RTI Special Education .docx

RTI Special Education
Program Transcript
[MUSIC PLAYING]
NARRATOR: The following presentation features educators
from an elementary
school who discuss best practices for integrating special
education into general
education to assess, intervene with, and improve the educational

experiences of
their students.
MERLE SCHWARTZ: So I feel inclined to say that, while we
demonstrated an
RTI meeting, at your school, you call it a problem solving team,
which is terrific.
And so my first question, really, is how did you get this model
up and running?
How did it start? How has it evolved? Ingrid, would you like to
kick it off?
INGRID WIEMER: Yeah, in our district, we've been under the
belief that its best
practice is to have a problem solving team to help general
education teachers
when problems arise with students, whether that's academic or
behavioral or
social emotional. So we've been doing teams like this in our
district for probably
over a decade.
But where we slid into the response to intervention mode and
formalized the
process a little more was when special ed law was reauthorized
in 2004. But a
year or two before that, our district saw the trend that
legislation was taking. And
so we were proactive in getting together groups.
And in our state, we have special education coops. And so they
had written a
grant called Principal-Led Problem Solving Teams. So they
helped us and
trained administrators in neighboring districts and districts that
were part of the

coop in this model. So I would say that we've been pretty
proactive and started
the response to intervention and problem solving teams even
before the
authorization came down.
SUE BARKHAUSEN: And I would say here, at our school,
we've been doing this
problem solving team for about six years with a staff of over 50
people. Everyone
has been trained in this problem solving process, particularly
response to
intervention. And what's wonderful about this is with everyone
trained, we have
volunteers who will volunteer to be on the committee. And so
we were able to
see that in our meeting earlier.
BRIDGET BOOKER: Another interesting component-- thinking
back nine years,
when we started with the principal-led problem solving teams,
we did do it
throughout all the schools in our district. And so it was not just
our school here.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

And I think, at our district in particular, because we are a high
performing district,
we had students that were struggling that wouldn't typically be
considered special
education students, but students that struggled academically
among the peers in
their school.
And we really looked at trying to find interventions that would
be general
education in order to help them to be successful in their
classroom among their
peers here. And they would oftentimes be average students in
other schools that
were just struggling here in our district.
MERLE SCHWARTZ: You mention that members are
volunteers, so I find that
pretty remarkable that people are that committed and interested

to be able to
volunteer to be on the team. I am curious that you said everyone
got trained. And
I'm kind of curious as to what that looked like. How do you
train everybody?
SUE BARKHAUSEN: We did it in thirds. So I would say third
went in the fall. A
third went in the spring. A third went in the following fall. And
we did a lot of role
playing during that practice. It was several days. And hopefully,
those people
volunteered right away to be on the committee so they could use
this new skills.
And it's been very successful.
BRIDGET BOOKER: We really went into two tiers, originally--
training a group of
special education teachers and general education teachers to
develop a group.
And then we problem solved a child throughout the process of a
year. So we
really took somebody that we can really take from the beginning
to the end of a
school year and use all the different elements of the model in
order to get a
better understanding of what we needed to learn.
And then in year two, that group went onto advanced training.
And then a new
group would become part of your one training. So we did it in
stages, as well.
And so throughout the district, we had many different teachers
that were at
different levels that could help support one another.

So not only was the support school-wide, but it was also among
the district. And
we would get together periodically. We also had members of
that cooperative
come and train us at the setting. So as we had some more
intense needs, we
learned some more specific interventions and really fine tuned
our meetings to
help look at data.
And that was probably the thing that was the most difficult to
fine tune-- is that It
wasn't just subjective and anecdotal. It was really data-based
decision making.
INGRID WIEMER: And we feel strongly that it's still our
professional
responsibility to continue to train our members and hone what
we do. And we
ascribe to a continuous improvement model and make sure that
new staff
members are trained, too. So it is ongoing.

MERLE SCHWARTZ: So I notice that you have a number of
people that were
sitting around the table today for your RTI or problem solving
meeting. And I'd
love to know a little bit about the roles that different people
play. And Debbie, you
want to kick this one off?
DEBBIE CUSTER: Sure. The committee actually is a volunteer
committee it
changes every year. Teachers offer to sit on the committee,
which is great
because we meet after school twice a month, which is more
often than a lot of
the committees for the building meet.
And we try, though, to have a representation of general
education teachers,
speech pathologists, the reading specialist-- there is a reading
specialist on
continuously, but then we also might call in a different reading

specialist working
with a particular student. As a school psychologist, I am in
charge of taking in the
paperwork when the students are referred and getting the
meetings set up.
In terms of other jobs on the committee, we have a time keeper.
We have a note
taker and then the facilitator and what other?
SUE BARKHAUSEN: An observer.
DEBBIE CUSTER: An observer. We try to have someone other
than me go in
and observe the student, or other than the classroom teacher--
who probably isn't
as familiar with the student or maybe not familiar all-- go in
and do some
observations so that we have that information at our meetings,
hopefully less
biased than the classroom teacher might be, looking at on task
behavior or other
things environmentally that might be going in the classroom
that might be
contributing to the student's difficulties.
SUE BARKHAUSEN: We'd like to have a representative from
kindergarten, first,
second-- whatever grades we're dealing with so we can get their
perspective,
which is so helpful in the problem solving model.
DEBBIE CUSTER: And the team is smaller this year than last.
Last year was a
larger team. But we still do have, I think, pretty good
representation.

MERLE SCHWARTZ: And it looked like you were working
with some kind of a
form. Can you tell me a little bit about what that was? We have
a form that was
originally designed probably through that cooperative, where
the layout is what is
the presenting problem, what's being done?
SUE BARKHAUSEN: What's the hypothesis?
DEBBIE CUSTER: What hypotheses are you working off of?
What's the goal
you're going to set for the student? And then following up on
what the plan would

be and revisiting it in the future-- and that, I think, is, in
general, a format that's
used probably around the nation. But it might look a little
different in the literature.
A lot of that is discussed as the areas that you should be looking
at when you're
problem solving. And then response to intervention has shifted
that a little bit.
We're still using the problem solving paperwork, because it
seems to meet our
needs. But when you look at response to intervention-- that new
focus, I think, is
off of that original problem solving process.
So different schools might have changed some of their
paperwork. We're using
the same paperwork. We've added in the graphs and that type of
thing.
BRIDGET BOOKER: You've also added in some paperwork
specific to RTI in
terms of the resources used in the programs that are being used.
DEBBIE CUSTER: Instructional planning form that we have
teachers complete
that look at who's providing what, where, how often? And so
that allows us, in our
follow ups and even in our decision making at the original

meeting, to decide how
much is being done? Are we doing enough? And everybody
contributes to that
discussion.
SUE BARKHAUSEN: It's great for documentation. So if we
hear about the same
child from the year before, we can refer Debbie's file or all of
our files to see what
did we do last year? Which tier-- was it tier three or tier two,
tier one? You don't
have to reinvent the wheel. It's right there.
BRIDGET BOOKER: And it also provides data. So in case this
child does end up
going under special education consideration, we already have
data that's already
being brought forth and it shortens the timeline for support.
MERLE SCHWARTZ: So part of RTI is to have a model where
you provide
intervention for all students that have need before you start to
categorize them
and put labels on them. I am curious how you know when-- at
what point a
student who has been in regular education might, in fact, need
to be identified for
special services.
DEBBIE CUSTER: That's a really good question. It's a difficult
question, but what
we do, I think, in general, as an overview of everything, would
be the different
tiers of intervention. So you have a tier one, which occurs in the
classroom. Tier
two usually is a pull out with the reading specialist or somebody

else. Tier three
is the most intensive under RTI, which may be done with a
reading specialist. But
typically, in our building, it goes then to the special educator
specialist.
And so we'll do the tier three with that person and look at how
they're responding.
And that's kind of a queue as to whether or not this student
really is a candidate
to be met on in discussing different domains of deficits and
strengths and looking
at gathering further information and deciding whether or not
special education is

where they should be. Because they're not making the progress
with all that
intervention, and you can't do it forever.
SUE BARKHAUSEN: We have a period of time. We look at it
for 6 to 12 weeks, a
little bit longer. But we would ideally try and switch programs.
It's an important
time to really use an explicit, systematic, serious tier three
program-- research-
based, and hopefully the child will start seeing success.
INGRID WIEMER: Yeah, I think the team does a great job with
looking at some
important queries of did the child make sufficient gains in the
intervention to
either close the gap and then to be reinfused into the classroom?
Or is the child
not making sufficient gains and needs something much more
intensive?
Or if we are doing an intensive intervention as part of RTI,
looking at is the child
making insufficient gains? And we need to continue that. But
what we've set up,
the structure is so time and labor intensive and needs long term
care for that
intervention to be sustained-- we need to look to the special
services department,
then, at that point.
So there's a lot of different tier decision making. And some
problem solving
teams operate a little bit differently in where they would make
those decision
points. But I think it works well here. It's shared decision

making. And we have a
large problem solving team, so that's helpful-- that we're all
comfortable in what
we're recommending for a student that works best for our
environment
educationally.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
14(3) 142 –152
© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
DOI: 10.1177/1098300712436844
http://jpbi.sagepub.com
The three-tiered Positive Behavioral Interventions and Sup-
ports (PBIS) model aims to prevent disruptive behavior by
developing Tier 1 (universal), Tier 2 (targeted group), and
Tier 3 (intensive) systems of positive behavior support (Sugai
& Horner, 2006; Walker et al., 1996). The PBIS universal
system creates improved systems (e.g., discipline, reinforce-
ment, and data management) and procedures (e.g., office
referral, training, leadership) to promote positive change in
staff and student behavior. It is anticipated that approximately
80% of the student population will respond positively to the
universal PBIS model. Consistent with a Response to Inter-
vention (RtI) approach to preventing behavior problems
(Hawken, Vincent, & Schumann, 2008), children who do not
respond to the universal level of PBIS require assessment of
their concerns and more intensive group or individual pre-
ventive interventions to meet their needs.

