Data-Based Individualization

Introduction to theTEC Special Issueon Data-BasedIndividualizationLouis Danielson and Celia Rosenquist

Nationally, there is a critical need toimprove outcomes for students withdisabilities who have severe, persistentlearning and behavioral problems. TheNational Assessment of EducationalProgress (NAEP) reported that 58% offourth graders with disabilities and64% of eighth graders with disabilitieslack even basic reading skills (NationalCenter for Education Statistics, 2011b).The NAEP reported similarly highpercentages for Grade 4 (45%) andGrade 8 (65%) for students withdisabilities who lacked basicmathematics skills (National Center forEducation Statistics, 2011a). Thesecond National LongitudinalTransition Study also reported that onein three high school students withdisabilities has had a school disciplineproblem (Wagner et al., 2003), overone in four drop out before graduating,and four in five are either unemployedor work in low-paying jobs as youngadults (Wagner, Newman, Cameto,Garza, & Levine, 2005). These nationaldata paint a stark picture of pooracademic and behavior outcomes forstudents with disabilities, whichcontribute to a lack of career andcollege readiness for this population.

Most states currently implementsome type of a multitiered system ofsupport in academic areas (typicallyreferred to as response to intervention,

6 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

RTI) and to address behavior (typicallyreferred to as positive behaviorintervention and supports, PBIS). Manyof these initiatives have focused onimproving school-wide instruction andbehavior for all students orimplementing targeted interventionsthat are validated for small groups ofstruggling students, but these efforts

One in three high schoolstudents with disahilities

has had a school disciplineprohlem ..., over one in

four drop out heforegraduating, and four in

five are either unemployedor work in low-paying jobs

as young adults.

have not adequately addressed theunique learning and behavioral needsof most students with disabilities,particularly those who function at thelowest achievement levels or who havethe most serious behavioral difficulties.

This special issue of TEACHINGExceptional Children offers practicalsuggestions to help meet the needs ofstudents who have seeminglyintractable learning and behavioralchallenges. There is no consensus on

the number of students with disabilitiesnationwide who continue todemonstrate learning and behavioralproblems despite participation ingenerally effective core curricula orresearch-based supplemental programs.However, using data from RTI studieson students who are unresponsive torigorous supplementary interventions(e.g.. Conduct Prevention ProblemsResearch Group, 2002; D. Euchs, Euchs,& Compton, 2012; Wanzek & Vaughn,2009)—and excluding those whoparticipate in the alternate assessmentprogram—we estimate that about2.5 million students (5% of the generalschool population) require intensiveacademic interventions, and about1.5 million students (3% of the generalschool population) require intensivebehavioral interventions.

This special issue features theongoing work of the National Centeron Intensive Intervention (NCII:www.intensiveintervention.org) to helpeducators serve this population. TheU.S. Office of Special EducationPrograms funded NCII in 2011 under theIndividuals with Disabilities EducationAct Part D (National Programs) toprovide technical assistance to buildschool and district capacity to supportthe widespread use of intensiveacademic and behavioral interventionsfor students who require this support.

Table 1 . Definition of Terms

individualizatioii(DBl)

Evidence-based Igpracti

An iterative, multistep approach to intensive intervention that involves the analysis of progressmonitoring and diagnostic assessment data, followed by individualization of a validated academic orbehavioral intervention program.

An instruction or intervention approach that improves results for students who receive theintervention, based on data from rigorous, scientific research studies.

Fidelifv" The accurate and consistent delivery of instruction, intervention, or assessment in a manner that isconsistent with the developer's recommendations.

interventionAn intervention that addresses severe and persistent learning or behavior difficulties, characterizedby increased intensity (e.g., smaller group, expanded time) and individualization of instruction orbehavior support. Intensive intervention may also be referred to as Tier 3 or tertiary intervention.

Progress "monitorin

Response 'to interventionIRTl)

Standardinterventionprotocol

An assessment used to track students' performance over time, quantify rate of improvement, andevaluate program effectiveness.

Integration of assessment and intervention within a multilevel prevention system to maximize studentachievement and reduce behavior problems. With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poorlearning outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust theintensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student's responsiveness, and identifystudents with learning disabilities, or other disabilities.

A consistent, often scripted evidence-based instructional program intended for students with similaracademic or behavioral needs. Standard intervention protocols are often used at the secondaryintervention level within a multitiered intervention system. Within the context of intensiveintervention, standard intervention protocols may be referred to as "intervention platforms" becausethey serve as a starting point for intensification.

