Advertisement

Implementing Response to Intervention in Secondary Schools

  • Mark R. ShinnEmail author
  • Holly S. Windram
  • Kerry A. Bollman
Chapter

Abstract

This chapter addresses key elements in secondary-level (i.e., middle and high school) implementation of response to intervention (RTI), more suitably labeled multi-tiered system of supports (MTSS). This chapter provides a specification of what features and actions of secondary MTSS are similar to elementary-level practices and, most importantly, what features and actions are different and require special attention for implementation success. This chapter proposes that the appropriate purpose of secondary MTSS is to advance college and career readiness in two important ways: (a) to increase the quality and quantity of evidence-based instructional and behavior support practices in core content-area instruction, and (b) to enable basic academic and behavioral skills interventions of suitable intensity to be provided to those students who remain discrepant.

Keywords

Special Education Basic Skill Progress Discrepancy Progress Monitoring Special Education Service 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. Archer, A., & Gleason, M. (2001). Rewards: Reading excellence word attack and rate development strategies. Longmont: Sopris West.Google Scholar
  2. Barth, A. E., Stuebing, K. K., Fletcher, J. M., Cirino, P. T., Francis, D. J., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Reliability and validity of the median score when assessing the oral reading fluency of middle grade readers. Reading Psychology, 33(1–2), 133–161.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  3. Bateman, B. D., & Linden, M. A. (2006). Better IEPs: How to develop legally correct and educationally useful programs (4th ed.). Verona: Attainment Company.Google Scholar
  4. Baumann, J. F., & Kame’enui, E. J. (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  5. Beck, I. L., McKeown, M. G., & Kucan, L. (2002). Bringing words to life: Robust vocabulary instruction. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  6. Buffum, A., Mattos, M., & Weber, C. (2012). Simplifying response to intervention four essential guiding principles. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  7. Bulgren, J. A. (2006). Integrated content enhancement routines: Responding to the needs of adolescents with disabilities in rigorous inclusive secondary content classes. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38, 25–36.Google Scholar
  8. Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (1998). Reasoning strategies and teaching routines for use in mainstream content classrooms. Final research report submitted to the U.S. Department of Education, Special Education Services.Google Scholar
  9. Bulgren, J. A., Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., & Lenz, B. K. (2000). The use and effectiveness of analogical instruction in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 92, 426–441.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  10. Bulgren, J. A., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., Deshler, D. D., & Marquis, J. G. (2002). The use and effectiveness of a comparison routine in diverse secondary content classrooms. Journal of Educational Psychology, 94(2), 356.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Bulgren, J. A., Marquis, J. G., Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2011). The effectiveness of a question-exploration routine for enhancing the content learning of secondary students. Journal of Educational Psychology, 103, 578–593.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Burns, M. K., Sarlo, R., & Pettersson, H. (2013). Response to intervention for literacy in secondary schools. http://rtinetwork.org/learn/rti-in-secondary-schools/rti-literacy-secondary-schools.
  13. Carnine, D., Miller, S., Bean, R. M., & Zigmond, N. (1994). Social studies: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 428–441.Google Scholar
  14. Carnine, D. W., Crawford, D. B., & Harniss, M. K. (2007). Effective strategies for teaching social studies. In M. D. Coyne, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed., pp. 139–158). Upper Saddle River: Pearson, Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  15. Conderman, G., & Petersen, T. (2005). Promoting positive special education practices. NASSP Bulletin, 89, 90–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  16. Conderman, G., & Petersen, T. (2007). Avoid the tutoring trap. Intervention in School & Clinic, 42, 234–238.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Cook, C. R., Sprague, J., Browning Wright, D., & Sadler, C. (2008). RTI and behavior answer book on RTI. Horsham: LRP Publications.Google Scholar
  18. Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007a). Effective strategies for teaching writing. In M. D. Coyne, E. J. Kame’enui, & D. W. Carnine (Eds.), Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  19. Coyne, M. D., Kame’enui, E. J., & Carnine, D. W. (2007b). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate diverse learners (3rd ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson: Merrill Prentice Hall.Google Scholar
  20. Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219–232.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  21. Deno, S. L. (2012). Problem-solving assessment. In R. Brown-Chidsey & K. Andren (Eds.), Assessment for intervention: A problem-solving approach (2nd ed., pp. 10–36). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  22. Deno, S. L., Mirkin, P., & Wesson, C. (1984). How to write effective data-based IEPs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 16, 99–104.Google Scholar
