the third

Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 33(3), 131–143 C© 2018 The Division for Learning Disabilities of the Council for Exceptional Children DOI: 10.1111/ldrp.12173

Envisioning an Improved Continuum of Special Education Services for Students with Learning Disabilities: Considering Intervention Intensity

Christopher J. Lemons Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

Sharon Vaughn University of Texas at Austin

Jade Wexler University of Maryland

Devin M. Kearns University of Connecticut

Anne C. Sinclair Peabody College of Vanderbilt University

In Endrew F. v Douglas County School District RE-1, the U.S. Supreme Court affirmed the requirement that schools provide special education services designed to confer educational benefit that is more than de minimis. Endrew offers an opportunity for the special educa- tion community to consider whether students with learning disabilities have access to a full continuum of services, including individualized, data-driven, and intensive interventions. We examine predominant models of service delivery, highlight concerns that these are insufficient, and envision an improved continuum of services better aligned with the raised expectations of Endrew. We also highlight important barriers that need to be addressed before an improved continuum can be implemented in many schools in the United States.

The provision of a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) to students with disabilities has been a key tenet of special education legislation since the implementation of the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA, 1975), and it has remained so in subsequent versions of the Act (i.e., Individuals with Disabilities Education Act [IDEA], 1990, 2004). Yet the level of educational benefit necessary to satisfy FAPE has been a controversial and often litigious issue. As Yell and Bateman (2017) described, U.S. Courts of Appeals have interpreted the educational benefit standard in two primary ways: The Lower De Minimis Standard, re- quiring only that special education services “confer educa- tional benefit that is slightly more than trivial or de minimis” (p. 10), and the Higher Meaningful Benefit, specifying that special education services that bestow “merely more than trivial educational benefit” (p. 10) are insufficient and do not satisfy FAPE.

On March 22, 2017, the U.S. Supreme Court’s unanimous decision in Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE- 1 (2017; henceforth, Endrew) set forth a clear rejection of the de minimis standard and effectively established a new, higher

Requests for reprints should be sent to Christopher J. Lemons, Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Electronic inquiries should be sent to [email protected].

benchmark for special education. As Chief Justice Roberts explained in the Court’s opinion:

When all is said and done, a student offered an educational program providing “merely more than de minimis” progress from year to year can hardly be said to have been offered an education at all. For children with disabilities, receiving instruction that aims so low would be tantamount to “sit- ting idly . . . awaiting the time when they were old enough to ‘drop out.’ The IDEA demands more. It requires an ed- ucational program reasonably calculated to enable a child to make progress appropriate in light of the child’s circum- stances (Endrew, 2017, pp. 4–5).

The opinion makes it clear that schools are now to be held accountable for monitoring student progress, and for efficiently and effectively adjusting services when poor re- sponse is demonstrated. Implications go further, however, and suggest that educators should devote time to “candid in- trospection” (Turnbull, Turnbull, & Cooper, 2018, p. 134), and should consider how to improve the ways in which spe- cial education services are designed and delivered.

We believe Endrew offers a timely opportunity for mem- bers of our field to reflect and look forward. Our aim is to consider the special education services currently pro- vided to students with learning disabilities (LD), to examine

132 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

related outcomes, and to suggest a re-envisioned continuum of services for students with LD. We have a specific aim of highlighting the need for schools to ensure that students with LD with severe, persistent academic and behavioral needs have access to interventions that are of sufficient intensity to satisfy Endrew’s raised expectations. We discuss extant barriers that prohibit many schools from providing services that are aligned with our continuum, and offer suggestions for removing these barriers. Future directions for research are also discussed.

We focus on students with LD for three reasons. First, students with LD make up the largest group of children and youths between the ages of 3 and 21 years served under IDEA. In 2014–2015, 35 percent of the 6.6 million students receiving special education services were students with LD (McFarland et al., 2017). Second, there has been a trend over the past decade to increase the percentage of time that stu- dents with LD spend in general education settings. Currently, most students with LD are taught in the general education classroom for the majority of their school day. In the 2015– 2016 school year, 70.9 percent of students with LD spent 80 percent or more of their time in the general education class- room; in 2008, the percentage was 61.6 percent (Horowitz, Raw, & Whittaker, 2017). Despite this increasing amount of time spent in general education settings, academic outcomes for students with LD remain poor. For example, 97 percent and 91 percent of 4th graders with LD performed below pro- ficient in reading and math, respectively; 96 percent of 8th graders with LD performed below proficient for each sub- ject. Further, only 70.8 percent of students with LD graduate with a regular diploma, compared to a rate of 82.3 percent for all students (Horowitz et al., 2017). Third, most students with LD exhibit what might be considered “invisible dis- abilities,” meaning that while their learning challenges are real and debilitating, they may be less obvious than chal- lenges faced by individuals with physical and intellectual disabilities.

What is Special Education Supposed to Be?

Over the past 50 years, special educators have been dis- cussing and offering models for effectively instructing stu- dents with disabilities, many of which include a continuum of placement options (Deno, 1970). For example, in 1962, Reynolds suggested a framework for considering the vari- ous levels of intensity needed in special education, using a triangle to depict the relation between the complexity and severity of students’ needs and the levels of special services they require. In his framework, Reynolds proposed that the most restrictive environments (e.g., hospital and treatment centers, hospital schools, residential schools, and special day schools), conceptualized as the tip of the triangle, would be used by the fewest students who had the most significant needs. The middle of the triangle represented students with moderate to severe needs, and these students would be in either full-time or part-time special education classrooms (e.g., resource rooms) in a general education school setting. The base of the triangle represented the majority of special education students who would be provided services in the

general education classroom, with supplementary teaching and/or consultation.

The original rationale for a continuum of services was that intervention services of increasing intensity would be provided if inadequate student response was demonstrated. In other words, intensity of intervention would be increased until a student was responsive. In 2001, Zigmond provided a description of special education services designed to adapt in relation to poor student response to ensure positive outcomes:

Special education is, first and foremost, instruction focused on individual need. It is carefully planned. It is intensive, ur- gent, relentless, and goal-directed. It is empirically supported practice, drawn from research. To provide special education means to set priorities and select carefully what needs to be taught. It means providing a special curriculum—one not available to other students—taught in a special way, using different texts, different ways of presenting the information, different pacing of instruction, different amounts of guided practice, different examinations, different grading standards. It means setting specific (and sometimes different) curricu- lum goals for each student through the writing of his or her annual IEP. It means monitoring each student’s progress and taking responsibility for changing instruction when the monitoring data indicate that sufficient progress is not being made. It means providing students who have learning and behavioral disorders with something truly special (p. 73).

Unfortunately, she also reflected that special education services aligned with her description were “nowhere to be found” at the time (p. 73).

The poor outcomes of students with LD, coupled with En- drew’s increased expectations, raise several important ques- tions: Are schools currently providing special education services that align with Zigmond’s description? Is a full con- tinuum of services available to students with LD? Do students with LD with severe, persistent academic and behavioral deficits have access to interventions that are reasonably cal- culated to meet their needs? Next, we explore these questions by providing a brief description and critique of predominant service delivery models.

Predominant Models of Service Delivery

It is difficult to obtain clear data regarding specific in- structional models that schools are implementing to support students with LD. Based on our professional experiences working in and with schools, and on data from observa- tional studies (e.g., Swanson & Vaughn, 2010), students with LD seem to receive services in four primary placements: the general education classroom, the co-taught general education classroom, the general education classroom with supplemen- tal support (e.g., Tier 21), and the special education resource room. Paraprofessionals often provide support in the latter; thus, we also briefly overview their role in special education instruction.