Because most of the schools trained in PBIS only imple-
ment the universal aspects of the three-tiered model, there is
a great need for additional research on the types of pro-
grams and services implemented to help students who do
not respond adequately to school-wide PBIS (SWPBIS;
Sugai & Horner, 2006; also see Barrett, Bradshaw, and
Lewis-Palmer, 2008). The current paper describes the pro-
grams and services that schools trained in the SWPBIS
model are using to meet the needs of students not respond-
ing to Tier 1. We focus on schools that have not yet received
formal training in Tier 2 or 3 supports, in an effort to better
understand their training and support needs and to inform
professional development related to their efforts to address
a continuum of social-emotional and behavioral needs.
Secondary and Tertiary Support Systems
Although the three-tiered PBIS model encourages the use
of Tier 2 and 3 support systems for children not responding
adequately to SWPBIS, many schools struggle to develop a
coordinated support system without formal training. States
436844PBI14310.1177/1098300712436844Debnam
et al.Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions
© 2012 Hammill Institute on Disabilities
Reprints and permission:
sagepub.com/journalsPermissions.nav
1Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore,
MD, USA
Corresponding Author:
Katrina J. Debnam, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public

Health,
Baltimore, 624 N. Broadway Room 841, Baltimore, MD 21205,
USA
Email: [email protected]
Action Editor: Don Kincaid
Secondary and Tertiary Support
Systems in Schools Implementing
School-Wide Positive Behavioral
Interventions and Supports: A
Preliminary Descriptive Analysis
Katrina J. Debnam, MPH1, Elise T. Pas, PhD1, and Catherine P.
Bradshaw, PhD, MEd1
Abstract
More than 14,000 schools nationwide have been trained in
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(SWPBIS),
which aims both to reduce behavior problems and to promote a
positive school climate. However, there remains a need to
understand the programs and services provided to children who
are not responding adequately to the universal level of support.
Data from 45 elementary schools implementing SWPBIS were
collected using the School-wide Evaluation Tool and the
Individual
Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET) to assess the use of
school-wide, Tier 2, and Tier 3 support systems. The I-SSET
data
indicated that nearly all schools implemented federally
mandated Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports (e.g., functional behavioral
assessment,
student support teams), but few schools implemented other
evidence-based programs for students with more intensive
needs.

School-level demographic characteristics were correlated with
the implementation of some aspects of universal SWPBIS, but
not
with the Tier 2 or 3 supports. Implications of these findings for
professional development are discussed.
Keywords
School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports
(SWPBIS), secondary supports, tertiary supports, functional
behavioral assessment, evidence-based programs
http://crossmark.crossref.org/dialog/?doi=10.1177%2F10983007
12436844&domain=pdf&date_stamp=2012-03-07
Debnam et al. 143
and districts increasingly encourage the use of a student
support team (SST; Crone & Horner, 2003) model, which
provides a structure for collaborative decision making to
ensure that children are successful in school. SSTs are com-
posed of a variety of stakeholders (e.g., administrators,
teachers, and mental health providers) who meet regularly
to develop intervention plans for students identified as in
need of additional supports. In a typical school setting, a
classroom teacher “refers” a student for an academic or
behavioral concern and then meets with the SST to collab-
oratively assess the concern and identify potential aca-
demic and/or behavioral strategies that will improve the
student’s performance (Crone & Horner, 2003). These
interventions are often composed of small student groups,
targeting a specific skill or goal, and are implemented by
the teacher or staff member. In its ideal form, the SST
monitors and evaluates the selected strategies to determine
their success, with the expectation that noneffective inter-

ventions will be discontinued and replaced with effective
programs (Crone & Horner, 2003; Hawken et al., 2008).
One increasingly popular intervention, Check In/Check
Out (CI/CO; Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004; Todd,
Campbell, Meyer, & Horner, 2008), provides a structure for
students to receive positive, individual contact, feedback,
and support for appropriate behavior throughout the day
from their teachers. The program is tied to the school-wide
behavioral expectations, and has been shown to produce
positive outcomes (e.g., reduction in office discipline refer-
rals) in rigorous evaluation studies (Filter et al., 2007;
Hawken, MacLeod, & Rawlings, 2007; Todd et al., 2008).
Consistent with the tiered PBIS model, the success of tar-
geted interventions should be monitored and modified by
the SST if behavior does not improve (Crone & Horner,
2003).
Functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is another
strategy commonly used by schools implementing PBIS
(Crone & Horner, 2003). Through FBA, the “function,” or
purpose, of the student’s behavior is assessed in relation to
the context (e.g., environment, motivation) in which it
occurs, to allow school staff to predict future occurrences
of the behavior and thus “pre-correct” for the occurrence of
an appropriate behavior. FBA information is used to iden-
tify appropriate interventions to address the specific pur-
pose of the behavior (O’Neill et al., 1997). FBAs are
usually conducted by members of the SST for students who
exhibit chronic behavior problems (Scott et al., 2005). This
approach has been shown effective for various student
behaviors and settings (e.g., Lane et al., 2007). There is an
increasing emphasis on the use of FBAs to guide the imple-
mentation of function-based interventions before a special
education referral (Scott et al., 2005).

The process of providing targeted group and individual
preventive interventions may be more challenging when the
school lacks a solid SWPBIS model (Sugai & Horner,
2006). Other contextual factors may also challenge the
school’s organizational capacity to provide valuable sup-
port services. For example, schools that experience a high
student-to-teacher ratio, a large student body, a high rate of
student mobility or discipline problems, or a high concen-
tration of student poverty may also struggle to implement
school-based services (Domitrovich et al., 2008). In fact,
research suggests that high rates of “disorder” within the
school can impede successful implementation of programs
(G. D. Gottfredson, Gottfredson, Payne, & Gottfredson,
2005; Bradshaw, Koth, Thornton, & Leaf, 2009). Although
not well researched, other characteristics of the school, such
as the concentration of students receiving special education
services and academic performance, may also be related to
the extent of support services provided. Specifically, we
hypothesized that schools with high concentrations of stu-
dents receiving special education services, and therefore
more staff who have pre-service training and expertise in
targeted and intensive support services, would have
enhanced Tier 2 and 3 services. We also expected that
school-level indicators of high academic performance
would be indicative of greater academic and Tier 2 and 3
supports. This exploratory area of research fills a current
gap in our understanding of how contextual factors specifi-
cally relate to Tier 2 and 3 supports. It may also identify
future areas of research that should be conducted.
Furthermore, given the prior research suggesting that
schools are typically implementing multiple programs
(Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010), often without formal
training (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001), and that rela-
tively few are using evidence-based models (Gottfredson &

Gottfredson, 2002), we examined the characteristics of the
targeted support services implemented. We were particularly
interested in the implementation of the Tier 2 and 3 supports
implemented by SWPBIS schools that had not yet received
formal training in targeted or intensive services, as this
would provide useful information regarding program plan-
ning and data-based decision making. Consistent with the
work of Gottfredson and Gottfredson (2002), we expected
that these schools would have implemented relatively few
“packaged” and evidence-based Tier 2 and 3 prevention
programs.
Overview of the Current Study
The first aim of the study was to describe the types and fea-
tures of Tier 1, 2, and 3 support systems in place at elementary
schools already trained in and actively implementing
SWPBIS. We purposefully focused on schools that were
implementing the universal supports system, but had not yet
been provided formal training on the implementation of Tier
2 or 3 supports, in order to inform program planning and
technical assistance. We expected that schools would natu-
rally begin to provide some Tier 2 and 3 supports independent
144 Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions 14(3)
of receiving formal training, based on student need. The sec-
ond aim of the study was to examine variation in the level of
Tier 2 and 3 services provided in relation to the fidelity of the
SWPBIS model and to a set of school-level demographic
characteristics, which previous research suggests are com-
monly linked with poorer implementation of prevention pro-
grams (Gottfredson et al., 2005). Our third goal was to
describe intervention attributes of the three most commonly
used Tier 2 programs. Together, these findings will provide an

enhanced understanding of the types and features of supports
that are commonly used by schools implementing SWPBIS.
These findings may also indicate areas for future research and
which could be enhanced through professional development
and technical assistance to improve behavior support systems
in schools.
Method
Participating Schools
Data for the present study come from the baseline data collec-
tion of a large-scale study of secondary supports and services
provided to schools already implementing SWPBIS. A total
of 45 public elementary schools from six Maryland school
districts volunteered to participate in the study. Eligible
schools had been trained in the universal system of SWPBIS
by the Maryland State Leadership Team (Barrett et al., 2008),
had implemented SWPBIS for at least 1 year (M = 2.9 years,
SD = 1.72, range = 1–7), had received at least an 80% on the
SWPBIS fidelity measure (i.e., the School-wide Evaluation
Tool [SET], see description below) in the prior spring, and
had expressed a desire for training in targeted and intensive
support services. Although the schools were not selected at
random from the districts, the participating schools represent
between 12.5% and 62.5% of the districts’ elementary schools
implementing SWPBIS. It is important to note that the state
had not developed a system for providing coordinated train-
ing in targeted or intensive programs and that only select
school personnel hired to conduct FBAs are provided district-
supported training related to Tier 2 and 3 supports (Barrett
et al., 2008). As illustrated by the school-level demographic
data presented in Table 1, the participating schools were
diverse and were located in different geographic locations.
The Institutional Review Board at the researchers’ university
approved this study.

Data
School Demographic Information. Baseline school-level
characteristics were obtained from the Maryland State
Department of Education regarding student enrollment,
student-to-teacher ratio, student mobility, percentage of stu-
dents receiving free and reduced-price meals (FARMs),
percentage of students receiving special education services,
percentage of Caucasian students, percentage of suspen-
sions (total number of suspensions divided by the enroll-
ment), and student math and reading performance (see
Table 1).
School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET). The SET (Sugai, Lewis-
Palmer, Todd, & Horner, 2001) was developed to assess
the degree to which schools implement the key features of
SWPBIS (Horner et al., 2004). It is typically completed
annually by a trained external observer who conducts brief
interviews, tours the school, and reviews materials to assess
the extent to which the following seven key features of SWP-
BIS are in place at the school: (a) Expectations Defined; (b)
Behavioral Expectations Taught; (c) System for Rewarding
Behavioral Expectations; (d) System for Responding to
Behavioral Violations; (e) Monitoring and Evaluation; (f)
Management; and (g) District-Level Support (see Horner et
al., 2004). Each item is scored on a 3-point scale (0 = not
implemented, 1 = partially implemented, and 2 = fully imple-
mented). It yields seven subscale scores (ranging 0–100%),
with higher scores indicating greater program fidelity. An
overall summary score was computed by averaging all seven
scores (referred to as the Overall SET score), which also
ranges 0 to 100% (Cronbach’s alpha [α] = .72). An 80% or
higher on the Overall SET score is considered high fidelity
(Horner et al., 2004; Sugai et al., 2001).

