This issues of NASET’s Classroom Management series was written by Marissa Desiree Pardo. Since the creation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities have been legally provided access to appropriate education and related services free of cost to their parents. These supports are offered by their school to provide them with equal opportunities to succeed in an educational setting that is appropriate for them. With more opportunities than ever for a SWD to be able to succeed academically in school and acquire functional daily living skills, SWDs would be receiving everything they can possibly require to achieve success for their future. Unfortunately, there are many factors that make this goal difficult to reach. For students with behavioral disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include inadequate training, lack of collaboration between the school and families, the use of traditional disciplinary methods, immediately reacting to problem behavior without a plan, and lack of knowledge of available behavioral plans. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive behavioral challenges include a school-wide approach to discipline, the involvement of families in meaningful ways, the use of innovative prevention methods rather than traditional discipline methods, positive and negative reinforcement towards inappropriate student behavior, and the use of a positive behavior plan. For students with academic disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include a “one size fits all” method of teaching, a hesitancy to teach SWDs in a general education setting, a growing and diverse student population, a lack of training for teachers, and a lack of resources. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive academic challenges include differentiated instruction, a multi-tiered system of supports, a universal design for learning, a school-wide approach to academic supports, and the use of progress monitoring
Abstract
Since the creation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities have been legally provided access to appropriate education and related services free of cost to their parents. These supports are offered by their school to provide them with equal opportunities to succeed in an educational setting that is appropriate for them. With more opportunities than ever for a SWD to be able to succeed academically in school and acquire functional daily living skills, SWDs would be receiving everything they can possibly require to achieve success for their future. Unfortunately, there are many factors that make this goal difficult to reach. For students with behavioral disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include inadequate training, lack of collaboration between the school and families, the use of traditional disciplinary methods, immediately reacting to problem behavior without a plan, and lack of knowledge of available behavioral plans. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive behavioral challenges include a school-wide approach to discipline, the involvement of families in meaningful ways, the use of innovative prevention methods rather than traditional discipline methods, positive and negative reinforcement towards inappropriate student behavior, and the use of a positive behavior plan. For students with academic disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include a “one size fits all” method of teaching, a hesitancy to teach SWDs in a general education setting, a growing and diverse student population, a lack of training for teachers, and a lack of resources. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive academic challenges include differentiated instruction, a multi-tiered system of supports, a universal design for learning, a school-wide approach to academic supports, and the use of progress monitoring tools. These best practices bridge the gap between SWDs and the education they deserve to attain in the school system.
Research and Interventions for Practitioners: Evidence-Based Best Practices
Introduction
In the 21st century, many schools have identified several issues that are associated with developing an educational environment that would be positive for all students. Some of these issues include:
- An increased amount of pressure on teachers to improve student learning using national common core standards
- Diverse and constantly changing student populations that require individualized instruction that is applicable to the lives for all students
- A reluctance for teachers in the general education curriculum to provide supports that are appropriate to the learning needs of students with disabilities that impair their ability to access the general education curriculum
There is a wide range of student behaviors that impede their learning and possibly that of others, including disruption of classroom time, failure to complete classwork and homework assignments, and behavior that can be considered a danger to others or the student themselves. Some of these behaviors can be a result of a learning disability or a behavioral disability. Sometimes, it’s a result of an undiagnosed disability. Solutions to assist SWD’s with persistent behavioral and/or intellectual disabilities are usually difficult to implement.
It is a widely held belief that problem behaviors are learned, rather than a pre-existing condition, however many SWDs exhibit problems behaviors or difficulties in academics as a result of their disability, which can blur the lines of this idea. Educational experts suggest that in order to address SWDs that are either behaviorally and academically challenged, educators must change the way that they provide instruction, practice, and the way they offer reinforcement of more acceptable responses in the school setting. This raises the question, how can educators create short-term intervention goals that will give long-term prevention of behavioral and academic problems for SWDs?
Key Terms within Context
1. Common Core State Standards (CCSS): The Common Core State Standards are a set of standards in education that are created to teach and test English and mathematics benchmarks ranging from Kindergarten to Twelfth grade levels. These standards are created for students to be prepared for college and the workforce. They are crucial for the educational success of each child when implemented properly. For children with disabilities, the implementation of CCSS is oftentimes very difficult. Finding ways for these standards to be implemented for the lowest performing schools and students while ensuring the mastery of these skills, requires modifications and accommodations in the way the lessons are presented. Fortunately, the standards are a framework for a curriculum, meaning it does not specify how to teach the curriculum. This allows Exceptional Student Education teachers some flexibility in the way they measure and assess these standards for each unique child. For students that are in the lowest percentile who have significant cognitive disabilities, the curriculum is modified in a manner that will allow students to access the general education curriculum with reduced complexity levels. Standards on modified curriculum also has essential understandings, which are scaffolds that teachers can use to teach students the standards in a manner that is appropriate for their cognitive and physical impairments.
2. Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE): Under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), students with disabilities (SWD) who are in need of special education and related special education services are provided with a Free and Appropriate Public Education (FAPE). A FAPE is an education provided to the students with disabilities at the public’s expense with no cost to the parent or child. This education is individualized and tailored to the specific needs of the student as highlighted in their Individualized Education Programs (IEP). These services are primarily and most often provided in the public-school system. This special education provides the child an opportunity to further their education or daily living skills that will be required for future independent living. For some students receiving secondary and most often tertiary prevention interventions in regards Positive Behavior Supports (PBS) or tier 2 or tier 3 interventions in a Multi-Tiered System of Supports, an evaluation for special education services is often necessary for behavioral issues that may impede a student’s learning and is provided by the school for students for free.