Schools are increasingly implementing Response-to- Intervention (RTI) or Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) to efficiently provide students with interventions of increasing intensity, and to identify students who are

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 133

FIGURE 1 Predominant models of service delivery.

insufficiently responsive as having LD (Hudson & McKen- zie, 2016). Accordingly, we think it will be helpful to consider how the four primary placements are often positioned within RTI and MTSS systems, and later to highlight the contrasting positioning of services outlined in our proposed continuum (See Figure 1).

In our experience, schools that are implementing RTI or MTSS frequently provide Tier 1 core classroom instruction and one or more tiers of supplemental general education inter- vention (e.g., Tier 2). Students with LD may receive services in Tier 1 classrooms (including co-taught instruction), and may also participate in the supplemental general education interventions. Additionally, students with LD may receive intervention in special education resource rooms. In our fig- ure, this service is depicted in a circle disconnected from the triangle, as, in both our experience and initial research (Na- tional Center on Intensive Intervention, 2013; Slanda, 2017), special education services are rarely integrated into the larger RTI or MTSS framework.

General Education Classroom

Students with LD who receive instruction in this model typ- ically participate primarily in the same instruction as their peers without disabilities. General educators are often re- quired by the IEP to provide instructional accommodations and differentiated instruction – though these instructional re- quirements are often underspecified. Special educators may offer support in understanding the IEP requirements and/or adapting assignments, but the placement we are describing is one where the general educator implements part of the IEP without the assistance of the special educator. Despite per- vasive implementation of inclusive programming, research support for improved student outcomes in this setting is lim- ited. Results indicate that inclusive programming in the gen- eral education setting is only moderately effective for some students with disabilities (Volonino & Zigmond, 2007).

Observational studies of instructional practices in the gen- eral education setting have found a lack of individualized accommodations or instruction for students with LD (e.g.,

Wexler, Mitchell, Clancy, & Silverman, 2016). For example, McIntosh, Vaughn, Schumm, Haager, and Lee (1993) ob- served more than 60 teachers who had at least one student with LD in their general education classroom and showed that students with LD received mostly undifferentiated instruc- tion. Compared with their peers without LD, they were also less engaged, contributed less, and asked fewer questions. Data from the NLTS-2 documented that general educators report providing substantial modifications to only 11 percent of students with LD (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, Garza, & Levine, 2005).

The lack of differentiation for students with disabilities may be due in part to a lack of preparation for general educators. General educators frequently perceive that they are unprepared to effectively teach students with disabilities. This could be in part because few, if any, special education courses are required in general educator preparation pro- grams (Kosko & Wilkins, 2009). It is also worth considering how much instructional time general educators have to pro- vide individualized intervention to students with LD in their classes.

Co-Taught General Education Classroom

Co-teaching is a popular service delivery model, partly be- cause it provides a way to implement inclusion. Since the Regular Education Initiative of the 1980s (see Fuchs & Fuchs, 1994), inclusion has been touted as an egalitarian alternative to instruction provided outside the general education class- room. The argument is that “pull out” instruction—that is, a resource room model—needlessly singles students out from their peers without disabilities. In co-taught classrooms, stu- dents with LD can be included in general education through- out the day, with all necessary specialized instruction pro- vided by the special educator “pushing in.” In other words, the special educator works within the general education set- ting to provide students with LD with specialized instruction.

Co-teaching takes the “push in” model one step further by calling for special and general educators to share teaching responsibilities. In the co-taught classroom, the special edu- cator should have multiple roles, only one of which is as the provider of specialized instruction (Murawski & Lochner, 2011). In terms of role assignment, co-teaching involves some combination of configurations (e.g., one teach/one as- sist, station teaching, parallel teaching, team teaching; Cook & Friend, 1995). In theory, instruction involves a fluid com- bination of role assignments, chosen strategically to match the needs of the students for a given lesson. Co-teaching also includes (a) collaborative planning; (b) a strong, positive re- lationship between teachers; and (c) agreed-upon roles and responsibilities (e.g., Sileo, 2011).

Co-teaching seems to support the egalitarian aims of in- clusion, but the data on student achievement in co-taught classrooms are very limited. In a meta-analysis by Murawski and Swanson (2001), the mean effect size of 0.40 was for intra-individual comparisons in only six studies that did not include random assignment. To date, there are still no data that support causal inference—that is, that co-teaching leads to improved outcomes for students with disabilities.

134 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

One central issue is that co-teachers most frequently use the co-teaching approach that co-teaching advocates rec- ommend least—one teach/one assist (Scruggs, Mastropieri, & McDuffie, 2007; Solis, Vaughn, Swanson, & McCulley, 2012). In this arrangement, the special educator almost al- ways serves in the “assist” role and takes on the role of assis- tant (e.g., monitoring behavior, helping struggling students; Buckley, 2005; Zigmond & Matta, 2004). Bottge, Cohen, and Choi (2018) observed that co-teachers used the one teach/one assist model 44 percent of the time. One purported benefit of co-teaching is that students can receive small-group in- struction in homogeneous groups, but teachers rarely take advantage of this opportunity, with as little as 12 percent of class time involving any individualized instruction (New- man, 2006). In addition, recommended co-teaching models require voluntary collaboration supported by common plan- ning time, but teachers often report that they are required to co-teach with little choice in their partner, and that they have almost no planning time (Wexler et al., 2016).

Co-teaching has a further limitation in that it often does not involve specialized instruction, and the delivery of in- struction may not occur in such a way that students with disabilities make the best progress (Zigmond & Kloo, 2011). For example, studies have shown repeatedly and conclusively that instructional approaches involving modeling, scaffolded practice, increased opportunities to respond, and immedi- ate feedback benefit students with disabilities (MacSuga- Gage & Simonsen, 2015; Rosenshine, 2012; Ticani & De Mers, 2016). These approaches are less common in general education: Pedagogical methods in many areas of general education eschew these methods, favoring problem-based, self-directed inductive learning over approaches that involve teacher-managed instruction.

Self-directed approaches, however, are not nearly as effec- tive for students with disabilities, and some data (e.g., Fuchs et al., 2015) indicate that instruction using these methods hinders the learning of students with very low achievement. This issue is worthy of serious consideration: If general ed- ucators are using methods that are ineffective for students with disabilities, it is very problematic to place students with LD in this setting for their entire instructional day.

General Education Supplemental Support

Although schools are increasingly integrating RTI and MTSS into their instructional delivery systems, the implementation has been highly variable across schools and states, and there are no clear data to document the frequency with which stu- dents with LD participate in supplemental general education interventions (Bineham, Shelby, Pazey, & Yates, 2014; Hud- son & McKenzie, 2016). Shapiro (2014) recommended that special education services could be integrated across the var- ious tiers of RTI and MTSS, as long as the instruction within the tier was matched to the student’s instructional needs. He suggested that schools consider how to best-fitting students with IEPs into school-wide models as a way to efficiently meet the needs of a greater number of students. He noted that for many students with disabilities, the instructional fo- cus of general education supplemental intervention could be

highly appropriate. Although we are unable to document the frequency with which students with LD are placed in general education supplemental interventions, we have conducted re- search in schools where this placement has occurred. Unfor- tunately, the decision to involve students with LD in RTI and MTSS systems appears unsystematic, as variable as overall implementation of the models, and not well documented by current data systems. Thus, it is currently unclear how effec- tive it is to involve students with LD in supplemental support provided in general education through RTI and MTSS.

