Proactive Approache

assignment10.pdf

Home >Education homework help >Proactive Approache

Insights on Learning Disabilities is published by Learning Disabilities Worldwide (LDW). For further information about learning disabilities, LDW’s many other publications and membership, please visit our website: www.ldworldwide.org.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012 Copyright @ by LDW 2012

response to intervention and Positive behavior interventions and supports: Merging Models to improve Academic and

behavioral Outcomes of Culturally and linguistically Diverse Children with learning Disabilities

Cheryl A. utley Research, Education, and Consultation Firm

Festus e. Obiakor University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

The professional literature provides ample evidence that culturally and lin- guistically diverse (CLD) students at risk for potential with LD exhibit a myriad of academic and behavioral patterns of interactions that present challenges to researchers, practitioners, and service providers. The pur- pose of this article is to describe components of response to intervention (RtI) and positive behavior interventions and supports (PBIS) models as evidence-based practices to support the academic and behavioral problems of CLD students at risk for potential with LD. Culturally specific modifica- tions to RtI and PBIS models are provided and discussed.

The professional literature provides ample evidence that culturally and lin-guistically diverse (CLD) children with LD exhibit a myriad of academic and behavioral patterns of interactions that present challenges to educators and service providers. Researchers have not paid sufficient attention to differences in cultural context, language and behaviors of CLD students diagnosed as LD. A variety of educational, socioeconomic, sociocultural, and sociopolitical fac- tors have contributed to the disproportionate representation of CLD students in terms of (a) education and placement classification; (b) least access to programs, services, and resources; (c) an individualized general education curriculum; and (d) design and implementation of effective instruction and classroom manage- ment procedures (Adelman & Taylor, 2011; Artiles, Harry, Reschly, & Chinn, 2002; Obiakor, 2001, 2007, 2008). For example, in bilingual and multilingual classroom settings, general and special educators are constantly challenged by the difficulty of teasing apart phenomena associated with normal second language (L2) reading acquisition from authentic warning signs of reading failure (Geva, 2000). Although accurately identifying LD is difficult for any group of students, deciding whether an ELL’s academic difficulties reflect a learning disability or limited English proficiency or other background characteristics is a major chal-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

lenge. Fletcher et al. (2002) noted that both the discrepancy model and the ex- clusionary provisions have weak validity and fail to distinguish among students with LD, low achievers, and students whose problems can be attributed to other factors, such as linguistic and cultural differences. This problem is compounded (a) by the lack of appropriate diagnostic and assessment tools to measure the abilities of CLD learners; (b) by the shortage of staff who are familiar with differ- ent languages and cultures; and (c) by the inadequate linkages among bilingual education, English as a Second Language (ESL), and special education programs (Zehler et al., 2003). African American students and English Language Learners (ELLs) may be diagnosed with LD and/or referred for the diagnosis of emo- tional disturbance and/or behavior disorders (EBD) because of racial, cultural, and linguistic differences and their lack of knowledge and understanding of how to apply rules within the school’s context (LeMoine, Maddahian, Patton, Ross, & Scruggs, 2006; Ortiz, 1997; Skiba, Michael, Nardo, & Peterson, 2002).

Two evidence-based practices advocated by researchers and educators that address academic and behavioral difficulties in CLD students potentially at risk with LD are response to intervention (RtI) and positive behavioral in- terventions and supports (PBIS). RtI is defined as the integration of an “as- sessment and intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to reduce behavioral problems. With RtI, schools use data to identify students at risk for poor learning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the intensity and na- ture of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities” (National Center on Re- sponse to Intervention [NCRTI], 2012, p.2).

Several researchers have noted that RtI models hold promise for pre- venting academic failure by providing supports for CLD students before they underachieve and fail in school (Donovan & Cross, 2002; Fletcher et al., (2002); Klingner & Edwards, 2006; Speece, Case, & Molloy, 2003; Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003). According to Movit (2011), RtI, a 3-tier approach, requires the use of research-based practices and supports based on individual children’s specific needs along a continuum rather than categorically. Woodruff (2011) noted that the implementation of 3-tier instructional interventions that are evidence-based and culturally responsive ensures that the RtI framework provides CLD students with and without LD (a) supports that are appropriate for their learning or be- havioral needs; (b) academic and behavioral data on CLD students in general education that can help identify those students who need additional supports from special education; (c) data-based decision making that is incorporated into the assessment-intervention-evaluation process; (d) access to coordinated early intervention supports that can prevent the escalation of learning or behavioral

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

challenges; and (e) reduction in the number of CLD students that are inappro- priately identified and referred for special education services.

Based upon extensive research (Duda & Utley, 2005; Horner et al., 1990; Jones Caravaca, Cizek, Horner, & Vincent, 2006; Sugai, 2011; Utley, 2006; Utley, Obiakor, Bakken, 2011; Utley, Kozleski, Smith, & Draper, 2002), reactive approaches to behavioral problems by CLD students often lead to deten- tion, suspension, and expulsion that are exclusionary practices; these limit posi- tive support for students with perceived negative behaviors. In urban schools, CLD students (a) may experience academic demands as aversive; (b) may engage in problem behaviors that are maintained by escaping academic demands (e.g., being sent to the office); (c) lose access to quality instruction, and (d) fall further behind. PBIS is a conceptual framework comprised of a set of comprehensive intervention strategies custom-designed to assist children with LD develop and engage in socially desirable behaviors and to help minimize patterns of behavior that are socially stigmatizing (Horner et al., 1990). The goals of PBIS, as articu- lated by researchers, are to prevent and teach by helping CLD children with LD (a) gain access to a new environment; (b) learn new skills (e.g., academic, lan- guage, social); (c) engage in positive social interactions; and (d) develop friend- ships through the use of multi-component intervention plans grounded in the goals and values of the child, family, and teacher (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010; OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports, 2012).

Linan-Thompson, Vaughn, Prater, and Cirino (2006) noted that there are still many issues and concerns to consider regarding the implementation of RtI with CLD students potentially at risk with LD because the research on in- terventions and their efficacy with these students is limited. In other words, the appropriate application of RtI for identifying students from CLD backgrounds as struggling readers is not yet clearly evident. There are relatively few articles discussing RtI and PBIS as comprehensive models to address the academic and behavioral problems of CLD students with LD. The majority of research pa- pers discuss RtI and PBIS as separate models, thus limiting its applicability to solving the educational problems of CLD students potentially at risk with LD

(Bohanon, Goodman, & McIntosh 2011; RtI Network, 2011a, 2011b; San- domierski, Kincaid, & Algozzine, 2007; Sugai, 2007, 2009a, 2009b). There- fore, the primary purpose(s) of this paper are to (a) present the current data on the prevalence of children diagnosed with LD; (b) discuss the co-existence of academic and behavioral problems in students with LD; (c) discuss the dispro- portionality of CLD students with LD; (d) examine RtI and PBIS models as evidence-based approaches that support academic and behavioral outcomes of CLD students with LD; and (e) provide cultural considerations for implement- ing RtI and PBIS models.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

pRevAlence of students With leARning disABilities

Between the years 1989 and 2009, the percentage of public school stu- dents who were White decreased from 68 to 55 percent, and the percentage of those who were Hispanic doubled from 11 to 22 percent. In 2009, some 21 percent of children, ages 5–17, (or 11.2 million) spoke a language other than English at home, and 5 percent (or 2.7 million) spoke English with difficulty. Seventy-three percent of those who spoke English with difficulty spoke Spanish (indicator 6). With regard to the prevalence of school-age children in special education, the number of children and youth, ages 3–21, receiving special edu- cation services was 6.5 million in 2008–09, corresponding to about 13 percent of all public school enrollment.

There are several sources of data describing the prevalence rates of fami- lies of students with LD. According to the Centers for Disease Control (2007- 2009), families below the poverty line reported that 4.1% of their children (ages 6-17) have LD. For families that were not poor, that figure was 2.7%. Among children with family incomes <100% of the poverty level, non-Hispanic white children (16%) and non-Hispanic black children (13%) were more likely to have ever received a diagnosis of LD than Hispanic children (9%). For all three racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of children ever receiving a diagnosis of LD decreased as family income increased.

A second source of prevalence data comes from the 2009 U.S. Survey of Income and Program Participation (SIPP), which sampled the U.S. civilian non-institutionalized population. The SIPP found a parent-reported LD rate of 3% among school-age children (2.4% ages 6-11 and 3.4% ages 12-17). These figures are slightly less than the rate reported by schools, which is just under 4% of the resident school-age population and over 5% of public. The SIPP showed the LD prevalence rate among the U.S. population (ages 6 and older) to be 1.8%, totaling 4.67 million Americans. These figures represented roughly one percent of all those reporting some level of disability—18.7% of the population school enrollment.

ReseARch on the co-existence of leARning disABilities And emotionAl/ BehAvioR disoRdeRs

Previous research has documented the coexistence of the characteristics of LD and emotional/behavior disorders (EB/D) within a subset of students who manifest symptoms of both disorders (LD/EBD) (McConaughy, Mattison, &Peterson, 1994). More specifically, children with LD have clinically significant social, emotional, and behavioral problems as compared with students without LD (Rock, Fessler, & Church, 1997; Schachter, Pless, & Bruck, 1991).

