5. Describe instruc�onal strategies used with this student:
6. Student’s abili�es compared to an average peer? Reading: Above Same Below Wri�ng: Above Same BelowMath: Above Same Below Organiza�on: Above Same Below
7. Level of performance (CBM scores, state tests, district tests, etc.):
8. Percentageof work completed and accuracy:a. In-class- ______ ______b. Homework- ______ ______
9. Current instruc�onal program and interven�ons for area of concern: Tier I Tier II Tier III
Teacher Interview for Students Moving from Tier 2 to Tier 3
Teacher: Date:
Student
Data Review:
A�endance
Vision
Hearing
Other?
Opening: Thank you for taking the �me to meet about this student. The purpose of this interview is to gain some informa�on about the student from your perspec�ve. This informa�on will be used to help iden�fy a focus for a classroom observa�on and to add to data that the (name of school-level problem- solving team) will use when designing instruc�on for (name of student).
1. What are the strengths of the student? What does s/he enjoy?
2. What are your concerns?
3. How is the student doing with … • Math –
• Wri�ng –
• Reading –
• Organiza�onal Skills –
• Behavior –
• Social Interac�ons –
Appendices
Appendices 275
4. What percentage of in-class work does the student complete?
• How accurate is the completed work?
5. Describe instruc�onal strategies used with this student.
• What materials are you using?
• How successful is the student with the materials?
6. What posi�ve behavior/mo�va�onal/discipline strategies are used in your classroom? 7. To what extent are students familiar with the school wide behavior expecta�ons?
• How o�en is this student recognized for mee�ng academic and behavioral expecta�ons?
8. Is there anything else you would like to share that the team might need to know?
Thank you for your �me. I want to just ask a few ques�ons to get to know your child and toget your input about how he/she is doing in school. I’ll start by asking…
1. What ac�vi�es/hobbies does your child enjoy?
2. What does your child do well? In what areas have you seen growth?
3. What concerns do you have currently about your child’s growth and development?
4. How is your child’s physical health? Any medical issues, hearing, vision?
5. Any other comments or informa�on you think would be important for our school team toknow in planning support for your child?
Appendices 277
Form A6 Student Interview Form (adjust language according to age of student)
Student Interview
1) What do you like to do for fun? (To figure out what they find reinforcing)
2) What do you like about school?
3) Some things are tough in school for students. What is tough for you? (To get informa�on aboutacademic func�oning) 3a) Follow up with specific ques�ons about a subject, "What is tough about reading for you?" or"What is tough about math for you?"
4) Some�mes students get in trouble every now and then. Do you ever get in trouble? (To get informa�on about behavioral func�oning)
4a) Ask follow-up ques�ons to get at why, how o�en, and when he/she gets in trouble
5) What do you (play at recess/do during breaks) and with whom)? (Ask about friends, weekendac�vi�es) (To get informa�on about their social func�oning)
6) Tell me about your day when you go home. What do you do first, then second...etc. (To get a sense of their daily rou�ne at home)
Appendices278
Form A7 ICEL Interview Form
ICEL INTERVIEW GUIDE:
• Review, Interview, Observe, and Test • Instruc�on, Curriculum, Environment, and Learner
Instruc�on 1. What about the instruc�on may contribute to lower than expected performance? 2. What changes to the instruc�on would likely improve the student’s performance?
Curriculum
3. What about the curriculum may contribute to lower than expected performance? 4. What changes to the curriculum would likely improve the student’s performance?
Environment
5. What about the environment may contribute to lower than expected performance? 6. What changes to the environment would likely improve the student’s performance?
Learner
7. What characteris�cs/experiences/circumstances of the student may contribute to lowerthan expected performance?
Appendices 279
Form
A8
Inst
ruct
iona
l Obs
erva
tion
Form
, Exa
mpl
e 1
Inst
ruc�
onal
Obs
erva
�on
Form
Obs
erve
r Nam
e: _
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
Date
: ___
____
____
____
____
____
_Ti
me:
___
____
____
____
_In
stru
c on
al T
ier (
Circ
le o
ne)
Tier
1Ti
er 2
Tier
3In
stru
ctor
: (
Circ
le o
ne)
Gen
Ed
Teac
her
IAIn
terv
en�o
nist
SPED
Tea
cher
Pare
nt V
olun
teer
Oth
er: _
____
____
____
__Pr
ogra
m U
sed/
Mat
eria
ls:
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
_Gr
oup
Size
:__
____
____
__Gr
ade:
____
____
____
Dire
c on
s:Du
ring
each
1-m
inut
e in
terv
al, m
ark
“I”
for e
ach
OTR
and
circ
le th
e m
ark
if th
e st
uden
t is c
orre
ct. M
ark
a C
if th
e ch
ild is
pro
vide
d w
ith c
orre
c�ve
feed
back
. Pic
k tw
o pe
ers t
o co
mpa
re a
nd a
ltern
ate
the
peer
eac
h 1-
min
ute
inte
rval
. If t
he w
hole
gro
up is
giv
en a
n O
TR, m
ark
both
the
targ
et a
nd p
eer b
ox.
Tota
l Tar
get O
TRs:
___
__O
TR/m
in: _
___
Accu
racy
:___
__To
tal P
eer O
TRs:
_
____
OTR
/min
: ___
_Ac
cura
cy:_
____
Inst
ruc�
onal
Ac
�vity
Targ
etSt
uden
tPe
er 1
Inst
ruc�
onal
Ac�v
ity
Targ
et S
tude
ntPe
er 2
00-:5
910
:00-
10:5
9
1:00
-1:5
911
:00-
11:5
9
2:00
-2:5
912
:00-
12:5
9
3:00
-3:5
913
:00-
13:5
9
4:00
-4:5
914
:00-
14:5
9
5:00
-5:5
915
:00-
15:5
9
6:00
-6:5
916
:00-
16:5
9
7:00
-7:5
917
:00-
17:5
9
8:00
-8:5
918
:00-
18:5
9
9:00
-9:5
919
:00-
19:5
9
Appendices280
I = Opportunity to Respond (Circle if response is correct) Student is given a chance to answer a question or provide a comment about the topic (e.g., identifying what word after being asked to do so).
An OTR is not calling out answers without permission or talking about off-topic subjects. A student reading aloud for an extended time period will be scored as 1 OTR for each 30-second block of time; if the students reads into a new interval, the new interval signifies a new OTR.
C = Corrective feedback from teacher When a student gives an incorrect response, the teacher provides the correct response.
Directions During each 1-minute interval, mark “I” for each OTR and circle the mark if the student is correct. Mark a C if the child is provided with corrective feedback. Pick two peers to compare and alternate the peer each 1-minute interval.