Resource Room

In schools that use the resource room setting, the expecta- tion is that special educators will remove students with LD from the general education classroom for limited amounts of time, and will provide specialized instruction to meet their individual needs. The amount of time students spend in re- source rooms ranges from less than an hour several times per week to multiple hours per day. The instruction provided may replace academic instruction in the general education class- room, supplement it, or involve some of both. The intent of resource rooms is to “provide a setting where teachers could work with students either in small groups or individually, and thus provide them with an intensive, individualized pro- gram of study” (Moody, Vaughn, Hughes, & Fisher, 2000, p. 305). Though there is little guidance for resource room teachers, the general practice is for teachers to deliver in- struction aimed at teaching foundational skills to enhance students’ ability to benefit from general education instruc- tion. Many students are placed in resource rooms because they are performing substantially below grade-level and the IEP team has decided that pull-out instruction could be ben- eficial. There is evidence that students with disabilities who receive instruction in a resource-type room can, on average, outperform students placed in the general education setting (e.g., Bottge et al., 2018). However, there is limited informa- tion on the efficacy of the resource room model in practice.

Vaughn and colleagues (e.g., Moody et al., 2000; Vaughn, Moody, & Schumm, 1998) conducted several observation studies in resource rooms, examining the instruction of stu- dents with LD. Results consistently documented predomi- nantly large-group instruction (i.e., 5–19 students) with lim- ited differentiation of instruction or materials. Students in the studies also demonstrated inadequate progress in reading over a school year. Swanson (2008) synthesized 21 observa- tion studies focused on reading instruction provided to stu- dents with LD in grades K-12. Results indicated that reading instruction was generally of low quality, was delivered to large groups, and had limited alignment with research-based reading recommendations.

In a more recent observation study, Swanson and Vaughn (2010) documented resource room reading instruction pro- vided to 2nd to 5th graders with LD. On-task behavior of teachers and students was higher than previous reports; addi- tionally, average to high-average quality instruction in many areas of reading was observed. Instruction was predomi- nantly delivered to whole groups ranging from one to seven students. The authors concluded that “although it is evident

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 135

that research-based practices are more frequently observed in resource rooms now than a decade ago, there is still progress to be made” (p. 491).

Paraprofessionals in Special Education

Data are not available to determine what percentage of para- professionals support students with LD compared to students with other disabilities. Data indicate that more than 450,000 full-time equivalent paraprofessionals provide services to children with disabilities in U.S. schools (U.S. Department of Education, 2015). Most schools employ 8 percent more special education paraprofessionals than special educators (Giangreco, Hurley, & Suter, 2009). These paraprofessionals devote substantial time to working closely with students with disabilities—97 percent report providing one-on-one instruc- tion to students multiple times per week (Carter, O’Rourke, Sisco, & Pelsue, 2009). Schools’ use of paraprofessionals to provide direct instruction to children with disabilities con- tinues to increase due to standards-based reforms, changing service delivery models, and economic pressures (Giangreco & Broer, 2005; Walker & Smith, 2015). Unfortunately, most paraprofessionals have never received in-service training on basic instructional strategies, meaning that they are likely be- ing underutilized (Brock & Carter, 2015; Giangreco, Edel- man, Broer, & Doyle, 2001).

Summary of Predominant Service Delivery Models

If, as we hypothesize is the case in most schools, these mod- els comprise the full continuum of special education services available to students with LD, this situation is problematic in that it lacks sufficient intensity to meet the needs of many students with LD. Specifically, none of these models are de- signed to allow special educators to meet the needs of stu- dents with LD with intensive needs. We suggest that special education is obligated to do better.

AN IMPROVED CONTINUUM OF SERVICES

Envisioning an improved continuum of special education services available to students with LD represents one path forward for improving outcomes. The increased expectation from Endrew that IEPs need to be reasonably calculated to lead to educational benefit, together with the poor outcome data for students with LD, suggests the time is right to reflect and make improvements. From our perspective, it appears that current instructional models lack intensity, and that a full continuum of services is not readily available. Notably, we suggest that too few students with LD have access to intensive intervention services from special educators, ser- vices that are data-based, individualized, and iterative in the approach to meeting student needs.

Next, we describe the instructional approach of each level of our proposed continuum, and posit why the approach may represent an improvement over the status quo. In this model, we hypothesize that special educators would be responsible

FIGURE 2 An improved continuum of services.

for either Levels One and Two or Level Three. We make this recommendation to allow special educators to specialize their skills, differentiate their responsibilities, and allocate sufficient time to appropriately address the special needs of students. We also acknowledge that various other models could be proposed that would meet the same aim. Our inten- tion is to provide an example of a model that may serve as a heuristic. Finally, we recognize that important, fundamental barriers are currently in place that preclude implementation of our proposed model in a majority of schools in the United States. We address these barriers following the description of the continuum.

In an effort to reinvigorate discussion around service de- livery, we propose a three-level continuum of special edu- cation services that would be available to all students with LD. Our proposal is designed to increase instructional inten- sity at each level, and to ensure that the most intensive level is sufficiently resourced to allow clinical experts to deliver intensive intervention either one-on-one or in small groups (i.e., three or fewer students).

As we did when we described predominant models of service delivery for students with LD, we position each of the levels within RTI and MTSS frameworks (see Figure 2). Level One (Data-Supported Consultation) and Level Two (Enhanced Co-Teaching) are depicted as supports for students with LD across all general education RTI and MTSS tiers. In other words, we agree with Shapiro’s (2014) recommendation that students with LD should be included in these intervention tiers when appropriate to meet their in- structional needs, and we believe that special educators could offer support to students with LD across all levels of the models. Level Three (Intensive Intervention with Enhanced Paraprofessional Support) is shown as a triangle that is now connected to the lower triangle. Our aim here is to high- light that this level of intervention should represent the most intensive, individualized instruction in the school, and that

136 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

there should be a well-connected system of communication between educators across the various levels.

Level One: Data-Supported Consultation

Currently, students with LD receive little differentiated in- struction in the general education setting (Swanson, 2008). The role of the special educator for students with LD re- ceiving instruction in the general education setting is vague. Often, special educators provide minimal support to general educators beyond (a) providing a list of accommodations re- quired for each student and (b) suggesting modifications to instruction or assignments to increase student performance. Frequently, these accommodations and modifications are se- lected haphazardly, and are not derived from evidence or data (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001). Since general educators have minimal training and expertise in the specific challenges that students with LD face, special educators may need to take a more active role in the collection and interpretation of data to support appropriate accommodations and modifications for each student.

We propose an intensified role for the special educator in supporting students with LD in general education class- rooms (Level One). This role is necessary to more effectively support students in these classrooms. Researchers have con- sistently advocated for matching academic and behavioral interventions to student needs based on data (Burns, Riley- Tillman, & VanDerHeyden, 2012). This is also true for ac- commodations (Fuchs, Fuchs, & Capizzi, 2005).

Our first suggestion is that special educators base their rec- ommendations for accommodations and modifications upon student response data. Under our proposed structure, special educators would be responsible for collecting data on the provision of specific accommodations (or modifications), as- sessing whether the selected accommodations improved stu- dent performance, and, if not, adapting provided accommo- dations accordingly. Special educators in this role could use an applied single-case design method (SCD; Riley-Tillman & Burns, 2009) to experimentally evaluate changes put in place to enhance student performance. Brief experimental analy- sis (BEA; Martens & Gertz, 2009) is one SCD tool special educators could use to inform decisions about students who are demonstrating insufficient response to general education instruction. BEAs use SCD elements to quickly evaluate ef- fects of multiple interventions on a student’s behavior. These designs are also highly applicable to evaluating accommo- dations and modifications provided in the general education classroom. Integrating data-driven experimentation into the consultation role of the special educator will likely improve outcomes and clarify the special educator’s role.

