We are very aware of the serious need for pre-service and in-service training to help educators effectively collaborate with families. In this case, it sounds like you’re talking about just a few teachers, rather than your whole staff. There is always going to be variation in how effectively teachers manage classrooms, communicate with families, teach content areas, etc. Having said that, however, my impression is that there may be room for improvement.

Without knowing more details, I have a couple of general recommendations. First, this is where your problem-solving team can really be helpful in modeling more effective and collaborative ways of working with families and ensuring that families are invited and encouraged to be active participants with the team (e.g., their participation is necessary, not optional; frequent communication is expected, not optional; spelling out expectations for how meetings run and interactions with families, provide examples of desired and less desirable behaviors).

Second, a number of districts I’ve visited have individual professional development plans for educators. This may be a way to target the educator-family communication and collaboration with these teachers through individual consultative relationships (educator to educator), continuing education, goal-setting, modeling, and the like.

Ideally, families should be included in problem-solving efforts as soon as there is an indication of student difficulty (Tier 1). As intensity of interventions increases, so too, should communication and problem-solving efforts with families. One of the things I find so exciting about RTI is that it is a real opportunity to finally shift from calls for parent involvement/working with families to actually doing it. The ‘how’ will vary depending on the RTI model and context, but the school-family literature does provide some guiding principles, such as:

• Experts generally agree that partnerships involve shared accountability, goals, responsibility, contributions, and problem-solving
• Reviews of the empirical intervention literature indicate that the most effective family-school interventions are those that emphasize collaboration and joint dialogue; shared monitoring of student progress; interventions with specific, measurable outcomes; and consultation across families and schools.

This is a good question and one I know comes up frequently around the U.S. as schools and districts are beginning to implement RTI. There is a much greater focus in RTI on providing high-quality, intensive interventions prior to the point of eligibility determination. If the model at your son’s school is well-functioning and implemented with integrity, your son is already receiving a more intensive intervention than typical instruction, and his progress in response to this intervention is being monitored frequently. It shouldn’t be a delay in services (before RTI reforms, it was much more common that we had to wait for a student to fail long enough to initiate services – in many cases these services were through special education).

I think you should be invited and participate in these problem-solving meetings (whatever these meetings are called at your son’s school. Each system has their own name for it). I would hope to see joint problem-solving efforts across home and school focused on how do we best support learning and improve outcomes for this student?

As a parent, I would also want to know about:

a) the interventions being provided (how often, who is responsible for implementation, where, when and why do we think this particular intervention will help?);

b) data collection (what is monitored, who is collecting it?);

c) how the success of the intervention will be determined (how do we know it is working? What is enough progress to be deemed a success?);

d) what I could do to support my son’s progress (One of the keys to creating school-family partnerships is shared responsibility). Parental support for learning may take many forms - there is no one right way for families to be involved or help their students; and,

e) how frequently should we communicate about my son’s progress and our efforts to support his learning?

RTI has brought about significant changes in education. One of these changes is in how problems are viewed – rather than focusing on diagnosing problems within a student, we’re trying to identify factors in the environment that will promote positive outcomes. This change may take some practice for educators.

When we care about and are invested in our students, we should expect that there is conflict at times. It is what happens next that really matters (how do we handle it).

A couple of things come to mind :

1. Keep it positive.
2. Give each other the benefit of the doubt.
3. Keep returning the focus to how you can work together to best help your child.

In terms of blame, experts in the field have written about strategies to enhance communication and reduce blaming (Weiss; Christenson & Sheridan) – some of the techniques they mention are things like: deflecting blame by focusing on solutions, keep it from being personal, having shared goals and responsibility for student performance, taking a problem-solving orientation, sharing information to co-construct an understanding of student difficulties, and give concrete (rather than global) examples of your concerns.

It is more challenging for everyone to be on the same page in middle and high school. Unfortunately, I can't give you a specific answer as to which form of communication is most effective because this is going to vary so much by personal preference, school site, the technology that's available in each school, and family access to the internet. Some districts are using systems that parents can log into to track their student' daily progress. In other cases, it may be helpful to pick a main contact person to regularly collect and organize information from colleagues to be shared with those families with who you are in more frequent contact.

If parents think the only way their child will receive the help he/she needs is through the traditional multidisciplinary assessment, I can understand why they would be concerned when they first hear about this. The key here is that high-quality interventions are provided with integrity and data are collected frequently, not where the student is served or whether special education eligibility was determined.

A friend of mine refers to RTI as a 'reversal of the eligibility-need continuum. I would focus on how the school is supporting a student’s progress and inviting parents to be an active part of the process as soon as screening data indicate there is an issue.

Yes. Families should be invited at the start of RTI. I’ve used the word 'opportunity' frequently when talking about families and RTI. I feel very strongly that RTI provides a wonderful occasion to meaningfully connect and work with families to improve student outcomes early in the development of difficulties rather than after problems are severe. What families do (e.g., providing motivational support, supervision, focus on learning in the home) is much more important than who they are (e.g., single parent, lower SES) in affecting student outcomes. And we all know that what families do has a major impact on students.

By inviting families and working collaboratively with them to address student difficulties, we will have a much greater effect on students because we’re working across the two main socializing influences for youth – homes and schools.

The roles for families are varied. When I think about joint problem-solving, I think of family engagement in each step – Problem Identification, Definition, Exploring Solutions, Implementing Solutions and Problem Resolution (Deno's Problem-Solving steps). Families and teachers can share their perspectives with respect to concerns and together generate ideas for intervention. Families can inform educators about their children, they may support interventions that are in place at school or may implement additional interventions at home, families and schools together can work to promote congruence across home and school with respect to messages and expectations for students. As noted in some publications with colleagues, families may also help in data collection, present reports, and provide peer support to other families.

The answer to your question about time is that it depends on the district's model and state guidelines.

If you ask families, most of them will say they want to be involved (but would like to know 'how'). As educators, we have to remember that involvement and support may take many forms - it isn’t just that they came to the bake sale or volunteered in the book fair when we asked. The focus on prevention and early intervention, along with the kinds of data we collect and use to determine progress in RTI provide a wonderful opportunity to start engaging families and working collaboratively with them early on in the process. I hope to see family invitations to problem-solving meetings as soon as the process is initiated.