Appendices 281
Inst
ruc�
onal
Obs
erva
�on
Form
Obs
erve
r Nam
e: _
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
Date
: ___
____
____
____
____
____
_
Inst
ruc�
onal
Tie
r (Ci
rcle
one
) Ti
er 1
Tier
2Ti
er 3
Inst
ruct
or:
(Ci
rcle
one
) G
en E
d Te
ache
rIA
Inte
rven
�oni
st S
PED
Teac
her
Pare
nt V
olun
teer
Oth
er: _
____
____
____
____
____
____
_
Read
ing
Prog
ram
Use
d: _
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
Grou
p Si
ze:
____
____
____
Grad
e: _
____
____
___
Com
men
ts, g
ener
al st
uden
t beh
avio
r, et
c:__
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
___
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
____
__
Inst
ruc�
onal
Ac
�vity
Opp
ortu
ni�e
s to
Resp
ond
(OTR
)
Teac
her/
Stud
ent
Inte
rac�
ons
Inst
ruc�
onal
Ac�v
ity
Opp
ortu
ni�e
s to
Resp
ond
(OTR
)
Teac
her/
Stud
ent
Inte
rac�
ons
+-
+-
Stud
ent 1
(:00-
:59)
Stud
ent 2
(10:
00-1
0:59
)St
uden
t 2(1
:00-
1:59
)St
uden
t 3(1
1:00
-11:
59)
Stud
ent 3
(2:0
0-2:
59)
Stud
ent 1
(12:
00-1
2:59
)St
uden
t 1(3
:00-
3:59
)St
uden
t 2(1
3:00
-13:
59)
Stud
ent 2
(4
:00-
4:59
)St
uden
t 3
(14:
00-1
4:59
)St
uden
t 3(5
:00-
5:59
)St
uden
t 1(1
5:00
-15:
59)
Stud
ent 1
(6:0
0-6:
59)
Stud
ent 2
(16:
00-1
6:59
)St
uden
t 2(7
:00-
7:59
)St
uden
t 3(1
7:00
-17:
59)
Stud
ent 3
(8:0
0-8:
59)
Stud
ent 1
(18:
00-1
8:59
)St
uden
t 1(9
:00-
9:59
)St
uden
t 2(1
9:00
-19:
59)
Corr
ect R
espo
nses
:__
___
+ In
tera
c�on
s:__
____
Tota
l OTR
’s:
____
_-I
nter
ac�o
ns:
____
__St
uden
t Suc
cess
%:
Paci
ng (O
TR’s
/min
)
____
___
___
+:-R
a�o:
Inte
rval
s On
Task
____
:___
_
____
/ 2
0
On
Task
10 se
c
On
Task
10 se
c
Form
A9
Inst
ruct
iona
l Obs
erva
tion
Form
, Exa
mpl
e 2
Appendices282
Instructional Observation Form Directions:
General Select 3 students at random from the group to observe. You will observe each of these 3 students in successive 1-minute intervals.
Instructional Activity Record the specific instructional activity that is occurring during the observation. Example activities include word attack, story reading, com-prehension or vocabulary activities, independent work, peer tutoring, etc. You only need to record the activity once when it begins.
On Task For the first 10 seconds of each interval, observe whether the student is on task. On-task is defined as following directions within 5 seconds of a teacher direc-tion, having their eyes oriented toward the teacher or appropriate class materials, and using work materials appropriately. If the student is on task for the entire 10 seconds, mark a + . If the student is not on task for the entire 10 seconds, mark a O.
Opportunities to Respond Each time the teacher asks the target student or the entire group an academic question record a + if the target student provides the correct answer or a O if the student provides an incorrect answer or does not answer within 5 seconds.
Teacher/Student Interactions Each time the teacher provides a praise statement or positive gesture to the target student or the entire group put a tally mark in the + column. Each time the teacher provides a redirect to the target student or the entire class put a tally mark in the − column.
Appendices 283
Form A10 Instructional Observation Form, Example 3
Observa�on Form
I. Check type of ac�vi�es observed:
_____ __________
Self-directed _____ _____ Small group _____Partner work_____Other:
Describe:
II.Physicality:
_____ Number of Students in the class
Where is student seated in the classroom?
Is the classroom noise or ac�vity level a problem for this student?
If applicable, describe physical arrangement of the class:
III. Ques�ons to consider:
1. Describe the specific expecta�ons (instruc�ons given, behaviors/ac�ons expected, work to be completed, etc.).
2. What specific adapta�ons were made for others and for this par�cular student?
3. To what extent was student able to meet expecta�ons?
4. To what extent were other students, groups or en�re class able to meet expecta�ons?
5. What is the approximate ra�o of posi�ve statements to redirects?
Student: Grade: Teacher: Start �me:
Date of observa�on: Subject: End �me:
Independent seat workWhole classTeacher-directed
Appendices284
Mark time every 5 minutes or less. Briefly describe what the teacher says or does (or the activity, expectations, etc.) and what the student says or does. Examine data for patterns or relationships between the environment and the student’s behavior or performance.
Time Teacher/Ac�vity or Task Student
Appendices 285
Form A11 Observation Questions to Consider
ICEL: Observa�on Ques�ons to Consider
Instruc�on:• What effec�ve teaching prac�ces do you see that benefit the student? • How is the student’s instruc�on differen�ated? • Any modifica�ons or accommoda�ons? • Can student transi�on from one task to another? Require follow-up re-teaching or promp�ng
a er whole-class direc�ons are given?
Curriculum:• What materials are being used (at grade level)? • What task-related skills do you see that the student demonstrates or does not demonstrate?
(e.g., raising hand, knowing how to get help, cleaning area and preparing for next ac�vity, etc.).
Environment• Where is the student seated (away from noise, busy areas, etc.)? • How is the noise level? • What posi�ve behavior/mo�va�onal/discipline strategies do you see? • How many posi�ves to redirects are observed? (Track posi�ves to redirects) • Describe how the teacher interacts with the student
Learner:• How is the student’s on-task behavior compared to other students?• How successful does the student appear with the task?
287
Glossary
Alphabetic Principle The relationship between phonemes and printed letters and letter patterns.
Assessment The process of gathering information to make decisions.Curriculum The scope and sequence of knowledge and skills that students are
intended to learn. The “what” of teaching.Curriculum-based assessment (CBA) any tool used to assess student perfor-
mance with the curriculum compared to classmates to inform instruction. For example, examining a student’s score on a math test compared to classmates, or identifying independent reading levels. The CBA is broad category under which CBM and CBE fall.
Curriculum-Based Evaluation (CBE) A systematic and fluid problem-solving process in which various assessment activities and tasks are used to identify missing skills and to design and evaluate instruction.
Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) A reliable and valid standardized assessment method used to monitor basic academic skills over time.
Decoding The process of using letter-sound relationships to read a word. Decoding involves breaking apart the sounds of a printed word and re-assembling those sounds to read the word.
Diagnostic Assessment The process of gathering data to determine student strengths and weaknesses. Diagnostic assessments tease apart broad skills into discrete skills to pinpoint specific strengths and weaknesses.
Evaluation The process of gathering and synthesizing data from multiple sources of information to make decisions.
Evidenced-Based Practices Practices and instructional strategies that have been developed using research and have documented results demonstrating effective-ness (see also “Research-Based Practices”)
Fidelity (Treatment Integrity) The extent to which a plan is implemented as it was originally designed to be implemented.
Fluency The ability to read words, phrases, sentences, paragraphs, and passages with automaticity, accuracy, and prosody (i.e., intonation).
Formative Assessment a range of formal and informal assessments used during instruction designed to modify instruction and improve student outcomes.
