NASDSE Explains Response to Intervention

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE)

Printable Version

Response to Intervention, or RtI, focuses on improving outcomes in both special and general education. RtI is the practice of:

• Providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs.
• Monitoring the rate at which students learn and the level at which they perform.
• Using student performance data to make decisions about instruction, goals, eligibility for special education programs and services, and other critical educational decisions across general, remedial, and special education.

[National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE), 2005].

The practice of RtI is especially pertinent to children and youth who have been or might be classified in the category of specific learning disabilities (SLD). However, RtI is also pertinent to students with other disabilities, particularly those with high-incidence disabilities such as mild cognitive deficit and emotional-behavioral disorders, and the many children with various combinations of at-risk characteristics.

This FOCUS on Results document contains information and tables summarized with permission from Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, published by NASDSE in 2005. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) recognizes this informational book as an excellent guidance resource for state and local education agencies (SEAs and LEAs) that are implementing or considering implementing the practice of RtI.

NASDSE Defines RtI

RtI is the practice of providing (1) high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs using (2) learning rate over time and level of performance to make (3) important educational decisions. NASDSE defines each element as follows:

• High-quality instruction/intervention is instruction or intervention, matched to student need, that has been demonstrated through scientific research and practice to produce high learning rates for most students. Individual responses to instruction or intervention vary. Therefore, individual response is assessed in RtI and the modifications to instruction, intervention, or goals are made depending on results with individual students.
• Learning rate and level of performance are the primary sources of information used in ongoing decision making. Learning rate refers to a student's growth in achievement or behavior competencies over time compared to prior levels of performance and peer growth rates. Level of performance refers to a student's relative standing on some dimension of achievement or performance compared to expected performance (either criterion or norm-referenced). Learning rates and levels of performance vary significantly across students. Most students with achievement or behavioral challenges respond positively to explicit and intense instruction/interventions. Decisions about the use of more or less intense interventions are made using information on learning rate and level of performance.
• Important educational decisions about intensity and likely duration of interventions are based on individual student response to instruction across multiple tiers of intervention. Decisions about the need for more intense interventions are informed by data on learning rate and level of performance.

A Brief History of How Federal Law Supports RtI

The initial purpose of Public Law (P.L.) 94-142, The Education for of All Handicapped Children Act, enacted in 1975, was to provide a free, appropriate public education (FAPE) for students with disabilities eligible for special education according to an individualized education program (IEP). To assure access to a FAPE, the law included a child find provision to identify all children suspected of having a disability who should be referred for further assessment. The child find initiative was so successful over the next five years that the overall numbers of students with disabilities, particularly learning disabilities, expanded significantly. State legislatures began to limit special education funding (e.g., setting limits on personnel salary reimbursements and on the number of students with disabilities who could be counted for funding and other overall funding limits). Congress also had a temporary limit on the numbers of students with specific learning disabilities (SLD) who could be counted for federal funding purposes.

Shift to Outcomes

By the late 1980s, questions emerged about the effectiveness of special education programs, especially for students with mild disabilities (e.g., learning disabilities, mild mental disabilities, and behavior disorders). Contemporary research began to challenge the relationship between traditional (categorical and differential diagnosis) decision making for eligibility, the emphasis on labels and categories, and the rigid need for eligibility determination as a prerequisite for service. As a result, policymakers and legislators initiated the most comprehensive reform of Public Law (P.L.) 94-142 since its enactment in 1975. The outcome was the reauthorization of the Act under its new name, the Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), in 1997.

IDEA '97 set in motion fundamental, conceptual, and practice changes in special education. Special education was now described as a set of services, not as a place. The law required local education agencies to develop educational services intended to address educational needs before children were labeled as “disabled.” There was an explicit expectation to shift the focus from accountability based on procedures to a accountability based on student performance and outcomes. The tone of IDEA '97 was set in the Act’s preamble:

Over 20 years of research and experience has demonstrated that education of children with disabilities can be made more effective by ... (A) having high expectations for such children and ensuring their access in the general education curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate; ... (F) providing incentives for whole school approaches and pre-referral interventions to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address their learning needs; and (G) focusing resources on teaching and learning while reducing paperwork and requirements that do not assist in improving educational needs (20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)).