  23. Denton, C. A., Barth, A. E., Fletcher, J. M., Wexler, J., Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Romain, M., & Francis, D. J. (2011). The relations among oral and silent reading fluency and comprehension in middle school: Implications for identification and instruction of students with reading difficulties. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 109–135.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  24. Deshler, D. D., & Cornett, J. (2012). Leading to improve teacher effectiveness: Implications for practice, reform, research, and policy. In J. B. Crockett, B. S. Billingsley, & M. L. Boscardin (Eds.), Handbook of leadership and administration for special education. New York: Taylor & Francis.Google Scholar
  25. Deshler, D. D., & Kovaleski, J. F. (2007). Secondary applications of RtI: A guided discussion. Presentation at the response to intervention summit, Arlington, Virginia. Retrieved 15 June 2008.Google Scholar
  26. Deshler, D. D., & Schumaker, J. B. (2005). Teaching adolescents with disabilities: Accessing the general curriculum (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Corwin.Google Scholar
  27. Deshler, D. D., Ellis, E., & Lenz, B. K. (1996). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities (2nd ed.). Denver: Love.Google Scholar
  28. Deshler, D. D., Schumaker, J. B., Lenz, B. K., Bulgren, J. A., Hock, M. F., Knight, J., & Ehren, B. (2001). Ensuring content-area learning by secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16(2), 96–108.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Deshler, D. D., Hock, M. F., & Catts, H. W. (2006). Enhancing outcomes for struggling adolescent readers. Perspectives (Gerontological Nursing Association (Canada)), 32, 21–25.Google Scholar
  30. Diamond, L. (2004). Implementing and sustaining a middle and high school reading and intervention program. Berkeley: Consortium on Reading Excellence.Google Scholar
  31. Dixon, R. D. (2008). Getting the school ready for the adolescents: Designing RtI Practices at the secondary level. Presentation at the annual meeting of the Minnesota Association of School Psychologists, St. Paul, MN.Google Scholar
  32. Dixon, R. D. (2009). Getting the School Ready for the Adolescents: Designing RtI Practices at the Secondary Level. Presentation at the Wisconsin RtI Summit, Green Bay, WI.Google Scholar
  33. Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of significantly struggling learners in high school: A look at approaches to tiered intervention. Washington, DC: National High School Center, American Institute for Research (AIR).Google Scholar
  34. Dunlosky, J., Rawson, K. A., Marsh, E. J., Nathan, M. J., & Willingham, D. T. (2013). Improving student learning with effective learning techniques: Promising directions from cognitive and educational psychology. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 14(1), 4–58.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  35. Ehren, B. J., Deshler, D. D., & Graner, P. S. (2010). Using the content literacy continuum as a framework for implementing RtI in secondary schools. Theory into Practice, 49, 315–322.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. Ellis, J. D., & Bulgren, J. (2009). Improving teaching of scientific argumentation skills. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Association for Science Teacher Educators, Hartford.Google Scholar
  37. Engelmann, S., & Carnine, D. (1982). Theory of instruction. New York: Irvington Publishers.Google Scholar
  38. Engelmann, S., Hanner, S., & Johnson, G. (1999). Corrective reading series. Columbus: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  39. Espin, C., & Campbell, H. M. (2012). They’re getting older…but are they getting better? The influence of curriculum-based measurement on programming for secondary-school students with learning disabilities. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 149–164). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Espin, C. A., & Foegen, A. (1996). Validity of general outcome measures for predicting secondary students’ performance on content-area tasks. Exceptional Children, 62, 497–514.Google Scholar
  41. Espin, C., & Tindal, G. A. (1998). Curriculum-based measurement for secondary students. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp. 214–253). New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  42. Espin, C. A., Wallace, T., Lembke, E., Campbell, H., & Long, J. D. (2010). Creating a progress measurement system in reading for middle-school student: Monitoring progress towards meeting high stakes standards. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 25, 60–75.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Foegen, A. (2012). Big ideas and core values: The influence of Stanley Deno’s work on secondary progress monitoring. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 139–148). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  44. Frey, A. J., Lingo, A., & Nelson, C. M. (2010). Implementing positive behavior support in elementary schools. In M. R. Shiinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. 397–433). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  45. Fuchs, L. S., & Deno, S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinctions between instructionally relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children, 57(6), 488–500.Google Scholar