Another means of selecting appropriate accommodations based on data would be to use a brief, validated assessment tool. For example, Dynamic Assessment of Test Accommo- dations (DATA; Fuchs, Fuchs, Eaton, & Hamlett, 2003) allows teachers to quickly assess which accommodations produce improved student results through a brief series of tests administered with and without accommodations. Af- ter administering the assessment, the teacher evaluates the individual student’s improvement in score due to specific

accommodations, and selects the accommodation that was associated with greater improvement than that demonstrated by peers without disabilities in the normative sample (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2001).

Our second recommendation is for special educators who are providing consultation support to establish a frequent, systematic communication system with the general educator. Frequently, IEPs include a brief amount of consultation time (e.g., 15 min per week) for the special educator to provide support. However, this time is rarely used productively, nor is it closely monitored. The consulting special educator should establish a clear schedule for observing the target student, providing data and written input to the general educator, and placing frequent in-person meetings on the calendar to review progress. Administrators should ensure that sufficient time for these activities is allocated in teachers’ schedules. Increasing the structure of the consultant role will enhance effectiveness.

Our Level One model is an improvement over the current structure because it gives the special educator a clearer pur- pose in supporting students in the general education setting. The role of the special educator is clarified for the general educators, increasing the likelihood that they perceive the special educator as a resource. Through this model, general educators are supported by intervention and accommodation experts (special educators) via data collection and decision making. Further, this support is provided across all tiers of general education, decreasing the number of students with LD who would need the most intensive services (e.g., Level Three). Relatedly, while this level of the model is focused on the role of the special educator, the expectation is that general educators would also be more adequately prepared to instruct students with LD in their classrooms. One aspect of this preparation would be to ensure that the general ed- ucators respect the role of the special educators by trusting in the data that the special educator provides, and by being willing to make changes based on her or his recommenda- tions. Finally, because this model is data-driven, it adheres to the expectations outlined in Endrew to improve individual student outcomes.

Level Two: Enhanced Co-Teaching

As we highlighted above, current models of co-teaching are limited, due to unspecified roles of teachers, a lack of plan- ning time, and insufficient support for lower-performing stu- dents. An intensified model of co-teaching is needed to over- come each of these challenges. One primary improvement would be to ensure that expertise of both general and spe- cial educators is employed. Enhanced co-teaching models would (a) have clearly established roles and responsibilities for both teachers, (b) allocate sufficient time and provide a clear structure for co-planning, (c) incorporate features of effective instruction (e.g., providing sufficient opportuni- ties to respond), (d) provide a model for using student data to differentiate instruction, (e) ensure consistent classroom management systems to support behavior challenges, and (f) structure instruction to allow for differentiation to support learning of lower-performing students.

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 137

One example of this type of co-teaching model is repre- sented by Project CALI (Content Area Literacy Instruction), a professional development model being developed under the auspices of an Institute of Education Sciences Goal 2 Devel- opment Grant (R324A15018). The aim of the project is to address middle school students’ poor literacy and academic achievement by providing content area co-teachers with a model for structuring their instruction. Our model involves professional development for co-teachers to implement two components: The CALI Instructional Framework and a Plan- ning Process. The Instructional Framework is aimed at in- creasing literacy instruction and intervention provided within the content area class. Co-teachers learn to implement a care- fully selected set of evidence-based adolescent literacy strate- gies designed to help students read and comprehend texts in the content area class. The Instructional Framework also in- cludes data-based intervention support designed to give each teacher a specific role in targeting students’ individual needs through differentiated instruction delivered using a station teaching model. The teachers learn how to use student per- formance data to make decisions about the level of support each student requires. This support is then provided dur- ing a structured differentiated learning activity within the class.

During differentiated instruction, students are divided into three groups based on recent progress monitoring data. In a sense, this model integrates instruction that is traditionally provided in supplemental reading interventions (e.g., Tier 2) into the general education classroom to meet the needs of struggling readers. This targeted support time also includes opportunities for students with the strongest reading skills (regardless of disability status) to read complex texts that extend learning found in the core CALI texts. In this way, the CALI model accommodates the important general edu- cation goal that students comprehend complex texts without sacrificing the need of students with LD to improve their foundational literacy skills (i.e., basic and intermediate liter- acy skills as defined by Shanahan and Shanahan, 2008).

Co-teachers also learn how to implement the CALI Plan- ning Process. The process is designed to build upon each teacher’s expertise—content-area (general educator) or foun- dational literacy (special educator). The process provides an explicit model by which teachers allocate responsibilities for planning (e.g., identifying target vocabulary words) and instruction (e.g., who will teach each component of the les- son). We hypothesize that the professional development will improve the quantity and quality of content-area literacy in- struction, co-taught instruction, support provided to students with LD, and co-planning. We anticipate that these instruc- tional changes will lead to increases in reading outcomes, time spent on literacy, learning of academic content, and en- gagement in and satisfaction with content-area instruction.

This enhanced model of co-teaching takes advantage of each teacher’s expertise and clearly delineates responsibil- ities for planning and instruction. Additionally, the teach- ers are trained to implement a structured, efficient planning process. The incorporation of targeted support for lower- performing students during differentiated instruction allows the needs of a greater number of students to be met in the general education setting.

Finally, we suggest that enhanced co-teaching could take place across all tiers of general education instruction. In other words, in addition to co-teaching in Tier 1 instruc- tion, a special educator could support and deliver instruc- tion provided in general education supplemental interven- tions (e.g., Tier 2). Engagement in this instruction will likely look somewhat different than at Tier 1 (e.g., teachers alter- nate days they provide instruction to a small group, teachers both provide small group instruction but regroup students with and without disabilities flexibly), though adding spe- cial education support to these tiers of general education instruction may decrease the number of students who need Level 3 services.

Level Three: Intensive Intervention with Enhanced Paraprofessional Support

Our primary critique of extant special education service de- livery models is that they lack sufficient intensity—the inten- sity that lies at the heart of special education and in the ex- pectations of Endrew. It is almost impossible to envision how a special educator providing instruction in the general educa- tion setting, or in an overpopulated resource room, could pro- vide intervention that is individualized and intensive, with an iterative cycle of adaptations based on student response data. This type of intensive intervention has been referred to by multiple names—data-based program modification, clinical or experimental teaching, and data-based individualization (DBI; Fuchs, Fuchs, McMaster, & Lemons, 2018). Such a structured, iterative, data-driven process is critically needed in schools if they are to improve outcomes for students with LD. Within this level of our model, we suggest that special educators serve as expert diagnosticians and intervention de- signers who supervise a cadre of highly prepared paraprofes- sionals. Both would then share responsibility for delivering intervention to students.