Individual Student Systems Evaluation Tool (I-SSET). A new
measure, the I-SSET (version 1.2; Lewis-Palmer, Todd,
Horner, Sugai, & Sampson, 2005), was developed to docu-
ment the characteristics of Tier 2 and Tier 3 support services
provided in schools implementing SWPBIS. Minor modifi-
cations were made to the original I-SSET to make the
instrument consistent with Maryland terminology (e.g.,
FBA, SST). Similar to the SET, a trained external observer
conducts brief interviews at the school and reviews inter-
vention planning materials. In the current study, the I-SSET
and SET were conducted during a single school visit,
thereby providing information regarding both SWPBIS and
the targeted and intensive support programs. The I-SSET is
composed of 23 items organized into three subscales: (a)
Foundations (α = .50; e.g., procedures for referring students
to SST); (b) Targeted Interventions (α = .64; e.g., written
intervention instructions); and (c) Intensive Individualized
Interventions (α = .52; e.g., elements of the FBA and quali-
fications of SST members). Each item is scored on a 3-point
scale (0 = not implemented, 1 = partially implemented, and
2 = fully implemented). The nine items on the Targeted
Interventions subscale are derived mostly from a series of
questions regarding the features of the three most com-
monly used Tier 2 and 3 interventions. Specifically, the SST
leader is asked to provide the name of programs imple-
mented and answers a series of eight questions regarding
each program identified, one of which can be an academic
intervention (the other two are behavioral or social-emotional).
The responses to these questions, which are scored on a
Debnam et al. 145
2-point scale (0 = no and 2 = yes), are then totaled across the
three programs to generate the eight I-SSET item scores for

that school (see items 12–19 on Table 2). An Overall I-SSET
score was created by averaging the three subscale scores (α
= .72). Each I-SSET subscale is represented by a single
score (0–100%), where higher scores indicate stronger sup-
port systems. Because the I-SSET is a relatively new mea-
sure, there are no published studies reporting data from the
I-SSET; furthermore, the psychometric properties of the
I-SSET have not been previously examined. The Cron-
bach’s alphas are based on a larger pool of cases (n = 132)
from the larger study. The current study is the first, to our
knowledge, to report data from the I-SSET.
Procedure
Training of SET/I-SSET Assessors. A total of eight SET/I-
SSET assessors were hired by the project, seven of whom
had previous experience conducting SETs. Each assessor
conducted between 2 and 13 SET/I-SSETs (mode = 5). The
assessors were primarily bachelor’s- and master’s-level
professionals (e.g., teachers, special educators, school
counselors, educational trainers) who were working part-
time or had recently retired from full-time work in an edu-
cational setting. After reviewing the written training
materials, each assessor attended an initial half-day didactic
group SET/I-SSET training session, which was conducted
by the lead SET/I-SSET staff trainer, and then shadowed a
lead SET/I-SSET staff trainer in conducting a full SET/I-
SSET in a nonproject SWPBIS elementary school. All
assessors conducted a second SET/I-SSET with a second
lead trainer at another nonproject school to determine
interobserver agreement. The interobserver agreement for
each set of pairs was calculated (range of item-level Kappas
for the SET was .64 to 1.00 [M = .82] and .84 to 1.00 [M =
.92] for the I-SSET).

Administration of the SET/I-SSET. After completing this
three-stage training process, the assessor independently
conducted the SET/I-SSET in a project school. Both mea-
sures were completed during a single school visit by the
assessor. Brief interviews were conducted with an adminis-
trator (approximately 30 minutes) and the SST leader
(approximately 20 minutes) regarding the types of pro-
grams and supports provided to students not responding
adequately to SWPBIS. The assessors also collected infor-
mation about the PBIS procedures, policies, and positive
behavior standards by interviewing a minimum of eight
teachers and four support staff members for approximately
3 to 5 minutes each, and a minimum of 12 students from
each grade level for approximately 1 to 2 minutes each. The
measures were conducted in the fall (i.e., first month of
their participation in the study).
Analyses
To address our first research aim, we conducted descriptive
analyses on the SET/I-SSET item-level data in SPSS 17.0.
These analyses enabled us to determine the level of imple-
mentation reported by schools and to identify the areas of
strength and weakness. Our second aim was to examine
variation in I-SSET scores by SET scores and school char-
acteristics. Therefore, we conducted correlational analyses
Table 1. Correlations Among the I-SSET Subscales and School
Demographics (n = 45 Schools)
M (SD) Range Foundations
Targeted
interventions
Intensive
individualized

interventions
I-SSET
overall score
I-SSET score
M 68.1% 78.3% 93.9% 80.1%
SD 15.8 14.5 17.0 11.3
School demographics Correlations
School enrollment 461.07 (142.54) 194–867 .038 .036 –.134 –
.034
Student-to-teacher ratio 20.77 (3.76) 14.60–29.92 .163 .033 –
.364* –.092
Free/reduced-price meals (%) 44.99 (20.43) 6.80–80.40 .181
.235 .095 .233
Special education students (%) 14.47 (6.17) 6.00–35.00 –.185 –
.061 .097 –.064
Caucasian students (%) 32.20 (31.08) 0.00–93.66 .021 –.032
.138 .065
Student mobility (%) 32.57 (24.24) 3.70–158.20a –.086 –.026
.102 .000
Suspension rate (%) 9.14 (6.89) 0.30–34.56 –.040 .161 .022 –
.040
Math performance (%) 73.47 (10.67) 49.00–92.70 –.154 –.261 –
.012 –.189
Reading performance (%) 75.10 (10.6) 58.80–93.50 –.218 –.187
–.007 –.185
Note. This table reports sample demographic characteristics as
well as descriptives and correlations for the I-SSET.
aIndicates that mobility rate exceeded 100% because the sum of
the percentage of students who entered and exited the school
during the school year
exceeded 100% of the student body.
*p < .05.

to examine the association between the SET and I-SSET
subscale and overall scores. We then conducted correla-
tional analyses to examine the extent to which implementa-
tion of the SWPBIS, Tier 2, and Tier 3 systems varied
systematically by the school contextual factors; this enabled
us to determine whether certain school factors were associ-
ated with the implementation of these supports. Effect sizes
are reported in the correlation tables and results. Finally, we
conducted descriptive analyses on the types of Tier 2 sup-
ports implemented. Specifically, we conducted descriptive
analyses to examine the features of the three most com-
monly used programs indicated on the I-SSET to determine
whether schools were using evidence-based programs
(Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).
Results
Descriptive Analyses
SET Data. We found that 93% of the schools (42 of 45)
achieved an 80% or higher implementation level on the
Overall SET score. Schools tended to score the highest on
the Monitoring and Decision Making subscale, with a mean
score of 96.9% (SD = 6.05). In contrast, the System for
Responding to Behavioral Violations subscale tended to
have the lowest scores (M = 86.44%, SD = 12.81). In only
31.1% of schools, staff agreed with administration on
the method of notification of an extreme emergency,
whereas all of the schools’ team members reported teaching
behavioral expectations, which is a key component of the
SWPBIS framework. All schools reported that their PBIS
team includes representation from all staff members.

I-SSET Data. The percentage of schools that received the
maximum score (2) for each item on the I-SSET is reported in
Table 2. With regard to the Foundations subscale, all but one
school reported having a team that receives requests from
teachers, consistent with a statewide requirement that all
schools have an SST process (see I-SSET no. 1 on Table 2).
Approximately half (51.1%) of the schools reported discuss-
ing issues related to culturally responsive teaching with staff
in the past year. Only 26.7% of schools indicated that the staff
and the SST leader agree about the proper process for SST
referrals. Just 2 of the 45 schools (4.4%) had a comprehensive
form for referring students to the SST. Examination of the
Table 2. Percentage and Number of Schools With the Highest
Possible Score on I-SSET Items (n = 45 Schools)
I-SSET item Number of schools (%)
Foundations
1. School has a Student Support Team (SST) 44 (97.8%)
2. Culturally responsive teaching has been discussed this year
23 (51.1%)
3. Process for including family in SST process 35 (77.8%)
4. SST meets at least twice a month 28 (62.2%)
5. System for staff to refer students to SST 37 (82.2%)
6. SST referral form lists pertinent information 2 (4.4%)
7. Response to SST referral takes no more than 3 days 21
(46.7%)
8. Process for monitoring student progress through data 30
(66.7%)
9. Staff agree with administration on SST referral process 12
(26.7%)
10. FBA intervention form lists pertinent information 32
(71.1%)
Targeted interventions