IDEA '97 expanded LEA flexibility in the use of funds and in assessment practices. Funding changes allowed LEAs to: 1) use funds to carry out schoolwide programs as set forth in the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (20 U.S.C. 6314); 2) use funds to support schoolwide programs that benefit children with disabilities while providing incidental benefits to students without disabilities (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(4)); and 3) use 5% of funds to develop and implement a coordinated service system (20 U.S.C. 1413(a)(2)(D)).

Changes to evaluation and assessment requirements provided additional flexibility and efficiency to determine the educational needs of a child. LEAs were now expected to use:

... a variety of assessment tools and strategies to gather relevant functional and developmental information, including information provided by a parent, that may assist in determining whether the child is a child with a disability and the content of the child's individualized education program, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(2)(A)).

The focus on the inclusion of assessment activities that gathered relevant, functional, and developmental information permitted the use of existing data (e.g., data gathered as part of a problem-solving system or RtI) to determine eligibility. Those data included:

• Existing evaluation data.
• Current classroom-based assessments and observations.
• Teacher and related service providers' observations.

IDEA `97 further stated:

"... on the basis of that review, and input from the child's parents, [LEAs should] identify what additional data, if any, are needed" to determine special education eligibility needs (20 U.S.C. 1414(c)(1)(B)).

If the multidisciplinary team determined that "relevant functional and developmental information" adequately documented both a student's response to interventions and documented the need for special education, then no additional testing (e.g., individualized standardized testing) need be conducted.

Although IDEA ‘97 included a number of significant changes designed to increase the efficiency of services to students with disabilities to improve student outcomes and to limit access to special education to those students who clearly had a disability, few real changes occurred in practice. Widespread use of these assessment practices did not occur. However, IDEA ‘97 set the stage for the response to intervention language that appears in IDEA 2004. For IDEA 2004 to realize the promise it holds, strong leadership at both the SEA and LEA levels will be needed.

Further Reform to Outcome Accountability

In late November 2004, Congress reauthorized IDEA (IDEA 2004). Several sections of the statute provide legal authority for implementing problem-solving delivery systems, including RtI. The "Findings and Purposes" section (20 U.S.C. 1400) includes two statements relevant to the purpose and function of special education programs:

Supporting high-quality intensive pre-service preparation and professional development for all personnel who work with children with disabilities in order to ensure that such personnel have skills and knowledge necessary to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities, including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent possible (20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(E)).

Continuing, the legislation gives emphasis to prevention and intervention stating:

... providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children in order to assess the learning and behavioral needs of such children (20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(F))..

Language in IDEA 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) stress the use of professionally sound interventions and instructions based on defensible research, as well as the requirement to deliver effective reading and behavior programs that will result in improved student performance and fewer children requiring special education services.

Lack of Instruction

IDEA and its predecessor, P.L. 94-142, have always required that lack of instruction must be considered in the eligibility decision-making process. In other words, a child should never be identified as needing special education if his or her learning/behavioral deficits are the result of a failure to provide quality instruction or the lack of access to quality instruction. A significant change to that requirement is found in IDEA 2004, one that once again links IDEA to NCLB. IDEA 2004 states, in part:

In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is—(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (which is the NCLB) (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(5)(A)).

This change is tied to the language in NCLB, which is more specific with regard to reading requirements than any prior legislation. The language of NCLB was shaped around the 2000 National Reading Panel Report (NPR, 2000); the language states that scientifically based reading instruction should include instruction in phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary and comprehension, including the teaching of early literacy skills. The reference in IDEA 2004 to assessing lack of instruction means that students who reach third or fourth grade and find themselves significantly behind in reading are not to be identified as students requiring special education if there is not a clear instructional history in reading that follows the guidance outlined in the NRP report and as set forth in NCLB.

Response to Intervention

IDEA 2004 contains the provision to use scientific, research-based interventions as part of the process to determine eligibility for learning disabilities. In response to the research findings and testimony provided to the President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE), IDEA 2004 includes language that provides LEAs with the option to use the RtI approach when determining the educational needs of a student. Specifically, the law states:

Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local education agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(A)).

Continuing, and providing the alternative approach that may be used, the law states:

In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3) (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(6)(B)).