Similarly, previous studies of children and adolescents diagnosed with EBD were also identified as having LD or severe learning problems (Duchnows-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

ki, Johnson, Hall, Kutash, & Friedman, 1993; Fristad, Topolosky, Weller, & Weller, 1992; Knitzer, Steinberg, & Fleisch, 1990).

More recently, Smith and Adams (2006) reviewed previous research conducted with samples of children with LD and attention-deficit and hyper- activity disorder (AD/HD) and noted that findings on the combined effects of AD/HD and LD on behavioral outcomes closely parallel those related to aca- demic outcomes. In a review of literature, they concluded that “data generally support an additive or intensification effect when AD/HD and LD occur to- gether, rather than in isolation” (Flicek, 1992; McNamara, Willoughby, Chalm- ers, & Ylc-Cura, 2005; Pisecco, Baker, Silva, & Brooke, 2001; Tirosh, Berger, Cohen-Ophir, Davidovitch, & Cohen, 1998).

Collectively, these findings revealed that (a) boys in second through sixth grade with LD and AD/HD were reported (via peer nominations and rat- ings) to be more disruptive and to start more fights than boys with LD alone; and (b) children with combined LD and AD/HD performed significantly poor- er in many areas of academic achievement and had severe behavioral outcomes (e.g., oppositional/defiant behavior, distractibility, etc.) than compared to stu- dents with LD alone.

Smith and Adams (2006) also conducted a secondary analysis of data from the 2001 National Household Education Survey (Institute of Education Sciences, National Center for Education Statistics, 2011) and assessed how co- morbidity of LD and AD/HD was associated with selected parent-reported be- havioral and academic outcomes. The findings reported revealed that (a) there were no significant interaction effects of ethnicity, gender, or grade level with child disorder status on the parent-reported academic and behavioral outcomes (with the exception of grade repetition) in children with LD and AD/HD; (b) children with parent-reported comorbid AD/HD + LD or AD/HD-only showed a greater incidence of behavioral problems than children with LD-only; and (c) earlier work by Faraone et al. (2001), who found that the premise that AD/HD + LD had more adverse effects on academic outcomes than the presence of AD/ HD-only was generally supported.

the dispRopoRtionAte RepResentAtion of cultuRAlly And linguisticAlly diveRse students With leARning disABilities

Despite the passage of the reauthorization of the Individuals with Dis- abilities Education Act (IDEA, P.L. 105-17), national trends have shown that CLD students with LD continue to be disproportionately represented as having LD and to be served in more segregated learning environments than their White peers (Rueda & Windmueller, 2006). The disproportionate representation of CLD students with LD, particularly African American and Hispanic youth, has been a pressing and volatile issue for several decades and continues to receive

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

considerable attention by psychologists, general educators, and special educa- tors. For example, health problems and environmental exposure, the interwoven and far-reaching effects of poverty, and the lack of appropriate resources for families and children place CLD families and their children at a greater risk for the diagnosis of a disability (Artiles, Harry, et al., 2002; Salend, Duhaney, & Montgomery, 2002; Utley, 2011; Utley, Obiakor, & Bakken, 2011).

In a seminal article on ELLs, LD, and overrepresentation, Rueda and Windmueller (2006) present a historical overview of this topic and discuss at length the conclusions of research reports from the years 1979 to 2006. In ana- lyzing state data in California in 11 urban school districts, Artiles, Rueda, Sala- zar, and Higareda (2002, 2005) noted that (a) high proportions of ELLs, high minority enrollments, and high poverty levels revealed the overrepresentation of ELLs in special education and these patterns emerged by Grade 5 and remained clearly visible until Grade 12; (b) at the district level, ELLs were overrepresented in the mental retardation (MR) and language and speech (LAS) categories, espe- cially at the secondary level; and (c) ELLs were 27% more likely than English- proficient students to be placed in special education in the elementary school, and this figure doubled at the secondary school level.

In the most recent report by the National Center for Learning Dis- abilities (2011), it was reported that in the year 2010, families with less than an income of $35,000 had a percentage rate of 12% with children diagnosed with LD, which was twice that of children in families with an income of $100,000 or more (6%). Children in single-mother families were about twice as likely to have a child diagnosed with LD (12%) or ADHD (13%) as compared to chil- dren in two-parent families (approximately 6%). It was reported that almost 5 million children, ages 3-17, had an LD (8%); 9% of boys had LD as compared to 6% of girls. The following prevalence rates of children with LD by race and age were noted:

(a) African American children (10%) and White children (8%) were more likely to have LD than Asian children (4%).

(b) Hispanic children were less likely to have ADHD (4%) than non- Hispanic White children (10%) or non-Hispanic Black children (11%).

(c) Both Hispanic and Black students were overrepresented while Asian/Pacific Islander students were significantly underrepresented.

(d) A diagnosis of LD affected Black, Hispanic, and White students about equally across all ages. The rate of reported LD was signifi- cantly higher among other/multi-race populations (such as Native American students) and substantially lower among Asian students.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

In summary, there is documented evidence that the issue of overrep- resentation (i.e., disproportionality) in large scale studies continues to be a sig- nificant issue in the field, and it is important to examine patterns in ELLs and African American placements in special education programs. By solely relying on large scale national data, the results obscure important patterns at state and school district levels.

essentiAl components of Response to inteRvention model

RtI is a proactive intervention that enables CLD students with LD to master the requisite behaviors leading to academic success in school. RtI is de- fined as “the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals, and applying child response data to im- portant educational decisions” (Batsche et al., 2006). Focused primarily on ad- dressing academic problems, RtI has emerged as the new way to think about both disability identification and early intervention assistance for the “most vulnerable, academically unresponsive children” in schools and school districts (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007, p. 131). Based on a problem-solving model, the RtI approach considers cultural, linguistic, social-emotional, and environmental fac- tors as they might apply to the CLD student’s difficulties, and provides interven- tions as soon as they demonstrate learning problems in school (Fletcher et al., 2007; Gresham, 2001; Wilkinson, Ortiz, Robertson, & Kushner, 2006).

The research literature has highlighted five significant characteristics of RtI: (a) a school-wide, multi-level instructional and behavioral system for preventing school failure; (b) universal screening; (c) progress monitoring, (d) data-based decision making for instruction, and (e) a continuum of evidence- based interventions. For RtI to be successful, it is essential that (a) a collaborative approach by school staff for the development, implementation, and monitor- ing of the intervention process be implemented; (b) documentation of parent involvement throughout the process be gathered; and (c) documentation that the timelines described in the federal regulations be adhered to unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a team of qualified professionals. Multi-level Instruction

The core of the RtI model lies in the use of 3-tier instruction. In the RtI framework, the instruction delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and severity of a student’s difficulties. At Tier 1, considered the key component of tiered instruction, all CLD students receive instruction within an evidence-based, scientifically researched core program.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Figure 1. RtI and PBIS Multi-level Tier Model

The Tier 1 instructional program is synonymous with the core reading or math curriculum that is aligned with state standards and outcomes. The in- tent of the core program is the delivery of a high-quality instructional program in reading or math that has established known outcomes that cut across the skill development of the targeted area. All students must receive Tier 1 instruction; however, those students who are in need of supplemental intervention must receive additional instruction at Tier 2 and/or Tier 3.

Tier 2 consists of students in general education classrooms who fall be- low the expected levels of accomplishment (called benchmarks) and are at-risk for academic failure but who are still above expected levels, indicating a high risk for failure. The general education teacher identifies the instructional needs of students through the assessment process and instructional programs, which are focused on the students’ specific academic and language needs. Academic instruction is provided in small student groups of approximately 5 to 8 children.

Tier 3 consists of students who are considered to be at high risk for academic failure and if not responsive to instruction, are considered eligible for a special education placement. The students at Tier 3 are of much smaller sizes, ranging from 3 to 5 children, with some models using one-to-one instruction. In such models where one-to-one instruction is used, Tier 3 is usually consid- ered special education; however, in many models, it is viewed as a tier that in- cludes children who are not identified as being in need of special education but whose needs are at the intensive level.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Universal Screening NCRTI (2012) defines the term “universal screening” as brief assess-

ments that are valid, reliable, and demonstrate diagnostic accuracy for predict- ing which students will develop learning or behavioral problems. They are con- ducted with all students to identify those who are at risk of academic failure and, therefore, need more intensive intervention to supplement primary prevention” (p. 8). The primary purpose of screening is to identify students who may be at risk for poor learning outcomes. These screening tests are conducted with all students within the general education classroom and followed by short-term progress monitoring to corroborate students’ risk status (Jenkins, Hudson, & Johnson, 2007). Progress Monitoring

Progress monitoring plays four critical roles within a multi-level preven- tion system: (1) determining whether primary prevention (i.e., the core instruc- tional program) is working for a given student; (2) distinguishing adequate from inadequate response to the secondary prevention and thereby identify students likely to have LD; (3) inductively design individualized instruction programs to optimize learning at the tertiary prevention level in students who likely have LD; and (4) determining when the students’ responses to tertiary prevention indicate that a return to primary or secondary prevention is possible.

