Discussion

pRAcrmoNER BRIEF SERIES

A Cultural, Linguistic, and Ecological Framework for Response to Intervention With English Language Learners Julie Esparza Brown Portland State University

Jennifer Dooliltle Office of Special Education Programs. U.S. Department of Education

The Council for Exceptional Children is pleased to partner with the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems (NCCREST) to periodically include in TEACHING Exceptional Children topical briefs to support your efforts in addressing tlie learning needs of exceptional students from culturally and linguistically diverse backgrounds.

Response to Intervention (RTI) has been heralded by many as the long-awaited alternative to using a discrepancy for- mula for special education eligibiUty decisions. Use of the discrepancy for- mula for eligibility decisions has com- monly been called a "wait to fail model" [Donovan & Cross, 2002; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan & Young. 2003; Mellard, 2004) because in this paradigm, students pro- ceeded through long pre-referraJ, formal referral, and assessment processes prior to getting help in special education pro- grams. By the time students received assistance, they were often too far behind to ever catch up, even with indi- viduahzed support.

RTI instead focuses on intervening early through a multi-tiered approach where each tier provides interventions of increasing intensity. It includes the practice of screening all children early in their education to identify those who are not responding to classroom instruc- tion and providing support through the use of research-based interventions at each tier while monitoring progress fre- quently (Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, et. al.. 2005). RTi has the potential to affect change for English language learners (ELLs) by requiring the use of research-based practices based on individual children's specific needs. All ELLs. however, need culturally and linguistically appropriate instruction no matter the educational setting. In other words, instruction and

interventions must consider a student's cultural background and experiences as well as their linguistic proficiency (in both English and the native language) in order for instruction to be appropri- ate. The focus of this brief is to provide an initial framework in the use of RTI that considers students' hfe experi- ences, including their language profi- ciencies in their first and second lan- guage, as well as the contexts in which they are taught.

Opportunity to Learn As conceptualized, RTI is predicated upon effective, research-based and appropriate instruction in the general education classroom or Tier 1. That is, it is assumed that all students are provid- ed with scientifically validated instruc- tion delivered with a high degree of fidelity to the curriculum, and thus all children are provided with an equal opportunity to learn. This, however, is problematic for ELLs in several ways. First, since RTI currently focuses on lit- eracy, it is important to examine the existing reading research for ELLs. Although there is a growing body of research on effective reading instruction for ELLs with and without disabilities (Artiies & Klingner, 2006; Linan-Thomp- son, Bryant, Dickson, & Kouzekanani, 2005), it appears that not all ELLs are receiving appropriate literacy instruc- tion (D'Angiulli, Siegel, & Maggi, 2004; Saenz, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2005). Less than

20% of the 56% of public school teach- ers in the U.S. who have at least one ELL in their class are certified to teach ELLs (Waxman, Tellez & Walberg, 2004). Thus, most teachers lack the training, expertise, and experience in teaching reading and other subjects to ELLs. The second issue is that most multidisciplinary school teams charged with making special education eligibili- ty decisions for ELLs also lack the train- ing and experience in differentiating language difference from a learning dis- ability (Collier, 2001; Flanagan & Ortiz, 2001; Klingner, Artiies, & Barletta, 2006; Ortiz, 1997). Consequently, the use of RTI without a foundation in culturally and linguistically appropriate instruc- tion may lead to greater disproportional- ity (both under and over representation) of ELLs in special education.

To summarize, an appropriate foun- dation for RTI must include knowledge of each child's particular set of life experiences, and how these experiences may facihtate learning in an American school system. It is essential to address teacher-related and school-related issues as well as child traits. Further, all educators must be knowledgeable in first and second language acquisition principles and culturally responsive pedagogy, as well as have access to spe- cialists who are well-trained in differen- tiating cultural and linguistic differ- ences from disabilities. We provide an

66 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Initial framework for understanding children's backgrounds below.