  46. Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2008). Best practices in progress monitoring reading and mathematics at the elementary level. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology V (pp. 2147–2164). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  47. Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. R. (2005). Response to Intervention as a framework for the identification of learning disabilities. Forum for trainers of school psychologists, spring, 12–19.Google Scholar
  48. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., & Compton, D. L. (2010). Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 1.Google Scholar
  49. Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D., Hosp, M. K., & Jenkins, J. R. (2001). Oral reading fluency as an indicator of reading competence: A theoretical, empirical, and historical analysis. Scientific Studies of Reading, 5(3), 239–256.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Gansle, K. A., & Noell, G. H. (2007). The fundamental role of intervention implementation in assessing response to intervention. In S. Jimerson, M. Burns, & A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention the science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 244–251). New York: Springer.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  51. Gawande, A. (2009). The checklist manifesto. New York: Henry Holt Publishers.Google Scholar
  52. Germann, G. (2010). Thinking of yellow brick roards, emerald cities, and wizards. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. xiii–xxxv). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  53. Germann, G. (2012). Implementing data-based program modification: Big ideas. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 79–87). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  54. Gersten, R., Beckman, S., Clarke, B., Foegen, A., Marsh, L., Star, J. R., & Witzel, B. (2009). Assisting students struggling with mathematics: Response to intervention (RtI) for elementary and middle schools (pp. 1–104). Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  55. Gresham, F., Reschly, D., & Shinn, M. R. (2010). RTI as a driving force in educational improvement: Historical legal, research, and practice perspectives. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. 47–77). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  56. Grossen, B., Romance, N. R., & Vitale, M. R. (1994). Science: Educational tools for diverse learners. School Psychology Review, 23, 442–463.Google Scholar
  57. Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Mason, L. H., & Friedlander, B. (2008). Powerful writing strategies for all students. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  58. Hattie, J. (2009). Visible learning: A synthesis of over 800 meta-analyses relating to achievement. New York: Routledge.Google Scholar
  59. Houghton Mifflin Harcourt Riverside Assessment. (2013). easyCBM. Rolling Meadows: Houghton Mifflin Riverside Assessment.Google Scholar
  60. Jenkins, J. R., & Jewell, M. (1993). Examining the validity of two measures for formative teaching: Reading aloud and maze. Exceptional Children, 59(5), 421–432.Google Scholar
  61. Jenkins, J. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Curriculum-based measurement: The paradigm, history, and legacy. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 7–23). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  62. Kame’enui, E. J., & Baumann, J. F. (Eds.). (2004). Vocabulary instruction: Research to practice. New York: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
  63. Kamil, M. L., Borman, G. D., Dole, J., Kral, C. C., Salinger, T., & Torgesen, J. K. (2008). Improving adolescent literacy: Effective classroom and intervention practices: A practice guide. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Educational Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.Google Scholar
  64. Lenz, B. K., Deshler, D. D., & Kissam, B. R. (2003). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Allyn & Bacon.Google Scholar
  65. Lenz, B. K., Ehren, B. J., & Deshler, D. D. (2005). The content literacy continuum: A school-reform framework for improving adolescent literacy for all students. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 37(6), 60.Google Scholar
  66. Marchand-Martella, N. E., & Martella, R. C. (2010). Read to achieve: Comprehending content-area text and comprehending narrative text. Chicago: McGraw Hill Education.Google Scholar
  67. Marchand-Martella, N. E., Martella, R. C., Modderman, S. L., Petersen, H., & Pan, S. (2013). Key areas of effective adolescent literacy programs. Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 161–184.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  68. Marston, D., & Magnusson, D. (1985). Implementing curriculum-based measurement in special and regular education settings. Exceptional Children, 52, 266–276.PubMedGoogle Scholar
  69. Marzano, R. J. (2007). The art and science of teaching: A comprehensive framework for effective instruction. Alexandria: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.Google Scholar
  70. McMaster, K., & Espin, C. (2007). Technical features of curriculum-based measurement in writing. The Journal of Special Education, 41(2), 68–84.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  71. McPeak, L., & Trygg, L. (2007). The secondary literacy instruction and intervention guide: Helping school districts transform into systems that produce life-changing results for all children. Mill Valley: Stupski Foundation.Google Scholar