Fletcher and Vaughn (2009) stated that screening instruments can be norm-referenced or criterion-referenced (e.g., curriculum-based measurement [CBM]), the latter often representing the first assessment of a progress monitor- ing tool. Because screening devices are used with the entire grade, the key is that the tool can be quickly administered with adequate sensitivity and specificity to cultural, linguistic, and social characteristics representative of students. In general, screenings tend to over-identify children as being at risk because the consequence is that students’ progress is monitored and/or is provided with a supplemental intervention to enhance their performance in reading or math (Fletcher, Lyon, Fuchs, & Barnes, 2007). Data-Based Decision Making

Data analysis teams (DATs) are a critical aspect of creating curricular improvements, designing interventions, and deciding which students will ben- efit from additional tiered instruction. DATs include the principal, all general education teachers from that grade level, the teaching staff who provides the tiered interventions, the school psychologist, and the individual who manages benchmark and progress-monitoring data (data manager). DATs are encouraged to use a problem-solving process to analyze data from school-wide universal screening at the Tier 1 level to assist general education teachers in planning and implementing instructional strategies that will differentiate students’ vary-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

ing skill levels (Kovaleski & Pedersen, 2008). The same type of collaborate and teaming process should also be used for designing instruction and placing stu- dents into higher tiers (i.e., Tier 2 and Tier 3). Data analysis teams are convened after benchmark screenings to review universal data, select students for tiered interventions, and discuss instructional strategies.

Effective implementation of RtI is dependent upon the following fac- tors (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007; Knight, 2004; Reid, 1987; Spillane, Reiser, & Reimer, 2002): (1) significant and sustained investments in professional devel- opment programs to provide teachers with the array of skills required to ef- fectively implement RtI; (2) school administrators who adopt and implement RtI, provide resources, and support the use of procedures that ensure fidelity of implementation; (3) district-level support to hire teachers who embrace RtI principles and possess the prerequisite skills to implement it effectively in their classes; (4) a willingness of teaching and ancillary staff (e.g., school psycholo- gists) to have their roles redefined in ways to support effective implementation; and (5) the degree to which staff is given sufficient time to accommodate RtI into their instructional framework. Continuum of Evidence-Based Interventions

There have been several meta-analyses on the efficacy of interventions designed to prevent or remediate academic difficulties in children with LD. Although a complete review of studies is beyond the scope of this article, Table 1 presents a summary of findings across the areas of reading, writing, a nd mathematics.

General and special education teachers are implementing what they believe to be their most effective teaching strategies. However, this perception does not always translate to employing evidence-based practices in the class- room. The DATs are a vital support to school staff in evaluating research and on judging effective versus ineffective teaching practices. Guidelines for evidence- based interventions include an integrated and linked curriculum the following: (a) a core curriculum provided for all students, (b) modifications of the core cur- riculum for students who are identified as nonresponsive, and (c) a specialized and intensive curriculum developed for students whose performance is deemed nonresponsive to the modified core. Elements of this continuum, according to NCRTI (2012), include (a) empirical evidence to support efficacy (intervention is linked to outcome), (b) effectiveness (intervention outcomes are achievable and replicable in applied settings), (c) relevance (intervention can be imple- mented by natural implementers and with high fidelity), and (d) durability (in- tervention implementation is sustainable and student outcomes are durable).

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Table 1. Review of Meta-Analysis Studies on Effective Reading, Writing, and Math Interventions

Author Results/Conclusions

Swanson, Hoskyn, and Lee (1999) Moderate to high effects across studies (0.79) and higher effect sizes for interventions conducted in resource room settings (0.86) than those in general education classes (0.48)

Wanzek and Vaughn (2007) Effect sizes were usually larger if the study (a) involved students in kindergarten and grade 1 as opposed to grades 2–5, (b) used a comprehensive reading program, and (c) delivered the intervention one-on-one or in small groups.

Scammacca et al. (2007) The overall effect size was 0.95, with a lower overall effect size when only standardized, norm-referenced measures were used (0.42). For 23 intervention studies that measured reading comprehension, often with experimenter designed measures, the effect size was 1.33; for standardized achievement reading measures, the effect size was 0.35. The overall findings indicated that for older students with reading difficulties (a) adolescence is not too late to intervene, (b) students benefit from both word level and text-level interventions, (c) instruction in reading comprehension strategies is associated with large effects, (d) students are able to learn the meanings of words they are taught, and (e) both researcher-implemented and teacher-implemented interventions are effective.

Graham and Perrin (2007a, 2007b)

Several instructional practices that are associated with improved outcomes for students, including (a) writing strategies that involve explicitly teaching students to plan, revise, brainstorm, and edit (0.82); (b) summarizing through writing (0.82); (c) collaborating with other students in small groups to provide feedback and write cooperatives (0.75); (c) assigning students reasonable goals for improving writing (0.70); and (d) other practices such as word processing, sentence combining, and writing process, which all yield small to medium effect sizes.

Baker, Gersten, and Lee (2002) Effective mathematics instruction provides data or recommendations to teachers and students (0.57), uses peer-pairing to support learning (0.62), provides explicit instruction directed by the teacher including teacher-facilitated approaches (0.58), and provides practices for communicating student successes to parents (0.42).

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

essentiAl components of positive BehAvioR inteRventions And suppoRts

While the majority of studies of RtI have focused on evidence- based practices in academic areas (e.g., reading, writing, and math), applications of RtI have been reported in the area of social behavior, such as PBIS (Horner et al., 2010; Sandomierski et al., 2007; Sugai et al., 2000; Utley, Greenwood, & Douglas 2007). Conceptually, PBIS (a) aims to prevent inappropriate behavior through teaching and reinforcing appropriate behaviors; (b) is a problem-solv- ing model and process that is consistent with the core principles of RtI; (c) of- fers a range of interventions that are systematically applied to students based on their demonstrated level of need; and (d) addresses the role of the school culture, context, and environment as it applies to the development and improvement of behavior problems in children (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports, 2007 ). To support academic achievement and social competence, Sugai and Horner (2006) noted that

The systemic implementation of school-wide PBIS (SW-PBIS) approach is guided by four elements. First, the school, as an organization, establishes measurable and achievable long- term outcomes (academic and social behavior (targets) that are endorsed by students, families, and educators. Second, to the greatest extent possible, the school identifies practices that are supported by trustworthy, replicable, and education- ally relevant evidence. Third, information or data are used to document the status of current practices, justify the need for change, and evaluate intervention effectiveness, efficiency, and relevance. Finally, the school formally establishes system sup- ports (e.g., personnel, funding, political backing, training) to enable the accurate and durable implementation of the prac- tices of SW-PBIS. (p. 248) The criteria and context for identifying evidence-based practices consist

of (a) explicit descriptions of procedures/practices, (b) clear definitions of the settings and implementers who use procedures/practices, (c) identification of the population of individuals who are expected to benefit, and (d) specific outcomes expected (OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Supports, 2009; Simonsen, Fairbanks, Briesch, Myers, & Sugai, 2008). Researchers have conducted a number of empirical studies to establish evidence-based practices at the school-wide, classroom, non-classroom, individual, and family engagement levels. For example, at the school-wide level, evidence-based practices consist of (a) the formation of leadership teams, (b) behavior purpose statement, (c) positive expectations and behaviors, (d) procedures for teaching school-wide and classroom-wide expected behaviors, (e) a continuum of procedures for en-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

couraging expected behaviors, (f ) continuum of procedures for discouraging rule violations, and (f ) procedures for on-going data-based monitoring and evaluation. At the non-classroom level (e.g., cafeteria, library, playground, etc.), evidence-based practices consist of (a) positive expectations and routines taught and encouraged, (b) active supervision by all staff (i.e., scan, move, and interact), (c) pre-correction procedures and reminders, and (d) positive reinforcement. At the classroom level, evidence-based practices consist of (a) the implementation of all school-wide rules, (b) assessment of the structure of routines and the class- room environment, (c) positively stated expectations posted, taught, reviewed, prompted, and supervised, (d) maximum engagement through high rates of op- portunities to respond and delivery of evidence-based instructional curriculum and practices, (e) a continuum of behavior management strategies to reinforce appropriate behaviors, and (f ) continuum of behavior management strategies for inappropriate behaviors. At the individual level, evidence-based practices con- sist of (a) function-based behavior support planning, (b) team- and data-based decision making, (c) comprehensive person-centered planning and wraparound processes, (d) targeted social skills and self-management instruction, and (e) indi- vidualized instructional & curricular accommodations (Sugai, 2010).

shARed feAtuRes of Rti And pBis

Both RtI and PBIS define and describe critical features to be in place at the universal (Tier 1), targeted group (Tier 2), and individual (Tier 3) levels. As noted earlier, the 3 tiers may be characterized as follows:

(a) Primary prevention: high quality core instruction that meets the needs of most students

(b) Secondary prevention: evidence-based intervention(s) of moder- ate intensity that addresses the learning or behavioral challenges of most at-risk students

