Despite advances in evidence–based core instruction and intervention, many students with disabilities continue to achieve poor academic and behavioral outcomes. Many of these students are not sufficiently responsive to standardized programs and require more intensive, individualized supports. While many interventions and school problem–solving teams focus primarily on either academic or behavioral concerns, students with the most intensive needs often have interrelated needs in both areas. The next big idea in special education should be to merge these efforts, building upon all that we have learned about problem solving at all levels of support, to improve outcomes for these students. Data–based individualization provides a framework for integrating academic and behavioral problem solving and intervention.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
AudS., HussarW., JohnsonF., KenaG., RothE., ManningE., WangX., & ZhangJ. (2012). The condition of education 2012 (NCES 2012–045). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2012/2012045.pdf
2.
BerkeleyS., BenderW. N., PeasterL. G., & SaundersL. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention: A snapshot of progress. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85–95.
3.
BurnsM. K., & GibbonsK. (2012). Implementing response–to–intervention in elementary and secondary schools: Procedures to assure scientific–based practices (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Routledge.
4.
BurnsM. K., Riley–TillmanT. C. & VanDerHeydenA. (2012). Response to intervention applications Volume 1: Academic and behavioral interventions. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
5.
CapizziA. M., & FuchsL. S. (2005). Effects of curriculum–based measurement with and without diagnostic feedback on teacher planning. Remedial and Special Education, 26(3), 159–174.
6.
ConnorC. M., AlbertoP. A., ComptonD. L., & O'ConnorR. E. (2014). Improving reading outcomes for students with or at risk for reading disabilities: A synthesis of the contributions from the Institute of Education Sciences research centers (NCSER 2014–3000). Washington, DC: National Center for Special Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20143000/pdf/20143000.pdf
DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1977). Data–based program modification: A manual. Minneapolis, MN: Leadership Training Institute for Special Education.
10.
FuchsL. S., ComptonD. L., FuchsD., PaulsenK., BryantJ. D., & HamlettC. L. (2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513.
11.
FuchsL. S., DenoS. L., & MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of curriculum–based measurement evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449–460.
12.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., & HamlettC. L. (1989). Effects of instrumental use of curriculum–based measurement to enhance instructional programs. Remedial and Special Education, 10, 43–52.
13.
FuchsL. S., FuchsD., PowellS. R., SeethalerP. M., CirinoP. T., & FletcherJ. M. (2008a). Intensive intervention for students with mathematics disabilities: Seven principles of effective practice. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 79–92.
14.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & SteckerP. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323.
15.
FuchsD., FuchsL. S., & VaughnS. (2008b). Response to intervention: A framework for reading educators. Newark, DE: International Reading Associations.
16.
GerstenR., ComptonD., ConnorC. M., DiminoJ., SantoroL., Linan–ThompsonS., et al. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention (RtI) and multi–tier intervention 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/practice_guides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
17.
GreshamF. (2004). Current status and future directions of school–based behavioral interventions. School Psychology Review, 33, 326–343.
LeoneP. E., MeiselS., & DrakefordW. (2002) Special education programs for youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 46–50.
21.
MaguinE., & LoeberR. (1996). Academic performance and delinquency. In TonryMichael (Ed.), Crime and justice: A review of research (Vol. 20). Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013b). Introduction to data–based individualization (DBI): Considerations for implementation in academics and behavior. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, National Center on Intensive Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resource/introduction-data-based-individualization
PlantyM., HussarW., SnyderT., ProvasnikS., KenaG., DinkesR., KewalRamaniA., & KempJ. (2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008–031). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf
27.
Riley–TillmanT.C., BurnsM. K., & GibbonsK. (2013). Response to intervention applications Volume 2: Assessment, design and decision making. New York, NY: The Guilford Press.
28.
SanfordC., NewmanL., WagnerM., CametoR., KnokeyA.–M., & ShaverD. (2011). The post–high school outcomes of young adults with disabilities up to 6 years after high school. Key findings from the National Longitudinal Transition Study–2 (NLTS2) (NCSER 2011–3004). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113004/pdf/20113004.pdf
29.
WanzekJ., & VaughnS. (2009). Students demonstrating persistent low response to reading intervention: Three case studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 24(3), 151–163.
30.
WanzekJ., VaughnS., ScammaccaN. K., MetzK. L., MurrayC. S., RobertsG., et al. (2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195.