The language in IDEA 2004 is permissive in nature. It does not require that RtI be used. Rather, it prevents a state from precluding RtI if an LEA or regional unit chooses to adopt this methodology.

There are other smaller, yet significant changes throughout the law that convey the thinking and intent of Congress in this area. One example found in the "Evaluation and IEP" section is a change from the word test(s) to assessment(s) (20 U.S.C. 1414(b)(3)(A)). The value of authentic assessments are much more amenable to the development of effective interventions and the wording change in IDEA 2004 is a clear indication that data collection should include functional academic and behavioral assessment measures such as curriculum-based assessments (CBA) and curriculum-based measures (CBM) as part of student evaluations. The "Evaluations, Eligibility Determinations, Individualized Education Programs, and Educational Placements" section of IDEA 2004 (20 U.S.C. 1414) includes another important change supporting RtI. The Rule of Construction in (a)(1)(E) states:

The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services.

This language supports screening and progress monitoring activities at Tiers 1 and 2 of a RtI approach.

Early Intervening

Another change in IDEA 2004 is the emphasis on early intervening. Early intervening in this context refers to catching problems early, while they are small. The term includes, but is not limited to, services for young children. LEAs may now use up to 15 percent of their IDEA allocation to develop and implement coordinated early intervention education services for students who are not receiving special education services, but require additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment. These students might be likely referrals to special education programs and services if they don’t receive these interventions. Activities that may be supported include professional development to deliver scientifically based academic and behavioral interventions and educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction. All these activities are integral to an RtI problem-solving delivery system. They are all intended to reduce the number of students who experience academic frustration and failure, many of whom end up in special education programs.

Essential Components

To implement RtI effectively, NASDSE recommends that educators incorporate three essential components. First, service delivery needs to be provided via multiple tiers of intervention. Second, a data-based decision-making process, otherwise known as the Problem-Solving Method, should be applied at each tier level. Figure 1 shows the four basic steps of the Problem-Solving Method. Third, a data collection/assessment system should be implemented to help make informed decisions at each tier level.

According to NASDSE, a multi-tier model of intervention helps create efficient resource allocation mechanisms with three- and four-tier models being the most common. (Figure 2)

In Tier 1, school districts provide a foundation of curriculum, instruction, and school organization. This helps bring a large percent of students (80%) to acceptable levels of proficiency. Tier 1 also includes supports for teachers to help them implement this model. First, schools provide a core instructional program that uses a scientifically validated curriculum for all students. School districts choose curricula that have evidence of producing adequate levels of achievement (i.e., research-based), and instruction is differentiated within the core to meet a broad range of student needs. Effective teachers at this stage match students' prerequisite skills with course content to create an appropriate instructional match and use instructional strategies that are evidence based.

During the course of instruction, the school uses universal screenings in essential academic areas to identify each student’s level of proficiency. Screening tests are usually administered three times per year to help identify students that may be “at-risk” for disorder. The screening data are organized in formats that allow for the inspection of both group and individual performance on specific skills. An example of a comprehensive screening system of children's literacy skills at the primary level is the Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) (Kaminski & Good, 1996). A potentially useful structure to support teachers' analysis of these periodically collected data is a data analysis team format (Kovaleski & Glew, in press; Schmoker, 2002) in which teachers meet in grade-level teams to analyze data on all students, set group goals for the next assessment period, and plan for whole class instructional change based on the data. Interventions at this level are oriented toward whole-group instructional procedures, as the focus is on large-scale change to classroom instructional procedures. These procedures assist teachers in bringing large percentages of students to acceptable levels of proficiency. Students who continue to lag behind the group on critical measures of performance are identified for additional supports at Tier 2.

The analysis of system-wide data at Tier 1 provides evidence of the functionality of the foundational curriculum and instructional process and identifies those students who need further intervention at Tier 2. For example, if more than 20% of the peers in general education are not making acceptable progress in relation to desired benchmarks, the school's task is to improve the overall curriculum and/or instructional program. If fewer than 20% of peers in general education are not making satisfactory progress, it may be presumed that the foundational curriculum and instructional process are sufficiently effective and that further individualized interventions are needed at Tier 2 for students who are not meeting expectations of level of skills and progress.