(c) Tertiary prevention: individualized intervention(s) of increased in- tensity for students who show minimal response to secondary pre- vention

In the PBIS model, at the universal level, it is essential that all children exhibit appropriate behaviors at the school-wide level to be successful. For so- cial behavior, a universal curriculum focuses attention on the set of social skills that all students are expected to have and exhibit. Advocates of PBIS suggest the implementation of school-wide expectations, rules, and instructional pro- cedures, as well as lesson plans used to teach them. The teaching of rules and consequences on a school-wide basis is a significant contribution of PBIS to minimize disruptive behavior, suspensions, and expulsions in schools. Features of a successful SW-PBIS program include (a) the development of positive be- havioral expectations, (b) specific methods to teach these expectations to staff

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

and students, (c) proactive supervision or monitoring of behaviors, (d) contin- gency management systems to reinforce and correct behavior, and (e) methods to measure outcomes and to evaluate progress across three tiers. When universal interventions are carried out with fidelity, schools can begin to collect and use records of behavior to help identify students who have high rates of external- izing behaviors and who are in need of additional supports. For students who continue to display problem behaviors, screening tools, assessments (e.g., office discipline referrals, academic/behavioral records, teacher ratings) and progress monitoring procedures can be used as data to identify students who need more support relative to the rest of the school’s population and for making decisions (Clonin, McDougal, Clark, & Davidson,. 2007; Severson, Walker, Hope-Dolit- tle, Kratochwill, & Gresham, 2007). As in RtI, general education teachers must continually pay attention to those students are who are experiencing academic difficulties, have a high number of discipline referrals, have high levels of off-task behavior, have continuing low achievement, and/or have extended periods of unstructured time. Sandomierski et al. (2007) stated that it is only after high- quality academic and behavior instruction and interventions are established at both the school-wide and classroom levels that schools could conclude that a student has a need for additional services at the targeted group level (Tier 2). Once a student has been identified as needing additional support, both RtI and SW-PBIS advocate using evidence-based interventions that require (a) resources appropriate to the student’s level of need, and then (b) monitoring the prog- ress of students receiving those interventions. At Tier 2, this is interpreted as providing interventions that are easy to administer to small groups of students, and which require limited time and staff involvement. In schools that are us- ing PBIS, a check-in/check-out program (Crone, Horner, & Hawken, 2004) meets these criteria and provides a way to focus at-risk students’ attention on the school-wide expectations. Other possibilities for Tier 2 interventions include social skills groups, group counseling, or mentoring programs.

When student problem behavior is chronic and intense, individualized educational plans, based upon a functional behavioral assessment (FBA) is justi- fied at Tier 1. Earlier, Sugai et al. (2000) noted that “the FBA approach is the cornerstone of systems that address the educational programming of students who display the most significant and challenging problem behavior. These stu- dents require behavior support plans that are specialized, individualized, and highly intense. Such plans must be based on information about the nature of the problem behavior and the environmental context in which the problem behav- ior is observed. The FBA approach provides a systematic and informed means by which targeted interventions can be developed and monitored” (p.140). Fol- lowing the FBA, school leadership teams develop behavior support plans that specify possible teaching strategies or manipulations for (a) desired and accept-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

able alternative behaviors, (b) antecedent events, (c) consequence events, and (d) setting events/establishing operations.

Sugai (2007) noted that a comparison of RtI applications in early lit- eracy and social behavior reveals similarities within core RtI characteristics at the schoolwide level. Similarities are found across the categories of teams, universal screening, progressive monitoring, effective interventions, and decision making rules. The blended integration of RtI and PBIS has direct relevance and applica- tion across the range of teaching and learning environments that exist in schools.

Table 2. RtI Application Examples

Early Reading and Literacy Social Behavior

Team General educator, special educator, reading specialist, Title 1, school psychologist, etc.

General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title 1, school psychologist, etc.

Universal Screening Curriculum based measurement

SSBD, record review, gating

Progress Monitoring Curriculum based measurement

Office Discipline Records, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching

Effective Interventions 5 specific reading skills- phonetic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and comprehension

Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavior contracting, group contingency management, function-based support, self- management

Decision Making Rules Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers

SOURCE: Sugai, G., (August 1, 2007). school-wide Positive behavior interventions and sup- ports and responsiveness-to-intervention. Keynote presentation to and paper for the Southern

Maryland PBIS Summer Regional Conference. Waldorf, MD. Reprinted with permission.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

cultuRAl consideRAtions foR Rti And pBis models foR cultuRAlly And linguisticAlly diveRse students potentiAlly At Risk With ld

Policymakers, researchers, and educators have expressed their concerns about the disproportionate representation of ELLs and African American stu- dents diagnosed with LD, and the national trends indicative of the dispropor- tionate suspensions and expulsions of these students have been consistently doc- umented and overlooked (Calderhead, Umstead, & Nelson, 2011; Skiba et al., 2002; Vincent, Randall, Cartledge, Tobin, & Swain-Bradway, 2011; Vincent, Tobin, & Sprague, 2011). Researchers and educators agree that school systems must be culturally responsive to the emotional, psychological and educational needs of CLD students who are potentially at risk for LD (Utley et al., 2002; Utley & Obiakor, 2001; Utley et al., 2011).

The problem-solving models of RtI and PBIS are grounded in literature connected with behavioral consultation, which is inductive, empirical, and fo- cused on academic difficulties and problem behaviors (Kratochwill & Pedersen, 2008). Due to its inductive nature, such models reject the philosophical ideas that (a) perceived deficits within the child cannot be remediated; (b) certain or specific student characteristics dictate what interventions will work; and (c) specific interventions will be effective for all students, irrespective of culture, language, race, gender, and social class (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton, 2004). Al- though it is important to design and implement interventions specific to each child referred to RtI and PBIS teams, it is challenging and essential to consider a host of sociocultural and system factors that influence students’ academic and social behaviors. These factors include students’ cultural and linguistic back- grounds, teachers’ backgrounds and biases, and institutional and societal factors impacting interpersonal relationships and students’ experiential opportunities.

moving Beyond A systems AppRoAch And emBRAcing ecologicAl And stRengths peRspectives

For the RtI and PBIS models to be culturally responsive and effec- tive with CLD students potentially at risk for LD, traditional theoretical para- digms (e.g., behavioral) must include (a) ecological theory and (b) the strengths perspective for addressing cultures that have experienced racism and oppres- sion in the public school system. These theories focus on the interconnected- ness of various components (e.g., system parts; leadership, policies, resources, funding sources) and the behavioral interactions between them and the social environment.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

limited to (a) knowledge and understanding of educational barriers confronted by CLD students and their families and the problem solving methods used by these cultural groups; (b) knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the reality of the en- vironment of CLD students and their families; (c) empathy with the CLD stu- dents, their families, and home environments; (d) skills in intake, process, and outcome evaluation; and (e) skills in the evaluation of internal/external school resources to judge what is reasonable to expect with regard to changes in the at- titudes and behaviors of CLD students.

The strengths perspective focuses on the strengths of individuals in a target system (e.g., public schools) and problem areas are deemphasized while intervention strategies that utilize strengths are implemented. This perspec- tive requires that researchers and practitioners have attitudes and skills to not judge the academic and social problems of CLD students as deficit-oriented and pathological.

emBedding cultuRAlly Responsive pRActices into Rti And pBis models

Embedding culturally responsive teaching practices into comprehen- sive models of RtI and SW-PBIS is essential to facilitate academic achievement outcomes and to foster a positive school climate to prevent the disproportion- ate representation of CLD students potentially at risk for LD in special edu- cation classrooms (De Pry & Cheesman, 2010). These authors, in reviewing the extant literature on culturally responsive teaching (e.g., Gay, 2000; Ladson- Billing, 1995) proposed the following definition: “the recognition of the diverse backgrounds, knowledge, perspectives, experiences, and abilities that students, educators, and families bring to the culture of a school that result in the use of relevant, research-based instructional and behavioral support practices, which are implemented with intentionality, measured with fidelity, responsive to the needs of each learner, and systemically valued as a means of promoting equity and achievement for all students” (pp. 43-44).

The Culturally Relevant and Responsive Educational (CRRE) program was a collaborative project of researchers and practitioners to understand the role and importance of culture in educational programs and teacher practices (LeMoine et al., 2006; Patton, 2011; Patton, Maddahian, & Lai, 2005). The theoretical aspects of the CRRE program included nine domains. (1) connecting knowledge to CLD students life experiences, (2) social and emotional consider- ations (e.g., values, beliefs, self-identity), (3) equitable and relevant educational opportunities and resources (e.g., access to school opportunities, instruction- al technologies, tutoring, etc.), (4) instructional quality and curriculum (e.g., standards-based curricula, multicultural content, post-secondary education), (5) instructional strategies (e.g., cooperative learning, active learning, instruc- tional conversation, scaffolding), (6) diagnosis and assessment (e.g., formative

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

and summative assessments to determine students’ prior knowledge, etc.), (7) professional development, (8) parent and community involvement (e.g., posi- tive interactions between teachers, family, and community organizations), and (9) policy and monitoring (e.g., local district and state policies).

