclusive settings. Baltimore : Paul H. Brookes. 504

Future Directions in Secondary Schools

Brown, L., Long, E., Udvari-Solner, A., Davis, L., Van Deventer, P., Ahlgren, C., Johnson, F., Gruenewald, L., & Jorgensen, J. (1989 ). The home school: Why students with severe disabilities must attend the schools of their brothers, sisters, friends, and neighbors. Journal of the Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 14 (1), 1–7. Carter, E. W. & Hughes, C. ( 2008 ). Peer buddy programs: For successful secondary school inclusion. Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Carter, E. W. & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2006 ). Promoting access to the general curriculum using peer support strategies. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 284 –292 . Carter, E. W. & Hughes, C. ( 2013 ). Teaching social skills and competence. In P. Wehman ( 5th ed.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (pp. 261–284 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co Carter, E. W. & Pesko, M. J. ( 2008 ). Social validity of peer interaction intervention strategies in high school classrooms: Effectiveness, feasibility, and actual use. Exceptionality, 16, 156 –173. Copeland, S., Hughes, C., Carter, E., Guth, C., Presley, J., Williams, C., & Fowler, S. ( 2004 ). Increasing access to general education: Perspectives of participants in high school peer support programs. Remedial and Special Education, 25(6), 342 –352 . Education for all Handicapped Children Act of 1975, PL 94–142, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Eisenman, L. T., Pleet, A. M., Wandry, D., & McGinley, V. ( 2011). Voices of special education teachers in inclusive high schools: Redefi ning responsibilities. Remedial and Special Education, 32, 91–104. Getzel, E. E., & Thoma, C.A. ( 2008 ). Experiences of college students with disabilities and the importance of self- determination in higher education settings. Career Development for Exceptional Individuals, 31 ( 2 ), 77– 84. Hart, D., Grigal, M., & Weir, C. ( 2010 ). Expanding the paradigm: Postsecondary education options for individuals with Autism Spectrum Disorder and intellectual disabilities. Focus on Autism and Other Development Disabilities, 25, 134 –150. Hitchcock, C. G., Meyer, A., Rose, D., & Jackson, R. ( 2002 ). Providing new access to the general curriculum: Universal design for learning. Teaching Exceptional Children, 35 ( 2 ), 8 –17. Hoppey, D. & McLeskey, J. ( 2013 ). A case study of principal leadership in an effective inclusive school. The Journal of Special Education, 46, 245 –256. Hughes, C. & Carter, E. W. ( 2012 ). The new transition handbook: Strategies high school teachers use that work! Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1990, PL 101-476, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1997, P.L. 105 –17. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, PL 108-446, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. Kleinert, H. L., Miracle, S., & Sheppard-Jones, K. ( 2007 ). Including students with moderate and severe intellectual disabilities in school extracurricular and community recreation activities. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 45, 46 –55. Kochlar-Bryant, C., Bassett, D. S., & Webb, K. W. ( 2009 ). Transition to postsecondary education for students with disabilities. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. Laugeson, E. A., Frankel, F., Gantman, A., Dillon, A. R., & Mogal, C. ( 2012 ). Evidence-based social skills training for adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: The UCLA PEERS Program. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 1025 –1036. Laugeson, E. A., Frankel, F., Mogil, C., & Dillon, A. R. ( 2009 ). Parent-assisted social skills training to improve friendships in teens with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 39, 596 – 606. Lin, M. D. ( 2012 ). Cultivating an environment that cultivates teaching and learning in schools: High school principal’s actions. Peabody Journal of Education, 87, 200 –215. National Dissemination Center for Children with Disabilities ( 2010 ). Supports,modifi cations,and accommodations for students. Available at http://nichcy.org/schoolage/accomodations National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center ( 2012 ). Evidence-Based Practices. Retrieved from www.nsttac.org/content/evidence-based-practices National Post-School Outcomes Center ( 2012a). Indicator 14: Post-School Outcomes, University of Oregon, (20 U.S.C. 1416(a)(3)(B)). Retrieved from www.psocenter.org/ National Post-School Outcomes Center ( 2012b). Part B SPP/APR 2011 Indicator Analysis FFY2009, University of Oregon. Retrieved from www.psocenter.org/ 505

P. Wehman, C. Schall, S. Carr, et al.

National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 ( 2007 ). Transition plan [Data fi le] . Retrieved from http:// ies.ed.gov/ncser/projects/nlts2 Newman, L., Wagner, M., Cameto, R., & Knokey, A. M. ( 2009 ). The Post-High School Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities up to 4 years after High School. Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Ttransition Study 2 (NCSER 2009-3017). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved March 30, 2010, from www.nlts2.org/reports/2009_04/index.html Newman, L., Wagner, M., Knokey, A. M., Marder, C., Nagle, K., Shaver, D., et al. ( 2011). The PostHigh School Outcomes of Young Adults with Disabilities up to 8 Years after High School. A Report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study 2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011-3005). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Available at www.nlts2.org/reports Parrish, P. & Stodden, R. ( 2009 ). Aligning assessment and instruction with the state standards for children with significant disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 41 (4 ), 46 –56. Project SEARCH ( 2011). Project SEARCH. Retrieved from http://projectsearch.us/ Soukop, J. A., Wehmeyer, M. L., Boshinski, S. M., & Bovaird, J. A. ( 2007 ). Classroom variables and access to the general curriculum for students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 101–120. Spence-Cochran, K., Pearl, C., & Walker, Z. ( 2013 ) Full inclusion into schools: Strategies for collaborative instruction. In P. Wehman ( 5th ed.), Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities (pp. 175 –196 ). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Spooner, F., Baker, J. N., Harris, A. A., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Browder, D. M. ( 2007 ). Effects of training in universal design for learning on lesson plan development. Remedial and Special Education, 28 ( 2 ), 108 –116. Spooner, F., Dymond, S. K., Smith, A., & Kennedy, C. H. ( 2006 ). What we know and need to know about accessing the general curriculum for students with significant cognitive disabilities. Research & Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 31, 277–283. Test, D. W., Mazzotti, V. L., Mustian, A. L., Fowler, C. H., Kortering, L., & Kohler, P. ( 2009 ). Evidence-based secondary transition predictors for improving post- school outcomes for students with disabilities. Career Development for Exceptional Children, 32 ( 3 ), 160 –181. U.S. Department of Labor ( 2010 ). Labor force statistics from the Current Population Survey:How the government measures unemployment. Available from www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm Villa, R. A., Thousand, J. S., Nevin, A., & Liston, A. ( 2005). Successful inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. American Secondary Education, 33 ( 3 ), 33 –50. Wagner, M., Cadwaller, T., Garza , N., & Cameto, R. ( 2004 ). Social activities of youth with disabilities: NLTS2 data brief, 3 (1). Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., & Levine, P. ( 2005). Changes Over Time in the Early Postschool Outcomes of Youth with Disabilities. A Report of Findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study (NLTS) and the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Waldron, N. & McLeskey, J. ( 2010 ). Inclusive school placements and surplus/deficit in performance for students with intellectual disabilities: Is there a connection? Life Span and Disability, XIII(1), 29 – 42 . Wehman, P. ( 2013 ). Life beyond the classroom: Transition strategies for young people with disabilities. ( 5th ed.). Baltimore, MD : Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. Wehman, P. & Kregel, J. ( 2011). Functional curriculum for elementary, middle, & secondary age students with special needs. ( 3rd ed.). Austin, TX: PRO-ED. White, S. W., Ollendick, T. H., & Bray, B. C. ( 2011). College students on the autism spectrum: Prevalence and associated problems. Autism, 15 ( 6 ), 683 –701.

506

36 International Perspectives What Can be Known About Effective Inclusive Schools? Lani Florian1 and Martyn Rouse2

This chapter will provide an overview of the current international context for inclusion and effectiveness and will consider some of the problems and opportunities relating to how the effectiveness and inclusivity of schools might be explored. The chapter will address three key questions: • • •

To what extent are notions of inclusion and effectiveness compatible? What are some international perspectives on effective inclusive schools? What is the role of data systems in understanding effective inclusive schools?

Setting the Stage: The Current International Context A major challenge for every national system of education is to educate all children and to educate them well. As an area of common concern for the international community, education is the focus of many initiatives. The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) flagship initiative, ‘Education for All’ (EFA), reflects both an international consensus about the intrinsic value of education as a human right, and a global commitment to provide quality education for everyone (UNESCO, 1990). In 1994, UNESCO’s World Conference on Special Needs Education in Salamanca, Spain (UNESCO, 1994), linked the education of students with disabilities to the EFA agenda by recognizing that all children should be educated within an inclusive education system. Subsequently, the idea of educating all children together was adopted by the international community as a strategy to achieve EFA (Peters, 2007), and the concept of inclusive education was extended to anyone who might be excluded from, or have limited access to, the general educational system within a country. While the idea of inclusive education as a strategy for achieving EFA was an important development, a concomitant international initiative sees a different purpose for education. Here it is seen as a tool, a means to an end, for gaining individual and national competitive

1 University of Edinburgh 2 University of Aberdeen 507

L. Florian and M. Rouse

advantage in the marketplace. Today, international comparisons of how well students perform on standardized tests such as the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) (OECD, 2010), Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS), and Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) are widely used as international indicators and benchmarks of how well national systems of education are preparing students to live and work in the global economy. The emphasis on competition as a strategy to achieve excellence and effectiveness challenges the development of inclusive schools. Major tensions arising from policies that stress effectiveness, as measured by test scores, and policies that are designed to promote inclusion reverberate at many levels from the individual, the classroom, and the school, to district, national, and international levels. In spite of these tensions, effective inclusive schools do exist, and they have been the focus of research and development for more than two decades. This chapter provides an overview of this work with an emphasis on the evolving international perspective on inclusive education, and the implications for the role that data systems might play in understanding the enactment of inclusive education at the many different levels (individual, classroom, school, district, national, and international) at which it is studied.

Historical Perspective and Current Trends The Link Between School Effectiveness and Inclusion Since the 1970s, researchers in many countries have investigated whether schools make a difference to learning outcomes and life chances for students. This line of research has been concerned with the factors that make some schools more effective than others and the ways in which schools make a difference to students’ lives (Ainscow, Dyson, Goldrick, & West, 2012; Edmunds, 1982; Rutter, Maughan, Mortimore, & Ouston, 1976; Sammons, Hillman, & Mortimore, 1995). The seminal work of Ronald Edmonds and other researchers interested in school effects have identified the key factors that characterize effective schools: the principal’s leadership, a clear and broadly understood instructional focus, a climate conducive to learning, teacher expectation that all children can learn, and the use of formative assessment to drive curricular decisions (Edmunds, 1982). Over the years, studies in many countries have confi rmed and elaborated upon these fi ndings. Today, various iterations of these factors are accepted as conventional wisdom. Although the school effectiveness research of the 1970s and 1980s used academic test scores as an outcome measure and did not address the educational issues of students with disabilities, an influential book edited by Mel Ainscow (1991) argued that this line of inquiry raises important issues for those who are struggling to create more inclusive schools because it suggests a basis for school improvement in which schools themselves, through their own development of policies and practice, might become more effective at meeting the needs of all children. In line with the contemporaneous critiques of special education (e.g. Tomlinson, 1982; Skrtic, 1991), Ainscow’s book was primarily intended to provide a reconceptualization of the special educational needs task from one that focused on withinchild factors to one that focused on improving schools’ capacity to meet the needs of all learners. However, as research on school improvement became entangled with a narrow notion of effectiveness that was only concerned with raising academic standards at the expense of a broader range of outcomes and fundamental rights to education, its utility as a strategy for promoting inclusive education was questioned (Slee, Tomlinson, & Weiner, 2003). An ambivalent stance emerged within the special needs community about whether research 508

International Perspectives

linking school effectiveness, with its focus on performance on one hand, and inclusion, with its focus on social justice on the other, would be compatible and a productive line of inquiry. Nevertheless, a long line of persuasive school effectiveness research has focused on the influence of school factors on learning and student outcomes, beginning with the classic text Fifteen Thousand Hours (Rutter et al., 1976). Of particular note was research in the United Kingdom that explored how school factors could create special educational needs (Tomlinson, 1982). In addition, the publication of the Warnock Report (1978) in England was influential in shifting the focus away from handicap and disability and towards special educational needs (SEN), and the importance of the learning environment in creating or overcoming SEN was widely accepted. In response, researchers began to investigate school-level rather than child-level variables, such as focusing on how special needs personnel in mainstream schools might develop whole school approaches to intervention (see for example, Moses, Hegarty, & Jowett, 1987). At this time, many local authorities began to question existing forms of provision. For example, the London Borough of Newham decided to close its special schools and units on the grounds that separate forms of provision for students with disabilities was morally wrong, a form of educational apartheid, and a violation of human rights ( Jordan & Goodey, 2002). Segregated special education began to be seen by many as an injustice, and emerging ideas of inclusive education were believed to offer a solution to the problems associated with separate special education provision. Like many other special educators and researchers, we were troubled by the critiques of special education, but concerned about the extent to which mainstream schools were prepared to include those students who had been previously excluded on the grounds that they needed something additional to, or different from, that which was generally available to others of similar age (in other words, special needs education). Between 1992–1994 we undertook commissioned work in two jurisdictions in the forefront of developing inclusive practice at the time: the London Borough of Newham, and the U.S. state of Utah (Rouse & Florian, 1996). Using the factors that had been identified with effective schools as a lens through which to explore how schools were becoming more inclusive, we found that the characteristics of effective schools provided a valuable means for understanding the development of inclusive practice, but that the variables associated with inclusion gave a specifi c meaning to the notion of effectiveness. We argued: A school can be effective without being inclusive or inclusive without being effective . . . Successful learning is dependent on the utilization of methods which maximize learning time and make efficient use of all resources for learning in the school, including other children. (p. 76) In addition, we noted the concern expressed by many head teachers and school principals that being inclusive was insufficient—they needed to demonstrate that their schools were ‘good’ schools using traditional academic indicators of effectiveness. Significantly, they expressed a desire for more sensitive measures of achievement “so that successful learning could be demonstrated with those children for whom normative assessment is inappropriate” (p. 80). As researchers in the UK began to study how schools were implementing the concept of inclusion, a series of case studies and action research projects, many of book length, documented the efforts that schools were making to become more inclusive (e.g. Allan, 1999; Dyson & Milward, 2000; O’Hanlon, 2003; Thomas, Walker, & Webb, 1998), but 509

L. Florian and M. Rouse

ambivalence about using narrow academic outcome indicators of effectiveness meant that measures of achievement were either overlooked, rejected, or given only passing reference in the work. Nevertheless, these studies showed that inclusive education was a complex endeavour, characterized by dilemmas (Norwich 1993, 2008) which are associated with a series of tensions that reflect the intersection of the social justice principles of inclusion, where education is a human right of intrinsic value, and education reform policies that are based on the principles of the marketplace, where education is a means to other ends such as individualism and economic competitiveness (Rouse & Florian, 1997).

The ‘New Orthodoxy’ of Educational Reform A ‘new orthodoxy’ emerged in education over the past twenty years as part of a competitive global agenda to improve national economies by improving workforce skills in order to gain economic advantage. Government education policies in many countries have been influenced by the broader neo-liberal reform agenda aimed at improving efficiency and raising (academic) standards. A marketplace philosophy now drives educational reform in many parts of the world. These reforms are intended to: • • • • •

improve national economies by tightening a connection between schooling, employment, productivity and trade; enhance student outcomes in employment related skills and competencies; attain more direct control over curriculum content and assessment; reduce the costs to government of education; and increase community input to education by more direct involvement in school decision making. (O’Neill, 1995, p. 9 )

While the pace and detail of the reforms between countries has varied, they stress standards, choice, competition, accountability, and privatization. Such reforms have become globalized by the support they have received from international and regional agencies, such as the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) and the World Bank. In Inclusive education in the marketplace (Rouse & Florian, 1997), we argued, along with many others, that this new orthodoxy was likely to have a huge influence on the education of children with special educational needs and that it could not be ignored. We cited British studies documenting positive outcomes in terms of curricular access (Sebba & Byers, 1992) and negative outcomes in terms of reduced options for those who were viewed as unlikely to enhance a school’s competitive edge (Ball, Bowe, & Gewirtz, 1994). Twenty years on, these fi ndings are sustained as inquiries continue to document both positive and negative outcomes. The recent Inquiry on Special Educational Needs and Parental Confidence in England for example, reflected a common experience in many countries: that is, while many children (with disabilities) are well supported and are making good progress, too many others have a far less positive experience, and securing appropriate educational support can be a battle (Department for Children, Schools and Families, 2009). Indeed, in England and elsewhere, the concept of inclusive education remains conditional, as the right of students with special educational needs to attend a mainstream school is qualified on the grounds that it does not disrupt the efficient education of others. Clearly, the tensions between the intrinsic and extrinsic values of education—as both an end and a means to an end—are reflected in understandings of educational policy that view inclusion and effectiveness as incompatible. 510

International Perspectives

As the new orthodoxy of educational reform became increasingly dominant, our own work, along with the efforts of many others who are committed to the principles of inclusion, has considered how inclusive education can mediate the tensions that arise from the clash between the principles of the marketplace that emphasize competition as a strategy to raise standards, and policies of inclusion which emphasize tolerance and acceptance of difference and the human right to education for all (Black-Hawkins, Florian, & Rouse, 2007; Rouse & Florian, 1996, 2006). As part of the process of increasing participation and reducing exclusion from the culture, curriculum, and community of mainstream schools (Booth & Ainscow, 2002), inclusive education can be a powerful lever for school improvement (Ainscow, 2014; Ainscow, Booth, & Dyson, 2006). In addition, the few studies that have directly considered inclusion and effectiveness provide support for the idea that inclusion of students with special educational needs does not necessarily interfere with the progress of others (Demeris, Childs, & Jordan, 2007; Dyson, et. al, 2004; Rouse & Florian, 2006; Ruijs, Van der Veen & Peetsma, 2010). For over twenty years, many small- scale school development projects, and some largescale studies, have demonstrated that schools can be effective and inclusive, but these fi ndings remain fragile. The variability in provision, the uneven quality of educational experience, and the inconsistency in student achievement outcomes remains too great for too many students in too many jurisdictions to claim that inclusive education offers effective education for all. Further work on what counts as evidence of effective inclusion and its relationship to achievement is needed. However, as we discuss below, this work is methodologically challenging because of the contested nature of key variables, how data about these variables might be collected and how they might be compared.

