🎉 Limited Time Only: 25% Off Certifications and Gear With Code NASETFALL25 at Checkout through 10/11 👉 NASET SHOP -

Log In
Log In

January 2019 – Special Educator e-Journal

csm January 2019 7c0bcb0cac

Table of Contents

By Perry A. Zirkel

© December 2018

This month’s update concerns two issues subject to recent court decisions and of practical significance: (a) juvenile justice proceedings for students with disabilities, as illustrated by Commonwealth v. GeordiG. (Mass. Ct. App. 2018); and (b) the interaction between the IDEA’s adjudicative and investigative dispute resolution mechanisms, as illustrated by Steven R.F. v. Harrison School District No. 2 (D. Colo. 2018).

 

In Commonwealth v. Geordi G. (2018), a state appellate court in Massachusetts reviewed the dismissal of a juvenile delinquency petition for a 12-year-old student with an IEP.  The student had lost control in the middle school gym.  When the teacher tried to calm him down, he swore loudly, punched the wall, and pushed the teacher out of the doorway as he exited into the hall.  Becoming more agitated, he punched lockers and threatened to injure people.  The principal issued a “soft lockdown” of the school and managed to persuade the student to enter the office of the adjustment counselor.  However, remaining upset, he swore at and hip-bumped the principal upon moving to exit the office.   The school filed a delinquency application without any mention of the student’s special education status.  The judge dismissed the assault-and-battery part of the charges based on lack of probable cause, and the state appealed this ruling.

 

For the issue of probable cause, the appellate court reversed based on the statements of the teacher, counselor, and principal: “Viewed in the light most favorable to the Commonwealth, these accounts provide a sufficient showing . . . to warrant a prudent person in concluding that the juvenile committed assault and battery when he pushed the teacher and hip-bumped the principal.”

 

The reference to the state-favorable viewpoint is entirely consistent with the judicial posture for issuing or reviewing a dismissal, as contrasted with the ultimate determination of sufficient proof of responsibility.  In finding probable cause, the court rejected the student’s defense that he was just trying to exit the counselor’s office, concluding instead that this reason did not exclude the requisite intentional offensive contact.

 

Nevertheless, the appeals court issued a strong reminder of the IDEA requirement that when reporting a crime by a student with an IEP the school district “shall ensure that copies of the special education and disciplinary records of the child are transmitted for consideration by the appropriate authorities to whom the [district] reports the crime.”

 

Although the case law is infrequent and the district was not one of the parties in this litigation, this reminder serves as the basis for not only proactive action at the district level, particularly in light of the larger school-to-prison pipeline that disproportionately affects students with disabilities, but also potential IDEA legal action directly against districts.

 

First, pointing to the limited case law to date, the court concluded that neither the district’s information violation nor the student’s special education status served to automatically preclude probable cause.

 

The court cited its earlier decision in Commonwealth v. Nathaniel N. (2002), which provides a fuller picture of the applicable legal boundaries and distinctions in such situations.

Second, the court issued a counterbalancing or at least limiting consideration, emphasizing that school officials need to provide this special education information “to help determine whether a crime has been committed . . . that warrants prosecution and [if so,] what disposition would be appropriate.”  

In addition to the implicit discretion applicable to school districts as to whether to press charges, the explicit focus here is on the discretion of the prosecution as to whether to move forward with arraignment and, if so, the discretion of the juvenile court to determine both the requisite culpability and the resulting consequences.

 

 

In Steven R.F. v. Harrison School District No. 2 (2018), the federal district court in Colorado addressed the IDEA claims of the parents of a child with autism after they had resorted twice to the state education department’s complaint procedures (CP) process.  The CP actions were  in response to the district’s successive attempts to move the child from a private to a public placement.  The first time, the CP decision found that the placement procedures violated the IDEA and ordered corrective actions, including an observation by staff members of the proposed placement and an IEP meeting facilitated by an individual who was not a district employee.  The second time, which was in response to the district’s proposed placement at an out-of-district public school that had two separate programs for students with autism.  The second CP decision was that the district’s procedures failed to comply with its earlier decision and also violated applicable IDEA requirements, including not being sufficiently specific as to the proposed placement.  In turn, the district filed for a due process hearing, and the hearing officer ruled that the district’s procedural violations did not result in loss to the child or parents.  The parents filed for judicial review.

 

 

First, the court ruled that the district failed to make a specific offer of placement, concluding that the two school’s two autism programs were, in terms of clientele, staff-student ratios, and focus (here, academic v. behavior), distinctively different educational placements.  As such, this violation effectively resulted in the requisite significant infringement on the parents’ opportunity for participation in the IEP process.

 

 

Wading into the muddy waters of “program” and “location,” including the brick-and-mortar manifestation of classrooms and schools, the court adopted the basic element test for “placement”—whether the proposal was for a fundamental change in or elimination of a basic element of the child’s education program.  The court found that the cited differences, such as staff-student ratios, constituted such basic elements.

 

Second, the court roundly rejected the district’s arguments that the particular remedies (and, implicitly, general procedures) of the first CP decision were beyond the requirements of the IDEA, concluding instead that (1) the state education agency had fulfilled the IDEA’s CP-specific regulations and (2) the violation was particularly serious here because the remedies were tailored to the individual child and his parents rather than being broad-based protections, such as policy revisions and personnel training.  The court treated this noncompliance as compounding the district’s placement-offer violation.

 

First, this case illustrates the increasing, although still infrequent issue, of districts filing for due process hearings beyond the limited area of IEEs at public expense, including in the wake of parent CP filings.  Second, the court did not make clear whether this violation alone, without the placement-offer failure, amounted to denial of FAPE.  Third, the court did not specifically address the district’s challenge to the CP investigations, which are distinctly different from the IDEA adjudications.  For further information on CP, see the “Other Dispute Resolution” section of the “Publications” list at perryzirkel.com

 

Third, the court ducked addressing the parents’ third claim, which alleged that the district had engaged in predetermination in the placement process.  Finding the first ruling to suffice for denial of FAPE and the second ruling to reinforce it, the court found it unnecessary to address this third claim.

However, the court did address the parents’ alternative basis under Section 504.  Specifically, the court concluded that although the parents failed to fulfill the ultimate element for Section 504 discrimination—deliberate indifference.  “Instead,” the court concluded, “this seems to be a case of negligent failure to stay apprised of and apply the required placement procedures.”

 

 

Although parents of students with IEPs, not just those with 504 plans, are increasingly asserting Section 504 and ADA litigation claims, “deliberate indifference” or n alternative proxy for intentional discrimination, such as “bad faith” or “gross misjudgment,” poses a largely but not entirely pervasive hurdle for plaintiffs.  In the many cases where it applies, this hurdle is a high one, affecting outcomes not only at the trial and verdict stages but also at the pretrial phases of dismissal and summary judgment.  For further information, see the various items in the Publications section of perryzirkel.com under the “Section 504 and the ADA” subheading, including the 2018 article about the “heightened, intent standard.”

To top

By Tia DeCerbo

Gallagher, A. & Thordarson, K. Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets

Across the country, educators and stakeholders are discussing the need for change. It is no secret that our education system needs to move beyond its outdated practices, a belief that is shared by Alyssa Gallagher and Kami Thordarson, as outlined in their book, Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets That Ignite Positive Change. These two former public school educators have become experts on Design Thinking, a divergent approach to traditional educational leadership. They believe that when leaders shift from “accidental designers” to “design-inspired leaders” they are able to act more purposefully and have a greater impact on their school community. Rather than simply managing the staff and students in their schools, leaders who act as designers see the world differently and are able to spark positive change.

Gallagher and Thordarson believe that design-inspired leadership has the ability to meaningfully address educational challenges, just as it has been used to address challenges in private industry. Their hope is that this book will be used as a practical guide to creating positive change for school leaders willing to embrace a new role or mindset. Implementing design-inspired leadership in schools consists of five roles that allow school leaders to realize the potential of their schools and organizations: opportunity seeker, experience architect, rule breaker, producer, and storyteller. By adopting these five mindsets, leaders can effectively apply design-inspired principles to educational leadership.  

Throughout eight chapters, Gallagher and Thordarson detail each of the five specific roles designed for optimal educational impact. For each role, they provide a brief overview and several suggestions for the school leader when adopting the mindset for the first time. The first role discussed, opportunity seeker, deals with a leader’s ability to “clearly identify a need where you didn’t know one existed” (p. 41). The skills required as an opportunity seeker include the ability to find problems, positively reframe challenges, and move beyond the obvious solutions. The next role discussed is known as the experience architect and refers to a person who is “relentlessly focused on creating remarkable experiences” (p. 63). This type of leader is able to take ordinary experiences and make them extraordinary for students and staff through creativity and culture building.

 Gallagher and Thordarson also touch upon the importance of the role of rule breaker. Some of the best industry leaders have succeeded because they were not afraid to “challenge the status quo in a constructive way” (p. 89). In education, this means questioning traditions and envisioning the impact that new practices can have on learning. Leaders must then act as producers, the fourth role discussed, and “make the impossible seem not only possible, but within reach” (p. 122). They are tasked with creating a sense of urgency within the organization and acting on that need for change. In many ways, the leader is tasked with orchestrating change and development. The last role outlined is the leader’s role as a storyteller. The authors’ urge developing leaders to view themselves, and their organization, as leaders going on a journey. Through storytelling, leaders are able to pull others into their journeys to success.

Without selling any quick fixes or overnight success programs, Gallagher and Thordarson have outlines 5 mindsets and countless strategies that help educational leaders to reframe their practices and find success in new ways. This manual was not designed to provide instant success, but rather to encourage school administrators and officials to question their duties in terms of driving education into the modern world successfully. It isn’t the only guide a leader needs, but it is certainly an exploratory glimpse into the power of Design Thinking applied to longstanding educational principles.

Like Michael Fullan, in his book, Leading in a Culture of Change, Gallagher and Thordarson understand the importance of a crossover between private industry and education. In fact, many of the core beliefs of both books are similar and supported by successful case studies. When discussing the role of rule breaker, Gallagher and Thordarson point to Airbnb as the world’s largest accommodation provider, and yet they own no hotels. They effectively challenged the status quo in a constructive way. Similarly, Fullan understands that “the change process is less about innovation and less about innovativeness” (p. 31). This wholeheartedly supports the overall thesis of the book, as it endorses the notion that a design-inspired perspective can open up a world of opportunities without introducing anything new to the school. Some of the most impactful changes in education come from truly examining tradition and changing the way things are done. 

Another strength of this book lies in its practicality. For example, in the second chapter Gallagher and Thordarson outline what is known as an “empathy interview.” This is a strategy used to understand your “user” or, in the case of education, the individuals affected by educational leadership in some way. This includes teachers, staff, students, and even parents and the outside community. An empathy interview consists of a simple line of questioning that is designed to identify the needs of others. This is an incredible tool for any educational leader to have, as it allows them to constantly take in outside perspectives and gauge the effect their initiatives are having on the school as a whole. It is a free, relatively quick way to build leadership skills and move toward successful outcomes. The book is full of other simple-to-use strategies that only add to a leader’s tool belt.

For those leaders who learn by example, Gallagher and Thordarson outlined several schools who have found success using design-minded leadership practices. Design 39 is a school in California dedicated to breaking and redefining every tradition rule in education. They boast “learning spaces” rather than assigned classrooms and “deep dives” where students are able to explore their own interests and strengths (p. 98). While inspirational to the reader, these segments of the book also support modern findings in the field of education. Jill Berkowicz and Ann Myers (2018) recently wrote an article praising the type of architecture used in schools such as Design 39, stating that, “when teachers, students and architects collaborate, our environments begin to reflect the values and priorities of those who occupy the space.” Rather than suggest specific practices, this book brings together positive mindsets and pairs them with impactful ideas that can be adjusted and changed to fit the needs of schools across the country.

While practical, this book does not address many of the responsibilities that educational leaders must confront on a daily basis. Yes, it does outline how an administrator can open lines of communication between staff members and engage the students in their learning, but it does not necessarily outline how to balance this important work with the pressure of standardized tests, class sizes, and district mandates. In a perfect world, a leader would be able to devote most of their time to innovation and questioning the status quo. In reality, the modern educational leader is not able to completely modernize education in a single school year. The authors are quick to judge “incremental change,” but this may be at the expense of those leaders who are not able to shoot for the moon without a second thought. Ultimately, the theories and ideas outlined in this book must be applied and used in context with a leader’s specific situation.

Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets That Ignite Positive Change sets out to provide practical advice to educational leaders who wish to create positive change in their organizations through Design Thinking. It is incredibly informative without being overwhelming, and leaves its readers with a number of strategies to up the ante on their leadership practices. Through five specific roles, leaders can help pull their schools to the forefront of the modern education movement. 