3. Individualized Education Plan (IEP): When a student exhibits needs as a result of a disability, an IEP is a document that is tailor-made for that student highlighting the special education services and supports that child needs. The interested stakeholders writing the IEP include, but are not limited to, a grade-level general education teacher, a special education teacher, an LEA representative, the parent, and anybody that is deemed a necessary member when contributing to the writing of a child’s IEP. As part of legal requirements, there must be provisions of FAPE and an annual meeting to review and revise the IEP when necessary on an annual basis until the student is 22 years of age. This document is completely confidential and due process rights are guaranteed. An IEP must include a student’s strengths, the parent’s concerns about the child in regard to their education, recent evaluations, statewide and districtwide assessments, and the needs of the student in regard to their growth development, their education, and their independent functioning. The IEP also addresses post-secondary or transitioning services, including the vocational aspirations and career goals. In an IEP there must be present academic and functional levels, annual goals that are measurable, benchmarks to measure short-term objectives, related and supplementary services provided, accommodations in the classroom and on state exams (FSA or FSAA), and an explanation as to why the student cannot fully participate with their non-disabled peers. All these things determine how a student’s disability may be hindering them from progressing in a general education curriculum and age-appropriate activities. Apart from guaranteeing that a student is provided with FAPE, the IEP is a strong progress monitoring tool. Throughout the school year all interested stakeholders in the IEP team discuss the student’s progress. Typically, these updates occur when progress reports or report cards are sent home. Every quarter the teacher measures the progress of whether a goal is being met, sufficient progress, or insufficient progress. With this data, parents and the IEP team can plan accordingly for future goals. Other data that is discussed when writing an IEP includes report cards, discipline records, records of attendance, and any other relevant data.
4. Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): The Individuals with Disabilities Act (IDEA) is a federal law that was enacted in 1975 that requires schools to serve and educate students that have disabilities. If a child is suspected of having a disability, the school must evaluate the student at no cost to the child’s parents. This does not guarantee that they qualify for IDEA rights simply because they struggle academically. The disabilities that are covered under IDEA are autism, deaf-blindness, deafness, emotional disturbance, hearing impairment, intellectual disability, multiple disabilities, orthopedic impairment, other health impairment (including ADHD), specific learning disability (including dyslexia, dyscalculia and dysgraphia, and other learning issues), speech or language impairment, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairment, including blindness. These disabilities must result in the child needing special education services. For children that qualify under IDEA, certain legal rights and protections are guaranteed to the student and their parents. There are two main purposes in regard to the creation of IDEA rights:
a. Children with disabilities are to be provided with a Free Appropriate Public Education: Students who are suspected of having a disability must be evaluated by the school. If the student is identified as having a disability, their unique needs must be met through a special education placement and the provision of related services. This ensures that students with disabilities (SWD) succeed in school given an appropriate setting and supports.
b. To allow parents to have a say in their child’s education: There are certain protections under IDEA that are provided to the parents called Procedural Safeguards, which allows parents of SWD’s to have a voice in every educational decision regarding the child, including classroom placement, the need for therapy services, and requests to evaluate the student for related services. IDEA laws are relevant to the child either until they graduate or until they turn 21, depending on which comes first. To access the services under IDEA, a student must first be evaluated, which can be done at the school’s discretion with parental permission, as well as per a request from the student’s parent. An eligibility meeting will be held to determine if the child requires special education. If the child requires special education, an Individualized Education plan will be created to outline the services and supports that are being provided and goals specifically created for the student. As previously stated, a parent has every right to be included in the decision-making progress for the student.
5. Least Restrictive Environment (LRE): When the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act of 1975 was placed into federal law, school districts (private and public) were required to provide an appropriate education for students with disabilities in their Least Restrictive Environment (LRE). What this means is that states are required to provide an education for students with disabilities that is appropriate for their needs, while also providing an education that is comparable to the maximum extent possible to an education provided to students without disabilities. Special needs classes/centers or the removal from general education classes are only recommended to students whose disabilities are severe in nature or if the effects of the student’s disability inhibit their capacity to succeed in general education classes, even if supports and related services are provided. In some cases, a student with a disability can succeed in the general education curriculum when interventions, supports, and related services are provided. In other instances, despite receiving these supports some students may continue to struggle in the general education setting, which means that they may need to be placed in a separate setting that is more suitable to their needs. This is especially true for students that require Tier 3 interventions in MTSS and students who receive tertiary interventions for Positive Behavior Supports. LRE is the legal obligation to teach children with disabilities as closely to the general education as possible and to provide an appropriate setting for them based on their cognitive, behavioral, and functional needs.
6. Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS): The MTSS is a framework that enables all students to be successful in education and progress in school at a level that is suitable for their cognitive abilities. The students being served include all students and students with disabilities receiving ESE services. This is a 3-tiered system that uses data collection and regular progress monitoring for every student to provide and evaluate instruction in academic, behavioral, and social-emotional areas in school. Intervention supports matched in alignment with educational standards are provided to the students when needed. When planning instruction, determining needs for supports, and needs for interventions, teachers must first consider four things. Firstly, the teacher must determine a measurable objective for the student when trying to figure out what exactly is the problem the student is facing that is hindering them from progressing in school with tier 1 supports. Also, what are the barriers that are keeping a student from attaining appropriate grade-level progress? The next consideration would be determining how to move forward, including creating a plan with evidence-based strategies to help a child reach grade-appropriate benchmarks. The final consideration would be to ask whether the implementation of these supports is working for the child. When implementing MTSS, three support tiers are provided based on each student’s needs. Tier 1 is the universal instruction and supports that most students receive and succeed under. Tier 2 support requires supplemental interventions and supports for learners who are not making sufficient progress in tier 1. Tier 3 involves very intensive and predominantly individualized supports and interventions. Each tier is existing so that every child fall into an appropriate placement that will allow them to progress in school with the necessary supports and interventions.
7. Positive Behavior Supports (PBS): Positive behavior supports are proactive and early interventions that are offered when problem behaviors in school become a concern to the school personnel. PBS offers three levels of prevention supports known as primary, secondary and tertiary interventions. Much like RtI’s 3 tiered supports, these three levels of prevention intensify when a child requires intervention more frequently. On a primary prevention level, school-wide discipline tends to induce a positive response from most of the students in the school with some prompting and emphasis on positive behavior. Children who are considered “at risk” for behavioral problems tend to require secondary interventions. Children that are “at risk” may have trouble following instructions or have slight behavioral problems that can worsen without intervention. The third, or tertiary, intervention is provided to children who have already established serious problem behaviors. These interventions are to prevent the behaviors from worsening. While the first two interventions are meant to eradicate or prevent problem behaviors from existing, the tertiary support is meant to lessen or prevent the worsening of already existing problem behaviors with the possibility that they may never improve entirely. Every teacher has at least one student in the secondary or tertiary intervention level. They are often obligated to find solutions to these problems or have a child evaluated for a disability if problem behaviors are severe and continue to worsen after preventative interventions have been put in place. Many students receiving tertiary interventions are SWDs or students that may be evaluated as having a behavioral disability so as to be able to provide intensive and individualized services to assist the student in attaining replacement behaviors.