Inclusion and Achievement Although inclusion and achievement are contested concepts, the relationship between them has been subjected to some scrutiny in England. Both concepts were at the heart of government policies for reforming schools in England during the period of the New Labour Government (1997–2007) and, as noted above, questions about their compatibility were being forcefully debated (Power & Whitty, 1999). As researchers undertook to study on whether and how schools could be effective and inclusive, it became clear that problematic methodological issues would make it difficult for research to settle the debate. Lunt and Norwich (1999) used data from the 1998 secondary school national examination results to examine the relationship between the proportion of students identified as having special educational needs in a school and its position in the league tables related to academic achievement. They found that schools with higher percentages of students with SEN had lower performance levels. Although, their fi ndings appeared to support arguments regarding the incompatibility of inclusion and achievement, the study did not consider the starting points of students as this information was not available at the time of their study. There was thus no acknowledgement of progress or ‘educational value added’. Nowadays technological advances in the production of large-scale datasets enable researchers to use achievement data to examine the relationship between inclusion and achievement in more sophisticated ways; however, difficult methodological problems continue to limit the usefulness of this research.

Future Directions: Studying Effective Inclusive Schools A focus on inclusion begs a number of questions such as, ‘inclusion of whom’ and ‘inclusion into what’ and ‘how might it be known whether inclusion has been successful’? The ‘whom’ 511

L. Florian and M. Rouse

question relates to those individuals and groups who might be excluded or marginalized, either because schooling is not relevant to them, they do not attend, or because they are educated in separate forms of provision. The ‘what’ question clearly means inclusion in school, and while early definitions of inclusion often mentioned the neighborhood school, recent school reform efforts have stressed competition between, and parental choice of, schools. Initiatives designed to increase choice, such as charter schools in the U.S. and free schools and academies in England, which often have an emphasis on (academic) excellence rather than equity and inclusion (McLaughlin & Dyson, 2014), raise important questions about how inclusion is defined within an increasingly varied and diverse educational landscape. In addition, answers to questions about whether inclusion is successful depend in part on how the outcomes of inclusive education are described and judged. As discussed below, the importance of understanding the powerful effect of research design and the ways in which variables are defined in studies of effective inclusive schools cannot be overestimated. A fundamental task is to decide what data are required to answer the questions and how these data might be collected.

Purposes of Research on Effective Inclusive Schools Despite the problematic nature of undertaking research on inclusiveness and effectiveness, there are important reasons why it is necessary to develop and improve systems capable of generating data about inclusion and its effectiveness. First, much of the research on inclusion consists of small- scale case studies of schools using predominately qualitative data, often carried out by those who have a direct interest in the success (or failure) of inclusion. This body of research is not able to answer questions of inclusion and effectiveness with confidence. Second, education professionals are not alone in having to give an account of the extent to which their efforts and interventions make a positive difference for individuals and groups. There are important demands for public accountability at the individual, school, and system level, in order to inform judgments about quality and value for time and money. Third, there is the need to provide evidence for the purpose of improving learning and teaching for students about whom there may be little evidence, other than at an individual level. In other words, which approaches and pedagogical practices might lead to positive outcomes? Evidence is required before judgments about costs and benefits can be made. The task of inclusion takes place in the varied environment of classrooms and schools. Schools are a product of their histories, ethos, and cultures and, as we have indicated, their work is carried out in a broader context that promotes both inclusive education and a continued emphasis on competition between schools and jurisdictions as a measure of effectiveness. In the daily practices of schooling, the enactment of inclusion is influenced by the curriculum, pedagogy, leadership styles, organizational and grouping strategies, the additional support and interventions that are available, and, crucially, by the adults who work in schools—in other words, by the variables that are associated with effective schools. However, the day-to-day life and priorities of schooling are increasingly influenced by the ways in which the expected outcomes of education are described and monitored through assessment and evaluation policies and practices. A potential danger is that the collection and use of data can distort a school’s priorities and even their values. In designing research about inclusion and effectiveness it is important to be clear about purpose, and having a sense of audience will help with decisions about the kinds of data and indicators that are required. It is important to bear in mind the technological advances that have made it possible to link data systems and to work with larger and more complex datasets, but it essential that their development does not negatively distort the process of teaching and learning. 512

International Perspectives

Using Large-Scale Data Sets With the growing capacity of information technology to handle large amounts of data, there have been attempts to develop national- and state-level student databases (e.g. in England) which enable data gathered from a wide range of sources to be linked together so that the many influences thought to effect the progress of individual students over time can be studied directly (Burgess, Propper, Slater, & Wilson, 2005). However, there are substantial difficulties in developing such systems, including: •

• • •

conceptual issues (relating to classification of students; forms of assessment, their purpose, reliability, and validity; the types of outcome measures used; and the extent to which data and its variables are comparable); technical issues (relating to data collection, data entry, sharing, and analysis, together with the compatibility and capacity of data systems); ethical/legal issues (relating to privacy, responsibility, access, and the ways in which collecting data may distort educational decisions); and economic issues (relating to the cost benefit analysis of data systems in terms of what they can achieve to support educational improvements and what they cost to develop, administer, and maintain).

In devising a system that enables progress to be demonstrated over time, some crucial decisions have to be made about which data are used. It is common to use attainment or academic achievement data for students, but these scores are not directly comparable because different tests are used at different stages in a student’s career, although the results are often treated as comparable. Moreover, not all children are included in national tests and examinations. Crucially, it is often the students at risk of exclusion for whom there are missing data. Rarely are data on broader, perhaps more relevant, outcome measures collected. Equally, some of the variables relating to disability/SEN status and demographic data are suspect (Florian et al., 2004), and classification and categorization systems are themselves contested (Bowker & Starr, 2000). Similarly, measures of inclusion are also complex and contested. Having a high proportion of students identified as having special educational needs in a school is not necessarily a measure of inclusion, though it has been used as such. For example, Dyson et al. (2004) used the proportion of students with special educational needs as a measure of ‘inclusivity’. They then looked at the academic performance of schools, in terms of national test results, to examine: Whether inclusive schools . . . do worse by many or all of their pupils because the presence of pupils with SEN distorts school processes in some way. Alternatively do such schools actually do better because they become more skillful at responding to individual differences? (p. 14) Their results indicated little or no relationship between inclusion and achievement, leading them to argue that at “school level, inclusivity does not determine performance . . . [although] there may be something to learn from schools which manage to reconcile high levels of inclusivity with high levels of attainment” (p. 49). As Dyson and his colleagues recognized, calculating the proportion of students in a school who have been identified as having special educational needs says little about how far and in what ways that school is, or is not, inclusive. 513

L. Florian and M. Rouse

This is partly because there are significant variations between local education authorities and schools in terms of who is identified as having special educational needs. More importantly, information about the physical presence of students with special educational needs in a school does not explain how far policies and practices support their inclusion and participation in the life of that school (Kalambouka, Farrell, Dyson, & Kaplan, 2007). Thus, even in countries where sophisticated national data systems exist, there are limitations in using them to answer questions about achievement and inclusion. With all these warnings in mind, we designed a study using data from the English national pupil database (NPD) and the pupil level annual schools’ census (PLASC) to explore whether schools with higher proportions of students designated as having special educational needs performed differently from schools with lower proportions, without making assumptions about the inclusive nature of their policies and practices. This was followed by case studies of schools (Rouse & Florian, 2006). We combined data on student achievement and data on special educational needs to examine the progress of one cohort of students from one local authority across the five years of their secondary schooling. The progress of students from three secondary schools where there were higher proportions of students identified with special educational needs were compared to the progress of students from the same cohort in all schools across the local authority. Comparisons were made to the progress of students in similar schools and also to the progress of students in schools where the proportion of students identified with special educational needs were lower. To explore whether there were variations in achievement between the schools we devised a simple ‘value-added’ measure of individual progress over the five years of secondary schooling to produce a ‘coefficient of progress’. Comparison of group means for the three types of schools showed progress in the schools with a higher proportion of students identified as having special educational needs to be greater than the mean progress in the comparison schools. To explore further the fi nding that these schools seem to perform better than schools where the proportion of such students was lower, we compared each one of them against the comparison schools. Here, a more complex picture of the three schools emerged. Performance in one was similar to performance in the comparison schools, while in another the performance was considerably higher, but in the third school it was somewhat lower. Because schools with large numbers of children described as having special educational needs are not necessarily inclusive schools, we argued that it is important to supplement any quantitative analysis with qualitative methods (we used case studies of schools) in order to explore the ‘stories’ behind the numbers, as we did in our book Achievement and inclusion in schools (Black-Hawkins et al., 2007). Neither the large- scale data sets nor the case studies of schools could have achieved what a combined mixed method study was able to demonstrate.

Developing a Model to Explore Effectiveness and Inclusion The development of a model for exploring inclusion and effectiveness is clearly a complex task that has to take into account many of the factors outlined above. Some current systems for exploring effectiveness use a version of what is known as the ‘input-process-outcomes’ model, similar to that used in the early school effectiveness research (Teddlie & Reynolds, 2000). These basic models have been further developed so that they may include students with disabilities by the National Center for Educational Outcomes (e.g. Ysseldyke, Thurlow, & Geenen, 1994) in the United States, and by the European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education (EADSNE) (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009; EADSNE, 2011). 514

International Perspectives

As a result of an international collaboration involving representatives from 23 countries, EADSNE has proposed an input-process-outcomes model for understanding educational effectiveness in the area of special needs education and inclusion (see The Development of a set of indicators for inclusive education in Europe, edited by Kyriazopoulou and Weber (2009)). This was followed up by a phase two report, Participation in inclusive education: A framework for developing indicators (EADSNE, 2011). According to EADSNE (Kyriazopoulou & Weber, 2009), such systems require evidence to be collected relating to indicators from different aspects of schooling. Data have to be capable of revealing information about inputs in order to provide baseline information. Information about inputs might include the children, their characteristics, and starting points; the teachers, their experience, and qualifications; other human resources; material resources; forms of provision and types of schools; buildings and other educational spaces; policies and legislative framework; and funding mechanisms and amounts. They should also provide information about process. Process indicators would include details regarding programs, interventions, curriculum, pedagogy, assessment, school organizational structures, grouping strategies, and ethos. Details about outcomes would include information about academic and non-academic outcomes, transitions and destinations, completion rates, physical health, and well-being. Having information across all three phases of the model (input-process-outcomes) allows (in theory) any possible links among the different stages to be explored in the interests of transparency, accountability, research and, crucially, as a means through which improvement efforts may be informed by evidence. The data needed for an input-process-outcomes model are available at the individual student, classroom, and school levels. Some of these data can be aggregated ‘vertically’ from the classroom to the school, to the regional and national levels, and used for different audiences and purposes. While additional new data may need to be collected about input and outcomes, information about the process phase is more elusive. Some of these data will be quantitative (e.g., attainment and test scores, school census data, attendance rates, funding, pupil-teacher ratios); some will be qualitative (e.g., student and teacher accounts, school selfreview and evaluation, satisfaction surveys, external inspection and quality assurance reports), and decisions have to be made about how to treat the data. There is often pressure to convert such qualitative data to quantitative data through the process of reification so that the data can be managed and compared, but the richness of the information will be lost in this process. This is of particular concern because relatively little is known about what happens through the enactment of inclusive practice and pedagogy in the classroom. It is the ‘private world’ of the classroom that presents the major challenge in collecting information useful in the development of data systems and for understanding inclusion. However, data relating to aspects of process are becoming more available at the classroom and school level, where explorations of inclusion and participation are being developed through the use of school and classroom self-review approaches, such as the Index for Inclusion (Booth & Ainscow, 2002) or the Framework for Participation (Black-Hawkins, 2010).

Challenges of Using Existing Data Relevant existing data, such as national statistics, national census data, annual census of schools, audits and inspection reports, and school self- evaluation and reviews, can all be helpful sources of data that can be used to understand inclusion and effectiveness (EADSNE, 2011). However, as we have argued, many challenges are raised by questions about the 515

L. Florian and M. Rouse

comparability of these data. Nevertheless, steps have been identified to support the development of meaningful indicators of inclusion: Step 1: Make an inventory of available data Step 2: Identify gaps in available data Step 3: Check whether available data can be aggregated and disaggregated across levels Step 4: Check whether available data can be monitored across the process of education Step 5: Check whether available data respects the interests of the persons behind the data. (EADSNE, 2011, pp. 38–40) It is important to bear in mind that monitoring mechanisms are only effective if indicators can be linked across time and to the process of education. In using indicators to guide research, questions need to be asked about how the data can be traceable across time and which input, process, and outcome variables should be linked. Indicators need to be sensitive enough to detect changes when they occur (EADSNE, 2011, p. 16). If outcome indicators cannot be related to input and process indicators, they will not help in understanding why outcomes do or do not change.

Conclusion Throughout the world, government policies have increasingly put schools under pressure to improve the achievement of their students, while also encouraging them to be more inclusive. As this chapter has shown, these policies often present a particular and somewhat narrow interpretation of both concepts. In many countries, inclusion is taken to mean the process of increasing the numbers of students attending mainstream schools who, in the past, would have been prevented from doing so because of their identified special educational needs. Meanwhile, achievement is usually seen only in terms of raising academic standards as measured by standardized tests and examinations. Yet, the evolving international consensus on inclusive education views it as one that now extends to anyone who might be excluded from, or have limited access to, the general educational system within a country. In today’s world this includes a much broader group of vulnerable children such as Roma children, street children, child workers, child soldiers, and children from indigenous and nomadic groups (UNESCO, 2010). Designing and undertaking research on effective inclusive schools is a daunting task at all levels. The focus of school effectiveness research on comparisons through rank- ordered league tables within and across jurisdictions and the comparison of educational performance of nation states through international testing regimes such as PISA (OECD, 2010) can generate important understandings of school effectiveness, but the problem with many ‘between- school’ and ‘between nation’ comparisons is that they do not include all students. In their current form, international assessments such as PISA offer little insight into the outcomes for pupils with special educational needs. Indeed, there is an incentive to exclude these students from the comparisons in order to gain competitive advantage, yet they have become the benchmark by which schools and national educational systems are judged. As a result, the OECD team at PISA is exploring greater inclusion of students with special educational needs through the development of alternative assessment materials (Booklet UH, Une Heure), and is seeking to standardize the defi nition of special educational needs. While there may be future opportunities for countries to make greater use of international comparisons to gain a better understanding of the progress of students with special educational needs, 516

International Perspectives

it is in the context of today’s narrow defi nitions of effectiveness that schools are expected to become more inclusive. At the broader international level, the annual Global Monitoring Reports compiled by UNESCO provide important information because they reflect the best available information on access to schooling. However, they are constrained by a lack of reliable and comparable data about participation, completion rates, and outcomes from many jurisdictions, particularly for vulnerable groups, including children with disabilities. The 2010 GMR, which focused on marginalization, pointed out that more children than ever are attending schools throughout the world, but great challenges remain in educating the most vulnerable (UNESCO, 2010). Generally, the data available at national levels is under strict control and regulation because of data protection and privacy concerns. But this may not be the case with data on individual children or their families available at classroom and school levels. Nevertheless, regulations in some countries may not permit the collection of specific student-level data, the aggregation of such data, or the pooling of such data from different sources, especially from health and criminal justice systems. Some countries have laws restricting the electronic storage and sharing of data. Another concern may be that some data may be linked to individuals and contain personal information relating to students, parents, and teachers. The people providing information or whose information is used to generate data should have access to the data and be able to verify it and draw information from the data that is meaningful for them or for their work. These considerations create ethical challenges for the development of data systems and for future research. But such challenges should not mean that research should not occur, and there have been long- standing calls for more rigorous research on this topic (Dyson, Howes, & Roberts, 2002). At a time when more countries are actively considering ways in which the systematic use of national data may be used (for example Ireland; see Douglas et al., 2013), it is essential that the use of such data is not allowed to become the only way to explore inclusion and effectiveness. Throughout this chapter we have argued for the development and use of meaningful data to study questions of inclusion and effectiveness. As we have shown, data systems play an important role in understanding effective inclusive schools, but they are limited by the contested nature of the concepts of effectiveness and inclusion and they are beset by complex methodological problems. Nevertheless, researchers at all levels are encouraged to make the best possible use of such data, understanding that they have value (Schleicher, 2012), but also ethical and methodological challenges (Morris & Auld, 2012). Researchers in the field of inclusion and effectiveness need to acknowledge these limitations that impinge upon their work, remembering that the real stories of inclusion require more than the analysis of large-scale datasets. As the major structural reforms of education that have taken place in many parts of the world emphasize the neo-liberal principles of competition and choice, which together are intended to raise the academic standards of individual students, schools, and nations, these same governments have also been enacting policies to promote more inclusive educational systems. As a result, schools may be confused and can often perpetuate inequalities, create ‘special educational needs’, and cause exclusion through their policies and practices, but, at the same time, can still be seen as the means through which educational and social inclusion can be enhanced. As we have argued, much more work is needed to support and sustain the development of effective inclusive schools. While the work may be difficult, complex, and challenging, it is also necessary and important to the creation of equitable educational 517

L. Florian and M. Rouse

opportunities for everyone. Because some students continue to be excluded on the grounds that their presence may have a negative impact on the achievement of others, it is essential that questions about inclusion and effectiveness can be answered more fully than they have been in the past.

