State Directors Of Special Education Research Articles

Evaluating the Use of RTI to Identify SLD: A Survey of State Policy, Procedures, Data Collection, and Administrator Perceptions

As it has become a prominent feature in the identification of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD), response to intervention (RTI) has generated significant interest and, in some respects, controversy regarding assessment and attendant procedures. In the present study, the authors surveyed state directors of special education (n = 31) to examine (a) the degree to which RTI policies and recommended practices are transmitted between state and local agencies, including those related to referrals of low achieving (i.e., “non-responsive”) students for a comprehensive evaluation; (b) communication with parents; and (c) their perceptions of the impact of RTI insofar as SLD identification is concerned. Results reflect disparities among many states and their districts in terms of the procedures used, data collected, and whether the effectiveness of RTI is evaluated. Implications for future research and practice are discussed.

Services and Supports for Students with Traumatic Brain Injury: Survey of State Educational Agencies

Long-term follow-up studies conducted during the K–12 school years suggest that challenges related to childhood traumatic brain injury (TBI) tend to persist or worsen over time. A 1999 survey of State Directors of Special Education revealed that most states had emerging initiatives for children with TBI and were expanding their capacity to serve this growing population. To determine whether significant changes in patterns of identification and service delivery had occurred, State Directors and brain injury consumer organizations were surveyed. Survey results show some improvement, but significant gaps remain. Most state education administrators perceive a gap between incidence of childhood TBI and identification of students with TBI to receive special education services. Recommendations for policy changes and research are provided.

How to Fit Response to Intervention Into a Heavy Workload

How to Fit Response to Intervention Into a Heavy Workload

The Response to Intervention (RTI) Approach in Early Childhood

Seeking to achieve greater effectiveness in educating the nation’s youth, the Response to Intervention (RTI) approach is increasingly being implemented in US schools (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster, & Saunders, 2009; Walker & Shinn, 2010). The approach is a paradigm shift in K–12 education that is affecting early education, early intervention, and early childhood special education as well. The shift moves practice away from the traditional model of waiting for students to qualify for special education before serving them to one of intervening immediately to prevent developmental delays and challenges from becoming disabilities. Supporting implementation of RTI are favorable policies in the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004) that have put the spotlight on improving students’ results through early and sustained use of evidence-based practice. While not specifically addressed in early childhood special education policy, RTI is supported by federal and state accountability policies requiring annual reporting of individual child progress and an expectation of improving results for children served (Head Start for School Readiness Act, 2007; US Department of Education [USDE], 2006). The policies and reports of professional organizations and advocacy groups like the National Association of State Directors of Special Education, National Association of School Psychologists, and the National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) also support the RTI model. These organizations, among others, (e.g., National Association of State Special Education Directors, 2008; Shinn & Walker, 2010; Thomas & Grimes, 2008) embrace RTI as a science-based practice and have made RTI knowledge and practice part of their professional expectations and advocacy. The Council for Exceptional Children has a position statement on RTI (CEC, 2007), and the Division of Early Childhood (DEC), in conjunction with the National Association of the Education of Young Childhood (NAEYC) and the Head Start Association are currently working on a joint early childhood position statement on RTI. VOLUME 43

Schools 2010:Connect, Create, Innovate in Las Vegas

Schools 2010:Connect, Create, Innovate in Las Vegas

Robust Reading Instruction in the Early Grades: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Integration and Evaluation of Tier 1 and tier 2 Instructional Supports

Schools implement Response to Intervention (Rtl) for two major purposes. The first is to provide a coordinated system of high-quality instruction and intervention for all students in the school (Burns & Vanderheyden, 2006; Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). This system can be envisioned as a framework of effective instruction to prevent academic problems from occurring and effective interventions to address problems that do occur in a timely and appropriate manner. The system is integrated and coordinated to support all students to reach primary learning objectives (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). The second purpose of Rtl is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) in students who do not respond adequately to instruction and intervention (O'Conner, 2007; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Torgesen, 1997, 2004). Strong empirical evidence supports the prevention and intervention purpose of Rtl (Baker et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006), but evidence for using Rtl for SLD determination is lacking (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

Robust Reading Instruction in the Early Grades: Conceptual and Practical Issues in the Integration and Evaluation of Tier 1 and tier 2 Instructional Supports