The Franwwoilc Personalized instruction lies at the very heart of RTI in that each child's unique needs are evaluated and appropriate instruction provided so that all children have opportunities to succeed in our schools. As evidenced by the current achievement gap as well as the dispro- portionate representation of culturally <iiid linguistically diverse children in special education programs, many of these students are underachieving. To ensure that RTI does not become one more discriminatory system, a frame- work for RTI addressing the needs of ELLs is required. This includes: [a) a systematic process for examining the specific background variables or ecolo- gies of ELLs [i.e., first and second lan- guage proficiency, educational history including bilingual models, immigration pattern, socioeconomic status, and cul- ture) that impact academic achievement in a U.S. ciassroom; (b) examination of tbe appropriateness of classroom instruction and the classroom context based on knowledge of individual stu- dent factors; (c) information gathered through informal and formal assess- ments; and td) nondiscriminatory inter- pretalion of all assessment data.

RTI: A Tiered Intervenflon Approoch Experts promote two distinct RTI mod- els (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002; Fuchs. Mock. Morgan & Young, 2003): a standard treatment protocol model and a problem-solving model, though in reality most school districts use a combination of the two (National Association ot" State Directors of Special Education [NASDE]. 2006). According to NASDE, both models outline tiers or stages of interventions [Figure 1). In the standard treatment protocol model, the same empirically validated treatment is used for all children with similar prob- lems, and achievement is measured against specified benchmarks. The problem-solving model is more flexible, as explained by NASDE as well: prob- lems are defined behaviorally, interven-

tions are planned specifically for the tar- geted student and provided over a rea- sonable period of time, performance is measured in the natural setting, and students' progress is compared to that of peers.

Beyond the approach to intervention planning, another difference in the vari- ous RTI models is the number of tiers. Generally, models include three or four tiers. In this brief, a three-tiered frame- work is outlined, which (in this case "that '• is the defining pronoun, so should be used instead of "which") con- siders students' ecologies, cultural and linguistic needs, and the skills that members of an educational team must possess when an ELL student becomes a focus of concern.

Her 1 : Universal Screening and Researdi-Based Inslniclion

At Tier 1, baseline data through univer- sal screening are gathered for all stu- dents and achievement is monitored regularly. An RTI system relies on the use of evidence-based curricula that is taught in a manner consistent with its

authors' intent (treatment integrity). It is assumed that effective and research- based instruction already occurs in the general education classroom for all stu- dents. For ELLs. as discussed earlier, for instruction to be "effective and appro- priate," assessment as well as instruc- tion must be both linguisticaUy and cul- turally congruent. That is. the teacher who wants to teach ELLs appropriately and effectively must know their levels of language proficiency in their first lan- guage (Ll) and second language [L2) when planning assessment and instruc- tion, and provide culturally relevant curricula that reflect the background and experiences of the students [Delpit. 1995; Gay. 1989; Macedo & Bartolome. 1999). Appropriate instruction for ELLs requires that teachers embrace a peda- gogy that is "rooted in the cultural cap- ital of [their students! and have as its point of departure the native language and culture" [Freire & Macedo. 1987, p. 151). In other words, a child's language and culture are never viewed as liabili- ties but rather as strengths upon which to build an education. When an ELL student becomes a focus of concem, the

Figure 1 . Response to Intervention: Three-Tier Model for ILL*

TIER t: All Students receive high quality and appropriate inslruction,

behavioral support as well as regular progress monitoring (universal screening). All students are provided

additional appropriate inslruction or support in the general education setting.

(General education: 100% of the population)

TIER 2: Students who do not make progress in Tier 1 are provided more intensive support through

intensive interventions (double dose) slill as part of general education

[General education: / About 15% of the population) /

TIER 3: Students who need

intensive individualized interventions either in

small groups or one-on-one.

(nmy be Special Education: 5% of the

population)

V continues

TEAGHING EXCEPTIONAL CHitjiREN • MAY/JUNE 2008 • 67

Figure 1 -

for ELU FlowchoH Is lack of progress

due lo Exclusionary

I Is lack of progress due to Exdusionary

Factors;

H.issiudmi made Btifficient

progress as ironipaied to "̂

screi-tuiiB iLl « [21, Cullurailv aint llnsuislicaUy Jpproprlal

ELL student's progress toniparad lo "irue peer'

Has stutteii! tnade sufficient

progress as coropared to "iruf peers"?

Has stuiieni made sufficient

progress a.'! cutnpared lo "irite peere"?

is iack of progress due lo Exdusi

Factors?