11. Written process for selecting evidence-based interventions
for individual students 29 (64.4%)
12. Interventions link to school-wide behavioral expectations
44 (97.8%)
13. Intervention continuously available to students 42 (93.3%)
14. Intervention is implemented within 3 days 20 (44.4%)
15. Data is used to monitor intervention 33 (73.3%)
16. Student receives positive feedback pertaining to
intervention 44 (97.8%)
17. Intervention requires no more than 10 min per day 35
(77.8%)
18. Written instructions for how to implement intervention 17
(37.8%)
19. Description of intervention is provided to teacher 17
(37.8%)
Intensive individualized interventions
20. Staff member trained to conduct FBAs 43 (95.6%)
21. Student’s teacher is on FBA team 43 (95.6%)
22. Staff with FBA knowledge is on FBA team 42 (93.3%)
23. Process used to lead FBA 41 (91.1%)
Note. The individual I-SSET items are abbreviated for reporting
in table. FBA = functional behavioral assessment.
Debnam et al. 147
SST referral forms indicated that nearly all of the schools
were lacking essential components needed for the SST pro-
cess. Specifically, 95.6% of schools were missing information
about the antecedents of the behavioral concern, 91.1% were
missing information on the setting events, and 91.1% were
missing information about the perceived function of the stu-
dent’s behavior. Inspection of the items on the Intensive Indi-
vidualized Interventions subscale indicated that a large

proportion of the schools had high scores in several areas
related to individual support systems. The majority of schools
(91.1%) reported using an FBA to select intensive interven-
tions. Nearly all schools reported that the team that develops
FBAs is composed of one of the student’s teachers (95.6%)
and that a member is trained in the FBA process (93.3%).
Correlations Between the SET, I-SSET,
and School Demographic Characteristics
There were no significant correlations between the SET sub-
scales and I-SSET subscales (see Table 3). However, the
three schools that did not meet the 80% overall score on the
SET generally received slightly lower scores on the I-SSET
(i.e., 66%, 78%, and 84%). The intercorrelations between the
school-level factors revealed associations in the expected
directions between school demographic characteristics (see
Table 4). Specifically, the rates of FARMs, suspensions, and
mobility were negatively associated with student achieve-
ment. The percentage of Caucasian students also was related
inversely to student achievement. The correlations between
the SET subscale scores and school demographics revealed
several significant associations, which were all small to mod-
erate in size. Specifically, about one quarter of all correla-
tions conducted were significant, including the Management
subscale and the percentage of students who received special
education services (r = –.376, p < .05; Table 5), the FARMs
rate (r = –.360, p < .05), and math achievement (r = .303,
p < .05). Monitoring and Evaluation also was positively cor-
related with math achievement (r = .312, p < .05) and nega-
tively correlated with the percentage of Caucasian students
(r = .313, p < .05) and suspensions (r = –.353, p < .05).
Suspensions were also significantly negatively correlated
with Expectations Defined (r = –.373, p < .05) and the Overall
Table 3. Correlations Among the SET and I-SSET Subscales

SET and I-SSET subscales 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12
1. Expectations defined .234 .156 .469** .273 .096 .062 .621**
.200 –.046 –.040 .053
2. Behavioral expectations taught – .081 .155 .276 .384** –
.018 .501** .216 .188 .060 .211
3. System for rewarding behavioral
expectations
– .073 .091 .144 .245 .493** .169 .057 .043 .124
4. System for responding to
behavioral violations
– .296* .248 .045 .584** .224 .186 .055 .211
5. Monitoring and evaluation – .484** .209 .558** .221 –.018
–.048 .071
6. Management – .281 .582** .042 .124 –.025 .060
7. District-level support – .543** .015 .089 –.143 –.026
8. SET overall score – .270 .155 –.033 .176
9. Foundations – .554** .125 .765**
10. Targeted interventions – .166 .769**
11. Intensive individualized
interventions
– .630**
12. I-SSET overall score –
*p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.
Table 4. Correlations Among School Demographic

Characteristics
2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
1. School enrollment .51** –.51** –.19 .22 –.40** –.19 .06 .23
2. Student-to-teacher ratio – –.21 –.26 –.02 –.26 –.23 –.21 –.05
3. Free/reduced-price meals (%) – .15 –.67** .51** .35* –.56**
–.68**
4. Special education students (%) – .05 .07 .03 .07 –.08
5. Caucasian students (%) – –.42** –.37* .69** .69**
6. Student mobility (%) – .31* –.23 –.37*
7. Suspension rate (%) – –.34* –.30*
8. Math performance (%) – .85**
9. Reading performance (%) –
*p < .05. **p < .01.
SET score (r = –.296, p < .05). None of the other school demo-
graphic variables were statistically significantly associated
with SET subscale scores. The correlations between each
I-SSET scale and school demographics revealed a signifi-
cant relationship between the Intensive Individualized
Interventions subscale and the student-to-teacher ratio
(r = –.364, p < .05; Table 1). However, we are cautious to
interpret this relationship, as it demonstrated a relatively
small effect among a series of nonsignificant correlations.
No other school demographics were significantly corre-

lated with the I-SSET subscale scores.
Characteristics of Most Commonly
Used Tier 2 Interventions
As described above, the Targeted Interventions subscale
captures information regarding three specific programs that
the school frequently uses to support nonresponders to
SWPBIS. The interventions most commonly listed by the
schools were Check In/Check Out (n = 23 schools, 51.1%)
and behavior charts/contracts (n = 20 schools, 44.4%; see
Figure 1). The other interventions used most often were
social skills groups (n = 12 schools, 26.7%), various reading
interventions (n = 13 schools, 28.9%), and other academic
interventions held outside of school hours (n = 8 schools,
17.8%). All but one school reported that the interventions
were linked directly to school-wide expectations (97.8%)
and resulted in the student’s receiving positive feedback
from staff (97.8%). The majority of schools also reported
that these programs were continuously available for student
participation (93.3%) and that data were used to monitor
their impacts (73.3%). However, fewer than half the schools
reported that interventions were implemented within 3 days
(44.4%), or reported having intervention plans that included
instructions for implementation (37.8%) or a written descrip-
tion of the intervention (37.8%). Approximately one third of
the schools reported not using a standardized process to
identify evidence-based interventions for students. Only
half of the schools (i.e., those using CI/CO) reported using
a program with a published evidence base.
Discussion
The current study describes the types of targeted and inten-
sive supports implemented in SWPBIS schools. As a
requirement for enrollment in the study, schools must have
implemented the critical features of SWPBIS, as indicated

by an Overall SET score of 80% or higher in the prior
school year. However, 3 of the 45 schools did not achieve
an 80% when assessed for the current study. Additional
research is needed to better understand patterns of sustain-
ability within a single school year and across multiple
school years (Bradshaw, Reinke, Brown, Bevans, & Leaf,
2008). Furthermore, no significant correlations were found
between the SET and I-SSET subscales. This is not surpris-
ing, given that the SET measures the implementation of the
critical features of the SWPBIS, whereas the I-SSET mea-
sures the features and types of additional support provided
to those students not responding adequately to the SWPBIS.
In terms of the implementation of Tier 2 supports, a high
proportion of the schools followed state and federally man-
dated processes, such as teams to address student concerns
(i.e., SST) and FBAs within the team framework. In con-
trast, schools tended to lack a comprehensive form for
Table 5. Correlations Among the SET Subscales and School
Demographics
Expectations
defined
Behavioral
expectations
taught
System for
rewarding
behavioral
expectations
System for

responding to
behavioral
violations
Monitoring
and
evaluation Management
District-
level
support
SET
overall
score
SET score
M 93.9% 91.1% 93.9% 86.4% 96.9% 92.1% 93.3% 92.5%
SD 14.3 12.3 12.6 12.8 6.1 7.9 17.2 6.6
School demographics
School enrollment .259 .092 –.062 .284 .002 –.022 –.237 .075
Student-to-teacher ratio .084 .081 .114 .133 .006 –.220 .025
.088
Free/reduced-price
meals (%)
–.151 –.201 –.139 –.227 –.226 –.360* .032 –.281
Special education
students (%)
–.066 –.216 .132 –.207 –.370* –.376* –.085 –.245

Caucasian students (%) .216 .211 .210 .274 .313* .250 .005
.343*
Student mobility (%) –.083 –.101 .016 –.105 –.073 –.093 .105
–.064
Suspension rate (%) –.373* –.132 –.179 –.160 –.353* –.017 –
.007 –.296*
Math performance (%) .232 –.055 –.055 .259 .312* .303* .105
.277
Reading performance (%) –.191 –.154 –.154 –.062 –.004 –.022
–.021 –.098
*p < .05.
Debnam et al. 149
referring students to the SST, which, in turn, may hamper
the team’s ability to efficiently address concerns.
Specifically, inspection of the schools’ SST referral forms
indicated that most were missing information on the behav-
ioral antecedents, setting events, and perceived function of
the behavior. Without these critical elements, it is difficult
to determine why the behavior is occurring and to choose
an intervention that can adequately address it (Scott et al.,
2005). Despite the increasing emphasis on cultural compe-
tence and concern regarding the disproportionate represen-
tation of racial and ethnic minorities in special education
and school discipline (Bradshaw, Mitchell, O’Brennan, &
Leaf, 2010), only half of the schools reported providing
professional development training for staff in this area.
Additional research is needed to identify evidence-based
models of cultural proficiency training.

There is some research to suggest that school contextual
factors may hinder schools from providing high-quality
Tier 2 and 3 supports (Domitrovich et al., 2008). Data from
the current study suggested that school contextual factors
were significantly correlated with about half of the SET
scale scores, but the effect sizes were in the small to moder-
ate range. As hypothesized, higher rates of problem behav-
ior (i.e., suspensions) in the year preceding implementation
data collection were generally associated with lower imple-
mentation, whereas higher academic achievement was
associated with higher SET scores. Because of the correla-
tional nature of the current study, we cannot assume a causal
association between the SET scores and school contextual
factors. However, prior research using randomized con-
trolled trial designs does suggest that SWPBIS is associated
with reductions in suspensions and improvements in aca-
demic achievement (Bradshaw, Mitchell, & Leaf, 2010;
Horner et al., 2009).
A unique feature of the I-SSET is the assessment of the
three most commonly used Tier 2 interventions in the school.
Here schools identified a wide variety of interventions (see
Figure 1). The most commonly used intervention, CI/CO,
provides students with increased positive feedback from
school staff (Crone et al., 2004). It includes the use of a
behavior report card and requires targeted students to “check
in” at the beginning of the school day, receive feedback from
teachers throughout the day, and “check out” at the end of
the day, during which they receive feedback from and inter-
act with a specified staff member. CI/CO was the only inter-
vention clearly identified by the schools that has an evidence
base to support its use. It is possible that the behavior charts/
contracts identified as the second most commonly used
intervention may be a “watered down” version of the behav-
ior report card used with CI/CO or another empirically based

intervention. In fact, six schools reported both using CI/CO
and behavioral contracts as two separate interventions. The
remaining “programs” named were nonspecific practices or
strategies (e.g., tutoring or counseling). Without a specifica-
tion of a program name or framework, it is difficult to deter-
mine if there is an empirical base for their use, or their
11.1
17.8
11.1
44.4
51.1
17.8
11.1 11.1
15.6
28.9
8.9
26.7
13.3 15.6
0
10
20
30

40
50
60
70
A
ca
de
m
ic
(S
m
al
l G
ro
up
,
O
ne
o
n
O
ne
)