DBI is the most current operationalization of intensive intervention. As described by the National Center on Inten- sive Intervention (www.intensiveintervention.org), the DBI process entails five steps for the teacher to follow: (1) select, intensify, and implement a validated intervention program; (2) monitor student response using data; (3) if a student demonstrates insufficient response, collect diagnostic data; (4) adapt the intervention with the aim of improving stu- dent responsiveness; and (5) continue the cycle of progress monitoring, with additional diagnostic data collection and intervention adaptation as needed. Importantly, almost three decades of research has demonstrated that student outcomes are stronger when educators implement the DBI process (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1986; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Stecker, 2010; Fuchs, Fuchs, & Vaughn, 2014). A recent meta-analysis provides ad- ditional empirical support for the approach. Jung, McMaster, Kunkel, Shin, and Stecker (2018) synthesized 56 effect sizes from 14 studies in which the DBI process was used to en- hance student outcomes. Mean effect sizes of g = 0.37 and g = 0.38 were documented for DBI Only and DBI Plus (i.e., implementers had access to additional information on student performance beyond curriculum-based measurement while they implemented DBI), respectively.

138 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

Two additional features of DBI are worth highlighting. First, DBI provides clear guidance for educators regarding dimensions of intervention that could be adapted to enhance student response (Step 4 in above description). Fuchs, Fuchs, and Malone (2017) provided a taxonomy of intervention in- tensity to operationalize the dimensions along which inter- vention might be intensified. They include (among others) increasing dosage, better aligning student need with instruc- tion, attending to transfer to broader skills, and including or increasing behavioral support. Second, as many children and adolescents with LD also demonstrate co-occurring be- havioral needs, the model also provides a framework for integrating academic and behavioral interventions. Kuchle, Edmonds, Danielson, Peterson, and Riley-Tillman (2015) suggested that this feature of DBI should be considered “the next big idea in special education” (p. 150), as many ex- tant approaches (e.g., PBIS, RTI) focus on only academics or behavior. As Burns et al. (2012) demonstrated, academic and behavioral needs co-occur and influence one another in a dynamic process.

To implement DBI with paraprofessional support, special educators would use extant assessments, on-going progress monitoring data, and other relevant data sources to design treatment approaches for students, following the DBI frame- work. They would then provide explicit training and on- going supervision and coaching to paraprofessionals. The special educator and the team of trained paraprofessionals would then implement the treatment approaches. Using data to monitor the student’s progress and observations of the paraprofessional, the student’s treatment program could be monitored and adjusted as needed by the special educator to assure maximum progress. Incorporating the paraprofession- als would extend the reach of the special educator and would allow her or him to more dynamically regroup students, and to have more flexibility about who (i.e., paraprofessional, special educator) delivers the intervention.

This approach is modeled closely after the Behavior An- alyst Certification Board’s Registered Behavior Technician (RBT) credential. RBTs are paraprofessionals responsible for direct implementation of behavior-analytic services; they are not responsible for designing intervention or assessment plans. A Board-Certified Behavior Analyst provides close, ongoing supervision. In our model, the special educator would similarly hold primary responsibility for providing training to the paraprofessional. Relatedly, it could be bene- ficial for the field to offer a related credential for paraprofes- sionals who would deliver Level Three interventions.

Although paraprofessionals most frequently provide support services to students with intellectual and develop- mental disabilities (Walker & Smith, 2015), we believe that increasing the number of paraprofessionals who support students with LD is warranted. Brock and Carter (2013) re- cently reviewed evidence on paraprofessional-implemented interventions for students with disabilities, and showed that paraprofessionals were capable of implementing evidence-based practices with fidelity and improving student outcomes. Brock and Carter (2015) recommended that, to maximize the effectiveness of these paraprofessionals, trainers (a) model how to implement the intervention; (b) hold the paraprofessional accountable (with support) for

integrating the intervention into everyday practice (e.g., monitor fidelity of implementation); and (c) provide ongoing performance feedback to reinforce what paraprofessionals are doing well, and to help them correct their mistakes.

We suggest that DBI is precisely the type of data-driven, student-focused, iterative process that is sorely missing from most special education service delivery models. Ensuring that students with LD with severe, persistent learning and behavioral needs have access to this type of intervention has the potential to dramatically improve student outcomes. Further, training and supporting paraprofessionals to deliver DBI represents one way to increase the intensity of special education services provided outside of the general education classroom.

Summary

Our aim of this proposed continuum of services is to en- hance intervention intensity across all three levels and, im- portantly, to ensure that students with disabilities are pro- vided with the appropriate education required by law. We hope that our proposal has emphasized that extant models of service delivery—inclusion with minimal support, co-taught classrooms focused on one teach/one assist, unsystematic participation in general education supplemental support, and overcrowded resource rooms—are not reasonably calculated to ensure that a majority of students with LD will make progress.

Important, Fundamental Barriers—Or, Why Our Proposal Will Not Work

Unfortunately, our plan is almost certainly dead on arrival. The Endrew decision comes at a time when the conditions of public education could not be less hospitable to the changes we propose. At the time of writing, massive teacher strikes have recently taken place in multiple states (Darby, 2018, April 17). Beyond teachers’ concerns with unduly low wages, outdated instructional materials, and overpopulated classes, The New York Times recently ran an opinion piece describing our schools as deathtraps (Peek, 2018, April 7). Peek de- scribed too many school campuses across the country as be- ing dilapidated, poorly designed, and blatantly unsafe. High teacher turnover and teacher shortages are commonplace, especially in schools that serve the neediest students (Mc- Causland, Bencosme, Stoneham, & Arkin, 2018, April 8). Further, with 39 percent fewer people enrolling in teacher preparation programs, Darling-Hammond believes that the outlook for educators has not been this poor since the 1980s, suggesting that “We’re at the nadir for the teaching profes- sion” (as quoted in McCausland et al., 2018, April 8).

We hope that this is indeed the worst it gets, because the education system needs radical change if it is to meet the challenges it will face in the next decade. Hussar and Baily (2018) projected that by 2026, (a) total public elementary and secondary enrollment will increase 2 percent to 40.3 million students, (b) we will need 7 percent more teachers to teach these students, and (c) annual expenditures just to sustain

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 139

current educational supports for teachers and students will need to increase by 19 percent to $670 billion. Outlining a plan to address all these challenges is beyond the scope of this article. We believe, however, that these issues further increase the urgency for major change if our proposed continuum (or something close to it) has a chance at implementation.

Potential Solutions—Or, Could we Make this Work?

Although there are many solutions to the barriers that need to be addressed, we believe there are three that are the most urgent. We also think these are solutions to which leaders in the field of special education could substantively contribute. We describe these solutions and then offer a suggestion on how these solutions could be put into action.

Increase Resources

The principal challenge to improving special education is ensuring that sufficient resources are provided to allow school staff to deliver high-quality services across a con- tinuum. As McAbee (2017) noted, “implementation of the guidelines established by the Endrew F. decision will be met by fiscal obstacles” (p. 974). He highlighted this concern by demonstrating that in fiscal year 2014, federal funding for IDEA covered approximately 16 percent of actual costs—a figure well below the 40 percent targeted by Congress when the legislation was drafted. Given state budget shortfalls and other negative conditions we have already outlined, even the most well-resourced schools are already unable to meet students’ needs. Expecting improvements in student outcomes without devoting additional resources is irrational at best, unethical at worst.

That said, we do not think our proposal necessitates a massive influx of resources to special education. In many schools, our proposal would probably require, per campus, one or two additional special educators, and perhaps a few additional paraprofessionals to support students with LD. We acknowledge that in some schools, several more staff members may be needed. This would also require schools to invest in progress monitoring systems and secondary preven- tion programs. Consequently, there would be many decisions that individual school leaders would have to make in order to deploy additional resources thoughtfully. In our extensive ex- perience working in schools, we think administrators would agree that additional resources could go to good use.