Issue authors have synthesized researchon intensive intervention, whichprimarily focuses on students inelementary schools, but applications forstudents in middle and high school arealso noted where appropriate andrelevant. In addition, the authors provideexamples to illustrate how schools anddistricts across the country can design,implement, and sustain NCII's approachto providing intensive, individualizedacademic and behavioral interventionsbased on the best available evidence.The terms defined in Table 1 are used byauthors throughout this issue.

What Is NCII's Approach toIntensive Intervention?

The term intensive intervention is notcommonly understood. Variationsabound regarding both its definition inthe research literature and itsimplementation in classrooms, schools,and districts across the country, NCII'sapproach to intensive intervention isgrounded in the concept of data-basedindividualization (DBI), a systematicmethod for using assessment data to

determine when and how to intensifyintervention in reading, mathematics,and behavior. This approach originatesfrom a program of research conductedat the University of Minnesota (Deno &Mirkin, 1977), which was funded inthe 1970s by the U,S. Department ofEducation's Office of Special Education

Data-basedindividualization [is] asystematic method for

using assessment data todetermine when and how

to intensify intervention inreading, mathematics, and

behavior.

and later expanded upon by others(e,g,, Capizzi & Fuchs, 2005; L. S,Fuchs, Deno, & Mirkin, 1984; L, S,Fuchs, Fuchs, & Hamlett, 1989), DBIrelies on the systematic and frequentcollection and analysis of student-leveldata, the modification of interventioncomponents when those data indicate

inadequate response, and use ofteachers' clinical expertise toindividualize intervention.

The distinguishing characteristics ofNCII's evidence-based approach tousing DBI are:

1, DBI is a validated process and not asingle intervention program orstrategy.

2, DB! is an ongoing process that linksintervention and assessment toadjust a student's academic orbehavior program over time, DBI isneither a one-time fix nor a single,static intervention program.

3, DBI is often domain-specific,meaning that a student may receiveDBI in one domain (e.g., reading,behavior), or even on onecomponent of that domain (readingcomprehension, social interactions),while receiving core or supplementalinstruction in other domains

(e,g,, word-level reading, school-wide expectations). DBI can beimplemented in multiple domains atthe same time, based on a student'slearning and behavioral needs.

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MARCH/APRIL 2014 7

4. Students with the most intensiveneeds will likely require DBI over asustained period of time. Decisionsabout if and when to reduce theintensity and individualization ofthe intervention must be datadriven, taking into account thestudent's responsiveness, as well asthe breadth and nature of their skilldeficits.

The DBI process is ongoing, validated,and often implemented within amultitiered intervention system such asRTI or PBIS (typically at the tertiary orTier 3 level), although it can beused outside such a framework.Specifically, DBI involves adapting andindividualizing secondary-level (e.g.,Tier 2} interventions to make themmore intense. This process may beused for students who require intensiveintervention in one skill area (e.g.,mathematics problem solving), butreceive core instruction (e.g.. Tier 1} orsecondary intervention in other areas(e.g., numeracy, computationalfluency). In this way, DBI is intimatelyconnected with the full continuum ofsupports that comprise an evidence-based, multitiered interventionframework (National Center onResponse to Intervention, 2010).

The quality and fidelity with whichcore instruction and secondaryinterventions are implemented iscritical, and set the foundation forsuccessful DBI implementation. At theuniversal level, this foundation meansthat all students receive the same corecurriculum and that the schoolimplements a school-wide behaviorprogram comprising a common set ofexpectations, rewards, andconsequences. At the secondary level,this foundation means teachers usestandardized, evidence-based academicand behavioral intervention programswith fidelity. In other words, theydeliver programs in a manner consistentwith what developers intended:Teachers cover all lesson components,and follow session frequency, duration,and group size recommendations. DBIbegins when a student does not respondto this level of intervention.

Although DBI can be used forstudents who have the most severe and

Figure 1 : The Data-Based Individualization Process

Secondary interventionprogram

Delivered with greater intensity

Progress monitoi:erniine resporvention progr;

Continuesecondary

intervention ^or return to i

coreinstruction,

depending onrate and

duration ofresponse andnature of skill

deficits

Intervention adaptationBased on observed needs

Progress monitoringTo determine response to

adaptation

Continuesuccessful

adaptation orreturn to

secondaryintervention,depending on

rate andduration of

response andnature of skill

deficits

Nonresponsive Responsive

Note. This graphic assumes that, prior to DBI, a secondary intervention was deliveredwith fidelity and the student did not sufficiently respond.

persistent learning and behavioralneeds, successful implementation ofDBI also may provide a mechanism forschools to improve their broader tieredintervention system that serves allstudents. For example, schools thatimplement DBI successfully may bebetter able to make distinctionsbetween interventions used at theuniversal, secondary, and intensivelevels. This differentiation may helpallocate school resources moreefficiently. In addition, interventionistsusing DBI need to have expertise usingdata for instructional decision makingat both the individual and group levels.

