Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx

Case study:
A franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the southern
United States was notified by Visa U.S.A, Inc. and the U.S.
Secret Service of the theft of credit card information in August
2008. The franchisee has a chain of eight stores with annual
revenue of $2 million.
The chain focused on the technology of its point-of-sale (POS)
system. A leading vendor that allowed for centralized financial
and operating reporting provided the POS system. It used a
secure high-speed Internet connection for credit card
processing. The company determined that neither the POS nor
credit card authorization connection was the source of the
breach. Although the POS was infected, the source of the breach
was the network. Each of the franchisee’s stores provided an
Internet hotspot to its customers. It was determined that this
Wi-Fi hotspot was the source of the breach. Although
considerable care was given to the POS and credit card
authorization process, the Wi-Fi hotspot allowed access to these
systems. It was determined the probable cause of the breach was
malware installed on the POS system through the Wi-Fi hotspot.
The malware collected the credit card information, which was
later retrieved by the thief.
This was a PCI DSS framework violation. The PCI DSS
framework consists of over 200 requirements that outline the
proper handling of credit card information. It was clear that
insufficient attention was given to the network to ensure it met
PCI DSS requirements. For discussion purposes, the focus is on
the network. The PCI DSS outlines other standards that may
have been violated related to the hardening of the POS server
itself. The following four PCI DSS network requirements appear
to have been violated:
• Network segregation
• Penetration testing

• Monitoring
• Virus scanning
PCI requires network segments that handle credit cards be
segmented. It was unclear whether there was a complete absence
of segmentation or if weak segmentation had been breached.
PCI DSS outlines the standards to ensure segmentation is
effective. If the networks had been segmented, this breach
would not have occurred.
PCI requires that all public-facing networks be penetration
tested. This type of testing would have provided a second
opportunity to prevent the breach. This test would have
uncovered such weaknesses within a Wi-Fi hotspot that allowed
the public to access back-end networks.
PCI also requires a certain level of monitoring. Given the size
of the organization, monitoring might have been in the form of
alerts or logs reviewed at the end of the day. Monitoring could
include both network and host-based intrusion detection.
Monitoring may have detected the network breach. Monitoring
may also have detected the malware on the POS system. Both
types of monitoring would have provided opportunities to
prevent the breach.
PCI requires virus protection. It was unclear if this type of
scanning was on the POS system. If it was not, that would have
been a PCI DSS violation. Such scanning provides one more
opportunity to detect the malware. Early detection would have
prevented the breach.
The PCI DSS requirements are specific and adopt many of the
best practices from other frameworks such as ISO. The approach
is to prevent a breach from occurring. Early detection of a
breach can prevent or minimize card losses. For example, early
detection of the malware in this case study would have
prevented card information from being stolen. Some malware
takes time to collect the card information, which must then be
retrieved. Quick reaction to a breach is an opportunity to
remove the malware before any data can be retrieved.

CHAPTER 1
Introduction
OVERVIEW OF THIS BOOK
The goal of this book is to provide detailed guidance for
educators who seek to establish multiple tiers of supports for
students in their schools. The phrase multi-tiered system of
supports (MTSS) refers to structures and procedures that
schools offer to help each and every student be successful.
Other phrases for an MTSS include response to
intervention (RTI) and positive behavioral interventions and
supports (PBIS). Both RTI and PBIS are types of tiered
supports, but there are others as well. We have chosen to use
the umbrella term MTSS to help readers learn about and use a
comprehensive framework that can apply to all the students in a
school. Note that we refer to such a system of supports in the
singular, not plural. The reason for this is that the entire system
needs to be integrated and universal, rather than separate mini-
systems operating without connections to one another. In
places, we refer to PBIS or RTI practices and research, but in
all cases the larger framework of one, unified, MTSS is the
goal.
The book is organized into six parts, each with several chapters
designed to give practical and detailed guidance about how to
set up and run an MTSS in your school. This book focuses on
how to set up general schoolwide practices that are available to
all students. The reason for the broader approach here is to offer
educators the knowledge and skills to adopt as a mind-set and
ethos rather than a set of isolated steps. Although details about
specific procedures are provided, the first chapters in particular
focus on prevention science and why all school personnel must
learn and embrace a mind-set of prevention science as part of an
MTSS in order for it to be successful over the long term. When
first introduced, some educators thought that RTI and PBIS
were passing fads that would eventually disappear. Instead, they