  72. National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). The nation’s report card: a first look: 2013 mathematics and reading (NCES 2014–451). Washington, DC: Institute for Education Sciences, US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  73. National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, & Council of Chief State School Officers. (2012). Common Core State Standards Initiative. http://www.corestandards.org.
  74. National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: National mathematics advisory panel final report. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.Google Scholar
  75. Northwest Evaluation Center. (2014). Measures of academic progress. Portland: NWEA.Google Scholar
  76. Pericola Case, L., Speece, D. L., & Eddy Molloy, D. (2003). The validity of response-to-instruction paradigm to identify reading disabilities: A longitudinal analysis of individual differences and context factors. School Psychology Review, 32, 557–582.Google Scholar
  77. Phillips, M. Dissertation. (2002). An examination of the instructional needs of secondary students with learning disabilities and the reading interventions they receive. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, Eugene. University of Oregon.Google Scholar
  78. Prewett, S., Mellard, D. F., Deshler, D. D., Allen, J., Alexander, R., & Stern, A. (2012). Response to intervention in middle schools: Practices and outcomes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 27, 136–147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  79. Reeves, D. (2008). Effective grading practices. Educational Leadership, 65,(5), 85.Google Scholar
  80. Renaissance Learning. (2012). STAR reading technical manual. Wisconsin Rapids: Renaissance Learning.Google Scholar
  81. Rose, T. E., & Zirkel, P. A. (2007). Orton-Gillingham methodology for students with reading disabilities: 30 years of case law. The Journal of Special Education, 41(3), 171–185.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  82. Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., & Torgesen, J. K. (2007). Interventions for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis with implications for practice. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  83. Scholastic Inc. (2001). Scholastic reading inventory. New York: Scholastic Inc.Google Scholar
  84. Schumaker, J. B., & Deshler, D. D. (2010). Using a tiered intervention model in secondary schools to improve academic outcomes in subject-area courses. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior in a 3-tier model including RTI (pp. 609–632). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  85. Schuta, T., Mauricio, D., & Comerford, S. (2012). Significant steps forward. Principal Leadership (November), 32–35.Google Scholar
  86. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  87. Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford.Google Scholar
  88. Shinn, M. R. (2008). RTI at the secondary level. In S. A. Fernley, S. D. LaRue, & J. W. Norlin (Eds.), What do I do when… The answer book on RTI. Horsham: LRP Publications.Google Scholar
  89. Shinn, M. R. (2010). Building a scientifically based data system for progress monitoring and universal screening across three tiers including RTI using curriculum-based measurement. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. 259–293). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  90. Shinn, M. R., & Shinn, M. M. (2000). Writing and evaluating IEP Goals and making appropriate revisions to ensure participation and progress in general curriculum. In C. F. Telzrow & M. Tankersley (Eds.), IDEA Amendments of 1997: Practice guidelines for school-based teams (pp. 351–381). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  91. Spectrum K12 School Solutions. (2011). Response to Intervention Adoption Survey 2011: Global Scholar/Spectrum K12.Google Scholar
  92. Sprague, J. R., & Walker, H. M. (2010). Building safe and healthy schools to promote school success: Critical issues, current challenges, and promising approaches. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. 225–258). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  93. Sprick, R. S. (2006). START on Time! Safe transitions and reduced tardies. Eugene: Safe and Civil Schools/Pacific Northwest Publishing.Google Scholar
  94. Sprick, R. S., & Borgmeier, C. (2010). Prevention and management of behavior in three tiers at the secondary level. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model including RTI (pp. 435–468). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  95. Sprick, R. S., & Garrison, M. (2008). Interventions: Evidence-based behavioral strategies for individual students (2nd ed.). Eugene: Pacific Northwest Publishing, Inc.Google Scholar
  96. Stahl, S., & Kapinus, B. (2001). Word power: What every educator needs to know about teaching vocabulary. Washington, DC: National Education Association.Google Scholar
  97. Stepanek, J., & Peixotto, K. (2009). Models of response to intervention in the northwest region states. Issues & Answers Report, REL, (079).Google Scholar
  98. Swanson, H. L., & Deshler, D. (2003). Instructing adolescents with learning disabilities converting a meta-analysis to practice. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 36(2), 124–135.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  99. Thompson, L. J. (2006). Preparing a broken foundation: Solutions to help middle school students struggle with math (Vol. Fall). Dallas: VoyagerGoogle Scholar
  100. Tindal, G. A., & Germann, G. (1991). Mainstream consultation agreements in secondary schools. In G. Stoner, M. R. Shinn, & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems (pp. 495–518.). Bethesda: NASP.Google Scholar