How Is IntensiveIntervention Delivered?

Figure 1 illustrates the key steps of theDBI process. DBI is an iterative,multistep process involving analysis of

progress monitoring and diagnosticassessment data, followed byindividualization of a validatedintervention. For most students, DBIbegins when they have madeinsufficient progress in a secondaryintervention program. A small numberof students may present with verysignificant difficulties where astandardized secondary interventionalone is unhkely to be effective. Insuch cases, intervention teams maychoose to move directly to intensiveintervention; these decisions should berare and occur on a case-by-case basis.

In this introduction to the TECspecial issue, we describe each of thesesteps in greater detail. We also showwhat they look hke in practice forKelsey, a fictional student withintensive academic needs, and Ryan, afictional student with intensivebehavioral needs.

COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

DBI Step 1 : SecondaryIntervention Program, DeliveredWith Greater Intensity

The first step in intensive interventionis to implement a strong, validated,evidence-based secondary interventionprogram with greater intensity (e.g.,smaller group size, more instructionaltime) than initially prescribed by thedevelopers. These types ofintensification strategies may beconsidered quantitative changes to anintervention because they increase theamount of engaged instructionalinteractions the student experiences.Examples of quantitative changesinclude increasing the frequency orsession length, decreasing the groupsize, increasing the homogeneity of theintervention group, or increasingbehavior supports.

Kelsey's story. Kelsey experiencedserious reading problems, reading at anearly second-grade level at thebeginning of Grade 4. Kelsey's teacherdiscussed her concerns with theschool's intervention team, andtogether they selected a validatedprogram that addressed phonologicalawareness, word study, and fluencyskills, to be delivered by a skilledreading specialist, Ms. Hayes. Thisprogram comprised 20- to 40-minutesessions, administered three to fourtimes per week to groups of two to sixstudents over a period of 7 weeks.After this time period, progressmonitoring data showed Kelsey wasnot responding adequately, so Ms.Hayes intensified the program byadding 15 minutes per session.

Ryan's story. Ryan was identifledas having externalizing behaviorproblems in January of his fourth-grade year. He had an excessivenumber of office discipline referrals,with frequent outbursts in class. Theschool intervention team decidedto implement a check-in/check-outsystem that corresponded with thegoals of the school-wide positivebehavior support system. Ryan'steacher, Mr. Jones, chiecked in withRyan at the beginning of each schoolday to review expectations and goals.After each class period, Ryan's teachers

provided behavioral ratings andfeedback. Ryan "checked out" withMr. Jones in the afternoon, when theyreviewed the ratings and discussedthe entire day. Mr. Jones sent a dailyreport card home with Ryan for hisparent's signature. Although Mr. Jonesimplemented this intervention withfidelity every day for 7 weeks, Ryancontinued to have excessive disciphnereferrals. Mr. Jones scheduled ameeting with the intervention team,and they decided that Ryan mightbenefit from additional adult contact.They decided to implement anintensified version of the daily reportcard by pairing Ryan with a mentorwho could check in every half hour.

Assessment data allowteachers to identify specificareas of difficnlty when a

lack of progress is evident,and can inform decisionsahout how to adapt the

intervention.

DBI Step 2: Progress Monitoring

While the intensifled secondaryintervention is implemented, theteacher gathers progress monitoringdata and evaluates these data against astudent's instructional or behavioralgoals to determine progress. If thestudent's progress is sufficient, theteacher continues to implement theintensified program, evaluate progress,and adjust goals as appropriate.However, if the student's progress isinsufficient, the teacher will need tofurther intensify the intervention.

Kelsey's story. Ms. Hayes set areading fluency goal for Kelsey andimplemented formal progressmonitoring using a passage readingfluency assessment. This progressmonitoring tool could detect changes inKelsey's reading skill level. Afterseveral weeks, Ms. Hayes reviewedKelsey's scores, which revealed thatshe was not progressing at the rateneeded to meet her goal. This let Ms.Hayes know that she needed tointensify the intervention.