now have lasted and been used in schools for almost 20 years
(Walker et al., 1996). Those schools that have taken the time to
set up the structures needed to support long-term
implementation have observed improvements in student learning
and staff engagement. We hope that this book will support
educators in making schools successful for all students.
Although the major goal of an MTSS is to provide supports
when needed by any student, the book includes some
information about how MTSS data can be used if a student is
referred for special education.
PART I: PREVENTION SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS
Schools are complex social environments that face the challenge
of providing effective instruction for students from diverse
backgrounds. U.S. public schools have the responsibility to
provide such instruction for any and all students who qualify for
attendance. And, children ages 6 to 16 (and in some states 5 to
18) are required to attend school. Bringing about effective
learning outcomes for all students on a daily basis is not easy,
yet it is what educators do. The first section of the book
(Chapters 2, 3, 4, and 5) explains the historical background and
recent trends in U.S. public school policy that affect the daily
work of teachers. Chapter 2 provides a history of the concept of
prevention and how it has not historically been applied to public
education. Following from an analogy made by Keith Stanovich
(1986), Chapter 3 describes how important attention to details is
in all aspects of an MTSS. Chapter 4 explains the many types of
risk factors that public school students face and how such
factors can influence school outcomes if not addressed. An
important recent occurrence in public education is the
development and adoption of the Common Core State Standards
(CCSS). Chapter 5 explains the history of these Standards and
how they are aligned with MTSS practices.
PART II: THE IMPORTANCE OF COLLABORATION AND
TEAMS
The second section (Chapters 6, 7, and 8) focuses on the
importance of collaboration in making an MTSS work. Like any

major systems-level project, an MTSS cannot happen if only
one person directs it. It must be developed and implemented by
teams of educators who work together with common goals.
These chapters explain how to set up and maintain effective
school teams to support an MTSS. Part II begins with Chapter 6,
in which the important roles and functions of specific types of
teams are described. Chapter 7 offers guidance on how to set up
the specific types of teams needed to support an MTSS.
Finally, Chapter 8 explores what is necessary for teams to be
effective, including how to develop a team’s identity and
routines. This chapter is important for all readers, regardless of
whether their school has many existing teams or is just getting
started.
PART III: MAKING CHANGE HAPPEN
An MTSS is very much a systems approach to effective school
outcomes. Such systems include the complementary and
balanced integration of procedures that are activated when
certain conditions are present. In order to understand and use an
MTSS, it is important that educators know how complex social
support systems operate and what it takes to bring about change
within them. There is an emerging research base documenting
what it takes for systems to function well and the chapters in
this section (Chapters 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13) draw from this
research. First, in Chapter 9, there is an overview about the
existing research on the science of change. Using findings from
Fixsen, Naoom, Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005),
this chapter gives an overview of the stages of change in
organizations. Chapter 10 then describes the first three of these
stages—exploration, adoption, and installation—as well as how
such stages need to be addressed to set up an effective MTSS.
Then, in Chapter 11, we detail the two levels of implementation
and how careful planning is needed at both. Chapter 12 explains
how innovation is an inevitable part of an ongoing MTSS, but
needs to be anticipated so that it will be
effective. Chapter 12 also describes what is necessary to sustain
an MTSS as a permanent approach to student academic and