Most recently, Vincent, Randall, et al. (2011) addressed how to infuse 4 principles of cultural responsiveness into the theoretical foundation of the SW-PBIS model: (a) cultural validity, (b) cultural relevance and validation, (c) cultural self-knowledge and awareness, and (d) cultural equity. Cultural validity refers to the validity of instruments (e.g., definitions used to define appropriate and inappropriate social behavior) used to collect office disciplinary referrals (ODR) and the disaggregation of data. These authors noted that African Ameri- can students referred disproportionately for suspensions and expulsions involve teachers displaying a greater subjective interpretation of behaviors, such as “dis- respect” or “defiance” than for White children with the same behaviors, indi- cating that the collection of behavioral data and data-based decisions are sub- jected to teacher bias. Cultural relevance and validation refer to adaptations and modifications (e.g., rule-making, questioning techniques, consequences) that reflect students’ experiences, language, and values so that interventions (e.g., social skills instruction) are designed and implemented in a culturally relevant and appropriate manner, one that is consistent within the students’ values (Car- tledge & Kleefeld, 2010; Cartledge & Kourea, 2008; Cartledge & Lo, 2006; Cartledge & Milburn, 1996). Teachers’ cultural self-knowledge and awareness are (a) key elements to understanding the cultures of other individuals (i.e., verbal and nonverbal behaviors) and (b) the design of culturally responsive classroom management procedures. Finally, cultural equity refers to a commitment from school staff to develop culturally equitable discipline outcomes, acknowledge- ment of differences among students, and strategies for accommodating differ- ences within the school’s culture.

cultuRAlly Responsive dAtA-BAsed decision mAking

One of the most frequently indicated causes of overrepresentation in special education is related to the validity and reliability of decisions by educa- tors made throughout the pre-referral process (Henderson, 2008). To address the educational problem and influence of cultural bias by teachers, a collaborative problem-solving team is implemented which functions as a body that rigorously and objectively conceptualizes the student’s functioning and problem-solves to formulate classroom-based interventions (Knotek, 2003). These teams are also called teacher assistance teams (Chalfant, Pysh, & Moultrie, 1979), intervention assistance teams (Graden, Casey, & Christenson, 1989), instructional consulta- tion teams (Gravois & Rosenfield, 2006), teacher support teams, student as- sistance teams, student support teams, and mainstream assistance teams (Fuchs,

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Fuchs, Harris, & Roberts, 1996). These teams are comprised of four to six gen- eral education teachers and a teacher who requests assistance with struggling learners who are potentially at risk for placement in special education. Salend and Taylor (2002) highly recommend professionals who are culturally sensitive to the CLD student’s background in order for the team to learn about the stu- dent’s cultural perspectives and experiential and linguistic background and to determine whether the student’s behavior has a sociocultural explanation. The collaborative problem-solving process includes problem identification, direct measurement of behavior, implementation of interventions, monitoring prog- ress and evaluating outcomes. The roles and responsibilities of team members include (a) reaching consensus as to the nature of the learning and behavioral problem of struggling students; (b) determining priorities for intervention as- sistance; (c) helping teachers select methods, strategies, or approaches to be used in solving student problems; (d) assigning responsibility for carrying out the recommendations proposed by the team; and (e) establishing follow-up plans to monitor student progress.

RtI provides CLD students potentially at risk for LD to receive sup- ports along a continuum of instructional strategies rather than based upon a des- ignated category for special education. Garcia and Ortiz (2008) noted that when RtI is implemented with CLD learners who are potentially at risk for LD, it is critical that the pre-referral, assessment, and intervention phases be culturally and linguistically responsive; that is, educators must ensure that CLD students’ sociocultural, linguistic, racial/ethnic, and other relevant background character- istics are addressed at all phases, including (a) collecting assessment information, (b) reviewing student performance, (c) considering reasons for student difficulty or failure, (d) designing alternative interventions, and (e) interpreting assess- ment results (Basterra, 2011; Henderson, 2008 ).

Brown and Sanford (2011) identified four critical questions that must be considered by the RtI team members for CLD students potentially at risk with LD: (a) What evidence-based interventions should be used with ELLs across multi-tier levels? (b) What information do I need in order to make ap- propriate data-based decisions regarding ELLs? (c) How do you determine and monitor progress for ELLs using culturally valid measurements? and (d) In the screening process, how do you identify ELLs who are potentially at risk?

With regard to the first question, these authors recommended that in- structional planning of academic subject matter should be based upon the CLD students’ academic outcomes and literacy experiences in L1 and L2, with strate- gies in transfer and generalizability across subjects and the use of accommoda- tions and modifications in instruction. The second question on making data- based decisions for instruction requires specific information on CLD students’ native language skills (L1), life experiences and strengths, second language skills

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

(L2), prior formal educational opportunities, and cultural values and beliefs about education. The third question on progress monitoring involves setting short and long-term goals that will enable CLD students who are potentially at risk for school failure to reach grade-level standards, use of measures for as- sessing academic achievement gains, and the use of a portfolio for determining when goals have been met. The fourth question requires knowledge about the reliability and validity of measures to identify CLD students’ instructional needs in reading in both L1 and L2 and measuring students’ language in L1 and L2 in order to assess and evaluate current levels of performance. Salend and Taylor (2002) and Utley and Salend (2006) provide detailed guidelines for conduct- ing culturally sensitive functional behavioral intervention plans (BIPs). These guidelines include forming a diverse multidisciplinary team, employing cultur- ally sensitive ways of (1) selecting and defining target behavior, (2) collecting information about students and their behaviors, (3) analyzing data and formu- lating hypothesis statements, and (4) developing culturally responsive BIPs and evaluating their impact on students’ cultural perspectives.

While culturally responsive practices have been integrated into the RtI model, we advocate the inclusion of culturally responsive practices into the com- ponents of the SW-PBIS model. From a behavioral perspective, Sugai, Fallon, and O’Keefe (2011) defined culture

as the extent to which groups of individuals engage in overt behavior [that] reflects shared behavioral learning histories, serving to differentiate the group from other groups, and pre- dicting how individuals within the group act in specific setting conditions. Culturally and [contextual] relevance[are] used to describe unique variables, characteristics, and learning histo- ries of students, educators, and family and community mem- bers involved in the implementation of SW-PBIS. A major as- sumption is that effective instructional practices and behavior and classroom management strategies exist (Horner, Sugai, & Anderson, 2010), and consideration must be given to culture and context.

moving Beyond A systems AppRoAch And emBRAcing An ecologicAl AppRoAch

Horner (2003) stated that “a systems approach considers the school as the basic “unit of analysis” or “point of influence or action” and how the col- lective actions of individuals within the school contribute to how the school is characterized” (p. 17). Guiding principles of a systems approach is that (a) the organization does not behave, individuals within the organization engage in behaviors; (b) an organization is a group of individuals who behave together to

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

achieve a common goal; and (c) systems are needed to support the collective use of best practices by individuals within the organization (OSEP, 2010).

Rueda and Windmueller (2006) argue that the current approaches are powerful, however, they are incomplete to equitably address the disproportion- ate representation of CLD students potentially at risk for LD. These authors stated that “what works in one setting will not always work elsewhere without conscious attention to features of the local context . . . and these approaches tend to address a single level rather than multiple levels in a coordinated and comprehensive way, thus ignoring important sociocultural variables that inter- act with cognitive and social variables that interact in complex ways, especially for populations in at-risk circumstances” (p. 103). Therefore, it is critical that organizational systems pay close attention to the social culture and learning and teaching environment of schools so that appropriate RtI and SW-PBIS pro- grams are designed and implemented in order to achieve academic and social success for CLD students.

For the RtI and PBIS models to be culturally responsive and effective with CLD students potentially at risk for LD, traditional theoretical paradigms (e.g., behavioral) must include ecological theory for addressing cultures that have experienced racism and oppression in the public school system. These the- ories focus on the interconnectedness of various components (e.g., system parts, leadership, policies, resources, funding sources) and the behavioral interactions between them and the social environment. The priority of school administra- tors must include systems change considerations (e.g., policies, resources, guid- ing principles, operating routines, academic and behavioral expertise, etc.) that support the effective and efficient selection and implementation of practices by school personnel (e.g., teachers, school psychologists, administrators) (Bakken & Smith, 2011).

The ecological perspective concerns itself with the collective behaviors of individuals in the context of interdependence with larger institutions and social systems with which they interact dynamically. This perspective requires researchers and practitioners to have skills at several levels, including, but not limited to (a) knowledge and understanding of educational barriers confronted by CLD students and their families and the problem-solving methods used by these cultural groups; (b) knowledge of, and sensitivity to, the reality of the en- vironment of CLD students and their families; (c) empathy with the CLD stu- dents, their families, and home environments; (d) skills in intake, process, and outcome evaluation; and (e) skills in the evaluation of internal/external school resources to judge what is reasonable to expect with regard to changes in the at- titudes and behaviors of CLD students.