Instruction The process of teaching. The “how” of teaching.Instructional Match The alignment between a student’s specific skill deficit and
the focus of the instruction.Instructional Plan A complete description of instruction a student receives.
Includes how, where, when, what subjects and objectives are taught, and with whom the instruction occurs.
Intervention Instructional time that a student receives above and beyond Tier 1.Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) A coherent continuum of evidence-
based, system-wide practices to support a rapid response to academic and behavioral needs, with frequent data-based monitoring for instructional deci-sion-making to improve student outcomes.
Phoneme A speech sound that is the smallest unit of language.Phonemic Awareness The ability to hear the individual sounds in words and the
understanding that spoken words are made up of individual phonemes.Phonics The method of teaching readers to read and pronounce words based on
the alphabetic principle (i.e., on the phonetic sounds associated with letters and letter patterns).
Problem-Solving Model A 4-step model that includes Problem Identification, Problem Analysis, Plan Implementation, and Plan Evaluation. The problem-solving model prevents failure because it focuses on continuous improvement.
Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS) A decision-making framework that guides selection, integration, and implementation of the best evi-dence-based behavioral practices for improving important academic and behav-ior outcomes for all students.
Reading Comprehension The ability to understand and gain meaning from text.Research-Based Practices Practices and instructional strategies that are devel-
oped using research and methodology. (See also “Evidence-Based Practices”.)Response to Intervention (RTI) A multi-tiered, school wide model of service
delivery model that emphasizes problem solving, data-based decision making, and evidence-based interventions.
RIOT/ICEL Acronyms used to depict an evaluation framework. RIOT depicts assessment methods: Review, Interview, Observe, Test. ICEL depicts assessment areas: Instruction, Curriculum, Environment, Learner.
Screening Assessment (Screener) An assessment or data source used to identify students who may be at-risk for academic or behavioral difficulties.
Summative Assessment Assessments that measure the totality of learning after learning has occurred. Often determines a student’s status or skills across several grades and/or levels.
Tier One of three levels of instruction, either academic or behavioral. The tiers com-bine to provide a continuum of support designed to meet the needs of all students in a school setting. Tier 1 is designed to meet the needs of at least 80 % of the student population, and is also referred to as core instruction. Tier 2 is targeted group instruction designed to meet the needs of 10–15 % of the student population requiring supplemental instruction. Tier 3 is individualized support designed to meet the needs of 3–5 % of the student population requiring intensive instruction.
289
References
Abbott, M., Wills, H., Kamps, D., Greenwood, C. R., Dawson-Bannister, H., Kaufman, J., et al. (2008). The kansas reading and behavior center’s K-3 prevention model. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 215–265). New York: Guilford.
AIMSweb. (n. d.). AIMSweb national norms tables. Retrieved from www.aimsweb.com.Ainsworth, L. B., & Viegut, D. J. (2006). Common formative assessments: How to connect
standards-based instruction and assessment. Thousand Oaks: Corwin Press.Algozzine, B., Cooke, N., White, R., Helf, S., Algozzine, K., & McClanahan, T. (2008). The North
Carolina reading and behavior center’s K-3 prevention model: Eastside elementary school case study. In C. Greenwood, T. Kratochwill, & M. Clements (Eds.), Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools (pp. 173–214). New York: The Guilford Press.
Algozzine, B., Wang, C., White, R., Cooke, N., Marr, M. B., Algozzine, K., et al. (2012). Effects of multi-tier academic and behavior instruction on difficult-to-teach students. Exceptional Chil-dren, 79(1), 4564.
Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2010). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford.
Armbruster, B. B., Lehr, F., & Osborn, J. (2001). Put reading first: The research building blocks for teaching children to read. National Institute for Literacy, The Partnership for Reading.
Ash, G. E., Kuhn, M. R., & Walpole, S. (2009). Analyzing “inconsistencies” in practice: Teachers’ continued use of round robin reading. Reading & Writing Quarterly, 25, 87–103.
Baker, S. K., Simmons, D. C., & Kame’enuim, E. J. (1997). Vocabulary acquisition: Research bases. In D. C. Simmons & E. J. Kame’enui (Eds.), What reading research tells us about chil-dren with diverse learning needs: Bases and basics (pp. 183–218). Mahwah: Erlbaum.
Baldi, S., Jin, Y., Skemer, M., Green, P. J., & Herget, D. (2007). Highlights from PISA 2006: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in science and mathematics literacy in an inter-national context. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2008/2008016.pdf.
Barnes, A. C., & Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Response-to-intervention as a set of principles: Clearing the confusion. Education & Treatment of Children, 31(1), 417–431.
Barnes, G., Crowe, E., & Schaefer, B. (2007). The cost of teacher turnover in five school districts. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/CTTExecutiveSummaryfinal.pdf.
Bear, D. R., Invernizzi, M., Templeton, S., & Johnston, F. (2007). Words their way: Word study for phonics, vocabulary, and spelling instruction (4th ed). New Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Begeny, J., & Silber, J. (2006). An examination of group-based treatment packages for increasing elementary-aged students’ reading fluency. Psychology in the Schools, 43(2), 183.
Black, P., & Wiliam, D. (1998). Assessment and classroom learning. Assessment in Education: Principles, Policy & Practice, 5(1), 7–74.
Bohanon, H., Fenning, P., Carney, K. L., Minnis-Kim, M. J., Moroz, K. B., Hicks, K. J., et al. (2006). Schoolwide application of positive behavior support in an urban high school: A case study. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 8(3), 131–145.
Braden, J. P., & Shaw, S. R. (2009). Intervention utility of cognitive assessments. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 34(2), 106–115.
Brady, K., & Woolfson, L. (2008). What teacher factors influence their attributions for chil-dren’s difficulties in learning? British Journal of Educational Psychology, 78(4), 527–544. doi: 10.1348/000709907X268570.
Brookhart, S. M. (2003). Developing measurement theory for classroom assessment purposes and uses. Educational Measurement Issues and Practice, 22(4), 5–12.
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2010). Response to intervention: Principles and strategies for effective practice. New York: Guilford.
Brown-Chidsey, R., Bronaugh, L., & McGraw. K. (2009). RTI in the classroom: Guidelines and recipes for success. New York: Guilford Press.
Buehl, D. (2008). Classroom strategies for interactive learning. International Reading Associa-tion.
Burns, M. K. (2008). Response to instruction at the secondary level. Principal Leadership, 8(7), 12–15.
Burns, M. K., Appleton, J. L., & Stehouwer, J. D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: Examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381–394.
Burns, M. K., & Parker, D. C. (n. d.). Using instructional level as a criterion to target reading interven-tions. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/documents/reports/Burns-Parker-2010.pdf.
Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., VanDerHeyden, A. K. (2012). RTI applications: Academic and behavioral interventions (Vol. 1). New York: Guilford Press.
Bush, T. W., Pederson, K., Espin, C. A., & Weissenburger, J. W. (2001). Teaching students with learning disabilities: Perceptions of a first-year teacher. The Journal of Special Education, 35(2), 92–99.
Carroll, T. G., & Foster, E. (2008). Learning teams: Creating what’s next. Washington, DC: National Commission on Teaching and America’s Future. Retrieved from http://nctaf.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/01/NCTAFLearningTeams408REG2.pdf.
