Response to Intervention

RTI3.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Response to Intervention

Instruction and Student Outcomes

Middle school represents a major transi- tion in a student's academic career. For most students, it means changing schools, adjusting to a longer school day, changing teachers for content courses, and meeting demands of more complex assignments requiring inde- pendent learning and critical thinking skills. Given these challenges, the fact that many students require additional support to experience academic success in middle school is not surprising. For a variety of reasons, such as existing learning difficulties, increased academic demands, language proficiency, and transience, early interventions to sup- port success in middle school are rou- tinely needed for an increasingly large and diverse population of students.

Well-documented, research-based interventions are available for middle school students, but one problem that limits their effective implementation is the lack of a schoolwide process through which to do so. The result is a haphazard approach to intervention, with no coordination across classrooms and limited information on efficacy. Providing interventions in an effective

Implemeniatioii of Response to Intervention

at Middle School Challenges and

Potential Benefits Evelyn Sue Johnson and Lori Smith

manner—one that responds to individ- ual student needs and supports progress in the general curriculum—poses signif- icant challenges at the middle school level.

A Middle School Responso- to-lnterveiition Model One model that can help middle school educators provide an effective system of instruction and early intervention is response to intervention (RTI). RTI is a schoolwide process that integrates instruction, intervention, and assess- ment. The alignment of instruction, assessment, and interventions promotes a stronger, more cohesive program of instruction that ulthnately can result in higher student achievement (Mellard & Johnson, 2008).

The recent focus in the literature and related policy initiatives on RTI presents a welcome opportunity to structure a more comprehensive and integrated approach to instruction and interven- tion for all students. RTI is proposed as a valuable model for educators because of its potential utihty in the provision of appropriate learning experiences for all students as well as in the early identifi- cation of students as being at risk for academic failure. As described in the lit- erature (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005; Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, & McKnight, 2006), a

strong RTI process includes the follow- ing crucial features:

• High-quality, scientifically based classroom instruction.

• Schoolwide screening of academics and behavior.

• Progress monitoring of student per- formance.

• Implementation of research-based interventions at all tiers.

• Fidelity checks on implementation.

RTI models continue to be researched and implemented in elementary school settings. Although state agencies and practitioners conceptually embrace the RTI concept for older students as well, scant research and few, if any, RTI mod- els appropriate for secondary school set- tings exist. The need for successful mod- els of RT! implementation at the middle school level is great, because middle school represents a crucial point in a stu- dent's academic career, laying the foun- dation for successful completion of high school (Morris. Fhren & Lenz, 1991). Middle and high school students deal with a demanding curriculum no longer focused on the acquisition of basic skills; rather they must rely on those basic skills for acquiring content knowl- edge (Deshler, Hock & Catts, 2006; Deshler & Schumaker, 2006; Swanson, 2001). Intervention models can support

46 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

students who struggle with these demands.

One challenge for successful imple- mentation of RTI at the middle school level is that much of the hterature on the RTI process tends to support the use of standard protocol approaches (Fuchs. Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003); that is. evidenced-based, standard interven- tions with specified materials and pro- cedures. But many standard interven- tion protocols are geared toward the early grades, with few secondary-level interventions having the same level of scientific base on which to support their use. Alternative approaches to interven- tion in an RTI framework include a problem-solving model (Kovaleski, 2003), in which school teams collect and analyze individual student data, and then develop plans for related inter- ventions based on the individual stu- dent needs (Fuchs et al.}. Although this approach is familiar to many educators in that it mirrors current student-study teams, evidence is lacking that such approaches lead to improved student outcomes (Fuchs et al.). This gap between the emerging research and classroom practice requires middle schools to draw on existing information across several bodies of literature to develop an RTI model that conforms with the general characteristics of effec- tive RTI and with the specific challenges of the school. In this article, we describe one middle school's approach to devel- oping an RTI model, using the existing literature as a framework for presenting the implementation process and evalu- ating areas in which improvement and continued attention will be needed for success.

Starting the Process of RTI Implementation Cheyenne Mountain Junior High School teachers began implementation of the RTI process during the 2006 to 2007 school year. The school population is 84% Caucasian, 8% Hispanic, 5% Asian, and 2% African American. Ten percent of the students are Enghsh lan- guage learners, 5% of the students receive special education services, and 8% qualify for free or reduced-price lunch programs. TWenty percent of the

population comes from "out of district," and a growing number of students are being retained in seventh and eighth grades. The increase in the "out of dis- trict" popuiation has been a result of declining enrollments within the imme- diate community and has increased the diversity of both the ethnic and socioe- conomic demographics of the school. As the school population continues to change, Cheyenne Mountain educators realized their need for a schoolwide process to improve the instructional and intervention system for their students.