A
ca
de
m
ic
(O
ut
si
de
o
f
Sc
ho
ol
H
ou
rs
)
A
ng
er
M
an
ag

em
en
t/
C
on
fl
ic
t R
es
ol
ut
io
n
B
eh
av
io
r C
ha
rt
s/
C
on

tr
ac
t
C
he
ck
-i
n/
C
he
ck
-o
ut
G
ro
up
C
ou
ns
el
in
g
C
om

m
un
ity
M
en
ta
l
H
ea
lth
S
er
vi
ce
s
L
ea
rn
in
g
L
ab
M

en
to
ri
ng
R
ea
di
ng
In
te
rv
en
tio
ns
Sc
ho
ol
-S
pe
ci
fi
c
Pr
og

ra
m
s
So
ci
al
S
ki
lls
T
ut
or
in
g
U
nd
ef
in
ab
le%
o
f S
ch

oo
ls
R
ep
or
ti
ng
U
se
o
f P
ro
gr
am
Targeted Program
Figure 1. Percentage of schools that reported using each
targeted program as assessed on the I-SSET.
Note. School staff (e.g., SST leader, administrator, school
psychologist) reported on the I-SSET the three most commonly
used programs for children not
responding adequately to the universal SWPBIS program. The
programs were grouped by the researchers to facilitate review.
“Undefinable” indicates
programs that did not fit within the general categories listed
above.

structure and intensity (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2001).
Administers of the I-SSET should be sure to request the
specific name of programs implemented, as was done in the
current study, to enhance precision.
These data suggest there is room for improvement on the
SST referral forms, the response to referrals, and the regular
occurrence of meetings. In addition to these concerns with
the SST process, the majority of the schools also did not
implement the more intensive programs within 3 days of
developing the intervention plan. Few schools reported that
there was a clear, written description of the intervention or
instructions for student’s classroom teacher on implementa-
tion, perhaps limiting the level of fidelity. Taken together,
these findings suggest that although the schools had SSTs in
place, these teams lacked consistent processes for developing
and implementing interventions. These data also suggested
that most of the targeted interventions lacked a standard
structure and varied in the condition and consistency of their
implementation. This finding is consistent with prior research
indicating that most of the interventions used in schools (i.e.,
outside of research studies) are not evidence based and are
implemented with questionable fidelity (Domitrovich et al.,
2008; Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).
Finally, there was only one statistically significant cor-
relation between the I-SSET and school demographics. The
only association that reached statistical significance was
between the student-to-teacher ratio and the Intensive
Individualized Interventions. This finding needs to be inter-
preted with caution, as the statistical significance of this
correlation may have been due to Type I error, given that
this was the only significant finding in a series of analyses

(Perneger, 1998). Although we had hypothesized that
school-level factors such as student mobility, school size,
and high rates of student discipline problems would be
associated with poorer implementation, this was not the
case. It is promising that no other school-level factors were
significantly correlated with the I-SSET scores. However, a
previous randomized trial of SWPBIS suggested that
schools that have lower levels of organizational health
before implementation of SWPBIS tend to take longer to
implement the universal system with high fidelity, but tend
to improve the most (with regard to organization) following
implementation of SWPBIS (Bradshaw et al., 2009).
Further longitudinal research is needed to determine if a
similar association exists for Tier 2 supports.
Limitations
It is important to consider some limitations when reviewing
these findings. Both the SET and I-SSET had relatively low
Cronbach’s alpha coefficients (.72 for both measures).
Although adequate for research purposes (Henson, 2001),
there was limited variability in the items, because most
schools received very high scores, especially on the SET.
Limited variability in the item-level responses likely affected
the alpha. The restricted range of both SET and I-SSET scores
may also have affected the strength of the correlations
observed with the school-level contextual factors, thereby
resulting in smaller than expected associations for some
variables. The I-SSET is a relatively new tool, and its psycho-
metric properties have not been thoroughly investigated.
Findings from the current study showed low to adequate
alpha coefficients for the I-SSET subscales (.50–.64), thus
precluding the ability to make conclusive statements about
I-SSET subscale analysis. A close examination of the psycho-
metric properties of the I-SSET may necessitate the inclusion
of additional items to capture the quality of schools’ Tier 2

and 3 supports. Although we provided data regarding the
adequate level of interobserver agreement from the SET and
I-SSET training sessions, data on the interobserver agreement
for all 45 SETs and I-SSETs administered in the current study
are not available. Similarly, we lack another source of infor-
mation on the implementation of the Tier 2 and 3 supports,
suggesting a need for other measures to document these pro-
cesses. Relatedly, we do not have data on the outcomes of
particular interventions implemented and thus are unable to
conclude the efficacy of a particular intervention. Additional
research is needed on the I-SSET with a larger sample of
schools, including schools with formal training in Tier 2 and
3 supports. Given the different models of SWPBIS used
across the United States, it is unknown the extent to which
these findings will generalize to schools in other states, which
may use other models of SWPBIS training and support.
Additional research also is needed to examine the implemen-
tation of SWPBIS, Tier 2 and 3 systems of support in middle
and high schools, where training and support needs may be
greater. As noted above, there were some potential concerns
regarding the number of tests conducted. Because of the rela-
tively small sample size, we did not apply a Bonferroni
adjustment to correct for multiple tests but rather focused on
findings that were both consistent across multiple related
constructs and were theoretically and conceptually defensible
(Nakagawa, 2004; Perneger, 1998).
At the time of data collection, Maryland had not devel-
oped a coordinated Tier 2 or 3 model of support through the
statewide PBIS initiative (Barrett et al., 2008). Although the
overall I-SSET scores reached 80% on average, the scores
were likely inflated somewhat by high scores on the
Intensive Individualized Interventions scale, which mainly
assessed state and federally mandated processes, like FBA
and SST. Like most states (Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement Act, 2004), Maryland requires

schools to use these processes and provides some guidance
to districts in the training and implementation of those pro-
cesses. Therefore, school districts provide similar trainings
related to SST and FBA, which suggests that the training
provided to the schools across the six districts was likely
similar. The PBIS teams from these schools also attended
annual SWPBIS booster events hosted by the state; these
trainings focused primarily on SWPBIS but did provide
Debnam et al. 151
brief overviews of how to integrate more intensive sup-
ports, like CI/CO and FBA, within the PBIS framework.
Yet, the schools’ scores were lower for the Foundations and
Targeted Interventions scales of the I-SSET, which do not
relate as closely to mandated processes, and thus suggest a
need for more professional development activities that
focus on connecting Tier 2 with the SWPBIS system of sup-
port to promote sustainable and consistent delivery systems.
A statewide PBIS initiative, which promotes integration
and coordination of services and provides complementary
professional development and technical assistance on evi-
dence-based programs, would likely result in high-quality,
sustainable systems of support (Sugai & Horner, 2006).
Implications and Future Research
The present study is an initial attempt to understand the
types of programs provided to children not responding ade-
quately to SWPBIS. The findings indicated that most
schools have SSTs in place to address student behavior
concerns and actively use FBA and interventions linked
directly to school-wide expectations. However, the dearth of
student information captured on the referrals to the SST, as
well as the absence of a documented process for selecting

evidence-based interventions for children, suggest a need
for further training for schools in these areas. Schools may
need a more defined system for collecting and sharing infor-
mation about student needs during team meetings, as well as
a strategic process for identifying, implementing, and evalu-
ating evidence-based interventions selected for nonre-
sponders (Scott et al., 2005). This is a challenge often faced
by schools as they attempt to integrate an RtI approach into
the special education identification process and reflects the
more general shift to prevention through schools (Hawken
et al., 2008). Although beyond the scope of the current
study, future research should consider how evidence-based
interventions are selected and implemented by SSTs, and the
extent to which their use is based on the perceived function
of the student’s behavior problem, rather than merely avail-
ability and familiarity (Scott et al., 2005). Similarly, we still
lack sufficient evidence to determine which programs are
most effective for different students.
The I-SSET appears to be a useful tool for documenting
the features and processes of Tier 2 and 3 supports. To our
knowledge, there are few, if any, general fidelity measures
that can be used to assess multiple programs. Most fidelity
measures are program specific, and thus the I-SSET is
unique in this way. It would be useful to have a single mea-
sure that could document the core elements of different pro-
grams (Fixsen, Naoom, Blasé, Friedman, & Wallace, 2005).
This seems particularly important, given that schools are
generally implementing multiple programs simultaneously
and with varying degrees of fidelity (G.D. Gottfredson &
Gottfredson, 2001; D.C. Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).
Additional research is therefore needed to determine the
extent to which the I-SSET is sensitive to the core features
of quality implementation of multiple programs.

A primary aim of the study was to describe the Tier 2 and
3 programs and services that SWPBIS elementary schools
use when they have not received formal training in these
supports. The SET and I-SSET provide an efficient method
for collecting information about these services and identify-
ing areas of needed support for schools. The findings sug-
gest that elementary schools may still struggle with
addressing the needs of nonresponders to SWPBIS. At the
school level, areas of weakness can be targeted through
staff training and professional development. These data also
suggest a need for providing school staff with an enhanced
understanding of data-based decision-making and problem-
solving strategies. For example, training should focus on
how to identify the functions of behavior and how to use
that information to select an intervention approach (Crone
& Horner, 2003; Hershfeldt, Rosenberg, & Bradshaw,
2011). Professional development should also cover the crit-
ical features of the SST referral forms and how that data can
be used to inform the collaborative problem-solving pro-
cess (Scott et al., 2005). More consistent and detailed meth-
ods and materials are needed to increase schools’ ability to
conduct valid FBAs and subsequently create effective inter-
vention plans (Crone & Horner, 2003). Finally, additional
support is needed regarding evidence-based interventions
and the process for selecting an appropriate program to
meet the student’s particular pattern of needs.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with
respect
to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support

for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article:
Support for this project comes from the Institute of Education
Sciences (R324A07118 and R305A090307), the Centers for
Disease Control and Prevention (1U49CE 000728-011 and
K01CE001333-01), and the National Institute of Mental Health
(T32 MH19545-11).
References
Barrett, S., Bradshaw, C. P., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2008).
Maryland
state-wide PBIS initiative: Systems, evaluation, and next steps.
Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 105–114.
Bradshaw, C. P., Koth, C. W., Thornton, L. A., & Leaf, P. J.
(2009).
Altering school climate through school-wide Positive Behav-
ioral Interventions and Supports: Findings from a group-ran-
domized effectiveness trial. Prevention Science, 10, 100–115.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., & Leaf, P. J. (2010).
Examining
the effects of School-Wide Positive Behavioral Interventions
and Supports on student outcomes: Results from a randomized
controlled effectiveness trial in elementary schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 12, 133–148.
Bradshaw, C. P., Mitchell, M. M., O’Brennan, L. M., & Leaf, P.
J. (2010). Multilevel exploration of factors contributing to the
overrepresentation of Black students in office disciplinary
referrals. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 508–520.