Ryan's story. Ryan's teacher usedhis check-in/check-out monitoringsystem to track the extent to whichRyan was meeting the three school-wide behavioral expectations: "BeSafe," "Be Respectful," and "WorkHard." Mr. Jones also collected data onRyan's discipline referrals. Althoughsome progress was evident, Ryancontinued to have an unacceptablenumber of referrals, and he met hisdaily report card goals only 40% of thetime. The intervention team decidedmore intensive supports would beneeded.

DBI Step 3: Diagnostic Assessment

Progress monitoring data help teams todetermine when an interventionchange is needed; diagnosticassessments, on the other hand, canhelp teams determine the nature of theintervention change needed. If afterreceiving the intensified version of thesecondary intervention program thestudent's progress is insufficient, theteam uses progress monitoring data, incombination with other diagnosticinformation and analysis of the currentprogram, to identify interventionchanges that may be effective for thestudent. Diagnostic assessment toolsmay include standardized measures,error analysis of progress monitoringdata and work samples, or a functionalbehavioral assessment, among others.These assessment data allow teachersto identify specific areas of difficultywhen a lack of progress is evident, andcan inform decisions about how toadapt the intervention.

Kelsey's story. Ms. Hayes knew shehad to make a change, but she wasn'tsure how to best individualize herinstruction. To help her identify whatto change, she conducted an erroranalysis of Kelsey's most recentpassage reading fluency data. Thisanalysis provided more detailedinformation about Kelsey's mistakesand helped Ms. Hayes gain insight intoproductive directions forsupplementing the readingintervention. Ms. Hayes alsoadministered a phonics survey todetermine Kelsey's decoding strengths

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MARCH/APRIL 2014 9

and weaknesses. She brought thesedata to the intervention team to discusspotential strategies for intensifyingKelsey's intervention.

Ryan's story. Mr. Jones knew thatRyan was making insufficient progressand that he needed to change hisintervention. A closer look at Ryan'scheck-in/check-out data revealed thathe had difficulty earning points for the"Be Respectful" goal. Ryan's teachersalso noted that he often disrupted classwith verbal (yelling out) and physical(throwing pencils, touching peers)outbursts. Deciding that Ryan neededan even more intensive intervention,the intervention team conducted afunctional behavior analysis to identifyantecedents and potential functions ofRyan's challenging behavior. Resultsindicated that Ryan engaged in thesebehaviors to gain attention from adultsand avoid difficult tasks.

DBI Step 4: Adaptation of theIntervention

Using multiple data sources, the teacheror team makes a decision to adapt theintervention program to target a veryspecific need. Strategies for intensifyingan intervention often occur alongseveral dimensions. Quantitativechanges (e.g., smaller group size, moretime) are often the first step in theintensification process, but they areoften not sufficient for students withthe most intensive needs. As a result,additional qualitative changes may alsobe necessary, such as altering:

• the way content is delivered (e.g.,more carefully aligning skills withstudents' needs, providing moresystematic, explicit instruction),

• how a student responds (e.g., moreopportunities or practice withfeedback), or

• the environment (e.g., providinginstruction in a setting thatminimizes distractions).

Kelsey's story. Despite the increasein Intervention length, Kelseycontinued to make insufficientprogress. Ms. Hayes decided thatqualitative changes were also needed.Diagnostic assessment data suggested

that Kelsey had difficultyapplying decodingstrategies to vowel teams.So Ms. Hayes intensifiedher decoding instruction by(a) incorporating fluencypractice of newly taughtteams, with specifiedmastery criteria; and(b) providing explicitinstruction and errorcorrection.

Ryan's story. Ryan'sbehavior team developed anintensified, multicomponentintervention program, which includedhaving teachers provide Ryan withperiodic positive attention throughouteach class period. In addition, the teamreduced academic task difflculty sothat Ryan could successfully completeassigned work with 95% or higheraccuracy. He also received intensiveacademic skill instruction in areasof deficit and was explicitly taughtstrategies for appropriately initiatingcontact with adults and peers andappropriately requesting help withdifficult assignments. Check-ins andmentoring were continued in order toprovide frequent, positive interactionswith adults and reinforcement forappropriate behavior. Ryan also beganparticipating in a social skills group towork on the goals of showing respectand using appropriate language withboth adults and peers. Upon initiatingthis plan, the team monitored progressusing a 10-point behavior rating scale,in addition to ongoing collection ofdiscipline referral data.