8. Response to Intervention (RtI): Response to Intervention (RtI) is a school implemented system in which teachers and school personnel identify the students that are struggling academically and offer these students support that would allow them to achieve success in school. The main goal of RtI is for schools to provide intervention before the students fall too far behind academically. Although RtI is not a program or framework for teaching, it is a proactive method in which teachers can identify students that are struggling, assess why they are having difficulties, and then implement interventions to allow them to learn in an appropriate setting. There is frequent assessments, evaluations, and progress monitoring involved in order to understand why the child may be having difficulties in school. Students may struggle as a result of acquiring English as a second language, undiagnosed cognitive, attention, behavioral and/or functional disabilities, or even experiential circumstances. Implementing RtI begins with assessing every single child in the school to verify their present cognitive levels. The RtI team will then focus specifically on the students that are having difficulties in reaching grade-level standards and require interventions to improve in school. In the classrooms, implementing RtI can come in many forms. One way teachers often provide an appropriate setting for students that may range from above to below grade level is by teaching with whole class to small group instruction. The teacher provides a lesson in a whole group setting, then the students break into small groups that are often tailored for different skill levels. Teachers also may differentiate instruction, which allows students to explain what they have learned in their own way. For instance, in my class the students are taught through a variety of visuals and sensory objects, and when prompted to respond, they can use eye gaze, picture task cards, or simply verbalize an answer. This is how they learn in the most efficient manner. As part of RtI, a school must provide a MTSS when students who have been identified as struggling academically.
9. Students With Disabilities (SWD): IDEA has a specific criteria to determine what is considered a student with a disability eligible for IDEA provisions. A child with a disability means that after having an evaluation done, the child is found to have an intellectual disability, a speech and/or language impairment, an emotional disturbance, a visual impairment or blindness, a hearing impairment or deafness, an orthopedic impairment, autism, a traumatic brain injury, an “other health impairment”, a specific learning disability, or multiple disabilities. The child must need special education and related services. If a child with a disability does not require special education, even if they have a related service, they do not fall under a SWD that is eligible for IDEA rights and protections. A SWD under IDEA can also be a child ages 3-9 who has been diagnosed with a developmental delay regarding physical, cognitive, communication, social or emotional development and requires special education or related services as a result.
10. Universal Design for Learning (UDL): The Universal Design for Learning is a set of propositions that provide equal opportunities for all students to learn. UDL offers guidelines for teachers to be able to create and provide goals, methods, materials, and assessments for instruction that work for every student as opposed to a one-size fits all instructional form of teaching. UDL is flexible and customizable to suit the needs of every student so that each child is benefiting from a multi-tiered educational experience. This does not imply that every child is receiving an individualized education, although it may be individualized in the case of a child that requires special needs education and related services. UDL is necessary, because each child has a set of skills, interests, and needs when it comes to learning. Each child is as unique as a fingerprint. Generally, three primary principles and brain networks come into play
a. Principle I: Provide Multiple Means of Representation: Recognition Networks: Considered the “what” of learning, this is how a student gathers and categorizes facts based on how they receive information through things they hear, see and read. For children who may suffer from disabilities, the lesson may need to be presented differently than it would be for a student without disabilities. Children who require ESOL services would also need curriculum to be taught differently from their peers to comprehend the same information. To cater to a child’s recognition network, a teacher has to present information in a multitude of ways so that each child can succeed. Providing variety in the way a teacher teaches a lesson ensures more positive results for student progress.
b. Principle II: Provide Multiple Means of Action and Expression: Strategic Networks: Considered the “how” of learning, this is how a child can express what they know. This is especially apparent when writing essays or answering comprehension questions. To cater to a child’s strategic network, a teacher must differentiate the ways in which a child can actively respond and express their knowledge in the classroom. This is especially crucial for students with disabilities that may impair the way they communicate. For example, a child may suffer from a speech impairment or be completely non-verbal, therefore you wouldn’t hold them to the same exact expectations as their non-disabled peers. A child requires more than one mode of response, which means that a child like this would benefit from a speech output device or modifications to the assignment. This applies to all students considering each child has a different way of expressing him or herself.
c. Principle III: Provide Multiple Means of Engagement: Affective Networks:Considered the “why” of learning, this is where students find purpose and motivation in learning. This network when stimulated and challenged, results in students being engaged in learning and interested in the intrinsic rewards of learning. Students can become engaged in learning activities as a result of interest, cultural relevance, or background knowledge, along with a variety of other reasons. Students also have a way that they prefer to learn, such as working in groups, working alone, with a regular routine, or unstructured activities. No learner is the same. It is a teacher’s task stimulate students by creating multiple opportunities for them to engage in learning.
Implementation of Common Core State Standards (CCSS) and Key Issues related to Teaching Students with Disabilities: Pervasive Academic Challenges
1. “One Size Fits All” Method of Teaching: Traditionally, teaching consisted of one method of learning. For typical general education students, desks were organized into rows and instruction was a teacher-led lecture. This form of teaching did not consider students who acquired English as a second language, students with disabilities in a general education setting, or students that required other methods of being taught. For students with disabilities in a special education setting, prior to the creation of IDEA, education was limited to private schooling or centers that housed SWDs. Other SWDs ended up in health facilities. Now education is far more student-led, while teachers serve as observers and facilitators of learning. Although it seems that education as a whole has reached a pivotal standard in nurturing SWDs, many teachers and schools still resort to a “one size fits all” approach to academic instruction in the classroom regardless of the needs of each individual student. It simply seems easier to teach a classroom using one instructional approach, instead of differentiating instruction to meet the academic needs of the students. Despite this common practice, research suggests that providing instruction, practice, and reinforcement assists teachers in the teaching/learning process when identifying the skills a student needs to succeed in school and in their community. Many individual teachers fear losing control of their students, modifying the way that they teach, trying to tackle the subjects they teach using DI methods, and the time-consuming implementation of DI. Unfortunately, there are many obstacles that prevent all school personnel from implementing a more differentiated approach to teaching, including a lack of social skills instruction in the classroom, the lack of problem-solving and critical thinking lessons for students, and a failure to acknowledge that students have differences in experiential backgrounds. These barriers set the standard for regular classroom and school-wide academic and behavioral problems (Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003).