Provide Adequate Teacher Training

Related to funding is a concomitant need to improve the quality of pre-service and in-service teacher training. We recognize that a significant factor in the successful imple- mentation of our proposal will be a community of special and general educators who have expert knowledge and skills about their content area, as well as diagnostic and instruc- tive practices for meeting the needs of students with sig- nificant learning problems. Currently, however, a majority of

pre-service teachers complete their teacher training programs with a wide, but often thin, level of knowledge. An alterna- tive would be to allow for specialization (e.g., Levels One and Two vs. Level Three). Doing so would allow training programs to help pre-service teachers develop deeper levels of expertise. With a specialized workforce, special educa- tors focused on Levels One and Two would have expertise in providing supports to students served in general education settings, and special educators who provide services in Level Three would have deep knowledge and experience in provid- ing intensive intervention. Relatedly, ensuring that special educators who are trained to implement intensive interven- tion are also skilled at advocating for its integration into special education services will be important.

For general educators, increased exposure to effective ways to support students with disabilities and effective mod- els for working with special educators need to be prioritized. Teacher preparation programs could further support gradu- ates by providing one or two years of post-graduation in- duction support. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) should explore ways in which they could support these types of induction programs via training grants. Relat- edly, teacher preparation programs should consider offering intensive paraprofessional training workshops to bolster the skill set of this underutilized special education resource.

Prioritize Progress Over Placement

In our view, the primary focus of federal and state compli- ance monitoring has been on the location where students with disabilities receive services. Endrew makes it clear that student outcomes are of equal, if not greater, importance. We acknowledge that collecting data on the percentage of time students spend in the general education setting is much simpler than evaluating whether adequate progress is being achieved by students in the diverse special education pop- ulation. However, if progress is not tracked as closely as placement, schools will likely continue to view student out- comes as being less important than time spent in general education. Special educators should work with monitoring agencies to develop efficient systems for tracking student progress. School administrators and educators should closely monitor student progress and evaluate whether placement changes may be needed to enhance responsiveness. One of Endrew’s most significant effect may be to remind IEP teams that LRE is to be determined individually for students, and that academic and behavioral progress should be factored into the decision on where a student will receive services.

This change in priorities also requires a shift in policy that emphasizes student progress relative to where each one be- gins and reflects ambitious, but possible, goals for students. We—like many readers—are strong advocates for rigorous curriculum, and always strive for students to meet standards. Yet we are also concerned that many states judge student growth only relative to grade-level. This practice is unreason- able and inappropriate for students who lack the foundational skills on which grade-level performance depends. In some states, special educators are judged adequate only if their students with disabilities reach grade-level. This standard

140 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

reflects laudable intent—rigor and the goal of grade-level (or above) performance—but it is in practice often absurd. We do, however, believe in holding teachers accountable for students meeting ambitious growth targets. If these are cali- brated for students’ ability, and data are collected with suffi- cient frequency, teachers can maximize student potential.

Of course, this idea has often provoked the response that this would be “lowering expectations,” and we have wit- nessed pejorative responses to arguments like ours. However, we think such responses willfully misinterpret our intent: We—like almost all educators—strongly believe in high ex- pectations, and we want students to reach ambitious goals. We hope readers with different perspectives can see the po- tential value of calibrating expectations for students, and thus for their teachers.

How to Realize Potential Solutions—Increase Advocacy Efforts

The field of special education began when parents of chil- dren with disabilities fought for the right for their children to attend public schools. Major improvements in special ed- ucation services have always depended upon strong leaders who advocate for individuals with disabilities, like Elizabeth Farrell, the founder of the Council for Exceptional Children. With the current state of education, the importance of ensur- ing that the rights of students with disabilities are protected is critical. None of the barriers we have outlined can be over- come without strong advocacy efforts.

All people who care about individuals with disabilities should increase efforts to play a role in our political system at the federal, state, and local levels. This is particularly true for too many academics who shirk this responsibility under the guise of playing the “dispassionate researcher” in order to maintain objectivity. We also need to re-engage family members of students with LD—perhaps by reconnecting LD with dyslexia, dyscalculia, and dysgraphia. Each of us should re-evaluate how we can increase our involvement in advocacy efforts, because the stakes for not doing so are too high.

Through increased advocacy efforts, we should explore ways to increase the federal government’s investment in our public-school system. Relatedly, we need to lobby state and local authorities to prioritize providing schools with the re- sources necessary to meet the needs of all students. We should work with school leaders to help them improve the efficiency of their service delivery models, and to support them in spending funds judiciously. We need to engage with state and federal leaders to improve teacher training. And we need to encourage compliance monitoring to place value on student progress at least as much as on placement. Peek argued that “if we legally require children to attend school, then we should be held accountable for keeping them safe there” (2018, April 7). We agree and would go further: We think our country (and no doubt others) should be obligated to ensure that all students, including those with LD, receive an education aligned with the principles that guided the En- drew decision. Without increased advocacy efforts from key stakeholders, it is difficult to imagine how necessary im- provements would occur.

What Can Special Educators Do in the Meantime?

In line with Endrew, we encourage special educators to famil- iarize themselves with the DBI process, and to integrate it into extant services for students with LD who have the most in- tensive needs. It may be most feasible for teachers to start the process with one or two students (for examples, see Lemons, Kearns, & Davidson, 2014; Powell & Stecker, 2014). Beyond this, IEP team members will need to re-examine whether special education services for students with LD are appro- priately ambitious. Prioritizing progress over placement in IEP planning may be instructive in these discussions. School administrators might also consider whether school staff are being used in the most efficient and effective manner. Co- teachers could evaluate whether they are systematically tak- ing advantage of each educator’s expertise in such a way as to effectively support all students in the class. Training and supporting paraprofessionals to deliver one-on-one or small-group interventions may be another strategy. In sum, practitioners need to reflect on the alignment between ex- tant special education services and the new Endrew standard, consider what changes may be necessary to reach expecta- tions, and determine how to accomplish these changes with available resources.

Future Directions for Research

Additional research is needed to provide guidance on several issues related to our proposal. First, we need empirical vali- dation for the ideas we have outlined. While we believe these approaches represent improvements over the status quo, fu- ture study is necessary to improve our understanding of the conditions in which the approaches are likely to work, and to provide guidance on making improvements when they are insufficient. Second, research often seeks a balance between what is feasible and what is possible. With the increased expectations outlined by Endrew, researchers need to ask ad- ditional questions beyond “Does Program X work?” We also need to understand why schools continue to struggle with im- plementing research-based practices, and to figure out how to help schools use their extant resources wisely. We also need a clearer understanding of what constitutes an “ambi- tious goal” for a student with LD who has severe, persistent learning needs. For students who are not expected to obtain grade-level standards, what is the expectation—one year’s worth of gain for each academic year, or something else? Schools need this information to evaluate their compliance with Endrew.