. . . many standard intervention protocols are geared toward the early

grades, with few secondary-level interventions having the same level

of scientific base on which to support their use.

The school's existing approach to schoolwide behavioral support, mod- eled on the Positive Behavior Support model (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002), provided a strong foundation for the decision to use a problem-solving approach. The proactive stance of posi- tive behavior support helped the educa- tors make the needed paradigm shift to a tiered model of service delivery. Because the school already relied on problem-solving teams for individual students in need of more intense behav- ior supports, that approach was expand- ed to include meeting the academic needs of the students. After reviewing the existing literature on RTI, the first decision the educators made was to expand the current problem-solving approach for planning and implement- ing interventions. The problem-solving approach to RTI was chosen over the standard-protocol approach because of the current lack of standard protocols for middle school students. However, an all-school goal is to create a bank of interventions to address individual stu- dents' academic needs, as well as to support success in the general curricu- lum. In effect, the problem-solving approach was chosen initially, with a

goal of expanding the use of standard protocols that the teachers could later draw on to match an intervention with an individual student's specific needs.

An overview of the school's tiered- service-delivery model is depicted in Figure 1. As is shown, a proactive approach to both behavior and academ- ics is applied through the focus on pos- itive behavior support, schoolwide dis- cipline, and the use of differentiated instruction. Students are screened for academic and behavioral concerns, and this assessment information is compiled for the school's problem-solving team (PST) to review. The school expanded its existing problem-solving-team approach for behavioral concerns to also address academic concerns. The PST then recommends appropriate interventions and supports for the stu- dent of concern; the student's progress with these supports is monitored; and decisions to continue, modify or with- draw the intervention are made accord- ingly. Each of these steps is explained in more detail below.

Her 11 Instruction in the General Classroom One of the main advantages of an RTI model is its emphasis on ensuring appropriate learning opportunities for all students, beginning in the genera! education classroom. The system of screening and progress monitoring, con- tained within an iterative process of data collection, analysis, and decision making, supports a proactive approach to ensuring academic success (Mellard & Johnson, 2008). Therefore, one of the first areas reviewed was the general education instruction provided to stu- dents. Under tiered models of service delivery, 80% to 85% of the general population should be successful at the first tier of intervention (Vaughn, 2003), with no need of further intervention if the instruction is effective.

To determine the effectiveness of instruction at Cheyenne Mountain. schoolwide state testing scores were reviewed in reading, mathematics, sci- ence, and writing, indicating that at least 80% of the students were meeting standards (Colorado Student Assess- ment Program, Summary Report,

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • JAN/FEB 2008 • 47

Figure 1. Academic and Behavieral TIered-Servlce-Deltvery Medel In Use at Cheyenne Mountain Junior High School

Student movement through tiers is guided through the use of problem- solving teams' review of student data.

Tier 1 : Evidence-based instruction, positive behavioral support, accommodations

/ Tier 2: Research-based interventions, literacy lab, "layered" instruction to include Tier 1 supports, peer tutoring, writing lab

/ Tier 3: Specially designed instruction, intense interventions to support student needs, life-skills curriculum, functional behavior analysis (FBA) with support plan

2005-2006, pp. 1-7J. However, obser- vations of practice as well as dialogue in departmental professional learning communities [DuFour & Eaker. 1998) found that the use of differentiation in instruction was one practice that could be improved, especially given the con- cerns of an increasingly diverse popula- tion of students. Additionally, the jun- ior high school had more than 120 iden- tified highly capable students who were not receiving any enrichment or enhancement in their homework, assessments, or direct instruction. Also, no supports were employed for stu- dents with learning difficulties within the general classroom, even though the school follows an inclusion model for serving students in special education. A school-level goal for improving the gen- eral education instruction was to pro- vide professional development in differ- entiation and to establish timelines for implementation through the use of departmental professional learning communities.

