Search results

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

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

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

Progress monitoring and data-based intervention are unique special education developments stemming from efforts to find an effective alternative to diagnostic/prescriptive instruction. Springing from research on Curriculum-based Measurement (CBM) in the late 1970s and early 1980s at the Minnesota Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities, the approach has generated a large body of empirical research and development. While the original work demonstrated that teachers could be more effective using progress monitoring in data-based intervention, most research and development activity has focused on development and extensions of the CBM model with less attention to data-based intervention. While research on progress monitoring has occurred at a high rate, widespread implementation of progress monitoring has been spurred by both federal funding and commercial development. As might be expected, all of this activity has resulted in a large set of successes and disappointments that are described here. For better or worse, as progress monitoring and data-based intervention have been incorporated into Response to Intervention (RTI) models it seems likely that the future of progress monitoring and data-based intervention is tied to the future of RTI. The question is whether this linking will result in adding to the set of successes or to that of disappointments for this unique special education innovation.

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

Most definitions of learning disabilities (LD) include a qualification that adequate general education instruction was received and the child with LD did not benefit. Rarely is this tenet assessed in either practice or research before a diagnosis is made. In this chapter we review three studies that investigated children’s responsiveness to general education reading instruction as an indicator of the need for more intensive interventions. Adequacy of instruction was quantified by children’s level and rate of progress as measured by curriculum-based measures of oral reading fluency. This model of identification was based on Fuchs and Fuchs (1998) treatment-validity model wherein children who do not respond to interventions provided in the general education classroom are potential candidates for special education services. The results of the studies reviewed indicate that the model is valid in that: (a) children who differ from their peers on level and slope of performance have more severe academic and behavioral problems than children who have IQ-achievement discrepancies or low achievement; (b) children who demonstrate persistent non-responsiveness over three years differ from other at-risk children on reading, reading-related, and behavioral measures; and (c) at-risk children who participated in specially-designed general education interventions had better outcomes than at-risk children who did not participate.

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

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

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

A substantial number of students read significantly below grade level, and students with disabilities perform far below their non-disabled peers. Reading achievement data indicate that many students with and at-risk for reading disabilities require more intensive reading interventions. This chapter utilizes the theoretical model of the Simple View of Reading to describe the benefit of early reading instruction, targeting both word reading and word meaning. In addition, evidence is presented supporting the use of word meaning instruction to improve accurate and efficient word reading for students who have failed to respond to explicit decoding instruction.