References

Berkowicz, J., & Myers, A. (2018, April 5). How Architecture Affects Learning. Retrieved from blogs.edweek.org/edweek/leadership_360/2018/04/how_architecture_ affects_learning.html

Fullan, M. (2014). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

Gallagher, A., & Thordarson, K. (2018). Design Thinking for School Leaders: Five Roles and Mindsets That Ignite Positive Change. Alexandria, VA: ASCD.

            

To top

By Hannah Sane

Winthrop University

Abstract

The present study used the intervention method called Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) with a single participant who struggles in spelling. The cover, copy compare (CCC) method requires the students to say the word, point to the word, repeat the word, cover the word, print the word, compare the word to the correct model, and correct errors if necessary. Overall, the CCC strategy was effective. By incorporating a simple, self-management component to spelling instruction, teachers will be able to improve spelling performance in the classroom through small group instruction or 1-on-1 sessions.

Description of Participant

The student in this action research intervention plan is a 7-year-old girl in the second grade who attends a private school in Montego Bay, Jamaica.  She is artistic and has excellent comprehension strategies although her reading is below grade level.  She often becomes negative and feels defeated when she approaches a tricky task. When work comes with a challenge, her self-esteem plummets as she doubts herself and gives up easy. Her greatest academic weakness and area of need is spelling.  She has made significant improvements in her reading over the past year, but her spelling and writing remains a weak area. She is extremely creative and naturally thinks outside the box. She is a key player during group activities that involves critical thinking but her social/emotional challenges and her low confidence lends her to make (seemingly) simple tasks very difficult.

Description of Area of Weakness

The student experiences great difficulty in her spelling. This is shown in her daily work in language, independent writing, and free activities in which writing is a main component. She relies heavily on inventive spelling but does not accurately use appropriate blends, digraphs, and letter patterns that would make her spelling more successful. This weakness in turn affects her writing skills because she is not confident in her ability to spell which makes writing tedious and limits her productivity. She frequently confuses letters that sound alike and leaves out vowels in words (frst for first). Even after lots of practice, she often misspells commonly used sight words. She sometimes memorizes words for spelling tests but quickly forget them once the test is done.  The objective for this intervention is for the student to become more comfortable and confident in her spelling and also to recognize errors and make self- corrections as she writes. The criterion for mastery is an 80% on the final assessment.

For the baseline data, the student was asked to spell 46 words from the Dolch Sight Word list for 2nd grade (Figure 1).  She scored 12/26 for a 26% (Figure 2).  The student has challenges with words that contain vowel digraphs such as ou, oe, ea, and ei.  Words with consonant digraphs also need work such as ir, wr, th, and sh.  The student often omits vowels within a word or adds the letter “e” to the end of a word.  Currently in class, the student completes 3 days of spelling activities (copying the words, writing sentences with the words, and finding the words in a word search) for her weekly spelling words.      

Literature Review

The following 4 empirical studies were researched extensively to help guide this intervention research to find the most compatible method for the participant.

Cover, Copy, and Compare

This study, by J. Erion, C. Davenport, N. Rodax, B. Scholl, and J. Hardy looked at two versions of Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC).  With spelling, CCC follows a procedure for students to (a) look at the spelling word, (b) cover the word, (c) copy the word from memory, (d) uncover the word, (e) then determine if it has been correctly produced by comparing what the student wrote to the original spelling word. If the response is correct, the student moves on and repeats the procedure with the next word. If the response is incorrect, a correction of the error is required by observing the model and producing a correct response.

The participants were four students total.  Three of them were 2nd graders and one, 3rd grade student who was identified by their classroom teachers as struggling with spelling.   To begin the study, the participants were given a pre-assessment to choose their word list. They were given a list of 10 words. The goal was to find a sample of words on which the participant scored between 30 and 70% correct letter sequences.

Two variations of CCC were implemented. In one variation (CCC1) the participant copied each word once following an error and in the other variation (CCC3) copied the word three times following an error. 

To collect data, an assessment of each block of five spelling words was completed following each instructional session that was the focus of those five words (i.e., CCC1 or CCC3). The primary focus of this study was to evaluate the impact of varying the number of times a student completed a corrective rewrite. Having students write a misspelled word three times instead of once gave roughly the same results during acquisition.  Asking students to copy spelling words three times from a model has been shown by previous research to be an ineffective practice, the current study shows that the addition of this practice to the standard CCC procedure adds little or no additional learning and probably should not be used in the classroom.

Multilinguistic Morphological Awareness Approach

This study by J. Wolter and V. Dilworth examined the effectiveness of multilinguistic intervention to improve literacy. The participants were twenty 2nd grade students referred by their teachers for concerns regarding their spelling and reading abilities. At the time of the intervention, four participants received speech and language services only, five received resource services only (for reading and spelling), and 11 received both resource and speech and language services. For the intervention setting, the students attended two summer literacy camps for 9 days with 90-minute sessions each day. The first intervention (Orthographic Treatment) focused on phonological and orthographic awareness, and the second intervention (Morphological Treatment) focused on phonological, orthographic, and morphological awareness.  The orthographic and morphological group both used word sorts, word building, pattern activities and word games to facilitate retention and application. The orthographic group focused on the following orthographic spelling patterns- long and short vowel sounds, ch, tch, k, ck, hard and soft g.  The morphological group targeted morpheme patters such as plural (s), past tense (ed), present tense (ing), and words with a prefix or suffix.  The study delivered a pre and post assessment using tests such as the Woodcock test for reading and TWS-4 for spelling as well as 100 words asked to be spelled orally. The results of the study showed that the morphological awareness intervention group performed better on standardized measures of reading comprehension and spelling and on a non-standardized spelling test of morphological patterns covered in the intervention.

Multisensory vs. Conventional Approach

This study by N. Murphy looked at the impact of a multisensory approach to teaching spelling versus a conventional approach.  The multisensory approach focused on VAKT (visual, auditory, kinesthetic, tactile).  Their hypothesis states that students learn best when information is presented in different modes.  Activities such as tracing, hearing, writing and seeing, while using sandpaper letters, sand trays, and raised letters for lesson were all present in this study.  The strategy they used was 1) Say the word 2) Write the word 3) Check the word 4) Trace the word   5) Write the word from memory 6) Check and repeat.

The participants in this study were twenty 3rd grade students, 10 boys and 10 girls.  They were split into two sample groups, at random.  The groups met for 20 minutes daily, for 4 weeks. They took a pretest of 60 high frequency words. Their errors were analyzed. They also were required to produce a 20 minutes writing sample. From the pretest, 4 lists were created with 15 words each. Each week, students had the list and activities to go with the list. They took a pretest at the beginning of each week and corrected their words with errors.  The sample 1 group used multisensory activities to learn the words in the week. The sample 2 groups used traditional activities such as copying, sentence writing and ABC order. 

To collect data, they used a T-test of mean samples from the post test.  The results found indicated that the multisensory approach was more successful than the conventional approach, but not significantly (by 2%).  They mention that the short time for the study could have affected the scores. The teachers noticed a positive attitude change for the students in the multisensory sample group, but this is not something that can be interpreted by the data.

Language Based Spelling Instruction

In this study, by V. Berninger, K. Vaughan, R. Abbott, A. Brooks, K. Begay, G Curtin, and S Graham, they looked at language-based spelling instruction using alphabet principle versus a combined alphabet principle and syllable awareness training.  There were 2 groups studied. One group was 32 students going into the 3rd grade. They had received interventions in the 2nd grade and were looked at as a follow up group. They received tutoring for 6-8 weeks totaling 12 sessions.  This group showed that the alphabet principle only training did as well as the alphabet and syllable combined training.  The second group was 48, 3rd graders.  They received 24 sessions over the course of 4 months.  In this group, the combined training proved to be more effective. The combined treatment was more effective for (a) spelling untrained transfer words, (b) spelling taught polysyllabic words with a final, silent e syllable, and (c) transfer to phonological awareness.

Description of Intervention

The student will be using the Cover, Copy, Compare (CCC) intervention to increase her spelling accuracy over a two-week period. The student will participate in 30-minute sessions for 5 days a week, a total of 10 days. The setting will be a separate and quiet area in the classroom with the general education teacher.  The teacher will record on the Cover, Copy, and Compare log when the student has mastered the spelling word (repeated spellings with no errors).  The student will work on 5 words each day and use the following procedures. 

  1. Look at the spelling word
  2. Cover the word
  3. Copy the word from memory
  4. Uncover the word
  5. Then determine if it has been correctly produced by comparing what the student wrote to the original spelling word.
  6. If the response is correct, the student moves on and repeats the procedure with the next word.
  7. If the response is incorrect, a correction of the error is required by observing the model and producing a correct response.  (Erion, J., Davenport, C., Rodax, N., Scholl, B., & Hardy, J. 2009)

Materials for this intervention include Dolch 2nd grade spelling word list (46), a pencil, Cover Copy and Compare Worksheet and Cover, Copy and Compare log and practice tests after each session to check for accuracy.

 

Evaluation and Analysis

To collect study data, a final assessment at the end of the intervention period will be given with 46, 2nd grade Dolch spelling words. The student will have the words called to her orally and she will be required to write the spelling words.  During the intervention, a checklist will be used of various spelling patters to check for mastery and understanding (i.e. vowel pairs, consonant digraphs).  Each session will review 5 words (misspelled in the baseline data assessment) from the Dolch spelling word list. After the incorrect words are mastered, the student will use the last sessions to review the words still spelled with errors. At the end of each session, there will be a checkup which will be recorded and charted of the daily 5 words. At the end of the first week of intervention, the student will complete an assessment to check the validity of the CCC intervention.  Changes will be made to the individual intervention as needed to ensure progress of the student.

Week 1 Analysis

During Week 1, the student participated in five, half hour sessions to practice spelling.  In these sessions the teacher and student used the intervention: Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC).  The baseline data was collected by the teacher using 46,  2nd grade Dolche Sight Words.  In the initial baseline data, the student spelled 12 words out 46 accurately with a percentage of 26% correct.  From this data, the teacher chose the incorrect spelling words as the focus during the intervention sessions. Over the 2-week sessions, the student will work on 34 words.  For the first five sessions, the student used the CCC intervention to work on 5 words each day. 

The teacher began each session with a review of vowel sounds and hearing each sound and letter patterns when spelling a word. The student and teacher followed the procedures for the CCC intervention and the student reacted positively and was able to eventually follow the procedures independently such as checking each letter and knowing when to cover and copy on her own. 

At the end of each session, the teacher gave an assessment of the 5 words presented. Behavioral observations were recorded. The student was very energetic to use the intervention. Each day when she noticed that she would be using the CCC method, she was excited and eager.  During the procedures, when she was copying the word, many times when she began to write the incorrect letter, she would stop and think and write the correct letter instead.

The student was able to write words immediately in the copy section with 92% accuracy and wrote them correctly at the end of the session on the practice tests with 76% accuracy (Figure 3).  The student’s working memory lends her to have challenges with spelling. The student is responding well to the CCC intervention. In Week 2, the teacher will work on individual letter patters and spelling rules during the sessions as well as involving multisensory activities.

Week 2 Analysis

During Week 2, the student participated in five, half hour sessions to practice spelling.  The sessions were conducted within the classroom in a special working area away from other students. The participants of the sessions were the student and the general education teacher. In these sessions the teacher and student continued to use the intervention: Cover, Copy, and Compare (CCC) intervention.  The first two sessions were continuing to work on the initial words with errors in the baseline data (9 out of 34). The remaining three sessions were used to review the errors that were not mastered during the intervention. These were words that were incorrect in the practice test after each CCC intervention. This included 12 words (around, because, buy, first, right, their, which, work, wash, why, would, and write). 

The student was able to write words immediately in the copy section with 90% accuracy and wrote them correctly at the end of the session on the practice test (immediately after the intervention but without the CCC method) with 33% accuracy (Figure 4).   This percentage from CCC intervention accuracy to practice test at the end of the session drastically decreased from Week 1. In Week 1, the student performed at a rate of 76% accuracy at the end of the session.

The differentiating factor between Week 1 and Week 2 practice tests at the end of the sessions, were most words in Week 2 were previous errors.  The teacher began to analyze the errors to see the spelling patterns in which the student was having difficulties.  The student will need additional support with vowel pairs (au, ou) consonant digraphs (wh, wr), and r-controlled vowels.  

Reflection

Overall, the student was successful with the CCC intervention. The student began the sessions by spelling 46, 2nd grade Dolch sight words with 26% accuracy on November 15th and ended the intervention with a strong 72% on November 27th. In nine days, the second-grade student was able to make positive spelling gains (Figure 5).  Although the student did not meet the criterion for mastery of 80%, she made considerable gains to 72% accuracy in her spelling (Figure 6).