At the end of the first year of imple- mentation, the importance of differenti- ating instruction within each classroom has been reahzed. By focusing profes- sional development on ways to differen- tiate, teachers have developed a greater knowledge of and ability to apply such sU"ategies. For example, the English department has begun to provide a

range of options for book reports to include essays, scrapbooks, newspa- pers, or video production so that stu- dents can demonstrate their under- standing of literary elements without relying completely on writing skills. Student completion of these projects increased substantially as a result of being offered such choices. Within the social studies department, teachers have begun using unit preassessments based on unit essential questions. Through this process, they are able to determine appropriate placement of stu- dents within a range of activities, inter- ests, and goals for the specific lesson. Assessment continues throughout the lesson to modify instruction and allow for flexible grouping. This formative assessment is based on numerous observations, including the use of click- ers by students to indicate when they have not comprehended material. The most beneficial aspect of the increased focus on differentiation has been the teachers' heightened awareness that dif- ferent types of learners are present with- in each classroom and that instruction can be designed in numerous ways to meet their needs.

Universal Screening

At the time of developing the RTI model, Cheyenne Mountain Junior High had no system for universal screening in

the essential academic areas. Instead, students with potential learning prob- lems were identified through teacher referrals, parental concerns, or perform- ance on state tests, none of which sup- ported efforts for early intervention. As a school, the goal of implementing cur- riculum-based assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics, and estab- hshing a process by which data on stu- dent performance could be collected, reviewed, and analyzed several times during the academic year, was set. A screening schedule of fall, winter, and spring allowed for targeting students in the beginning of the school year to pro- vide interventions early, as well as for monitoring students who were initially successful but then became over- whelmed by shifting demands later in the school year. The spring assessments provide information on students who might require intervention through summer intervention programs, as well as targets students for early intervention in the subsequent academic year.

In reading, the school used the diag- nostic assessment of reading (DAR) to screen for students at risk. Performance on this assessment is provided in grade- level equivalents. Students who perform at the fifth-grade equivalent or below are referred for targeted intervention (explained in the next section). Procedures and decision rules for target-

48 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

ing students who are below grade-level equivalent but not significantly below (e.g., an eighth grader reading at a sixth- grade equivalent) are being developed. For mathematics, Cheyenne Mountain Junior High is using the Performance Series assessments (Scantron, 2007) to provide information on student abilities on various mathematics skills. The school is working on developing deci- sion rules for targeting students for inter- vention. The information received from the Performance Series assessment will provide one source of data to guide those decisions. Students at risk for writ- ing problems are identified using state test scores from the previous year and an introductory paragraph assessment con- ducted by English teachers.

The screening data are then compiled on a student data sheet tsee Figure 2] that also includes teacher narratives and comments about the student's academic performance and behavior Student per- formance and data are collected on these sheets and submitted to the PST for review at momhly meetings. The imple- mentation of effective screening tools remains an area of continued review for the school, identification rates for inter- vention and the subsequent outcomes will continue to guide the refinement of screening instruments.

Her 2t Interventions In an RTI framework, interventions for students who are not successful in the general classroom are provided at Tier 2. This level is designed for students who do not achieve to grade-level stan- dards when provided with generally effective Tier I instruction, interven- tions in Tier 2 are intended to be target- ed to a specific academic skill, provided for a limited duration (between 8 and 12 weeks), and delivered in small groups, with regular progress monitoring to determine the effect of the intervention (Vaughn. 2003).

At Cheyenne Mountain, the existing resources to provide interventions are limited. Therefore, in initial stages of RTI implementation, reading was the primary focus given its impact across the curriculum. Additionally, on the basis of research on layered interven- tions (McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, &

Compton, 2005), the school adopted a model of intervention that included enhanced instruction (through differen- tiation and the use of accommodations) and schooiwide instruction on study skills within the general education classroom, combined with targeted small-group intervention for students at risk. Thus, a student in Tier 2 could receive accommodations and differenti- ated instruction combined with school- wide interventions within the general education setting.

For example, to support students with difficulties in reading, the school has a "literacy lab" elective. All students at Cheyenne Mountain have two elec- tive courses, during which they might take music, art, or a foreign language. Students identified for interventions and their parents are asked to use one of those elective times to enroll in the lit- eracy lab. Under the supervision of the school's reading specialist, the literacy lab uses the Language! (Greene, 1999) program and other supported reading opportunities to increase students' read- ing achievement. These students also receive such accommodations as advanced organizers in the general edu- cation class to support their reading comprehension as they continue to increase their reading ability.