CONCLUSION

Special education services currently are insufficient to fulfill IDEA’s promise of a free, appropriate public education for all students with LD. In our view, this situation exists because the focus on providing intensive, data-driven, student-focused, individualized instruction has been lost. We proposed an im- proved continuum of special education services for students

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 141

with LD. We also acknowledge that this model requires the test of sustained and examined implementation within school settings, and that there are fundamental barriers that currently prevent many schools from achieving this continuum of ser- vices. Our primary aim in our proposal was to highlight the critical need for intensive intervention. The Office of Special Education Programs (OSEP) has recently prioritized the need to ensure that special educators have expertise in designing and delivering intensive intervention through funding of the National Center on Intensive Intervention, the National Cen- ter for Leadership in Intensive Intervention, and a cohort of related Master’s training grants. We believe that the Endrew decision is timely, and that it should prompt us as a field to reflect on how we can ensure that students with LD have access to a full continuum of services that includes access to intensive intervention.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was supported in part by Grants H325H140001 and H325D140073 from the Office of Special Education Pro- grams in the U.S. Department of Education to Vanderbilt University and by R324A150181 from the Institute of Edu- cation Sciences in the U.S. Department of Education to the University of Maryland. The content is solely the responsi- bility of the authors and does not necessarily represent the official views of the Office of Special Education Programs or the Institute of Education Sciences. We thank Seth King and two anonymous reviewers for their constructive critiques of initial drafts of this manuscript.

NOTE

1. Note, we are using the standard protocol framework of RTI (Kearns, Lemons, Fuchs, & Fuchs, 2014; Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, & Young, 2003) that includes univer- sal instruction at Tier 1 and supplemental intervention at Tier 2, both provided in general education settings. We consider Tier 3 to be individualized, intensive in- tervention provided in a special education setting. In states that have an RTI model that includes additional tiers of supplemental intervention in general educa- tion settings, those tiers would be included in our definition of general education supplemental support.

REFERENCES

Bineham, S. C., Shelby, L., Pazey, B. L., & Yates, J. R. (2014). Response to intervention: Perspectives of general and special education profession- als. Journal of School Leadership, 24(2), 230–252.

Bottge, B. A., Cohen, A. S., & Choi, H. J. (2018). Comparisons of math- ematics intervention effects in resource and inclusive classrooms. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 197–212.

Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2013). A systematic review of paraprofessional-delivered educational practices to improve outcomes for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities. Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities, 38(4), 211–221.

Brock, M. E., & Carter, E. W. (2015). Effects of a professional development package to prepare special education paraprofessionals to implement evidence-based practice. The Journal of Special Education, 49, 39–51.

Buckley, C. (2005). Establishing and maintaining collaborative relationships between regular and special education teachers in middle school social studies inclusive classrooms. In T. E. Scruggs, & M. A. Mastropieri (Eds.), Cognition and learning in diverse settings (pp. 153–198). Oxford, UK: Elsevier.

Burns, M. K., Riley-Tillman, T. C., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2012). RTI Applications, Volume 1: Academic and Behavioral Interventions. New York: Guilford Press.

Carter, E., O’Rourke, L., Sisco, L. G., & Pelsue, D. (2009). Knowledge, responsibilities, and training needs of paraprofessionals in elemen- tary and secondary schools. Remedial and Special Education, 30(6), 344–359.

Cook, L., & Friend, M. (1995). Co-teaching: Guidelines for creating effec- tive practices. Focus on Exceptional Children, 28(3), 1–16.

Darby, L. (2018, April 17). Betsy DeVos, Matt Bevin, and the smarmy at- tack on teachers. GQ. Retrieved from https://www.gq.com/story/betsy- devos-matt-bevin-teacher-strikes

Deno, E. (1970). Special Education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37, 229–236.

Education for All Handicapped Children Act, Pub. L. No. 94–332 (1975). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District RE-1, 580 U. S. (2017). Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (1994). Inclusive schools movement and the

radicalization of special education reform. Exceptional Children, 60, 294–309.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Stecker, P. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placements and services. Exceptional Children, 76, 301–323.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2014). What is intensive instruction and why is it important? Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 13–18.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S, McMaster, K. L., & Lemons, C. J. (2018). Introduc- tion to the special issue on intensive intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. This issue.

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., & Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness- to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157−171.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (1986). Effects of systematic formative evaluation: A meta-analysis. Exceptional Children, 53, 199–208.

Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2001). Helping teachers formulate sound test ac- commodation decisions for students with learning disabilities. Learn- ing Disabilities Research and Practice, 16(3), 174–181.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Capizzi, A. M. (2005). Identifying appropriate test accommodations for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 37(6), 1–8.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Compton, D. L., Wehby, J., Schumacher, R. F., Gersten, R., & Jordan, N. C. (2015). Inclusion versus specialized inter- vention for very-low-performing students: What does access mean in an era of academic challenge? Exceptional Children, 81, 134–157.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Eaton, S., & Hamlett, C. (2003). Dynamic Assess- ment of Test Accommodations (DATA). San Antonio: Pearson.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Malone, A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of interven- tion intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 35–43.

Giangreco, M. F., & Broer, S. M. (2005). Questionable utilization of para- professionals in inclusive schools: Are we addressing symptoms or causes? Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, 20, 10–26.

Giangreco, M. F., Edelman, S. W., Broer, S. M., & Doyle, M. B. (2001). Paraprofessional support of students with disabilities: Literature from the past decade. Exceptional Children, 68, 45–63.

Giangreco, M. F., Hurley, S. M., & Suter, J. C. (2009). Special education per- sonnel utilization and general class placement of students with disabil- ities: Ranges and ratios. Intellectual and Developmental Disabilities, 47, 53–56.

Horowitz, S. H., Rawe, J., & Whittaker, M. C. (2017). The state of learning disabilities: Understanding the 1 in 5. New York: National Center for Learning Disabilities.

Hudson, T. M., & McKenzie, R. G. (2016). Evaluating the use of RTI to identify SLD: A survey of state policy, procedures, data collection, and administrator perceptions. Contemporary School Psychology, 20(1), 31–45.

Hussar, W. J., and Bailey, T. M. (2018). Projections of Education Statistics to 2026 (NCES 2018–2019). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education.

142 LEMONS ET AL.: CONTINUUM FOR LEARNING DISABILITIES

Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 20 U.S.C. §§ 1400 et seq. (1990 & 2004).

Jung, P. G., McMaster, K. L., Kunkel, A., Shin, J., & Stecker, P.M. (2018). Ef- fects of data-based individualization for students with intensive learn- ing needs: A meta-analysis. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice. This issue.

Kearns, D. M., Lemons, C. J., Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Essentials of a tiered intervention system to support unique learners: Recom- mendations from research and practice. In J. Mascolo, D. Flanagan, & V. Alfonso (Eds.), Essentials of planning, selecting, and tailoring interventions for the unique learner (pp. 56–91). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Kosko, K. W., & Wilkins, J. L. M. (2009). General educators’ in-service training and their self-perceived ability to adapt instruction for students with IEPs. The Professional Educator, 33(2), 1–10.

Kuchle, L. B., Edmonds, R. Z., Danielson, L. C., Peterson, A., & Riley- Tillman, T. C. (2015). The next big idea: A framework for integrated academic and behavioral intensive intervention. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 30(4), 150–158.

Lemons, C. J., Kearns, D. M., & Davidson, K. A. (2014). Data-based in- dividualization in reading: Intensifying interventions for students with significant reading disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 20–29.

MacSuga-Gage, A. S., & Simonsen, B. (2015). Examining opportunities of teacher-directed opportunities to respond on student outcomes: A sys- tematic review of the literature. Education and Treatment of Children, 38(2), 211–240.

Martens, B. K., & Gertz, L. E. (2009). Brief experimental analysis: A deci- sion tool for bridging the gap between research and practice. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(1), 92–99.

McAbee, G. N. (2017). US Supreme Court decision may improve Individual Education Programs for children with special needs. Journal of Child Neurology, 32, 973–974.