Schools implement Response to Intervention (Rtl) for two major purposes. The first is to provide a coordinated system of high-quality instruction and intervention for all students in the school (Burns & Vanderheyden, 2006; Haager, Klinger, & Vaughn, 2007; National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2006). This system can be envisioned as a framework of effective instruction to prevent academic problems from occurring and effective interventions to address problems that do occur in a timely and appropriate manner. The system is integrated and coordinated to support all students to reach primary learning objectives (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Zumeta, 2008; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008). The second purpose of Rtl is to diagnose specific learning disabilities (SLD) in students who do not respond adequately to instruction and intervention (O'Conner, 2007; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009; Torgesen, 1997, 2004). Strong empirical evidence supports the prevention and intervention purpose of Rtl (Baker et al., 2008; Gersten et al., 2009; Greenwood, Kratochwill, & Clements, 2008; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2006), but evidence for using Rtl for SLD determination is lacking (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003; Reynolds & Shaywitz, 2009).

State-Level Curricular, Assessment, and Accountability Policies, Practices, and Philosophies for Exclusionary School Settings

The purpose of the current study was to obtain a more comprehensive understanding of state-level policies and practices concerning youth with disabilities in secondary day treatment and residential (DTR) schools, as well as juvenile correctional (JC) schools for committed youth. A survey of state directors of special education or their designees focused on curricula, assessment, and accountability in these school settings. State-level administrators from 49 states and the District of Columbia responded to mail and online surveys. They reported that approximately one third of DTR schools and half of JC schools used state or district curricula. Moreover, although most respondents noted that students should participate in state assessments, only one third noted that DTR or JC schools were supervised to a great extent to ensure the alignment of curricula and assessments. Implications for policy and practice and suggestions for future research are discussed.

Clearing the Confusion: Response-to-Intervention as a Set of Principles

Response-to-Intervention is a new method of service delivery being implemented in schools. However, the lack of emphasis on the flexible nature of Response-to-Intervention and the varying descriptions of its features within the literature may lead to confusion among school professionals. In order to provide more uniformity among the literature, 5 key principles and 4 features of Response-to-Intervention are outlined. Response-to-Intervention is described as a set of principles that do not change, but from those principles stem features that vary in their presentation between models. R esponse-to-Intervention (RTI) is an innovative approach to service delivery within schools. As practitioners became increasingly frustrated with current practices (i.e., waiting for a student to fail before services can be provided) and were faced with the pressure of No Child Left Behind, they acknowledged that a more proactive and preventative approach was needed (National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), 2006). RTI was offered as a way to answer this need. Defined as a multi-tiered method of service delivery in which all students are provided an appropriate level of evidence-based instruction based on their academic needs, RTI involves frequent assessment of students' progress, data-based decision making, and placement of students within a range of instructional supports. Gresham, VanDerHeyden, and Witt (2005) eloquently summarize the philosophy of RTI as finding "which children need what services, delivered with how much intensity." With the adoption of a model that is different from traditional practices in many ways, practitioners would undoubtedly benefit from consistent guidance and a clear description of RTI. Such clarity would allow for a more effective and sustainable model, as there is recognition that a thorough understanding of RTI is needed for success (Ikeda et al., 2002; NASDSE, 2006). The purpose of this paper is

Responsiveness to Intervention

Responsiveness to Intervention

Is it working?: An overview of curriculum based measurement and its uses for assessing instructional, intervention, or program effectiveness.