How frequently families and educators meet should be determined by the intensity of the interventions being provided – greater intensity = more frequent data collection as well as more joint problem-solving and collaboration with families. Following an initial problem-solving meeting and initiation of a more intensive intervention, I would expect that progress is shared weekly (some behavioral interventions may call for more frequent communication, such as daily reports).

There are a significant number of parents in our schools who either have very little experience with our educational system or had negative experiences. Karen Mapp at Harvard has written and presented extensively on this topic.

In a chapter she and Sue Hong wrote for our forthcoming handbook, (S.L. Christenson & A.L. Reschly (Eds). (in press, expected publication June, 2009). Handbook on School-Family Partnerships for Promoting Student Competence.  New York: Routledge, Taylor and Francis), they noted these 'hard to reach' or 'disinterested' families are often those educators describe as having limited formal education, families of color, recent immigrants, or those who first language is not English.

Unfortunately, there isn't a quick or easy 'laundry list' fix. She and her colleagues discuss how school culture is what often stands in the way of reaching those families. The fundamental beliefs they endorse for changing this culture are: all parents have aspirations and desire the best for their children; all families have capacity to support their children’s learning; parents and school staff can be equal partners but the responsibility for establishing these partnerships rests with schools (Mapp & Hong, in press).

There are some publications and guides on the Southwest Educational Development Laboratory’s website that you may find useful:

Early childhood special education has generally done very well with involving and working closely with families. Perhaps you should consider setting up some intermediate or short-term (monthly, quarterly) shared academic goals (since this is the primary area of concern for parents) between educators and families, regularly measure progress toward these goals, and have regular "check in's." The check-in times could be an opportunity to discuss what is and isn't working, establish new goals, discuss specific intervention strategies, how you’ll work together to meet the next goal, etc. It would make sense to have the goals tied to kindergarten academic expectations.

I'm not an expert in early childhood, but goals like knowing letters, learning sounds, writing one's name, counting to 10, may be examples of common kindergarten expectations.

You may also want to think about whether there is room for improvement in your classroom-wide behavior management plan.

It is hard to be helpful in my answer without more information, particularly with respect to their rationale for modifying or removing the 504.

The focus here is on how best to support your daughter (when meetings are contentious, it is sometimes a little easier to lose that focus). You may also suggest a compromise whereby the 504 is not rescinded but a modification/reduction in accommodations is given a trial period.

I'm sure your special education staff is very appreciative to have such a supportive group of parents. I think the best thing you could do would be to ask the teachers about the types of support you can provide as a group. This might be a good time also to speak with them individually about what you can do to support your child at home as well as at school.

One of the changes that should occur with RTI is the on-going collection of student data. We’re essentially creating an individual database of effective and ineffective interventions for each student who enters into RTI. These data and graphs should follow students across tiers of intervention and become part of their IEPs.

If a student is already receiving special education services, it should not be so difficult to modify their individual plan, particularly in light of data demonstrating little progress. If you are asking about Tier 2 interventions and whether or not the program they’ve selected is working, I would look for evolutionary changes to the program, rather than revolutionary ones (I wish I could take credit for the 'evolutionary/revolutionary' terminology, but it comes from a colleague, Todd Busch). Can modifications to the program be made (e.g., adding an additional fluency intervention, a vocabulary component) for the student? I think the exception to this might be if there is no progress at all (i.e., flat-line), then revolutionary changes to the program may be needed.

Collaboration is critical to establishing partnerships to promote positive outcomes for students. Blue-Banning and colleagues found that communication, commitment, equality, skills, trust, and respect were the key components to establishing collaborative school-family partnerships. Those are the dimensions; the actions should include things like sharing of information, establishing joint goals, and working together through the Problem-solving steps.

An example of a more intensive and explicit problem-solving process across home and school is Conjoint Behavioral Consultation (CBC) – there is a manual, forms, and a research base behind CBC. Sue Sheridan at the Univ of Nebraska is the leading expert in CBC.

The federal reauthorization of IDEA allowed for RTI but did not require it. You'll have to check with your state Department of Education.

There are a number of resources on the National Center for Learning Disabilities' websites and the RTI Action Network website that should be helpful to you.

• Tiered Instruction and Intervention in a Response-to-Intervention Model by Edward S. Shapiro
• NCLD’s Parent Advocacy Brief, A Parent’s Guide to Response-to-Intervention
• Parent Information Center’s A Family Guide to Response to Intervention

Building trust is a key element of creating partnerships between families and schools. I hope some of my other answers posted in this talk will be useful. Specifically with respect to this question, I think it is important to explain the benefits and address concerns parents may have (e.g., services are being provided), make the process as transparent as possible, and establish frequent communication regarding progress toward shared goals.

This is one place where schools may need to be creative with scheduling. Some sites have created a block that may be used for intervention or enrichment activities with different groups focusing on different activities depending on need.

Of course, the building principal is ultimately responsible. However, there should be a data management team (DMT)who handles the data. The DMT should be two or three people (usually two) who know how to use data. That is usually the school psychologist and a teacher. There job is to make sure the data are collected in a standardized manner, to present the data in a consumable format, and to participate in the grade level team meeting at which the data are discussed.

Yes. Ted Christ at the University of Minnesota (Christ, 2006) found that eight (8) weeks of data are needed, assuming data are collected twice a week using appropriate standardization, in order for the rates of growth to be reliable enough for decisions. If you are collecting data less frequently, then more weeks are needed. Certainly within eight (8) weeks one could conclude that the intervention is working or that a different intervention should be tried within Tier II, but I would not make a resource decision (e.g., try a Tier III intervention) until enough data are collected for a reliable decision.

The grade level team should look at the data at least once each month.

I suggest general education. I also suggest that students with IEPs participate in general education benchmark assessments.

Yes. AIMSweb doesn't do everything I would like it to do, but the probes are well constructed. I also think the data management system is good. My only recommendation for assessments of a child who is LD is to monitor progress in the skill being taught and don't just rely on ORF, unless reading fluency is the target of the intervention.