2. Hesitancy to Teach SWDs in a General Education Setting: Perhaps now more than ever, “successful special educators [have to be] masters of collaboration” (Fisher, Frey, & Thousand, 2003, p. 46). Collaboration between special education teachers and general education teachers will assist the 59% of students with disabilities currently being served in the general education setting. The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 explicitly states that the implementation of an IEP for a SWD is not the sole responsibility of a special education teacher, but of the general education teacher as well. It also highlights the importance of creating an inclusive setting for SWDs through the collaboration between general education teachers and special education teachers. Although this is an ideal team model, often this does not regularly happen. During my first year of teaching, I realized that many teachers felt this hesitancy to work with SWDs when I began to receive a barrage of special needs referrals for students to be placed in my classroom. Upon observing some of the students being referred, I noticed that many of them simply lacked interventions, supports, and proper implementation of their IEP goals. Unfortunately, I felt like I had no say in the decision of their placement in my classroom, but I still believe that they could have been better served in a general education setting with accommodations and modifications. Many general education teachers may feel hesitant to work with SWDs due to a lack of knowledge in creating inclusion settings for these students and a lack of knowledge in IEP implementation. Failure to implement IEP’s for students that are disabled can come with an array of consequences, including an inappropriate education for the student, teacher evaluations marked as “not efficient”, due process hearings, and even personal lawsuits. Moreover, the availability of resources to serve SWDs in a general education setting poses an obstacle when working with this population. While special education teachers are very well-trained in working with SWDs and modifying curriculum to serve the needs of many students with disabilities, general education teachers will take one or two courses regarding SWDs in their undergraduate programs making them less confident in teaching students with pervasive academic challenges.
3. A Diverse Student Population: For many decades, there has been a disproportionate number for culturally and linguistically diverse students in the special education setting. Although it is not uncommon for English language learners (ELL) to have a learning disability, there are few assessments that make it possible to differentiate an ELL with or without a disability. Not to mention that there is a higher number of minority students in special education compared to students from Caucasian backgrounds. In February 2016, IDEA had an amendment put in place to promote equity for students in special education, especially to remedy this kind of disproportionality in special education. Also depending on the disability category, culturally and linguistically diverse students can either be underrepresented or overrepresented (Barrios, 2017).
4. Lack of Training: Millions of students in America have been diagnosed with a severe learning disability, including high and low incidence disabilities. Despite the increased number of teachers shifting to special education, the academic performance of SWD has consistently been very low. The academic performance in reading for students with Learning Disabilities is 3.4 years behind grade level and 3.2 years behind grade level in mathematics. 64% of elementary-aged students with learning disabilities score below the 21st percentile. The biggest reason for these abysmal numbers in achievement scores in high school or elementary school is the failure for teachers to provide sufficiently intensive instruction. Teachers do not see the need for it and have lost the ability to provide it due to low expectations (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2014).
5. Lack of Resources: The resources that are provided, or withheld from, a school plays a very vital role in creating equal academic opportunities for students despite socioeconomic features on academic achievement. When thinking of educational resources of the school much of the income obtained by the school has a lot to do with student fees and family contributions. It can be suggested that educational resources of schools can be directly associated to the socioeconomic situation of the families involved. It can also be said that classroom size increases the limitations of the resources available to the teachers and the students in the class. It has been determined that the less the number of students are in the classroom, the higher the academic achievement the students will have and vice versa. The lack of support and resources for staff is the biggest impediment to teaching with efficacy. This does not include software or computer-based content, but it does include the lack of teaching materials and books and materials for libraries and the lack of support staff (Savasci & Tomul, 2013).
Best Practices and Interventions for Students With Disabilities With Pervasive Academic Challenges
1. Differentiated Instruction (DI): In a classroom where DI is not present, academic success is stifled for students that learn in a different way than their peers do. For SWDs, it is crucial that a teacher differentiates instruction considering the effects of their disability impede their success without this approach. For students whose disabilities create pervasive academic challenges, a one size fits all approach to teaching can hinder their learning and result in cognitive regress. For the sake of SWDs and their non-disabled peers, teachers must become fluent in DI strategies and methods to be able to provide instruction for all of their students. By reaching every student in the classroom, test scores will increase and the lowest achieving students and SWDs can succeed. Despite these findings, school personnel feel that there are many hurdles in the way of helping them differentiate instruction for their students, such as a lack of training, constraints in time to implement the practices, confusion in how to meet the needs of all learners, and the pressure to increase standardized test scores. Although it takes time to incorporate DI within the classroom, successful implementation of DI is completely possible with practice and perseverance. Also, DI should not only be implemented within one classroom, but in all classrooms in a school-wide effort to elevate the academic performance of SWDs and their non-disabled peers. There are many ways a teacher can differentiate instruction in the classroom, such as adjusting the way the content (ideas and information) is being presented, the way the processes (practices students complete in class) are provided, and the products and materials used during the lesson. Some effective DI practices include learning stations that teach different skills and encourage flexible seating, targeting the visual, tactile, auditory and kinesthetic senses instead of just one (videos, audiobooks, and spoken and written tasks), including reflection and goal-setting lessons, and grouping students with similar learning styles. Most importantly, educators need direct and explicit professional development workshops for DI that can assist them in managing the classroom during the process, implementing the DI strategies, sessions to help them create DI lesson plans, and lessons in evidence-based practices that are efficient in the classroom. This is the most crucial step in implementing DI, because it is very difficult and complex; however, it is proven to be successful across all academic and special areas and when actively used in the classroom.
2. Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS): For teachers that are hesitant to work with SWDs, an effective way to make instruction more effective for them and their non-disabled peers is to provide a Multi-Tiered System of Supports. The MTSS is a framework that enables all students to be successful in education and progress in school at a level that is suitable to their cognitive abilities. The students being served include all students and students with disabilities receiving ESE services. What makes MTSS so effective is the use of screening and progress monitoring schools. Screenings must be quick to administer to all students to identify those that are in need or struggling academically. From there, progress monitoring must measure skills on an ongoing basis and these progress monitoring tools and the data that is provided drives instruction in the classroom.
3. Universal Design For Learning (UDL): The classrooms of today have a variety of diverse learners. Teachers must be able to meet the diverse needs of these learners. What UDL aims to do is to approach instruction, learning, curriculum development, and assessments to meet the needs of diverse learners. The goal is to be able to provide curricular materials that are flexible enough to accommodate to learning styles of all individuals including SWD (Strobel, Arthanat, Bauer, & Flagg, 2007). UDL has three principles. The first principle is to provide multiple means of representation. Learners have different ways in which they receive and understand information. A student that has a disability may require a different way of being taught than a student without a disability. Some students may also have cultural and linguistic differences that need to be accommodated. Transfer of learning occurs when there are multiple representations for the same lesson for student with different needs. The second principle is to provide multiple means of action and expression. This principle considers how learners differ in the ways they navigate their learning environment and express what they have learned. Students may express themselves in a written or an oral format. In this principle, a teacher must provide options for students to be able to express their knowledge. Principle three is providing multiple means of engagement. This means making sure to offer a variety of formats for students to engage in learning, whether it is working alone, working with peers, a strict routine, or unstructured learning (www.udlcenter.org).