Carnine, D. W., Silbert, J., Kame’enui, E. J., & Tarver, S. G. (2009). Direct instruction reading. New Jersey: Pearson.
Chard, D. J., Vaughn, S., & Tyler, B. (2002). A synthesis of research on effective interventions for building reading fluency with elementary students with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 35(5), 386–406.
Chenowerth, K. (2009). It can be done, it’s being done, and here’s how. Kappan, 91(1), 38–43.Christ, T. J. (2008). Best practices in problem analysis. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best
practices in school psychology V (pp. 159–176). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Christ, T. J. (2010). Curriculum-based measurement of oral reading (CBM-R): Summary and discussion of recent research-based guidelines for progress monitoring. Workshop presented at Minnesota Center for Reading Research, 2010 Workshop. Retrieved from http://www.cehd.umn.edu/reading/events/AugWkshop2010/MCRR-8-11-10-TChrist.pdf.
Christ, T. J., Zopluoglu, C., Long, J. D., & Monaghen, B. D. (2012). Curriculum-based measure-ment of oral reading: Quality of progress monitoring outcomes. Exceptional Children, 78(3), 356–373.
Clarke, B., & Shinn, M. R. (2002). Test of Early Numeracy (TEN). Administration and scoring of AIMSweb early numeracy measures for use with AIMSweb. Bloomington: MNL NCS Pearson, Inc.
Clay, M. M. (1993). An observation study of early literacy achievement. Portsmouth: Heinemann.Cohen, J. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale:
Colón, E. P., & Kranzler, J. H. (2006). Effect of instructions on curriculum-based measurement of reading. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 24, 318–328.
Conte, K. L., & Hintze, J. M. (2000). The effects of performance feedback and goal setting on oral reading fluency within curriculum-based measurement. Diagnostique, 25(2), 85–98.
Cossett Lent, R. (2012). Overcoming textbook fatigure: 21st century tools to revitalize teaching and learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Department.
Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2010). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (4th ed.). New Jersey: Pearson.
Crone, D. A., & Horner, R. H. (2003). Building positive behavior support plans in schools: Func-tional behavioral assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.
Crone, D. A., Hawken, L. S., & Horner, R. H. (2010). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The behavior education program (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.
Curtis, R., Van Horne, J. W., Robertson, P., & Karvonen, M. (2010). Outcomes of a school-wide positive behavioral support program. Professional School Counseling, 13(3), 159–164.
Daly, E. J., & Martens, B. K. (1994). A comparison of three interventions for increasing oral reading performance: Application of the instructional hierarchy. Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, 27(3), 459–469.
Daly, E. J. III, Lentz, F. E., Jr., & Boyer, J. (1996). The instructional hierarchy: A conceptual model for understanding the effective components of reading interventions. School Psychology Quar-terly, 11(4), 369–386.
Deno, S. (2003). Developments in curriculum-based measurement. The Journal of Special Education, 37(3), 184–192.
Deno, S. L., Fuchs, L. S., Marston, D., & Shin, J. (2001). Using curriculum-based measurement to establish growth standards for students with learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 30(4), 507–524.
Denton, C. A., Fletcher, J. M., Simos, P. C., Papanicolaou, A. C., & Anthony, J. L. (2007). An implementation of a tiered intervention model: Reading outcomes and neural correlates. In D. Haager, J. Klingner, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 107–137). Baltimore: Brookes.
Denton, C., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2003). Bringing research based practice in reading inter-vention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18(3), 201–211.
DiLorenzo, K. E., Rody, C. A., Bucholz, J. L., & Brady, M. P. (2011). Teaching letter sound connections with picture mnemonics: Itchy’s alphabet and early decoding. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 55(1), 28–43.
Donovan, J. J., Radosevich, D. J. (1999). A meta-analytic review of the distribution of practice effect: Now you see it, now you don’t. Journal of Applied Psychology, 84(5), 795–805.
DuFour, R. (2004). What is a “professional learning community”? Educational Leadership, 63(8), 6–11.
DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. J. (2011). Leaders of learning: How district, school, and classroom leaders improve student achievement. Bloomington: Solution Tree.
Elkonin, D. B. (1973). U. S. S. R. In J. Downing (Ed.), Comparative reading (pp. 551–579). New York: Macmillian.
Elmore, R. F. (2000). Building a new structure for school leadership. American Educator, 1–9. http://www.aft.org/pdfs/americaneducator/winter9900/NewStructureWint99_00.pdf.
Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62(6), 497–514.
Espin, C. A., Busch, T. W., Shin, J., & Kruschwitz, R. (2001). Curriculum-based measurement in the content areas: Validity of vocabulary-matching as an indicator of performance in social studies. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(3), 142–151.
Fiorello, C. A., Hale, J. & Snyder, L. E. (2006). Cognitive hypothesis testing and response to intervention with children with reading problems. Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 835–853.
Flora, S. R. (2000). Praise’s magic reinforcement ratio: Five to one gets the job done. The Behavior Analyst Today, 1, 64–69.
292 References
Fisher, D., Grant, M., Frey, N., & Johnson, C. (2008). Taking formative assessment schoolwide. Educational Leadership, 65(4), 64–68.
Fixsen, D., Naoom, S., Blase, K., & Wallace, F. (2007, Winter/Spring). Implementation: The missing link between research and practice. The APSAC Advisor, 4–10.
Fleischman, H. L., Hopstock, P. J., Pelczar, M. P., & Shelley, B. E. (2010). Highlights from PISA 2009: Performance of U.S. 15-year-old students in reading, mathematics, and science literacy in an international context. Washington, DC: U.S. Government Printing Office. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011004.pdf.
Fletcher, J. M., & Lyon, G. R. (1998). Reading: A research-based approach. In W. M. Evers (Ed.), What’s gone wrong in America’s classrooms (pp. 49–90). Stanford: Hoover Institution Press.
Foegen, A., Jiban, C., & Deno, S. (2007). Progress monitoring measures in mathematics: A review of the literature. The Journal of Special Educaiton, 41(2), 121–139.
Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Maxwell, L. (1988). The validity of informal comprehension measures. Remedial and Special Education, 9, 20–28.
Gable, R. A., Hester, P. H., Rock, M. L., & Hughes, K. G. (2009). Back to basics: Rules, praise, ignoring, and reprimands revisited. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(4), 195–205.
Gibbons, K., & Silberglitt, B. (2008). Best practices in evaluation psychoeducational services based on student outcome data. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2103–2116). Bethesda: NASP Publications.
Gibson, C., & Jung, K. (2002). Historical census statistics on population totals by race, 1790 to 1990, and by hispanic origin, 1970 to 1990, for the United States, regions, divisions, and states. Washington, DC: US Census Bureau. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/popula-tion/www/documentation/twps0056/twps0056.html.
Goddard, Y. L., Goddard, R. D., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (2007). A theoretical and empirical investigation of teacher collaboration for school improvement and student achievement in public elementary schools. Teachers College Record, 109(4), 877–896.
Gonzalez, L., Stallone Brown, M., & Slate, J. R. (2008). Teachers who left the teaching profession: A qualitative understanding. The Qualitative Report, 13(1), 1–11.