References Ainscow, M. ( 2014 ). From special education to effective schools for all: Widening the agenda. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage Handbook of Special Education ( 2nd Edition). London : Sage. Ainscow, M. (1991). Effective schools for all. London : David Fulton. Ainscow, M., Booth, T., & Dyson, A. ( 2006 ). Improving schools, developing inclusion. London : Routledge. Ainscow, M., Dyson, A., Goldrick, S., & West, M. ( 2012 ). Making schools effective for all: Rethinking the task. School Leadership & Management, 32 (1), 1–17. Allan, J. (1999 ). Actively seeking inclusion: Pupils with special needs in mainstream schools. London : Falmer Press. Ball, S., Bowe, R., & Gewirtz, S. (1994 ). “Parental choice”, consumption and social theory: The operation of micro-markets in education. British Journal of Educational Studies, 42 (1), 38 –52 . Black-Hawkins, K. ( 2010 ). The Framework for Participation: A research tool for exploring the relationship between achievement and inclusion in schools. International Journal of Research and Method in Education, 33 (1), 21– 40. Black-Hawkins, K., Florian, L., & Rouse, M. ( 2007 ). Achievement and inclusion in schools. Abingdon, Oxon : Routledge. Booth, T. & Ainscow, M. ( 2002 ). The Index for Inclusion: Developing learning and participation in school s (revised edition). Bristol : CSIE . Bowker, G. C. & Starr, S. L. ( 2000 ) Sorting things out: Classifi cation and its consequences. Boston : MIT Press. Burgess, S., Propper, C., Slater, H., & Wilson. ( 2005). Who wins and who loses from school accountability? The distribution of educational gain in English secondary schools (working paper 05/128). Bristol : The Centre for Market and Public Organisations. Demeris, H., Childs, R. A., & Jordan, A. ( 2007 ). The influence of students with special needs included in grade-3 classrooms on the large- scale achievement scores of students without special needs. Canadian Journal of Education, 30 ( 3 ), 609 – 627. Department for Children, Schools and Families. ( 2009 ). Lamb Inquiry: Special educational needs and parental confidence. London : DCSF. Retrieved from www.dcsf.gov.uk/lambinquiry/related.shtml Douglas, G., Travers, J., McLinden, M., Robertson, C., Smith, E., Macnab, N., Powers, S., et al. ( 2013 ). Measuring educational engagement, progress and outcomes for children with special educational needs: A review. Trim, Co Meath, Ireland : National Council for Special Education. Dyson, A., Farrell, P., Polat, F., Hutcheson, G. & Gallannaugh, F. ( 2004 ). Inclusion and pupil achievement. London : Df ES. Dyson, A., Howes, A. & Roberts, B. ( 2002 ). A systematic review of the effectiveness of schoollevel actions for promoting the participation of all students. In Research Evidence in Education Library. London : EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Dyson, A. & Milward, A. ( 2000 ). Schools and special needs: Issues of innovation and inclusion. London : Paul Chapman. Edmunds, R. (1982 ). Programs of school improvement: An overview. Educational Leadership, 40 ( 3 ), 4 –11. European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. (Ed.) ( 2011). Participation in inclusive education: A framework for developing indicators. Odense, Denmark: Author. Florian, L., Rouse, M., Black-Hawkins, K., & Jull, S. ( 2004 ). What can national data sets tell us about inclusion and pupil achievement? British Journal of Special Education, 31 ( 3 ), 115 –121. Jordan, L. & Goodey. C. ( 2002 ). Human rights and school change—the Newham story ( 2nd ed.). Bristol : Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education. Kalambouka, A., Farrell, P., Dyson, A., & Kaplan, I. ( 2007 ). The impact of placing pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools on the achievement of their peers. Educational Research, 49 (4 ), 365 – 82 . 518

International Perspectives

Kyriazopoulou, M. & Weber, H. (Eds.) ( 2009 ). Development of a set of indicators—for inclusive education in Europe. Odense, Denmark: European Agency for Development in Special Needs Education. Retrieved from www.european-agency.org/agency-projects/indicators-for-inclusive- education/ indicators- documents/Indicators-EN.pdf Lunt, I. & Norwich, B. (1999 ). Can effective schools be inclusive schools? London : Institute of Education University of London. McLaughlin, M. J. & Dyson, A. ( 2014 ). Changing perspectives of special education in the evolving context of standards-based reforms in the United States and England. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special education ( 2nd Edition). London : Sage. Morris, P. & Auld, E. ( 2012 ). International comparisons of pupil achievement and educational policy: Methods and ethics. Research Intelligence, 119, 20 –21 Moses, D., Hegarty, S., & Jowett, S. (1987 ). Supporting ordinary schools. Windsor: Nf ER/Nelson. Norwich, B. (1993 ) Ideological dilemmas in special needs education: Practitioners’ views. Oxford Review of Education, 19 (4 ), 527– 45. Norwich, B. ( 2008 ). Dilemmas of difference: International perspectives and future directions. London : Routledge. O’Hanlon, C. ( 2003 ). Educational inclusion as action research: An interpretive discourse. Buckingham : Open University Press. O’Neill, M. (1995). Introduction. In D. Carter & M. O’Neill (Eds.), International perspectives on educational reform and policy implementation (pp. 1–14 ). London : Falmer Press. Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) ( 2010 ). PISA 2009 results: Overcoming social background. Equity in learning opportunities and outcomes. Volume II. Paris : author. Peters, S. ( 2007 ). Inclusion as a strategy for achieving education for all. In L. Florian (Ed.), The Sage handbook of special educational needs (pp. 117–130 ). London : Sage. Power, S. & Whitty, G. (1999 ). New Labour’s education policy: First, second or third way? Journal of Education Policy, 14 ( 5), 535 –546. Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (1996 ). Effective inclusive schools: A study in two countries. Cambridge Journal of Education, 26 (1), 71– 85. Rouse, M. & Florian, L. (1997 ). Inclusive education in the marketplace. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1 (4 ), 323 –336. Rouse, M. & Florian, L. ( 2006 ). Inclusion and achievement: Student achievement in secondary schools with higher and lower proportions of pupils designated as having special educational needs. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 10 ( 6 ), 481– 493 Ruijs, N. N., Van der Veen, I., & Peetsma, T. T. D. ( 2010 ). Inclusive education and students without special educational needs, Educational Research, 52 (4 ), 351–390 Rutter, M., Maughan, B., Mortimore, P., & Ouston, J. (1976 ). Fifteen thousand hours: Secondary schools and their effects on children. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. Sammons, P., Hillman, J., & Mortimore, P. (1995). Key characteristics of effective schools: A review of the effectiveness research. London : Report to the Office for Standards in Education [OFSTED] . Sebba, J. & Byers, R. (1992 ). The National Curriculum: Control or liberation for pupils with learning difficulties. The Curriculum Journal, 3 ( 2 ), 143 –160. Schleicher, A. ( 2012 ). The role and value of international datasets. Research Intelligence. 119 10 –11. Skrtic, T. M. (1991). Behind special education: A critical analysis of professional culture and school organization. Denver, CO : Love Publishing. Slee, R., Tomlinson, S., & Weiner, G. ( 2003 ). School effectiveness for whom? London : Falmer. Teddlie, C. & Reynolds, D. ( 2000 ). The international handbook of school effectiveness research. London and New York: Routledge. Thomas, G., Walker, D., & Webb, J. (1998 ). The making of the inclusive school. London : Routledge. Tomlinson, S. (1982 ). A sociology of special education. London : Routledge & Kegan Paul. UNESCO (Ed.) (1990 ). World declaration on education for all. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/ education/efa/ed_for_all/background/jomtien_declaration.shtml UNESCO (Ed.) (1994 ). The Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris : UNESCO. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/education/pdf/SALAMA_E.PDF UNESCO ( 2010 ). Global Monitoring Report 2010: Reaching the Marginalized Oxford : Oxford University Press. Retrieved from www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-internationalagenda/efareport/reports/2010-marginalization/ 519

L. Florian and M. Rouse

Warnock Report (1978 ). Special educational needs (Report by the Commission of Enquiry into the Education of Handicapped Children and Young People). London : HMSO Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., & Geenen, K. (1994 ). Educational accountability for students with disabilities (Policy Directions No. 3). Minneapolis, MN : University of Minnesota, National Center on Educational Outcomes.

520

37 What are Emerging Trends and Perspectives on Inclusive Schools in Italy?* Laura Nota,1 Salvatore Soresi,1 and Lea Ferrari 1

Setting the Stage The “scientific” history of the education of people with disabilities in Italy dates back to the early 20th century, when several scholars and researchers demonstrated the need and possibility to establish development and learning conditions for children who had generally been considered uneducable (Soresi & Nota, 2001). The philosophy of the times was based on “social medicine” and “scientific psychology” premises, widely disseminated by Maria Montessori. Yet, these propositions actually called for the treatment of these children in institutions and in special education schools and, therefore, for segregation from their peers without disabilities. It was only in the wake of the civil rights movement in 1968 that the ideas of de-institutionalization, special education school closings, and the rights of all students (even those with disabilities and behavioral disorders) to attend public schools began to take hold in Italy. According to the latest data published by the Ministry of Instruction, Universities, and Research (MIUR, 2011), during the 2010–2011 academic year 208,521 students with disabilities attended Italian schools, representing 2.3% of all students. The greatest prevalence of children with disabilities is observed in elementary schools (2.8% of the total) and in middle schools (3.4% of the total), whereas their presence in preschool is limited (1.2% of the total). Italian high schools also have few students with disabilities attending (1.8% of the total), and these students are disproportionally enrolled in vocational and technical schools, as opposed to university preparatory schools (Istat, 2012). The incidence of types of disabilities most frequently observed in Italian schools are intellectual disabilities (43.55%), followed by learning disabilities (24.75%), attention deficits (24.3%), speech and language impairments (20%), emotional disturbance (18.7%), and

* Correspondence concerning this chapter should be addressed to Laura Nota, Department of, University of Padua, via Belzoni, 80, 35131 Padua, Italy. Electronic mail may be sent via Internet to [email protected]. Telephone number: 0039 0498278484. Fax number: 0039 0498278451. 1 Philosophy, Sociology, Education, and Applied Psychology University of Padua, Italy 521

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

behavioral problems (16.6%). Lower incidence disabilities among included students are visual impairments (4.8%), auditory impairments (4.7%), and motor impairments (12.5%) (Istat, 2012). With respect to teachers, the Italian school system provides for the presence of curricular teachers and “specialized support teachers” with specific training in 2- or 3-year university programs. The latter now comprise 12.1% of Italian school faculty. Their presence in schools has steadily risen over time, from 57,248 members in 1998 to 94,506 in 2011 (MIUR, 2011). The laws Italy has enacted and the European documents it has undersigned render evident its consensus that the inclusion of people with disabilities is a fundamental right in any society considered to be “civil.” The need to facilitate collaboration among all stakeholders involved in the personal and social life projects of students with disabilities is underscored. Thus, teachers, parents, and social-health workers are considered crucial to the process, due to the conviction that high-quality projects are based on shared experience and mutual commitment. Although the above-described situation represents the most widespread school climate in Italy, some critical points remain and bear witness to obstacles in making school resources available for effective and true inclusion. After a brief “historical overview” of inclusion in Italy, this chapter will examine these obstacles, which currently prevent us from stating that our public schools are actually schools for everyone. The final part of this chapter is dedicated to proposing several initiatives and activities that could serve to reduce the impact of these difficulties by removing obstacles and barriers in order to enhance the quality of school inclusion overall. We are indeed convinced that, although much has been done to promote the school attendance of children with disabilities, the principles of inclusion for all must be sustained and disseminated if we are to obviate the return of institutionalization proposals and policies that place restrictions on the participation of these people in their own productive and successful educational pathways.

Historical Perspectives and Current Trends The Development in Italy of a Culture of Inclusion Toward the end of the 19th century, several municipal initiatives were launched (in Rome, Milan, Naples, Turin, Genoa, Florence, Venice, and Palermo), and the fi rst special education schools opened in various parts of Italy. These programs were based on the premise that the nations’ schools were unable to provide adequate treatment and education for students with disabilities, as well as on the appeals of several special education pioneers of the time (e.g., Montessori, De Sanctis, Montesano, Bonfigli). Moreover, these schools were originally established due to local initiatives in more affluent areas, based on a policy of “decentralization” (Soresi & Nota, 2001). These types of schools represented the only response to the education of students with disabilities for many decades, until schools overall came under pressure toward the end of the 1960s due to the civil unrest sweeping through many western nations. At this time Italian schools were accused of being overly class- conscious and of rejecting and marginalizing students who were unable to adapt to the high pace and rigor of school programs at the time (Soresi, 1981). In particular, the aims, methods, and goals of schools and universities were seriously questioned, and radical reforms were pushed to the forefront. The traditional Italian school world was further shaken in those years by the Barbiana school, launched by Don Milani (1967) and by the Educational Cooperation Movement (Movimento di Cooperazione Educativa—MCE). This endeavor demanded that public schools develop teaching–learning processes to promote the global, emotional, cognitive, and social 522

Italian Inclusive Schools

development of all children, without discrimination related to cognitive capacity or socioeconomic background. In those same years, the Democratic Psychiatry movement (Psichiatria Democratica ), promoted by Basaglia (1968), was becoming ever more active and influential by broadly denouncing traditional psychiatry’s failure to improve the health of individuals who were mentally ill. In fact, this movement played a key role in closing lock- down institutions including both healthcare (psychiatric hospitals) and educational institutions (special education schools and institutions for minors). These events took place in parallel with a grassroots movement which emerged in the 1970s to protest all forms of discrimination, inequality, and the segregation of people with disabilities. This endeavor resulted in the widespread national-level closure of special education schools and separate classrooms across Italy and, alternatively, the launching of public class placement and education for all students, including those with disabilities. This sea change was translated into and supported by two laws: Law 118 (1971) and Law 517 (1977) (Sgaramella, Nota, Ferrari, & Soresi, in press). Italy’s fi rst inclusion experiences with the in-class presence of additional teachers (support teachers) began at this time, although this new situation was viewed with suspicion and generally experienced as something quite “out of hand,” because teachers had not been properly prepared or trained (including the support teachers themselves). Moreover, awareness of the importance of collective planning processes to benefit all students had not yet been accepted, and collaborative experiences of this type were seldom observed. Awareness of the need for targeted training for support teachers had to wait as late as the 1990s, a decade in which European documents were being produced to make more inclusive schools the standard (see, e.g., the Salamanca Statement and Framework for Action on Special Needs Education, UNESCO, 1994). Overall, this process led to the enactment of Law 104 in 1992, which marked an historical shift in Italy, laying the foundations for a new “culture of integration.” In 2007, Italy signed the United Nations Organization’s Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities, which confi rmed the right to instruction for people with disabilities without discrimination and with equal opportunity over their entire lifespan. In 2009 the MIUR published guidelines affi rming that the ICF model proposed by the World Health Organization was also to be adopted in schools to support the needs of students with disabilities. During the 2010/2012 academic years, the MIUR promoted the “the ICF Project: from WHO model to inclusion planning” (Progetto ICF. Dal modello dell’OMS alla progettazione per l’inclusione ), which aimed to analyze contextual factors influencing the actual inclusion of students with disabilities and confi rmed the key role of parental involvement (MIUR, 2009). Hence, after an earlier tendency to overlook the role of parents of children with disabilities, from the year 2000 onwards, teachers and social-health workers began to collaborate more frequently with parents in drawing up children’s Individualized Educational Plans (Piano educativo individualizzato—PEI ), as required by Law 104. The PEI describes the educational intervention programs to be implemented for each student with a disability in both school- and extra-curricular contexts. The National Forum of School Parent Associations, founded in 2002, also underscored the importance of families being involved in defining their children’s inclusion projects. The Forum represents parent associations collaborating with the MIUR and is systematically dedicated to consulting with and supporting families on school and educational problems. Over the last few years, this association-oriented perspective has “taken root” among these parents, who participate in information and awareness campaigns and work at dissemination of effective rehabilitation and inclusion practices in ever-increasing numbers. For example, the FISH Onlus (Italian Federation for the Overcoming of Handicap), founded in 1994, aims 523

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

to promote policy for the social inclusion and equal opportunity of people with disabilities— nationally, European-wide, and with the United Nations—in major life areas. The Parent Project Onlus is also quite active in Italy, as an association of parents working at national and local levels to combat Duchenne and Beker’s Muscular Dystrophy. This group aims to provide families with counseling, to organize events and information campaigns, and also to fund research projects investigating these illnesses. These associations provide families with a “space” in which to share their experiences and emotions with people in similar situations, and provide supports for parents by helping them cope with daily problems and thereby attenuating burdens of worry and stress (Nota, Soresi, Ferrari, Wilgosh, & Scorgie, 2005). These associations also serve a “control” board and political pressure purpose, to ensure that the contents of the laws in effect actually translate into benefits for people with disabilities. We can therefore strongly affi rm that Italy acknowledges the superiority of the inclusion model over an institutionalization model, and that it focuses on the needs and rights of persons with disabilities, in terms of the quality of their lives, participation, and self-determination. It should be noted, however, that the “Italian model” does not always function well, despite the commitment and hard work of many. The impediments typically encountered are mostly administrative and bureaucratic inertia and inefficiencies, which hinder schools from fully developing successful educational practices for more widespread school inclusion (Dettori, 2009).