Presented here is an overview of Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)--a standardized process of obtaining data regarding a student's acquisition of skills in reading, writing, math, and spelling. A review of research that has utilized CBM in its efforts to define effective teaching strategies also is offered. Overall, the goal of this discussion is to orient professionals working with students in and outside of the school setting to a model of assessment that is gaining wide acceptance in data based decision making. Keywords: CBM, PSM, RtI, DIBELS ********** The field of education often is not associated with rigorous lines of scientific inquiry--until recently (Shavelson & Towne, 2002; Sweet, 2004) when the National Research Council asserted that current educational practices must be put to the test of clinical rigor as their impact on student outcomes is investigated (Snow, Burns, & Griffin, 1998). At the same time, the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development identified students' academic failure as a national public health problem (c.f., Reyna, 2004). Specifically, their proclamation calls for the elimination of practices that have found comfort in classrooms due to their appeal, intuitive feel, or alignment with philosophical beliefs rather than through data-based processes that support their use in educating students (Reyna, 2004; Sweet, 2004). The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB, 2001) and Individuals with Disability Education Improvement Act (IDEIA, 2004) have further shaped educational goals with requirements that students' academic experiences be enriched with high quality and research-based instructional strategies. The end goal is that all students regardless of their race, gender, socioeconomic status, or identified disabilities must reach levels of proficiency in core academic areas--notably reading. Attainment of these goals is determined by student performance on state-level tests. Thus, it becomes evident that students off track for meeting these goals must be identified early; at a point before the gap between expected outcomes and observed skills broadens. For these students, data must be used to identify why their learning trajectories are not progressing in the desired directions. A desired outcome of this analysis would produce hypotheses that link skill gaps to alterable instructional/environmental variables that lead directly to intervention (National Association of State Directors of Special Education--NASDSE, 2006). Within a Problem Solving Model (PSM), this analysis utilizes data to guide and evaluate decision making that seeks to remove barriers impeding learning. Importantly, within this model, frequent (e.g., weekly) monitoring of students' responses to instructional modifications must occur (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2004) with changes to ineffective strategies made. Also known as Response to Intervention (RtI), the overarching goal of this dynamic cycle of data collection and evaluation is to identify changes in rates of skill attainment based on modified instruction or environmental conditions (NASDSE, 2006). Problem solving and RtI are becoming central tenets in the field of education (NASDSE, 2006). An apparent need entwined in this approach is a metric for monitoring student skill acquisition in basic academic domains. Tools for collecting these data must, first, be sensitive to small changes in skill acquisition. Additionally, frequent administration of these indices must not confound future data (i.e., practice or carryover effects). Notably, these assessments must be quick and easy to administer. Indeed, General Outcome Measurement systems such as those structured from a students' instructional framework, i.e., Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM), address all these needs. Purpose of Article The purpose of this article is two-fold. First, it provides a general overview of CBM. Second, it presents a review of not only how CBM can support decision making in the educational setting but also how it monitors student(s) response to instruction, intervention, and program implementation. …

Administrative Perspectives on the No Child Left behind Act (NCLBA) for Students with Disabilities in Rural Settings

The impact of the federal No Child Left Behind Act (NCLBA) has provided a significant challenge and opportunity for administrators of special education services at the state and local levels. Leaders representing prominent professional organizations at both the state (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc.) and local (Council of Administrators of Special Education, Inc.) education levels have identified advantages and barriers to successful implementation of the legal mandates. The most significant challenges for special education leaders and managers include: the requirements for adequate yearly progress for all learners, the provision of highly qualified special education service providers, and an adequate amount of attention devoted to all subgroups of learners. The unique difficulties for rural schools providing an appropriate education to all learners, including those with disabilities, are compounded by the effects of supplemental services, choice options, and the identification of adequate resources. The implications for the preparation of effective special education leaders and managers are identified within these parameters.

Clinicians Convene in Anaheim for Schools 2003 Conference

Clinicians Convene in Anaheim for Schools 2003 Conference

Alternative Schools Serving Students With and Without Disabilities: What Are the Current Issues and Challenges?

The University of Minnesota's Alternative School Research Project, a directed research study funded by the U.S. Department of Education's Office of Special Education Programs, is in the process of conducting research on alternative schools across the country. Special emphasis is given to studying the extent to which and how students with disabilities are being served. Information in this article is a synthesis of data gathered during the 1 st year of this study and is drawn from interviews with state directors of special education, material on alternative education compiled from each state, and other relevant research and literature on alternative education. Critical issues and challenges for alternative educators and administrators are identified and discussed. Issues focus on governance and policies guiding the operation of alternative schools, the purpose of alternative schools, student needs and implications for service, staffing and instruction, maintaining high expectations and high standards, and measuring outcomes and effectiveness. The article contains a list of questions that can be used to help educators identify and address key issues in their alternative settings in order to promote successful school experiences for students with and without disabilities.