Good, R. H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R. (2002). Best practice in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas & Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 679–699). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Good, R. G., & Kaminski, R. A. (2011). DIBELS next assessment manual. Eugene: Dynamic Measurement Group.
Good, R. G., Simmons, D. C., & Smith, S. (1998). The importance and decision-making utility of a continuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third-grade high-stakes outcomes. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 257–288.
Graden, J. L., Stollar, S. A., & Poth, R. L. (2007). The Ohio integrated systems model: Overview and lessons learned. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (pp. 288–299). New York: Springer.
Greenwood, C. R., Kratochwill, T. R., & Clements, M. (2008). Schoolwide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford Press.
Gresham, F. M., & Witt, J. C. (1997). Utility of intelligence tests for treatment planning, clas-sification, and placement decisions: Recent empirical findings and future directions. School Psychology Quarterly, 12(3), 249–267.
Griffin, J., & Hatterdorf, R. (2010). Successful RTI implementation in middle schools. Perspec-tives on Language and Literacy, 36(2), 30–34.
Griffiths, A., VanDerHeyden, A. M., Parson, L. B., & Burns, M. K. (2006). Practical applications of response-to-intervention research. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32(1), 50–57.
Griffiths, A., Parson, L. B., Burns, M. K., VanDerHeyden, A., & Tilly, W. D. (2007). Response to intervention: Research for practice. Alexandria: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.
Grissmer, D. W., & Nataraj Kirby, S. (1987). Teacher attrition: The uphill climb to staff the nation’s schools. Santa Monica: The RAND Corporation.
Gunter, P. L., Reffel, J., Barnett, C. A., Lee, J. L., & Patrick, J. (2004). Academic response rates in elementary-school classrooms. Education & Treatment of Children, 27(2), 105–113.
Haager, D., Klinger, J., & Vaughn, S. (2007). Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention. Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.
Hall, T. (2002). Explicit instruction. Wakefield: National Center on Accessing the General Curric-ulum. Retrieved from http://www.cast.org/publications/ncac/ncac_explicit.html.
Harlacher, J. E., Nelson Walker, N. J., & Sanford, A. K. (2010). The “I” in RTI: Research-based factors for intensifying instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30–38.
Haring, N. G., Lovitt, T. C., Eaton, M. D., & Hansen, C. L. (1978). The fourth R: Research in the classroom. Columbus: Charles E. Merrill Publishing Co.
Harn, B. A., Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (2007). The nature and role of the third tier in a prevention model for kindergarten students. In D. Haager, J. Klinger, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 161–184). Baltimore: Brookes.
Hart, B., & Risley, R. T. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children. Baltimore: Brookes.
Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. Florence: Routledge.
Hattie, J., & Timperley, H. (2007). The power of feedback. Review of Education Research, 77(1), 81–112.
Hawken, L. S., Adolphson, S. L., Macleod, K. S., & Schumann, J. (2009). Secondary-tier inter-ventions and supports. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 395–420). New York: Springer.
Haydon, T., Conroy, M. A., Scott, T. M., Sindelar, P. T., Barber, B. R., & Orlando, A. (2010). A comparison of three types of opportunities to respond on student academic and social behav-iors. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 18(1), 27–40.
Haydon, T., Mancil, G. R., & Van Loan, C. (2009). Using opportunities to respond in a general education classroom: A case study. Education and Treatment of Children, 32(2), 267–278.
Hintze, J. M., & Conte, K. L. (1997). Oral reading fluency and authentic reading material: Crite-rion validity of the technical features of CBM survey-level assessment. School Psychology Review, 26(4), 535–553.
Hoagwood, K., & Johnson, J. (2003). School psychology: A public health framework I. From evidence-based practices to evidence-based policies. Journal of School Psychology, 41, 3–21.
Hock, M., & Mellard, D. (2005). Reading comprehension strategies for adult literacy outcomes. Journal of Adolescent & Adult Literacy, 49(3), 182–200.
Horner, R. H., Sugai, G., Todd, A. W., & Lewis-Palmer, T. (2005) School-wide positive behavior support: An alternative approach to discipline in schools. In L. M. Bambara & L. Kern (Eds.), Individualized supports for students with problem behaviors (pp. 359–390). New York: Guilford Press.
Hosp, J. L. (2008). Best practices in aligning academic assessment with instruction. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 363–376). Bethesda: NASP Publications.
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2006). The ABCs of CBM. New York: The Guilford Press.
Hosp, M. K., & MacConnell, K. L. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation in early reading. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 377–396). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Howell, K. W. (2010). FAQs: Patterns of strengths and weaknesses instruction (Aptitude by treat-ment interaction). [Personal writing]. Retrieved from http://www.wce.wwu.edu/Depts/SPED/Forms/Resources%20and%20Readings/Learning%20Styles%20Instruction%204-2-10.pdf.
Howell, K. W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making. Belmont: Wadsworth.
Howell, K. W., Hosp, J. L., & Kurns, S. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-based evaluation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 349–362). Bethesda: NASP Publications.
Ikeda, M. J., Grimes, J., Tilly, W. D., III, Allison, R., Kurns, S., & Stumme, J. (2002). Implementing an intervention-based approach to service delivery: A case example. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavioral problems II: Preventative and remedial approaches (pp. 53–69). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Intervention Central. (n. d.). The instructional hierarchy: Linking stages of learning to effective instructional techniques. Retrieved from http://www.interventioncentral.org/academic-inter-ventions/general-academic/instructional-hierarchy-linking-stages-learning-effective-in.
Jenkins, J., & Larson, K. (1979). Evaluation of error-correction procedures for oral reading. Journal of Special Education, 13, 145–156.
Jenkins, J. R., Larson, K., & Fleisher, L. (1983). Effects of error correction on word recognition and reading comprehension. Learning Disability Quarterly, 6, 139–145.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. (2007). Handbook of response to interven-tion: The science and practice of assessment and intervention. New York: Springer.
Johnson, E. S., & Smith, L. (2008). Implementation of response to intervention at middle schools: Challenges and potential benefits. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(3), 46–52.
Johnston, P. H. (2011). Response to intervention in literacy. The Elementary School Journal, 111(4), 511–534.
Joseph, L. M. (2000). Using word boxes as a large group phonics approach in a first grade class-room. Reading Horizons, 41(2), 117–127.
Kaiser, A. (2011). Beginning teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the first through third waves of the 2007–08 beginning teacher longitudinal study. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2011/2011318.pdf.
Kame’enui, E. J., & Simmons, D. C. (1990). Designing instructional strategies: The prevention of learning problems. Columbus: Merrill Publishing Company.
Kaminski, R., Cummings, K. D., Powell-Smith, K. A., & Good, R. H. (2008). Best practices in using dynamic indicators or basic early literacy skills for formative assessment and evaluation. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1181–1204). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Kansas State Department of Education. (2011). Kansas multi-tier system of supports: Collab-orative team workbook reading. Topeka: Kansas MTSS Project, Kansas Technical Assistance System Network.
Kansas Multi-Tier System of Supports. (n. d.). Overview. Retrieved from http://www.kansasmtss.org.
Kaplan, R. M., & Saccuzzo, D. P. (2008). Psychological testing: Principles, applications, and issues. Belmont: Wadsworth Publishing.