Bradshaw, C. P., Reinke, W. M., Brown, L. D., Bevans, K. B.,
& Leaf, P. J. (2008). Implementation of school-wide Positive
Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) in elementary
schools: Observations from a randomized trial. Education &
Treatment of Children, 31, 1–26.
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behav-
ior support systems in schools: Functional behavioral assess-
ment. New York, NY: Guilford.
Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2004).
Responding
to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education pro-
gram. New York, NY: Guilford.
Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J., Hoagwood,
K., Buckley, J., Olin, S., . . . Ialongo, N. (2008). Maximiz-
ing the implementation quality of evidence-based preventive
interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances
in School Mental Health Promotion: Training and Practice,
Research and Policy, 1(3), 6–28.
Filter, K. J., McKenna, M. K., Benedict, E. A., Horner, R. H.,
Todd, A. W., & Watson, J. (2007). Check In/Check Out: A
post-hoc evaluation of an efficient, secondary-level targeted
intervention for reducing problem behaviors in schools. Edu-
cation and Treatment of Children, 30, 66–84.
Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blasé, K. A., Friedman, R. M., &
Wallace F. (2005). Implementation research: A synthesis of the
literature. Tampa: University of South Florida.
Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of
school-
based prevention programs: Results from a national survey.

Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 39, 3–35.
Gottfredson, G. D., & Gottfredson, D. C. (2001). What schools
do
to prevent problem behavior and promote safe environments.
Journal of Educational and Psychological Consultation, 12,
313–344.
Gottfredson, G. D., Gottfredson, D. C., Payne, A. A., &
Gottfredson, N. C.
(2005). School climate predictors of school disorder: Results
from a national study of delinquency prevention in schools.
Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 42, 412–444.
Hawken, L. S., MacLeod, K. S., & Rawlings, L. (2007). Effects
of the behavior education program (BEP) on office disciplin-
ary referrals of elementary school students. Journal of Positive
Behavior Interventions, 9, 94–101.
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008).
Response to
intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities.
Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213–225.
Henson, R. K. (2001). Understanding internal consistency
reliability
estimates: A conceptual primer on coefficient alpha.
Measurement
and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 34, 177–189.
Hershfeldt, P., Rosenberg, M., & Bradshaw, C. P. (2011).
Function-
based thinking: A systematic way of thinking about function
and its role in changing student behavior problems. Beyond
Behavior, 19, 12–21.

Horner, R., Todd, A., Lewis-Palmer, T., Irvin, L. K., Sugai, G.,
&
Boland, J. (2004). The School-wide Evaluation Tool (SET): A
research instrument for assessing school-wide positive behavior
supports. Journal of Positive Behavior Intervention, 6, 3–12.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Smolkowski, K., Eber, L., Nakasato,
J., Todd, A. W., & Esperanza, J. (2009). A randomized,
wait-list controlled effectiveness trial assessing school-wide
Positive Behavior Support in elementary schools. Journal of
Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 133–144.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of
2004.
(2003). H.R. 1350-108th Congress. In GovTrack.us (database
of federal legislation). Retrieved from http://www.govtrack.
us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h108-1350
Lane, K. L., Rogers, L. A., Parks, R. J., Weisenbach, J. L., Mau,
A. C.,
Merwin, M. T., & Bergman, W. A. (2007). Function-based
interventions for students who are nonresponsive to primary
and secondary prevention efforts: Illustrations at the elemen-
tary and middle school levels. Journal of Emotional and
Behavioral Disorders, 15, 169–183.
Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A. W., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., &
Sampson, N. K.
(2005). Individual student systems evaluation tool, version 1.2.
Eugene: Educational and Community Supports, University of
Oregon.
Nakagawa, S. (2004). A farewell to Bonferroni: The problems
of
low statistical power and publication bias. Behavioral Ecol-

ogy, 15, 1044–1045.
O’Neill, R. E., Horner, R. H., Albin, R. W., Sprague, J. R.,
Storey, K.,
& Newton, J. S. (1997). Functional assessment and program
development for problem behavior: A practical handbook (2nd
ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Perneger, T. V. (1998). What’s wrong with Bonferroni adjust-
ments. British Medical Journal, 316, 1236–1238.
Scott, T. M., McIntyre, J., Liaupsin, C., Nelson, C. M., Conroy,
M.,
& Payne, L. D. (2005). An examination of the relation between
functional behavior assessment and selected intervention strat-
egies with school-based teams. Journal of Positive Behavior
Interventions, 7, 205–215.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for
expand-
ing and sustaining the implementation of school-wide positive
behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35, 245–259.
Sugai, G., Lewis-Palmer, T., Todd, A., & Horner, R. (2001).
School-wide evaluation tool (SET). Eugene: Center for Posi-
tive Behavioral Supports, University of Oregon.
Todd, A. W., Campbell, A. L., Meyer, G. G., & Horner, R. H.
(2008).
The effects of a targeted intervention to reduce problem behav-
iors: Elementary school implementation of Check In Check
Out. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10, 46–55.
Walker, H., Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Bullis, M., Sprague, J.,
Bricker, D., & Kaufman, M. J. (1996). Integrated approaches
to preventing antisocial behavior patterns among school-age

children and youth. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Dis-
orders, 4, 194–209.
Exceptional Children
2015, Vol. 82(1) 25 –43
© 2015 The Author(s)
DOI: 10.1177/0014402915598782
ec.sagepub.com
Special Features Article
As part of Exceptional Children’s series of
Special Feature articles, we were asked to con-
sider the future of personnel preparation and
special education. This is a tall order given that
personnel preparation encompasses a wide
breadth and depth of topics. Thus, we focused
our work around one overarching question we
believe is essential to consider as we look to the
future of special education personnel prepara-
tion: What frameworks might teacher educa-
tors draw from to promote special education
teacher effective performance? In answering
this question, we first summarize current trends
in the context of schooling and special educa-
tion (i.e., the Common Core State Standards
[CCSS], multitiered systems of support
[MTSS]) and what these contexts demand of
special education teachers (SETs). As part of
this discussion we present a case for why the
time is right to shift attention to issues of qual-
ity in special education personnel preparation.
Next, we present a model for fostering effec-

tive SET performance grounded in literature on
the science of learning and present approaches
and strategies in teacher education that support
what we have learned from this literature. We
conclude with implications for how special
education personnel preparation might be refo-
cused, particularly given current constraints on
schools and colleges of education, to better
promote this model for fostering effective per-
formance.
What the Current Context
Demands of SETs
Today, more than any time in history, SETs
are expected to play a role in developing and
supporting rigorous content instruction for
598782 ECXXXX10.1177/0014402915598782Exceptional
ChildrenLeko et al.
research-article2015
1The University of Kansas
2The University of Florida
3Queens College, City University of New York
Corresponding Author:
Melinda M. Leko, Department of Special Education,
University of Kansas, 1122 West Campus Rd. Lawrence,
KS 66045.
E-mail: [email protected]
Envisioning the Future of Special
Education Personnel Preparation
in a Standards-Based Era

Melinda M. Leko1, Mary T. Brownell2,
Paul T. Sindelar2, and Mary Theresa Kiely3
Abstract
The authors consider the future of special education personnel
preparation by responding to
an overarching question: What frameworks might teacher
educators use as a basis to promote
special education teacher effective performance now and in the
future? In answering this question,
they summarize current trends in the context of schooling and
special education (i.e., Common
Core State Standards [CCSS], multi-tiered systems of support
[MTSS]) and what these contexts
demand of special education teachers. The authors propose a
practice-based model for
fostering effective special education teacher performance.
Grounded in the science of learning,
the model includes approaches in teacher education that align
with this literature. Implications
for implementing the model are provided, which recognize
current constraints on schools and
colleges of education, to better promote this model for fostering
effective performance.
mailto:[email protected]
26 Exceptional Children 82(1)
students with disabilities that is technology-
rich. Pressure for students with disabilities
and their teachers to meet high standards is
evident in a national movement that all stu-
dents graduate “college and career ready” by,
among other things, successfully meeting a

rigorous core of content standards for various
subject areas (Haager & Vaughn, 2013a).
Many states have adopted the CCSS (National
Governors Association Center for Best Prac-
tices, Council of Chief State School Officers,
2010). The CCSS support clear outcomes
teachers are expected to teach to ensure stu-
dents, including those with disabilities, can
compete successfully in a global economy
(Common Core State Standards Initiative,
n.d.). The CCSS provide little guidance to
ensure students with disabilities are success-
ful in meeting the demands of a more chal-
lenging curriculum, leaving general education
teachers and SETs with the task of determin-
ing how to provide students with disabilities
appropriate instruction that achieves these
high goals (Haager & Vaughn, 2013a), includ-
ing instruction in areas in which teachers may
need considerable professional development
(PD), such as writing (Graham & Harris,
2013).
At the same time states are adopting more
rigorous content standards, they are simulta-
neously implementing MTSS for preventing
academic and behavioral difficulties through
high quality, research-based core instruction
provided to all students and increasingly
intensive, personalized tiers of intervention
that incorporate evidence-based interventions
when students are unable to respond success-
fully (Chard & Linan-Thompson, 2008).
Although models of MTSS vary, most make
use of a minimum of three tiers of instruction
and support, with general education teachers

holding the majority of responsibility for core
instruction at Tier 1 and SETs delivering
intensive, personalized instruction at Tier 3
(Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2012).
To succeed in school contexts driven by
MTSS and the CCSS, SETs need to have
extensive knowledge of how to support stu-
dents with disabilities in achieving rigorous
content standards. Although it could be argued
this requisite knowledge has characterized the
work of special educators for quite some time,
today’s context ups the ante, requiring SETs
to be extremely proficient in the content,
interventions, assessments, and technology to
support students’ learning needs (Lignugaris-
Kraft, Sindelar, McCray, & Kimerling, 2014).
Rhetoric from Our Responsibility, Our Prom-
ise (Council of Chief State School Officers,
2012) underscores the greater demands placed
on teachers: “higher expectations for students
have led to higher expectations for teaching
and leading” (p. 27).
Special education teachers will need well-
developed collaboration skills to communi-
cate and work with various service providers
in the ways required to design cohesive and
precise instruction. This collaboration will
need a much tighter focus compared to past
models wherein SETs provided consultative
services to general educators or recommended
accommodations that would allow students
with disabilities to access the general educa-
tion curriculum (Brownell, Sindelar, Kiely, &