Teacher Burnout In Special Education: The Causes and The Recommended Solutions

Introduction While many areas in education are experiencing teacher shortages (McKnab, 1995; Merrow, 1999), the retention of special education teachers in particular is a critical concern in many schools across the nation. Even prior to the developing national teacher shortage, educators were voicing concerns about higher burnout and/or teacher attrition rates in special education as compared to general education (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 1990). Many anticipate that the national teacher shortage may only exacerbate this growing need for special educators. McKnab (1995), for example, estimated the annual attrition rate for special education teachers as between 9% and 10%, as compared to 6% among educators in other areas. More recently, a national survey of over 1,000 special educators conducted by the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) concluded: Poor teacher working conditions contribute to the high rate of special educators leaving the field, teacher burnout, and substandard quality of education for students with special needs (CEC, 1998). Clearly, hidden within the growing national teacher shortage in all certification areas, the ongoing burnout of special education teachers has become an important liability in the provision of appropriate educational services to students with disabilities. The purpose of this paper is to describe the burnout/teacher retention problem in the field of special education, within the context of today's classrooms. Further we will synthesize the available information in order to suggest steps that may be undertaken to ameliorate this problem. First, a synthesis of research on teacher burnout within special education is presented. Next, several specific and malleable factors are explored more completely--teacher stress and mentoring for new teachers. Finally, suggestions for increasing retention of teachers in special education are presented. Research has both documented higher turnover among special education teachers, and suggested a number of reasons for this phenomenon (Boe, Bobbit, Cook, Whitener, & Weber, 1997; Brownell, Smith, McNellis, & Miller, 1997; McKnab, 1995; Singh & Billingsley, 1996). Table I presents a synopsis of the research that has been published since 1995. Many of these studies are recent enough to reflect the evolving nature of special education instruction, such as the recent expectations for inclusive instruction, the changes in disciplinary tactics as reflected in the recently mandated behavioral intervention plans, and the ever-increasing paperwork load on special education teachers. As one example of this research effort, Boe, Bobbit, and Cook (1997) conducted a study using a national survey done by the National Center for Educational Statistics in 1987/1988. Surveys from 4, 812 public school teachers were used to provide data that tracked teacher transfers across schools, school districts, state boundaries, public and private sectors, teaching specializations, and out of the teaching profession. Also, the educators were given a follow-up survey as a longitudinal component that was conducted during the 1988-1989 school year. The results indicated that the attrition rate of 20% for special education teachers was higher than for general educators (attrition rate of 13%) in 1987-88. Of the teachers who left education, 12% of the special education teachers, versus 7% of the general education teachers transferred to a different school. Also, more special education teachers (8%) than general educators (6%) left public school teaching altogether. With these data on turnover and burnout in special education, one may well inquire as to the reasons for the higher attrition rates among special educators. Brownell, Smith, McNellis, and Miller (1997), addressed that issue in a study using 93 randomly selected Florida teachers who did not return to their special education teaching positions after the 1992-93 school year. …

State Office of Education Practices Implementing the IDEA Disciplinary Provisions

A survey was conducted to obtain information on state policies and practices for implementing components of the disciplinary provisions outlined in the 1997 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Thirty-seven state directors of special education (or a designee) responded to the survey, which addressed the availability and nature of state policies on discipline, state training, and technical assistance in the area of discipline and functional behavioral assessment (FBA), as well as practices related to FBA. Overall, the survey revealed that states across the nation are developing disciplinary policies and monitoring procedures based on the provisions outlined in IDEA. Training and technical assistance are offered to school districts, but most often these are not mandated and are limited. Finally, FBA strategies and policies have been developed by states to address all topographies of behavior. However, the qualifications of individuals completing the FBA have not been addressed. These results are discussed in light of the current research and may be useful for state directors and practitioners to further improve and expand their disciplinary policies.

Setting Learning Expectations for Students with Disabilities

The authors begin with a discussion of the balanced model of accountability proposed by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education in 1995 and its implications for the evaluation of student progress. This model suggests the need for an education system that balances (a) rights, inputs, and processes with (b) system standards and results, and (c) individual student learning. The authors emphasize the critical role of expectations and discuss two refinements of the current IEP process to sharpen the focus on student achievement. Whereas several models of evaluating individual student progress are discussed in this issue, the primary emphasis of this article is the elaboration of a model to assist special educators in the assessment of instruction practices and curricula. The authors discuss the need for both special and general education teachers to have access to practical and trustworthy information regarding educational tools and practices. Specific guidelines for the evaluation of educational practices are discussed as well as the need for additional professional development to assist educators with the implementation of such a model.

Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs.

Year 2000 Position Statement: Principles and Guidelines for Early Hearing Detection and Intervention Programs.

Bridging the Research-to-Practice Gap

The contribution of research findings to the education of Americas students, including those with disabilities, depends on the quality of and market demand for research findings. This paper presents a rationale and suggestions for increasing the quality of and market demand for research findings as a vital component of any serious effort to improve American education. Responses to the paper are from representatives of the American Federation of Teachers; Learning Disabilities Association; National Alliance of Business; National Association of State Directors of Special Education; and Staff Director, Disability Policy Subcommittee, U.S. Senate. An additional response, which also synthesizes all responses, is provided by The Council for Exceptional Children.

State Practices in Serving Individuals with Autism

This article reports findings from a survey of state directors of special education that focused on current practices in providing services to individuals with autism. Results indicated that states vary greatly in the ways they define, assess, and provide training and technical assistance for those working with pupils with autism. Recommendations based on the literature and from the results of this study are provided.