Keigher, A. (2010). Teacher attrition and mobility: Results from the 2008–09 teacher follow-up survey. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Education Statis-tics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010353.pdf.
Kennedy, C. H. (2005). Single-case design for educational research. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.Kim, J. (2011). Relationships among and between ELL status, demographic characteristics,
enrollment history, and school persistence. Los Angeles: University of California, National Center for Research on Evaluation, Standards, and Student Testing (CRESST). Retrieved from http://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/reports/R810.pdf.
Kingston, N., & Nash, B. (2011). Formative assessment: A meta-analysis and call for research. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 30(4), 28–37.
Klinger, J. K. (2004). Assessing reading comprehension. Assessment for Effective Intervnetion, 29, 59–70. doi: 10.1177/073724770402900408.
Kuhn, M. R., & Stahl, S. A. (2003). Fluency: A review of developmental and remedial practices. Journal of Educational Psychology, 95(1), 3–21.
Lafferty, A. E., Gray, S., & Wilcox, M. J. (2005). Teaching alphabetic knowledge to pre-school chil-dren with developmental language delay and typical language development. Child Language Teaching and Therapy, 21(3), 263–277. doi: 10.1191=0265659005ct292oa.
Lague, K. M., & Wilson, K. (2010). Using peer tutors to improve reading comprehension. Kappa Delta Pi, 46(4), 182–186.
Landers, E., Alter, P., & Servilio, K. (2008). Students’ Challenging Behavior and Teachers’ Job Satisfaction. Beyond Behavior, 18(1), 26–33.
Lemke, M., Sen, A., Pahlke, E., Partelow, L., Miller, D., Williams, T., et al. (2004). International outcomes of learning in mathematics literacy and problem solving: PISA 2003 results from the U.S. perspective. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, National Center for Educa-tion Statistics.
Lenz, B. K., & Hughes, C. A. (1990). A word identification strategy for adolescents with learning disabilities. Journal of Learning Disabilites, 23(3), 149–163. doi: 10.1177/002221949002300304.
LeVasseur, V. M., Macaruso, P., & Shankweiler, D. (2008). Promoting gains in reading fluency: A comparision of three approaches. Reading and Writing: An Interdisciplinary Journal, 21(3), 205–230.
Liff Manz, S. (2002). A strategy for previewing textbooks: Teaching reads to become THIEVES. The Reading Teacher, 55(5), 434–435.
Lo, Y., Cooke, N. L., & Starling, A. L. (2011). Using a repeated reading program to improve generalization of oral reading fluency. Education and Treatment of Children, 34(1), 115–140.
Lovelace, S., & Stewart, S. R. (2007). Increasing print awareness in preschoolers with language impairment using non-evocative print referencing. Language, Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools, 38, 16–30. doi: 0161-1461/06/3801-0016.
Malone, R. A., & McLaughlin, T. F. (1997). The effects of reciprocal peer tutoring with a group contingency on quiz performance in vocabulary with seventh- and eighth-grade students. Behavioral Interventions, 12, 27–40.
Mandinach, E. B. (2012). A perfect time for data use: Using data-driven decision making to inform practice. Educational Psychologist, 47(2), 71–85.
Marchand-Martella, N. E., Ruby, S. F., & Martella, R. C. (2007). Intensifying reading instruction for students within a three-tier model: Standard-protocol and problem solving approaches within a Response-to-Intervention (RTI) system. Teaching Exceptional Children Plus, 3(5). Retrieved from http://journals.cec.sped.org/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1313&context = tecplus
Marzano, R. J. (2010). Formative assessment and standards-based grading. Bloomington: Marzano Research Laboratory.
Marzano, R. J., & Pickering, D. J. (2005). Building academic vocabulary: Teacher’s manual. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Maslanka, P., & Joseph, L. M. (2002). A comparison of two phonological awareness tech-niques between samples of preschool children. Reading Psychology, 23(4), 271–288. doi:10.1080/713775284.
McCandliss, B., Beck, I. L., Sandak, R., & Perfetti, C. (2003). Focusing attention on decoding for children with poor reading skills: Design and preliminary tests of the word building interven-tion. Scientific Studies of Reading, 71(1), 75–104. doi: 10.1207/S1532799XSSR0701_05.
McCarthy, P. A. (2008). Using sound boxes systematically to develop phonemic awareness. The Reading Teacher, 62(4), 346–349. doi: 10.1598/RT.62.4.7.
McCurdy, B. L., Mannella, M. C., & Norris, E. (2003). Positive behavior support in urban schools: Can we prevent the escalation of antisocial behavior? Journal of Positive Behavior Interven-tions, 5(3), 158–170.
McDonald Connor, S., Piasta, S. B., Fishman, B., Glasney, S., Schatschneider, C., Crowe, E., et al., (2009). Individualizing student instruction precisely: Effects of child x instruction interactions on first graders׳ literacy development. Child Development, 80(1), 77–100.
McIntosh, K., Goodman, S., & Bohanon, H. (2010). Toward true integration of academic and behavior response to interventions systems: Part one: Tier 1 support. Communiqué, 39(2), 1, 14–16.
McIntosh, K., Horner, R. H., Chard, D. J., Boland, J. B., & Good, R. G. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: A longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275–291.
McGlinchey, M. T., & Hixson, M. D. (2004). Using curriculum-based measurement to predict performance on state assessment in reading. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 193–203.
Merrell, K. W., Ervin, R. A., & Gimpel, G. A. (2006). School psychology for the 21st century. New York: The Guildford Press.
Miura Wayman, M., Wallace, T., Ives Wiley, H., Tichá, R., & Espin, C. A. (2007). Literature synthesis on curriculum-based measurement in reading. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 85–120.
Moats, L. (1999). Teaching reading IS rocket science: What expert teachers of reading should know and be able to do. American Federation of teachers. Retrieved from http://www.louisa-moats.com/Assets/Reading.is.Rocket.Science.pdf.
Musti-Roo, S., Hawkins, R. O., & Barkley, E. A. (2009). Effects of repeated readings on the oral reading fluency of urban-fourth grade students: Implications for practice. Preventing School Failure, 54(1), 12–23.
Meyer, L. A. (1982). The relative effects of word-analysis and word-supply correction procedures with poor readers during word-attack training. Reading Research Quarterly, 4, 544–555.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE). (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria: Author.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011a). Reading 2011: National assessment of educa-tional progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012457.pdf.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011b). Math 2011: National assessment of educa-tional progress at grades 4 and 8. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/nationsreportcard/pdf/main2011/2012458.pdf.
National Center for Educational Statistics. (2011c). Digest of education statistics: 2011. Wash-ington, DC: US Department of Education, Institute for Education Services, US Department of Education. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d11.
National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHHD). (2000). Report of the national reading panel. Teaching children to read: an evidence-based assessment of the scien-tific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction. Retrieved from http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.htm.
National Research Council. (2000). How people learn: Brain, mind, experience, and school. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Nelson, J. M., & Machek, G. R. (2007). A survey of training, practice, and competence in reading assessment and intervention. School Psychology Review, 36(2), 311–327.
Netzel, D. M., & Eber, L. (2003). Shifting from reactive to proactive discipline in an urban school district: A change of focus through PBIS implementation. Journal of Positive Behavior Inter-ventions, 5(2), 71–79.