behavioral success in schools. Finally, Chapter 13 discusses
how carefully planned daily school schedules are an essential
part of effective MTSS practice because they make it possible
for interventions to be conducted regularly.
PART IV: EFFECTIVE INSTRUCTION WITHIN AN MTSS
As noted, this book focuses heavily on the “big picture” of
system-level support for all students. Part IV (Chapters
14, 15, 16, 17, and 18) examines essential research on effective
instruction and how educators must use evidence-based
instruction as the foundation for all parts of an
MTSS. Chapter 14 reviews findings from a key meta-analysis,
and other sources, about the most effective, research-based
instructional practices for all grades and subjects. These
practices are then juxtaposed in Chapter 15 with information
about how to provide effective instructional sequences based on
students’ needs. Recognizing that U.S. schools are now more
diverse than ever, and expected to become even more
so, Chapter 16 reviews the research base on how to support
students who are English language learners (ELLs). Although
there are many types of diversity in U.S. classrooms, all
students are expected to learn English as the language of
instruction and this chapter explains how an MTSS is well
suited to support ELL students. Chapter 17 provides a
conceptual foundation and details about why having treatment
integrity at all stages of an MTSS is essential and feasible.
Finally, Chapter 18 explains why an MTSS will only succeed in
supporting all students when at least 80% of each school’s
enrollment meets stated learning targets at Tier 1.
With examples from a veteran MTSS leader, Chapter 18 details
how the needs of each student can be addressed only when all
students get effective instruction (Coyne, Kame’enui, &
Simmons, 2004).
PART V: MTSS ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE
In Part V (Chapters 19, 20, 21, and 22), the key organizational
elements of an MTSS are explained. Some of the content of this
section might be familiar to educators who have used certain

components of an MTSS, but the descriptions in these chapters
are designed to show how each step requires a comprehensive
and well-designed infrastructure to be truly effective. There are
four chapters in this section, starting with a discussion of
universal screening. The conceptual foundations and practical
requirements of universal screening are covered in Chapter 19.
Using a cornerstone method pioneered by Stan Deno (1985,
2002) and colleagues, Chapter 20 explains why a detailed
problem-solving process is a necessary component of an
MTSS. Chapter 21 explains how progress monitoring is an
essential pathway by which informative student data are
collected in an MTSS. The last chapter in this section, 22, then
gives detailed guidance on how to understand student progress
data.
PART VI: CONNECTING MTSS WITH OTHER SUPPORTS
The final section of the book addresses the ways that an MTSS
connects to other student supports already existing in
schools. Chapter 23 explains how the final tier of an MTSS is a
transition point where consideration of a student’s long-term
educational needs is the focus. Chapter 24 returns to the
foundations of the book by discussing how prevention science
can benefit all students and prevent the need for some special
education placements. This chapter explains how an MTSS does
not replace special education, but is an important complement
to such services. Next (Chapter 25) there is a discussion of the
continuum of services for students who have a disability,
including both Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act and the
Individuals with Disabilities Improvement Act.
Specifically, Chapter 25 identifies how students supported by an
MTSS, but who do not make expected gains, might also benefit
from other supports as well. This chapter concludes with
information about how an MTSS complements, rather than
competes with, special education as a system to help all
students access effective education.
The book concludes with a case example that describes how all
of the components can be combined to develop, implement, and

evaluate an MTSS at the district level. Using examples from
schools and districts in which we have
worked, Chapter 26 seeks to explain the process of setting up an
MTSS as it unfolds. This case example will not match the exact
experience of all readers, but provides an idea of the level of
detail required to make an MTSS successful.
SUMMARY
This book is designed to provide educators at all grade levels
and career stages with an understanding of the infrastructure
and system components needed to support effective learning
outcomes for all students. Starting with a review of some
historical foundations and emerging trends, the chapters offer
information about the importance of developing strong teams of
educators to implement and sustain an MTSS. The key details of
an MTSS, including evidence-based instruction, screening,
problem solving, progress monitoring, and decision making are
explained through the lens of comprehensive system-level
supports for all students.
CHAPTER 24
Education for All
As noted throughout this book, an MTSS is often thought to be
about special education eligibility, but in truth it is not. As we
have explained, an MTSS is a general education initiative
designed to provide supports for all students. It is a mindset
with corresponding practices that permeates every part of
planning, teaching, assessing, and helping students.
Nonetheless, guidance and regulation at both the federal and
state levels formally includes MTSS procedures for one, and
only one, special education eligibility category: specific
learning disability (SLD). This chapter explains the history
behind U.S. special education policies, how language about
MTSS came to be included in federal and state laws, and
lingering questions about whether applying labels to students’