Resources to support writing and mathematics were more restricted at Cheyenne Mountain and remain limit- ed. Goals for developing writing and mathematics labs to support the needs of students at risk for underachievement have been established. Interventions in mathematics and writing will follow the layered approach adopted in reading, in which students receive support in a small-group intervention, as well as accompanying support to ensure their successful progress in the general class- room.

Overall, the school has worked at creating several Tier 2 interventions for recurring needs. One of the most effec- tive interventions developed at Cheyenne Mountain has been an after- school tutoring program in reading. Approximately 50% of the students enrolled in this program have made sig- nificant gains in their reading compre- hension and have improved their grades

substantially. On the basis of the suc- cess of this program, the RTI team rec- ommended developing an "access" peri- od at the end of the school day, during which students could access their teach- ers or other students to receive help on assignments, projects, and science labs. Without the staff's review of student progress in the tutoring intervention and subsequent dialogue, the develop- ment of this intervention would not have been possible.

Progress Monitoring

To determine whether students are ben- efiting from instruction and interven- tions, teachers must routinely collect and analyze evidence of performance. The data collected help teachers make informed subsequent instructional deci- sions at both the classroom and indi- vidual levels (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). For example, if many children in a class- room are not performing to benchmark standards, this outcome may indicate that the curriculum or instruction should be reviewed. If an individual student is not performing to standard, careful monitoring of that student's progress can help teachers devise effec- tive interventions to support his or her learning. Frequent assessments of the relevant skills provide data on which to base decisions, such as changing the instructional program or referring a stu- dent to another tier of intervention. This systematic process, known as progress monitoring, lies at the heart of the RTI model (Mellard & Johnson, 2008).

An essential feature absent from Cheyenne Mountain Junior High's exist- ing intervention process was the use of routine progress monitoring and data- based decision making. One final goal of the school is to identify appropriate measurements of student progress to determine whether an intervention has been effective for a particular student. As interventions with established effica- cy data are identified, the school can adopt procedures described in the liter- ature to measure their effectiveness and to implement interventions with exist- ing assessment tools. In the interim, teacher-developed assessments of stu- dent performance along with student

TEACHING ExcEFnoNAL CHILDREN • JAN/FEB 2008 • 49

Figuro 2. Ch«y*iino Mountain Junior High Studont Data Summary

Cheyenne Mountain Junior High Student Data Summary

This summary sheet is used to gather and review student data before the problem-solving-team meeting.

Student Name:

Grade:

Parents/Guardians:

Siblings:

HEALTH INFORMATION

Vision Assessment:

Significant Medical History:

Physical Health Concerns:

tf of visits to Nurse:

School History

Comments:

Friends:

ACADEMIC ASSESSMENTS

Age:

Date:

Primary Home Language: English

Address:

Hearing Assessment:

Comments:

Phone:

Reading SS Mathematics Other

CSAP: 6th ITBS: Yr/Sc. ITBS: Yr/Sc,

COGAT

DISCIPLINE HISTORY

Expulsions Suspensions Office Referrals Other

None Dates Describe Incidents

OUTSIDE AGENCIES Are any other agencies/practitioners providing services for the student/family?

STUDENT INPUT

What 1 do best in school:

How 1 get along with classmates/peers:

How I get along with teachers:

Areas I could use the most improvement:

Things that are most difficult for me at school:

The one thing I'd like to focus on to make me more successful:

What helps me learn best:

Other:

PARENT INPUT

Student's academic strengths:

Student's academic concerns:

Student's social/emotional/behavioral strengths:

Student's social/emotional/behavioral concerns:

Successful academic interventions used:

Successful social/emotional/behavioral interventions used:

Other relevant information:

TEACHER INPUT

Student's academic strengths:

Student's academic concerns:

Student's sociaJ/emotional/behavioral strengths:

Student's social/emotional/behavioral concerns:

Successful academic interventions:

Successful social/emotional interventions:

Other relevant information/Grades:

Suggested Assessments:

Suggested Classroom Interventions:

Other Pertinent Information:

Progress Monitoring:

50 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

work samples will be evaluated more routinely to determine student progress and guide decision making. Progress monitoring remains a focus for profes- sional development at the school.

Tior 3: Interventions In a three-tiered model of intervention. Tier 3 is generally synonymous with special education. One potential benefit of an RTI framework is that through early identification and intervention, the number of students requiring Tier 3 interventions will be reduced. A signifi- cant challenge of designing Tier 3 inter- ventions, however, is selecting interven- tions that go beyond those implemented at Tier 2 so as to truly address the indi- vidual needs of students.

Tier 3 proved to be the most chal- lenging to implement at Cheyenne Mountain Junior High School because its current service delivery model is based primarily on inclusion. To demonstrate one example of how Tier 3 is currently implemented at Cheyenne Mountain, we provide the foiiowing description. The implementation team identified a small number of students who failed to make progress after three months of intervention in Tiers 1 and 2. The parents of a student who failed to make progress despite being provided accommodations and being assigned to the literacy lab were asked to attend a meeting to discuss the student's progress, and the student was assigned to a study-skills course led by the spe- cial education teacher. By the end of 6 weeks, another meeting to review the student's progress was held, and togeth- er with the parents, the team concurred that the student was still not making adequate progress as demonstrated by student work and assessment data. Because this student also had behav- ioral concerns that seemed to interfere with his ability to achieve academically, the team decided to integrate behavior modification therapy in conjunction with the academic interventions to sup- port this student. This meeting occurred near the end of the school year, and the student will begin the next school year with the combination of interventions. Without the RTI framework, this stu- dent may have languished the entire

year in the general education class or a study skiiis class that was not effective in meeting his specific needs.

A significant challenge of designing Tier 3 interventions, however, is

selecting interventions that go

beyond those implemented at Tier 2 so as to truly address the

individual needs of students.

Other examples of current approach- es to Tier 3 at Cheyenne Mountain include the provision of a life-skills cur- riculum offered for students with mod- erate to severe disabilities. Although these students are included within the general education program for a majori- ty of the day, these students require a curriculum that fosters the skills needed to perform such activities as seif-care, community access, and work skills. In this regard. Tier 3 is designed to provide individualized instruction to meet the needs of students with more severe cog- nitive limitations.

Conclusions At the end of the first year of imple- mentation of RTI, Cheyenne Mountain has realized significant improvements in many areas. First, the systematic process of collecting evidence and eval- uating performance at all levels of instruction has been invaluable in focusing efforts on improved instruction and interventions for students. Without the implementation of RTI and the focus on developing a professional learning community, the school would not have seen the concerted effort on implement- ing such instructional practices as dif- ferentiation across the entire school. At best, one or two teachers may have attempted its implementation. In addi- tion, the review and analysis of inter- ventions to target common academic concerns allows the school to use resources more efficiently and see greater student progress and a reduction in the referrals to speciai education services. Second, the implementation of screening and progress-monitoring

tools, although still in its infancy, pro- vides an objective means of eariy iden- tification of student needs. Early identi- fication is important given the shift in student demographics and the need to maintain an objective and nondiscrimi- natory system of screening for academ- ic and behavior problems (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Finally, the information that is collected on individual students, which includes a consistent description of the instruction and interventions attempted along with the student's response to such intervention, provided the implementation team with a more substantial and organized method of communicating concerns with parents and working in conjunction with them to address student concerns.

Along with these benefits, the Cheyenne Mountain team has identified several challenges that will focus efforts in subsequent years of implementation. For example, as schools consider imple- mentation of RTI, a primary concern will be the cost of implementation to individual schools that must meet the increasing demands of numerous underfunded policy initiatives, an in- creasingly diverse student population, and increasing high stakes attached to performance on state assessments. Cheyenne Mountain Junior High began the process of implementation without any additional funding allocation. However, after the first year, a realloca- tion of funding will be necessary to sup- port professional development to enhance Tier 1 and Tier 2 instruction and interventions, as well as related screening and progress-monitoring tools. The Cheyenne Mountain team has out- lined the following areas as priorities as the school continues to improve its RTI approach:

• Develop a standard protocol "bank" of interventions for both academic and behavioral concerns.

• Identify and educate staff on meth- ods of differentiating instruction, with a stronger focus on curriculum- based measurement (CBM) and on preassessment and postassessment strategies to monitor student pro- gress.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • JAN/FEB 2008 • SI

• Improve communication with parents of students requiring interventions.

• Review and adopt progress-monitor- ing tools, such as CBMs and record- ing protocols, to monitor student data and movement throughout the tiers.