  101. Tindal, G. A., Wesson, C., Deno, S. L., Germann, G., & Mirkin, P. (1985). The pine county model for special education delivery: A data-based system. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology (Vol. IV, pp. 223–250). Hillsdale: Lawrence Erlbaum Assoc.Google Scholar
  102. Tindal, G. A., Shinn, M. R., Walz, L., & Germann, G. (1987). Mainstream consultation in secondary settings: An evaluation of the Pine County Model. The Journal of Special Education, 21, 94–106.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  103. Tolar, T., Barth, A. E., Francis, D. F., Fletcher, J. M., Stuebing, K. K., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Psychometric properties of maze tasks in middle school students. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 37(3), 131–146.PubMedCentralCrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
  104. Torgesen, J. K. (2004). Lessons learned from the last 20 years of research in the interventions for students who experience difficulty learning to read. In P. McCardle & V. Chhabra (Eds.), The voice of evidence in reading research (pp. 225–229). Baltimore: Brookes Publishing.Google Scholar
  105. Torgesen, J. K., Nettle, S., Howard, P., & Winterbottom, R. (2005). Brief report of a study to investigate the relationship between several brief measures of reading fluency and performance on the florida comprehensive assessment test-reading in 4th, 6th, 8th, and 10th grades. FCRR technical report 6. 2005. http://www.fcrr.org/TechnicalReports/Progress_monitoring_report.pdf.
  106. Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D. D., Rissman, L. M., Decker, S. M., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Francis, D. J., Rivera, M. O., & Lesaux, N. (2007a). Academic literacy instruction for adolescents: A guidance document from the center on instruction. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation Center on Instruction.Google Scholar
  107. Torgesen, J. K., Houston, D., & Rissman, L. (2007b). Improving literacy instruction in middle and high schools: A guide for principals. Portsmouth: RMC Research Corporation, Center for Instruction.Google Scholar
  108. Troia, G. A., & Olinghouse, N. G. (2013). The common core state standards and evidence-based educational practices: The case of writing. School Psychology Review, 42, 343–357.Google Scholar
  109. Vaughn, S., Cirino, P. T., Wanzek, J., Wexler, J., Fletcher, J. M., Denton, C. D., et al. (2010). Response to intervention for middle school students with reading difficulties: Effects of a primary and secondary intervention. School Psychology Review, 30, 3–21.Google Scholar
  110. Walker, H. M. (2004). Commentary: Use of evidence-based interventions in schools: Where we’ve been, where we are, and where we need to go. School Psychology Review, 33, 398–407.Google Scholar
  111. Walker, H. M., & Shinn, M. R. (2010). Systemic, evidence-based approaches for promoting positive student outcomes within an RTI framework: Moving from efficacy to effectiveness. In M. R. Shinn & H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for achievement and behavior problems in a three-tier model, including RTI (pp. 1–26). Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.Google Scholar
  112. Wallace, T., Espin, C. A., McMaster, K., Deno, S. L., & Foegen, A. (2007). CBM progress monitoring within a standards-based system: Introduction to the special series. The Journal of Special Education, 41, 66–67.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  113. Ward, B., & Gersten, R. (2013). A randomized evaluation of Safe and Civil Schools model for positive behavioral interventions and supports at elementary schools in a large urban district. School Psychology Review, 42, 317–333.Google Scholar
  114. Wickstrom, K. F., Jones, K. M., La Fleur, L. H., & Mortenson, B. P. (1998). An analysis of treatment integrity in school-based behavioral consultation. School Psychology Quarterly, 13, 141–154.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  115. Windram, H., Bollman, K., & Johnson, S. (2012). How RtI works in secondary schools building a framework for success. Bloomington: Solution Tree.Google Scholar
  116. Windram, H., Scierka, B., & Silberglitt, B. (2007). Response to intervention at the secondary level: A description of two districts’ models of implementation. Communiqué, 35, 43–45.Google Scholar
  117. Wormeli, R. (2006). Accountability: Teaching through assessment and feedback, not grading. American Secondary Education, 34, 14–27.Google Scholar
  118. Yell, M. L., & Busch, T. W. (2012). Using curriculum-based measurement to develop educationally meaningful and legally sound individualized educational programs. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of curriculum-based measurement on education (pp. 79–87). Minneapolis: University of Minnesota Press.Google Scholar
  119. Yell, M. L., Ryan, J. B., Rozalski, M. E., & Katsiyannis, A. (2009). The US Supreme Court and special education: 2005 to 2007. TEACHING Exceptional Children, Jan/Feb, 68–75.Google Scholar
  120. Zigmond, N. (1990). Rethinking secondary school programs for students with learning disabilities. Focus on Exceptional Children, 23(1), 1–24.Google Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media New York 2016

Authors and Affiliations

  • Mark R. Shinn
    • 1
    Email author
  • Holly S. Windram
    • 2
  • Kerry A. Bollman
    • 3
  1. 1.National Louis UniversityChicagoUSA
  2. 2.Hope Network, Michigan Education CorpsGrand RapidsUSA
  3. 3.TIESCleveland HeightsUSA

Personalised recommendations