McCausland, P., Bencosme, M., Stoneham, B., & Arkin, D. (2018, April 8). High teacher turnover adds fuel to march on houses. NBC News. Retrieved from https://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/high-teacher- turnover-adds-fuel-to-march-on-statehouses/ar-AAvCkH0?ocid=iehp

McFarland et al., 2017" type="Book">McFarland, J., Hussar, B., de Brey, C., Snyder, T., Wang, X., Wilkinson-Flicker, S., Gebrekris- tos, S., Zhang, J., Rathbun, A., Barmer, A., Bullock Mann, F., and Hinz, S. (2017). The Condition of Education 2017 (NCES 2017- 144). Washington, D.C.: National Center for Education Statistics, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved [date] from https://nces.ed.gov/pubsearch/pubsinfo.asp?pubid=2017144.

McIntosh, R., Vaughn, S., Schumm, J. S., Haager, D., & Lee, O. (1993). Observations of students with learning disabilities in general education classrooms. Exceptional Children, 60, 249–261.

Moody, S. W., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M. T., & Fischer, M. (2000). Read- ing instruction in the resource room: Set up for failure. Exceptional Children, 66, 305–316.

Murawski, W. W., & Lochner, W. W. (2011). Observing co-teaching: What to ask for, look for, and listen for. Intervention in School and Clinic, 46(3), 174–183.

Murawski, W. W., & Swanson, H. L. (2001). A meta-analysis of co-teaching research: Where are the data? Remedial and Special Education, 22, 258–267.

National Center on Intensive Intervention. (2013). Implementing intensive intervention: Lessons learned from the field. Washington, DC: Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Newman, L. (2006). Facts from NLTS2: General education partici- pation and academic performance of students with learning dis- abilities. Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. Retrieved from www.nlts2.org/fact_sheets/nlts2_fact_sheet_2006_07.pdf

Peek, L. (2018, April 7). America’s deathtrap schools. The New York Times. Retrieved at https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/07/Opinion /sunday/americas-deathtrap-schools.html

Powell, S. R., & Stecker, P. M. (2014). Using data-based individualization to intensify mathematics intervention for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46, 31–37.

Reynolds, M. A. (1962). A framework for considering some issues in special education. Exceptional Children, 28, 367–370.

Rosenshine, B. (2012). Principles of instruction: Research-based strategies that all teachers should know. American Educator, 36(1), 12–19.

Riley-Tillman, T. C., & Burns, M. K. (2009). Single case design for mea- suring response to educational intervention. New York: Guilford.

Scruggs, T. E., Mastropieri, M. A., & McDuffie, K. A. (2007). Co-teaching in inclusive classrooms: A metasynthesis of qualitative research. Exceptional Children, 73, 392–416.

Shanahan, T., & Shanahan, C. (2008). Teaching disciplinary lit- eracy to adolescents: Rethinking content-area literacy. Har- vard Educational Review, 78, 40–59. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer. 78.1.v62444321p602101

Shapiro, E. S. (2014). Tiered instruction and intervention in a response-to- intervention model. RTI Action Network, 381.

Sileo, J. M. (2011). Co-teaching: Getting to know your partner. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(5), 32–38.

Slanda, D. D. (2017). Role ambiguity: Defining the elusive role of the special education teacher who works in inclusive settings. Unpublished dissertation, retrieved from: http://stars.library.ucf.edu/ etd/5563/

Solis, M., Vaughn, S., Swanson, E., & Mcculley, L. (2012). Collaborative models of instruction: The empirical foundations of inclusion and co- teaching. Psychology in the Schools, 49, 498–510.

Swanson, E. A. (2008). Observing reading instruction for students with learning disabilities: A synthesis. Learning Disability Quarterly, 31, 115–133.

Swanson, E. A., & Vaughn, S. (2010). An observation study of reading instruction provided to elementary students with learning disabili- ties in the resource room. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 481–492. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20484

Ticani, M., & De Mers, M. (2016). Meta-analysis of single-case research design studies on instructional pacing. Behavior Modification, 40, 799–824.

Turnbull, H. R., Turnbull, A. P., & Cooper, D. H. (2018). The Supreme Court, Endrew, and the appropriate education of students with disabilities. Exceptional Children, 84(2), 124–140.

U.S. Department of Education. (2015). 37th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, 2015. Washington, D.C.: U.S. Department of Education.

Vaughn, S., Moody, S. W., & Schumm, J. S. (1998). Broken promises: Reading instruction in the resource room. Exceptional Children, 64, 211–225.

Volonino, V., & Zigmond, N. (2007). Promoting research-based practices through inclusion? Theory Into Practice, 46, 291–300.

Wagner, M., Newman, L., Cameto, R., Garza, N., & Levine, P. (2005). After high school: A first look at the postschool experiences of youth with disabilities. A report from the National Longitudinal Transition Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA: SRI International. [Online].

Walker, V. L., & Smith, C. G. (2015). Training paraprofessionals to support students with disabilities: A literature review. Exceptionality, 23(3), 170–191.

Wexler, J., Mitchell, M. A., Clancy, E., & Silverman, R. D. (2016). An investigation of literacy practices in science classrooms. Read- ing & Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 33, 258–277.

Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2017). Endrew F. v. Douglas County School District (2017): FAPE and the U.S. Supreme Court. Teaching Excep- tional Children, 50, 7–15.

Zigmond, N. P. (2001). Special education at a crossroads. Preventing School Failure, 45(2), 70-74.

Zigmond, N. P., & Kloo, A. (2011) General and special education are (and should be) different. In J. M. Kauffman & D. P. Hallhan (Eds.), Handbook of special education (pp. 160–172). New York: Routledge.

Zigmond, N. P., & Matta, D. W. (2004). Value added of the special education teacher in secondary school co-taught classes. Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, 17, 55–76.

LEARNING DISABILITIES RESEARCH 143

About the Authors

Christopher J. Lemons is an associate professor in the Department of Special Education at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. He also Co-Directs the National Center for Leadership in Intensive Intervention funded by the Office of Special Education Programs. His research focuses on improving academic outcomes for children and adolescents with intellectual, developmental, and learning disabilities. Dr. Lemons earned his Ph.D. in Special Education from Vanderbilt University.

Sharon Vaughn is the Manuel J. Justiz Endowed Chair in Education and Professor in Department of Special Education at the University of Texas at Austin. She is the Executive Director of The Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk. Her research focuses on improving the reading and social outcomes of students with learning difficulties. Dr. Vaughn earned her Ph.D. in Education and Child Development from the University of Arizona.

Jade Wexler is an associate professor in the Department of Counseling, Higher Education, and Special Education at the University of Maryland. Her research focuses on designing reading interventions to support at-risk adolescents with reading difficulties and disabilities. She also focuses on designing and evaluating professional development and school-wide service delivery models to support the implementation of evidence-based literacy practices. Dr. Wexler earned her Ph.D. in Special Education from The University of Texas at Austin.

Devin M. Kearns is an assistant professor of Special Education in the Department of Educational Psychology in the Neag School of Education at the University of Connecticut. He is a research scientist for Haskins Laboratory and the Center for Behavioral Education & Research. He researches reading disability—including dyslexia—in elementary-age children. Dr. Kearns earned his Ph.D. in Special Education from Vanderbilt University.

Anne C. Sinclair is a doctoral student in the Department of Special Education at Peabody College of Vanderbilt University. Her research interests include improving educator implementation of evidence-based practices through improved training and support, and effective use of technology in professional development. She earned her M.Ed. in Special Education from Vanderbilt University.

Copyright of Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell) is the property of Wiley-Blackwell and its 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.