Danielson, 2010). In current contexts, collab-
oration will center on (a) collecting and inter-
preting initial and ongoing assessment data,
(b) planning precise classroom and interven-
tion instruction that is carefully coordinated
and targets the key CCSS content and skills
students with disabilities need to master
(c) measuring students’ response to classroom
or intervention instruction, and (d) making
changes to instructional plans based on the
assessment data. All of this will have to be
coordinated across multiple tiers, further
necessitating SETs be skilled collaborators
and data-literate (Council of Chief State
School Officers, 2012).
SETs will also need more extensive cur-
ricular knowledge, particularly (a) the general
education curriculum and the literacy and
numeracy demands the curriculum places on
students and (b) literacy and mathematics
strategies for intervening in student learning
(Graham & Harris, 2013; Haager & Vaughn,
2013b; Powell, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2013).
Closely tied to this curricular knowledge is the
need for more extensive knowledge of technolo-
gies that can make curriculum accessible to
Leko et al. 27
students with disabilities and support their
learning, as well as knowledge of how learn-
ing plays out in increasingly technology-rich
modern learning environments (Smith &

Kennedy, 2014). The bottom line is SETs will
have to be more knowledgeable, skilled, and
responsive given the more challenging cur-
riculum demands placed on students and the
high stakes accountability systems in place to
assess students’ achievement.
Quality Special Education Personnel
Preparation
The current schooling contexts we have
described, as well as more than 2 decades of
criticism being waged against teacher prepara-
tion housed in higher education (e.g., Hess,
2001; Walsh, 2001), has placed increased pres-
sure on colleges of education to demonstrate
they are capable of producing teachers who are
able to provide more rigorous, effective content
instruction. Political pundits assert traditional
teacher preparation has been ineffective in pre-
paring preservice teachers to be able to secure
adequate student achievement gains. Such
vocal opposition to formal teacher preparation
has spurred a heated debate between deregula-
tionists and formalists regarding how to reform
teacher preparation (McLeskey & Ross, 2004).
As we look to the future of special education
personnel preparation, we envision this debate
lasting for quite some time and without a pre-
dictable outcome. As formalists who champion
the stance that improved SET quality will result
from improved personnel preparation, we
believe it is critical that the field makes strides
in garnering public support for this position.
Two ways to do this are (a) to redesign person-
nel programs so they are better aligned with

what is known from research on the science of
learning and (b) bolster the research base
undergirding SETs’ work.
To develop the knowledge and skills nec-
essary to meet the heightened rigor and
accountability of current schooling contexts,
both preparation and policy reform will be
required. Historic supply and demand issues
in special education have resulted in broad
certification and licensure patterns and
multiple pathways into the classroom
(Brownell et al., 2010; Geiger et al., 2014).
In most states, SETs are licensed to teach in
PK–12 settings and respond to a variety of
student needs (Geiger et al., 2014). These
broad licensing patterns have resulted in
preparation programs that are designed to
prepare SETs to provide instruction to stu-
dents across multiple content areas and
grade levels, co-teach with general educa-
tion teachers, and collaborate with parents.
In addition, shortages have encouraged a
variety of approaches to preparation, includ-
ing brief coursework preservice teachers
complete after they secure a bachelor’s
degree, 2 to 4 years of preparation in more
traditional undergraduate programs, and res-
idency programs in which special educators
take positions in public schools while they
are completing teacher preparation course-
work (Boe, 2014; Rosenberg, Boyer,
Sindelar, & Misra, 2007). Such heterogene-
ity across programs and lack of focus within
programs are not likely to provide beginning

SETs with the practice-based opportunities
they need to learn to teach more effectively.
The time to address this challenge is now.
For the first time in the field’s history,
pressure to keep pace with unabated SET
demand has decreased. The number of SETs
employed in U.S. public schools recently
has declined (Boe, 2014). Between 2005 and
2009, the number of SETs employed in U.S.
public schools fell to 389,904 (IDEA Data
Center, n.d.), a drop of 8.8%. SET demand
decreased in 30 states, and in 12 states, the
decline exceeded 10%. The decrease in total
demand for SETs was associated with a con-
current 3.9% decline in the number of stu-
dents with disabilities, most of whom have
learning disabilities. For once, it may be
possible to focus attention on issues of qual-
ity over quantity in special education per-
sonnel preparation. Yet what would a teacher
education program that focused more atten-
tion on issues of quality look like? What
research on effective learning and teacher
education might support the design of pro-
grams that help special educators acquire the
knowledge and skills to work within MTSS
and help students with disabilities achieve
CCSS goals?
A Practice-Based Framework for

Fostering Effective Teaching
If MTSS is to be implemented as a mecha-
nism for helping students with disabilities
achieve CCSS, then special education person-
nel preparation must be able to produce teach-
ers who can work successfully in such a
context. It will be difficult to do this if three
fundamental aspects of teacher preparation
remain the same. First, teacher preparation
programs cannot continue to prepare SETs
broadly and hope they will develop the depth
of knowledge and skill fluency needed to
teach rigorous content within an MTSS frame-
work. Second, to develop competence, teacher
education programs must incorporate ways of
preparing SETs that help them to practice
using these essential knowledge and skills;
practice opportunities should be grounded in
research and include collaboration practice
with general education teachers. Third, gen-
eral education teacher preparation will need to
change in rather substantial ways to ensure
preservice teachers have the skills and abili-
ties to work within an MTSS framework, an
important point that requires discussion
beyond the scope of this article.
In accordance with Grossman and McDonald
(2008), we propose special education teacher
preparation return to a competency-based
approach, popular in the 1970s and 1980s, with a
few new twists. Special education (and general
education) preparation should consider moving
away from teaching about practice to construct-
ing more opportunities for candidates to practice

teaching in structured, carefully sequenced, and
closely monitored practical experiences, ones in
which special education teacher candidates prac-
tice the knowledge and skills they will need to
collaborate around and implement tiered instruc-
tion. Although this idea may not seem novel, it is
not the status quo for teacher education (both in
general and special education) for a number of
reasons within and outside teacher educators’
control (Grossman, Hammerness, & McDonald,
2009; Grossman & McDonald, 2008).
For once, it may be possible to
focus our attention on issues of
quality over quantity in special education
personnel preparation. Yet what
would a teacher education program
that focused more attention on issues
of quality look like?
In a study of preparation experiences
across various helping professions, Grossman
et al. (2005) found teacher education provides
fewer opportunities for novices to practice
elements of teaching and receive immediate
feedback compared to other professions
(Grossman et al., 2005). According to Gross-
man and McDonald (2008),
while the field of teacher education has developed
a number of pedagogical approaches that enable
novices to study the complexity of teaching
practice in some detail . . . university-based

teacher educators leave the development of
pedagogical skill in the interactive aspects of
teaching almost entirely to field experiences, the
component of professional education over which
we have the least control. (p. 189)
Further, Grossman and McDonald argued it
will be important for programs to reconsider
how they can begin to structure such practice
without depending entirely on PK–12 cooper-
ating teachers who supervise preservice teach-
ers during field experiences.
Although there are examples of SET prepa-
ration programs that have made concerted
efforts to structure experiences with an eye
toward providing candidates with appropri-
ately sequenced, scaffolded, and structured
practice-based opportunities (e.g., Ross &
Lignugaris-Kraft, in press), it would be diffi-
cult to argue convincingly that this is common
practice. As such, we present a framework,
based on what is known about expertise and
what promotes its development, that could
guide the design of special education personnel
preparation to be more practice-based. Funda-
mental to a practice-based approach, however,
is clarity about what special education preser-
vice teachers will.
Leko et al. 29
Focus on High-Leverage Practice
and High-Leverage Content

In experts, conceptual knowledge and skills
along with situational knowledge (or under-
standing of when to apply particular knowl-
edge and skills) are well integrated, organized,
and easily accessible (Bransford, Brown, &
Cocking, 1999). Experts have “the knowledge
and skills readily available from memory that
are needed to make sense of future problems
and opportunities” (Brown, Roediger, &
McDaniel, 2014, p. 2), and such well-
integrated knowledge is acquired through
practicing in increasingly complex settings
over time. Limited research on highly effec-
tive teachers in general and special education
suggests these findings about experts can be
applied to teachers (see Brownell et al., 2014,
for a review).
Two years of preparation, however, is
insufficient to prepare SETs or any profes-
sional to be an expert (Ericsson, 2014).
Teacher preparation programs need some way
of focusing on the essential content and
instructional practice of effective special edu-
cation teaching. Researchers in general educa-
tion have argued there are foundational skills
of teaching that cut across subjects, contexts,
and grade levels (e.g., leading a discussion,
assessing student work, and planning instruc-
tion), as well as essential skills and knowl-
edge that are particular to specific subjects or
contexts (Ball & Forzani, 2009; Grossman &
McDonald, 2008). Such practices have been
referred to as high-leverage practices and
high-leverage content.