learning needs makes sense at all. In many ways
this chapter circles back to the basic premise of the book to
connect education policy with the social context of children’s
lives. For those eager to learn the details about how an MTSS
might fit with special education decision
making, Chapter 25 explains the details of using data from an
MTSS for SLD eligibility decisions.
A HISTORY OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
There have always been some students who found school
difficult. Until school attendance became mandatory in the
United States starting in the 1890s, little attention was paid to
students who struggled because they could generally leave
school and be successful in their local communities. As the U.S.
economic system went from a focus on local agriculture to the
mass production of goods during the industrial revolution, the
importance of school-based formal education increased. At
about the same time as this economic shift, educators and
psychologists began to conduct research into the source of
student learning problems (Winzer, 1993). From the beginning,
much of the research on what later became known as learning
disability (LD) focused on reading problems. From the 1890s
through the 1920s, researchers in Europe and the United States
considered various possible causes for LDs. Research during
this period built on interest in brain–behavior relationships that
had begun in the early 1800s (Hallahan & Mercer, 2013; LD
Online, 2013; Stanberry, 2013).
Several European physicians are credited with advancing the
understanding of LD in the period before World War I. A
German researcher, Adolph Kussmaul, coined the term word
blindness to describe adults who had reading problems despite
average intelligence and education. The British physicians
James Hinshelwood and Pringle Morgan conducted autopsies of
adults and children with specific reading problems. Their results
suggested that there was a physical origin to the reading
problems (Hallahan & Mercer, 2013). In the 1920s, Dr. Samuel
Orton began work examining reading problems in U.S. children,

leading him to conclude that children with average intelligence
and reading difficulties could benefit from alternate reading
instruction. Orton and his colleagues developed one of the first
methods for teaching reading with systematic phonics
instruction. Later termed the Orton–Gillingham method for the
contributions of Anna Gillingham, this method was one of the
first treatments for reading disability.
While much of the early research concerning students with
school difficulties focused on reading, there was an awareness
that some students struggled in other areas, too. Grace Fernald
and Marion Monroe experimented with treatments in both clinic
and school settings during the 1940s and 1950s. This early
research created an awareness that not only were there children
who were predicted to do well in school but did not, but also
that there were instructional methods that could benefit these
students. The term learning disability was developed by Samuel
Kirk, who had been a student of Monroe’s. Kirk used the term
in his 1962 text Educating Exceptional Children and then again
at a public lecture in 1963 (Hallahan & Mercer, 2013). The term
has been used ever since to describe children who have learning
difficulties despite no other clear medical or psychological
impairments.
In the late 1960s, the U.S. Department of Education began to
consider how to offer supports for students with LD. Two task
forces were commissioned to consider the needs of such
students and how to define LD. These groups initially referred
to LD symptoms as “minimal brain dysfunction” (Hallahan &
Mercer, 2013). In 1969, advocates for children with LD
succeeded in having the Children with Specific Learning
Disabilities Act passed. This act provided small amounts of
funding to support instruction for students with LD. It also
included the first federal definition of LD, which was very
similar to the definition in use today. When passing this act,
many advocates and members of Congress thought that the
percentage of students with LD was no more than 1–3% of all
students.