Here are some suggestions: standardized administration, use of reliable data, identifying class wide problems by examining class medians, identifying students who need a Tier II intervention, determining rate of growth, evaluating rate of growth, and using a data-decision making framework.

I'm not sure what the question is. Yes, math data can be collected as a group and in fact is advantageous over oral reading fluency in that respect. We also need to collect both general outcome measures and subskill measures.

You answered your own question. It is very tough to beat ORF for 3rd and 4th graders. ORF correlates highly with just about any indicator of good reading (comprehension, prosody, etc.). The difference is that an ORF assessment takes just a few minutes whereas direct assessments of the other constructs take much longer and don't really tell you much that you didn't already know.

As for identifying kids who need interventions, I suggest looking at class wide problems first, but then using a resource allocation model in which the lowest 20 percent receive a tier 2 intervention. There is no research base to support a triage approach in which the lowest five (5) percent go right to tier 3. Thus, I suggest starting with tier 2 for just about every kid. Certainly some exceptions can be made, but I do not recommend a systematic triage.

With data! Get the data to them as quickly as possible and show them the high correlation with what they see in the classroom and state test scores. I also talk a great deal about efficiency and false positive/negatives. By efficiency I mean that I can get more useful information in a 3 minute assessment as I can with many much longer assessments or even from directly working with the kid for a period of time.

Your question is probably contextualized within a larger one that addresses buy in etc. I suggest checking out Ervin et al. (2006) article in School Psychology Review. We also included chapters from major implementation sites in our Handbook of Response to Intervention, which might be helpful too.

That is a policy decision. Much like transfers with children with IEPs, we have to look at the data that were collected in the previous schools and see if those data address our criteria, needs, etc. My hope is that those data could be converted to a rate of growth index that can continue to be monitored so as not to start all over again with data collection. However, the school will need to examine the data and see if they can be used.

The mainstreaming question for children with learning disabilities is a topic for a differt debate. I'll address the first part of the question, which is classroom teachers implementing interventions. I do think it is both practical and realistic. Tier 2 interventions have to be set up systematically so that they are part of the daily routine and somewhat easily selected and implemented. In other words, Tier 2 has to run like a well-oiled machine. Tier 3 is more individualized and requires teachers to implement interventions more unsystematically. That can be problematic but can be addressed in a high performing problem-solving team.

A good data management system (e.g., AIMSweb). Also, some schools record the data as they go (e.g., laptops at the data-collection stations) or some write the scores on an alphabetic printout and have clerical support staff enter them later.

Great question! You can do it normatively. Compute slopes for an entire grade then compute the mean and standard deviation. Your target would then be within one standard deviation of the grade-level mean. Alternatively, you could develop criterion-referenced goals by computing the benchmark assessment criteria based on the relationship between assessment data and state test score. Then determine the rate of growth necessary to maintain that level. For example, let's assume that a student who scores a 50 in the fall, 70 in the winter, and 85 in the spring (those numbers are made up) would likely pass the state (80% accurately predicting that he would pass). A student would have to grow at a rate of 35 words/minute across 32 weeks to maintain those levels. That is a rate of growth of 1.09 words/minute per week. That could serve as the criterion.

This is a great question with an easy answer that would be difficult to answer here. First, I suggest assessing students who are identified as struggling learners in the National Reading Panel areas. There are some good systems to do so. For younger students you could use nonsense word fluency to assess phonics, and something like phoneme segmentation fluency for phonemic awareness. There is also Renaissance Learning's Star Early Literacy assessment that assesses all areas of the NRP. Finally, other measures such as the Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing looks at phonics, phonemic awareness etc. After identifying the root of the problem (i.e., comprehension, fluency, phonics, or phonemic awareness), the intervention can directly address the deficit.

A direct one! The federal regulations for LD identification explicitly mention that our primary variable of interest is wether or not a student will "make progress sufficient enough to meet state-approved results." That is a euphimism for passing the state test. Also, if we contextualize RtI as the systematic use of assessment data to most effeciently allocate resources in order to improve student learning (Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006), then RtI is primarily a tool to enhance student learning for ALL students; which is the spirit of AYP as well.

No! You need a person or two to be the data management team who will then present the information to your grade-level team. A school psychologists can do this, but so could other people on staff who have training, expertise, and interest in data (e.g., know the difference between median and mean).

Oral reading fluency for grades 2 through 8. MAZE is probably best for grades 9 through 12, and the early skill indicators (e.g., letter naming fluency etc.) for younger students. However, I also suggest using group comprehension measures such as the Measures of Academic Progress and I know Ed Shapiro has found the 4Sight measures useful in Pennsylvania.

I mentioned AIMSweb because they currently have cornered the RtI market. AIMSweb ORF probes are well constructed and the data management system is easy to use. However, there are others. I encourage people to look at mClass by Wireless Generation, and Star Early Literacy by Rennaissance Learning. Edcheckup and Easy CBM also have good systems. I would look for a system that can a) give you data for each student, a class median, and a grade-level average, b) provides a graph of student progress, c) provides a slope of growth for that rate of progress, and d) very important - allows you to use other sources of data within the same management system.

1. Do we have a classwide problem?
2. What students need a tier 2 intervention (after the classwide problem is gone or didn't exist to begin with)?
3. Are the students making sufficient progress in tier 2?
4. What students need a tier 3 intervention or are there students that we should refer to the problem-solving team (as part of tier 3)?
5. Are there student that should be evaluated for special education eligibility?

That is not an easy one to answer. A comprehensive evaluation for special education eligibility is required by law, is a student's right, and is best practice. However, what makes up that evaluation is determined by the multidisciplinary evaluation team. The team might very well determine that they need (of course) parental information, developmental history, etc., but that those data with student response data are all that are needed to determine eligibility. However, there may be other sources of data that are needed and those should be collected. It is not unusual to use a standardized assessment of reading (e.g., Kaufman Test of Educational Achievement) or an adaptive behavior scale. Vision screenings, etc., would be used if there are questions about those areas.