Impressive observations were the way the student responded to the intervention and the independence when she would go through the process of copying, covering, and comparing.  The student also noticed when she would make a spelling error and self-correct.  This often did not result in an accurate spelling, but the student could see that something wasn’t right, and did her best to make changes.  Continued interventions with Copy, Cover, and Compare will take place with words that contain these spelling patters, as well as additional research-based interventions. I would recommend this spelling intervention to my colleagues and well as parents who are providing additional support at home.

References

Berninger, V. W., Vaughan, K., Abbott, R. D., Brooks, A., Begay, K., Curtin, G., … Graham, S. (2000). Language-based Spelling Instruction: Teaching Children To Make Multiple Connections between Spoken and Written Words. Learning Disability Quarterly, 23(2), 117–35. Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ608062

Erion, J., Davenport, C., Rodax, N., Scholl, B., & Hardy, J. (2009). Cover-Copy-Compare and Spelling: One Versus Three Repetitions. Journal of Behavioral Education, 18(4), 319–330. https://doi-org.winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1007/s10864-009-9095-4

Murphy, N. (1997, May 1). A Multisensory vs. Conventional Approach to Teaching Spelling. Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=ED405564

Wolter, J. A., & Dilworth, V. (2014). The Effects of a Multilinguistic Morphological Awareness Approach for Improving Language and Literacy. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 47(1), 76–85. https://doiorg.winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/10.1177/0022219413509972

Please Check PDF for Figures 1-6

To top

By Felicha Saintine

Abstract

The book that is being reviewed in this paper is “Teach Like A Champion 49 Techniques that Put Students on the Path to College” by Doug Lemov. Mr. Lemov was a principal. Through his principal career Lemov used data to guide his decisions and ideas. After analyzing some data, Lemov (2010) found out that student test scores highly correlated with the zip code of where they live and the amount of money their parents make. Lemov was aware that his students’ demographics and environments severely affected their destiny. In Teach Like a Champion Lemov has presented several strategies that are suggested to be effective with students from low socioeconomic homes. The book also has strategies categorized by chapter based on when it can be utilized in the teaching process. Chapter 1 speaks about techniques for setting high academic expectations, chapter 2 includes techniques that should be used when planning to ensure academic achievement, and chapter 3 consists of structuring and delivering lesson techniques. There are 12 chapters which take on the theme of at least one step in the teaching process.

I chose to review this book for two reasons. The first reason was, that it was highly recommended. At the previous university I attended, education majors were encouraged to read Mr. Lemov’s book. I knew this was the right book when Lemov expressed that he knew that demography is destiny. From the foreword of Teach Like A Champion, it is clear what the purpose of this literature is. Doug Lemov wanted to share teaching strategies that could help students from low socioeconomic backgrounds and struggling demographics. He created techniques to teach and strengthen skills that would help these particular students gain the tools to succeed in their journey to college.

A lot of the strategies were obtained through Lemov observing other teachers in their natural environment, their classrooms. He would videotape and observe the most effective teachers at his school for a long period of time to really see what techniques worked and which ones didn’t. Lemov (2010) expressed that he could use videotaping as a window into the most effective teachers’ classrooms. In his efforts, he found 49 techniques that he saw were very effective. The main themes given in the book were the following: Setting High Academic Expectations, Planning that Ensures Academic Achievement, Structuring and Delivering Lessons, Engaging Students in Lessons, Creating a Strong Classroom Culture, Setting and Maintaining High Behavioral Expectations, Building Character and Trust, Improving Pacing, and Challenging Students to Think Critically.

After reading Teach Like A Champion there were two strategies that stuck with me. Those strategies were No Opt Out and 100 percent. These two techniques stuck with me, because I practiced them daily, but didn’t know there were official names for the techniques. No Opt Out is a technique used when a student tries to use the phrase “I don’t know” to opt out of answering the question being asked. To ensure the student participates the teacher asks another student for the answer. When the other student answers the question correctly the teacher will go back to the previous student and ask him/her to repeat the correct answer said. 100 percent is the idea that 100 percent is the only acceptable percentage of students to follow directions in the classroom. This technique has always been a given to me.

After analyzing Mr. Lemov’s book I have found it to have many strengths, but one weakness. One strength was the extensive list of techniques provided. I state this as a strength because it gives more than one way to deal with a particular situation. Another strength of this book is the great detail given on each technique. For each technique written an explanation of the technique is provided, specific scenario examples, and a clip. Teach Like A Champion came with a CD which demonstrates the techniques on video. Like I mentioned above, Lemov’s book is organized very well and straightforward which makes it easy to flip to a specific technique when needed. The only weakness I found in the book is that a lot of the techniques were ones I already knew about or already practiced within my own classroom. In my point of view, the book was more for entry-level teachers. For example, technique 39 was titled Do It Again. It is simply having students redo the tasks they did not complete successfully. Technique 46 is the J-Factor. The J-Factor is including activities or tasks the students enjoy in the lesson. The explanation was that students will work harder if they find joy in what they are working on. Most of the techniques were too simple or already commonly practiced.

Fullan’s Leading in a Culture of Change focused on creating effective leadership in our constant changing field. Lemov focused more on specific techniques that can be used to help students become college ready. Fullan and Lemov wrote on two very different topics but expressed one similar idea. Lemov (2010) stated great teaching is an art. It needs time to be crafted and molded. Fullan (2010) expressed effective leaders possess several leadership styles, which take time to acquire. The similar idea they share is that it takes time and practice to become an effective leader in the education field.

References

Fullan, M. (2001). Leading in a culture of change. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.

Lemov, Doug, 1967-. (2010). Teach like a champion : 49 techniques that put students on the path to college. San Francisco, CA : Jossey-Bass

About the Author

Felicha Saintine is an ESE Resource teacher at Varsity Lakes Middle School in Fort Myers, Florida where she works with students with disabilities that are educated in the inclusion setting. She has been teaching for a total of three years. In the three years of teaching, she has taught Pre-K ESE and 4th to 8th grade. Her educational background includes a BA in Special Education from Florida Gulf Coast University and an MS in Special Education with a concentration in Autism from Florida International University.  Ms. Saintine is a proud member of Zeta Phi Beta Sorority, Incorporated and Kappa Delta Pi International Honor Society in Education.

To top

By Kendra Pennington

Abstract

Core replacement refers to the class students with IEPs take in place of a general education course. For example, if a student has a learning disability in math, he/she will take a core replacement math class to “fill in the gaps” before the student can move to the general education population. In a core replacement class, the student does not learn grade level standards. Rather, they learn basic math skills that will help them be successful with grade level standards. In a large urban school district in South Carolina, students who are not severe enough to be in self-contained yet not performing on grade level, are placed in core replacement. If students cannot exit the core replacement, it becomes very difficult for them to get on track to receive a state issued high school diploma.

A Brief Explanation of Core Replacement/TransMath

TransMath is a scripted curriculum created by John Woodard. Each lesson is divided into four parts.

  1. Skills Maintenance: A review of the skills from the prior lesson. (5 Minutes)
  2. Building Number Concepts (20 Minutes)
  3. Problem Solving (20 Minutes)
  4. Homework (10 Minutes)

The lessons are meant to teach one per day and take approximately 60 minutes to teach in their entirety. There is also an online componenet called VMath Live which allows them to practice their skills to earn tokens. The tokens can be spent playing games or dressing the student’s personalized avatar.

The TransMath curriculum spirals. It is created to ensure mastery of everything needed to master the “big” concept (the grade level standard). This provides students with the opportunity to review (at times, relearn) everything they have learned in the past.

In one semester of TransMath, my eight students were able to complete three units. Unit one was focused on fractions. We added, multiplied, subtracted, and divided fractions. Unit two was focused on proportions and variables. Unit three was focused on ratios, rates, and inequalities. Overall, students were able to master approximately eight concepts in the first semester of school. However, only one of these concepts was on grade level (inequalities).

In the first semester in general math, students mastered 6 grade level standards.

Even though TransMath students were exposed to and mastered more concepts than students in general math, TransMath students only mastered 1 grade level standard. The other concepts they mastered, while important, will not be tested on our state’s high stakes test, the SCReady.

What Works:

The TransMath curriculum goes in a certain order. Volume comes much later in the curriculum. The TransMath curriculum also takes much longer to “get to the point”. Rather than just jumping straight to volume, the curriculum requires me to reteach and review area, surface area, circumference, diameter, etc. When I began these lessons, I soon realized I had to go back even more for Max. We reviewed radius, pi, nets, etc. I pulled Max to my classroom every day during Hawk Time (the last 30 minutes of school before dismissal) to go through this unit and complete the practice. There were two days that we missed due to Max being absent and then due to picture day taking place.

The components of this intervention that worked well with Max (and all of my students) are the pace, the small group setting, and the “flow” of the concepts.

Pace – The curriculum assumes nothing. Every step or small concept that leads up to the big overall concept is explicitly taught and reviewed. The curriculum also provides many opportunities for the teacher to ensure mastery before moving on. Because of this spiraling pattern, the pace of this curriculum is incredibly slow (for a lack of better terms). This pacing made the concept of volume much less overwhelming for Max. He was able to retrieve his prior knowledge and build upon it rather than being expected to understand volume after a short review of what he was “supposed to already know”.

Small Group – My largest math class is 8 students. This allows me to give each individual student exactly what they need. Max benefitted from the one on one attention. He was able to process and answer each question rather than having a peer answer before him. He was able to ask as many questions as he needed to. The one on one attention also gave him the confidence to make mistakes.

The “Flow” – As mentioned before, the TransMath curriculum spirals. When I refer to the “flow”, I am talking about how the curriculum ensures mastery of everything needed to master the “big” concept. This provided Max with the opportunity to review (mostly relearn) everything he has learned about volume in the past.

The Hands On Component – Because TransMath is follows a CRA model, manipulatives play a huge role. The Hands On parts not only help the students understand the concept, it also engages them.

Max was able to practice the concept of volume through the digital content piece (VMath Live). VMath Live is a program that coincides with the TransMath curriculum. Students are given practice problems to completely independently. As they get problems right, they move forward. If they get a problem wrong, they must start at the beginning. They are then offered a hint to help them solve the problem. The program rewards with them different avatars and coins. The coins can be used to play math games against their peers and other VMath Live users around the country.

What I Would Change:

One thing I wish I could change about the online piece of TransMath is forcing the students to start over when they miss just one practice problem. Having to start over after every wrong answer can be very frustrating for the students. The more frustrated they get, the more careless mistakes they make. Also, when a student gets frustrated with the program, they tend to wonder to other websites and get off task.

For this trial, I used TransMath to teach my student a grade level standard. I will use the data and TransMath to show how this curriculum helps a student reach mastery on a grade level standard.

Literature Review

Automaticity in math facts has been of considerable interest to special educators for decades. A review of the intervention literature suggests at least two common approaches to developing automaticity in facts. One is grounded in the use of strategies for teaching facts, the other emphasizes the use of timed practice drills. Recent research indicates that students might benefit from an integration of these two approaches. This experimental study contrasted an integrated approach (i.e., strategies and timed practice drills) with timed practice drills only for teaching multiplication facts. Participants were 58 fourth-grade students with a range of academic abilities. Fifteen of the students in the study had IEPs in math. Results indicated that both approaches were effective in helping students achieve automaticity in multiplication facts. However, students in the integrated approach generally performed better on posttest and maintenance test measures that assessed the application of facts to extended facts and approximation tasks. These results have implications for teaching a range of skills and concepts that are considered important to overall mathematical competence in the elementary grades.

An important component of the National Council of Teachers of Mathematics Standards is the equity principle: All students should have access to a coherent, challenging mathematics curriculum. Many in the mathematics reform community have maintained that this principle can be achieved through one well-designed curriculum. However, the extant research on equity—which focuses on either ethnic diversity or academic achievement—suggests that this principle is illusive. The current study compares the effectiveness of two curricula in teaching a range of math concepts to 53 (28 male; 25 female) middle school students at risk for special education services in math. The yearlong, quasi-experimental study involved achievement and attitudinal measures. Results indicated that students in the intervention group who used materials designed according to instructional principles described in the special education literature achieved higher academic outcomes ( p < .05, p < .001) and had more positive attitudes toward math (p < .001) than did students in the comparison group.