The 1960s and 1970s were a period of major social change in
the United States. In addition to advances in rights for African
Americans, Hispanic Americans, indigenous peoples, and
women, there were major gains on behalf of individuals with
disabilities in the 1970s. Because of a history of not being
allowed to attend public schools, many of the efforts to support
students with disabilities during the 1960s and 1970s focused on
making a case for these students’ rights under federal and state
laws, as had been done for African American students (Winzer,
1993). The basic premise behind advocacy for students with
disabilities is that all U.S. states are required to provide
education for all students. Notably, some states initiated special
education programs before a federal law was passed in 1975.
For example, Massachusetts and Pennsylvania created laws
requiring state special education programming before the
landmark federal law Public Law 94-142 was passed by the U.S.
Congress. The rationale for enacting such legislation was that
the education clauses of each state’s constitution do not limit
which students are allowed to attend school. Instead, the broad
language found in most states’ constitutions refers to a
requirement to provide education for all students.
Leading up to the passage of Public Law 94-142, two landmark
legal cases established the legal rights of children with
disabilities to access education. A 1971 lawsuit brought by the
Pennsylvania Association for Retarded Citizens (PARC)
succeeded in establishing the precedent that a state must
provide access to education for all students, regardless of
disability (Public Interest Law Center of Philadelphia, 2013). In
another case in 1972, Mills v. Board of Education of the District
of Columbia, the court made a similar ruling (Kids Together,
Inc., 2013). These cases led the U.S. Congress to investigate the
extent to which children with disabilities were being excluded
from public schools. Findings showed that other states also
prevented students with certain disabilities from attending
school. Congress then took action to create a federal law
requiring that all public schools provide instruction for all

students, including those with disabilities. The focus of these
legal cases was on the students’ right to be in school. None of
these cases, nor the subsequent law, stipulated what type of
instruction each student should receive. Instead, the impetus of
the court cases that led to special education focused on the legal
right of all students to attend school.
The first U.S. federal special education law was the Education
for All Handicapped Children Act (EHCA), passed in 1975.
Also known as Public Law 94-142, this law reiterated that all
children have a right to a free and appropriate public education
(FAPE) in the least restrictive environment (LRE). The court
decisions that contributed to the passage of Public Law 94-142
related to students with mental retardation (the term used at the
time) or other severe disabilities. Nonetheless, advocates for
students with LD participated in the efforts to create a national
special education requirement and specific learning disability
(SLD) was included as one of the disabilities for which special
education could be provided. The EHCA has been revised
several times and is now called the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act (IDEA), which was most recently reauthorized in
2004.
The definition of SLD incorporated into Public Law 94-142 was
largely the same as had been used in the 1969 act. Most
advocates and LD organizations agreed with the definition, but
there was a lack of clarity in how to measure SLD. With the
passage of Public Law 94-142, the federal government funded
five SLD research centers during the late 1970s and early
1980s. These centers were housed at different universities and
sought to develop measurement tools that could be used to
assess whether a student has an SLD and if the student responds
to instruction over time. Notably, the centers came up with
discordant findings that created additional confusion about how
to identify and monitor students with an SLD (Hallahan &
Mercer, 2013). Two trends related to SLD during the late 1980s
and 1990s are worth recounting: the Regular Education
Initiative (REI) and inclusion.