In Tier 2, supplemental instruction is provided to students who display poor response to the instructional procedures used in Tier 1. These services are provided in addition to core instruction and can be developed through a problem-solving process or through a standard treatment protocol.

In considering problem-solving teams and standard protocol interventions, it appears that a merger of the two approaches at Tier 2 is most desirable. Problem-solving teams are ideally suited to conducting functional assessments and managing Tier 2 interventions. Given the strong research base that has been developed around standard protocol interventions, problem-solving teams would be well advised to consider these as default strategies in cases where the treatment matches the identified need (e.g., early literacy). Using standard protocol strategies then replaces the less precise brainstorming phase used by some problem-solving teams, a cause of the very scripted nature of standard protocol strategies, their use should also help to increase treatment uniformity, which has been a historic problem with problem-solving teams (Flugum & Reschly, 1994).

Regardless of the approach that is used at Tier 2, students who improve in critical academic skills as a result of Tier 2 interventions are typically reintegrated into the traditional instructional program. Some students may display significant progress, but may continue to need supports not available in general education. These students, as well as students who fail to display meaningful progress in spite of intensive supports, are referred for more intensive interventions and possible determination of eligibility for special education.

Tier 3 of the model involves intensive instructional interventions to increase an individual student's rate of progress. More intensive services or interventions can be provided for students not making satisfactory progress in the classrooms. These services can include Title I programs, district remediation programs, or special education programs. Individual diagnostic assessments are conducted to determine specific patterns of skills that the individual student has and does not have for the purpose of designing effective instruction to remediate the student’s deficits.

In the third tier, interventions will likely include longer term interventions that may or may not include the provision of special education services. For example, a student whose diminished performance is the result of lack of instruction may need ongoing, intensive instruction delivered in more substantial blocks of time to help him or her catch up to peers. This instruction may not occur in special education. Another example might include a student whose performance problems are directly related to limited English proficiency. Again, the student may need a longer-term set of interventions that do not include special education. However, if a student's learning history and performance problems warrant it, a multi-disciplinary team, working within the parameters of IDEA, may determine whether the student (1) has a disability and (2) needs special education to initiate or maintain acceptable rates of learning.

Unlike the traditional eligibility determination system, however, the data used for consideration of eligibility for special education will include the data that have been gathered through the provision of supplemental services using RtI practices in Tiers 1 and 2. The need for further evaluative procedures at this point depends on the sufficiency of existing data in addressing all of the referral questions and in developing interventions that will be effective in improving a student's rate of learning.

Research Foundations of RtI

Several problems in the traditional general and special education systems were increasingly recognized by the mid- to late 1990s. Prominent among these problems were:

• The deliberate separation of special education from general education.
• Undocumented benefits of remedial, compensatory, and special education programs for students with high-incidence disabilities.
• Eligibility determination procedures that had weak relationships to instructional interventions and, in some cases, were unreliable, invalid, and unintentionally caused harm by delaying intervention.
• Little emphasis on prevention and early identification of problems when they are less complex and easier to resolve.
• Individualized educational programs (IEPs) in special education that did not implement scientifically based instruction/interventions.
• Overrepresentation of some minority students in special education programs that had undocumented and sometimes dubious benefits.
• Failure of traditional assumptions about treating underlying causes of learning problems or matching instruction to presumed strengths in learning styles, information processing modality or cognitive processes.

Although Rtl is not a “cure all” for these complex problems, it is relevant to their solutions through its strong emphasis on improving outcomes in special and general education. Much of the discussion is especially pertinent to children and youth who have been or might be classified in the category of SLD. However, the discussion is also pertinent to students with other disabilities, particularly those with high-incidence disabilities such as mild cognitive deficit and emotional-behavioral disorders, and the many children with various combinations of at-risk characteristics.

The Deno's data-based program modification model (Deno, 1985; Deno & Mirkin, 1977) and Bergan's behavioral consultation model (Bergan, 1977; Bergan & Kratochwill, 1990) are principal sources of current Rtl practices. Both models incorporated Rtl practices in that they systematically implemented the critical steps identified in Figure 3 are implemented systematically.