This study investigated the effects of teaching middle school students with mathematics disabilities equivalent fraction concepts and procedures using the concrete?representational?abstract (CRA) instructional sequence or the representational?abstract (RA) instructional sequence. Twenty?six students formed the CRA group, and 24 students formed the RA group. The two treatment groups received carefully sequenced instruction over 10 lessons. The only difference between the two treatment groups was that the CRA group used concrete manipulative devices for the first three lessons while the RA group used representational drawings. Analyses of the data indicated that students in both treatment groups improved overall in their understanding of fraction equivalency from pretest to posttest. On all achievement measures, students in the CRA group had overall higher mean scores than did students in the RA group. Implications for classroom instruction and suggestions for further research are discussed

The study1, “Fractions Intervention for Struggling 5th Grade Students: The Central Role of the Number Line,” was initially presented last fall at the National Science Foundation Conference in Washington, DC, and is scheduled to be formally published soon. Dr. John Woodward, professor emeritus and past dean of the University of Puget Sound’s School of Education at Tacoma, Wash., is the senior author of TransMath. He and his co-author Mary Stroh developed TransMath based largely on their intervention research, which was funded by the US Department of Education’s Office of Special Education Programs. According to Dr. Woodward, the program is designed intentionally to build proficiency in basic skills and core concepts for struggling students who may be two or more years below grade level, as well as special education students. TransMath begins by solidifying a student’s understanding of operations of whole numbers and concludes with in-depth coverage of pre-algebra and algebraic topics. Key content and problem-solving standards across the intermediate and middle grades are addressed in the program. The TransMath curriculum was selected for the NSF study, Dr. Woodward explained, because it provides a balance between teaching conceptual ideas and procedures for solving fraction problems.

The recent NSF study focused on fifth graders in 35 classrooms who were in the 15th to 38th percentile in mathematics. They were randomly assigned to TransMath or control conditions. Students were taught in small groups three to four times a week by retired teachers or math tutors. Each of the 52 lessons for both groups of students lasted approximately 35 minutes, and the topics included concepts that underlie fractions, as well as operations on fractions. The effects across a range of measures were highly significant, especially in an area of particular concern to researchers: the magnitude or relative size of fractions, according to Dr. Woodward.

Student Background

For this trial, the student will be referred as Max.

Description of Participant

Student: “Max”

Age: 13 years 5 months

Max is an 8th grade student at Myrtle Beach Middle School for the 2018 – 2019 academic year. He is an energetic student who has many friends and is social in the school setting. He gets along well with his peers and adults. Max’s daily living, social skills, fine and motor skills, communication, hearing, and vision are commensurate with those of his same aged peers. In school, Max enjoys going to electives. Max has 0 absences and 0 referrals thus far. 

Grades:

 

Quarter 1 Grade (In Progress)

Math

89

English

90

Science

53

Social Studies

62

Strengths:

MAP Results:

Max met Fall to Fall projected growth on his Language MAP Assessment.

SCPass Results:

On the 2018 Social Studies SCPass, Max showed relative strengths in the following areas:

-Contemporary Cultures: 1600 to the Present Limited & Unlimited Government

-Contemporary Cultures: 1600 to the Present Early 20th Century World Conflicts

Academically, Max continues to demonstrate needs in the area of reading and math.

Areas of Potential Growth:

MAP Results:

On the 2018 Fall MAP Reading Assessment, Max scored a 177. This places him at the 1st percentile. This means he scored the same as or better than 1% of his peers. Max’s lexile is a 277. The expectation for 8th graders is a lexile of 1200.

On the 2018 Fall MAP Language Assessment, Max scored a 195. This places him at the 7th percentile. This means he scored the same as or better  than 7% of his peers. 

On the 2018 Spring MAP Math Assessment, Max scored a 187. This places him at the 1st percentile. This means he scored the same as or better than 1% of his peers. 

SCPass Results:

On the 2018 Social Studies SCPass assessment, Max scored a 556 placing him in the Not Met range. The average for Myrtle Beach Middle School was 636. Max spent 67 minutes on this assessment. 

SCReady Results:

On the 2018 ELA SCReady assessment, Max scored a 353 placing him in the Does Not Meet Expectations range. This score falls in the 1st percentile meaning Max scored the same as or better than 1% of his peers. The Myrtle Beach Middle School average was 586.

On the writing portion of the SCReady assessment, Max scored a 0. The reason was: Copied Item/Directions.

On the 2018 Math SCReady assessment, Max scored a 392 placing him in the Does Not Meet Expectations range. This score falls in the 2nd percentile meaning Max scored the same as or better than 2% of his peers. The Myrtle Beach Middle School average was 557.

Description of Area of Weakness: 

Max shows weakness in both Math and Reading. These weaknesses were determined by analyzing his high stakes test scores both recent and historically. Max was also given a benchmark in both reading and math. The benchmark was 40 questions longs and consisted of questions that covered all 8th grade standards. This test was not timed. Max was allowed the use of a calculator. Max was also given headphones so the computer could read the questions to him. For this project, I focused on his needs in math. I chose this area because I teach Max this subject through a core replacement curriculum which means I can combine these interventions with his daily tasks and not lose any instructional time.

His baseline data is as follows:

Overall Score: 16%

Areas of Strength:

Solve Linear Equations – 100%

Function Representations – 100%

Need Improvement:

Volumes – 0%

Because he scored so poorly on questions about volume, I chose that standard to focus on.

Brief Description of Lessons

TransMath is a CRA modeled curriculum that is scripted. The goal is to “fill the gap”. In my class, I teach the curriculum and grade level standards simultaneously. The lower level math skills are needed to successfully master grade level skills. The materials required are the teacher edition, the student edition, and the TransMath manipulatives.

Lesson 1 focused on identifying 3 dimensional shapes and labeling their different parts. For this lesson, we used manipulatives. Geo Shapes were provided to each core replacement teacher this year. They are made of plastic and the base can be removed. When you remove the base, you can reach in and pull out the net of the shape. After using the manipulatives, we drew the shapes and labeled them.

Lesson 2 focused on actually computing volume. We used the formulas and our manipulatives. We then used drawings of the shapes to compute the volume. At first, I provided the drawings. Then, Max would have to read the problem, draw the shape, and label each part.

Lesson 3 focused on solving real world volume problems. Once again, we started by using the manipulatives. Then, I would provide the drawings. Finally, Max would draw the shapes.

Results

I have created “quizzes” that are 5 questions long on a program called USATestPrep. Every 2 weeks, I will give Max one of those quizzes and graph his results on a line graph.

Progress Check #1:

When given the baseline benchmark, Max scored a 16%. Max showed a weakness on the “Volume” portion of the test. Out of the five questions related to volume, Max answered zero of them correctly. The plan is to give Max an online Curriculum Based Measure every two weeks. This CBM was created on USATestPrep.com and has five questions; all pertaining to volume.

Max was given the original benchmark on October 31st, 2018. His first five question quiz was given on November 14th, 2018. Max scored a two out of five. I asked Max what was hard about it and he reported, “I thought I was being timed. So, I rushed through some of the harder questions.” I am sure this affected his performance. However, I did not retest him due to lack of time. Although it is not quantitative data, I did notice Max was much more confident when he took this quiz than he was when he took the first benchmark. During the first benchmark, Max clicked through several questions without attempting them. That benchmark test was a rather long test and the quiz is only five questions. That could have made Max more confident when completing the assessment. I also noticed that Max did attempt every problem. His scratch paper had nets drawn on it and he had written down a few of the formulas we had gone over. Max having the confidence in himself to attempt every question on the quiz does show progress for this specific student.

Progress Check #2:

On Max’s second five question quiz given on November 20th, 2018, Max scored a four out of five. Max reported that he did better because he remembered he was not timed. The question he got wrong was a pretty lengthy word problem. Because Max has such a low lexile, it does not surprise me that he struggled to answer this question. As discussed last week, Max’s confidence was even higher. He took his time and answered every single question. His scratch paper was organized and his thought process was obvious. When I told Max that he has missed one question, he did report that he was disappointed because he thought he got all of them correct. He is looking forward to his next subtest.

Progress Check #3:

Max took his final quiz on December 29th, 2018. He was able to score a 5 out of 5. It took him 12 minutes to complete the quiz. His scratch paper showed his thought process. Having the program read to him helped with the 1 word problem.

Max met his objective. He was able to independently compute volume. Max was also able to apply this skill to real world problems.

Next Steps:

Part of Max’s learning disability is his struggle to retain information. Because I am aware of this, I will be sure to continue reviewing volume with Max until we get to that part of the curriculum as a whole group. TransMath does a great job of spiraling back and reviewing previous lessons. Once the rest of the class reaches that lesson, I will not have to continue reviewing volume with Max solely.

Reflection

As a teacher, this intervention is extremely appealing. The lessons are scripted. The examples have already been created and the assessments are direct reflections of what is being taught. The manipulatives are provided and an online version of each manipulative is available. Overall, this intervention can be given almost effortlessly. For the student, this curriculum is very repetitive and easy to follow. It uses kid friendly language and provide several opportunities for independent practice. The online piece is also very engaging for the student in that it allows them to play games, earn tokens, and create a personalized avatar.

Although this intervention was successful, I am hesitant to recommend it to my colleagues. It took me and Max three weeks to complete three lessons. In the general education course, those three lessons would have been compressed into one lesson that would have taken one day to teach. If I were to teach Max grade level standards at the rate I taught volume, he would not be ready for the SCReady in May. Rather than taking weeks to master one schedule, I do think it is more appropriate for students to be in the general education environment and receive extra support from a coteacher through specially designed instruction in addition to any accommodations that prove to be beneficial to the student. Max proved that he could master volume. However, taking three weeks was, in my opinion, unnecessary.

In the future, I would like to find a student with an IEP that is served in the general education classroom through a coteach model. I would like for this student to be similar to Max in ability and weaknesses in math. I would then like to compare the time, baselines, and progress made from Max and this student who is served in the general education classroom. This would be great data for district level specialists to look at to decide if core replacement is truly beneficial for our students with IEPs.

References

Butler, F. M., Miller, S. P., Crehan, K., Babbitt, B., & Pierce, T. (2003). Fraction instruction for students with mathematics disabilities: Comparing two teaching sequences. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(20), 99–111.

Jayanthi, M., & Schumacher, R. (2017). Intervention in fractions at 5th grade: The central role of the number line. Paper presented at National Science Foundation Conference: STEM Education, Learning Disabilities, and the Science of Dyslexia, Washington, DC.

Woodward, J. (2006).  Developing automaticity in multiplication facts: Integrating strategy Instruction with timed practice drills.  Learning Disabilities Quarterly, 29, 269-289.

Woodward, J., & Brown, C. (2006).  Meeting the curricular needs of academically low achieving students in middle grade mathematics. Journal of Special Education, 40(3), 151-159

To top

By Vanessa P. Murphy

Winthrop University

Abstract

Numerous research projects have been completed in an attempt to determine the “best” method for teaching early reading skills. Educators recognize reading as a major component in every child’s education. Statistically, success in early reading leads to greater academic performance across all curriculum. In this overall attempt to locate the “best” method for teaching, remediating, or enhancing reading skills, students with disabilities in this study are considered. These students are at a disadvantage due to a specific disability. This study attempts to support the highly structured, explicit direct instruction Mastery Reading Program that benefits students with disabilities in inclusive settings. The goal is to provide research and information as a means to increase knowledge in the field of special education.

Description of student:

Jayce is a 6-year-old first grade student formally diagnosed with ADHD. At this time, she was recently referred for a full psychoeducational evaluation to determine if she meets the school district’s criteria as a student with a learning disability. Jayce’s strengths are her social skills; she enjoys interacting with his peers and adults. Jayce works hard for praise and positive reinforcement. At this time, she is a member of the school track team. Jayce has completed numerous 5K events and recently participated in her first 10K in Charleston, South Carolina with his mother. She loves to attend all school functions, such as social dances, after school plays and parties, and PTO meetings with her family. Jayce attends the after-school program daily where she actively interacts with her peers. She plays games, completes homework assignments, and participates in team sports. At home, her parents indicate she is involved in running activities with her mother and loves video games and the computer. Jayce’s parents indicate she struggles with word attack and decoding skills. They read to her on a nightly basis and encourage her to use appropriate word attack and decoding skills. Her area of need is in the following:

Reading readiness:  Her overall ability to function academically in reading is at least one grade level below her peers. 

 

Description of area of weakness/baseline data: 

Jayce’s reading readiness scores indicate she is in the first percentile nationally, according to Fastbridge fall benchmark scores. Jayce enjoys having stories read to her. Her early Reading scores indicate she needs MTSS strategic interventions for reading instruction. Her baseline score for letter sounds was eight letter sounds per minute on fall Fastbridge scores. Jayce is target student #1 in this study. Students 1-6 receive direct instruction using the Reading Mastery program. Students using direct reading instruction programs display significant gains for students who are experiencing weaknesses with letter sound isolation, blending, and phonemic segmentation. All students will be able to identity ten or more letter sounds in one minute using the Fastbridge Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Probe (short-term Reading Mastery objective). 

