Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

Despite years of school reform intended to help students reach high academic standards, students with disabilities continue to struggle, suggesting a need for more intensive intervention as a part of special education and multi-tiered systems of support. At the same time, greater inclusion of students with disabilities in large-scale assessment, expanding knowledge of evidence-based practices, and improving assessment technology in recent decades provide important points of progress. This article summarizes this progress, notes potential areas for expansion, and suggests future implementation and policy research questions as they relate to observed challenges with provision of intensive intervention for students with disabilities.

Keywords

academic achievement systems change legal/policy issues special education access to education

Get full access to this article

View all access options for this article.

References

The Advocacy Institute. (2013). ESEA flexibility: Issues for students with disabilities. Marshall, VA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.advocacyinstitute.org/ESEA/AdvocacyInstitute-ESEA.Flexibility.Issues.for.SWDS.pdf

Ahearn

E. M.

(2000). Synthesis brief: Increasing the participation of special needs students in NAEP—Project forum at the National Association of State Directors of Special Education. Alexandria, VA: Retrieved from http://www.nasdse.org/DesktopModules/DNNspot-Store/ProductFiles/151_795d22b1-bccb-46ef-8c97-96f7cfeaa836.pdf

Compton

D. L.

Gilbert

J. K.

Jenkins

J. R.

Fuchs

L. S.

Cho

. . . Bouton

(2012). Accelerating chronically unresponsive children to tier 3 instruction: What level of data is necessary to ensure selection accuracy? Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 205–216. doi:10.1177/0022219412442151

Connor

C. M.

Alberto

P. A.

Compton

D. L.

O’Connor

R. 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. Available from http://ies.ed.gov/

Coyne

M. D.

Simmons

D. C.

Hagan-Burke

Simmons

L. E.

Kwok

Kim

. . . Rawlinson

D. M.

(2013). Adjusting beginning reading intervention based on student performance: An experimental evaluation. Exceptional Children, 80(1), 25–44.

Deno

S. L.

Mirkin

P. K.

(1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/EdPsych/rips/Documents/Data-Based%20Program%20Modification-%20A%20Manual.pdf

Fixsen

D. L.

Naoom

S. F.

Blase

K. A.

Friedman

R. M.

Wallace

(2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature (FMHI Publication #231). Tampa: Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, University of South Florida. Retrieved from http://ctndisseminationlibrary.org/PDF/nirnmonograph.pdf

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

(2012). Smart RTI: A next generation approach to multilevel prevention. Exceptional Children, 78, 263–279.

Fuchs

L. S.

Compton

D. L.

Fuchs

Paulsen

Bryant

J. D.

Hamlett

C. L.

(2005). The prevention, identification, and cognitive determinants of math difficulty. Journal of Educational Psychology, 97, 493–513. doi:10.1037/0022-0663.97.3.493

10.

Fuchs

L. S.

Deno

S. L.

Mirkin

P. K.

(1984). The effects of curriculum-based measurement evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21, 449–460. doi:10.3102/00028312021002449

11.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

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. doi:10.2307/20528819

12.

Harr-Robins

Song

Hurlburt

Pruce

Danielson

Garet

Taylor

(2012). The inclusion of students with disabilities in school accountability systems (NCEE 2012-4056). 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/pubs/20124056/

13.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §1412(17) (1997).

14.

Jennings

(2012). Reflections on a half-century of school reform: Why have we fallen short and where do we go from here? Washington, DC: Center on Education Policy. Retrieved from http://www.cep-dc.org/displayDocument.cfm?DocumentID=392

15.

McInerney

Zumeta

R. O.

Gandhi

A. G.

Gersten

(2014). Building and sustaining complex systems: Addressing common challenges to implementing intensive intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 54–63.

16.

National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The Nation’s Report Card: A first look: 2013 mathematics and reading (NCES 2014-451). Washington, DC: Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/subject/publications/main2013/pdf/2014451.pdf

17.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013a). Academic intervention tools chart. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/chart/instructional-intervention-tools

18.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013b). Data-based individualization: A framework for intensive intervention. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resource/data-based-individualization-framework-intensive-intervention

19.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013c). Implementing intensive intervention: Lessons from the field. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://www.intensiveintervention.org/resource/implementing-intensive-intervention-lessons-learned-field

20.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P. L. No. 107-110, § 115.

21.

Planty

Hussar

Snyder

Provasnik

Kena

Dinkes

. . . Kemp

(2008). The condition of education 2008 (NCES 2008-031). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008031.pdf

22.

Sanford

Newman

Wagner

Cameto

Knokey

A.-M.

Shaver

(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://ies.ed.gov/ncser/pubs/20113004/pdf/20113004.pdf

23.

Seethaler

P. M.

Fuchs

L. S.

Fuchs

Compton

D. L.

(2012). Predicting first graders’ development of calculation versus word-problem performance: The role of dynamic assessment. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104, 224–235. doi:10.1037/a0024968

24.

Vaughn

Wanzek

(2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29, 46–53.

25.

Vaughn

Wanzek

Murray

C. S.

Roberts

(2012). Intensive interventions for students struggling in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth, NH: Center on Instruction, RMC Research Corporation. Retrieved from http://www.centeroninstruction.org/files/Intensive%20Interventions%20for%20Students%20Struggling%20in%20Reading%20%26%20Math.pdf

26.

Wanzek

Vaughn

Scammacca

N. K.

Metz

K. L.

Murray

C. S.

Roberts

Danielson

(2013). Extensive reading interventions for students with reading difficulties after grade 3. Review of Educational Research, 83, 163–195. doi:10.3102/0034654313477212