In the decade following the passage of the EHCA, there were
renewed efforts to define SLD, this time by different
organizations. These efforts reflected a lack of national
consensus about exactly what an SLD looks like. At the same
time, the number of students with an SLD grew rapidly and
faster than any other special education category. Looking back,
Hallahan and Mercer (2013) noted that from 1976 through 1999
the number of students identified as having an SLD doubled.
This rapid growth in a category that had once been considered a
mild disability was concerning to teachers, administrators, and
policymakers. In an effort to address the higher than expected
number of students with an SLD, the Reagan administration
developed the Regular Education Initiative (REI; Ackerman,
1987; Hallahan, Keller, McKinney, Lloyd, & Bryan, 1988). This
was an administrative letter to the state directors of special
education that indicated that they should be sure that students
with disabilities were educated in the “regular” (now called
general) education classroom as much as possible. The REI was
not very effective in reducing the number of students with an
SLD who were receiving services. Critics noted that the REI
ignored the need for teacher training (Coates, 1989; Semmel &
Abernathy, 1991) and that it likely violated student rights to a
free and appropriate public education (FAPE; Bryan, Bay, &
Donahue, 1988; Chisholm, 1988).
The REI tried to help teachers understand the idea of FAPE, but
it did not succeed in reducing the number of students with an
SLD. During the 1990s, a new effort to focus on students with
disabilities emerged. Known as inclusion, this initiative was led
by advocates for students with more severe disabilities (Fuchs
& Fuchs, 1994; Kubicek, 1994). Similar to the REI, inclusion
focused on having all students with disabilities included in the
general education classroom and curriculum as much as
possible. In schools where full inclusion was adopted, all IEP
services were supposed to be delivered in the general education
classroom instead of in a specialized setting. While inclusion
was aimed at giving students more access to the “normal”

general education classroom, this was not always the outcome.
The unintended consequence of the inclusion movement is that
many students with disabilities stopped getting the very
specialized services they needed.
RIGHTS AND INSTRUCTION
Broadly, special education has two primary missions:
guaranteeing the rights of students with disabilities in
schools and providing effective instruction for these students.
At times, the special education community has seemed to focus
more on one of these goals than the other. The initial efforts of
Public Law 94-142 focused primarily on effective instruction
for students with disabilities. This was a huge step forward for
children who had previously not always been allowed to attend
school at all. As the number of students with disabilities grew
in the 1980s, there was a shift in policy focus to maintaining the
rights of all students to access the general curriculum. By
focusing more narrowly on the right to inclusion in the general
education classroom, schools may have neglected the
importance of effective instruction for all students. As the new
century began, education policy began to focus much more on
effective education for all students.
No Child Left Behind
In 2001, newly elected U.S. president George W. Bush signed a
law passed by Congress known as the No Child Left Behind Act
(NCLB; West, 2003). This law was based on research and
preparation done primarily during the Clinton administration
that focused heavily on achieving effective learning outcomes
for all students. The catalyst of the NCLB was growing
awareness that U.S. students were falling behind those from
other industrialized nations in key measures of student
achievement (see also Chapter 5). To address this concern,
NCLB included key provisions designed to hold teachers and
schools accountable for student outcomes. For example, under
NCLB, at least 95% of all students were required to participate
in the state’s annual assessment. Unlike the past, students with
mild disabilities like an SLD would not be exempted from this

requirement. In addition, each school would be required to
submit data to the state indicating whether or not it met key
schoolwide learning objectives toward all students’ adequate
yearly progress (AYP). States were required to publish each
school district’s record of progress, indicating whether each
school met its own stated goals toward AYP. The goal of NCLB
was to increase the learning outcomes of all students, but its
broad reach acknowledged that schools are responsible for the
learning of all students, including those with disabilities.
THE PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION ON SPECIAL
EDUCATION
Since the 1975 passage of the U.S. federal special education
law, studies have shown that educational outcomes for students
with disabilities have not improved as much as hoped. Kavale
and Forness (2000) found that students with disabilities often
made much less progress than general education students when
an inclusion model was used. In response to evidence that
students with disabilities were lagging behind other students,
President George W. Bush appointed the President’s
Commission on Excellence in Special Education (PCESE;
Federal Register, 2001). The charge to commission members
was to identify what changes were needed in special education
to make it more effective. In this regard, the PCESE focused
more on effective practices than ensuring access to general
education programs. The PCESE was important in the history of
special education because it identified how the needs of
students with disabilities were sometimes overlooked as a result
of efforts to ensure their inclusion in general education. The
recommendations of the PCESE were then incorporated,
alongside provisions from NCLB, into the revision of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act
(IDEA), which was passed by the U.S. Congress in 2004.
INDIVIDUALS WITH DISABILITIES EDUCATION
IMPROVEMENT ACT OF 2004
This new version of the law included several notable changes
regarding eligibility for special education services. Part D,