4. School-Wide Approach to Academic Supports: Typically, low-performing schools require a systematic and systematic plan to address the academic, social, and behavioral needs of all the students, including ELL students and SWD. By using academic supports and interventions that are evidence-based and implemented on a school-wide level increases a positive school climate, teacher self-efficacy, decreases student problem behaviors in the entire school and increase the academic achievement noticeably. A school-wide academic plan is meant to improve learning environments by increasing time in school by reducing the number if out-of-school suspensions and increasing the engagement in all students using practices that are research-based. The target is to improve social behaviors, the schools can utilize more time to deliver engaging instruction (Gage, Sugai, & Timothy, 2013).
5. Progress Monitoring Tools: Progress monitoring is a technique a teacher uses to assess the academic or behavioral performance of students on a regular basis. For decades multiple forms of progress monitoring tools have been used in the field of special education to begin to address the need for executive functioning skills and socially appropriate behavior. When used with fidelity, there is largely a positive response regarding the desired changes when this tool is put into place. Student performance and motivation are significantly improved, and the effectiveness of instruction is also improved. A teacher can identify where a student struggles and modify the way they present information to see if it will increase engagement and performance. If implemented properly, it will not take away from teaching (Luckner & Bowen, 2010).
The Implementation of Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS) and Key Issues Related to Teaching Students with Disabilities with Persistent Behavioral Challenges
1. Inadequate training: Many teachers lack the proper training and skills in which to address students with disabilities that have persistent behavioral challenges. For many general education teachers, there is a hesitancy to accept students with disabilities, especially if they have behavioral issues, because professional development and undergraduate courses do not offer classes in behavior management. In fact, most undergraduate courses may offer only one course regarding children with disabilities and behavior intervention. Having graduated with a Bachelor’s in elementary education (K-6), I can attest to this. Many trainings and courses focus more on academic growth than they do on providing positive behavior support for students with disabilities. Typically, special education teachers are well-versed and heavily trained in working with students with disabilities that have consistent behavior problems, however many teachers, including administrators, lack training when it comes to addressing children with problem behaviors, especially when behaviors reach dangerous levels. Reflecting on a case I read, a student named Jana K. exhibited incredibly dangerous and self-injurious behaviors in a general education setting, including swallowing a tool that she used for committing self-harm. This student was never assessed for a disability, which resulted in the denial of FAPE provisions, an attempted suicide, and placement in online school to avoid being bullied in school. Things did not have to escalate to those levels, however and I believe that proper training in behavior management would have yielded more positive results for Jana and for many other SWDs that have persistent problem behaviors. Without the proper training and education on a school-wide level, these students will not be properly served and supported in the school setting and will be affected academically as a result.
2. Lack of Involvement Between Schools and Families: Although it is apparent and proven that collaboration is pivotal to the success of the student, it is difficult to develop and maintain a collaborative model between parents and the school. Usually this is not intentional although sometimes it can be. Lack of time, a lack of knowledge of who to assign collaborative roles to, perspectives and priorities that may not be in sync, and limited resources can make it difficult to commit to this kind of effort. It is often even more difficult to share common values and ideas that foster a shared responsibility to have school-wide collaboration, even with responsive and proactive administrative support. In the rare case that a lack of collaboration between a parent and the school is fully intentional, building a bridge to form a relationship may be necessary when considering reaching out to parents to become involved in making the school setting better. Sometimes, a school must carry the weight of students who may not have parents or whose parents will not consider involvement in the child’s school life. When discussing this in regard to students with disabilities who have pervasive behavioral problems, a collaboration between the school and the parents involved is the most crucial step in addressing the student’s progress. When a child in school is acting out in an unfavorable way, a school has very limited options to address the child and change the behavior. The best options that can be provided to a student all require parental consent and involvement, including an evaluation for a possible disability, IEP decisions, and related services for the child.
3. The Use of Traditional Discipline Methods: While schools are challenged with educating students that have a variety of academic, social, and behavioral needs, they also are pressured to increase how students perform academically. This is often difficult in the wake of school-based acts of violence that are perpetuated by students. Despite these changes in regard to the way students have become in the 21st century, schools continue to push traditional and often ineffective practices to teach students and address behavior. Every day, more creative interventions are put into practice to be able to reach as many students as possible. Schools have a chance to be more nurturing to the students they serve, especially if the practices used to address behavioral problems are historically associated with success. Given that academic and behavioral problems go hand in hand, it goes without saying that they both must be addressed when aiming to improve practices that address one or the other. In a way, schools must change the way they create a school environment for students that are academically challenged or disabled to be able to address students that are behaviorally challenged or disabled, by providing interventions in the classroom that are meant to assist all levels of students. The goal is to shift traditional and outdated practices in school to create a more positive environment for students to learn in. As a child who suffered with bipolar disorder and anxiety, I remember clearly that when I did not understand something in school, especially in the areas of mathematics, no accommodations were made for me. I remember at one point, my teachers were frustrated that I became such a distraction during instructional time due to lack of understanding and engagement, that I would be called to the chalkboard to exhibit what I know about a topic, only to be reduced to tears from the embarrassment of not knowing the content. Teachers would continuously call on me to “show what I know” if I was caught distracted to deter me from being non-compliant, knowing the shame I would feel afterwards. This was the only method in which to prevent me from misbehaving, resulting in feelings of isolation and shame. Although during my high school years, I felt a shift in teacher-led instruction to student-led instruction, it has become embedded in me that failure should cause me to feel the shame that I felt as a child with an undiagnosed behavioral disability. Had teachers taught me what behaviors were appropriate if I were to ever feel anxiety from a lack of understanding, I would have learned how to deal with the effects of my disability in a proactive manner during instructional time.