Newmann, F. M., Smith, B., Allensworth, E., & Bryk, A. S. (2001). Instructional program coher-ence: What it is and why it should guide school improvement. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 23(4), 297–321. doi: 10.3102/01623737023004297.
Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP). (2011). 30th annual report to congress on the implementation of the individuals with disabilities education act, 2008. Washington, DC: US Department of Education, Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services, Office of Special Education Programs.
Organisation for Economic Co-Operation and Development (OECD). (2001). Knowledge and skills for life: First results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assess-ment (PISA) 2000. OECD. Retrieved from http://www.oecd.org/edu/preschoolandschool/programme forinternationalstudentassessmentpisa/33691596.pdf.
Ortiz, S. O., Flanagan, D. P., & Dynda, A. M. (2008). Best practices in working with cultur-ally diverse children and families. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 1721–1738). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Pashler, H., McDaniel, M., Rohrer, D., & Bjork, R. (2005). Learning styles: Concepts and evidence. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 9(3), 105–119.
Pearson, Inc. (2012a). AIMSweb: Test of early literacy administration and scoring guide. Bloom-ington: NCS Pearson, Inc. Retrieved from http://www.aimsweb.com/wp-content/uploads/TEL_Admin_Scoring-Guide_2.0.pdf.
Pearson, Inc. (2012b). AIMSweb: Progress monitoring guide. Bloomington: NCS Pearson, Inc.Perfetti, C., & Adlof, S. M. (2012). Reading comprehension: A conceptual framework from
word meaning to text meaning. In J. Sabatini, E. Albro, & T. O’Reilly (Eds.), Measuring up: Advances in how we assess reading ability. Lanham: R & L Education.
Peshak George, H., Kincaid, D., & Pollard-Sage, J. (2009). Primary-tier interventions and supports. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 375–394). New York: Springer.
Pyle, N., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Remediating reading difficulties in a response to intervention model with secondary students. Psychology in the Schools, 49(3), 273–284. doi: 10.1002/pits.
Partnership for Reading. (2001). Fluency: An introduction. Retrieved from http://www.readin-grockets.org/article/3415.
Phillips, B. M., Clancy-Menchetti, J., & Lonigan, C. J. (2008). Successful phonological awareness instruction with preschool children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 28(1), 3–17. doi: 10.117/0271121407313813.
Rasinski, T. V. (1994). Developing syntactic sensitivity in reading through phrase-cued texts. Intervention in School and Clinic, 29, 165–168. doi: 10.1177/105345129402900307.
Rathvon, N. (2008). Effective school interventions (2nd ed.). New York: The Guilford Press.Reitsma, P. (1983). Printed word learning in beginning readers. Journal of Experimental Child
Psychology, 36, 321–339.Reschly, D. J. (2008). School psychology paradigm shift and beyond. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes
(Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 3–15). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Restori, A. F., Gresham, F. M., & Cook, C. R. (2008). Old habits die hard: Past and current issues pertaining to Response-to-Intervention. The California School Psychologist, 13, 67–78.
Rhodes, R., Ochoa, S. H., & Ortiz, S. O. (2005). Comprehensive assessment of culturally and linguistically diverse students: A practical approach. New York: Guilford.
Rolison, M. A., & Medway, F. J. (1985). Teachers' expectations and attributions for student achievement: Effects of label, performance pattern, and special education intervention. Amer-ican Educational Research Journal, 22(4), 561–573.
Sáenz, L. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Peer-assisted learning strategies for English language learners with learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 71(3), 231–247.
Samson, J. F., & Lesaux, N. K. (2009). Language-minority learners in special education: Rates and predictors of identification for services. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(2), 148–162.
Schmoker, M. J. (2006). Results now: How we can achieve unprecedented improvement in teaching and learning. Alexandria: Association for Supervision & Curriculum Development.
Scott, T. M., Anderson, C., Mancil, R., & Alter, P. (2009). Function-based supports for individual students in school settings. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 421–442). New York: Springer.
Shapiro, E. S. (2008). Best practices in setting progress monitoring goals for academic skill improvement. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 141–158). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Shinn, M. R. (2002a). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 671–697). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Shinn, M. R. (2002b). AIMSweb training workbook: Strategies for writing individualized goals in general curriculum and more frequent formative evaluation. Eden Prairie: Edformation, Inc.
Shinn, M. R. (2008). Best practices in curriculum-based measurement and its use in a problem-solving model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 243–262). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2002). AIMSweb training workbook. Administration and scoring of reading curriculum-based measurement (R-CBM) in general outcome measurement. Eden Prairie: Edformation Inc. Retrieved from http://aimsweb.com/uploads/pdfs/Manuals/RCBM%20Manual.pdf.
Silberglitt, B., Burns, M. K., Madyun, N. H., & Lail, K. E. (2006). Relationship of reading fluency assessment data with state accountability test scores: A longitudinal comparison of grade levels. Psychology in the Schools, 43(5), 527–535. doi: 10.1002/pits.20175.
Silberglitt, B., & Hintze, J. M. (2007). How much growth can we expect? A conditional analysis of R-CBM growth rates by level of performance. Exceptional Children, 74, 71–84.
Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., & Sugai, G. (2006). Positive behavior support classroom management: Self-assessment revised. OSEP Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support. US Office of Special Education Programs.
Simonsen, B., Myers, D., & DeLuca, C. (2010). Teaching teachers to use prompts, opportunities to respond, and specific praise. Teacher Education and Special Education, 33(4), 300–318. doi: 10.1177/0888406409359905.
Singh, N. N. (1990). Effects of two error-correction procedures on oral reading errors. Behavior Modiciation, 14(2), 188–199.
Singh, N. N., & Singh, J. (1986). Increasing oral reading proficiency. Behavior Modification, 10(1), 115–130.
Stecker, P. M., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2005). Using curriculum-based measurement to improve student achievement: Review of research. Psychology in the Schools, 42(8), 795–819.
Stichter, J. P., Lewis, T. J., Whittaker, T., Richter, M., Johnson, N. & Trussel, R. (2009). Assessing teacher use of opportunities to respond and effective classroom management strategies within inclusive classrooms: Comparisons among high and low risk elementary schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 11, 68–81.
Stiggins, R., & Chappuis, J. (2006). What a difference a word makes. Assessment for learning rather than assessment of learning helps students succeed. Journal of Staff Development, 27(1), 10–14.
Stiggins, R., & DuFour, R. (2009). Maximizing the power of formative assessments. Phi Delta Kappan, 90(9), 640–644.
Stuebing, K. K., Barth, A. E., Molfese, P. J., Weiss, B. & Fletcher, J. M. (2009). IQ is not strongly related to response to reading instruction: A meta-analytic interpretation. Exceptional Children, 76(1), 31–51.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school-wide positive behavior support. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.
Sugai, G., & Horner, R. (2009). Defining and describing schoolwide positive behavior support. In W. Sailor, G. Dunlap, G. Sugai, & R. Horner (Eds.), Handbook of positive behavior support (pp. 307–326). New York: Springer.
Sullivan, A. L. (2011). Disproportionality in special education identification and placement of English language learners. Exceptional Children, 77(3), 317–334.