The bigger answer is do we need to do a discrepancy model, and the short answer is no - you do not. However, until a district is READY to use RtI data for eligibility decision, I suggest using the traditional approach. A district is ready when they have DATA to support that what they are doing is RtI, that they are implementing it correctly, and that the interventions are occurring. Only then can the data be used for LD identification. I would so much rather a district use discrepancy approaches than do a poor job of using RtI data.

Remember, the RtI framework is an approach to resource allocation. CBM, district-wide, and state tests should be plenty of data to inform those decisions. Classroom teachers certainly would need different data, but those would likely not inform the RtI framework.

Once a student is identified as a struggling reader with these data, I then suggest sampling phonics, phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency and comprehension (the latter two are likely already collected). Those data will help determine WHAT to do. I also suggest looking at the accuracy of the skill. A child who works quickly but inaccurately, one who is slow an inaccurate, and one who is accurate and slow would likely require different interventions for the same skill (e.g., phonics).

Yes. Please check out the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website for more information. You can access a chart that details and reviews progress monitoring tools at Review of Progress Monitoring Tools on the National Center on Student Progress Monitoring website.

Yes! Especially for screening. I also suggest monitoring progress with a general outcome measure (e.g., oral reading fluency) AND a measure of the skill in which the intervention is occurring (e.g., monitoring progress with nonsense word fluency for a phonics intervention). However, only use reliable data. Using psychometrically inferior tools results weakens the assessment systems. Many schools are using informal reading inventories like the Developmental Reading Assessment to assess reading for all kids. Those data might be very helpful to a classroom teacher, but they are not reliable enough to inform a resource-allocation decision-making framework. Moreover, assessment tools should also meet basic psychometric requirements as well (i.e., result in reliable data and valid decisions).

I am referring to identifying class-wide problems, identifying students for Tier 2 interventions, deciding if students are making sufficient progress (and the intervention is working), and should a Tier 3 intervention be attempted. Does that answer your question?

This is a very good question. Preparing adolescents with LD to respond to the complex curriculum demands that they encounter in secondary schools requires that they have an array of strategies that they can call upon to meet these demands. Our research has shown that it is most effective to teach students a limited set of highly effective strategies (e.g., summarizing, questioning, imaging, etc.). Each of these strategies should be taught to mastery and students should be taught to generalize the strategy to a host of situations. After students have learned individuals strategies to mastery, they should be deliberately taught how to integrate the individual strategies and how to call upon various strategies (or combinations of strategies) to respond to a curriculum demand.

The executive functions of planning and goal setting, organizing, prioritizing, memorizing, shifting flexibly, and self-monitoring/checking can best be taught and reinforced in the process of students learning strategies for specific academic domains. Two sources that you might find helpful would be the following:

• Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(1), 1-14. [Reprinted in: E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.) Educating Students with Mild Disabilities, Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co. (pp. 151-187).]
  
• Meltzer, L, (2007). Executive function in education: From theory to practice. New York: Guildford.

Dear Jayne,

You are doing the right thing to address this issue while your son is in middle school -- the demands for memory and good test-taking skills will continue to escalate as your son moves through middle school and into high school. A fair amount of research has been done on different memory strategies and test-taking strategies. In essence, this research indicates that student performance can increase significantly when students use these strategies on a consistent basis. One of the most important benefits of arming your son with a set of memory and test-taking strategies is that his confidence will increase because he will feel that there are specific things that he can do to take control of the situation that he is facing (e.g., having to take a test over a large amount of material).

A basic formula for increasing results on tests is the following: REGULAR USE OF EFFECTIVE STUDY STRATEGIES + USE OF EFFECTIVE TEST TAKING STRATEGIES + EFFORT (HARD WORK) = IMPROVED RESULTS.

A source I believe you would find very helpful is the following (it covers some informal assessment strategies to help you determine areas of particular difficulty for your son as well as an array of specific strategies for memory and test taking):

• Hughes, C. A. (1996). Memory and test-taking strategies. In D. D. Deshler, E. S. Ellis, & B. K. Lenz (Eds). Teaching adolescents with learning disabilities: Strategies and Methods. Denver: Love Publishing

Your question is one of the most frequently raised by both parents and teachers who work with adolescents with LD. There are a host of reasons that students may appear to be unmotivated. Among them are:

1. The tasks that they are given or the materials that are used are not interesting (many lower reading leveled materials do not match the interests of students);
2. Students have not been taught an array of powerful strategies that they can use to learn challenging academic content -- as a result, they encounter failure in many of their attempts to tackle the material and get discouraged and lose their desire to be engaged in the task;
3. They have not been taught how to set and work toward the accomplishment of specific goals in completing academic tasks -- hence, the task appears overwhelming to them and they give up because they don't want to experience failure one more time.

To improve motivation, it is important to have an understanding of the tasks that a student is facing and things inherent within the task that may not be motivating to the student OR what skills/strategies might the student lack that leads them to disengage from the task. Improving the motivation of students may involve these factors:

1. Ensuring that the task is challenging but not overwhelming;
2. Ensuring that the content of the material being used is of interest to the student;
3. Ensuring that the student possesses sufficient learning strategies to enable him/her to independently tackle the task at hand (in other words, they are confident in their ability to take on challenging assignments);
4. Teach students how to break tasks up into smaller parts and set specific goals to address each component part of the over all task;
5. Create opportunities for students to engage in learning with others -- often the social interaction process during learning can facilitate engagement.

Here are some sources that address this important topic that you might find helpful:

• Reed, J. H., Schallert, D. L. Beth, A. D. & Woodruff, A. L. (2004). Motivated reader, motivated writer: The role of motivation in the literate acts of adolescents. In T. L Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford.
• Swan, E. A. (2004). Motivating adolescent readers through concept-oriented reading instruction. In T. L Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford

Dear Maria,

Most of us want "quick fixes" to problems that we encounter in life! Adolescents with LD are no different! You are right on target that getting students to "buy in" to learning strategies can be a real challenge during the instructional process. Among the factors that our research has shown to aid the "buy in" process for students are the following:

1. Provide students with rationales too show them how they can benefit if they master a given strategy. This would include specific examples of where the strategy can be used and the advantages of using it compared to old study/learning habits (how it will save time and lead to more success);
2. Show students the kinds of results that they can expect by using the strategy (keeping track of the performance of other students you have taught the strategy to can be useful info to share with students as concrete evidence that learning the strategy can pay dividends).