Literature Reviews

Literature Review (1)

This study was comprised of kindergarten and first-grade students diagnosed with moderate to high functioning ASD. All students received instruction in small groups and with age-appropriate peers. Thirty-two intervention students received instruction in the Reading Mastery curriculum and thirty comparison students received “typical reading instruction/business as usual” methods utilized in kindergarten and first grade. Fifty-three males and nine females participated in this particular study. These sixty-two students were recruited over a period of three years. Literacy skills such as decoding, oral reading, word recognition, and reading comprehension were emphasized in this study. There were three criteria for students selected for this program:  (1) diagnosis of autism, (2) ability to make 2-3 word requests and comments, and (3) score above 50 on Peabody Picture Vocabulary Test-4. 

Students in the “business as usual” group received instruction in a guided reading model and leveled readers such as Read Well.  Some received small group instruction either in SPED classrooms or in general education settings. Small group time averaged approximately 110 minutes per week. This amount of time was similar to those receiving Reading Mastery direct instruction of 90 minutes per week. 

Measurement and data information was collected from various methods:  (1) curriculum-based measures, (2) standardized assessments, (3) baseline scores, (4) intervention method (RM or other reading material), (5) documented interaction and intervention times, (6) Reading Mastery assessments, (7) DIBELS nonsense word fluency scores, (8) WRMT word identification, (9) WRMT word attack scores, (10) and passage comprehension.  These were represented by means and standard deviation for both groups. Results from this study indicate that students in the intervention group using Reading Mastery showed significant growth, as compared to the comparison group. This data was provided on three graphs indicating nonsense-word fluency, number of words-reading mastery list, and word identification raw score results. These findings support the use and effectiveness of Reading Mastery’s explicit, direct instruction method for teaching reading to ASD and high-risk students. Additionally, this group study aligns with the scope and interest for the following research. 

Kamps D, Heitzman-Powell L, Rosenberg N, Mason R, Schwartz I, Romine R. Effects of Reading Mastery as a Small Group Intervention for Young Children with ASD.  Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities. 2016; 28(5):703-722. Doi:10.1007/S10882-016-9503-3.  Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=117902176

Literature Review (2)

This study evaluated and compared Reading Mastery (RM) with Fundations Double Dose (FDD). Fundations Double Dose is an intervention developed for the general education population.  Favored by general education teachers, it is on an older version called the Wilson Reading System, which is an offshoot of the Orton-Gillingham research-based individualized small-group intensive reading program. In this study, selected “at risk” target students were enrolled in first grade. Those target students consisted of twelve first-grade students (six boys and six girls) from a public school. All were Caucasian. They were randomly assigned to one of the two groups. Four girls and two boys were assigned to the Reading Mastery group and four boys and two girls were assigned to the FDD group. Students in both groups received small group instruction for 30 minutes 4 times per week for a total of 120 minutes.

Data mastery consisted of using DIBELS to monitor progress in both groups.  Further data was collected from each teacher in the form of a self-evaluation as to performance and following specific guidelines. Baseline and Oral Fluency (ORF) benchmarks were obtained as well.  Tables within the article indicated weekly gains for all students.  Fluency score charts indicated greater gains in the Reading Mastery group.  Four out of six RM students exceeded the benchmark goal of 37; two out of six FDD students met the benchmark goal of 37. 

The result of this study indicates all students made some form of progress.  Given the same amount of instructional time of 120 minutes per week, RM students scored higher than FDD students. According to the results, it appears Reading Mastery students who are provided a highly structured and explicit form of reading instruction are able to make gains that are more significant in a shorter period, as opposed to the Fundations Double Dose approach. This research is of significance since it is directly related to the following research.

Goss CL, Brown-Chidsey R. Tier 2 Reading Interventions: Comparison of Reading Mastery and Fundations Double Dose. Preventing School Failure. 2012; 56(1):65-74. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.565385.  Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=69732841

 

Literature Review (3)

Stockard and Engelmann conducted a research study on two elementary schools located within the same district.  Their approach was to demonstrate the impact of Reading Mastery (RM) beginning in kindergarten, as opposed to first grade. At one school, RM was used from K-3. The other school (control group) used a program called Open Court. The emphasis for this study was to answer one question:  Do children in RM have greater gains than children in other programs? They compared three different curriculum in their approach:  (1) RM from K-3, (2) Open Court from K-3, (3) Whole language in kindergarten but with RM from grades 1-3. 

Data was obtained from 168 students. DIBELS was utilized for data collection. (Stockard and Engelmann noted their analysis was limited to DIBELS and could benefit from further research with additional data.) A graph of Lexile scores was provided for all groups. According to the graphs, kindergarten students not exposed to the RM program showed lower Lexile scores, as opposed to those students exposed to RM during kindergarten.  Oral reading fluency (ORF) between groups was measured on another graph. Those students who experienced RM in kindergarten had an average score of “720-960 more words read per day, depending on the grade level.”  (p16)

Results from this study indicate the significance of Reading Mastery beginning in kindergarten.  Data suggests that reading growth is significantly greater for students exposed to RM’s systematic, explicit form of instruction, as opposed to Open Court or the whole language approach. Stockard and Engelmann propose total immersion of RM beginning as early as pre-school. This finding is significant for the following study since the group is composed of students already enrolled at the first grade level.

The Development of Early Academic Success: The Impact of Direct Instruction’s Reading Mastery. Journal of Behavior Assessment & Intervention in Children. 2010; 1(1):2-24. Retrieved from

https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=58623694

Literature Review (4)

In this study, Reading Mastery and Great Leaps programs were presented to elementary students with emotional disabilities to determine, if any, the impact of direct instruction. Due to this specific disability, these students consistently lack social and academic skills across all curriculums.  Reading is an important component for all students but the academic performance for these students cannot be understated.  High dropout and low graduation rates are indicators of the need to assist these specific students with early interventions in reading. According to the authors of this article, educational interventions are lacking in this particular group. It was noted by the authors that few studies have been completed on students with emotional disturbance and reading weaknesses. This specific study was comprised of eighteen students; all enrolled in three separate schools, and divided into three groups. Fifteen were male, three were female; all were five years old. This study lasted for seven months. Six students were provided supplementary reading interventions with either RM or Great Leaps, while twelve students were provided reading instruction only in the regular classroom. Students in the treatment group were provided thirty minutes of 1:1 daily RM or Great Leaps instruction, as well as their reading time in general education classes. The other two groups did not receive supplemental instructional time.

Data included bi-weekly curriculum-based measures (CBM).  Teachers completed behavior charts and the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing (CTOPP) was utilized to determine a base line. Bi-weekly observations were conducted and documented. Twelve probes were completed and timetables were used to determine individual mean and deviation scores for all three groups.

The results of this study revealed that at-risk students receiving direct instruction with Reading Mastery or Great Leaps met or outperformed the other students in all three reading measures. This study was unable to determine the long-lasting effects, if any, of this seven-month analysis.

Trout AL, Epstein MH, Mickelson WT, Nelson JR, Lewis LM. Effects of a Reading Intervention for Kindergarten Students At Risk for Emotional Disturbance and Reading Deficits. Behavioral Disorders. 2003; 28(3):313. Retrieved from

https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=a9h&AN=10431134.

Description of Intervention

After reading these empirical studies, I found that I would implement the direct instruction strategy approach to teaching students basic letter sounds, letter sound correspondence, fluency, decoding, vocabulary, and comprehension using Reading Mastery. Students in the “intensive” reading pathway who fall below the 20th percentile on fall Fastbridge benchmarks will receive this reading intervention. They will receive their core 90 minute reading time in a small group setting using Reading Mastery and receive an additional 45 minutes of I/E (intervention and enrichment) daily as a triple dose of Reading Mastery.  The direct instruction, scripted step-by-step procedure is the (I Do, We Do, You Do) method of teaching letter sound correspondence, decoding, and fluency. Materials required for this intervention include: paper, pencil, Reading Mastery teacher’s guide with scripted lessons, student workbook A, teacher made Reading Mastery letter sound take home books, Ready Freddy finger puppet, or pointer. The intervention will occur in a small group setting with six students.

Description of Progress Monitoring Procedures

To collect student data and monitor student progress, I will use various methods to ensure progress measured is reliable and valid. Intervention data will be collected daily using student work samples.  Mastery Tests administered every five lessons to determine mastery of each letter sound and letter/sound correspondence. Students who master these tests can move to the next lesson.  Students who do not master tests will be retested and retaught previous lessons to reach mastery. They will be provided the “5 More’s” (More explicit/direct instruction, more modeling, more practice, more feedback, and more time) to ensure success. Curriculum Based Measurements (CBM’s) will be administered every ten lesson to determine mastery.  Students will receiver further bi-monthly assessments via Fastbridge Progress Monitoring on letter sounds.  Fastbridge winter and spring benchmarks will be administered on all early reading skills (letter identification, letter sounds, and onset sounds). Students who do not make progress or if the intervention fails to provide effective results, the 5 More’s will be continued and additional interventions will be implemented to ensure student success.

Evaluation and Analysis

Baseline Data, Week One Intervention & Week Two Intervention Data

Six kindergarten/first-grade students were selected for this intervention. One target student was selected from the action plan to show individual growth and videotape letter sound progress. All six students are currently placed in the intensive core reading replacement program using Reading Mastery as direct instruction. They are comprised of two special education students and four general education students.  Their instruction time consists of ninety minutes of core reading replacement provided by the resource SPED teacher.  An additional forty-five minutes of intensive enrichment (I/E) with the early intervention teacher was provided for a “triple dose” of Reading Mastery.

During the implementation process, students were presented with lesson #45, which focused on letter sounds, rhyming, and vocabulary word blending. The teacher used the I Do, We Do, You Do direct instruction strategy. The goal of this lesson was for students to be able to:  identify the letter /n/ in isolation and produce the /n/ sound independently, and complete vocabulary and rhyming mini-lessons. The teacher introduced the lesson by reminding the group of the STAR Reading Mastery rules (S-sit tall, T-track with your eyes and fingers, A-answer onsignal in an inside voice and R-respect yourself and others.)  The teacher stated the goal of the lesson and the relevance of the target skill (Why statements).  Prerequisite skills were reviewed while students utilized their individual letter sounds take-home notebook. Clear and concise language was utilized throughout the entire lesson and verbal and gestural prompting was used for guidance practice. Visual prompts were used in the form of tally marks and references to the STAR rules chart. Modeling with examples and involving students in that process was utilized throughout the lesson (I Do, We Do). The teacher provided scaffolding and differentiation as needed and delivered immediate feedback to the group, as well as to individual students.  At the closing of the lesson, students were provided the wrap-up worksheet to complete independently; this provided a review of the skills taught during the 90-minute lesson.

During the second week of the implementation process, students were presented with two additional Reading Mastery Lessons (#46 and #47) which reinforced letter sounds, rhyming, and vocabulary word blending. Students reviewed the following sounds (/a/, long e, /s/, /r/, /m/, /d/, /i/, /f/, /t/, /th/ and reinforced the new sound /n/.  The teacher continued to use the I Do, We Do, You Do, direct instruction teaching strategy.  Additional one-on-one instruction was provided to student #3, as he struggled to pass the Mastery Test given on 11/12/2018. Additional time, teacher modeling, and positive feedback were provided to student #3. Students were administered the letter sounds Fastbridge progress monitoring test on 11/26/2018 to determine student growth or regression during the school’s Thanksgiving holiday.

(1) Target student Fall Fastbridge Benchmark score: The national percentile score fell in the 1% range for early Reading.

              Week 1   1a. Target student Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds:

 Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report -baseline score was 8 on 11/2/2018 and a 10 on 11/15/2018.

  Week 2   1a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report- baseline (8), 11/15/2018 (10) and on 11/26/2018 (14). Student #1 showed significant growth identifying letter sounds and did not demonstrate regression during the Thanksgiving Break.

      1b. Mastery Test score on 11/12/2018 was 6, which was a passing score for this MT.

(2) Student #2

  Week 1    2a. Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds: Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline score was 5 on 11/2/18 and a 13 on 11/15/2018.

  Week 2    2a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline (5), 11/15/2018 (13) and on 11/26/2018 (11). Student #2 remained on the trend line despite the two-point difference.

      2b. Mastery Test score from 11/12/2018 was 6, which was a passing score for this MT.

(3)  Student #3

  Week 1   3a. Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds:  Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline was 6 on 11/2/2018 and a 7 on 11/15/2018.