DBI Step 5: ContinuedProgress Monitoring, Analysis,and Adaptation

After revising the student'sinstructional program, the teachercontinues to collect progressmonitoring data to determine whetherthe student's response is adequate.As needed, the teacher may alsoconduct further diagnostic assessment,adapting the intervention iteratively,thereby allowing for alignment of theintervention with the student's uniquelearning needs.

Kelsey's story. After several weeks,Ms. Hayes evaluated Kelsey's progressagain. She had improved substantiallywith this revised program, but her fourmost recent progress monitoring scoresstill fell below her goal line. Ms. Hayesdetermined that, because Kelsey wasnot likely to achieve her goal, anotherinstructional change was needed. Shecollected additional diagnostic data toinform the instructional change anddetermined that Kelsey did not appearto retain skills once they were no longerthe instructional focus. Ms. Hayesmodifled her instruction to incorporate(a) more frequent checks for theretention of previously taught skills and(h) distributed practice and review ofthese skills. Ms. Hayes continued tocollect progress monitoring data andfound that after implementing thechanges for several weeks, Kelsey'sperformance improved enough to meether goal. Encouraged by this response,Ms. Hayes has decided to maintain theprogram and will continue to monitorprogress to determine when additionalchanges are warranted.

Ryan's story. A review of Ryan'sdiscipline referrals and behavior ratingdata after 6 weeks indicated thathis behavior plan was working. Hisreferrals decreased to an acceptablelevel, and he reached his goals on hisbehavior rating 90% of the time.Mr. Jones reported that Ryan wasmaking progress in his socialinteractions, and that he appropriatelyasked for help with a task at leastfive times daily. The intervention teamdetermined that Ryan continued to needthis level of support, so they decidedto continue to implement the plan andregularly collect and analyze data.

10 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Organization of the TECSpecial Issue

The other articles in this special issueprovide additional details aboutacademic and behavioral applicationsof DBI. Eirst, Euchs, Euchs, andVaughn synthesize research onintensive intervention and discusswhy it is important. They describe therationale for determining whichstudents need intensive intervention,and contrast different approaches.They also offer proven strategies tohelp guide educators in planningintensified, individualized programsfor students.

Two articles in this issue presenthypothetical examples of how teacherscan use DBI to adapt intensiveinterventions in reading and inmathematics. Lemons, Kearns, andDavidson describe an adapted readingintervention for a fourth-grade boywith severe learning disabilities, and

integration of functional behavioranalysis and individualized function-based behavior plans. Wehby and Kernalso present a hypothetical example ofthe DBI process, offering strategies formaking data-based decisions aboutwhen and how to modify astandardized secondary platform toimprove behavioral outcomes for anindividual student.

In the concluding article, Mclnerney,Zumeta, Gandhi, and Gersten describestrategies that schools and districtshave used to successfully addresscommon challenges to implementing aprogram of intensive academic andbehavior interventions. In interviewswith NCII staff, local educatorsdiscussed the challenges they hadexperienced when individualizingintensive interventions on a student-by-student basis. The authors describethe strategies these educators used todeal with these challenges as theyplanned a new program, prepared their

The strong national evidence of poor learning andachievement among students with disahilities—despite

ongoing state and local efforts for school reform—offers acompelling rationale for addressing the needs of studentswho do not adequately respond to core and supplemental

interventions within a multitiered framework.

Powell and Stecker describe an adaptedmathematics intervention for asecond-grade girl with severe learningdisabilities. Both articles describe theDB! process for designing andimplementing an intensiveintervention, and highlight the variousdecisions teachers needed to make,across the school year, to intensifythese programs effectively.

Wehby and Kern discuss anevidence-based approach to using DBIto intensify programs for students withsignificant behavior needs. Theysynthesize research and provide anoperational definition of how a DBIapproach can be used to intensifybehavioral interventions on a student-by-student basis. They also describethe distinctive features of a DBIapproach for behavior, including its

staff, and allocated resources forintensive intervention.

In summary, this special issuefeatures NCII's ongoing work tooperationalize a process to address thenational need for intensiveintervention. The strong nationalevidence of poor learning andachievement among students withdisabilities—despite ongoing state andlocal efforts for school reform—offers acompelling rationale for addressing theneeds of students who do notadequately respond to core andsupplemental interventions within amultitiered framework. The authors ofthis special issue collectively offerpractical suggestions for teachers,interventionists, and other localeducators interested in implementingintensive intervention, with the

long-term goal of improving outcomesfor this most at-risk population ofstudents.