4. Reacting to Inappropriate Behavior Without a Plan to Prevent it: There are many ways in which teachers react to inappropriate behaviors without actually having a plan in place to prevent it. There is a common practice called crisis management, which often includes reacting to a problem that occurs within that moment, with no actual plans of preventing the problem behaviors before they arise. It is a hands-on de-escalation tool in which a teacher uses non-invasive restraints on students exhibiting problem behaviors to prevent them from hurting themselves or others. Although this is often a last resort for problem behaviors, it is often met with great scrutiny considering teachers should often have plans in place to prevent these problem behaviors before they reach crisis levels. Teachers also “get rid of the problem” by simply having students removed from the classroom when they become disruptive during instructional time. This often implies that teachers that do this do not consider why a student is exhibiting problem behaviors in the first place. Many teachers tend to react to inappropriate behaviors that disrupt the class immediately, and often a teacher will be less likely to praise students that exhibit classroom-appropriate behavior. As the old saying goes, “the squeaky wheel gets the grease”. Sadly, these kinds of reactionary and crisis-oriented approaches are not effective in creating a preventative model for students to follow when a teacher is seeking to change problem behaviors. Although in rare cases a teacher may need to resort to these practices to address a crisis moment, it is far preferable to have a prevention method so, a teacher would not need to resort to these practices. If a teacher does not have data collection or a plan for intervention in regard to a child’s problem behaviors, then crisis intervention will be completely ineffective. A teacher needs a plan to prevent problem behaviors and a plan after a crisis occurs to address what occurred and how it can be handled differently. Teachers who rely heavily on crisis management are less likely to be impartial towards the students and will fail to identify why the problem behaviors exist, resulting in inappropriate teacher responses to problem behavior. Simply removing the student from their classroom learning environment or using crisis techniques to de-escalate a SWD’s behavioral problems are the most prevalent disciplinary practices in schools. In fact, SWD’s and their non-disabled peers alike are often sent out of the classroom for typical problem behaviors before they even reach a crisis level. By physically removing the student from the classroom, be it for in-school suspension or a visit to the principal’s office, a teacher is reinforcing a negative message to the child. This message implies that a student can simply be sent away to for the convenience of the teacher, but not solve the problems of the student. It reinforces that the student’s behavior is the problem, but not the manner in which the teacher is addressing it. In a forum discussion, a speaker mentioned that if a student was removed for 5 minutes every single school day, then a student can miss 18 hours of instruction in a school year. For students with behavioral disabilities or even their non-disabled peers, these practices show a complete disregard to the students as human beings. It simply implies that the teacher does not care about why a student may be acting out in class.
5. Lack of or Unsuccessful Implementation of a Positive Behavior Plan: Many schools have actively sought out strategies and practices that were made to reduce violent or disruptive behaviors in schools, while raising positive and social behaviors in students. Schools are attempting to implement school-wide positive behavior support (SWPBS), which is a proactive model that aims to create preventative practices at three-tiered levels to lessen problem behaviors in the school. Also known as Positive Behavior Support (PBS) there are 3 tiers of interventions that are meant to promote positive behaviors in school. At a primary tier prevention level, the students that are addressed include the general school population who do not exhibit regular behavioral problems. At a secondary tier prevention level, the students that are served are considered “at risk” for developing regular problem behaviors. Students that exhibit persistent and at times severe behavioral problems are in the tertiary level of prevention. When a PBS needs to be implemented, it must be consistent all school year, all school personnel must be in compliance with the plan to maintain that consistency, and traditional methods of discipline must be left behind for more proactive methods of problem behavior prevention. Issues that can make the implementation of PBS difficult include a lack of school-wide training. Staff require extensive training that can increase the quality of how the PBS would be implemented, which is usually not offered on a school-wide level. Usually the school personnel that is mandated to take these kinds of trainings are special education teachers due to the nature of their work with SWD that have behavioral problems. Also, if a BSP is not properly implemented in the school it can further exacerbate behavioral issues. Many teachers may disregard proactive methods of prevention and instead indulge in the use of the traditional reactionary methods of discipline, including sending students with problem behaviors out of class for being disruptive. This can lead to higher rates of problem behavior within the primary and secondary prevention level students. Students that prefer to avoid completing tasks within the classroom may be encouraged to exhibit problem behaviors as a means to get away from academic work. Students who typically behave in a classroom appropriate manner may also feel motivated to engage in negative classroom behavior to receive attention that the teacher usually reserves for negative behavior. When school personnel engage in the use of PBS, the teacher is supposed to ignore minor problem behavior so as not to encourage it to continue, while reserving most of their attention to direct praise towards students exhibiting appropriate behavior. Also, teachers must provide students with replacement behaviors when a pattern of pervasive behavioral challenges arise. Typically, most schools are deemed inadequate in the provisions of PBS on school-wide level, because these practices are not adhered to and often substituted for traditional practices.
Best Practices/Interventions for Students with Disabilities With Pervasive Behavioral Challenges
1. School-Wide Approach to Discipline: Oftentimes, when dealing with students with disabilities or students suspected of having disabilities, the responsibility solely rests on a special education teacher and the administration. As mentioned, a lack of training has made many general education teachers feel uncomfortable or inexperienced when dealing with SWDs that exhibit consistently problematic behavior. As a result, many special education teachers that specialize in tackling these behaviors and exchanging them for positive replacement behaviors are often held accountable for implementing behavioral interventions for these students. It is common knowledge that special education teachers must commit to doing more paperwork, more assessments, and more progress monitoring than most general education teachers, which causes this group of teachers to feel overworked and isolated from a collaborative effort to address SWDs with behavioral issues. It is also status quo for the special education teachers to be responsible for the majority of SWDs in a school setting. Larger problems begin to surface when these students are in a general education setting or live with an undiagnosed disability in a general education setting. How can this be handled without exuding stress on special education teachers, while also fostering a community where all students with or without disabilities can receive positive behavior supports if necessary? Many schools are considering a school-wide approach to discipline and employing several initiatives that remain consistent at all times. The interventions put in place throughout the schools are meant to prevent problem behaviors from reaching crisis levels. All teachers make it a point to teach social skills lessons and give rewards for appropriate behavior in a school-wide effort to proactively approach discipline. The schools also reduce time for students to be idle and instead focus on academics and promoting intrinsic motivation for students to learn content. In these kinds of approaches, school staff are trained in a variety of areas such as positive behavior support, management of misbehavior, and ways to handle a crisis level behavior in a nonviolent manner. When all teachers become involved in trying to address the needs of SWDs, the results tend to be more positive when working in teams as opposed to working in isolation, even if the school-wide approach means that some teachers voluntarily come together to create a discipline committee to address the needs of these children. The goal is that a group of school personnel will be collaborating within the school to ensure that all teachers receive the appropriate training to handle SWDs that have persistent behavioral problems and that everyone is working towards efficiency when dealing with students with disabilities.