   Week 2  3a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline (6), 11/15/2018 (7) and on 11/26/2018 (10). Student #3 showed significant growth identifying letter sounds and did not demonstrate regression during the Thanksgiving Break.  Student #3 was provided the “5 More’s” during the implementation process and scores reflect the success of additional intervention.

     3b. Mastery Test score from 11/12/2018 was 4, which was not passing for this MT.  He required a retest and scored 5, which was not passing.  Student #3 has been recommended for SPED self–contained placement in the past. He is significantly developmentally delayed and ADHD. Parents have refused placement in a more restrictive environment.

(4) Student #4

Week 1     4a. Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds:  Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline was 7 on 11/2/2018 and 11 on 11/16/2018.

 Week 2    4a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline (7), 11/16/2018 (11) and on 11/26/2018 (9). Student #4 fell just below the trend line and additional support and intervention will be needed to maintain progress. It should be noted that student #4 did show minimal regression due to his lengthy Thanksgiving break. The two-point discrepancy was not significant.

     4b. Mastery Test score from 11/12/2018 was 6, which was a passing score for this MT.

(5) Student #5

Week 1     5a. Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds:  Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline was 9 on 10/18/2018 and a 19 on 11/2/2018.

Week 2     5a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline (9), 11/2/2018 (19) and on 11/26/2018 (26). Student #5 is well above the aimline and shows significant progress. She did not show regression during the Thanksgiving Break.

    

     5b. Mastery Test score from 11/12/2018 was 6, which was a passing score for this MT.

(6) Student #6

Week 1     6a. Progress monitoring graphs and scores for Letter Sounds:  Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline was 24 on 11/5/2018 and 31 on 11/16/2018.

 Week 2    6a. Letter Sounds Progress Monitoring Report-baseline (24), 11/16/2018 (31) and on 11/26/2018 (28). It should be noted that student #6 was sick the day of this test. His scores still indicate that he is on the aimline for mastery of letter sounds by December 21, 2018.

     6b. Mastery Test score from 11/12/2018 was 6, which was a passing score for this MT.

 

Components of the Intervention That Worked Well

Mastery Test data indicated Reading Mastery was successful for five out of six students.  All students are making progress with letter sound recognition according to bi-monthly Fastbridge Progress Monitoring data.  Two out of six students tested above the aimline according to graphs from the Fastbridge PM data (student #5 and #6). 

Fastbridge Progress Monitoring Data indicate students are making progress using the Reading Mastery reading program.  Target student #1 made a 6-point growth since baseline data was collected. Student #2 made a 6-point growth since baseline data was collected. Student #3 made a 4-point growth since baseline data was collected. Student #4 made a 2-point growth since baseline data was collected. Student #5 made a 17-point growth since baseline data was collected. Student #6 made a 4-point growth since baseline data was collected. 

 

Changes for the Intervention That Might be Needed for One of More Students Based on Analysis of Student Performance

Potential changes could be made by providing the “5 More’s”:

  1. more explicit/direct instruction
  2. more modeling
  3. more practice
  4. more feedback
  5. more time

Reflection

The impact of this study is acceptable and socially relevant for both students and elementary reading teachers. Administrators, teachers, and district supervisors are responsible for making decisions concerning district-wide reading curriculum; all could benefit from this study. The inclusive model for teaching students with disabilities in the general education classroom is the recommended model. As such, both past and future empirical research aids in determining the “best” approach to teach reading readiness to all students, regardless of disabilities. Further research and ongoing evaluations could determine if the highly structured, systematic Reading Mastery approach is long-term or passing trend of reading interventions. Limited resources in school districts may cause administrators to implement the most cost-effective or easy to implement reading curriculum. As a SPED elementary teacher who teaches in an inclusive setting, I feel RM is a valuable intervention for students with disabilities. It would be beneficial to implement RM in kindergarten, rather than waiting for first grade. Compared to the empirical research I completed, the outcome data closely matched the outcome data presented in the empirical studies. As documented, all students made progress with Reading Mastery.

References

Goss CL, Brown-Chidsey R. Tier 2 Reading Interventions: Comparison of Reading Mastery and Fundations Double Dose. Preventing School Failure. 2012; 56(1):65-74. doi:10.1080/1045988X.2011.565385. 

Kamps D, Heitzman-Powell L, Rosenberg N, Mason R, Schwartz I, Romine R. Effects of Reading Mastery as a Small Group Intervention for Young Children with ASD.  Journal of Developmental & Physical Disabilities. 2016; 28(5):703-722. Doi:10.1007/S10882-016-9503-3. 

The Development of Early Academic Success: The Impact of Direct Instruction’s Reading Mastery. Journal of Behavior Assessment & Intervention in Children. 2010; 1(1):2-24. Retrieved from

Trout AL, Epstein MH, Mickelson WT, Nelson JR, Lewis LM. Effects of a Reading Intervention for Kindergarten Students At Risk for Emotional Disturbance and Reading Deficits. Behavioral Disorders. 2003; 28(3):313.

Please Click on PDF to view Images listed below

Figures 1-6: Data Sheets and Graphs

Figures 7-11:  Work Samples

Figure 12: Curriculum Based Assessments

Figure 13: Teacher Made Letter Sound and Vocabulary Book

Figure 14: Reading Mastery Flashcards

To top

By Emily Faulkenbery, B.A.

Winthrop University

Abstract

Students that experience difficulties in written expression often need intensive instruction and support to complete written assignments. By implementing the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instructional approach, teachers can help students manage their written expression skills as well as build self-efficacy. This study discusses the effect of using the SRSD instructional approach as an intervention for a fifth-grade student with difficulties in written expression. The PLAN and WRITE strategy under the SRSD method was taught to the student. Results from this study yielded better well-developed and correctly structured paragraphs than previously written assignments.

Implementing Self-Regulated Strategy Development for a Student with Difficulties in Written Expression

Several students in general education classrooms develop feelings of apprehension and dread when completing writing assignments throughout the school year. They feel as though writing is a boring, monotonous, and difficult task to conquer. Students with difficulties in written expression often experience heightened feelings of apprehension and dread towards these written assignments. They do not know where to start and struggle to find ways to draw ideas from their prompt, put the ideas on paper, and try to make them grammatically correct. Each required step is an individually overwhelming task for the student. Therefore, teachers need to equip students with difficulties in written expression with tools that can help them comprehend written assignments, plan accordingly, write well, and build their self-efficacy. The following project was created to implement the Self-Regulated Strategy Development to a student that experiences difficulties in written expression.

Description of Student

The student with difficulties in written expression that will participate in the intervention process is a ten-year-old female in the fifth-grade. She is a smart, hard-working student that desires to succeed in her school work. In content-area subjects of social studies, science, reading, and math the student produces assessment results that are consistently at or above average. However, in written expression, the student produces assessment results that are slightly below average or well below average. In addition, the student can be easily distracted from her work and exhibits off-task behaviors. Overall, the student functions well socially with peers and adults and is performing well academically. There are no concerns about her ability to build positive peer relationships or produce extremely disruptive behaviors. She is a creative student that expresses interest and participates in soccer and gymnastics.

Description of Area of Weakness

Difficulties in written expression that the student experiences include creating well-developed and correctly structured sentences. Sentences written by the student are not filled with detailed information or comprised of more than seven words. The student has trouble forming sentences that specifically answer what the comprehension question asked and include specific text details. Sometimes, the student forms sentences that begin with conjunctions rather a subject or other sentence starter. In addition, the student cannot stay on task without being distracted from their writing by daydreams, talking to peers, or asking from help. Baseline data collected during pre-instruction of the intervention is shown in Table 1.1 and includes data based on the student’s written ability with well-developed and correctly structured sentences, an individual rating scale for prompting, and frequency of the student’s off-task and distracted behaviors. Therefore, this information guided the decision to address the area of written expression difficulties as the student’s current and greatest educational need for intervention. To help this student, a specific objective was designed for her to accomplish over the intervention period. The student will be able to write a well-developed and correctly structured opinion-based essay using a given text-based prompt using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development approach over three consecutive data points during a two-week instructional period.

Table 1.1 Student Baseline Data

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Number of Well-Developed and Correctly Structured Sentences

2

2

3

Individual Rating Scale for Prompting

1

1

2

Frequency Scale of Off-task or Distracted Behaviors

3

2

3

 

Literature Review

Students often find a way to make statements or discuss their thoughts and opinions verbally. Some students can take that information and create a well-written product that matches their assigned writing task. In other cases, students cannot take those ideas and produce writing assignments that are well-developed and meet objectives. These students need support and intensive instruction to complete their written assignments. Instructing students to use strategies that help them develop and manage their skills and abilities towards success should be an aspiring goal for every teacher. Implementing the Self-Regulated Strategy Development (SRSD) instructional approach for students with difficulties in written expression is an effective research-based tool that can help students with written difficulties produce better-written assignments.

De La Paz (1999) conducted research on implementing SRSD within the general education classroom. From the research, she found that while students with disabilities need great improvement in their written skills, an increasing number of students without learning disabilities are also lacking skills to write well. Students often write without giving equal emphasis on each part of the writing process. Without an equal emphasis, written products lack organization, correct structure, and detailed student knowledge from both students with and without disabilities (De La Paz, 1999). Researchers and educators have found that teaching writing as a multi-step process through strategy instruction is an effective method of instruction for all student. Graham et al developed the Self-Regulated Strategy Development process to instruct students to regulate their learning and written products (De La Paz, 1999). The SRSD strategy yielded positive results and proved to be effective for both students with and without learning disabilities.  

Research studies have also analyzed the effects of using the SRSD instructional approach for students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder (ADHD). Two different studies by the same contributors discussed the obstacles that students with ADHD experience in written expression and found discrepancies in the writing abilities of students with ADHD and learning disabilities as well as students with ADHD and without learning disabilities (Lienemann Reid, 2008; Reid and Lienemann, 2006). Reid and colleagues (2014) stated that students with ADHD experience impairments in executive function and working memory. These two abilities can severely affect students’ skills to plan, organize, and monitor their writing. For many reasons, the obstacles students face with ADHD associate with the goals and methodologies of the SRSD strategies whether or not in combination with a learning disability (Lienemann Reid, 2008; Reid and Lienemann, 2006). The SRSD strategies instruct students how to plan, write, and set goals based on their individual needs with behavioral supports (Reid et al, 2014).  Students that experience written difficulties with ADHD were able to produce written assignments that were of a better grade than previously written pieces.

Description of Intervention

After reading the empirical studies, I chose to implement the PLAN and WRITE learning strategy using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development instructional approach. The PLAN strategy stands for pay attention to the prompt, list the main ideas, add supporting ideas, and number your ideas. WRITE strategy is the continuing process after plan and stands for work to develop a thesis statement, remember your goals, include transition words in a new paragraph, try to use different kinds of sentences, and exciting, interesting, one hundred thousand-dollar words.

Introduction of the PLAN and WRITE learning strategy included teacher instruction of the strategy through modeling as well as the think-aloud instructional approach to develop student understanding. During guided practice instruction, the teacher will provide multiple examples of opinion-based essays that follow the PLAN and WRITE learning strategy. Modeling and discussion of the opinion essay examples are implemented until student mastery is completed. The student is given a PLAN and WRITE strategy visual and checklist for the planning and initial writing of the essay. After instruction, the student will read the text-based article and begin planning her opinion essay. The student is instructed to write a well-developed introduction, three body paragraphs, and conclusion opinion essay about school uniforms.

Materials required for these interventions include paper, pencil, the text-based prompt article about school uniforms, examples of other opinion essays chosen by the teacher, and a PLAN and WRITE strategy checklist created by the teacher that meets specific student needs. The intervention should be completed in a classroom setting and will take place for thirty-minute sessions three days a week over a two-week instructional period.

Intervention Evaluation and Analysis

Baseline data was collected via teacher observation for during a previous individual intervention screening and recorded on an Excel sheet for the number of well-developed and correctly structured sentences. The number of well-developed and correctly structured written by the student in each session of intervention was recorded the same as baseline data. An individual rating scale was used to account for prompting the student needed to write the sentences based on four levels: maximum, moderate, minimal, and independent. Maximum prompting represents level one, moderate is level two, minimal prompting is level three, and independent work represents level four. Off-task or distracted behaviors were recorded on a frequency rating scale from level three to level zero. Level three indicates excessive off-task or distracted behaviors, level two represents moderate, level one indicates minimal off-task or distracted behaviors, and level zero indicates none of the behaviors were present. The individual rating scale or student prompting and the frequency rating scale of off-task or distracted behaviors were recorded on the same Excel sheet as the sentences for the baseline data of the intervention. During the intervention sessions, the data from the individual rating scale for prompting and the frequency of off-task or distracted behaviors were recorded on a printed table created on Microsoft Word along with notes from teacher observation of student behavior. In addition, completion of the PLAN and WRITE strategy was collected using a strategy checklist completed by the teacher as well as the student. These data collection methods are displayed in Figure 1.1 and Figure 1.2.