References

Capizzi, A. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2005).Effects of curriculum-basedmeasurement with and withoutdiagnostic feedback on teacher planning.Remedial and Special Education, 26,

159-174. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/07419325050260030401

Conduct Prevention Problems ResearchGroup. (2002). Evaluation of the first 3years of the Fast Track prevention trialwith children at high risk for adolescentconduct problems. Journal of Abnormal

Child Psychology, 30, 19-35. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:014274914287

Deno, S. L., & Mirkln, P. K. (1977). Data-

based program modification: A manual.

Minneapolis, MN: Leadership TrainingInstitute for Special Education.

Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. S., & Compton, D. L.(2012). Smart RTI: A next-generationapproach to multilevel prevention.Exceptional Children, 78, 263-279.

Fuchs, L. S., Deno, S. L., & Mirkin,

P. K. (1984). The effects of curriculum-based measurement evaluation onpedagogy, student achievement,and student awareness of learning.American Educational Research

Journal, 21, 449-460. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/00028312021002449

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D, & Hamlett, C. L.(1989). Effects of instrumental useof curriculum-based measurement toenhance instructional programs. Remedial

and Special Education, 10, 43-52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/074193258901000209

National Center for Education Statistics.(2011a). The nation's report card: Math

2011 (NCES 2012-457). Washington,DC: National Center for EducationStatistics, Institute of EducationSciences, U.S. Department of Education.

National Center for Education Statistics.(2011b). The nation's report card:

Reading 2011 (NCES 2012-457).Washington, DC: National Centerfor Education Statistics, Institute ofEducation Sciences, U.S. Department ofEducation.

National Center on Response to

Intervention. (2010, April). Essential

components of RTI—A closer look at

response to intervention. Washington,DC: U.S. Department of Education,Office of Special Education Programsand the National Center on Response

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN | MARCH/APRIL 2014 11

to Intervention, Retrieved from

http://www,rti4success.org/pdf/

rtiessentialcomponents_042710,pdfWagner, M,, Marder, C, Blackorby, J,,

Cameto, R,, Newman, L,, Levine, P,,& ,,, Sumi, C, (2003, November), The

achievements of youth with disabilities

during secondary school. A report from

the National Longitudinal Transition

Study-2 (NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA:SRI International, Retrieved fromwww,nlts2,org/reports/2003_ll/nlts2_report_2003_l l_complete,pdf

Wagner, M,, Newman, L,, Cameto, R,,Garza, N,, & Levine, P, (2005, April),After high school: A first look at the

postschool experiences of youth with

disabilities. A report from the National

Longitudinal Transition Study-2

(NLTS2). Menlo Park, CA;SRI International, Retrieved from

www,nlts2,org/reports/2005_04/nlts2_report_2005_04_complete,pdf

Wanzek, J,, & Vaughn, S, (2009), Studentsdemonstrating persistent low responseto reading intervention: Three casestudies. Learning Disabilities Research &

Practice, 24(3), 151-163, http://dx,doi,org/]0,llll/j,1540-5826,2009.00289,x

Louis Danielson (DC CEC), Managing

Director, American Institutes for Research,

Washington, DC: Celia Rosenquist(DC CEC), Project Officer, Office of Special

Education Programs, U.S. Department of

Education, Washington, DC.

Address correspondence regarding this

article to Louis Danielson, American

Institutes for Research, 1000 Thomas

Jefferson Street, NW, Washington, D.C.

20007 (e-mail: ldanielson@air.org).

This work was supported in part by the

National Center on Intensive Intervention

(Cram No. H326Q110005), which as

awarded to the American Institutes for

Research by the Office of Special Education

Programs (OSEP), U.S. Department of

Education (Celia Rosenquist, OSEP project

officer). The views expressed herein do not

necessarily represent the positions or polices

ofthe U.S. Department of Education. No

official endorsement by the U.S. Department

of Education of any product, commodity,

service, or enterprise mentioned in this

publication is intended or should be

inferred.

TEACHINC Exceptional Children,Vol. 46, No. 4, pp. 6-12.

Copyright 2014 The Author(s).

AchievementProducts'

or Special

qualityaffordable

children withspecial needs.

Call to request a free catalog today!

www.achievement-products.com • 1-800-373-4699©2014 Excelligence Learning Corporation

12 COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

Copyright of Teaching Exceptional Children is the property of Council for ExceptionalChildren and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listservwithout the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print,download, or email articles for individual use.