2. Involve Families in Meaningful Ways: Collaboration with colleagues, family members, and the community has been widely acknowledged as critical for meeting the diverse needs of students with emotional, behavioral, and academic difficulties (Bullock & Gable, 1997; Cramer, 1998; Fishbaugh, 1997; Pounder, 1999; Walther-Thomas, Korinek, McLaughlin, & Williams, 2000). To create the most productive collaborative setting, school personnel must value the idea of teamwork among staff, parents, and students altogether. When working as a school-wide team, the school personnel must respect not only their own expertise, but the contributions of the parents involved on the team. By producing this mutual respect and fostering this communication, participants in the team (parents and school personnel) will produce more positive results than school personnel working in isolation. Intervening with students with disabilities who exhibit problem behaviors does not have to be addressed solely by the teacher. Schools and parents can and must work together to provide the support and the discipline that a child needs to be able to access their education in a manner appropriate for them. The wide range of ideas from school personnel and parents can provide the school and the families involved in creating plans that can effectively nurture SWDs. In fact, the parent of a SWD has a variety of options to provide interventions for their child with the help of school personnel. With parental consent, a child that is suspected of having a behavioral disability can be assessed free of cost to the parents to verify what the problem behaviors are, how often they are occurring, why they are occurring, and what interventions are needed to improve the student’s behavior. For students that are already diagnosed with a behavioral disability, a parent can be involved in IEP team decisions, pursue therapy within the school setting, request for a Behavior Intervention Plan to be put in place for their child, while also receiving legal protections under IDEA to assure that their child is receiving the appropriate interventions, accommodations, related services, and educational placement. Without collaboration, these options are not a possibility and the SWD will not receive the assistance and support they require to succeed to their fullest potential
3. The Use of New Innovative Preventative Methods: Students that exhibit behavioral problems tend to be affected in the areas of academic and social success in the school setting as well, and often behave in an unfavorable manner as a result. The first step in addressing these challenging behaviors is to acknowledge that they exist and then make a commitment to correct them in a positive way using proactive actions. Some proactive actions I saw growing up was a shift from teacher-led instruction to student-led instruction, where a teacher is simply an assistant to lead a child towards discovery, rather than a figure of authority that simply presents the information to students. This results in students participating in higher level thinking, with opportunities to apply what they have learned to new situations, draw connections among other ideas they have, and even produce new and original work. This increased accountability offers SWDs an opportunity to learn in their least restrictive environment, boosts morale for students who succeed, and fosters a positive and engaging learning process, which tends to reduce problem behaviors. Under IDEA, there are explicit disciplinary policies and procedures that highly promote school personnel to seek alternative methods to having students suspended or expelled. The greatest stress is placed on the use of positive interventions and supports for SWD, rather than addressing problem behaviors with severe punishment that will not foster long term positive behaviors in students. More than ever teachers are committed to finding ways to achieve more positive behavioral and academic outcomes for students, by addressing that behavioral problems can be prevented by changing the way academics are taught in the classroom. This can be done is by changing the instructional climate of the school and utilizing instructional strategies that are proven to helpful for students that exhibit both learning and behavioral disabilities. There will be many potential obstacles, however remaining committed to changing the way problem behaviors are addressed within the school will increase the effectiveness.
4. Proactive Vs. Reactive Interventions Towards Inappropriate Behavior: When considering using reactive or crisis-level interventions at the first sign of problem behaviors, it is strongly implied that the teachers that do this have no plan to prevent the problem behaviors from occurring in the first place or in the future. Although these kind of interventions are necessary when dangerous behaviors are exhibited in SWDs, they are on a strictly last resort basis. By relying heavily on crisis management interventions or sending students out of the classroom as a result of pervasive problem behaviors, a teacher becomes subjective when disciplining a student and does not seem to offer the student an option in deciding what behaviors, they can exhibit in place of problem behaviors. A teacher who cares about the “why” factor regarding persistent problem behaviors is prone to collecting data to find patterns, creating objectives and goals that aim to improve student behaviors in the classroom, and progress monitor the students to systematically plan for future problem behaviors. As a result, teachers will be able to manage their classrooms more efficiently. Rather than having a reaction to inappropriate behavior, which may consequently maintain negative student behaviors in response, a proactive approach will emphasize appropriate behavior through classroom instruction, regular practice, and reinforcement of appropriate behaviors. This is also important to consider when teachers provide too much attention to negative classroom behaviors, which can in turn cause them to neglect students who exhibit appropriate classroom behavior. With considerably less attention, students who typically behave well may decide that negative behavior creates the attention they want from their teacher, seeing as good behavior isn’t addressed as often. Also, simply removing a student from the classroom does very little to teach them about appropriate behaviors and does not assist the student in learning replacement behaviors. A more proactive method to address problem behavior would be to teach the students a more acceptable behavior as a response. By introducing a new skill, a student will be provided with the reinforcement to engage in a new behavior instead of the inappropriate behavior.
5. A Positive Behavior Plan: When IDEA was placed into law in 1970’s, it outlined goals and explicit procedures for school personnel to be able to address behavioral problems and potential behavioral problems from students with disabilities or students who may be suspected of having a disability. Part of these procedures highlight proactive methods in which to implement a positive behavior intervention plan for these students, especially if the behaviors may interfere with their ability to learn. A positive behavior plan also uses functional assessments to help evaluate what the cause of the problem behavior may be after it has begun to manifest itself. When implemented correctly, data suggest that a clear PBS system, that is universally understood and unanimously practiced by the school staff, will create a school environment where appropriate behavior is acknowledged and praised by school personnel. School personnel must also be dedicated to addressing and identifying factors that encourage a student’s problem behavior and the problem-solving team must find methods in which to reduce those behaviors through interventions. The success of the PBS depends on the quality of the plan and how well it is implemented throughout the school and in the classroom. It also depends on the level of training school personnel receives to solidify understanding in what PBS are and how to properly implement them for students in the tertiary level. Creating a well thought out PBS for SWD and tertiary level students is not only a best practice, but it is also a legal obligation under federal law. Under IDEA, when an SWD is facing disciplinary action for pervasive problem behavior, a FBA, or a Functional Behavior Assessment, must be conducted. An FBA is meant to identify problem or target behavior, what encourages the behavior, and how that behavior impedes the student’s academic progress. This ensures that a PBS is put in place for this student and others that require these supports. In short, the quality of a PBS, the training necessary successfully implement PBS, and a school-wide understanding of implementing proactive methods rather than traditional methods will strongly reinforce the positive student behavior.