In short, your students are very much like critical consumers shopping for a new car. Before making the purchase, consumers often ask hard questions about the costs and benefits of the new car, including the price, finance charges, warranty, etc. If the benefits outweigh the costs, consumers are willing to give up some resources for the new car. Similarly, when adolescents with LD are offered a solution to their learning problems, they become critical consumers in deciding whether to give up some of their resources (in this case time and effort) to acquire a new strategy. To help them make a favorable decision, it is important to show them some of the associated costs (e.g.,the time it will take them to reach mastery) and the benefits they can expect (e.g., how much their scores or grades will go up). Once students have indicated an initial buy in, it is important to help them set specific goals to move them toward mastery of the strategy.

While there is no one best strategy for writing essays, there are several factors that should be kept in mind in designing an effective writing program and in creating the kinds of conditions that will optimize good outcomes on written products. I would recommend the following sources -- I'm confident that you will find each of these to be very helpful:

• Shanahan, T. (2004). Overcoming the dominance of communication: Writing to think and to learn. In T. L Jetton & J. A. Dole (Eds.) Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford.
• Graham, S., & Harris, K. R. (2005). Writing better: Effective strategies for teaching students with learning difficulties. Baltimore: Brookes. Graham, S. & Perin, D. (2007).
• Writing next: Effective strategies to improve writing of adolescents in middle and high schools. New York: Carnegie Corporation

Dear Pat ,

During the past several years, a host of excellent books, reports, and chapters have been written on various approaches for teaching reading to struggling adolescent learners. Among the ones that I think you would find most helpful are the following:

• McCardle, P., Chhabra, V., & Kapinus, B. (2008). Reading research in action: A teacher's guide for student success. Baltimore: Brookes.
• Deshler, D. D., Palincsar, A. S., Biancarosa, G., & Nair, M. (2007). Informed choices for struggling adolescent readers: A research-based guide to instructional programs and practices. Newark, DL: International Reading Association.
• Jetton, T. L., & Dole, J. A. (2004). Adolescent literacy research and practice. New York: Guilford.

I would also recommend that you visit the following literacy web site -- there are a host of excellent reports on reading strategies at no charge.

Dear Allison,

You raise an exceedingly important issue — that of expectations. For students who struggle in learning, both parents and teachers can set expectations much lower than they should be. Often times, expectations are lowered in an attempt to shield a student/child from failure (especially if he/she has had a history of failure). We should always strive to set high expectations for students — however, high expectations in the absence of creating the right kinds of conditions for success can lead to frustration (by both students and adults). Among the things important to consider to support high expectations being met are the following:

1. Teaching students a set of high leverage learning strategies that they can confidently rely on to help them meet challenging curriculum demands;
2. Teaching students how to break tasks into component parts and then to set and work toward specific goals in accomplishing tasks;
3. Express confidence in the child's student's ability to meet rigorous demands and assure the child/student that you will be available to assist/support if necessary; and
4. Carefully scaffold tasks to ensure successful steps along the path in meeting task demands.

 

One of the most over looked and often ignored groups of students are those who are both gifted and have LD. One of the approaches that our research center (the University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning) has studied for nearly 20 years and have found to be very effective in meeting the needs of both high achieving and students with LD is call "content enhancement." Content enhancement is an approach to instruction that is designed to maintain the integrity of the content while at the same time making the kinds of accommodations and adjustments in the content to make it more understandable and memorable. Research studies have shown that the consistent use of content enhancement routines in subject matter classes can lead to significant academic gains for all students.

You can get additional information on these instructional practices at the University of Kansas' Center for Research on Learning website, or in the following resources:

• Deshler, D. D., & Bulgren, J. A. (1997). Redefining instructional directions for gifted students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 8(3), (121-132).
• Lenz, B. K., & Deshler, D. D. (2004). Teaching content to all: Evidence-based inclusive practices in middle and secondary schools. Boston: Allyn and Bacon.

Dear Kristi —
One of the most important things that we can do to help students as they transition into high school is to give them some tools to help them organizationally.  We can think about organizational skills on two levels:
(1)During the overall day (or segment of time), and (2) within an assignment.  

Level I:  All students benefit from structure and predictability.  This is especially the case for many students with LD.  Having a specific routine for your son to follow in the morning (i.e., getting out of bed at the same time, assembling the necessary materials and checking to make certain everything is in place, etc. etc.), after school, after dinner, etc. Related to this, it is important to designate a specific study time each day (e.g., 7:30 -- 9:00 p.m.) and give your son a way to structure his time and environment. For example, gather all needed materials and take them to your study area.  The study area should be well lit, have a good writing surface, and be free from distractions. Also, it is important to tell others in the family about the designated study time and the importance of honoring this time by keeping the noise down in the house. (NOTE: In Level II below I'll comment on some routines to follow while doing an assignment)  It's also important to teach your son how to keep his school materials (e.g., notebooks, back pack, etc.) in order so that things are organized and easy to locate.

Level II:  There are some things that you can teach your son to do when he begins working on an assignment that may be helpful.  For example, you might encourage him to set some specific goals regarding the assignment (i.e., what to complete, by when, quality level, etc.).To help him do this you can encourage him to think of previous assignments like this that he has done --- what would he like to do improve his other performances (What would he like to do differently or better?). Second, it can be helpful to teach your son a specific routine to always follow when doing an assignment (e.g., preview the entire assignment, carefully read the instructions and underline key words, answer the questions that you can and mark ones that you don't know so you can return to them later on, check your work for completeness and accuracy, put your name on the paper, put in your notebook, and put the notebook in your back pack, etc.)

In short, organizational skills improve when we carefully create the conditions within which the work should be done and we give students a predictable routine to follow.

Technology offers a number of great supports for adolescents. For example, screen and web readers are able to convert text to speech so that students are able to hear words read aloud. Some of these tools are now incorporated into computer operating systems, with others available at a low cost. With increasing amounts of information being available in a digital format and with more students reading online, the power of text readers and other online reading supports will continue to grow. At the same time we will need explore more thoroughly how students read digital text and how this might differ from traditional print-based text.