As noted earlier, it is imperative that a systems approach encompasses a dynamic, culturally responsive, and context-sensitive perspective for understand-

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

ing the meaning of the social-cognitive processes and life experiences of CLD students at risk for school failure. Empirical research focused on the academic and social behaviors of CLD students at risk for school failure must encompass a theory that addresses the complexities and content of high-risk environments in which they live (Aspy, Oman, Vesely, McLeroy, Rodine, & Marshall, 2004; Boulter, 2004; Graber, Nichols, Lynn, Brooks-Gunn, 2006; Meyers, Varkey, & Aguirre. 2002; Spencer, 1995). Bronfenbrenner’s ecological theory explains how a student’s school, community and family influence and interact with their be- haviors (e.g., aggressive, social, disruptive, withdrawn, etc.). This theory posits that a child’s process of maturation is heavily influenced by the presence of vari- ous elements in their environments, those of which are found in a child’s micro- systems, mesosystem, exosystem, and macrosystem.

Earlier, Spencer, Dupree, and Hartman (1997) proposed an integrated approach combining a phenomenological approach (i.e., a method for captur- ing the individual’s ability to understand societal expectations, stereotypes, and biases) with Bronfenbrenner’s ecological systems theory referred to as a phenom- enological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST).

According to these authors: [A] phenomenological approach (i.e., how the individual per- ceives or makes sense of an experience) is useful in identifying specific points in need of intervention and support. These au- thors assert that the processing of phenomena and experiences not only influences how much one feels valued or valuable (e.g., self-esteem), but it also influences how one gives meaning and significance to different aspects of oneself (e.g., abilities, physical attributes, behaviors, and activities. More specifically, it is not merely the experience but one’s perception of expe- riences in different cultural contexts that influences how one perceives oneself. (p. 817) The social-cognitive processes of the individual include coping methods

and responses to situations and problem-solving strategies linked to self-percep- tions, identity formation, and adaptations to events within the cultural context. In longitudinal research conducted with African American males, components of the PVEST model include (1) risk contributors (e.g., race, socioeconomic status, gender, physical status, biological characteristics) linked to self-identity, stereotypes, and biases; (2) stress engagement (e.g., neighborhood dangers, so- cial support, and daily hassles); (3) reactive coping methods/problem- solving strategies that involve maladaptive and adaptive solutions to events; (4) stable coping responses which include the integration of cultural goals and perceived available means (e.g., cultural/ethnic identity, sex role identity, personal identity,

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

and self-efficacy); and (5) life-stage outcomes (e.g., deviance vs. competence, and mental illness vs. healthy relationships).

conclusion

The relationship among race, cultural and linguistic diversity factors, socioeconomic status variables, RtI and SW-PBIS, and implementation is a com- plex multi-stage process, often requiring the coordination of multiple systems and supports. A considerable amount of research to date has focused on pro- cesses predictive of implementation success, however, examination of the ways in which fixed school level variables interact with implementation demands is an important area for future research (Frank, Horner, & Anderson, 2011). In addition, scientific and methodological concerns of research with CLD students potentially at risk for LD must include (1) an understanding of the scientific relevance of constructs such as culture, race/ethnicity, socioeconomic status, and gender in relation to human development and (2) individual development trajectories as well as social processes within families, schools, neighborhoods, hospitals, and other systems that provide contextual frameworks for learning (Entwisle & Astone, 1994; Utley, & Obiakor, 1995). We believe that we need to think about interdisciplinary approaches as solutions as to how to implement comprehensive RtI and PBIS models for CLD students potentially at risk for LD. It is misleading to suggest that the process of implementing culturally re- sponsive RtI and PBIS models in a “piecemeal fashion,” can be accomplished if there is not a commitment from the school’s leadership personnel with regard to the allocation of funding and resources at the school and district levels. We must admit to ourselves that researchers, school administrators, and practitio- ners do not have a sufficient knowledge base and leadership skills to implement culturally responsive and evidence-based practices in a dual- service delivery sys- tem of general education and special education across all grade levels and in all content areas.

We believe that priorities for implementing RtI and PBIS should con- sist of the following: (a) researchers and practitioners need scientifically validat- ed instructional protocols and behavioral strategies that are culturally responsive in order to accelerate CLD students’ academic progress in reading and math and minimize social and behavior problems at the elementary, middle, and high school levels; (2) RtI instructional strategies and PBIS procedures must be valid and implemented with fidelity by practitioners so that disability identification does not occur; (3) professional development training with practitioners on cul- turally responsive and evidence-based strategies as related to RtI and PBIS must be provided on a continuous basis with an emphasis on looking at the interrelat- edness of cultural and linguistic diversity variables that impact the academic and social behaviors of CLD students potentially at risk for LD.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

RefeRences Adelman, H., & Taylor, L. (2011). Moving beyond the three tier intervention pyramid toward a

comprehensive framework for student and learning supports. Retrieved from http://smhp. psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/briefs/threetier.pdf

Artiles, A. J., Harry, B., Reschly, D. J., & Chinn, P. C. (2002). Over-identification of students of color in special education: A critical overview. Multicultural Perspectives, 4(1), 3-10.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salazar, J., & Higareda, I. (2002). English Language Learner represen- tation in special education in California urban school districts. In D. J. Losen & G. Orfield (Eds.), Racial inequality in special education (pp. 265-284). Boston: Harvard Education Press.

Artiles, A. J., Rueda, R., Salzaar, J., & Higareda, I. (2005). Within-group diversity in minority special education disproportionate representation: The case of English language learners in California’s urban school districts. Exceptional Children, 71, 283-300.

Aspy, C. B., Oman, R. F., Vesely, S. K., McLeroy, K., Rodine, S., & Marshall, L. (2004). Adoles- cent violence: The protective effects of youth assets. Journal of Counseling & Develop- ment, 82(3), 268-276.

Baker, S., Gersten, R., & Lee, D. (2002). A synthesis of empirical research on teaching mathemat- ics to low-achieving students. The Elementary School Journal,103, 336–358.

Bakken, J. P., & Smith, B. A. (2011). A blueprint for developing culturally proficient/responsive school administrators in special education. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Jour- nal, 9(1), 33-46.

Basterra, M. (2011). Cognition, culture, language, and assessment: How to select culturally valid assessments in the classroom. In M. Basterra, E. Trumbull, & G. Solano-Flores (Eds.), Cultural validity in assessment: Addressing linguistic and cultural diversity (pp. 72-79). New York: Routledge.

Batsche, G., Elliott, J., Graden, J. L., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., & Prasse, D. (2006). Response to Intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National As- sociation of State Directors of Special Education.

Bohanon, H., Goodman, S., & McIntosh, K. (2009). Integrating academic and behavior sup- ports within an RtI framework, Part 1: General overview. Retrieved from http://www. rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior/integrating-behavior-and-academic-supports-general- overview

Boulter, L. (2004). Family-school connection and school violence prevention. Negro Educational Review, 55(1), 27-40.

Brown, J. E., & Sanford, A. (2011). RTI for English language learners: Appropriately using screening and progress monitoring tools to improve instructional outcomes. Washington, DC: Na- tional Center on Response to Intervention. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/ resourcetype/rti-english-language-learners-appropriately-using-screening-and-progress- monitoring

Burns, M. K., & Senesac, B. V. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393–406.

Calderhead, W., Umstead, E., & Nelson, C. M. (2011). Exclusionary discipline practices in Ken- tucky and Texas. Presentation at the Teacher Educators Conference for Children with Behavioral Disorders, 35th Annual Conference, Tempe, AZ.

Cartledge, G., & Kleefeld, J. (2010). Working together: Building children’s social skills through folk- tales, Grades 3–6 (2nd ed.). Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Cartledge, G., & Kourea, L. (2008). Culturally responsive classrooms for culturally diverse stu- dents with and at risk for disabilities. Exceptional Children, 74, 351–371.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Cartledge, G., & Lo, Y. (2006). Teaching urban learners: Culturally responsive strategies for develop- ing academic and behavioral competence. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Cartledge, G., & Milburn, J. F. (1996). Cultural diversity and social skill instruction: Understanding ethnic and gender differences. Champaign, IL: Research Press.

Cartledge, G., Singh, A., & Gibson, L. (2008). Practical behavior-management techniques to close the accessibility gap for students who are culturally and linguistically diverse.

Preventing School Failure, 52(3), 29-38. Centers for Disease Control (CDC). (2007-2009). Health Data Interactive. Retrieved from http://

www.cdc.gov/nchs/hdi.htm Chalfant, J., Pysh, M., & Moultrie, R. (1979). Teacher assistance teams: A model for within-

building problem solving. Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 2, 85-96. Clonin, S. M., McDougal, J. L., Clark, K., & Davison, S. (2007). Use of office discipline referrals

in school-wide decision making: A practical example. Psychology in the Schools, 44(1), 19-27.

Crone, D. A., Horner, R. H., & Hawken, L. S. (2004). Responding to problem behavior in schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York: The Guilford Press.

De Pry, R., & Cheesman, E. (2010). Reflections on culturally responsive teaching: Embedding theory into practices of instructional and behavioral support. Journal of Praxis in Mul- ticultural Education, 5(1), 36-51.

Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washing- ton, DC: National Academy Press.

Duchnowski, A. J., Johnson, M. K., Hall, K. S., Kutash, K., & Friedman, R. (1993). The alterna- tive to residential treatment study: Initial findings. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 1, 17-26.

Duda, M., & Utley, C. A. (2005). Positive behavioral support for at-risk students: Promoting social competence in at-risk culturally diverse learners in urban schools. Multiple Voices, 8(1), 128-143.

Entwisle, D., & Astone, N. M. (1994). Some practical guidelines for measuring youth’s race/ ethnicity and socioeconomic status. Child Development, 65, 1521-1540.

Fletcher, J. M., & Vaughn, S. R. (2009). Response to intervention: Preventing and remediating academic difficulties. Child Development Perspectives, 3(1), 30-37.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A. (2007). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention. New York: Guilford.

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J., Olson, R. K. (2002). Classification of learning disabilities: An evidence-based evaluation. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, D. P. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to prac- tice (pp. 185–261). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Flicek, M. (1992). Social status of boys with both academic problems and Attention-Deficit Hy- peractivity Disorder. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 20(4), 353-366.

Frank, J. L., Horner, R. H., & Anderson, C. M. (2011). Influence of school level, socioeconomic sta- tus and racial diversity on school-wide positive behavior support implementation. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/pbis_newsletter/volume_5/volume5_issue4.aspx

Fristad, M. A., Topolosky, S., Weller, E. B., & Weller, R. A. (1992). Depression and learning dis- abilities in children. Journal of Affective Disorders, 26, 53-58.

Fuchs, L. S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to interven- tion (and shouldn’t be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 22(2), 129-136.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L. (2004). Identifying reading disability by respon- siveness-to-instruction: Specifying measures and criteria. Learning Disability Quarterly, 27(4), 216-227.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., Harris, A. H., & Roberts, P. H. (1996). Bridging the research-to practice gap with mainstream assistance teams: A cautionary tale. School Psychology Quarterly, 11(3), 244-266.

Garcia, S., & Ortiz, A. A. (2008). Preventing disproportionate representation: Culturally and linguistically responsive pre-referral interventions. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(4), 64-68.

Gay, G. (2000). Culturally responsive teaching: Theory, research, & practice. New York: Teachers College Press.

Geva, E. (2000). Issues in the assessment of reading disabilities in L2 children—Beliefs and re- search evidence. Dyslexia, 6, 13–28.

Graber, J. A., Nichols, T., Lynn, S. D., Brooks-Gunn, B. J. (2006). A longitudinal examination of family, friend, and media influences on competent versus problem behaviors among urban minority youth. Applied Developmental Science, 10(2), 75-85.

Graden, J. L., Casey, A., & Christenson, S. L. (1985). Implementing a pre-referral intervention system: Part I. The model. Exceptional Children, 51(5), 377-384.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007a). A meta-analysis of writing instruction for adolescent students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 99 (3), 445–476.

Graham, S., & Perin, D. (2007b). Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools—A report to Carnegie Corporation of New York. Washington, DC: Alliance for Excellent Education.

Gravois, T. A., & Rosenfield, S.A. (2006). Impact of instructional consultation teams on the disproportionate referral and placement of minority students in special education. Re- medial & Special Education, 27(1), 42-52.

Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: An alternative approach to the identifica- tion of learning disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/ Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc

Henderson, J. L. (2008). Disproportionality in special education: The relationship between pre- referral intervention teams and the special education process. Dissertation from the Department of Counseling and Psychological Services, Dissertations, Georgia State University.

Horner, R. H. (2003). Extending positive behavior supports to whole schools: Sustainable imple- mentation. Keynote Address. First International Conference on positive behavior sup- ports. Orlando, FL.

Horner, R. H. Dunlap, G., Koegel, R. L., Carr, E. G., Sailor, W., Anderson, J., et al. (1990). Toward a technology of “non-aversive behavioral support.” Journal of The Association for Persons with Severe Handicaps, 15, 125-132.

Horner, R. H., & Sugai, G. (2006). A promising approach for expanding and sustaining school- wide positive behavior supports. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 245–259.

Horner, R., Sugai, G., & Anderson, C. M. (2010). Examining the evidence base for school-wide positive behavior support. Focus on Exceptionality, 42(8), 1-14.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, P.L. 108-466 (2004, 2005). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Proposed Regulations). Retrieved from http://www. a257.g.akamaitech. net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-11804.pdf

Institute for Education Sciences. (2011). The condition of education: Participation in education. Retrieved from http: //www. nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cwd.asp - 29k

Jenkins, J. R., Hudson, R. F., Johnson, E. S. (2007). Screening for at-risk readers in a response to intervention framework. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 582-600.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Jones, C., Caravaca, L., Cizek, S., Horner, R. H., & Vincent, C. G. (2006). Culturally responsive school-wide positive behavior support: A case study in one school with a high propor- tion of Native American students. Multiple Voices, 9, 108–119.

Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.

Knight, J. (2004). Instructional coaches make progress through partnership. Journal of Staff De- velopment, 25(2), 32-37.

Knitzer, J., Steinberg, Z., & Fleisch, B. (1990). At the schoolhouse door: An examination of programs and policies for children with behavioral and emotional problems. New York: Bank Street College of Education.

.Knotek, S. (2003). Bias in problem solving and social process of student study teams. The Journal of Special Education, 37(1), 2-14.

Kovaleski, J. F., & Pedersen, J. (2008). Best practices in data analysis teaming. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 645–655). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.

Ladson-Billings, G. (1995). Toward a theory of culturally relevant pedagogy. American Educa- tional Research Journal, 32, 465-491.

LeMoine, N., Maddahian, E., Patton, D., Ross, R., & Scruggs, L. (2006, February). Applying cul- turally relevant strategies to systemic reform: Los Angeles Unified School District. Presenta- tion at the National Center for Culturally Responsive Educational Systems Conference Denver, CO.

Linan-Thompson, S., Vaughn, S., Prater, K., & Cirino, P. T. (2006). The response to intervention of English Language Learners at risk for reading problems. Journal of Learning Disabili- ties, 39(5), 390–398.

McConaughy, S. H., Mattison, R. E., & Peterson, R. L. (1994). Behavior/emotional problems of children with serious emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. School Psychology Review, 23, 81-98.

Movit, M. (2011). Meeting the needs of English Language Learners (ELL) through the essential components of RtI. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/webinar/essentialcom- ponents-rti-considerations-english-language-learners

National Center for Learning Disabilities. (2011). The state of learning disabilities: Facts, trends, and indicators. New York, Author

National Center on Response to Intervention. (2012). Integrating academic and behavior supports within an RtI framework. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior

National Health Interview Survey. 2007–2009. Identifying the emotional and behavioral problems in children, aged 14 to 17: United States, 2001–2007. Retrieved from http://www.cdc. gov/nchs/nhis.htm

McConaughy, S. H., Mattison, R. E., & Peterson, R. L. (1994). Behavior/emotional problems of children with serious emotional disturbance and learning disabilities. School psychology Review, 23, 81-98.

McNamara, J. K., Willoughby, T., Chalmers, H., & Ylc-Cura. (2005). Psychosocial status of ado- lescents with learning disabilities with and without comorbid attention deficit hyperac- tivity disorder. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 20(4), 234-244.

Movit, M. (2011). Meeting the needs of English Language Learners (ELL) through the essential com- ponents of RtI. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/webinar/essentialcompo- nents-rti-considerations-english-language-learners

Obiakor, F. E. (2001). It even happens in “good” schools: Responding to cultural diversity in today’s classrooms. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Obiakor, F. E. (2007). Multicultural special education: Effective intervention for today’s schools. Intervention in School and Clinic, 42, 148-155.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Obiakor, F. E. (2008). The eight-step approach to multicultural learning and teaching (3rd ed.). Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

Ortiz, A. A. (1997). Learning disabilities occurring concomitantly with linguistic differences. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30, 321-332.

Ortiz, A. A. (2002). Prevention of school failure and early intervention for English Language Learners. In A. J. Artiles & A. A. Ortiz (Eds.), English Language Learners with special education needs: Identification, assessment, and instruction (pp. 31-63). Washington, DC: Center for Applied Linguistics and Delta Systems Co.

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports. (2007). Re- trieved from http://www.pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Supports. (2009). Is school-wide posi- tive behavior support an evidence-based practice? Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/ research/default.aspx

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. (2010). Implementing blueprint and self-assessment: School-wide positive behavioral interventions and supports. Retrieved from www.pbis.org

Patton, D. C. (2011). Evaluating the Culturally Relevant and Responsive Education professional development program at the elementary school level in the Los Angeles Unified School District. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 71-107.

Patton, D. C., Maddahian, E., & Lai, J. (2005). Evaluation of effective schools and teacher prac- tices in the ten schools program (Pub. No. 249). Los Angeles: Program Evaluation and Research Branch. Planning, Assessment and Research Division. Los Angeles Unified School District.

Pisecco, S., Baker, D. B., Silva, P. A., & Brooke, M. (2001). Boys with reading disabilities and/ or ADHD: Distinctions in early childhood. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 34(2), 98- 106.