Conclusion
Since the creation of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, students with disabilities have been legally provided access to a free and appropriate public education and related services by the school. These supports provide them with equal opportunities to succeed in an educational setting in their least restrictive environment. With more opportunities than ever for a SWD to be able to succeed academically and functionally in school, SWDs still don’t receive everything they require to equally access their educational environment. There are many factors that make this goal difficult to reach. For students with behavioral disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include inadequate training, lack of collaboration between the school and families, the use of traditional disciplinary methods, immediately reacting to problem behavior without a plan, and lack of knowledge of available behavioral plans. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive behavioral challenges include a school-wide approach to discipline, the involvement of families in meaningful ways, the use of innovative prevention methods rather than traditional discipline methods, positive and negative reinforcement towards inappropriate student behavior, and the use of a positive behavior plan. For students with academic disabilities, key issues that prevent teachers from providing the right supports include a “one size fits all” method of teaching, a hesitancy to teach SWDs in a general education setting, a growing and diverse student population, a lack of training for teachers, and a lack of resources. Some successful interventions and practices for SWDs with pervasive academic challenges include differentiated instruction, a multi-tiered system of supports, a universal design for learning, a school-wide approach to academic supports, and the use of progress monitoring tools. When these interventions are put into practice and remain consistent throughout the school year, SWDs with pervasive academic and/or behavioral problems improve substantially as do the school personnel through their implementation of evidence-based best practices and interventions. In this respect, students and school personnel exhibit growth through these practices and promote an educational setting that is safe and nurturing for ALL students.
References
Anderson, S., Bucholz, J. L., Hazelkorn, M., & Cooper, M. A. (2016). Using narrated literacy-based behavioural interventions to decrease episodes of physical aggression in elementary students with disabilities. Support for Learning, 31(2), 90-103. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docviw/1826538396?accountid=10901
Barrio, B. L. (2017). Special education policy change: Addressing the disproportionality of english language learners in special education programs in rural communities. RuralSpecial Education Quarterly, 36(2), 64-72. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/19 014019?accountid=1090
Fisher, D., Frey, N., & Thousand, J. (2003). What do Special Educators Need to Know and Be Prepared to Do for Inclusive Schooling to Work? Teacher Education and Special Education: The Journal of the Teacher Education Division of the Council for Exceptional Children,26(1), 42-50. doi:10.1177/08884064030260010
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2014). Rethinking Service Delivery for Students With Significant Learning Problems. Remedial and Special Education,36(2), 105-111. doi:10.1177/0741932514558337
Gable, R. A., & Bullock, L. M. (2000). Positive Academic and Behavioral Supports: Creating Safe, Effective, and Nurturing Schools for All Students. Highlights from the Forum on Positive Academic and Behavioral Supports (Norfolk, Virginia, February 18-19, 2000). 57-57. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Gage, N. A., Sugai, G., & Lewis, T. J. (2013). Academic achievement and school-wide positivebehavior interventions and supports. ().Society for Research on Educational Effectiveness.2040 Sheridan Road, Evanston, IL 60208. Retrieved from ERIC Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/17213973?accountid=10901
Jones, B. A. (2012). Fostering collaboration in inclusive settings: The special education students at a glance approach. Intervention in School and Clinic, 47(5), 297-306. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/13327623?accountid=10901
Kraemer, B. R., Cook, C. R., Browning-Wright, D., Mayer, R. G., & Wallace, M. D. (2008). Effects of Training on the Use of the Behavior Support Plan Quality Evaluation Guide with Autism Educators: A Preliminary Investigation Examining Positive Behavior Support Plans. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 10(3), 179-189. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Key Terms to Know in Special Education. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://www.parentcenterhub.org/keyterms-specialed/#child
Lee, A. M., & J. (n.d.). Individuals With Disabilities Education Act (IDEA): What You Need to Know. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/your-childs-rights/basics-about-childs-righs/individuals-with-disabilities-education-act-idea-what-you-need-to-know
Luckner, J. L., & Bowen, S. K. (2010). Teachers’ use and perceptions of progress monitoring. American Annals of the Deaf, 155(4), 397-406. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/88924122?accountid=10901
Medley, N. S., Little, S. G., & Akin-Little, A. (2008). Comparing Individual Behavior Plans from Schools with and without Schoolwide Positive Behavior Support: A Preliminary Study. Journal of Behavioral Education, 3(1), 93-110. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Morin, A. (n.d.). Understanding Response to Intervention. Retrieved June 7, 2018, from https://www.understood.org/en/school-learning/special-services/rti/understanding-responseto-intervention
Osborne,Allan G.,,Jr, & Dimattia, P. (1994). The IDEA’s least restrictive environment mandate:Legal implications. Exceptional Children, 61(1), 6. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docvw/2093643?accountid=10901
Post, M., & Storey, K. (2012). Positive Behavior Supports in Classrooms and Schools: Effective and Practical Strategies for Teachers and Other Service Providers. 266-266. Retrieved May 30, 2018.
Robinson, L., Maldonado, N., & Whaley, J. (2014). Perceptions about implementation of differentiated instruction. (). Retrieved from Social Science Premium Collection Retrieved From http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/169502452?accountid=10901
Savasci, H. S., & Tomul, E. (2013). The relationship between educational resources of school and academic achievement. International Education Studies, 6(4), 114-123. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/172064557?accountid=10901
Strobel, W., Arthanat, S., Bauer, S., & Flagg, J. (2007). Universal design for learning: Critical need areas for people with learning disabilities. Assistive Technology Outcomes and Benefits, 4(1), 81-98. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.fiu.edu/login?url=https://search-proquest-com.ezproxy.fiu.edu/docview/76268591?accountid=10901
The Common Core State Standards (CCSS) – A Common Knowledge Base. (n.d.). Retrieved From https://dyslexiaida.org/the-common-core-state-standards/
The Three Principles. (n.d.). Retrieved July 1, 2018, from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl/3principles
Vincent, C. G., Swain- Bradway, J., Tobin, T. J., & May, S. (2011). Disciplinary Referrals for Culturally and Linguistically Diverse Students with and without Disabilities: Patterns Resulting from School-Wide Positive Behavior Support. Exceptionality, 9(3). Retrieved May 30, 2018.
What is Universal Design for Learning. (n.d.). Retrieved June 8, 2018, from http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
To Access this Article
To download a PDF file version of this issue of NASET’s Classroom Management Series: Click here