"lixchisionarv Facfors" Disorders Not Included (20 U.S.r Sec 14(11129)101

Dn Ihe iliifkulties apjrear lo be primarily Are Ihe difficulties tbe result of lack of the result of:

j - vision)

~ motor disjbllillesf 1 - inentjl reiardationJ

- emotional disturtMncel - environ tneuUl. riiltiiral or (•mnunic

appropriate inslnictioiT in: - reading, including tfie essential componeiHs

af reading! - maih! - ttie student's ilniiled English proficiency!

Tier 1 Iniervenlions ' Review of student's ecology { i.e.,

t-dut^iional hislory, language proli' ciency in Ll and 12. family Pducatitm and literacy, acculturjlion level. SES, etc.]

- Inlerventiona are deveiopmcntaily, culturally, linguistically oiiil experleiiilJlly appropriate for targeteti sliiiients and may be the classinoni ciirricuium but A "double rinse" ur exiensmn of cUssrcwni curriculum

- lnteryeniions proviilp by i;lassnx)iii teacher, instriiclional asslsiaiit or otiier speciailsi wiihin die general educaiion

. cUissrooni In d small group ^

Tier 2 Intervention* - Small group in or outside of general

educatioti cUssroom - Interventions are linguisticaUy,

ctiltnrally and axiierienllally appropriate

- tmerventions couniei to addKss specific problem areas aitd progress is closely monitored

Tier 3 Inlerventions - Small llroup 01 1:1 iiisiriictior wiili

aliemativp curriculum In alternative seltitig

- Curriculum and inslruirlion addresses tiie specific deficit Is]

- Intervention* miwt cunlinue to be cultuially, linguistic .illy ,i!id esiierientially appropriate

- SI,indardiied assessjneiit in bmh (.1 and \2 could be cuiisidered ai iliis tier lo identify learning profiles

DEC IS ION-MA KING POINI FOR SPtriAL LDUCATION CONSIDERATION - li the studeni has not nuiie suliiclciil

pixigrcss, J psychoeducalioiial evaluations iiuy be considered Ihat links to imei'ventions.

- Parent righrs and co]!sent are requited ior slaiidardized assessnieiits.

- All information must be provided lo parents in tlieir n.llive lanRuage, including jiareni rigbts.

- Using i discrepancy formula .ippro.scti tor leaniins disability is apfiropriate for El.l. Bluileiils.

- I me rp relation of siandantiKeri test daia must be done witliiii tbe conieid of tbe student s language prodeieiicy in Ll antl LJ .ii'culiuratioii level,

- IEP goals must consider ilie student's deveiopmenlal, cognitive, ciillural, and linguistic abilities.

instructional program itself must be examined to determine the match between the demands of the curriculum and the child's current level of profi- ciency in the language of instruction. It is important to examine the achieve- ment of the student's "true peers" [sim- ilar language proficiencies, culture and experiential background] to see if they are excelling or not. If several "true peers" are struggling, this is an indica- tion that the instruction is less than optimal for that group of students.

At Tier I, once instruction is adjust- ed to meet each student's individual or personalized needs, progress is closely

monitored and decisions are made as to whether students are meeting predeter- mined targets or benchmarks. If, after providing instructional modifications that could include re-teaching, smaller groupings in the general education classroom, or perhaps some instruction in a child's Ll, the student does not make the targeted gains, it may be rec- ommended that the student receive Tier 2 support. A table is provided below to help delineate factors that must be examined for ELLs at Tier 1, as well as the kinds of instructional support and personnel who can provide the needed instruction.

Her 2: More Intonsive Support In Tier 2, interventions, rather than just instructional adjustments to the general curriculum, are provided to the student. Tier 2 interventions are often delivered in a small group setting and may be pro- vided by a specialist (i.e.. Title I teacher, reading specialist, special education teacher, speech and language special- ist), or by the classroom teacher. Tier 2 interventions are supplemental to the general education curriculum. In other words, students should receive a "dou- ble dose" of instruction targeted at spe- cific goals based on students' needs identified by Tier 1 screening. As stated

68 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Tier 1:

POPULATION: ALL STUDENTS SETTING: GENERAL EDUCATION

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

GUIDING QUESTIONS

INSTRUCTION/ INTERVENTION

SERVICE PROVIDER

NECESSARY SERVICE PROVIDER

SKILLS

Achievement is both at a lower level when compared to "true-peers" (same levels of language proficiency, acculturation, and educational background) and occurs at a substantially slower rate

-Is scientifically-based instruction in place for the target student and consideration given to his/her cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic and experiential background?