The concept of high-leverage practices is
likely familiar to special education teacher
educators, as a competency-based approach to
personnel preparation was common in the
1970s and 1980s (Brownell et al., 2010; Chris-
toplos & Valletutti, 1972). Thus, it is easy to
argue from research that explicit instruction,
engaging guided practice, corrective feedback,
and collecting and interpreting progress-moni-
toring data might be considered core compe-
tencies or high-leverage practices in special
education (Heward, 2003; Swanson & Sachse-
Lee, 2000).
Once high-leverage practices are identified
they can be modeled and practiced across dif-
ferent content areas using content-specific
strategies (e.g., using explicit instruction in
reading to teach a summarization strategy) so
teacher educators can demonstrate how the
practice changes depending on the structure
of the content being taught, which brings us to
an important point. The integration of what
SETs know about the content and how to use
high-leverage practices and content-specific
pedagogies to enact it is essential to develop-
ing well-integrated knowledge and practice.
Special education preservice teachers, how-
ever, often only have a year or two to develop
essential content knowledge. Thus, it will be
equally important for teacher educators to
decide on the critical content (e.g., whole
number operations, knowledge of fractions)
and content-specific strategies (e.g., schema
activation strategies) they want to target—the

high leverage content. This high leverage con-
tent could be the key knowledge beginning
SETs will need to deploy when providing
reading and math intervention instruction in
MTSS.
As preservice SETs learn how to teach,
they will also need to learn how to coordinate
their efforts with general education to provide
effective MTSS that help students with dis-
abilities achieve the CCSS. Although there is
less research supporting collaborative teach-
ing practice, key collaborative skills, such as
collective planning, active listening, and
negotiation, must be taught because there is a
legal foundation in special education for col-
laboration with professionals and parents
(Turnbull, Erwin, Soodak, & Shogren, 2011)
and because effective collaboration makes
enactment of coherent evidence-based tiered
instruction possible (Brownell et al., 2010).
We realize the idea of high-leverage prac-
tices in special education personnel prepara-
tion may feel like a “back to the future”
approach and something faculty are already
teaching to their SET candidates; however,
identification of high leverage content, and
the use of carefully crafted, sequenced
evidence-based opportunities to practice learn-
ing how to teach high-leverage practices and

high leverage content rather than about them
is likely less common. Yet such an approach
will be one important way of readying a com-
petency-based approach to learning to teach
special education.
Using the Science on Learning to
Support a Practice-Based Approach
Ideally, movement toward a more practice-
based approach to SET preparation would be
grounded in research on effective teachers and
effective teacher education. However, there is
insufficient research in general and special
education preparation to constitute such a
foundation (Lignugaris-Kraft et al., 2014).
Thus, we draw on what is known about the
science of learning and how effective perfor-
mance develops and combine those research
findings with what is known about effective
teacher education pedagogy to support a prac-
tice-based approach to special education
teacher preparation.
Several decades of research in psychol-
ogy, sports, neuroscience, and medicine have
revealed some guiding principles and strate-
gies for improving learning that can be
applied to teacher education (and in some
cases have already been applied) and which
can go a long ways toward improving teach-
ers’ learning (Ericsson, 2014). Carefully
sequenced and calibrated practice, also
referred to as deliberate practice, that builds
on one’s current level of knowledge and skill
in conjunction with expert feedback on per-

formance seems to be foundational to the
development of effective performance over
time. Drawing on Ericsson (2014), we refer
to this as deliberate practice with perfor-
mance feedback. Deliberate practice with
feedback has been documented in other per-
formance-based professions, such as surgery,
as critical to developing expert performance.
It is common knowledge that if you require
delicate surgery, you should seek the surgeon
who has performed the procedure most often,
and there are important reasons for why this
is the case. Deliberate practice with feedback
in authentic settings allows surgeons to
develop routines they can implement fluently
and a schema for interpreting and evaluating
the surgical process as it unfolds.
For deliberate practice to be effective with
teachers, it must be carefully designed to
increase in complexity over time while decreas-
ing in level of support (Berliner, 2001). The pro-
cess of gradually increasing independence of
performance has been referred to as scaffolding
(Gibbons, 2002; Wood, Bruner, & Ross, 1976).
Scaffolding allows skilled instructors or coaches
to prevent cognitive overload. Gradually
increasing the level of complexity of knowledge
and tasks over time while demanding increas-
ingly independent performance provides oppor-
tunities for teachers to achieve deep levels of
knowledge integration without being over-
whelmed by the complexity of real teaching
environments (Grossman et al., 2009).

Many of the principles and strategies we
introduce will be recognizable, as decades of
empirical support across disciplines support
them. Our argument, however, is not that
these principles are sound or new, but rather
they should be anchors for special education
teacher preparation in ways that are systemic
and far-reaching. Moreover, it is important to
recognize these principles and strategies help
teacher educators make decisions about how
to structure and sequence practice-based
approaches when they do not have a substan-
tive research base in teacher education to
draw on for making such decisions.
Interleaved and distributed practice. Inter-
leaved practice requires learners to discern
among different concepts within the same
practice session (Dunlosky, Rawson, Marsh,
Nathan, & Willingham, 2013; Taylor &
Rohrer, 2010). For example, when teach-
ing students how to solve mathematics word
problems, it is more beneficial to have them
practice several types of word problems at one
time (e.g., subtraction that results from com-
paring, part-part-whole, or change problems)
as opposed to practicing only one type of
problem at a time (e.g., just change problems).
Interleaved practice requires learners to
develop the conceptual knowledge to discern
differences between problems and then decide
what knowledge and skills are necessary to
Leko et al. 31

solve them accurately (Roediger, 2014). When
learners are able to better discern the underly-
ing structure of problems, they are more able
to easily recognize those problems when they
occur again and use their knowledge to solve
them (Brown et al., 2014).
Distributed practice (Willingham, 2014)
means spreading learning out over time. If
given 8 hours to study for a test, the principle
of distributed practice suggests learning will
last longer if study sessions are broken into
two 4-hour blocks of study instead of one
block of 8 hours. Distributed practice requires
learners to tap into their memories to retrieve
knowledge about different problems and such
opportunities to rehearse existing knowledge
leads to deeper, long-term learning (Rohrer,
2009; Willingham, 2014).
Situated in content and authentic contexts.
Research comparing experts to novices in
most professional domains, including teaching,
shows experts’ knowledge is highly contextu-
alized (Farrington-Darby & Wilson, 2006) and
dependent on experiences they have acquired
over time (Fadde, 2007). Experts’ conceptual
knowledge in a particular domain is well inte-
grated with their experiences. For instance,
medical doctors’ knowledge of symptoms
associated with disease is combined with their
experiences treating patients manifesting dif-
ferent combinations of those symptoms. Well-
integrated knowledge bases enable experts to
rapidly recall information and recognize pat-

terns or fundamental principles (Berliner, 2001;
Ropo, 2004) more quickly and efficiently and
thereby devote more mental effort to finding
solutions (Fadde, 2007). The more opportu-
nities learners have to learn and apply newly
acquired knowledge in authentic situations, the
better the learning outcome. This is why some
research in teacher education has demonstrated
the importance of providing preservice teach-
ers with practical teaching experiences that
enable them to learn how to use the knowledge
they are acquiring in their coursework, both
the subject knowledge and the effective peda-
gogies for enacting that knowledge (Darling-
Hammond, Hammerness, Grossman, Rust, &
Shulman, 2005).
Promote self-assessment of performance.
Performance feedback is essential to help-
ing learners recognize what effective prac-
tice looks like (Ericsson, 2014). Research has
shown external, expert feedback is not the
only kind of feedback that leads to success-
ful learning. Self-assessment or reflection on
one’s own learning is an equally important
factor. Reflecting on one’s performance in
terms of what did and did not work has been
shown to help learners transfer knowledge and
skills to new contexts (Scardamalia, Bereiter,
& Steinbach, 1984). The beneficial effects
of reflection are thought to occur because it
requires learners to retrieve knowledge and
prior experience from memory, connect these
ideas to new experiences, and then men-
tally rehearse what could be done differently
(Brown et al., 2014, p. 27). It should be noted

that the type of reflection that promotes suc-
cessful learning is focused, critical, and goal-
oriented (Boud, Keogh, & Walker, 2013), and
the ability to analyze performance accurately
is important for developing effective self-
reflection ( Zimmerman & Campillo, 2003).
Thus, to become self-reflective, learners will
need feedback on and practice analyzing per-
formance so they in turn can more effectively
evaluate the quality of their own performance.
Practices in Personnel Preparation
That Align With the Science on
Learning
Although there is no substantive research base
on teacher education, several reviews of
research have identified pedagogies that align
with the science on learning, and these peda-
gogies can be incorporated in a sequential way
into coursework and field experiences to pro-
mote special education preservice teachers’
competent practice (Dieker et al., 2014; Leko,
Brownell, Sindelar, & Murphy, 2012;
Kamman, McCray, Brownell, Wang, &
Ribuffo, 2014). For most pedagogies, evidence
supporting their effectiveness is at an emer-
gent level but can be considered promising
because they make use of several principles
known to promote successful learning and
effective performance. We concur with

Lignugaris-Kraft et al. (2014) in acknowledg-
ing these pedagogies would benefit from addi-
tional, more rigorous investigation.
Several reviews of research
have identified pedagogies that align
with the science on learning, and these
pedagogies can be incorporated in a
sequential way into coursework and field
experiences to promote special education
preservice teachers’ competent practice.
Deliberate, scaffolded practice opportunities.
A thorough review of the special education
preservice education literature revealed sev-
eral studies that incorporated deliberate prac-
tice with feedback linked to practical teaching
experiences (Leko et al., 2012). Findings from
studies reviewed showed teachers made prog-
ress acquiring knowledge and skills when
there was deliberate practice with feedback
built on knowledge and skills preservice teach-
ers were acquiring in coursework (Alexander,
Lignugaris-Kraft, & Forbush, 2007; Al Otaiba,
Lake, Greulich, Folsom, & Guidry, 2012; Al
Otaiba, Schatschneider, & Silverman, 2005;
Maheady, Jabot, Rey, & Michielli-Pendl, 2007;
Spear-Swerling, 2009). In the studies that fol-
low, preservice teachers had opportunities to
develop greater domain expertise by integrat-
ing their knowledge in key content areas with
practice and these opportunities were structured,
calibrated, and sequenced. They also received
feedback from more experienced educators or

RTI Special Education .docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to RTI Special Education .docx

Similar to RTI Special Education .docx (6)

More from daniely50

More from daniely50 (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

RTI Special Education .docx