Subpart 3(C)5F of the statute noted that the intent of the law
included:
providing incentives for whole-school approaches,
scientifically-based early reading programs, positive behavioral
interventions and supports, and early intervening services to
reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address
the learning and behavioral needs of such children …
This language is notable for emphasizing both scientifically
based instruction as well as a focus on whole-school programs
to reduce the number of students needing special education.
Compared with earlier versions of the IDEA, the 2004 law
recognized that prevention and early intervention would be
important in efforts to support children with disabilities. The
implementing regulations (2006) took the essence of both
science and prevention even further and included important
changes in prereferral requirements as well as in how school
teams could determine if a student has an SLD (see Chapter 25).
The IDEA 2004 regulations incorporated the definition of
scientifically based research from NCLB and also allowed
schools to use up to 15% of their portion of IDEA funds to pay
for professional development and delivery of prevention
services (§300.225). Although the definition of an SLD was not
changed from prior versions of the law in relation to the SLD
category, additional guidance was provided that clarified the
identification process. As noted in the general history above,
there have long been questions about exactly how to identify an
LD. For many years the standard method was to administer an
IQ test and an academic achievement test, and see if the
student’s achievement was significantly below what was
expected given the student’s IQ score. This method was
developed based on the general definition of LD originally
created by Kirk (1962), but it has not been confirmed to be an
accurate way to identify an SLD. The use of IQ–achievement
discrepancy scores has long been debated in the research
literature and has generally been found to be inaccurate in
showing whether a student has an SLD (Floyd & Kranzler,

2013; Francis et al., 2005). IDEA 2004 remedied the reliance on
such a discrepancy for identifying an …
Bethel School District: Connecting Data to the District’s
Mission and Vision
Mission
and Vision
Program Transcript

[MUSIC PLAYING]
NARRATOR: As a curriculum and instruction leader, it is
essential to understand
the importance of the alignment between diagnostic data and a
district's vision,
mission, and goals. In this video, education leaders from the
Bethel School
District in Eugene, Oregon discuss their district's action plan,
collaborative
efforts, and how the action plan was inspired by the district's
vision and mission
statements.
LORI RAE SMITH: I just want to say that that's the big cultural
shift, is not looking
at students and how they're identified first, so that defines what
they get for their
instruction or their program, but looking at the students, and
their profiles, and
their assessment data to say, what do they need? And that's a
huge change for
the better.
DREW BRAUN: I mean, we'll have students that come into the
district that are
very low on reading, and may be in a group that is primarily
special ed students.
But we aren't talking about identifying them. We're talking
about giving them an
opportunity to see if they've lacked good instruction in the past.
And a lot of kids
really just take off. So it's amazing.
And then talk about the cultural shift, we also made a structural
shift. When this

first started, I was across the street as the director of
curriculum. And this
building was special services. And it was this project that really
brought the whole
spectrum together. And after our special services director
retired, we
reorganized, and now I'm the director of instruction that
includes special ed,
includes title, includes ELL, and so on.
And so we're all housed together. And when we go to the table,
we're all there
together to see how we could meet the needs of the whole
spectrum of kids.
RHONDA WOLTER: And it's each and every kid.
DREW BRAUN: Yes.
RHONDA WOLTER: We are down to the kid level. Each and
every kid. I think in
elementary you would see lots of students engaged in learning
in positive
classrooms who are receiving instruction at their level, enjoying
being there.
Teachers who see themselves as being highly successful in what
they do daily.
LORI RAE SMITH: Those are big changes.
© 2016 Laureate Education, Inc. 1

Mission and Vision
[ALL LAUGHING]
RHONDA WOLTER: They're big changes. They're big changes.
TERESA TURNER FIELD: And in the middle school?
LORI RAE SMITH: I think in the middle school, the biggest
change would be that
before our reading initiative in grade 6-8, there was a
perception by teachers and
by staff that students had learned to read in elementary school,
and they could
just teach content.