 

Figure 1.1 Completed Frequency Data Sheet and Individualized Rating Scale   (Please view image in PDF)

Figure 1.2 Completed PLAN and WRITE Strategy Checklist (Please view image in PDF)

 

The baseline data showed the student could produce two to three sentences that were well-developed and correctly structured in a five-sentence paragraph. Student baseline data for the individual rating scale produced two level ones and a level two and the frequency chart for off-task or distracted behaviors produced two level threes and a level two. After two weeks of intervention, the student improved by writing three to four well-developed and correctly structured sentences per paragraph. While the level of progress only increased by one to two sentences, the student produced sentences that did not start with conjunctions and included at least seven words. She began to show consistency with her ability to construct sentences with good detail and a better variety of sentence structures. Furthermore, the student only needed minimal to no prompting to complete the sentences by the end of the two-week period. The frequency of off-task and distracted behaviors decreased from levels two or three to levels one or two. Comparison of the baseline data to post instruction data from the intervention is shown in Table 1.2.

Table 1.2 Comparison Data from Baseline to Post Instruction During Intervention

 

Baseline Data

Post Instruction Data
 

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Day One

Day Two

Day Three

Day Four

Day Five

Day Six

Number of Well-Developed and Correctly Structured Sentences

2

2

3

3

4

3

3

3

4

Individual Rating Scale for Prompting

1

1

2

2

2

3

3

3

4

Frequency Scale of Off-task

or Distracted Behaviors

3

2

3

2

2

1

1

0

1
                     

Through explicit instruction of the PLAN and WRITE strategy, the student produced a logical outline with sentences that were longer and included more detail than previous sentences from baseline data. Instructing the student to create an outline that includes written supporting details allowed the student to plan a better argument with strong sentences. The student comprehended the strategy, increased self-regulation in planning, and executed the strategy with mostly positive results. The PLAN and WRITE strategy intervention conducted with the Self-Regulated Strategy Development instructional resulted in slight yet significant improvement for the student. Figure 1.3 displays the completed student outline.

 

Figure 1.3 Completed Student Outline Using the PLAN and WRITE Strategy (Please view image in PDF)

 

Some changes were made to increase student performance during the two weeks of the PLAN and WRITE intervention process. Off off-task or distracted behaviors were present during instruction but corrected after positive reinforcement and praise, as well as increased expectations, were set and executed. Examples of partially well-developed and correctly constructed sentences in a written paper will be provided and completed during guided practice to help reduce the amount of prompting needed for the student.

The student met most objectives assigned during this intervention process but will benefit from further instruction using this strategy as well as positive reinforcement. Continued intervention is necessary, but the student will be able to successfully the strategy on their own after further guided practice and independent writing is completed over time. The student’s performance data from the baseline to each week of the intervention should be compared again after one month of implementing the intervention. If the student is able to meet the objective requirements and continues to make positive improvements throughout the four weeks, the frequency of the intervention should be decreased with closely monitored progress. The results of student performance after the decreased frequency with closely monitored progress of the intervention will determine the decision to continue with the current intervention or to release the student to complete the strategy individually.

Reflection

The process and procedures of this intervention were completed with social validity. There is a social significance of the intervention process completed. Many students struggle with planning and writing well-developed papers. Students with difficulties in written expression are unable to develop well-written and correctly structured sentences without becoming frustrated and apathetic. Therefore, it is critically valuable for them to have a strategy to implement to increase their skill level and success in writing. The procedures were thoroughly followed and exactly repeated with each intervention session. Each step was appropriate for the student and matched her level of need yet challenged her comprehension. Completing this intervention allowed the student to meet the objectives with a majority of success. The student enjoyed the intervention process and the topic that was assigned. She stated that this intervention helped her to focus on planning her paper well and to form better well-developed and correctly structured sentences. This intervention strategy will be quite helpful as she writes papers in the future.

Even though this process was completed with one student, the PLAN and WRITE intervention can be implemented during small and whole group instruction. Other teachers and students will also be able to benefit from the use of this intervention process thus the PLAN and WRITE strategy intervention is recommended to other teachers and their students. Planning is an important aspect of a paper that students often leave out when individually completing a written assignment. A detailed outline plan not only helps students develop better paragraphs and papers, but it also helps students with disabilities stay focused, retain comprehension, and increase confidence. The outcome data from the intervention did relate to the outcome data from the empirical studies. Students that completed the intervention processes in the empirical studies chosen from the research completed were able to complete the strategies successfully and improve their abilities to write well-developed, better organized, and correctly structured paragraphs. The results from this PLAN and WRITE strategy using the Self-Regulated Strategy Development approach also produced the same result for the student needing the intervention. This project has challenged me to implement other SRSD strategies and incorporate this instructional approach into my whole class instruction. Every student could benefit from the knowledge and skills these strategies can provide.

References

De La Paz, S. (1999). Self-regulated strategy instruction in regular education settings: Improving outcomes for students with and without learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 14(2), 92–106. Retrieved from  https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ587699

Lienemann, T. O., & Reid, R. (2008). Using self-regulated strategy development to improve expository writing with students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 74(4), 471–486. Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ817545

Reid, R., & Lienemann, T. O. (2006). Self-regulated strategy development for written expression with students with Attention Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder. Exceptional Children, 73(1). Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ754357

Reid, R., Hagaman, J. L., & Graham, S. (2014). Using self-regulated strategy development for written expression with students with Attention Deficit Hyperactivity Disorder. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary Journal, 12(1), 21–42. Retrieved from https://winthropuniversity.idm.oclc.org/login?url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=eric&AN=EJ1039823

School Uniforms – ProCon.org. (2018, October 24). Retrieved from https://school-uniforms.procon.org/

Tarshis, Lauren. (2011, November 21). School uniforms: Awesome—or awful. Scholastic Scope, 60(5), 22-23. Retrieved from https://www.bcsoh.org/cms/lib3/OH01001261/Centricity/Domain/453/school%20

uniforms%20awesome%20or%20awful%20920L.pdf

To top

By Geancarlo Estrada

Abstract

The purpose of this book review is to describe the leadership qualities of both Ron Clark and Michael Fullan. Both authors and leaders, touch upon similar topics and share their individual views to implement meaningful and purposeful leadership. This paper is divided into four major sections where the reader will learn consequential strategies and mindsets which can inspire any teacher to become a student-centered leader.

This book is about a principle at RCA who has created a one-of-a- kind school full of engagement and high expectation. This book is meant to provide teachers passion for their career again and being able to instill excitement in learning for their student. Through the use of 101 strategies, you will be able to motivate your classroom and uplift your students.

The book is divided into four sections. The firsts states RCA (Ron Clark Academy’s principles and values and the beliefs of their teachers. The main belief that RCA hold is put the students first and to teach them to believe in themselves. One of the beliefs is that teachers are going to give their all to their students even if they get nothing in return. Ron Clark says “Even if they don’t understand and comprehend the effort I am putting into them now; they will appreciate it later.” (pg.32). This is true for most of your teaching career. However, it is important to pour your all in the students and in your professions.

Although the beliefs in this section is one of great expectations, for many schools, it is unrealistic. Ron Clark built the ultimate school, where morale is high. This may not be the case for all schools. Fullan provides a framework for leadership which can be implemented in most school settings. His framework which is a weaker section, is possibly over-simplified where he describes key features of leaders. The characteristics of a leader should be Enthusiasm, Energy, and Hope. The goal of a leader in Fullan’s book, “Leading in Culture of Change,” is to make good things happen and fewer bad things happen.

The second section of this book is the role of parents in their kid’s education.  The books suggest that teachers and principals assures that they tell parents what your expectations are for them and what you need from them. In the book, Ron Clark says “The key is to open the doors of your school to the parents, to invite them in, and to make them feel like a part of their children’s education. Once you have done that, it becomes so much easier to work with them on issues that are standing in the way of their child’s success, and it makes dealing with any parent issues so much easier to handle.”  As an administrator, it is important to involve parents in their children’s education. If you make them a part of the school life, they feel like they are responsible for the education of their child not only the teacher. Teachers need to be able to teach the parents how to teach their child. Teachers need to give them tools to succeed.

Fullan also understands that building relationships is key to the foundation of the school “if moral purpose is job one, Relationships is job two.” Fullan warns the reader to not over generalize relationships and that authenticity is crucial for the school. Teachers and staff will identify the insincerity of a leader which leads to a negative atmosphere. “Genuine relationships based on authenticity and care.”

The third section is about creating a good climate. This sections touches on making the kids feel comfortable and excited. Climate is also about the teachers’ attitude and style of teaching. Ron Clark states “All staffs should approach their jobs with determination that being a teacher isn’t a job; it’s a call to serve a higher purpose, to give of ourselves until we can give no more, and to make the happiness and well-being of our children our first priority. And the more you offer help to others, the more you will find them coming to your aid as well. WHEN YOU LEND A HAND, YOU MAKE THE TEAM STRONGER, AND WHEN THE TEAM IS STRONGER, THE CHILDREN ARE THE ONES WHO TRULY BENEFIT.” This is an important take away from the book. This is especially important to administration, they set the tone for the school. They need to uphold themselves to higher standards. This attitude trickles down to staff and the students.

“It should come as no surprise then that the most effective leaders are not the smartest in an IQ sense but are those who combine intellectual brilliance with emotional intelligence.” Fullan agrees with Ron Clark, in the sense that creating a positive environment in the school is tied to the idea of the leader must be aware of the emotions of their staff. Fullan expresses that when building a strong team, it’s more important to have a high Emotional Intelligence, rather than a high IQ.

The fourth section is about ways you can show your students that you care for them. Students will only work for people who are interested in them and as an educator, you need to make sure that message is clear. Ron Clark is a principle who puts children first. He states “When we raise our children, we need to remind ourselves that they will become what they see in them.” As administrators, we need to see the potential in every child. This helps have a positive mindset and grit to persevere.

Fullan has his own beliefs on how to support the students. He believes if the administration and teachers can practice sharing knowledge, that this will have a trickle-down effect and will benefit the students. Sharing knowledge is the practice of cooperating to solve problems rather than a leader telling a teacher how to solve the problem. Fullan believes if students observe administration and teachers sharing knowledge that they will begin to share knowledge among themselves.

Both authors are student focused and that is why they are inspirational leaders to so many. Future leaders should study their words and ideas to implement their strategies into their own schools. The readers of the books will walk away with guidance which will motivate them to be enthusiastic, energetic, and hopeful.

About the Author

My name is Geancarlo Estrada, I am a 24 year old second year special education teacher from Miami, Fl. I aspire to become a leader in the community by supporting students with disabilities and their families. I look for guidance from successful leaders, such as Ron Clark and Michael Fullan. By remaining student-centered, i will ensure the success of disenfranchised students.

To top

By Shari Coplin

Abstract

Lead Like a PIRATE: Make Schools AMAZING for Your Students and Staff, is a relatable, yet information text about leading change initiatives in school and education. The authors provide a relatable approach to leadership and influence, by pressing the importance of passion and relationship building in the role of a leader. Lead Like a PIRATE is an invaluable text that provides new and veteran leaders in every sector of education with strategies and examples of how to exemplify effective leadership.

Lead Like a PIRATE: Make School AMAZING for Your Students and Staff

Authors: Shelley Burgess and Beth Houf

“Everyone wins when highly effective leaders bring their passion to work.” Lead Like a PIRATE, a part of the PIRATE book series, introduces “a paradigm-shifting, culture-reshaping, life-transforming manifesto of the highest order…implementing the treasure within that will change our system and allow you to create schools that have both staff and students knocking down doors to get in, not out.” Lead Like a PIRATE is a riveting book about the transformation educators feel when leaving the classroom and entering into a leadership position as a principal or educational leader in other capacities. The book instills and repeats the notion that while the educator is leaving the classroom, they must maintain the same passion they felt when they taught students, saw that first “light bulb” moment on a child’s face and had their first “Aah Ha” moment themselves as educators, when they discovered how to make learning information yet engaging and fun. The authors of this book began as classroom teachers, and took on leadership roles in schools different than they had previously taught. Not only did they have to build rapport and gain trust (chapter 2), they had to encourage their staff that their schools were the place they wanted to be, their students were the students they wanted to teach, and their parents were the parents they wanted involved in the schools.  With low test scores, socioeconomic statuses and parent involvement, the students, parents and teachers felt discouraged. However, when their leadership changed, and the thinking of the school staff shifted, PIRATE leadership was implemented, changing the culture of the school dynamic.