Deno and colleagues applied data-based program modification model primarily to academic skills problems. They developed precise, direct measures of academic skills that were sensitive to growth (see also Lindsley, 1972; Lovitt, 1967). CBMs were brief samples of academic performances that could be administered frequently. The big idea in CBM was that behavior assessed more frequently using measures sensitive to growth could be used to change instruction or raise goals, depending on results.

Bergen and colleagues developed systematic methods to intervene by using behavior or academic skills delivered through a specific problem-solving process. Consultation methods were described in detail, with an emphasis on the consultant’s verbal behavior as a means to guide problem-solving through stages that largely parallel the steps described in Figure 3 below. Bergan’s model has been used to develop effective academic and behavioral interventions at the individual, group, and system levels (Bergan & Kratochwill 1990).

The steps and procedures in Figure 3 below largely parallel problem-solving and standard protocol treatments described in the current literature (e.g. Reschly, Tilly & Grimes, 1999; Vaughn & Linan-Thompson, 2003). The common elements are procedural steps followed sequentially: implementation of scientifically based interventions, frequent data collection, modification of goals or interventions based on child outcomes, and decisions based on child intervention outcome data.

Conclusion

NASDSE recommends a multi-tier system of intervention as a means to integrate educational problem-solving across educational levels, consistent with federal legislation and scientific research. The goal is to produce better outcomes for all children and to apply procedures with strong scientific bases to a wide range of decisions.

References

Adelman, H. S., & Taylor, L. (1998). Reframing mental health in schools and expanding school reform. Educational Psychologist, 33(4), 135-152.

Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles E. Merrill.

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.

Chalfant, J.C., Pysh, M. V, & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-95.

Deno, S. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.

Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification. Minneapolis, MN: Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.) Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice, 185-250. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Flugum, K. R., & Reschly, D. J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 1-14.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Bahr, M. W (1990). Mainstream assistance teams: A scientific basis for the art of consultation. Exceptional Children, 57(2), 128-139.

Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. A. (2002). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV, 669-720. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S. A. (in press). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate placement of minority students in special education. Remedial and Special Education.

Gresham, F. M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. P Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice, 467-519. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Hartman, W. T., & Fay, T. A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Education Finance, 21(4), 555-580.

Ikeda, M., Grimes, J., Tilly III, W. D., Allison, R., Kurns, S., & Stumme, J. (2002). Implementing an intervention-based approach to service delivery: A case example. In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner & H.M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavioral problems II. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Kaminski, R. A., & Good, R. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills. School Psychology Review, 25, 215-228.

Kovaleski, J. F., & Glew, M.C. (in press). Bringing instructional support teams to scale: Implications of the Pennsylvania experience.

Kovaleski, J. F., Gickling, E. E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170-183.

Lindsley, 0. R. (1972). From Skinner to precision teaching: The child knows best. In J. B. Jordan & L.S. Robbins (Eds.), Let's try doing something else kind of thing, 1-11. Arlington, VA: Council for Exceptional Children.

Lovitt, T C. (1967). Assessment of children with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 233-239.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. 2005. Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation. Available at www.nasdse.org.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Inc. (November 2004). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: A Comparison of P.L. 105-17 (IDEA ’97) to H.R. 1350 (IDEA 2004) As Passed by Congress on November 19, 2004. Retrieved February 12, 2006, from
www.nasdse.org.

National Reading Panel (NRP), 2000. National Reading Panel Publications and Materials. Available at www.nationalreadingpanel.org.

Reschly, D. J., Tilly III, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Reschly, D. J. & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV, 3-20. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Rosenfield, S. A., & Gravois, T. A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York: Guilford.

Schmoker, M. (2002). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.

Sugai, G, Horner, R. H., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environments. In M. R. Shinn, H. M. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Vaugh Gross Center for Preventing Reading Difficulties (2005 ). Preventing Reading Difficulties: A Three-Tiered Intervention Model. Description available at http://texasreadingdl.edb.utexas.edu/downloads/brochures/3tier_brochure.PDF.

Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2003). What is special about special education for students with learning disabilities? Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 140-147.

U.S. Department of Education. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA). Retrieved June 5, 2006 from www.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/idea/idea2004.html.

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, 194-209.

TOP of Page