And I think that the assessment that they've learned to look at
and understand,
and the professional development that they've received, has
completely changed
that perception to now, they understand that there's a range of
reading skills in
each grade level in the middle grades, and that that impacts a
student's ability to
respond to instruction. And that we have some responsibility to
change that and
improve all students' reading levels.
And I think for all teachers in our middle grade systems are
very aware of what
their students' reading data looks like, how their students read,
what we can do to
help them in reading class, but also throughout the day. I think
that's changed
their understanding. As they deliver their content, they're more
aware that they
have a range of readers in their classroom, and they can
differentiate that
instruction or look at the data and realize it has implications for
the way I teach
science, and how I assign reading, and what I do. So that's a
huge shift.
RHONDA WOLTER: And then elementary, I think, in K-3,
teachers are teaching
kids how to read. And then at grades 4-5, kids are reading to
learn. And teachers
had to make that shift in their thinking about, that they're going
to teach reading,
but it's going to look different at different grade levels.

LORI RAE SMITH: All the way through.
RHONDA WOLTER: All the way through.
LORI RAE SMITH: Grade 8 and beyond.
RHONDA WOLTER: That's right. Right.
DREW BRAUN: Well, and we really did take on the old adage
that K-3, you learn
to read, and 4-12, you read to learn. And we now say you need
to teach reading
K-12. One of the things that we also knew was that if a student's
reading level
was here, but the course content material was here, how do we
bridge that gap?
Because you can't wait until the student's reading level is at
grade level.

Mission and Vision
And so Lori worked with another person on our staff and a
researcher. And they
started looking at, how do we support through content literacy
strategies? So one
of the other big shifts was that the K-3 was focused on kids
learning to read. Well
now, we're trying to teach them to learn to read, but then also
they need to
access the social studies, the science, and so on while they're
building their
skills. And so we put a lot of emphasis on content literacy as
well.
LORI RAE SMITH: And I think to tie together what we just
shared about the
difference between the elementary and the middle grades,
probably a very telling
piece is what we have now. We've gone from the K-3 initiative,
jumped to the 6-8
initiative, went back made sure 4-5 was on board and have
started working with
the high school.
And what we have now in our district are literacy leadership
teams from every
building to meet together periodically throughout the year for
half days to talk

about what reading looks like K-12, and how do we support
students that are in
our system K through 12? And so, what does reading look like
K through 12. And
we have common understandings and assessment across grade
levels and
building levels. And so, I think that's really a powerful change
form--
RHONDA WOLTER: And those team members have become the
experts in their
buildings. And they're the ones that help with professional
development. And they
answer questions and come back to us and let us know how the
instruction
department can help with their needs.
DREW BRAUN: I think the other piece when you talk about
commitment is you
never get to relax. Because as you move on to other initiatives,
you can't take
your eye off our reading. Because in the past, we used to do that
and say, oh,
OK, we've fixed reading. Now we move to math. And five years
later, we're back
to reading.
What's interesting for us right now is we're in our 14th year.
And about two years
ago, we realized that there was only one building principle left
when we started,
and only about a third of the teachers. So we've had to go back
and start a whole
renewal process on why we're doing what we're doing, why
we're using the
programs we're using, and so on.

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 …
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
598782ECXXXX10.1177/0014402915598782Exceptional
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 …

Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx

Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx

Recommended

Recommended

More Related Content

Similar to Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx

Similar to Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx (15)

More from zebadiahsummers

More from zebadiahsummers (20)

Recently uploaded

Recently uploaded (20)

Case studyA franchisee of a national hamburger chain in the s.docx