Reid, W. (1987). Institutions and practices: Professional education reports and the language of reform. Educational Researcher, 16(8), l0-15.

Rock, E. E., Fessler, M. A., & Church, R. P. (1997). The concomitance of learning disabilities and emotional/behavioral disorders: A conceptual model. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 30(3), 245-263.

RtI Network. (2011a). Integrating academic and behavior supports within an RtI framework. Re- trieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior

RtI Network. (2011b). RTI national online forum. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/ professional/forums/data-based-decision-making

Rueda, R., & Mindmueller, M. P. (2006). English Language Learners, LD, and overrepresenta- tion: A multiple level analysis. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 99-107.

Salend, S. J., Duhaney, L. M., & Montgomery, W. (2002). A comprehensive approach to iden- tifying and addressing issues of disproportionate representation. Remedial and Special Education, 23, 289–299.

Salend, S. J., & Taylor, L. M. (2002). Cultural perspectives: Missing pieces in the functional as- sessment process. Intervention in School and Clinic, 38(2), 104-112.

Sandomierski, T., Kincaid, D., & Algozzine, B. (2007). Response to intervention and positive be- havior support: Brothers from different mothers or sisters with different misters? Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 4(2). Retrieved from http: www.pbis.org

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., et al. (2007). Intervention for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implication for practice. Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

Schachter, D. C., Pless, I. B., & Bruck, M. (1991). The prevalence and correlates of behavior problems in learning-disabled children. Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 36(6), 323-331.

Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope-Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 193- 223.

Simonsen, B., Fairbanks, S., Briesch, A., Myers, D., Sugai, G. (2008). Evidence-based practices in classroom management: Considerations for research to practice. Education and Treat- ment of Children, 31(3), 351-380.

Skiba, R. J., Michael, R. S., Nardo, A. C., & Peterson, R. (2002). The color of discipline: Sourc- es of racial and gender disproportionality in school punishment. Urban Review, 34, 317–342.

Smith, T. J., & Adams, G. (2006). The effect of comorbid AD/HD and learning disabilities on parent-reported behavioral and academic outcomes of children. Learning Disability Quarterly, 29(2), 101-112.

Speece, D. L., Case, L. P., & Molloy, D. E. (2003). Responsiveness to general education instruc- tion as the first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 147-156.

Spencer, M. B. (1995). Old issues and new theorizing about African American youth: A phe- nomenological variant of ecological systems theory. In R. L. Taylor (Ed.), Black youth: Perspectives on their status in the United States (pp. 37–69). Westport, CT: Praeger.

Spencer, M. B., Dupree, D., & Hartmann, T. (1997). A phenomenological variant of ecological systems theory (PVEST): A self-organization perspective in context. Development and Psychopathology, 9(4), 817-833.

Spillane, J., Reiser, B., & Reimer, T. (2002). Policy implementation and cognition: Reframing and refocusing implementation research. Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 387-431.

Sugai, G. (2007). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Lessons learned and to be learned. Key- note presentation at, and paper for, the RTI Summit, U.S. Department of Education, Washington, DC.

Sugai, G. (2009a). Reaching all students: RtI & SW-PBIS. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork. org/learn/behavior/integrating-behavior-and-academic-supports

Sugai, G. (2009b). School-Wide positive behavior support and response to intervention. Retrieved from http://www.rtinetwork.org/learn/behavior/integrating-behavior-and-academic- supports

Sugai, G. (2010). Responsiveness to intervention and school-wide positive behavior support. Retrieved from http://www.pbis.org/default.aspx

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Algozzine, R., Barrett, S., Lewis, T., Anderson, C., et al. (2010). School- Wide positive behavior support: Implementers’ blueprint and self-assessment. Eugene: Uni- versity of Oregon. Retrieved from www. pbis.org

Sugai, G., Horner, R. H., Dunlap, G., Hieneman, M., Lewis, T. J., Nelson, C., M. et al. (2000). Applying positive behavior support and functional behavioral assessment in schools. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 2(3), 131-143.

Sugai, G., Fallon, L., & O’Keefe, B. (2011). Culture, disability, & behavior: Let’s have a conversa- tion. Retrieved from http://www. pbis.org

Swanson, H., L., Hoskyn, M., & Lee, C. (1999). Interventions for students with learning disabili- ties: A meta-analysis of treatment outcome. New York: Guilford.

Tirosh, E., Berger, J., Cohen-Ophir, M., Davidovitch, M., & Cohen, A. (1998). Learning dis- abilities with and without attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder: Parents’ and teachers’ perspectives. Journal of Child Neurology, 13(6), 270-276.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

U.S. Census Bureau, Demographics Survey Division. (2009). Survey of income and program par- ticipation. Retrieved from http://www.census.gov/sipp/

Utley, C. A. (2006). Positive behavioral support as a comprehensive, proactive, and school-wide inter- vention program for preventing problem behaviors in at-risk children. Poster presentation at the Office of Special Education Programs Project Directors’ Meeting, Washington, DC.

Utley, C. A. (2011a). A psychometric investigation of the Multicultural and Special Education Survey: An exploratory factor analysis. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 47-70.

Utley, C. A. (2011b). Response to intervention and positive behavior interventions and supports: Merging perspectives of research on cultural-ecological assessment variables to improve student outcomes of children with learning problems. Keynote Address at the Annual Learning Disabilities Worldwide Conference. Zurich, Switzerland.

Utley, C. A., Greenwood, C. R., & Douglas, K. (2007). The effects of social skills training in urban elementary students: A pilot study. Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Students with Exceptionalities, 10(2), 173-190.

Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (1995). Scientific and methodological concerns in research: Perspec- tives for multicultural learners. Office of Special Education Programs Project Directors’ Meeting, Washington, DC.

Utley, C. A., & Obiakor, F. E. (2001). Special education, multicultural education, and school re- form: Components of quality education for learners with mild disabilities. Springfield, IL: Charles C. Thomas.

Utley, C. A., Obiakor, F. E., & Bakken, J. P. (2011). Culturally responsive practices for cultur- ally and linguistically diverse students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 9(1), 5-18.

Utley, C. A., Kozleski, K., Smith, A., & Draper, I. (2002). Positive behavior support: A proactive strategy for minimizing behavior problems in urban, multicultural youth. Journal of Positive Behavioral Interventions, 4(4), 196-207.

Utley, C. A., & Salend, S. (2006). Working with multicultural learners with emotional and be- havioral problems. In F. E. Obiakor (Ed.), Multicultural special education: Educating teachers to work with all students (pp. 97-109). New York: MacMillan Publishers.

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), 3-21.

Vincent, C. G., Randall, C., Cartledge, G., Tobin, T. J., & Swain-Bradway, J. (2011). Towards integrating cultural responsiveness and school-wide positive behavior support. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 13(4), 219-229.

Vincent, C. G., Tobin, T., & Sprague, J. (2011). Exclusionary discipline practices: Findings from Oregon. Presentation at the Teacher Educators Conference for Children with Behav- ioral Disorders 35th annual conference, Tempe, AZ.

Wanzek, J., & Vaughn S. (2007). Research-based implications from extensive early reading inter- ventions. School Psychology Review, 36(4), 541–561.

Wilkinson, C.Y., Ortiz, A. A., Robertson, P.M., & Kushner. M. I. (2006). English Language Learners with reading-related LD: Linking data from multiple sources to make eligibil- ity determinations. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 39(2), 129-141.

Woodruff, D. (2011). Why is RTI an important strategy for addressing disproportionality? Re- trieved from http://www.rti4success.org/askthexpert/why-rti-important-strategy-ad- dressing-disproportionality-january-2011-0343

Zehler, A. M., Fleischman, H. F., Hopstock, P. J., Stephenson, T. G., Pendzick, M. L., & Sapru, S. (2003). Descriptive study of services to LEP students and LEP students with disabilities. Volume I: Research Report. Arlington, VA: Development Associates.

Insights on Learning Disabilities 9(1), 37-67, 2012

AuthoR note

Cheryl A. Utley, Ph.D., is the lead consultant of the Research, Educa- tion, and Policy Consulting Firm. She is an Associate Research Professor, Ju- niper Gardens Children’s Project, University of Kansas. Her research interests include urban teacher education, multicultural education, intervention research with general and special educators, response-to-intervention and positive be- havior support strategies with culturally and linguistically diverse students with and without mild disabilities. She has authored books and numerous articles on infusing multicultural education into special education. She is the former co-editor of the journal entitled Multiple Voices for Ethnically Diverse Exceptional Learners. Correspondence concerning this paper may be sent to [email protected].

Festus E. Obiakor, Ph.D., is a Professor in the Department of Excep- tional Education at the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee. His research inter- ests include self-concept development, multicultural psychology, special educa- tion, and educational reform. He is a renowned scholar with more than 150 publications, including books and journal articles. He serves on the editorial board of many refereed journals, including Multicultural Learning and Teaching (MLT). He also currently serves as its co-executive editor. Correspondence con- cerning this paper may be sent to [email protected].

content 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.