Implementation of RTI, particularly at the middle school level, where specif- ic recommendations are currently lack* ing, will be an ongoing process of iden- tifying appropriate instructional ap- proaches and related interventions, pro- viding professional development to staff charged with implementation, and ensuring that the process results in improved academic achievement for all students. Although the challenges to implementation are numerous, the focus on developing an integrated model of instruction, early intervention, and assessment to support student learning gives educators an opportunity to align and focus their efforts on ensuring appropriate learning experiences for all students. Over the course of the first year of implementation, Cheyenne Mountain has witnessed great success with its initiation of the RTI framework. The systematic process of the RTI frame- work provides an opportunity to align instruction, assessment, and interven- tions on the basis of individual student needs, to routinely evaluate its impact on student achievement, and to commu- nicate more openly with parents.

References Colorado Student Assessment Program.

(2006). Colorado Student Assessment Pro- gram. Summary Report, 2005-06. Color- ado State Department of Education.

Deshler, D., Hock, M., & Catts. H. (2006). Enhancing outcomes for struggling ado- lescent readers. ¡DA Perspectives. Retrieved September 26, 2007, from http://www.ldonline.arg/article/11768

Deshier, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2006). High school students with disabilities: Strategies for accessing the curriculum. New York: Corwin Press.

Donovan, S., & Cross, C. T (2002J. Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Research Council, Committee on Minority Repre- sentation in Special Education.

DuFour. R., & Eaker, R. E. (1998). Pro- fessional learning communities at work: Best practices for enhancing student achievement. Bloomington, IN: National Education Service.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-interven- tion: Definitions, evidence, and implica- tions for the learning disabilities con- struct. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. I8(i), 157-171.

Fuchs, L. S.. & Fuchs, D. (2006]. Imple- menting responsiveness-to-intervention to identify learning disabilities. Perspectives, 32(1), 39-43.

Greene, J. F. (1999). Language! The compre- hensive literacy curriculum (2nd ed.). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F, Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTI): How to do it. Lawrence, KS: National Research Center.

Kovaleski, J. (2003, December). Thethreetier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sym- posium, Kansas City, MO.

McMaster, K. L., Fucbs. D., Fuchs, L. & Compton, D. L. (2005). Responding to nonresponders: An experimental field trial of identification and intervention meth- ods. Exceptional Children, 7h 445-463.

Mellard, D. F, & Johnson, E. S. (2008). R77: A practitioner's guide to implementing response-to-intervention. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Morris, J. D.. Ehren, B. J.. & Lenz, B. K. (1991). Building a model to predict which 4-8th graders will drop out of high school. Journal of Experimental Education, 59. 286-293.

Scantron. (2007). Performance series SM: Computer adaptive internet assessment

for schools. Retrieved September 26. 2007, from http://www.edperformance.com

Sugai C , Homer, R., & Gresham. F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school environ- ments. In M. Shinn. H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems U: Preventive and remedial approach (pp. 315-350). Bethes- da, MD: Bethesda School of Psychologists.

Swanson, H. L. (2001). Research on interven- tions for adolescents with learning dis- abilities: A meta-analysis of outcomes related to higher-order processing. Elementary SchoolJoumal, lOl, 331-348.

Vaughn, S. (2003, December). How many üers are needed for response to interven- tion to achieve acceptable prevention out- comes? Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Sympo- sium, Kansas City, MO. Retrieved March 15, 2006. from http://www.nrcld.org/ symposium2003/vaughn/index.html

Evelyn Sue Johnson (CEC ID Federation). Assistant Professor, Department of Special Education. Boise State University, Boise Idaho. Lori Smith, Principal, Cheyenne Mountain Junior High School, Colorado Springs, Colorado.

Address correspondence to Evelyn Johnson. Boise State University, 1910 University Dr., MS 1725, Boise. ID 83725 (e-mail: evelynjohn- son@boisestate.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children, Vol. 40, No. 3, pp. 46-52.

Celebrate Children and Youth With Disabilities Who Excel at the CEC Yes I Can! Awards Ceremony

Heartwarming. Uplifting. Invigorating—Share the stories, the smiles, and the joy of the children who receive the Ves / Can! Awards, and remember why you chose special education as your career! |oin us for the Yes t Cor^! Awards Ceremony, Friday, April 4, at the CEC 2008 Convention & Expo.

52 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express

written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.