-Is instruction targeted to the student's level of English proficiency? -Is the concern examined within the context [i.e., language of instruction, acculturation)? -Have the parents been contacted and their input documented?

-Has accurate baseline data been collected on what tbe student can do as well as what be/she must still learn?

-Are LI and L2 language proficiency monitored regularly? -Have the ecobgy of the classroom and scbool been assessed? -Wbat were tbe child's pre-scbool literacy experiences, if any? - Have hearing and vision been screened? -Wbat tasks can tbe student perform and in wbat settings?

-Have specific Tier 1 RTI interventions tbat are culturally, linguistically and experientially appropriate been developed?

-All students receive bigb-quality. researcb based instruction by qualified staff -Universal screening of academics and behavior of all students to identify tbose who need close

monitoring or intervention

-Progress monitoring compares ELL student to other true-peer ELLs since their rate of progress cannot be compared to tbat of tbe Englisb-only group

-Appropriate instructional interventions are developed sucb as individuaUy designed instructional units, or different instruction using tbe general education curriculum

- Background knowledge is built -Research-based interventions are implemented for at least 8-12 weeks and progress is monitored -Culturally responsive instruction is fundamental at this tier and not an add-on -Explicit and linguistically appropriate instruction is also fundamental (attention given to language

forms and functions)

-Strategies appropriate for instructing ELLs sucb as Total Pbysical Response, visuals, real objects, modeling, repetitive language and gestures must be used

-Instruction includes language activities and explicit instruction in phonological awareness, the alphabetic code, vocabulary development and comprehension strategies

-Instruction in tbe native language is provided

-If tbe course topics remain tbe same, wbat new researcb, examples, and writings can illustrate these topics?

- Is there a new thematic approach to tbis material tbat will help to put cultural diversity in tbe foreground?

-How do 1 integrate new material so tbat it is not simply an "add-on"? - What teacbing strategies will facilitate student learning of this new material?

Able to:

-provide developmentally, culturally, linguistically and experientially appropriate instruction and assessment to all students

-deliver culturally responsive instruction -describe behaviors/areas in observable terms and estabiisb baselines -identify tbe elements tbat will lead to success in tbe identified problem area -identify instructional and student variables that may contribute to a solution -understand tbat no student characteristic (e.g., disability label, race, SES, cultural group)

dictates a priori wbat intervention will work -collaborate witb otber service providers and parents -use tools tbat assess LI and L2 skills

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2008 • 69

Tier 2:

POPULATION: STUDENTS WHO NEED DIFFERENT AND MORE INTENSIVE INSTRUCTION THAN PROVIDED IN TIER I

SETTING: SMALL GROUP SETTING

STUDENT

CHARACTERISTICS

GUIDING QUESTIONS

INSTRUCTION/ INTERVENTION

SERVICE PROVIDER

NECESSARY SERVICE PROVIDER

SKILLS

Achievement continues both at a lower level as compared to "true-peers" and occurs at a substantially slower rate

-Will instruction in a small group setting lead to success? -Has the student's progress been compared to him or herself using data collected over time and

across settings? -Does the child's learning rate appear to be lower than that of an average learning "true peer"? -Is the child responding to interventions? -Will an alternate curriculum help the student succeed? -Is scientifically-based instruction in place for the target student and consideration given to his/her

cultural, linguistic, socioeconomic and experiential background?

-Option of receiving different curriculum from Tier 1 (time and intensity) which would be systematic and explicit instruction with modeling, multiple examples, and feedback

-This supplementaL instruction is in addition to the time allowed for core reading instruction in general education

-The curriculum addresses the student's specific leaming needs and progress is carefully monitored and reported

-Observations should occur across settings and be of various activities/tasks -If the studeni does not respond to Tier 2 interventions, consider referring to Tier 3

-Specialist (Title 1 Teacher. Reading Teacher, Special Education Teacher, Related Service ProviderJ or General Education Teacher

-General education teacher responsible for integrating all tiers of instruction into the classroom and monitoring instruction

Able to: -ensure that culturally and linguistically appropriate classroom instruction was provided in Tier 1

and continues in Tier 2 - accurately monitor and report student's progress and adjust instruction accordingly

previously, instructional interventions for ELLs should be both linguistically and culturally appropriate. School per- sonnel continue to collect and monitor the student's achievement and assess the learning environment and suitability of instruction. A Tier 2 student who fails to reach identified instructional tar- gets is a candidate to move to Tier 3 once it has been established that he or she truly has received an adequate opportunity to learn. Conversely, a stu- dent who makes the expected gains may cycle back to Tier 1 with close observa- tion of the student's continuing pro- gress. Below is a table outlining Tier 2 for ELLs.