Sutherland, K., Alder, N., & Gunter, P. L. (2003). The effect of varying rates of opportunities to respond to academic requests on the classroom behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 11, 239–248.
Sutherland, K. S., Wehby, J. H., & Copeland, S. R. (2000). Effect of varying rates of behavior-specific praise on the on-task behavior of students with EBD. Journal of Emotional and Behav-ioral Disorders, 8(1), 2–8.
Taylor-Greene, S., Brown, D., Nelson, L., Longton, J., Gassman, Cohen, J., et al. (1997). School-wide behavioral support: Starting the year off right. Journal of Behavior Education, 7(1), 99–112.
Therrien, W. J. (2004). Fluency and comprehension gains as a result of repeated reading. Remedial and Special Education, 25(4), 252–261.
Therrien, W. J., Kirk, J. F., Woods-Groves, S. (2012). Comparison of a reading fluency interven-tion with and without passage repetition on reading achievement. Remedial and Special Educa-tion, 33(5), 309–319.
Thorndike, R. M., & Thorndike-Christ, T. (2010). Measurement and evaluation in psychology and education (8th ed). New York: Pearson.
Tilly, W. D., III. (2008). The evolution of school psychology to science-based practice: Problem-solving and the three-tiered model. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 17–35). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Tomlinson, C. A., & Britt, S. (2012). Common core standards: Where does differentiation fit? Webinar available at www.ascd.org/professional-development/webinars/tomlinson-and-britt-webinar.aspx.
Torgesen, J. K. (2000). Individual differences in response to early interventions in reading: The lingering problem of treatment resisters. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 15(1), 55–64.
Treptow, M. A., Burns, M. K., & McComas, J. J. (2007). Reading at the frustration, instructional, and independent levels: Effects on student time on task and comprehension. School Psychology Review, 36, 159–166.
UNICEF. (2002). A league table of educational disadvantage in rich nations, Innocenti Report Card No.4. Florence: UNICEF Innocenti Research Centre.
US Census Bureau. (2011a). Overview of race and hispanic origin: 2010. US department of commerce, economics and statistics administration. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/prod/cen2010/briefs/c2010br-02.pdf.
US Census Bureau. (2011b). Living arrangements of children: 2009. US department of commerce, economics and statistics administration. Retrieved from https://www.census.gov/prod/2011pubs/p70-126.pdf.
US Department of Education. (2012). Digest of education statistics, 2011. National center for education statistics. Retrieved from http://nces.ed.gov/fastfacts/display.asp?id=64.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C. (2008). Best practices in can’t do/won’t do assessment. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 131–140). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
VanDerHeyden, A. M., Witt, J. C., & Gilbertson, D. (2007). A multi-year evaluation of the effects of a response to intervention (RTI) model on identification of children for special education. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 225–256.
Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., et al. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 39(1), 2–21.
Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J. (2010). Thoughts on rethinking response to intervention with secondary students. School Psychology Review, 39(2), 296–299.
Vaughn, S., & Kettman Klinger, S. (1999). Teaching reading comprehension through collaborative strategic reading. Intervention in School and Clinic, 34(5), 284–292.
Vaughn, S., & Linan-Thompson, A. (2004). Research-based methods of reading instruction. Grades K-3. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Exceptional Children, 69(4), 391–409.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J. S., & Murray, G. (2012). Intensive interventions for students strugging in reading and mathematics: A practice guide. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.
Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., Woodruff, A. L., & Linan-Thompson, S. (2007). Prevention and early identification of students with reading disabilities. In D. Haager, J. Klinger, & S. Vaughn (Eds.), Evidence-based reading practices for response to intervention (pp. 11–27). Baltimore: Brookes.
Viadero, D. (2011, October 19 ). Dropouts: Trends in high school dropout and completion rates in the United States: 1972–2009. Education Week, 31(8), 4.
Walpole, S., & McKenna, M. C. (2007). Differentiated reading instruction: Strategies for the primary grades. New York: The Guilford Press.
Walsh, K., Glaser, D., & Dunne Wilcox, D. (2006). What education schools aren’t teaching about reading and what elementary teachers aren't learning. National Council on Teacher Quality (NCTQ).
Watkins, C. L., & Slocum, T. A. (2004). The components of direct instruction. Journal of Direct Instruction, 3, 75–110.
White, R. B., Polly, D., & Audette, R. H. (2012). A case analysis of an elementary school’s imple-mentation of response to intervention. Journal of Research in Childhood Education, 26, 73–90.
Wilkinson, L. A. (2006). Monitoring treatment integrity: An alternative to the ‘consult and hope’ strategy in school-based behavioural consultation. School Psychology International, 27(4), 426–438. doi: 10.1177/0143034306070428.
Wolfe, I. S. (2005). Fifty percent of new teachers leave in five years. The Total View. Retrieved from http://www.super-solutions.com/teachershortages.asp#axzz1NE7Bf2gA.
Wolery, M. (2011). Intervention research: The importance of fidelity measurement. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 31(3), 155–157.
Wong, H. K., & Wong, R. T. (2001). The first days of school: How to be an effective teacher. Mountain View: Harry K. Wong Publications.
Woodcock, S., Vialle, W. (2011). Are we exacerbating students’ learning disabilities? An investiga-tion of preservice teachers’ attributions of the educational outcomes of students with learning disabilities. Annuals of Dyslexia, 61, 223–241. doi: 10.1007/s11811-011-0058-9.
Yates, H. M., & Collins, V. K. (2006). How on school made the pieces fit. Journal of Staff Develop-ment, 27(4), 30–35.
Yell, M. L., & Stecker, P. M. (2003). Developing legally correct and educationally meaningful IEPs, using curriculum-based measurement. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 28, 73–88. doi: 10.1177/073724770302800308.
Yoon, K. S., Duncan, T., Lee, S. W. Y., Scarloss, B., & Shapley, K. (2007). Reviewing the evidence on how teacher professional development affects student achievement. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Eval-uation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/edlabs.
Ysseldyke, J., & Christenson, S. L. (1988). Linking assessment to intervention. In J. L. Graden, J. E. Zins, & M. J. Curtis (Eds.), Alternative educational delivery systems: Enhancing instruc-tional options for all students (pp. 91–110). Washington: National Association of School Psychologists.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M. K., Scholin, S. E., & Parker, D. C. (2010). Instructionally valid assess-ment within response to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(4), 54–61.
Zhang, D., & Katsiyannis, A. (2002). Minority representation in special education: A persistent challenge. Remedial and Special Education, 23(3), 180–187.
adjustments to 18align curriculum and 29and assessment 38and independent reading 270and level of support 41and practices in schools 13assessment and 44change in 249, 253context and vocabulary 208core 41corresponding level of 19direct 97, 147effective fluency 94
focus and amount of 52focus of 254formal and informal 202general 146general reading 90, 141guided 148guided practice and 92pacing of 50small-group 148, 263supplemental 261targeted for 33targeted to correct errors 96, 97targeting 86, 88teacher plan 266to students and 256whole-class direct 256
data-based decision making, use 29evidence-based practices, use 28instructional match 29preventative approach to education 27proactive approach to education 27school wide use and collaboration 29