Critical Points and Open Issues A first critical point concerns the preparation of both curricular and support teachers, and the quality of their work. With respect to support teachers, after ten years of experience in preparation programs conducted and organized by public and private agencies and institutions, in the late 1990s Italian universities with programs in Educational Science developed specific programs to prepare preschool and elementary school teachers interested in working in classes that included students with disabilities. Preparation for middle school and high school teachers has been less systematic, and these school grades continue to present a lower-than-required presence of support teachers. With respect to curricular teachers, the main problem is the current lack of specialized preparation in teaching students with disabilities. As described in the preceding paragraphs, there is a general consensus in Italy that there cannot be inclusion without the participation of all (and especially without the participations of school principals and teachers). The fact remains, however, that most teachers find themselves having to cope with heterogeneous classes without specific and necessary preparation. They therefore have to rely on their own informal experience (Zambelli & Bonni, 2004). This lack of preparation reinforces the view that only teachers with specialized knowledge can work with students with disabilities, and that curricular teachers are not qualified to assist and support these students. This perspective can result in poor collaboration with support teachers, which then leads to the exclusion and marginalization of students with disabilities (Devecchi, Dettori, Doveston, Sedgwick, & Jament, 2012). A further contributing factor is the dearth of guidelines regarding what the content of in-service training for teachers should be and how it should be delivered, thereby leaving single schools to their own initiative. A frequently overlooked key point is that teachers must have access to more specific knowledge and to updates over time if true inclusion and better school outcomes are to be achieved for students with and without disabilities. This teacher training process should be based on innovative and collaborative approaches that allow participants to have an active say in choosing their own training topics and the opportunity to apply 524

Italian Inclusive Schools

their new knowledge and skills through specific forms of support such as in-class coaching (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). Similar to curricular teachers, school principals have only rarely been offered targeted training related to inclusion. Thus, few of these professionals actually manage to establish and maintain a collaborative school culture and to foster a support ethos that helps students accept others with disabilities as an integrative part of the school community. These staff members therefore do not receive the input and support they need to develop their schools’ capacity to address students’ needs with a “view of the future” in mind (Waldron & McLeskey, 2010). In fact, rarely has an entire school staff team been asked to participate in training programs aimed at pursuing the two key goals of constructing a new “inclusively” oriented educational perspective and acquiring educational and instructional methods and techniques that can facilitate the achievement of integrative practices (Soresi & Nota, 2001). Hence, micro- exclusion lingers on in the daily school routine for students with disabilities. Many of them are systematically isolated, and are either removed from class to participate in activities that have little to do with typical school activities conducted by curricular teachers or are separated within class from the rest of their peers by the creation with a support teacher/child of a disability “couple” (Soresi & Nota, 2001). A second critical point, which is closely linked to the first, concerns our schools’ persistent reference to a “medical” model of disability, despite all efforts made to overcome it. This view is evident in the many intervention programs that aim to reduce students’ deficits and enhance functional skills, such as eating alone, washing, using the lavatory, grooming, moving through the environment, and functionally handling common objects. These skills are emphasized at the expense of participation in regular math, science, reading, technology/technical, and/or social skills enhancement programs (Soresi & Nota, 2001). Despite fi ndings in the current literature which show that it is possible to successfully teach scientific (Knight, Smith, Spooner & Browder, 2012), mathematical (Monari Martinez & Benedetti, 2011), reading (Browder, Wakeman, Spooner, Ahlgrim-Delzell, & Algozzine, 2006), social (Soresi & Nota, 2000), and computer/technological skills to some students with disabilities (Wehmeyer, Smith, Palmer, & Davis, 2004), in many instances this learning potential ends up being all but ignored or considered unimportant. Moreover, little attention has been focused on the need to initiate this type of learning as early as possible because children’s opportunity to develop new skills and knowledge and to more easily access the general curricula depends on this learning. For example, learning to read with accuracy, speed, and understanding in the early elementary grades predicts reading comprehension and general school achievement in the higher grades. This skill is also crucial in helping children shift from learning to read to reading to learn (Wang, Algozzine, Ma, & Porfeli, 2011). We also know that social skills enhancement requires specifically dedicated teaching times, just as other school subjects do, and that class attendance to develop and consolidate a child’s social skills is not sufficient (Soresi & Nota, 2001). As Wang and Algozzine (2011) state, “teaching both reading and behavior promises more than teaching reading (or behavior) and expecting improvements in behavior (or reading) in efforts to improve the success of all students and leave no child behind” (p.108). A third critical point concerns the scarce focus placed on career development. It is crucial to remember that consolidating the formal knowledge and social skills of even young children with disabilities is essential to their future career development and work inclusion. These lessons are essential requirements in a society of knowledge such as ours, which demands that all people (including those with disabilities) possess knowledge in different disciplines; that they 525

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

continue their lifelong learning process, including knowing how to use sophisticated technologies; that they develop qualities of flexibility rather than expectations of stability; and that they create learning opportunities for themselves through researching new experiences (Savickas et al., 2009). Lastly, although guidance counseling is required by law, little of this occurs in Italian schools. Frequently, the few programs available can be defi ned as being merely informative, rather than formative (training). Furthermore, even teachers do not show much awareness of the issue of the future of children with disabilities with whom they are working and tend to harbour low expectations of them. For example, in a study examining teachers’ views of the future of students with Down Syndrome, Nota and Soresi (2009) observed that most teachers focused more on the limits a described disability entailed than on the possibility that these students might one day work in competitive inclusive settings and could self- determine their own future. Overall, the scenario described herein and the negative consequences we are observing in Italian schools—also because it is a time of economic crisis, which tends to result in public and social service reduction—have led to the risk of poor quality of life for many children with disabilities and their families. Indeed, many programs tend to work in the opposite direction to that hoped for by quality of life researchers, who underscore that the quality of life of students with disabilities is strongly associated with opportunities to spend time with their peers not only at school, but also after school; to be treated with fairness and respect by their peers; to participate in interesting and fun leisure activities; to attend school with their schoolmates; and to be able to choose the activities in which they want to participate and with whom (Nota, Soresi, & Perry, 2006).

Future Directions: Inclusion in Italy Good quality school inclusion is based on the direct involvement of people with disability, by helping them develop and consolidate their self- determination skills, and this requires that school environments render these processes visible and help create a heterogeneous support network. Educational activities should firstly train curricular teachers, but also parents and classmates, to use essentially descriptive language that focuses on people’s strong points. It is also crucial that generic and stereotypical ways of coping with the issues of disability be abandoned, and that conversely attitudes of accepting diversity be fostered, through the actively facilitated development of interpersonal relationships in the classroom (Nota & Soresi, 2004). It is therefore necessary to develop early and systematic forms of: (a) involvement for all personnel working in schools (principals; teachers; administrative, secretarial, and school management staff ), because independently of their roles, qualifications, and specializations, they are the key figures responsible for promoting a “culture of inclusion” that may or may not imbue their school environment; (b) involvement of all parents—and thus, of children with and without disabilities—to collaborate in reducing prejudice and stereotypes and promote the adoption of “school rules” and programs inspired by the principles of inclusion and solidarity; (c) involvement of classmates, to teach them the prosocial behaviors of acceptance, helping others, and relational solidarity; (d) inclusion-oriented vocational guidance, because the most evident and valid outcome indicator of any school inclusion program is that of these children being able to work at satisfying jobs in competitive settings during their adult lives. 526

Italian Inclusive Schools

Involvement of School Personnel Adherence to the culture and principles of school inclusion does not occur “by chance” or “spontaneously.” It fi rstly requires the professional training and updating of all people working in schools and, thus, all types of teachers (be they curricular or support teachers), school managers, and social-health administrators and specialists, so as to prevent and “weed out” even subtle and indirect forms of micro- exclusion and marginalization whenever and wherever they might appear (Giangreco, Doyle, & Suter, 2012). For example, as early as 1997, the University of Padua’s Higher Center for Disability, Rehabilitation, and Integration Services and Research (Centro di Ateneo di Servizi e Ricerca per la Disabilità, la Riabilitazione e l’Integrazione dell’Università di Padova (www.dpss.unipd.it/ ) developed a project aimed to facilitate inclusion processes in a northeastern area of Italy. The project was based on the involvement of local policy makers, school principals, teachers, social-health workers, and parents. For two years teachers attended 3-hour sessions, twice monthly, aimed at consolidating their skills in: defi ning and personalizing their educational goals, conducting direct and indirect school observation of both the students’ learning processes and interpersonal relations, and designing subject matter teaching units with personalized “learning guides” and evaluations of both normative and criterion-based teaching conducted from an inclusive perspective. Over the course of the second training year, the project dedicated a great deal of time to the themes of collective and participative management of educational programming, and to augmenting the inclusive capacity of students without disabilities. Specifically programdeveloped study and research materials, as well as homework, were used for each session. Activities mostly consisted of asking the teachers to carry out the proposals in their own classrooms. The efficacy evaluation conducted upon the program’s conclusion allowed us to state that, in addition to reporting satisfaction with the training program, the teachers also showed significant changes in their teaching methods (Soresi, Nota, & Wehmeyer, 2011). Although this training experience managed to impact upon the inclusive atmosphere of the participating schools by promoting more personalized teaching and the development of sympathetic attitudes, we sense that, after 15 years, other aspects are now begging consideration. Specifically, sociocultural changes, increased migration rates, and the economic crisis have greatly impacted upon our nation and have resulted in a greater number of socioculturally disadvantaged groups, inhabitants living on the verge of poverty, and greater pressure on social-health assistance programs which have concurrently lost much of their funding. Thus, our schools have witnessed an increase in the heterogeneity of their student populations and the problems this situation can create, which also calls for improvements in psycho-pedagogical support planning and teacher training and involvement. In fact, our schools are experiencing the increasing presence of children from different cultures and children living in family environments that present their own economic and social inclusion problems—a situation that can also produce specific psychological, behavioral, and relational problems for these children (Istat, 2011). It is therefore becoming more urgent than ever for schools to promote and underscore the values of respect for individuality, dignity, acceptance, self- determination, and empowerment, and that they implement effective strategies for achieving these goals (Carter, Quaglia, & Leslie, 2010). Over the last two decades, Italian policy has not been successful in bridging the gap between rich and poor and social injustice. This perceived discrepancy not only generates consumerist mirages, but also contributes to a “withering” of values, especially in younger generations (Combs & Freedman, 2012). The current economic crisis is clearly producing 527

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

these contradictions and accentuates the angst perceived by many in terms of feeling disempowered. Promoting the values of equity and social justice should be the duty of social and educational services, and, in fact, many people are now explicitly demanding that the school give voice to these views and continue to advance them (Kaur, 2012). Schools must also abandon the idea of working exclusively toward developing the functional skills of students with disabilities. They should channel their energy and expertise into the in- depth study of traditional subjects, especially reading/language, math, and science skills, as current predictions for the next few years is that 66% of available jobs will require at least some form of postsecondary education (TFYI, 2010). Teachers must therefore not only know their own disciplines well, but must also learn how to teach this content to markedly heterogeneous groups as they respect the specificity of their students’ needs. This will mean tapping all of the new technological educational platforms that are available. For example, research has revealed that students of math teachers who are prepared to work with special populations show a full grade of higher performance than their peer controls (ETS, 2000). Moreover, Graves, Asunda, Plant, and Goad (2011) have shown that the “asynchronous online access” of STEM discipline course curricula facilitates learning for students with disabilities. It is important to note that professional development which takes all of the above- described criteria and ideas into account and involves the entire staff of a school can lay the foundations for more productive work conditions for all. This professional development should focus on the development of supportive and collective relationships, fairer distribution of resources and reinforcements, feedback on outcomes, and on the ability to identify challenging but pursuable goals. Lent, Nota, Soresi, Ginevra, Duffy, and Brown (2011) suggest that this approach can enhance the efficacy and efficiency of teaching and also foster teachers’ career satisfaction. Positive emotions, favorable work conditions, and supportive feedback were strongly associated with job satisfaction in Italian teachers. Moreover, positive emotions and job satisfaction significantly predicted these teachers’ life satisfaction. In light of the current recession in Italy, austerity measures, and funding cuts in school and social services, it is crucial to launch a debate on how professionals working in the helping and educational professions might best be supported. In this regard, the University of Padua has developed the IHRT (International Hope Research Team): a group of Italian and international scholars promoting reflection on the issues of hope, optimism, time perspective, and resilience. The group’s fi ndings are shedding light on the need for workers and teachers to perceive and cultivate the values of hope, optimism, and time perspective, especially when working with people experiencing difficulties. Practitioners engaged in the field of disability, mostly as educators and teachers, who possess these characteristics also demonstrate a greater professional capacity to plan and evaluate their work and a higher tendency to instill hope and trust in those benefitting from their work (Nota & Soresi, 2012a). These results confi rm that positive psychology constructs could have an impact upon the ways in which helping relation and educational professionals perform their work. They must therefore become the subject of targeted research and training.

Involvement of Parents Family studies examining parent–child exchanges and observing adult behavior have demonstrated the effects of these factors on children, in forming their ideas about problems and disability, and their attitudes and behavior toward those who present diversity (Stoneman, 2001). Nota, Santilli, Ginevra and Soresi (in press) found that describing individuals with 528

Italian Inclusive Schools

disability by highlighting their strong points was associated with more positive attitudes in the people who interact with them. Moreover parents’ attitudes varied based on the type of information they have (Nota & Santilli, 2012). For example, descriptions of children presenting not only a brief list of their difficulties, but also their abilities and strong points were associated with more positive attitudes, regardless of the severity of disability. It is important to work with parents and increase their participation in school life overall, especially considering their potential impact upon children. In addition to their specific parenting skills, they can be helped to promote feelings of optimism and hope in their children. Indeed, children experiencing supportive and optimistic parenting more easily develop an optimistic view of the world, fi rstly as children and later as adults. For example, Lemola et al. (2010) found a strong association between parents’ levels of optimism/pessimism and those of their children. Italian studies have yielded similar fi ndings, as parents’ hope and optimism predicted more positive attitudes toward disability in their children (Nota & Soresi, 2012b; Nota & Santilli, 2012). In addition to confi rming the impact of parents on influencing their children’s attitudes toward students with disabilities, these results encourage us to carefully consider dimensions such as hope, optimism, temporal perspective, and resilience, and to conduct more research on these variables, such as that conducted by the International Hope Research Team (http:// larios.psy.unipd.it/hope.php). These fi ndings also underscore how important it is that schools (if truly interested in inclusion) adopt parental involvement policies and practices. In this regard, in the above- described northeastern Italy project, a parent training program was developed to foster their skills in observing their children’s behavior, in distinguishing adaptive from non-adaptive behaviors, and consolidating their abilities to participate in school life and support inclusive policies. Once again, the efficacy evaluation conducted showed that the parents only reported high levels of course satisfaction, considered what they had learned to be helpful, and maintained over time the knowledge and skills acquired (Soresi & Nota, 2001; Soresi et al., 2011). Overall, considering the more recent social changes and that a growing number of families are having to cope daily with the economic and work crisis, it is time for entire communities to focus on the ways in which they might foster positive parent attitudes by also nurturing a greater sense of hope and optimism. The concept of parental involvement should include the idea that our society and schools are heterogeneous contexts, and that this situation can result in benefits for the cognitive and social development of all children. The negative role of prejudice and stereotypes in this process should be highlighted, especially by considering their consequences on social relations in the school context, the importance of focusing on people’s strong points, and the crucial role of solidarity in interpersonal relationships. The various ways in which parents can support this process should also be explored, by examining the impact of variables such as hope and optimism upon the lives of people and, especially, upon their children.

Involvement of Classmates Classmates also play a crucial role in supporting inclusion. If the inclusion process is not adequately supported, the presence of students with disabilities in class is not associated with the spontaneous development of mutually satisfying relationships (DiGennaro Reed, McIntyre, Dusek, & Quintero, 2011). Unsupported inclusion appears to be associated with an increase in negative attitudes on the part of peers without disabilities (Vignes et al., 2009). Moreover, a recent review (Sentenac et al., 2012) examined studies published from 529

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

1991–2011 on peer victimization among children and adolescents aged 5–17 years in the U.S. and in Europe. The children presented various types of chronic conditions (psychiatric diagnoses, learning difficulties, physical and motor impairments, chronic illnesses, and obesity), and results showed that they were more frequently victimized than their peers without chronic conditions. Furthermore, severity of disability (psychiatric diagnoses or learning disabilities vs. motor impairments or chronic diseases) and degree of visibility of the children’s problems were inversely correlated with their classmates’ tendency to activate social relationships of helping, collaboration, solidarity, and friendship. This fi nding also emerged in our own research related to the willingness of Italian children without disabilities to be friends with and to help a child with disability (Nota, Ferrari, & Soresi, 2005). These research fi ndings suggest a need to design specific ways to involve classmates in the inclusion process. These programs should therefore aim to shed light on children’s differences, impairment, and their consequences, and also on how to help and interact with classmates experiencing the greatest difficulties. Hence, it is important to reflect upon and construct new ways of ensuring participation and social interaction together, by reducing the negative role of prejudice and stereotypes in the classroom (Cameron, Rutland, Turner, Holman-Nicolas, & Powell, 2011). It is also crucial to teach and encourage the use of strategies that stimulate the classroom interaction of children with typical development and those with disabilities. To address this identified need, we experimented with a new program (Rizzi, 2012), which was based on our earlier fi ndings from the late 1990s (Soresi, 1993) and aimed to increase knowledge about classmates’ disabilities and the capacity for assisting and collaborating with them. During ten 2-hour sessions, differences present in the class context that were associated with variables such as physical appearance, culture of origin, interests, cognitive processes, and the potential benefits of these factors on relationships and on classroom life were highlighted. We also presented descriptions of physical, sensory, and intellectual disabilities, and encouraged students to experience these disabilities in role plays and simulations. The experimental group was then asked to reflect on what children who actually have these disabilities can or cannot do, and what they have problems doing. Particular care was focused on teaching students how to stimulate the abilities of their peers with disabilities and their participation in regular class activities, lessons, and recreational time. Participants were then encouraged to show prosocial behavior in class, promote the values of participation and solidarity, foster friendly and mutual relationships, take on a social advocacy role, safeguard the rights of peers experiencing greater difficulty than themselves, and imagine new and more satisfying types of contact with their classmates—with and without disabilities. Generalization units were developed to encourage the participants to show specific helping behaviors (collaboration, support of participation) during standard subject matter hours and recess. Direct observation conducted at school, teacher evaluations, and the children’s own self-evaluations showed that, at the program’s conclusion, the experimental group children were evincing more positive attitudes towards their classmates with disabilities, manifesting more prosocial behaviors in the classroom, and were considered more socially competent by their teachers than was observed for the control group (Nota, 2012). Programs like this reveal that it is possible to modify cognitions and behaviors that peers could activate to support inclusion. Such programs could then be carried out in the multiple contexts that the children attend during their extra school time, in order to significantly increase inclusion in their daily life. 530

Italian Inclusive Schools

Inclusion-Oriented Vocational Guidance The research on youth with disabilities shows that “[those] who participate in vocational coursework and community-based work experiences are also more likely to obtain and maintain employment after high school” (Lindstrom, Doren, & Miesch, 2011, p. 424). Given this fi nding, vocational guidance should actively promote all actions capable of producing change in people’s career pathways, including those with disabilities. Career counseling and vocational guidance should work to develop specific knowledge and skills in analyzing and coping with the real experience of working in different jobs in a complex and non-linear world. It therefore follows that vocational guidance should focus on developing individual resilience and coping strategies, rather than on providing content or information. Guidance counselors must help their clients understand “how” to do things, not “what” they should do. To demonstrate the effectiveness of interventions addressing these needs, the main outcome of vocational guidance should be significant change in clients’ lives (Soresi, Nota, Ferrari & Solberg, 2008), especially in terms of facilitating their ability to reflect on and describe themselves and their goals, and to act on these goals. Hence, vocational guidance programs for people with disabilities should enhance self- efficacy beliefs, proactive thoughts about their future, decision-making skills, social skills for life at work, and overall adaptability to frequently changing circumstances (Soresi, Nota, Ferrari, & Sgaramella, in press). It is also crucial that these programs be conducted in standard and integrated school settings, because involving students without disability in small, actively participatory groups with their typical peers serves to render this type of counseling “normal” and fosters feelings of involvement and motivation in adolescents with disability (Soresi et al., 2011).

Conclusion The research fi ndings and the reflections synthesized herein underscore the degree to which school inclusion is a complex process requiring participation from the whole school. Teachers must adopt effective inclusive teaching approaches to help parents assume more positive and supportive attitudes in this regard; school classmates should be taught to foster social reciprocity and the class participation of others; and school principals should be able to render the benefits of this approach visible to all. This set of actions essentially calls for situations of “positive entrapment” to be established—i.e., interactions in conditions in which people can act only in a socially inclusive way (Soresi, Nota, & Ferrari, 2006). Our own and other researchers’ experiences with programs dedicated to teachers, parents, and children confi rms the inherent value of primary prevention projects. At the same time, however, the economic difficulties with which we fi nd ourselves grappling should stimulate us to reflect on, design, implement, and evaluate low- cost programs, e.g., by targeting large groups and relying on new technologies (Savickas et al., 2009). These expedients could make it possible to involve more teachers in training and updating programs and a higher number of children in motivating activities. For example, a computerized project called Tre passi verso il futuro (“Three steps to the future”) focused on career planning by presenting brief and rather “captivating” videos, which had been developed by experts to encourage children to think differently about their futures. The project provided examples, suggestions, and strategies as well as computer work to develop personalized pathways. This approach is therefore highly amenable for implementation in large student groups. The project illustrates the potential that technology offers for disseminating positive concepts and values, and fostering in the participants (including 531

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

students with disabilities) a greater sense of responsibility in planning their futures, a higher degree of trust, and increased overall adaptability (Soresi, Nota, & Santilli, 2012). In line with these fi ndings, we consider the potential of technologies such as the smartphone, tablet, and console applications to be highly promising for fostering positive attitudes towards inclusion and participation among children and adolescents. These proposals require that our universities take on a key role, by conducting innovative research; by properly training psychologists, educators, and new teachers; and by proposing collaborative programs with public psycho-pedagogical services, which actually implement these innovations. We also believe that true commitment by all parties is necessary to create conditions for greater social justice and inclusion (Kaur, 2012). Given the problems experienced most recently by an increasingly large proportion of the population, it appears evident that focus on inclusion, solidarity, and social justice should be part of a broader process of change and that institutions should assume the task of promoting this type of change—that is, if all citizens, even individuals at highest risk, have the right to pursue meaningful and quality lives (Mastropaolo, 2012).

References Basaglia, F. (1968 ). L’istituzione negata [The denied institution]. Torino: Einaudi. Browder, D. M., Wakeman, S. Y., Spooner, F., Ahlgrim-Delzell, L., & Algozzine, R. ( 2006 ). Research on reading for individuals with severe developmental disabilities. Exceptional Children, 72, 392 – 408. Cameron, L., Rutland, A., Turner, R. N., Blake, B., Holman-Nicolas, R., & Powell, C. ( 2011). Changing attitudes with a little imagination: Imagined contact effects on young children’s implicit attitudes. Anale de Psicologia, 27, 708 –717. Carter, I., Quaglia, C., & Leslie, D. ( 2010 ). Enriching social work through interdisciplinary disability studies. In W. A. Wright, M. Wilson & D. MacIsaac (Eds.) Collected essays on learning and teaching (vol. III, pp. 124 –130 ). Retrieved October 28, 2012 from http://apps.medialab.uwindsor.ca/ctl/CELT/ celtvol3.html Combs, G. & Freedman, J. ( 2012 ). Narrative therapy: The social construction of preferred realities. New York: W. W. Norton & Company. Dettori, F. ( 2009 ). La fuga degli insegnanti di sostegno verso il posto comune: Una ricerca sulle storie professionali [The fl ight of support teachers towards mainstream classes: A study on professional lives] . L’integrazione scolastica e sociale [Social and Educational Integration, 8, 247–58. Devecchi, C., Dettori, F., Doveston, M., Sedgwick, P., & Jament, J. ( 2012 ). Inclusive classrooms in Italy and England: The role of support teachers and teaching assistants. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 27, 171–184. DiGennaro Reed, F. D., McIntyre, L. L., Dusek, J., & Quintero, N. ( 2011). Preliminary assessment of friendship, problem behavior, and social adjustment in children with disabilities in an inclusive education setting. Journal of Developmental and Physical Disabilities, 23, 477– 489. ETS ( 2000 ). How teaching matters. Bringing the classroom back into discussions of teacher quality. Princeton, NJ ; Milken Family Foundation and Educational Testing Service. Giangreco, M. F., Doyle, M. B., & Suter, J. C. ( 2012 ). Demographic and personnel service delivery data: implications for including students with disabilities in Italian schools. Life Span and Disability, 15, 97–123. Graves, L., Asunda, P. A., Plant, S. J., & Goad, C. ( 2011). Asynchronous online access as an accommodation on students with learning disabilities and/or attention- deficit hyperactivity disorders in postsecondary stem courses. Journal of Postsecondary Education and Disability 24 (4 ), 317–330. Istat ( 2011). La popolazione straniera residente in Italia [The foreign people that live in Italy]. Roma : Istat. Istat ( 2012 ). L’integrazione degli alunni con disabilità nelle scuole primarie e secondarie di primo grado statali e non statali. [ School inclusion of children with disability in public and private elementary and middle schools ]. Roma : Istat. Kaur, B. ( 2012 ). Equity and social justice in teaching and teacher education. Teaching and Teacher Education. doi:10.1016/j.tate.2012.01.012 532

Italian Inclusive Schools

Knight, V. F., Smith, B. R., Spooner, F., & Browder, D. ( 2012 ). Using explicit instruction to teach science descriptors to students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 42, 378 –389. Lemola, S., Raikkonen, K., Matthews, K. A., Scheier, M. F., Heinonen, K., Pesonene, A.K., . . . Lahti, J. ( 2010 ). A new measure of dispositional optimism and pessimism in young children. European Journal of Personality, 24, 71– 84. Lent, W. R., Nota, L., Soresi, S. Ginevra, C., Duffy, R. & Brown S. ( 2011). Predicting the work and life satisfaction of Italian teachers: Test of a Social Cognitive Model. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 79, 91–97. Lindstrom, L., Doren, B., & Miesch, J. ( 2011). Waging a living: Career development and long-term employment outcomes for young adults with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 77 (4 ), 423 – 434. Mastropaolo, A. ( 2012 ). La democrazia Imperiale e quella di Asterix [The democracy of Empire and that of Asterix]. Rivista di Storia delle Idee, [ Journal of Ideas’ History] 1 (1 ), 23 –29. Milani, L. (1967 ). Lettera a una professoressa [ Letter to a teacher]. Firenze : Libreria Editrice Fiorentina. MIUR ( 2009 ). Linee guida per l’integrazione degli alunni con disabilità [ Guidelines for the school inclusion of children with disability]. Roma : MIUR. MIUR ( 2011). L’integrazione scolastica degli alunni con disabilità nel sistema nazionale di istruzione. [The social integration of students with disability in the national school system] Roma : MIUR. Monari Martinez, E. & Benedetti, N. ( 2011). Learning mathematics in mainstream secondary schools: Experiences of students with Down’s syndrome. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 26 (4 ), 531–540. Nota, L. ( 2012 ). Attitudes toward children with disability. Paper presented at the national conference of the Italian Association of Psychology, Chieti, Italy. Nota, L. & Santilli, S. ( 2012 , April). Hope, optimism, time perspective and resilience in a group of youth. Paper presented at the workshop of the IHRT-International Hope Research Team, Padova, Italy. Nota, L., Ferrari, L., & Soresi, S. ( 2005). Elementary school children’s willingness to help and be friends with disabled peers. International Journal on Disability and Human Development, 4, 131–137. Nota, L., Santilli, S., Ginevra, M. C., & Soresi S. (in press). Employer attitudes towards the work inclusion of people with disability. Journal of Intellectual and Disability Research. Nota, L. & Soresi, S. ( 2004 ). Social and community inclusion. In J. Rondal, R. Hodapp, S. Soresi, E. Dykens, & L. Nota (Eds.), Intellectual disabilities: Genetics, behavior, and inclusion (pp. 157–192 ). London : Whurr Publishers Limited. Nota, L. & Soresi, S. ( 2009 ). Ideas and thoughts of Italian teachers on the professional future of persons with disability. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 53, 65 –77. Nota, L. & Soresi, S. ( 2012a, September). Future time perspective, hope and optimism in Italian career counselors. Paper presented at the 1st International conference on time perspective. Coimbra, Portugal. Nota, L. & Soresi, S. ( 2012b, September). Parental support and optimism in youth’s career construction and optimism. Paper presented at the 6th Congress of the European Society on Family Relations (ESFR), Lillehammer, Norway. Nota, L., Soresi, S., Ferrari, L., Wilgosh, L., & Scorgie, K. ( 2005). Life Management and quality of life of parents of children with diverse disabilities. Developmental Disabilities Bulletin, 31, 155 –181. Nota, L., Soresi, S., & Perry, J. ( 2006 ). Quality of life in adults with an intellectual disability: The Evaluation of Quality of Life instrument. Journal of Intellectual Disability Research, 50, 371–385. Rizzi, A. ( 2012 ). A new version of a parent training program for parents of children with disability. University of Padova : Unpublished master thesis. Rubery, J. ( 2011). Reconstruction amid deconstruction: Or why we need more of the social in European social models. Work, Employment and Society, 25 (4 ), 658 – 674. Savickas, M. L., Nota, L., Rossier, J., Dauwalder, J. P., Duarte, M. E., Guichard, J., . . . . van Vianen, A. E. M. ( 2009 ). Life designing: A paradigm for career construction in the 21st century. Journal of Vocational Behaviour, 75, 239 –250. Sentenac, M., Arnaud, C., Gavin, A., Molcho, M., Gabhainn, S. N., & Godeau, E. ( 2012 ). Peer victimization among school-aged children with chronic conditions. Epidemiologic Reviews, 34, 120 –128. Sgaramella, T. M., Nota, L., Ferrari, L., & Soresi, S. (in press). The Italian path to school and social inclusion: Problems, strengths and perspectives. In R. Hanes (Ed.), History of disability. University of Toronto Press : Toronto. 533

L. Nota, S. Soresi, and L. Ferrari

Soresi, S. (1981). Problemi ed esperienze di integrazione scolastica e sociale degli handicappati. [ Problems and experiences of school and social integration in people with handicaps ]. Pordenone : Erip Editrice. Soresi, S. (1993 ). Sperimentazione di un programma di parent training con genitori di adolescenti handicappati [A parent training program for parents of children with handicap ]. In M. Cusinato & M. Tessarolo (Eds.), Ruoli e vissuti familiari, nuovi approcci [ Roles and family experiences, new approaches ] (pp. 293 –310 ). Firenze Giunti. Soresi, S. & Nota, L. ( 2000 ). Social skill training for persons with Down’s syndrome, European Psychologist, 1, 34 – 43. Soresi, S. & Nota, L. ( 2001). La facilitazione dell’integrazione scolastica [ Facilitating school inclusion ]. Pordenone : Erip Editrice. Soresi, S., Nota, L., & Ferrari, L. ( 2006). Family setting in Down syndrome. In J. A. Rondal & J. Perera (Eds.), Down syndrome, neurobehavioral specifi city (191–211). Chichester: Wiley. Soresi, S., Nota, L., Ferrari, L., & Sgaramella, T. M. (in press). Career development and career thoughts. In M. L. Wehmeyer (Ed.), The Oxford handbook of positive psychology and disability. New York: Oxford University Press. Soresi, S., Nota, L., Ferrari, L., & Solberg, S. V. H. ( 2008 ). Career guidance for persons with disabilities. In J. Athanasou & R. Van Esbroeck (Eds.), International handbook of career guidance (pp. 405 – 417 ), Amsterdam : Kluwer. Soresi, S., Nota, L., & Santilli, S. ( 2012 ). I training per le abilità sociali. [Training for social skills]. In Santinello, M. & Vieno, A. (a cura di). Metodi di intervento in Psicologia di Comunità: Progettazione e valutazione degli interventi nel sociale. [Intervention methods in community psychology: Planning and evaluation of the interventions] Bologna : Il Mulino. Soresi, S., Nota, L., & Wehmeyer, M. L. ( 2011). Community involvement in promoting inclusion, participation, and self- determination. International Journal of Inclusive Education, 15, 15 –28. Stoneman, Z. ( 2001) Attitudes and beliefs of parents of typically developing children: Effects on early childhood inclusion. In M. J. Guralnick (Ed.) Early childhood inclusion: Focus on change. Baltimore, MD, Paul H. Brookes Publishing Co. The Forum for Youth Development. ( 2010, September). Ready by 21, credentialed by 26 Issue Brief #1: Insulating the education pipeline to increase postsecondary success. Washington, D.C.: The Forum for Youth Investment. UNESCO (1994 ). Salamanca statement and framework for action on special needs education. Paris : UNESCO. Retrieved October 25, 2012 from http://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0009/000984/098427eo.pdf Vignes, C., Godeau, E., Sentenac, M, Coley, N., Navarro, F., Grandjean, H., & Arnad, C. ( 2009 ). Determinants of students’ attitudes towards peers with disabilities. Developmental Medicine & Child Neurology, 51 ( 6 ), 473 – 479. Waldron, N. L. & McLeskey, J. ( 2010 ). Establishing a collaborative culture through comprehensive school reform. Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 20 (1), 58 –74. Wang, C. & Algozzine, B. ( 2011). Rethinking the relationship between reading and behavior in early elementary school. The Journal of Educational Research, 104, 100 –109. Wang, C., Algozzine, B., Ma, W., & Porfeli, E. ( 2011). Oral reading rates of second-grade students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103 ( 2 ), 332 – 454. Wehmeyer, M. L., Smith, S. J., Palmer, S. B., & Davis, D. K. ( 2004 ). Technology use by students with intellectual disabilities: An overview. Journal of Special Education Technology, 19 (4 ), 7–22 . Zambelli, F. & Bonni, R. ( 2004 ). Beliefs of teachers in Italian schools concerning the inclusion of disabled students: a Q-sort analysis. European Journal of Special Needs Education, 19 (3 ), 351–366.

534

Contributors

Bob Algozzine is Professor in the Department of Educational Leadership at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. He has been a special education teacher and college professor for more than 40 years. His current research interests include school transformation, effective teaching, data-based decision making, and behavior instruction. Kate Algozzine is Research Associate and Coordinator of the Team-Initiated Problem Solving Project at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. She has been a general education and special education classroom teacher, college instructor, and researcher for more than 40 years in public and private schools and universities in Florida and North Carolina. She has been a featured speaker at local, state, national, and international professional conferences and is widely recognized as an expert on effective team decision making and schoolwide behavior instruction and support. Cynthia Anderson, Ph.D. is the Stanley Aeschleman Distinguished Professor in Psychology at Appalachian State University. She conducts research in applied behavior analysis, with a focus on childhood problem behavior and systems change. Alfredo J. Artiles is the Ryan C. Harris Professor of Special Education at Arizona State University. His scholarship focuses on understanding and addressing educational inequities related to the intersections of disabilities with sociocultural differences. He co-edits the International Multilingual Research Journal and Teacher College Press’ book series Disability, Culture, and Equity.Vice president and a fellow of the American Educational Research Association (AERA), his publications have received awards from AERA and the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC). His most recent (co-authored) book is Inclusive Education: Examining Equity on Five Continents (2011, Harvard Education Press). He was appointed in 2011 to President Obama’s Advisory Commission on Educational Excellence for Hispanics. Jennifer Asmus is Professor in the Educational Psychology Department at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research and teaching interests include applied behavior analysis, assessment and intervention for children with developmental disabilities, single-subject design, and evidenced-based practice. Tachelle Banks, Ph.D., is an Associate Professor of Special Education in the Department of Teacher Education at Cleveland State University. Her current research interests include behavior disorders, cognitive behavior interventions and special education teacher quality.

535

Contributors

Audrey Bartholomew is an Assistant Professor at the University of New England. Her research interests include aligning secondary transition and academic instruction for students with disabilities and training teachers using online instruction. George M. Batsche is Professor and Co-Director of the Institute for School Reform at the University of South Florida and Co-Director of the Florida Statewide Problem-Solving/ Response to Intervention Project for the Florida Department of Education. Dr. Batsche’s experience includes work as a university professor and researcher, school psychologist, district-level administrator, building principal, and consultant to school districts and state agencies regarding implementation of problem-solving/response to intervention. He is a co-author of the book Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation (2005), “Response to Intervention: Competing Views” in the journal, Assessment for Effective Intervention (2006), and “Statewide Implementation of Problem-Solving/Response to Intervention:The Florida Initiative” in the The Handbook of Response to Intervention:The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (2007). Dr. Elizabeth Benedek-Wood is Assistant Professor at The Pennsylvania State University. Dr. Benedek-Wood conducts research in reading and writing strategies across content areas with a focus on students with special needs. Dr. Benedek-Wood teaches courses in literacy and inclusion. Tricia Berg is a Ph.D. student in Special Education at the University of Oregon. Her background includes teaching students with emotional and behavioral disabilities, functioning as the district-level behavior specialist and Positive Behavior Intervention and Supports Coordinator. Her current research interests include the improvement of professional development, implementation science, and the instructional design of reading and mathematics curricula for struggling learners. Bonnie S. Billingsley is Professor in the Department of Teaching and Learning in the School of Education at Virginia Tech. Her research is focused on factors related to teacher induction and retention and leadership in special education. She is a former special education administrator and teacher. Dr. Diane Browder is the Snyder Distinguished Professor of Special Education and coordinator of the special education doctoral program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Dr. Browder has over two decades of research and writing on assessment and instruction for students with severe disabilities. She has been the primary investigator or co-primary investigator on numerous federally funded research projects and has lead professional development opportunities for teachers and other practitioners in several states throughout her career. Erik W. Carter is Associate Professor in the Department of Special Education at Vanderbilt University. His research and teaching focus on strategies for supporting meaningful school inclusion and promoting valued roles in school, work, and community settings for children and adults with severe disabilities. He has co-authored four books, including Peer Support Strategies for Improving All Students’ Social Lives and Learning (Brookes Publishing) and Peer Buddy Programs for Successful Secondary School Inclusion (Brookes Publishing). Julie Causton, Ph.D., is Associate Professor in the Inclusive Special Education Program at Syracuse University. She is an expert in creating and maintaining inclusive schools. Julie teaches 536

Contributors

courses on inclusion, differentiation, special education law, and collaboration, and also works directly with families, schools, and districts to help to create inclusive schools. Jennifer Cease-Cook is a doctoral student in the Special Education Program at UNC Charlotte. Her research interests include transition-focused education, self-determination, and using technology to support student involvement in transition planning. Vivian I. Correa, Ph.D., is Professor in the Department of Special Education and Child Development at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her areas of expertise are in early intervention and early childhood special education. Dr. Correa’s research interests include early literacy interventions with Latino parents and their young children, culturally responsive family involvement, and special education teacher preparation. Ginevra R. Courtade, Ph.D., is an assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of Louisville. Her research focuses on teaching academics to students with moderate/severe intellectual disability and preparing teachers to instruct these students using the general education curriculum. Dale Cusumano is an instructor at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte and a school psychologist. She also works as a researcher at the university, focused on the Team-Initiated Problem Solving Project. Dale also is a presenter and trainer in data-based problem solving. Her interests include examining how to measure and examine treatment fidelity in the process of decision making and the impact of infusion of new initiatives on systems change and implementation variables. Monica E. Delano, Ph.D., is Associate Professor of Special Education at the University of Louisville. Her research focuses on academic and social supports for students on the autism spectrum. Dave L. Edyburn, Ph.D., is Professor in the Department of Exceptional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. Dr. Edyburn’s teaching and research interests focus on the use of technology to enhance teaching, learning, and performance. He has authored over 150 articles and book chapters on the use of technology in special education. His most recent book (2013), Inclusive technologies:Tools for helping diverse learners achieve academic success, is an online textbook published by Bridgepoint Education, Inc. Dr. Edyburn currently serves as editor of the Journal of Research on Technology in Education and is an advisor to the National Center on Universal Design for Learning and The Partnership for Assessment of Readiness for College and Careers (PARCC), a consortium of 22 states engaged in the development of a new generation of accessible high-stakes assessments. Barbara J. Ehren is Professor and Chair of Communication Sciences and Disorders at the University of Central Florida. She also directs the doctoral program that focuses on language and literacy for learners who struggle. She is a fellow of the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association and the International Academy for Research in Learning Disabilities, as well as a Board Recognized Specialist in Child Language. She has served in many capacities in schools: as a speech-language pathologist, classroom teacher, and administrator. Her research focus is on adolescent literacy with a special interest in schoolwide initiatives, including Response to Intervention (RTI). She is a member of the RTI Commission of the International Reading Association. 537

Contributors

Professor Lani Florian is Bell Chair of Education at the University of Edinburgh and is visiting professor at the University of Vienna. Previously she held positions at the Universities of Aberdeen and Cambridge in the UK and at the University of Maryland in the US. She has extensive international experience in Europe and the former Soviet Union. She has published widely on inclusion and special educational needs including Achievement and Inclusion in Schools (Routledge) and The Sage Handbook of Special Education (second edition, 2014). Ronda Fritz is a Ph.D. student in Special Education at the University of Oregon. Her background includes nineteen years of teaching experience, including several years as a Title I reading specialist, as well as multiple years as a general education elementary and middle school classroom teacher within inclusive settings. Delinda van Garderen is Associate Professor of Special Education in the Department of Special Education at the University of Missouri. Her research interests focuses on the characteristics of mathematics learners with learning disabilities and difficulties, intervention research in mathematics word problem solving, and teacher education. Cynthia C. Griffin is Professor of Special Education in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. Her research interests focus on the areas of effective mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities and teacher professional development. Dr. Beth Harn is Associate Professor within the Department of Special Education and Clinical Sciences at the University of Oregon. She teaches classes in Special Education, including instructional design, history of special education, educational assessment, introduction to learning disabilities, and systems-level academic interventions. Her research interests focus on early intervention for students with reading and learning difficulties by implementing schoolwide, coordinated instructional and assessment practices, and designing intensive interventions. David Hoppey is Assistant Professor of Special Education at the University of South Florida. His scholarship focuses on inclusive teacher education, school reform, response to intervention, special education policy, school university partnerships, and job embedded professional development. Kathy Howery has worked for the past 30 years as a communication and AT specialist, and ultimately as an administrator at a private school for children with complex educational needs. During this time she pioneered the use of computer technology and early assistive technology tools with students who had complex communication and educational needs. From 2004 to 2008, Kathy led the Assistive Technology for Learning Initiative at Alberta Education. During her time at the Ministry Kathy began the intentional exploration of the emerging ideas being developed in the area of Universal Design for Learning. Kathy is now engaged in doctoral research inquiring into the lived experience of students and young adults who speak through a speechgenerating communication device. She teaches university courses on Assistive Technology, Universal Design for Learning, Inclusive Education, Learning and Development, and Psychology of Exceptional Children and Youth. Melissa E. Hudson, Ph.D., is Senior Alternate Assessment Specialist at the American Institute for Research in Washington, DC. Her research interests include general curriculum access and alternate assessment for students with moderate and severe intellectual disability. 538

Contributors

Bree Jimenez, Ph.D., is Assistant Professor in special education at the University of North Carolina at Greensboro. Her research interests include general curriculum access, assessment, and instructional supports for inclusive academic outcomes for students with severe intellectual disability. Evelyn S. Johnson, Ed.D. is Professor of Special Education, Boise State University (BSU) and the Executive Director of Lee Pesky Learning Center. Evelyn studied with Joe Jenkins at the University of Washington, and worked as a research associate for the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities under the direction of Don Deshler and Daryl Mellard. The main goal of her research is to improve the prevention, identification, and treatment of learning disabilities. Her work has been supported by grants from the Office of Special Education Programs, the U.S. Department of Education, the Good Samaritan Foundation, and the Idaho State Department of Education. Maggie H. Jossi is a doctoral candidate in Special Education in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. Her research focuses on Response to Intervention (RTI) in elementary mathematics classrooms that include students with mathematics difficulties and disabilities. Dr. Diana Joyce-Beaulieu is Associate Scholar in the NASP approved and APA accredited School Psychology Program at the University of Florida. She has taught numerous graduate courses in assessment and psychopathology. Her publications include one book, 23 chapters, and peer-refereed articles. Over the past few years, she has served as co-principal investigator on professional development grants to research training models for Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS). Her national service includes serving as a Lead Program Reviewer for the National Association of School Psychologists and Chair Accreditation Reviewer for the American Psychological Association. Elizabeth B. Kozleski is Chair of Special Education at the University of Kansas. Her research analyzes models of systems change in urban and large school systems, examines teacher practice in urban schools, and explores multicultural educational classroom practices. Awarded the UNESCO Chair in Inclusive International Research in 2005, she received the 2011 TEDMerrill award for her leadership in special education teacher education. In 2013 she was honored by the University of Northern Colorado with the Century of Scholars award. In 2013, her latest book, Ability, Equity, and Culture: The Search for the Holy Grail in Urban Education Reform, will be published by Teachers College Press. Melinda Leko is Assistant Professor in the Department of Rehabilitation Psychology and Special Education at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests center on special education teacher education, reading instruction for secondary students with disabilities, and inclusion. Mary E. Little is Professor in the Child, Family, and Community Sciences Department— Exceptional Student Education at the University of Central Florida, and the Coordinator of Graduate Programs. She has been a special education teacher, program coordinator, college professor, and consultant for 35 years. Her current research interests include evidence-based instructional practices, interventions, teacher efficacy, and student learning related to teacher learning. 539

Contributors

Dr. Linda H. Mason is Full Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. Dr. Mason conducts research in literacy for students with special needs and has co-authored two books, Powerful writing strategies for all students and Building comprehension in adolescents: Powerful strategies for improving reading and writing in content areas. Dr. Mason was awarded the Council for Exceptional Children—Division of Research Distinguished Early Career Award in 2011, and a Fulbright Scholarship to teach at the University of Szeged, Hungary in fall 2011. James McLeskey is Professor in the School of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. He has extensive experience in teacher education and professional development activities related to providing high quality, inclusive services for students with disabilities. His research interests include effective methods for achieving school reform/improvement, the role of the principal in developing effective, inclusive schools, and issues influencing teacher learning and the translation of research-based methods into practice. Daryl F. Mellard is a research associate within the Center for Research on Learning and director of the Division of Adult Studies at the University of Kansas. His current projects address assessment and services to children and youth with learning disabilities, reading comprehension, and adult literacy. Mellard directed the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) in its review of Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI), was one of the principal investigators in NRCLD’s examination of learning disabilities identification that included the application of RTI, and directed research on education, social, and employment issues for adults with disabilities. Rhonda Miller, M.Ed., is a doctoral candidate in Special Education at Clemson University in Clemson, SC, and an educational evaluator in the School District of Oconee County, SC. Her primary areas of research focus on English Language Learners with disabilities and culturally responsive teaching practices. Rhonda has 29 years of experience as an educator in grades K-12 as a Spanish teacher, an elementary teacher, a teacher of the gifted, a teacher of English as a Second Language, and in assessment for students in ESL settings. Colleen K. Moss is an outreach specialist and the coordinator of the Peer Partner Project at the Waisman Center’s University Center for Excellence in Developmental Disabilities at the University of Wisconsin, Madison. Her interest areas include peer relationship development, school inclusion, youth leadership development for students with disabilities, and use of natural supports. Festus E. Obiakor is Department Head, Early Childhood and Special Education,Valdosta State University, Valdosta, Georgia. His research foci are in self concept development, multicultural psychology and special education, international special education, and school reform. He is a teacher scholar with more 150 publications, including books and journal articles. Janise Parker is a doctoral student in the School Psychology Program at the University of Florida. She received her Masters of Education Degree from the University of Florida and Bachelors of Science Degree in Psychology from Florida State University. Her research interests include examining the promotion of student engagement and motivation in secondary schools as a means to facilitate student achievement, especially among marginalized populations.

540

Contributors

Carly Roberts is Assistant Professor at Purdue University in the Department of Educational Studies. Her research focuses on teacher preparation for teachers of students with severe disabilities, with emphases in the areas of literacy instruction and access to the general curriculum. Billie Jo Rodriguez is Assistant Professor at University of Texas at San Antonio. She conducts research in positive behavior interventions and supports in school settings. Emeritus Professor Martyn Rouse was Chair of Social and Educational Inclusion and Director of the Inclusive Practice Project at the University of Aberdeen. Previously he was a senior lecturer at the University of Cambridge. He has undertaken work for national and international agencies, including the European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education, the OECD, and UNICEF. He is the co-author of Achievement and Inclusion in Schools (published by Routledge), winner of the NASEN/Times Education Supplement Academic Book of the Year 2008. La’Shawndra Scroggins is a doctoral student in the Special Education Program at UNC Charlotte. Her research interests include aligning secondary transition and academic instruction for students with disabilities and special education policy. Thomas M. Skrtic is Professor in the Department of Special Education at the University of Kansas. His academic interests are classical pragmatism, institutional theory, civic professionalism, and democratic social reform. His critical works on special education policy and practice, include Behind Special Education: A Critical Analysis of Professional Culture and School Organization (1991), Disability and Democracy: Reconstructing (Special) Education for Postmodernity (1995), and, more recently, his contributions to Challenging Orthodoxy in Special Education: Dissenting Voices. In 2004 he was recognized in the Encyclopedia of Educational Leadership as one of the two most influential figures in reconceptualizing the philosophy and practice of special education. In 2009 he received the Senior Scholar Award of the Disability Studies in Education interest group of the American Educational Research Association, as well as Syracuse University’s William Pearson Tolley Medal for distinguished leadership in lifelong learning. Fred Spooner (Ph.D., University of Florida) is a Professor in the Department of Special Education, and Child Development. He is known for this writing in the area of severe disabilities, specifically in teaching academic content to this population. He has published over 125 professional publications on teaching individuals with severe disabilities. Recent research has appeared in Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, Remedial and Special Education, Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, and Exceptional Children. David W. Test is a Professor of Special Education at UNC Charlotte. His research interests include secondary transition, self-determination, and identifying and implementing evidencebased practices. George Theoharis, Ph.D., is Associate Dean in the School of Education at Syracuse University and Associate Professor in Educational Leadership and Inclusive Elementary Education. He has extensive field experience in public education as a principal and as a teacher. George teaches classes in educational leadership and elementary/early childhood teacher education. His interests, research, and work with K–12 schools focuses on issues of equity, justice, diversity, inclusion, leadership, and school reform. 541

Contributors

Cheryl A. Utley is an Associate Research Professor, Juniper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas. She has been a special education teacher, researcher, and scholar for more than 25 years. Her current research interests include multicultural special education, positive behavior interventions and supports, and effective instruction. Nancy Waldron (Ph.D., Indiana University) is an Associate Professor with the School Psychology Program, in the school of Special Education, School Psychology, and Early Childhood Studies at the University of Florida. She has directed a series of state and federal grants that have focused on inclusion, school change, and RtI. Her research interests relate to improving relate to improving instructional and support services to accommodate a broad range of students with diverse needs in general education classrooms. Jill Welsh is currently an intern at Kennedy Krieger Institute and Johns Hopkins School of Medicine in Baltimore. She is completing rotations within the Neuropsychology Deafness Clinic and Pediatric Oncology. She completed graduate training in School Psychology at the University of Florida. Her interests include providing home and school-based interventions for children who are deaf or hard-of-hearing, as well as children with autism spectrum disorders. Leah Wood, MAT, is in the third year of her doctoral program at the University of North Carolina at Charlotte. Her research focuses on general curriculum access, comprehension strategies for narrative and expository texts, and technological supports for students with autism and intellectual disabilities.

542

Index

AA-AAS see alternate assessment based upon alternate achievement standards absenteeism 224 academic achievement 172, 174–5, 454, 493 academic behaviors 191 academic outcomes 99 academic skills 95–6, 191 accessibility 167, 173 accessibility control panels 171 accommodations 495 accountability 30, 512; administrative support 21; alternate assessment 365; collaborative teaming 397; data systems 23, 155–6; federal laws 6; peer support 378; student outcomes 75; technology 454 achievement gap 483 action planning 174 action research 25 active learning 64 adaptability 312 adapted texts 356 adaptive reasoning 262 adequate yearly progress (AYP) 155, 156, 170, 322 ADHD see Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder adhocracy 131 administrative climate 68 administrative support 21–2, 90–1, 295, 301–2, 471, 499–500 administrators 231, 444–5; professional development 51; special educators 90–1 adolescent writers 254 advanced organization skills 330 advocacy 125, 174 African Americans 466 aggression 109 alternate assessment based upon alternate achievement standards (AA-AAS) 363–6 alternative routes 62 alternative support models 378–9 alternative teaching model 399 American Speech-Language Hearing

Association (ASHA) 108 antecedent intervention 415 applied academics 442 apps 456 ASD see autism spectrum disorders ASHA see American Speech-Language Hearing Association assessment 75, 270; alternate 363–74; co-teaching 302–3; cultural diversity 120; see also screening assessment instruments 108 assistance 72 assistive technology 171, 331, 453, 472 attendance 224 Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD) 238 attentive behavior 263 autism spectrum disorders (ASD): embedded trial instruction 342; literacy instruction 238; placement 7; writing instruction 248 AYP see adequate yearly progress background knowledge 138, 237 Barbiana school 522 basic fact fluency 267–8 basic skill instruction 252–3 BD see behavior disorders behavior analysis 411 behavior disorders (BD) 229 behavior management 307; intervention 414–15; intervention planning 414–15; mathematics instruction 267; MTSS 309–10; PBS 85, 187, 466, 467, 472; preventive approach 308–9; reactive approach 308; SWPBIS 306–17, 480; tertiary tier intervention 417–19; see also functional behavior assessment; student behavior behavior resource team 109 behavior support 87, 306–17 behavior support plan (BSP) 241 behavioral approaches 82 behavioral challenges 410–20 behavioral competence 315–16 543

Index

benchmarking 223, 373 bias 137 Big Ideas 330, 359 bilingual schools 148 bilingual students 145 biographies 354 blindness, placement 7 block scheduling 495–6 book studies 25 booster lessons 266–7 Brown decision (1954) 128 BSP see behavior support plan building vision 69–71 capacity 71, 428 capacity building 11–12 career awareness 440 career development 109, 500–2, 525 career education 437 CAT see computer-adapted testing categorical model of disability 81 CBMs see curriculum-based measures CBT see computer-based tests CCR see college and career readiness CEC see Council for Exceptional Children Check In and Check Out (CICO) 240–1, 310–11 child service meetings 112 childcare 122 childhood care 137 choice 38 CICO see Check In and Check Out CISW see Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing citizenship 485 Civil Rights 468 Class Wide Peer Tutoring (CWPT) 46 classroom discourse 120 classroom management 87, 237–8 classroom model 34 classroom observations 25 classroom-based instruction 439, 498 classrooms: climate 35; demographics 455; design 18, 37–8; general education 9, 339–49, 380, 426, 465; strength-based 32 CLC see Content Literacy Curriculum cloud computing 456 clutter 238 co-assessing 292 co-instructing 292 co-planning 36, 292, 301 co-teaching 24, 71, 84–5, 111, 292–304, 326 coaching 25, 204, 315 cognates 140, 147 cognitive deficits 248 cognitive disabilities 96, 366 cognitive model of assessment 373 544

cognitive prostheses 456 Cognitive Strategy Instruction in Writing (CISW) 249–50 coherence 11, 64 collaboration 5, 32, 36, 38, 71, 138, 250, 324, 326, 395–407 collaborative instruction 293, 472 collaborative planning 473 Collaborative Strategic Reading (CSR) 46, 236 collective participation 64 college and career readiness (CCR) 155, 197, 323–4 commitment 71 Common Core State Standards 262, 323, 324; academic behavior 191; alternate assessment 363; data systems 156; MTSS 188; severe disabilities 340; technology standards 455; writing instruction 247 common language 188 communication responses 357 communication skills 96–7, 498 community adjustment 437 community-based instruction 439, 502 community-school approach 485, 486 competence 35, 120 comprehension development 235–6 comprehension intervention 217 compulsory attendance 128 computer assisted instruction 502 computer technology 170–1 computer-adapted testing (CAT) 366 computer-based tests (CBT) 366 conceptual knowledge 262 concrete-semi-concrete-abstract (CSA) sequence 266 connected learning 126 consensus 188, 202 Conspicuous Strategies 330 consumer education 439 content 64, 125–6, 270 content knowledge 261, 263 Content Literacy Curriculum (CLC) 219–21 context clues 140 cooperative learning 24, 47, 145, 361 cooperative work study programs 437 core content 125–6, 201, 352–61 core instruction 190, 201 core reading programs 86 core values 69 Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) 261, 262, 292 counselors 113 coursework 61 creativity 324 crime 122 critical reflection 33

Index

critical thinking 324 cross-linguistic transfer 147 CSA see concrete-semi-concrete-abstract CSR see Collaborative Strategic Reading cultural assumptions 120 cultural diversity 118–32 cultural theory of learning 119 cultural toolkits 120 culturally relevant pedagogy 139 culturally responsive learning 123–4 culture 119–21, 132, 172 curricular teachers 524 curriculum 35, 75, 120, 472, 473 curriculum accommodations 167 curriculum-based measures (CBMs) 160, 161–2, 213, 279, 368–9 CWPT see Class Wide Peer Tutoring daily data collection 370–1 daily goals 240 data 6, 118, 232, 309, 314, 322, 515 data collection 369–72 data logging 456 data mining 456, 461 data systems 155–64 data use 22, 157 data-based decision-making (DBDM) 485; effectiveness 22–3; functional behavior assessment 417; literacy instruction 23, 242; middle school evaluation study 213; MTSS 200; progress monitoring 369; secondary schools 219 databases 171 DBDM see data-based decision-making deaf/blindness, placement 7 Deans’ Grants 56–7 Decision Observation, Recording and Analysis (DORA) 285 decision-making 21, 431 decoupled programs 127 Democratic Psychiatry movement 523 demographics 136 developing people 71–2 developmental delay: embedded trial instructions 342; placement 7 developmental levels 311 diagnostic-prescriptive teaching model 81 dialoguing 250 differentiation 38–9, 71, 214, 329, 455 digitization 456 dilemma of difference 130 disability 129; see also Individuals with Disabilities Education Act; individual types of disabilities disability law 130 disciplinary policies 308 discipline-based knowledge 123

discourse structure graphic organizers (DSGOs) 141 discrete trial assessment 369 discrimination 33 disruptive change 452, 460 distant internships 63 distributed leadership 21–2, 75 district leadership teams 314–15 district-embedded teacher preparation 62 districts 71 diversity 5, 34, 172, 444 domain learning 328 DORA see Decision Observation, Recording and Analysis drill and practice 171 dropout rates 9–10, 122 DSGOs see discourse structure graphic organizers dual coding theory 141 durability 312 EADSNE see European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education early childhood education 187 early childhood special education 110 Early Warning System (EWS) 216, 218 earning gap 10 EBD see emotional and behavioral disabilities eBooks 344, 457, 458 ecological model of self-determination 428 educable 339 Education for All (EFA) 507 Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EHA) 155, 396, 478 Education Plan (IEP) see Individualized Education Plan education synthesizer 398 educational policy 81 educational reform 81, 169–70, 478, 510–11 educational software 331 EFA see Education for All effective schools 18 efficiency 198 EHA see Education for All Handicapped Children Act elementary schools: extensive support needs 477–88; literacy instruction 235–7; multi-tiered systems of support 197–205 Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) 322, 444 ELLs see English Language Learners embedded instruction 96, 341–2, 400 embedded supports 177 emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) 47 emotional disturbance 466; placement 7 employment 429, 437, 438, 501 employment data 322 545

Index

employment rate 10, 19 encouragement 72 engagement, multiple means of 175 English Language Learners (ELLs) 136–50, 211, 230 English as a second language (ESL) 137, 138 environmental supports 280, 284–5 EPB see evidence-based practices equity of opportunity 323 equity-related issues 26 ESEA see Elementary and Secondary Education Act ESL see English as a second language essay writing 256 ethnicity 120, 172 European Agency for the Development of Special Needs Education (EADSNE) 514 evidence-based curriculum 484, 486 evidence-based practices (EBP) 12; behavior support 310–11; collaboration 395; core content areas 353; life skills 440; literacy instruction 231; mathematics instruction 264–9; MTSS 200, 204; related service personnel 115; school change 10; teacher education 59; transition 440 EWS see Early Warning System excellence issues 26 exclusion 3 exit exam requirements 440 expectations 239 explicit instruction 142–3, 149–50, 330 explicit practice 330 expulsion 308 extended constructed responses 255–6 external groups 71 extracurricular activities 496–8

functional model of self-determination 427 functional skills 445

family-school partnerships 473 FAPE see free appropriate public education FBA see functional behavior assessment feasibility 312 federal data 118 federal laws 6 feedback 101, 204, 239 fidelity 96, 188, 192–3, 276, 309, 418, 483 field experience 61 floating substitutes 23 fluency development 233–4, 235, 267–8 food preparation skills 442 formative assessment 214, 367–8 foundational language 328 free appropriate public education (FAPE) 326, 444, 473 friendships 493 function-based intervention 415 functional behavior assessment (FBA) 241, 411–20

ID see intellectual disabilities IDEA see Individuals with Disabilities Education Act identity exploration 126 IEP see Individualized Education Plan IES see Institute of Education Sciences implementation 10–11, 202–3 implementation exemplars 316 implementation fidelity 313–14, 315, 418 implementation integrity 276, 285 implementation methods 10–11 implementation monitoring 188 implementation science 13, 188 implementation validity checklists (IVCs) 46 in vivo instruction 354 INCLUDE Project 71 inclusion: current trends 4–9; defi nition 3, 4–5, 34–5; effective schools 17–27 inclusion-oriented instructional leadership 37

546

gender 120 general curriculum 445 general education classrooms 9, 339–49, 380, 426, 465 general education teachers (GETs) 9, 55, 60, 90, 347, 471 general outcome measures 160, 369 generalization 230 GETs see general education teachers goal setting 250, 430, 431 government policy 19 graphic organizers 344–5, 357 graphic representation 141 guidance counselling 526 guided practice 111 health care 122, 323 hearing impairment 130 high incidence disabilities: multi-tiered system of supports 183–94; trends 464–74 high school 322–33; see also secondary schools high school tiered interventions initiative (HSTII) 214 high stakes testing 455 high-quality instruction 24–5, 118–32 home language 137 home-school collaborations 113–15 homeroom 112 hovering 98 HSTII see high school tiered interventions initiative human resources 23–4, 36 human rights 121

Index

inclusion-oriented vocational guidance 526, 531 inclusive technology see technology incremental change 451, 458–60 independence skills 379 independent living 429, 437, 438 independent practice 250 Individualized Education Plan/Program (IEP) 130; co-teaching 294; paraprofessionals 98; peer support 380; principals 67; secondary schools 322, 324, 494; technology 171, 459–60; transition planning 444 individually assigned adults 378 Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA, 2004) 19, 32, 85; accountability 6; co-teaching 292, 294; collaboration 395; data systems 155; high schools 322; home-school collaborations 114; mathematics instruction 261; MTSS 184; principals 67, 75; related service personnel 107, 109; state tests 465; teacher education 58; technology 168–9; transition planning 444; see also Least Restrictive Environment information dissemination 10 infrastructure 188, 203 innovation 324 inputs 515 inservice teacher education see professional development Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 263, 265, 270 institutional layers 120 instruction 5, 24–5, 118–32, 192–3, 270; SDLMI 432 instruction delivery 345 instructional consultation team 275 instructional intensity 201 instructional intervention 213 instructional leadership 37 instructional practices 140–8, 219–20, 329 instructional principles 329 instructional strategies 46–8, 191, 216, 340, 348, 355 instructional support team (IST) 275, 278 instructional time 264 integration 3, 230 intellectual disabilities (ID): embedded trial instruction 342; life skills 444; placement 7; research 49 intensive instruction 190, 201, 331 interdependence 32 interim assessments 373 International Mathematics Science Study (TIMSS) 122, 507 International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 508 International Student Assessment (PISA) 507

interpersonal communication 296 interpersonal networks 437 Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium (ISLLC) Standards 67 intervention 13, 161, 192–3, 216–17, 231; see also Response to Intervention intervention planning 414–15 IQ discrepancy 480 ISLLC see Interstate School Leaders Licensure Consortium IST see instructional support team Italy 521–32 IVCs see implementation validity checklists job description 100 job design 88 job satisfaction 101 job-embedded professional development 25 Judicious Review 330 K-W-L (information) chart 142 keyboard shortcuts 171 knowledge-sharing 483–4 language 120, 137 large print 366 Latino students 137, 466 LD see learning disabilities leadership 12, 33–7, 112, 158, 313, 314–15, 473, 484; distributed 21–2, 75; literacy instruction 231; MTSS 198; practices 68, 69, 71, 231; teachers 21, 73 learner-centered approaches 47, 49, 167 learning: cultural diversity 120, 121–2; culturally responsive 123–4; evidence of 177; see also teaching and learning learning activities 124 learning analytics 457 learning communities 25, 48 learning contexts 126 learning differences 167 learning disabilities (LD): ELLs 138; literacy instruction 229, 230; mathematics instruction 263, 265; placement 7; writing instruction 248 learning goals 192 learning needs 87 learning opportunities 32, 87 learning outcomes 372 learning targets 363 least intrusive prompting 342–3 Least Restrictive Environment (LRE) 32, 473, 478; co-teaching 300; data 6; effectiveness 19; high quality instruction 118; relationships 129; self-determination 426; transition planning 444 least to most prompting 502 547

Index

legislative mandates 85–6 lesson planning see planning lesson study 71, 192 life skills 437–46 linguistic diversity 119 listening comprehension 343 literacy instruction 46, 229–42, 356–7 literacy learning 328 literacy strategies 214 local cultures 120 LRE see Least Restrictive Environment mainstream assistance team 275 mainstreaming 3, 478 mandated tests 74 massive open online course (MOOC) 457 MAST see Multilevel Academic Survey Test mastery 126, 369 math specialists 271 mathematics: content 261, 262, 263, 270; instruction 261–71, 354, 357–8; interventions 217; scores 9, 32 Mathematics Science Study (TIMSS) 122, 507 Mediated Scaffolding 330 memory deficits 248, 263 mentors 63, 125 metacognition 234, 248, 328 micro-exclusion 525 micro-process studies 223 MID see mild intellectual disabilities middle schools 213–14 mild intellectual disabilities (MID) 323 minority students 139 mnemonics 237, 441, 503 mobile devices 457 model-lead-test intervention 344 modeling 111, 201, 250, 267, 299, 441 modifications box 36 momentary time sampling 418 Montessori 521 MOOC see massive open online course Moore’s Law 453 mothering 98 motivation 22, 237, 270 motivational strategies 202 MTSS see multi-tiered systems of support multi-disciplinary support personnel teams 112–13 multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS) 60, 466; behavior support 309, 416; data systems 157, 160; elementary schools 197–205, 481; high incidence disabilities 183–94; progress monitoring 161–4; related service personnel 110, 112; secondary schools 210–25; special education teachers 85; teacher education 56 Multilevel Academic Survey Test (MAST) 325 multilingual need 119 548

multiple assessments 366 multiple challenge levels 177 multiple exemplars 343–4 multiple means of engagement 175 narrative 253 NASDSE see National Association of State Directors of Special Education National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE) 183, 185, 197 National Council of Teachers of English (NCTE) 292 National Council of Teachers of Mathematics (NCTM) 270, 292 National Mathematics Advisory Panel (NMAP) 261 national pupil database (NPD) 514 National Science Teachers Association (NSTA) 292 National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center (NSTTAC) 440 Nationally Certified School Psychologist (NCSP) 277, 502 native language supports 146, 148–9 natural settings 5 NCLB see No Child Left Behind Act NCSP see Nationally Certified School Psychologist NCTE see National Council of Teachers of English NCTM see National Council of Teachers of Mathematics NMAP see National Mathematics Advisory Panel No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) 19, 67, 85; accountability 6; alternate assessment 364; co-teaching 292, 294; high schools 322; mathematics instruction 261; MTSS 199; principals’ roles 75; related service personnel 107, 115; state tests 465; teacher education 58; technology 170; transition planning 444 non-traditional staffi ng 23 NPD see national pupil database NSTA see National Science Teachers Association NSTTAC see National Secondary Transition Technical Assistance Center observations 239, 390 occupational courses 440 occupational therapy 108, 110 office discipline referrals (ODRs) 281, 283, 308, 417 Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) 482

Index

OHI see other health impairments One Teach-One Support 293, 399 one-to-one tutoring 264 online learning 63, 457, 459 open source 457, 459 opportunities to respond 354 oppression 33 optimal learning contexts 126 organization skills 177, 248 organizational change 34, 72–3, 128 organizational routines 222 organizational supports 316–17 OSEP see Office of Special Education Programs other health impairments (OHI) 323 PA see phonological awareness PALS see Peer Assisted Learning Strategies paraeducators 73, 342, 346–7 paragraph shrinking 234 parallel teaching 293, 399 paraprofessionals 94–103, 378, 390; job description 100; proximity to student 97; training 100–1 parental education 137, 187 parental stress 187 parents 88, 113, 430, 442–4, 526, 528–9 participation 109, 379 partner reading 234 PBS see Positive Behavior Support PD see professional development pedagogy 123, 138, 139, 261, 263 Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS) 47, 48, 146, 149, 233 peer conferencing 250 peer mentoring 25 peer support 377–91, 498, 529–30 peer tutoring 24, 47, 71, 157, 346, 380 peer-assisted learning 145–6 peer-mediated approaches 496 performance 114, 323 persistence 126 personal relevance 358 personal security 126 personal supports 472 personalized learning 457, 461 personnel development 110 PES see post-secondary education philosophy statement 100 phonemic awareness 46 phonological awareness (PA) 143 physical access 72 physical setting 238 physical therapy 108, 110 PIRLS see Progress in International Reading Literacy Study PiRs see professors in residence

PISA see Program for International Student Assessment PITs see pre-referral intervention teams Pivotal Response Treatment (PRT) 96 placement patterns 7–9 placements 18, 63, 118, 449 planning 36, 175, 192, 230–3, 355, 383–6 planning time 11, 23, 301 PLASC see pupil level annual schools’ census PM see progress monitoring point cards 418 policy 58–9, 81, 300–1, 444–5, 486 political support 317 polycultural histories 119 Positive Behavior Support (PBS) 85, 187, 466, 467, 472 post-school outcomes 322, 437, 500, 501 post-secondary education (PES) 438, 503 post-workshop coaching 280 poverty 119, 122, 137, 466 practice feedback 201 pre-professional training 110 pre-referral intervention teams (PITs) 275, 276, 280 pre-referral stage 199 prediction relay 234 prevention practices 308 primary instruction see core content primary tier intervention 60, 201, 281; behavior support 310, 313; core instruction 190; learning goals 192; mathematics instruction 264; problem-solving teams 279 Primed Background Knowledge 330 principals 67–77, 471 prior learning history 311 problem behavior 283 problem-solving 37, 275–86, 431; barriers 278; core content 357; effectiveness 22–3; high school curricula 324; MTSS 189, 200; positive behavior support 309 problem-solving skills 296 procedural fluency 262 procedures 238 process 515 productive disposition 262 professional bureaucracies 127 professional collaboration 268–9 professional development (PD) 36, 43–52, 473; behavior support 315; co-teaching 302; collaborative teaming 402–3; effectiveness 24, 25; instructional strategies 46–8; Italy 528; literacy instruction 232; principals 72, 76; school change 12; secondary schools 325; special education teachers 86–8; team problem solving 280; technology 49, 174 professionalization 127 professors in residence (PiRs) 63 549

Index

profi les 34 Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) 507 program planning 473 programs of study 125–6 Progress in International Reading Literacy Study (PIRLS) 508 progress monitoring (PM) 74, 101, 309, 481; alternate assessment 367; data systems 161–4; middle schools 213; MTSS 192–3, 200; secondary schools 216, 218–19 Project INCLUDE 71 prompting strategies 342 PRT see Pivotal Response Treatment psychological safety 126 pull-out programs 18, 479 pull-out settings 297 pupil level annual schools’ census (PLASC) 514 questioning procedures 357 questioning strategies 234 rating scales 390, 413 reading 525; cognitive disabilities 353; ELL students 137; see also literacy reading blocks 232 reading comprehension instruction 234–5 Reading Excellence Word Attack and Rate Development Strategies (REWARDS) 236 Reading First 56 reading intervention strategies 12, 217 reading scores 9, 32 reading specialists 277 reciprocal teaching 149 reform, educational 81, 169–70, 478, 510–11 Regular Education Initiative (REI) 57–8, 478 related service personnel 107–15 relationships 71, 379 remediation 31, 170 removal 31 repeated trial assessment 369 representations 266 research 48–50, 91, 115, 222–4 Research Institute on Progress Monitoring (RIPM) 216 residency/apprenticeship 62–3 residential environment 437 resilience 71 resource availability 483 resource room delivery options 111 resource settings 18 resources 23–4 respect 101 response cards 368 Response to Intervention (RTI) 58, 466; co-teaching 294; data systems 157; 550

effectiveness 24; elementary schools 480–2; literacy instruction 229; mathematics instruction 264–9; MTSS 183, 197, 210, 221–2; related service personnel 110, 112; research 222–4; secondary schools 210–12, 217, 327; special education teachers 85; teacher education 56; team problem solving 279; technology 169, 174 response to intervention team 275 response-prompting procedures 357 responsibility 21 revision 256–7 REWARDS see Reading Excellence Word Attack and Rate Development Strategies rights 121, 493 RIPM see Research Institute on Progress Monitoring ritualization 128 role dissonance 88 role release 401, 402 routines 238 RTI see Response to Intervention rubric 368 rules 239, 308 safety 126–7, 439 SAM see Schoolwide Applications Model SATs see student assistance teams SBI see schema-based strategy instruction SBIT see School-Based Intervention Team scaffolding 124, 174, 214 scalability 312 scaling up 12–13 schedule 23, 35, 238 schema theory 138 schema-based strategy instruction (SBI) 268, 270 school change 11, 21, 33 school choice 455 school climate 473 school counselor 109 school culture 20–4, 70, 73, 295 school infrastructure 112 school instructional qualities 24–5 school leaders 21 school outcomes 10, 71 school psychologists 108, 277 school reform 26, 69 school staff 311 School-Based Intervention Team (SBIT) 275, 276 school-embedded teacher preparation 61–2 school-to-prison pipelines 122 School-wide Information System (SWIS) 280 school-wide positive behavioral interventions and support (SWPBIS) 306–17, 480

Index

Schoolwide Applications Model (SAM) 482 Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation (SWIFT) Center 482 science instruction 71, 342, 354, 359–60 science, technology, engineering, mathematics (STEM) 323 screening 223, 232; behavior support 309, 417; data systems 160–1; mathematics instruction 264, 265; MTSS 200; secondary schools 212, 213, 215–16, 218 SDI see Specially Designed Instruction SDLMI see Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction secondary outcomes 322 secondary schools: effective inclusion 325; multi-tiered systems of support 210–25; personal responsibility 114; trends 492–504; writing instruction 254–5 secondary tier intervention 60, 192, 281; behavior support 313; Check In and Check Out 240–1, 310–11; literacy instruction 239–40; mathematics instruction 264; problem-solving teams 279–80; secondary schools 215; skills 201; supplemental instruction 190 security 126–7 segregation 169, 473, 493, 509 self-advocacy 431, 440 self-assessment 313 self-awareness 431 self-determination 379, 425–33, 440 Self-Determined Learning Model of Instruction (SDLMI) 432 self-directed learning strategies 427, 431–2 self-esteem 325 self-evaluation 241, 431 self-injury 109, 412 self-instruction 250, 431 self-management 47, 241, 502 self-monitoring 114, 241, 250, 372, 427, 431 Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) 236–7, 251 self-regulation 250, 263 self-reinforcement 431 semantic networks 123 SEN see special educational needs sensory impairments 452 sentence combining 253, 254 sentence development 249 sentence writing 254–5 separate class placements 18 sequencing 216 service delivery 35–6, 68, 184, 215 service personnel 107–15 SES see socioeconomic status SETs see special education teachers settings 5, 311

severe disabilities 337–8; collaboration 395–407 SFA see Success for All shared decision-making 21–2 short constructed responses 255 short-term intensive intervention 111 SIM see Strategy Instruction Model skill acquisition 201, 379 skills-based measures 160, 369 SLI see speech-language impairments social action 34 social class 120 social complexity 119 social context 127 social development 485 social equity 21 social interaction 125, 386 social networks 125, 437 social outcomes 99 social reform 130 social skills 24, 96–7, 498, 525 social skills groups 311 social spaces 126–7 social studies instruction 354, 360–1 social validity 295 social worker 109 socioeconomic status (SES) 466 soft skills 503 software, educational 331 SOP see Summary of Performance special education services 325–6 special education teachers (SETs) 55, 70, 80–91; advocacy 89–90; co-teaching 84–5; core values 70; interventionist role 86; legislative mandates 85–6; placement patterns 9; roles 23; severe disabilities 400; training 83; working conditions 88–9 special educational needs (SEN) 509 special educators 277 specialization 127 Specially Designed Instruction (SDI) 294 speech recognition 366 speech-language impairments (SLI) 323; ELLs 138; placement 7 speech-language pathologists 108, 110 spelling 249 spreadsheets 171 SRSD see Self-Regulated Strategy Development SSBD see Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders staff development see professional development staffi ng ratios 109–10 standardization 139 standards-based education 444 state standards 156 state tests 465 551

Index

station teaching model 399 STEM see science, technology, engineering, mathematics stereotypes 120 stigma 3, 97, 129, 379 storybook reading 234 strategic competence 262 Strategic Integration 330 Strategy Instruction Model (SIM) 250 street crossings 439 strength-based classrooms 32 stress 88 student advocates 89 student anxiety 124 student assistance teams (SATs) 277 student behavior 186, 191 student databases 513 student effort 237 student engagement 167, 191, 224, 379, 455, 460, 483 student needs: MTSS 189; principals’ roles 76 student outcomes 9, 22, 88, 155, 158, 185–7, 322, 515 student pairs 233 student placement 73 student progress 74 student-centered approach 34 students of difference 21 students with disabilities (SWD) 322, 323 study groups 25 Success for All (SFA) reading program 145–6 sufficiency 192 Summary of Performance (SOP) 114 supervision 101 supplemental instruction 185, 190, 213 supplemental reading instruction 96 supplementary aids and services 32 supplies 36 support 4, 5, 38, 191, 472; differentiated 23 support facilitation 327 support teachers 378, 524 sustainability 21, 312, 486 SWD see students with disabilities SWIFT see Schoolwide Integrated Framework for Transformation SWIS see School-wide Information System SWPBIS see school-wide positive behavioral interventions and support system of least prompts 342–3 systematic instruction 354 Systematic Screening for Behavior Disorders (SSBD) 280 targeted differentiation 232 task analyses 369 Teach for America 59, 62 teacher accessibility 124 552

teacher assistance team 275 teacher capacity 21 teacher decision-making 163–4 teacher education 58, 59–62, 83; co-teaching 299; district-embedded alternative routes 62; MTSS 198; online courses 63; residency/apprenticeship 62–3 teacher evaluation 300–1 teacher kindness 124 teacher leaders 21, 73 Teacher Leadership for School Improvement (TLSI) 63 teacher preparation, district-embedded 62 teacher quality 455 teacher satisfaction 88 teacher shortages 455, 460–1 teacher voice 301 teacher-support system 485 teachers: aging faculty 455; attitudes 44–6, 279; communities of learners 12; cultural diversity 122–3; GETs 9, 55, 60, 90, 347, 471; life skills 442; placement 7; roles 73, 98; see also professional development teaching and learning 74; cultural diversity 121–2; research 340, 353 teaching practices 71 teaching resources 73 team development 36 team functioning 401–2, 403–5 team meetings 101, 280 team protocol 112 team teaching model 399 team-initiated problem solving (TIPS) 281–5 team-work 503 teaming 35; see also collaboration technical standards 171 technology 49, 167–78, 331, 451–62; see also assistive technology tertiary tier intervention 60, 190, 192, 201, 281; behavior support 313; functional behavior assessment 417–19; literacy instruction 241–2; mathematics instruction 264–5; problem-solving teams 280; secondary schools 215 tests: high stakes testing 455; mandate type 74; state 465 text enlargement 171 text structure strategies 250 Text Talk 235 text-to-speech software 171, 366 think time 148 think-pair-share strategy 145 tiered text 177 tiers of instruction 185 time delay 341, 353, 441 TIMSS see Trends in International Mathematics Science Study

Index

TLSI see Teacher Leadership for School Improvement trainable 339 training 10, 110, 416 transactional skills 125 transcription skills 248–9 transition instruction 437–46 treatment efficacy 216 treatment integrity 295, 418 trend analysis 451–2 Trends in International Mathematics Science Study (TIMSS) 122, 507 typing fluency 248 UDL see Universal Design for Learning under-employment 19 unemployment 19 unifying vision 20–1 United Kingdom 19, 509 Universal Design for Learning (UDL) 130, 131, 294, 329, 347–8; access 131; elementary schools 479–80; life skills 442; secondary schools 495; technology 171, 174, 455 universal instruction see core content universal rights 121

universal screening 160–1, 200 upper elementary grades, literacy instruction 235 Venn diagrams 142 verbal associations 141 video production 125 violence 126 visual representations 141–2 vocabulary 140–1, 234–6, 359 vocational guidance/instruction 502, 526, 531 voluntariness 301 web-based technologies 171, 458 whole group instruction 85 word problem solving 268 word processing 171, 248 work completion 109 work experience 502 working conditions 88–9 writing instruction 247–58 writing to learn 254 written expression 249–52, 253–4 zone of proximal development 168

553

Taylor & Francis

eBooks

FO R

FRf^ V° U R

LIBRARIES

O ver 23,000 eBook titles in the Hum anities, Social Sciences, STM and Law from some of the world's leading im prints. Choose from a range of subject packages or create your own! ► Free M ARC records

mam

► COUNTER-com pliant usage statistics ► Flexible purchase and pricing options ► Off-site, anytime access via Athens or referring URL

Benefits for your

user

► Print or copy pages or chapters ► Full content search ► Bookmark, highlight and annotate text ► Access to thousands of pages of quality research at the click of a button

For more inform ation, pricing enquiries or to order a free trial, contact your local online sales team. UK and Rest of W orld: [email protected] US, Canada and Latin Am erica: e-reference©taylorandfrancis.com

www.ebooksubscriptions.com

A

A

ALPSf Award for ALPSP BEST e B O O K PU BLISH ER 20 0 9 F in alist

“

Taylor &. Francis GJsBHS! Taylor & Francis Group

A flexible and dynam ic resource for teaching, learning and research.