Her 3: Intenslva Indivlclual liutructiofi In Tier 3, interventions are more inten- sive and may be delivered individually

or in small groups. The student's

progress continues to be closely moni-

tored. RTI models vary in their concep-

tualization of Tier 3. In some models.

Tier 3 would be considered special

education and students who pro-

gressed to this tier would automatical-

ly qualify for special education servic-

es. In other models, children would be

provided intensive and individual

interventions at this tier while concur-

rently undergoing an assessment for

special education eligibility, ln models

with four tiers, students would receive

intensive and focused interventions in

Tier 3, and if they fail to make ade-

quate progress, be moved into Tier 4.

Tier 4 might then be considered special

education. Below is a table summariz-

ing Tier 3 for ELLs.

Conclinioti

No More "Business As Usual''

After the above discussion, it should be apparent that we cannot continue "busi- ness as usual" when ELLs are struggling In our classrooms. There is great prom- ise, though, in using an RTI approach. for many reasons. First, the universal screening and progress monitoring called for in the RTI process allow for comparison of students to other similar or "true" peers in their local cohort rather than to national norms. Second, an effective RTI model requires collabo- ration among all educators (e.g., speech and language therapists, school psy- chologists, counselors. English as a sec- ond language/Bilingual specialist). thereby providing increased opportuni* ties for professional dialogue, peer coaching, and the creation of instruc-

70 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Tier 3: POPULATION: STUDENTS WHO NEED DIFFERENT AND MORE INTENSIVE INSTRUCTION

SETTING: ALTERNATIVE SETTING

STUDENT CHARACTERISTICS

GUIDING QUESTIONS

INSTRUCTION/ INTERVENTION

SERVICE PROVIDER

NECESSARY SERVICE PROVIDER

SKILLS

Achievement continues both at a lower level than like-peers, occurs at a substantially slower rate, and the student needs individualized instruction in order to learn

-How many rounds of Tier 2 instruction has the student had? -Is there evidence of progress from previous interventions?

-Is the student successful with different curriculum, teaching approaches and an individualized setting?

-Does the student differ from like "true peers" in the following ways: - Level of performance? - Learning slope?

- What are the child's functional, developmental, academic, linguistic, and cultural needs? -If additional assessments are used, are the instruments technically sound, valid, and used

appropriately for the ELL student?

-Are test results interpreted in a manner that considers student's language proficiency in Ll and L2 and their level of acculturation?

-Do assessments include information in the student's home language and English? -Has the student received continuous instruction (i.e., absences do not make up a good portion

of the student's profile)?

-Option of receiving different curriculum from Tiers 1 and 2

-Curriculum and instruction address the specific leaming needs and progress is carefully monitored -Standardized cognitive and academic assessment should be conducted at this tier to identify

processing profile

- If cognitive assessment is conducted, native language assessment should be included -Any standardized test data must be interpreted within the context of student's language

proficiency and acculturation

-Special education teacher or related service provider -General education teacher responsible for integrating all tiers of instruction into the classroom -All service providers must collaborate with the ELL specialist

Able to: -ensure that appropriate instruction was provided in Tiers 1 and 2 -accurately monitor student's progress

-develop culturally and linguistically appropriate IEP and plan appropriate individualized instruction

-instruct appropriately to the student's development level and needs, level of language proficiency and acculturation

NOTE: Parental rights and consent may be required at this Uer because the student is removed from the general education environment for instruction. Student could be qualified to receive special education services under the eligibility category of Specific Learning Disability and iiave an Individualized Education Program (IEP) developed at this Uer without further assessment.

tional models integrating the hest prac- tices of the various fields of education and related services. This collaboration is particularly critical, because the research base for all educational fields, including instruction for ELLs, is grow- ing rapidly. Third, students who are struggling can be identified early and supported before falling too far behind to ever catch up.