PIRATES are bold, fearless, sail into unchartered territories and relentlessly seek to find treasures. As PIRATE leaders, the authors explain, we should feel the same passion for leading, teaching and educating students and staff. The common theme in this book is passion and enthusiasm. As leaders if you aren’t passionate about what you are doing, you may be in the wrong profession, or need a boost to reignite your love of education. If the leader is not passionate and enthusiastic about the school, students, staff and surrounding community, how can one expect students, staff and parents to engage passionately? Throughout the book these characteristics come into play and are mentioned as key parts of being a leader. The key elements of leading like a PIRATE include: Passion-identifying your passion and that of your staff and students, Immersion-how to move from just being at your school to truly being a part of the school to have the best impact on those being led by you, Rapport-trust building and empowerment of your crew, Ask and Analyze-asking questions that engage meaningful conversations and empower individuals to take risks, Transformation-how effective leaders change the mundane into the spectacular by examining ways to make resources and essentials like professional development effective and engaging, and Enthusiasm-the characteristic of an effective leader in which their enthusiasm and positivity creates an environment where teachers and students are excited about coming to school each day and the journey of learning. Within each section and chapter of the book, the authors drive home the importance of these elements and how they affect the role as a leader and how to implement these elements into the role. Authors also address leadership as it applies to navigating change and the necessary characteristics of a leader. Similar to the beliefs described in Michael Fullan’s Leading in a Culture of Change, the authors believe it is necessary as an educational leader to display specific characteristics daily, such as enthusiasm, adaptability, emotional intelligence, passion and rapport building, having an approachable personality and demeanor and making knowledge social, relatable and interesting for staff (Fullan, 2007).  The book argues that leadership doesn’t have to change the person the leader is before they step into that role, that leaders can still have a fun and engaging side, being relatable to their staff. The authors stress knowing your passion as a leader and educator is just as important as understanding and knowing the passion of your crew. This makes the enthusiasm spread like wildfire and instills the passion for education throughout the building (9). During this time it is important to also immerse yourself into the culture of the school, get to know the staff, the data of the school, what needs improvement and what can be delegated. Being an effective leader means taking on change and creating an environment where staff feels safe taking risks (16). The authors immersed the text with stories, strategies and by providing leadership in context for educators shifting and currently holding leadership roles in schools and district level positions.

Burgess and Houf both made it clear they have been in the position of fear and feeling less than passionate about making the change from teacher to school leader. The authors revealed how to remain passionate about education and students. They acknowledged the shift that occurs between staff and educators and the feeling of being a “them” and no longer an “us.”  However, the text remained especially relatable for all educators, not just those in leadership positions, when each presented idea of what an effective leader should display took on examples in the classroom and school environment. For teachers in the classroom, believing education is the key to making a difference in the lives of children and the equalizing factor for those same children, that passion can be displayed in engaging lessons that allow students to explore, question and think critically about the content they are learning and the context in which it applies to life (6, 9). The authors speak passionately about being able to take on different roles as an educational leader, such as a coach, immersing yourself into the culture of the staff, guiding and leading them in areas they need assistance, asking about challenges that effect the classroom and school as a whole, collaborating to provide solutions to those challenges, rolling up your sleeves and diving in to work alongside staff, while also leading the ship to make sure all feel encouraged and safe taking on the implementation of these new solutions (18). Fullan also shared similar beliefs within his text. Effective leaders should be adaptive and possess the ability to work with staff and alongside staff. Leaders should be able to lead, coach, guide and know when to step back and allow staff to take charge (Fullan, 2007). The author and Fullan also agree on the notion that relationships are the best, most effective way to lead a staff. “Trust is knowing that when a team member does push you, they’re doing it because they care about the team…at the core good rapport and great relationships are built on trust,” (30). Both the author and Fullan stress the importance of utilizing relationship building, rather than dictatorship is the way to create a community and environment of trust. Without trust, collaboration is nonexistent, and as the authors and Fullan agree, we as educators and staff working collaboratively within a school are stronger together than as individuals, allowing leaders to have authentic relationships and conversations with teachers and stakeholders, encouraging the knowledge sharing, teaching and education of all (Fullan, 2007); smart trust (33).

With minimal weaknesses to mention, the strength of Lead like a PIRATE is depicted throughout. The authors make connections with the readers, building trust and rapport by telling their personal stories, relating the struggles of being a leader to the struggles that may arise as an educator in general. The authors also display an understanding of how individuals feel mentally and emotionally, transitioning from leader to coach while providing guidance of what to do within those stages of one’s career. Because the book is a part of an educational series, it provides guidance, leadership and education to educators in all levels of their career. The leaders continue by addressing educators that are contemplating making the leap of moving into a leadership role and asking them to analyze their ‘what and whys’ (205). 

All in all, Lead Like a PIRATE, is an educational leadership gold mind. It is engaging, relatable and an easy read for educators of all levels of their career. The authors encourage readers to indulge in Teach Like a PIRATE as well, especially if they are in the classroom and looking for creative and enticing ways to create student led classrooms and engaging lessons that leave students wanting more. Lead Like a PIRATE provides current and potential leaders, novice or veteran, with strategies and examples to build and create an environment of passion, change challenge, risk taking, and learning for all involved. PIRATE leading involves being able to lead, teach and encourage staff, students, and community stakeholders, while also building relationships, trust and modeling how to lead. “If there is no passion in your life, then have you really lived? Find your passion, whatever it may be. Become it, and let it become you and you will find great things happen for you, to you and because of you.” – T. Alan Armstrong

References

Burgess, S., & Houf, B. (2018). LEAD LIKE A PIRATE: Make School AMAZING for Your Students and Staff. S.l.: DAVE BURGESS CONSULTING.

Fullan, M. (2007). Leading in a Culture of Change. San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass.

 

About the Author

Shari Coplin is a behavior specialist for students in Pre-K through 12th grades in Northwest Tennessee. When she is not creating visuals, in her free time Shari enjoys listening to music, dancing, travel, trying new eateries and spending time with family and friends.

To top

All articles below can be accessed through the following link:

 

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-nov2018-issue2/

https://www.parentcenterhub.org/buzz-dec2018-issue1/

 

DMDD: Extreme Tantrums and Irritability
Occasional tantrums and irritability are normal parts of childhood, but some children have frequent, extreme tantrums (at an age when most kids have outgrown them) and are irritable most of the time. Could it be DMDD? This article from the Child Mind Institute describes what disruptive mood dysregulation disorder (DMDD) is, what causes the tantrums, how the disorder is diagnosed, and how it is treated.

4 Parts of a Conversation: How to Help Kids With Social Skills Issues Navigate
Also available in Spanish: 4 partes de una conversación: Cómo ayudar a los niños que tienen dificultades para socializar
For most people, having a conversation is relatively easy, even second nature. Not so for children and youth with social skills issues! Skills such as reading body language and knowing what to say (and when to say it) don’t come easily to them. Here’s a look at the four parts of a conversation, the skills involved, and how to help children navigate each one.

Selecting Toys for Young Children with Disabilities
Okay, this resource isn’t exactly focused on a specific disability, but we thought families and friends would find it timely, with the holidays and gift-giving just around the corner! From the Center on Technology and Disability.

Inclusive PDFs by Design
We can take pride in the creativity and visual appeal of the PDFs we produce, but also worry that they’re not accessible to readers with disabilities. Did you know that PDFs can be accessible without sacrificing design? View this September 2018 webinar to see how accessible PDF design is responsible, inclusive, and –yes– attractive. From AEM, the National Center on Accessible Educational Materials.

Holiday Travel Tips for People with Disabilities
Do you or does your child have a disability that affects mobility? The Transportation Security Administration shares some important tips to help families better prepare for security screening at airport screening checkpoints for the 2018 holiday traveling season.

13 Holiday Survival Tips For Your Child With Special Needs
The holiday season can be an extremely stressful time of year for children with autism and other forms of learning disability. The disruption to their routine, unfamiliar sights and smells, the house full of noise and people – it can all prove too much. These tips for surviving the holiday season come from parents of children and adults with special needs.

Does Your Child Have Food Sensitivities?
Holidays are a time for family, friends, and endless eating. That can be tough for kids with sensory processing issues who are sensitive to the tastes, smells, and textures of foods. Here are 8 tips to help reduce food battles—and let you and your child enjoy the holidays. Available in Spanish, too.

15 Tips for Surviving—and Enjoying—the Holidays with a Brain Injury
Flashing lights. Crowded stores. Loud family gatherings. The holiday season should be joyful, but it can often be overwhelming to someone who is living with brain injury. Here are tips to help you make the holiday season happier and more relaxed for all of your friends and family.

Keeping Your Sanity Intact
Our families are far from typical. So why do we try to be that perfect “Norman Rockwell” family during holiday get-togethers? Tell yourself right now that you and your family are going to enjoy the holidays in your own way and at your own pace. This article can help!

To top

* Special Education Supervisor (Autism) – Performs difficult professional and intermediate administrative work coordinating, planning and assisting with special education programs. Assists with and ensures that all special education programs and procedures are in compliance with federal and state mandates, and that special education students are served in the most educationally beneficial and cost effective programs provided by local, regional, and tuition assistance programs. Prepares and monitors records for compliance. Participates and/or chairs Central Eligibility Committee meetings. Monitors placement issues to ensure least restrictive environment. Monitors Individualized Education Programs. Reviews and revises contents of the annual special education plan. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – Philadelphia, PA– The Invo-Progressus Team has incredible opportunities for Special Education Teachers…or, as we like to call them, Superheroes. If you use your super powers to help ensure that children have access to the best education possible in the least restrictive environment, we would love for you to join the Invo-Progressus team!  We are currently seeking full-time Special Education Teachers in Philadelphia, PA to provide services in a K-12 school program. For more information, call 800-434-4686 today to speak with a dedicated Career Services Manager! To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher – Chicago, IL – The Invo-Progressus Team has incredible opportunities for Special Education Teachers…or, as we like to call them, Superheroes.  If you use your super powers to help ensure that children have access to the best education possible in the least restrictive environment, we would love for you to join the Invo-Progressus team!  We are currently seeking full-time Special Education Teachers for all subjects in Chicago and Waukegan, IL to provide services during the 2018-2019 School Year. Call 800-434-4686 today to speak with a dedicated Career Services Manager! To learn more – Click here

*Teacher – Special Education (All Areas) – Approximately 100 positions! – We are looking for highly motivated and skilled talent to join our team at District of Columbia Public Schools (DCPS). We seek individuals who are passionate about transforming the DC school system and making a significant difference in the lives of public school students, parents, principals, teachers, and central office employees. To learn more – Click here

*Special Education Teacher-Grades K-12 – K12 is a dynamic company on a mission to provide the most compelling, comprehensive, and effective K-12 education available. Our employees are a critical part of an organization that is providing powerful, new options for the way children can be educated. They have a passion for education and a drive to make a difference. We pride ourselves on maintaining the highest level of integrity. To learn more – Click here

* Special Education Teacher- Chicago – Jewish Child Family Services (JCFS) provides vital, individualized, results-driven, therapeutic and supportive services for thousands of children, adults and families of all backgrounds each year. JCFS is currently seeking a Special Education Teacher to work with individuals and small groups of children (K – 12) with emotional and behavior disorders in a therapeutic special education classroom. The Therapeutic Day School is located in West Rogers Park, Chicago, IL. To learn more – Click here

To top

Acknowledgements

Portions of this or previous month’s NASET’s Special Educator e-Journal were excerpted from:

  • Center for Parent Information and Resources
  • Committee on Education and the Workforce
  • FirstGov.gov-The Official U.S. Government Web Portal
  • Journal of the American Academy of Special Education Professionals (JAASEP)
  • National Collaborative on Workforce and Disability for Youth
  • National Institute of Health
  • National Organization on Disability
  • Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration
  • U.S. Department of Education
  • U.S. Department of Education-The Achiever
  • U.S. Department of Education-The Education Innovator
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • U.S. Department of Labor
  • U.S. Food and Drug Administration
  • U.S. Office of Special Education

    The National Association of Special Education Teachers (NASET) thanks all of the above for the information provided for this or prior editions of the Special Educator e-Journal

    Download a PDF Version of This e-Journal

    To View or Download a PDF file for this issue of the Special Educator e-Journal  –  CLICK HERE

    To top

    Become a Member Today

    Join thousands of special education professionals and gain access to resources, professional development, and a supportive community dedicated to excellence in special education.

    Join Now
    Become a Member Today
    Chat with NASET