There are more assistive technology options than can be described here, but LD Online has a great list of frequently asked questions about assistive technology and a list of commonly used assistive technology tools. This would be a great place to start!

This is an excellent question! There some great work being done around identifying and building on student strengths and student well-being. In fact, the Clifton Strengths Institute is currently developing online courses for teachers to help them build their own strengths and the strengths of students. These courses will be coming online in the next year or two. You can follow their progress at the Clifton Strengths Institute website.

Early in the history of the field of LD much work was done in the area of modality preferences. That is, assessments and intervention programs were conceptualized and organized around modality areas (e.g., auditory, visual, etc.) More recently, considerable attention has been given to particular "learning styles" of students with the aim being to match instruction to a student's particular learning style. As appealing as this model may appear on the surface, there is a lack of research evidence to verify this as a viable instructional model. While learners may have preferences for how they learn new information, most tasks require learners to use several senses (and research and current theory suggests that they do -- for example, Richard Mayer's Theory of Multi-Media Learning).

A helpful review on this topic can be found in: Ellis, A. K. (2001) Elements of styles: learning, thinking, teaching. In A. K. Ellis (Ed). Research on educational innovations. New York: Eye on Education.

Here are some helpful resources that you might want to consider: •

• Kilpatrick, J., Swafford, J., & Bradford, F. (2001). Adding it up: Helping children learn mathematics. Washington DC: National Academy Press •
• Allsopp, D.H., Kyger, M.M., & Lovin, L. (2007). Teaching Mathematics Meaningfully: Solutions for Struggling Learners. Baltimore: Paul H. Brookes Publishing, Co.
• Designing and Implementing Mathematics Instruction for Students with Diverse Learning Needs by Pamela P Hudson and Susan Peterson Miller.
• Teaching Mathematics to Middle School Students with Learning Difficulties by Marjorie Montague, Asha K. Jitendra

This is one of the greatest challenges that teachers face in preparing students to be strategic learners. The problem is compounded as students move into secondary schools because of the heavy emphasis on subject matter acquisition. There is a certain amount of strategy instruction that subject matter teachers can provide within the context of their content classes (e.g., a science class). Specifically, they can embed learning strategies that are helpful for students to use in navigating texts and other information in the course.

The most effective way for teachers to teach these strategies is to embed them within content instruction that they are providing by modeling for students how they (the teacher) would use the strategy. This modeling involves "thinking aloud" so the student can see how a scientist actually works his/her way through science materials. After multiple models, learning can be facilitated by engaging students in the process of applying the strategy with support from the teacher (some scaffolded supports). Eventually, teachers expect students to use the strategy independently. When strategies are embedded in content classes and taught to the entire group using these procedures some struggling students benefit from this instruction. However, for some students, this type of instruction is not sufficient. It lacks the explicitness and does not provide sufficient opportunities for the student to practice and get feedback on his/her use of the strategy. Generally, this requires a smaller teacher: student ratio (e.g., 1 to 12). In other words, a greater level of intensity of instruction is required in order for students to reach mastery. Expecting this to happen solely within the general education classroom is unrealistic for all students. The challenge, however, if students are taught strategies in a smaller class (e.g., a supplemental reading class or resource room) is that care must be taken to deliberately teach students to generalize the learned strategy to his/her subject matter classes. Two sources that address this issue in greater detail are the following:

• Ellis, E. S., Deshler, D. D., Lenz, B. K., Schumaker, J. B., & Clark, F. L. (1991). An instructional model for teaching learning strategies. Focus on Exceptional Children, 24(1), 1-14. [Reprinted in: E. L. Meyen, G. A. Vergason, & R. J. Whelan (Eds.) Educating Students with Mild Disabilities, Denver, CO: Love Publishing Co. (pp. 151-187).]
• 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), 60-63.

You properly characterized the great challenge facing teachers (and students) in finding sufficient time to pull students out of subject matter classes for remediation or intensive, explicit instruction on necessary skills and strategies. Unfortunately, the reality is, there are students within every middle and high school who need this kind of instruction. There are schools who have been successful in putting this kind of instruction in place. Some of the things that seem to be common characteristics across these settings are the following:

1. There is a clear recognition on the part of all staff that pull out intensive, highly targeted instruction is needed for some students;
2. To address this need, there is a commitment to coordination and collaboration among staff (when students are getting intensive strategy/skill instruction subject matter teachers make arrangements to get the content to them that they may have missed during the skill/strategy instruction; strategy teachers deliberately work to ensure that the strategies they teach students are transfered to subject matter classes, etc.).
3. There is a recognition that the needs of students can best be met through a tiered set of instructional offerings that are well integrated across teachers. An example of this kind of coordinated programming is detailed in the following article.

• 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), 60-63.

Thanks for this important question! Universal Design for Learning (UDL) is all about "how" we define goals, teaching methods, instructional materials and assessments. Using UDL principles allows us to embed flexibility into all aspects of instruction from the beginning, rather than trying to retro-fit a rigid curriculum, set of instructional materials, or test for each student who happens to learn a different way.

To implement UDL well, we start at the beginning – as the curriculum is being defined by the state or school board, and as the textbook companies are developing their books and supplementary materials, and as the teacher is designing his or her lesson plan – using UDL principles as our guide.

Several quick videos explaining UDL and how it is implemented are available at the Cast UDL Lesson Builder Web site.

Unfortunately, the answer to your question right now is no. Some schools of education are including UDL in their classes as they prepare new teachers, but many aren't. Since UDL is a relatively new concept, it will take some time for teacher preparation programs to catch up.

The new provisions of the Higher Education Opportunity Act, recently passed by Congress should help. This law calls on teacher preparation programs to better integrate technology into their curricula and instruction consistent with the principles of UDL. In addition, in order to apply for grants for undergraduate teacher preparation programs, colleges and universities will need to demonstrate how they will increase the percentage of teachers who are prepared to use technology effectively and consistent with the principles of UDL, particularly if they are teaching in high-need schools. There are also grants to change how colleges teach technology, including UDL, to teacher candidates and a requirement that the State must include how teacher candidates are learning about UDL on its state report card.

This is a perfect opportunity to model UDL principles in an inclusive classroom. Working together with the general education teacher(s), you can help to design lesson plans that incorporate the principles of UDL:

1. Multiple means of presentation;
2. Multiple means of engagement, and
3. Multiple means of expression.

Together, you could start by jointly using one or more of the goal setting or lesson planning tools available from CAST, the Center for Applied Special Technology (a national center focused on expanding learning opportunities for all students by promoting the use of UDL principles).

UDL can be used for students at all ages, including the college or post-secondary level. In fact, there are some excellent resources available to college faculty now on the web:

1. An ERIC paper that specifically addresses how UDL applies to teaching college students with learning disabilities is "Teaching College Students with Learning Disabilities" (2001) by Shaw, Scott and McGuire.
2. Center on Postsecondary Education and Disability located at the University of Connecticut has a special site for college faculty called FacultyWare.
3. Association on Higher Education and Disability (AHEAD) has resources on its web site for college faculty.
4. "Best Practices through Universal Design for Learning" is a great video about UDL and work that Colorado State University is doing.
   

While Assistive Technology (AT), such as screen readers, are valuable tools to assist students with disabilities in overcoming barriers that exist in the learning environment, UDL helps us from the beginning to design learning environments that do not contain barriers.

Using UDL principles doesn't eliminate the need for AT, such as communication devices or aids, for some students. In fact, UDL and AT really complement each other. General classroom teachers can become much more familiar with AT as they work with the AT specialist and special education teachers to develop universally designed curriculum and lesson plans.

For example, if an assistive technology such as text-to-speech (which speaks and highlights text within a document), is built into a universally-designed lesson as one of the multiple ways of presenting information, those students with disabilities who need it to be able to read work side-by-side with other students who may not be disabled but can benefit from the added support.

For more information about appropriate uses of Assistive Technology, you may want to read "Assistive Technology (AT): Making Good Decisions" by NCLD's Director of Professional Services, Dr. Sheldon Horowitz..

Great question! Often, people think that UDL can only be used in a high tech classroom. In reality, UDL can be applied in both low tech and high tech ways. A low tech example might be the use of pictorial or graphic organizers on large charts in the classroom. A high tech example could be the use of electronic versions of textbooks that can be easily modified, translated or organized in a simpler format.

It might be quicker to start with low tech options because many teachers are probably using some of these already. They may not realize that these teaching tools actually are examples of a UDL approach.

You could establish a teacher-led learning circle or professional development group at your school or district and work through the free on-line professional development modules together. Several are available on the "Teaching Every Student " section of the CAST Web site.

You might also want to ask your principal or the district’s professional development coordinator to schedule professional development sessions on UDL. One source of an overview on UDL is available from the National Education Association, if you work through your local and state association to make the request for a presentation from the NEA IDEA Special Education Resource Cadre.

One potential resource is the ToolKit on Teaching and Assessing Students With Disabilities from the US. Department of Education.

Another great question! Differentiated instruction and UDL are often compared and confused with each other. They have many similar concepts and practices. UDL is a research-based approach that addresses learner diversity at the beginning of the design or planning effort. Using UDL to design academic goals and curriculum has the potential to dramatically change how we teach, how students engage in learning, and how we measure what students learn. Its purpose is to build-in from the beginning as much flexibility as possible – to eliminate barriers for all students in curriculum design, to provide immediate access to resources that meet all instructional needs, and to allow students to take charge of their engagement in learning.

Similarly, differentiated instruction is a process for designing instruction that tries to meet each student where he or she is and then modify or adapt the standard curriculum or instructional materials and provide needed learning assistance. In many ways, designing differentiated curriculum and teaching strategies helps students to overcome barriers that already exist in the standard curriculum or teaching materials.

UDL and Differentiated Instruction really complement each other. The CAST brief, Differentiated Instruction and Implications for UDL Implementation, helps to explain these two approaches and gives many good examples of how they complement each other.

 

When implemented together in a school or district, Response to Intervention (RTI) and a UDL approach can improve outcomes for all students, especially students with disabilities.

There isn’t enough time to review RTI in depth here. However, a brief explanation is that RTI is a framework for looking at student performance and making decisions about when and how to provide more intensive instruction for students who are experiencing academic or behavioral difficulties.

Both RTI and UDL recognize that barriers exist within the traditional curriculum and instructional practices that make it difficult for some students to learn and be successful. This may not mean that those students who are having difficulty are necessarily disabled. It may mean that the curriculum, instructional materials, or teaching strategies are not flexible enough to meet their needs. In other words, both RTI and UDL view a "one size fits all" approach as ineffective because it is inflexible and does not meet the needs of all students.

Also, RTI and UDL view student assessment as something that informs instruction, is on-going, and meaningful. Both RTI and UDL encourage the use of curriculum-based measurement to inform instruction and guide decision-making regarding appropriate instruction and intervention.

For a more in-depth discussion of RTI, go to the RTI Action Network Web site or read the LD Online article, "Response-to-Instruction and Universal Design for Learning: How Might They Intersect in the General Education Classroom?" that describes RTI and UDL.

Retro-fitting the curriculum, instructional strategies, materials, and the classroom environment take precious time away from instruction. Frankly, once teachers realize that retro-fitting by adapting materials takes much more of their time than planning from the beginning with a UDL approach, they are genuinely intrigued by UDL.

Some other ways that you can influence the use of UDL without actually co-teaching include:

1. Modeling UDL principles in your own teaching;
2. Providing easy weekly "tips" and suggested websites for your colleagues on the school web page or by leaving them on the table in the teachers’ room or on the bulletin board;
3. Advocating for those curricula and instructional resources that are developed using a UDL approach while serving on school or district textbook or curriculum committees, and
4. Sending information about UDL to administrators, the school board and in your messages to parents.

"Specialized instruction" is how special education is defined in the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specialized instruction is based on the individual strengths and needs of specific students who have been identified as disabled and needing special education.

Only a small percentage of students are eligible for and receive special education (less than 12-14% in most districts and states). UDL, on the other hand, allows educators to provide access to appropriate curriculum and instruction to all students. It is not a special education service or program.

However, using UDL principles can provide a more accessible learning environment for students with disabilities.  You might want to view this introductory video explaining UDL that was developed by the Ohio State University for Faculty and Administrator Modules in Higher Education (FAME) Project – a project aimed at creating accessible higher education for students with disabilities.

The good news is that teachers all over the country are becoming more familiar with UDL; but it certainly isn't a concept that most teachers are comfortable with right now. Also, curriculum and instructional materials are still being developed without using UDL concepts. So, this will take time.

If parents like you begin to advocate at the school and district level for professional development on UDL, and if parents and others start to ask questions of administrators, school board members, and classroom teachers about how to increase the use of UDL in your school or district, change can happen a lot faster.

First, congratulations on submitting this question and being involved in this on-line chat. Becoming knowledgeable about UDL is an important first step. Learn as much as you can. Then, find out which teachers in your school know about UDL. Does the principal know what it is? Ask your PTA or PTO representative at your school to sponsor a presentation on UDL for parents. Talk to your local school board members about it. Do they know what it is? Are they willing to fund professional development and other resources to help teachers learn about it?

The NCLD's Parent Advocacy Brief, A Parent's Guide to Universal Design for Learning (UDL) has several additional suggestions for how you can promote UDL in your school or district.   You may also want to listen to NCLD's recent Universal Design for Learning Podcast featuring Skip Stahl from the Center for Applied Special Technology.

 

First, I don’t know of any effort to certify teachers as UDL trainers or users. However, the new reauthorized Higher Education Opportunity Act does call on states to measure and report on how many teachers understand UDL as part of the requirements in the state’s report card. What gets measured usually gets done.

Second, CAST developed and published the Universal Design for Learning Guidelines which can be used in a broad way to assess components of UDL.  (A one page description is available at this site).

The CAST Curriculum Self-Check may also be useful to you. It’s an on-line resource but you need to establish a username and password to get into it. It’s available at .

UDL is applicable and beneficial for all students, no matter what grade level or school environment. That's one of UDL's greatest assets – it works for the broadest population of students and no one needs to "qualify" or "be eligible" to benefit from it!

For those students who do qualify as disabled under the Americans with Disabilities Act, those protections extend to college students or students participating in post-secondary tech programs. Using UDL in post-secondary schools will actually make the instruction accessible to students with disabilities, as well as other students.

There are also specific provisions of the newly reauthorized Higher Education Opportunity Act that aim to increase the use of UDL in post-secondary schools. For example,

1. There will be demonstration projects for students with disabilities who are attending college or post-secondary school (Title VII, Part D, Sec. 760-765), and
2. An advisory commission on accessible instruction in post-secondary schools that is charged with encouraging the use of UDL for students with disabilities (Title VII, Part D, Subpart 3, Sec 771-772).

Because UDL principles provide for flexibility in how lessons are presented (i.e., multiple presentations), how students engage in learning (i.e., multiple engagement opportunities), and how students express or show what they have learned (i.e., multiple expression), UDL can transform high school teaching and learning. Instruction becomes more than just a lecture or small group discussion.

Using a UDL approach can encourage "interdisciplinary" projects that are very engaging for high school students. UDL allows for integration of the various subjects, connecting important concepts and tapping into student interests and skills, challenging them, and motivating them. Connected learning – integrated learning – is remembered. CAST presents several case stories that focus on student learning at the high school level.

And, there are actually some video examples of high school student projects on YouTube that illustrate this point. This video is an example of a geometry lesson.

Absolutely! Since virtual schools are digital to begin with, providing flexibility can be imbedded in the technology. Using the internet for homeschooling makes it possible to provide links to video, case stories, and on-line demonstrations. Technology is a bedrock for universally designed curriculum and instructional resources.

Yes. CAST is working with several schools and districts across the country. In particular, the project in Kentucky includes over 100 middle schools. Visit the Kentucky Department of Education's "Pathway to Achievement: Universal Design for Learning (UDL)" to learn more about that project and their success.

Yes, CAST is working with a number of states to help them with implementing UDL as a state initiative. Kentucky, Indiana and Louisiana are three states that have statewide UDL initiatives.

• The Kentucky Department of Education's "Pathway to Achievement: Universal Design for Learning; (UDL)";
• Indiana initiative is "Promoting Achievement through Technology and INstruction for All Students" (PATINS Project), and, 
• The Louisiana initiative, "Bridging the Gap through Universal Design for Learning" (which is jointly sponsored by the Louisiana Department of Education).

Certainly, it would be more effective if programs use UDL principles as they are being designed. That’s why many of us are advocating changes in federal statutes, such as the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (No Child Left Behind), to encourage funding for UDL initiatives and policies that promote the use of UDL in the development of textbooks and instructional materials. To learn more about this effort, go to the National Task Force on UDL Web site.

However, UDL principles can be incorporated into your instructional planning no matter what program you are using. I recommend that you look at CAST’s Teaching Every Student website for ideas and formats that you can use to design your instructional strategies and classroom expectations.

Unfortunately, I don't know of any states that are really using UDL-designed standardized assessments for NCLB accountability purposes. There are several that are working on it. The National Center on Educational Outcomes has a guide, A State Guide to the Development of Universally Designed Assessments that might be helpful to you.

Test development and standardization is a long, expensive process. Many of the national education and parent groups are strongly recommending increased federal funding and guidance to help us accomplish this. Assessment and accountability measures should be meaningful.

Universal screening is only mandatory if your State or School District requires it.

Ordinarily, schools determine the individuals who conduct screening (e.g., classroom teachers, special educators, speech and language professionals, para-educators). Various tools are used for screening (e.g., teachers’ ratings of students, performance on readiness, standardized achievement, state standard tests, or various commercial screens like those provided by DIBELS, Edcheckup, Aimsweb). Informal assessments (e.g., letter naming, letter naming and/or letter-sound fluency, phonological blending and segmenting, word identification fluency, informal reading inventories) can also be used.

With oral reading or maze, the convention is to monitor progress on the highest level of text (i.e., graded text) on which students read with 90% accuracy or better.