Our future rests on the promise of the next generation. Accordingly, we must develop the capacity to respond to an increasingly diverse student popula- tion, and ensure that these and all chil- dren develop to their fullest potential. By building on the cultural wisdom and linguistic knowledge students bring with them, we can help all children suc- ceed.

Relerttncas

Adelman, H.S. (2001). LD: The next 25

years. Journal of Leaming Disabilities,

25(1). 17-22.

Artiles. A. J., & Klingner. J. K. (Eds). (2006).

Forging a knowledge base on English lan-

guage learners with special needs: Theor-

etical, population, and technical issues.

Teachers College Record. 108, 2187-2438.

[Special issue]

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • MAY/JUNE 2008 • 71

Batsche, G.. Elliott, J.. Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J., Prasse. D. et. al.(2005). Response to intervention: Policy considera- tions and implementation. Alexandria. VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education.

Delpit. L. (1995). Other people's children: Cultural conflict in the classroom. New York: The New Press.

Donovan, S. & Cross, C. (2002). Minority stu- dents in special and gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

Freire, P., & Macedo, D. (1987). Literacy: Reading the word and the world. New York: Bergin & Garvey.

Fuchs, D., Mock. D.. Morgan, PL., & Young, CL. (2003). Responsiveness-to-interven- tion: Definitions, evidence, and implica- tions for the learning disahilities con- struct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. 18(3), 157-171.

Gay, G. (1989). Ethnic minorities and educa- tional equality. In J.A. Banks & CA. Banks (Eds.), Multicultural education: Issues and perspectives (pp. 167-188). Boston, MA: Allyn and Bacon.

Hosp, J.L. & Rechsley, D.J. (2003). Referral rales for intervention or assessment: A meta-analysis of racial differences. The Journal of Special Education, 37(2), 67-80.

Klingner, J. K., Artiles, A. J., Barletta, L. M. (2006). English Language Learners who struggle with reading: Language acquisi- tion or learning disahilities? Journal of Learning Disabilities. 39. 108-128.

Macedo, D., & Bartolome, L.I. (1999). Dancing with bigotry: Beyond the politics of tolerance. New York: Palgrave.

Mellard, D. (2004). Understanding respon- siveness to intervention in learning disabil- ities determination. Retrieved July 1, 2005. from www.nrcld.org/html/information

Ortiz. A.A. (1997). Learning disabilities con- comitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of learning Disabilities. 30, 321-333.

Stacks, A.M. (2005). Using an ecological framework for understanding and treating Externalizing behavior in early childhood. Early Childhood Education Journal, 32(4], 269-278.

Waxman, H., Tellez, K., & Walbei^. HJ. (2004). Improving teacher quality for English language learners: Reports and next-step recommendations from a national invitational conference. The LSS Review. The Mid-Atlantic Regional Educa- tional Laboratory. Temple University, Philadelphia, PA.

Buildins Culturally Responsive Classrooms

A Guide for K-6 Teachers

Building Culturally

Responsive Classrooms

Concha Deisado Gaitan

This invaluable resource covers the topics of classroom discipline, classroom arrangement, and parent and community involvement in order to create a culturally inclusive learning settins. Each accessible, user-friendly chapter contains:

• A personal reflection from a teacher • The latest research and best practices

• A rich case example • Guiding questions, reflective questions,

and classroom applications

S5809 . . . $30.95 To order call 1-888-232-7733 or visit www.cec.sped.org

Our Knowledge. At your Fingertips.

Schoot-to-Work Dcvpl'iiiinj Ii.inMlino PofltolfOl r« Sudenu

School-to-Work Developing transition portfolios for students with significant disabilities

Other Recent Publications:

Beyond Pegboards A guide for teaching adolescent students with multiple disabilities

Welcoming Students with Visual Impairment to Your School A guide for training public school personnel and families about the needs of students with vision loss

Available at www.Perkins.org/publications 1-877-473-7548 (1-877-4-PEW

SCHOOL FOR THE BUND

All we see Is possibility.

Perkins School for the Blind 175 North Beacon Street Publications Office Watertown, MA 02472

72 m COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN