Introductory Packet

Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities

(Revised 2015)

*The Center is co-directed by Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor and operates under the auspice of the
School Mental Health Project, Dept. of Psychology, UCLA,
Box 951563, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563
(310) 825-3634
E-mail: [email protected]
Website: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu .

Permission to reproduce this document is granted.

Please cite source as the Center for Mental Health in Schools at UCLA
 The real difficulty in changing the course of any enterprise lies
not in developing new ideas but in escaping old ones.
John Maynard Keynes

Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities

Introduction 1

I. About Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities 3

A. Revisiting Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities 4

B. Incidence/Prevalence 12
C. Misdiagnoses 15
D. Identification 24
E. Barriers (Risk Factors), Protective Buffers, & 25
Promoting Full Development

II. Learning Problems and Classroom Instruction 26

A. Opening the Door to Enhance Assistance, Partnerships, 27
and Teacher Learning
B. Learning Supports: Enabling Learning in the Classroom 30
C. Self-Study Survey to Enhance Classrooms 55
D. Continuing Education Resources to Enhance Classrooms 61

III. A School-Wide Component to Address Barriers to Learning 70

A. The Concept of a Learning Supports Component 72

B. Operational Infrastructure for Addressing Barriers to Learning 83

Some Model Programs and Practice Notes For Serving All Children We 88

A Quick Overview of Some Basic Resources 107

>Selected References 108
>Relevant Agencies, Organizations, & Internet Resources 110
>Quick Finds: 111

Concluding Comments 112

 What the best and wisest parent wants for (her)/his own child
that must the community want for all of its children.
Any other idea... is narrow and unlovely.
John Dewey

IntroductionON

We are all called upon to do something about the many individuals who have trouble
learning academic skills. To respond effectively, we will need a broad understanding
of what causes learning problems (including learning disabilities) and what society
in general and schools in particular need to do about them.

We are in an era of major changes related to schools and schooling. This is

especially the case with respect to concerns about learning, behavior, and emotional
problems and the respective roles of regular and special education policies and
practices and public funding for private programs and schooling. It is within the
context of such changes that we approach the integrally related topics of learning
problems and learning disabilities.

Reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

is leading to widespread revisiting of the concept of learning disabilities (LD). Of
particular concern has been the wholesale misuse of the term in nonprofessional
applications and professional misdiagnoses. About 50% of those currently assigned
a special education diagnosis are identified as having a learning disability. Because
the numbers are so out of proportion with other disability diagnoses, there has been
a growing backlash to LD.

However, the current discussion remains too limited in its nature and scope. The
need is to put the specialized concept of learning disabilities into perspective with
respect to commonplace learning problems. If current estimates are correct, about
80% of those currently diagnosed as having a learning disability actually do not.
This is not to deny that they have a learning problem or that they don’t deserve
assistance in overcoming their problems. This also in no way is meant to
underappreciate the problems experienced by those who have true learning
disabilities.

This resource puts learning disabilities into perspective as one type of learning
problem and offers frameworks and resources for dealing with all learning problems.
In doing so, it highlights concerns about prevention, classroom intervention, the role
of school-wide programs, and the importance of incorporating the invaluable
understanding of human motivation that intrinsic motivation researchers have
developed over the last 40 years.

1
It is time to move forward, putting learning disabilities into broad perspective as one
type of learning problem, and approaching all learning problems in the context of
fundamental ideas about learning and teaching, as well as comprehensive,
multifaceted approaches to addressing barriers to learning and teaching.

To these ends, this packet focuses on a wi de spectrum of learning problems. It is

designed to provide som e basic information for all who seek to broaden their
understanding. It also emphasizes new directions for classification and.
intervention

In particular, a broad perspective is presented that captures a transactional

understanding of the causes and correlation of learning difficulties. Learning is
shaped by the continuous interplay between the learner and the overlapping, muti-
layered contexts in which learning takes place. The well-being of a significant
proportion of the nation’s youth depends on schools and communities appreciating
the full implications of this truism regarding human development. It also is true
that such a broad perspective raises additional complexities for practitioners,
researchers, and policy makers. In suggesting the need to confront the
complexities, we represent a growing group of stakeholders who think that
enabling all students to benefit more fully from their schooling depends on
intervention strategies that go well beyond current instructional reforms. Leaving
no child behind must be more than a maxim; it must represent a policy and
practice agenda that effectively addresses all barriers to learning and teaching.

For an indepth look, seeRevisiting Learning & Behavior Problems: Moving Schools
Forward at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/contedu/revisitinglearning.pdf

2
I. About Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities

A. RRevisiting Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities

B. Incidence/Prevalence

C. Misdiagnoses

D. Identification

E. Barriers (Risk Factors), Protective Buffers,,Promoting

Full Development

3
 The single most characteristic thing
about human beings is that they learn.
Jerome Bruner

I. A. Revisiting Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities

Lack of success at school is one of the most common factors interfering with the current well-being and future
opportunities of children and adolescents. Thus, those concerned about the mental health of young people must strive
to enhance understanding of the nature of learning problems and the issues surrounding the concept of learning
disabilities.

Since the early 1960's, our work has focused on youngsters who manifest a range of learning, behavior, and emotional
problems. Along the way, we have written extensively about the problem of who should and who shouldn’t be
designated as having a learning disability (see attached references for examples). It was evident from the time the
term was adopted into law that problems of over-identification would arise, and at some point, there would be a
policy backlash. Over the last 30 years, the LD label has been assigned to a growing number of students. By 2001,
over 50% of those designated as in need of special education were labeled LD (see Exhibit on page 3).

From the onset of the Individuals with Disabilities disabilities to a subset found among the larger group.
Education Act (IDEA) reauthorization process in 2002,
the policy backlash toward the LD label was in full There are many reasons for wanting to differentiate
force. Fundamental questions were raised about who is among individuals who have learning problems. One
and who isn’t appropriately diagnosed as having a reason is that some learning problems can be prevented;
learning disability. another is that some learning problems are much easier
to overcome than others.
In revisiting the topic of learning disabilities, we begin by
putting it into the broad context of learning problems. Of course, differentiating among persons who have
Moreover, we consider all learning problems in the learning problems is not easy. Severity is the most
context of basic ideas about learning and teaching. (To common factor used to distinguish learning disabilities
move forward in dealing with all learning problems from other learning problems. However, there also is a
requires a fundamental appreciation of how to foster tendency to rely heavily on how far behind an individual
learning among persons with and without internal lags, not only in reading, but in other academic skills.
disabilities.) And, because socio-political and economic Thus, besides severity, there is concern about how
factors have such a pervasive influence on learning and pervasive the problem is. Specific criteria for judging
teaching, we conclude by highlighting the societal severity and pervasiveness depend on prevailing age,
context. gender, subculture, and social status expectations. Also
important is how long the problem has persisted. Still, in
Learning Problems as the Context for the final analysis the case for LD as a special type of
Understanding Learning Disabilities learning problem must be made by differentiating
learning disabilities from commonplace learning
Although reliable data do not exist, most would agree problems.
that at least 30 percent of the public school population
in the United States are not doing well academically and
could be described as having school learning problems.
We approach the topic of learning disabilities with that
large group in mind and apply the term learning

4
 schooling is conducted. Given that there are schooling-
caused learning problems, they ought to be differentiated
The Federal Definition of Learning Disabilities from those caused by central nervous system
dysfunctioning (i.e., LD).
The definition of learning disabilities proposed in the
1960s by the National Advisory Committee on When we do this, it becomes clearer that the prevention
Handicapped Children was given official status when of some learning problems requires changes in school
it was incorporated (with minor modifications into practices. And, such a perspective suggests that those
federal legislation in 1969. As stated in the statute with learning disabilities may require something more in
(U.S. Public Law 94-142 – the Education for all the way of help.
Handicapped Children Act of 1975), individuals with
specific learning disabilities are those who have We hasten to add, however, that the fundamentals of
good teaching apply in helping anyone with a learning
"a disorder in one or more of the basic problem. Moreover, quality teaching can be seen as
psychological processes involved in understanding providing a necessary context for approaching all learning
or in using language, spoken or written, which problems. And, excellence in teaching is best understood
may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, in the context of how people learn.
think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do
mathematical calculations. The term includes such As Jerome Bruner has stated: "The single most
conditions as perceptual handicaps, brain injury, characteristic thing about human beings is that they
minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and learn." This is not to say that all learning is the result of
developmental aphasia. The term does not direct teaching. High quality teaching encourages learning
include children who have learning problems beyond that which can take place during any lesson.
which are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or
motor handicaps, of mental retardation, or In part because of the limitations of current assessment
emotional disturbance, or of environmental, practices, there has been widespread failure to
cultural, or economic disadvantage." (Federal differentiate learning disabilities from other types of
Register, 1977, p. 65, 083) learning problems – particularly with respect to cause.
The result of this failure has been that most programs
and research samples include individuals ranging from
This definition has been controversial from the onset. those whose learning problems were caused primarily by
In particular: (1) use of the term "children" was seen environmental deficiencies to those whose problems stem
as inappropriately excluding adolescents and adults; from internal disabilities. This source of sample variability
(2) the phrase "basic psychological processes" was confounds efforts to compare findings from sample to
seen as too vague and became the focus of debates sample, limits generalization of findings, and makes
between advocates of direct instruction and those translations to practice tenuous .
concerned with treating underlying processing
disabilities; (3) the list of inclusive conditions (e.g., Because of the classification problem, a large proportion
perceptual handicaps, minimal brain dysfunction) was of research purporting to deal with LD samples has more
seen as out-dated and ill-defined; and (4) the to say about learning problems in general than about
"exclusion" clause was seen as contributing to learning disabilities. In this regard, failure to differentiate
misconceptions (e.g., that LD cannot occur in underachievement caused by neurological
conjunction with other handicapping conditions, dysfunctioning from that caused by other factors has
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage). been cited specifically as a major deterrent to important
lines of research and theory and threatens the integrity of
Learning and Teaching as the Context for the LD field.
Understanding Learning Problems
With respect to intervention practice and research, failure
Although learning is not limited to any one time or place, to differentiate learning problems in terms of
problems in learning are recognized most often in cause contributes to widespread misdiagnosis and to
classroom settings. Why are there so many learning unneeded specialized treatments (i.e., individuals who do
problems? What can we do to make things better? We not have disabilities end up being treated as if they do).
need to understand the factors that lead to learning and In turn, this leads to profound misunderstanding of what
those that interfere. One critical set of such factors has interventions do and do not have unique promise for
to do with teaching, both in and out of schools. learning disabilities. In general, the scope of misdiagnoses
and misprescriptions in the field has
From the perspective of learning and teaching, another
way to differentiate among learning problems is to
identify those caused primarily because of the way

5
 Exhibit

Some Data and Some Controversy

Data from the National Center for Education Statistics (NCES, 2000) indicates that37% of fourth graders
cannot read at a basic level. Best estimates suggest that at least 20 percent of elementary students in the
U.S. have significant reading problems. Among those from poor families and those with limited-English
language skills, the percentage shoots up to 60-70%. At the same time, best estim ates suggest that
minimally 95% of all children can be taught to read.

By the late 1990s, about 50% of those students designated as in need of special education were labeled LD.
This translates into 2.8 million children. (The proportion of school-age children so-labeled has risen from
1.8% in 1976-77 to 5.2% in 2001.) Reading and behavior problems were probably the largest source of
the referrals that led to these students being so-designated (Lyons, 2002, Testimony before the
Subcommittee on Educational Reform). Testifying before the U.S. Senate Subcommittee for Educational
Reform in 2002, Robert Pasternack (Asst. Secretary for Special Education and Rehabilitative Services in
the U.S. Dept. of Education) stated that 80-90% of those labeled as having a specific learning disability
have their primary difficulties in learning to read, and “of the children who will eventually drop out of
school, over seventy-five percent will report difficulties in learning to read.”

It is these types of data that have become the nexus for questioning whether many of the youngsters
designated as LD are mainly displaying commonplace reading and related behavior problems. And, the
basis for many of these problems is widely attributed to the way the students are being taught.

While there is a trend to focus on inadequate teaching as a cause of many learning problems, particularly
reading problems, there is consider able controversy about this, as well as about how to improve the
situation. On one side are those who emphasize the instructional literature. They stress use of direct reading
instruction focused on ensuring students, especially in the early grades, learn to distinguish phonemic
sounds, connect letters with the sounds they represent (phonics), decode words, and eventually learn to
read fluently and with comprehension (NICHD, 2000).1 With specific respect to LD, such direct instruction
or “scientifically-based reading instruction” is being advocated as the key to reducing the numbers labeled.
The claim is that findings from early intervention and prevention studies suggest that “reading failure rates
as high as 38-40 percent can be reduced to six percent or less” (Lyons, 1998).2 Thus, before a student is
diagnosed, advocates argue that students should be provided with “well-designed and well-implemented
early intervention”using the type of direct instruction described by the National Reading Panel sponsored
by NICHD (2000). Direct instruction is heavily-oriented to development of specific skills, with the skills
explicitly laid out in lesson plans for teachers in published reading programs and with frequent testing to
identify what has and hasn’t been learned.

On the other side of the controversy are critics who argue that the evidence-base for direct instruction is
so limited that no one can be confident that the approach will produce the type of reading interest and
abilities that college-bound students must develop. These professionals are especiallycritical of the work
of the National Reading Panel, which theyargue was overloaded with proponents of direct instruction and
inappropriately relied on correlational data to infer causation.
1
NICHD (2000) Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching Children to Read.
http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/upload/report_pdf.pdf

2
G. Reid Lyons (1998). Reading: A research based approach. In California State Board of Education (Eds.). Read all
about it: Readings to inform the profession. Sacramento, CA: Sacramento County Office of Education.

6
undermined prevention, remediation, research, and
training and the policy decisions shaping such activity.
***********************************
Given that the concept of LD is poorly defined and
diagnosed, it is not surprising that there has been The whole art of teaching is only the art of
considerable misdiagnosis. And, given that those so awakening the natural curiosity of young
diagnosed have become the largest percentage in special minds for the purpose of satisfying it
education programs, it is not surprising that the LD field afterwards.
has experienced a significant backlash in the form of
Anatole France (1890)
criticism of current practice and policy.

Keeping LD in Proper Perspective ***********************************

Because of the scope of misdiagnosis, it is obvious that

assignment of the LD label is not a sufficient indication Type I, II, and III Learning Problems
that an individual has an underlying dysfunction. Still, it
remains scientifically valid to conceive of a subgroup No simple typology can do justice to the complexities
(albeit a small subset) with neurologically based learning involved in classifying learning problems for purposes of
problems and to differentiate this subgroup from those research, practice, and policymaking. However, even a
with learning problems caused by other factors. A useful simple conceptual classification framework based on a
perspective for doing this is provided by a reciprocal transactional view can be helpful. For example, it is
determinist or transactional view of behavior. (Note that valuable to use such an approach to differentiate types of
this view goes beyond taking an ecological perspective.) learning problems along a causal continuum.

A transactional perspective subsumes rather than In most cases, it is impossible to be certain what the
replaces the idea that some learning problems stem from cause of a specific individual's learning problem might be.
neurological dysfunction and differences. As Adelman Nevertheless, from a theoretical viewpoint, it makes
and Taylor (e.g., Adelman, 1971; Adelman & Taylor, sense to think of learning problems as caused by different
1993) have elaborated over the years, a transactional factors (see Exhibit on next page). And, of course, a
view acknowledges that there are cases in which an similar case can be made for a range of mental health
individual's disabilities predispose him or her to learning and psychosocial concerns related to children and
problems even in highly accommodating settings. At the adolescents (Adelman, 1995; Adelman & Taylor, 1994).
same time, however, such a view accounts for instances
in which the environment is so inadequate or hostile that Failure to differentiate learning disabilities from other
individuals have problems despite having no disability. types of learning problems has caused a great deal of
Finally, it recognizes problems caused by a combination confusion and controversy. Currently, almost any
of person and environment factors. The value of a broad individual with a learning problem stands a good chance
transactional perspective, then, is that it shifts the focus of being diagnosed as having learning disabilities. As a
from asking whether there is a neurological deficit result, many who do not have disabilities are treated as if
causing the learning problem to asking whether the the cause of their problems was some form of personal
causes are to be found in one of the following as primary pathology. This leads to prescriptions of unneeded
instigating factors: treatments for nonexistent or misidentified internal dys-
functions. It also interferes with efforts to clarify which
• The individual (e.g., a neurological dysfunction; interventions do and do not show promise for ameliorating
cognitive skill and/or strategy deficits; different types of learning problems. Ultimately, keeping
developmental and/or motivational differences) learning disabilities in proper perspective is essential to
improving both research and practice.
• The environment (e.g., the primary environment,
such as poor instructional programs, parental
neglect; the secondary environment, such as racially (text cont. on page 5)
isolated schools and neighborhoods; or the tertiary
environment, such as broad social, economic,
political, and cultural influences)
• The reciprocal interplay of individual and
environment

7
 Learning Problems and Learning Disabilities: A Causal Continuum

By way of introduction, think about a random sample of students for whom learning problems are the primary
problem (that is, the learning problem is not the result of seeing or hearing impairments, severe mental
retardation, severe emotional disturbances, or autism). What makes it difficult for them to learn? Theoret-
ically, at least, it is reasonable to speculate that some may have a relatively minor internal disorder causing
a minor central nervous system (CNS) dysfunction that makes learning difficult even under good teaching
circumstances. These are individuals for whom the term learning disabilities was created. In
differentiating them from those with other types of learning problems, it may help if you visualize learning
disabilities as being at one end of a learning problems continuum. We call this group Type III learning
problems.

Type III
learning problems
–

caused by minor
CNS dysfunction = LD

At the other end of the continuum are individuals with learning problems that arise from causes outside the
person. Such problems should not be called learning disabilities. Obviously, some people do not learn well
when a learning situation is not a good one. It is not surprising that a large number of students who live in
poverty and attend overcrowded schools manifest learning and psychosocial problems. Problems that are
primarily the result of deficiencies in the environment in which learning takes place can be thought of as Type
I learning problems.

Type I Type III

learning problems learning problems
– –

caused by caused by minor

factors outside CNS dysfunction = LD
the person

To provide a reference point in the middle of the continuum, we can conceive of a Type 11 learning problem
group. This group consists of persons who do not learn or perform well in situations where their individual
differences and vulnerabilities are poorly accommodated or are responded to with hostility. The learning
problems of an individual in this group can be seen as a relatively equal product of the person's characteristics
and the failure of the learning and teaching environment to accommodate to that individual.

Type I Type II Type III

learning problems learning problems learning problems
– – –

caused by caused by person caused by minor

factors outside and environment CNS dysfunction = LD
the person factors

8
Society as the Context for Teaching Concluding Comments
and Learning
While it's good to give special help to those who need
Education is a social invention. All societies it, the tendency to ignore the fact that not all learning
design schools in the service of social, cult ural, problems are learning disabilities has compromised the
political, and econom ic aims. Concomitantly, integrity of research and practice . As long as some
socialization is the aim of a significant portion of people think there is no such thing as a learning
the teaching done by parents and other individuals disability and others use the term to label every
who shape the lives of children. This is especially learning problem, confusion and controversy will reign
the case for populations labeled as problem s. supreme. It is time to move forward and put learning
Because society has such a stake in teaching and disabilities firmly into perspective as one type of
learning, it is critical to discuss these topics within learning problem and to approach all learning
a societal context. problems in the context of fundamental ideas about
learning and teaching. By doing so, we will enhance
Society shapes the content and context of all efforts to address the mental health and
teaching, the definition of learning problems, and psychosocial problems confronting so many children
the way teachers are held accountable for and adolescents.
outcomes. The field of learning disabilities
exemplifies these points. It was created and is
maintained through political processes. Prevailing A Few References
definitions and prominently proposed revisions
are generated through political compromises. Adelman, H.S. (1971). The not so specific learning
Guidelines for differentiating LD from other disability population. Exceptional Children, 8, 114-
learning problems, for planning what students are 120.
taught, and for evaluating what they learn – all are Adelman, H.S. (1995). Clinical psychology: Beyond
established through political processes. psychopathology and clinical interventions, Clinical
Psychology: Science and Practice, 2, 28-44.
Moreover, as Nicholas Hobbs (1975) has stated: Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1993). Learning problems
and learning disabilities: Moving forward. Pacific
Society defines what is exceptional or Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
deviant, and appropriate treatments Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1994). On understanding
are designed quite as much to protect intervention in psychology and education. Westport,
society as they are to help the child.... CT: Prager.
“To take care of them” can and should Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (2006). The School Leader’s
be read with two meanings: to give Guide to Student Learning Supports: New Directions
children help and to exclude them from for Addressing Barriers to Learning. Thousand
the community. Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (2006). The Implementation
Inevitably, exploration of teac hing and learning Guide to Student Learning Supports: New Directions
and of learning problems and disabilities touches for Addressing Barriers to Learning. Thousand Oaks,
upon education and training, helping and CA: Corwin Press.
socializing, democracy and autocracy. Schools, in Hobbs, N. (1975). The Future of Children:Categories,
particular, are places where choices about each of Labels, and their Consequences. San Francisco:
these matters arise daily. The decisions made Jossey-Bass.
often result in controversy. Lyon, G.R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz,
B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A. &
It is only through understanding the role society Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking Learning Disabilities.
plays in shaping teaching practices and research In Finn, Jr., C.E., Rotherham, A.J., & Hokanson, Jr.,
that a full appreciation of the limits and the C.R. (Eds.). Rethinking Special Education for a New
possibilities of ameliorating learning problem s Century. Washington, DC: Thomas B. Fordham
can be attained. And, it is only through addressing Foundation.
the barriers and promoting full development Smith, C.R. (1997). Learning Disabilities The Interaction
(including engendering protective factors) that we of Learner, Task, and Setting, 4th Edition. Needham
can hope to stem the rising tide of emotional and Heights, MA: Allyn & Bacon.
behavioral problems.

9
Excerpt from
U.S. Department of Education.
Promoting educational excellence for all Americans

Responsiveness to Intervention in the

Specific Learning Disabilities (SLD) Determination Process
(http://www.osepideasthatwork.org/toolkit/ta_responsiveness_intervention.asp)

The reauthorized Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (P.L.108-446)
(IDEA 2004) was signed into law on December 3, 2004, by President George W . Bush. IDEA 2004
includes provisions that could lead to significant changes in the way in which students with SLD are
identified. Of particular relevance to the process of SLD determination are the following provisions of
the statute:

1. Local educational agency (LEA) shall not be required to take into consideration whether a
child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability (IDEA 2004).

2. LEAs may use response to scientific-based instruction.

3. "Responsiveness to Intervention" (RTI) is not specifically identified in the law.

4. LEAs are given flexibility in determining SLD implementation options.

5. Using special education funding to provide early intervening for all students is permitted.

This movement toward change stem s from criticisms of current SLD determ ination components,
procedures, and criteria. Although the focus and scopeof the debate varies, much of the criticism stems
from discrepancies between conceptual definitions and operational definitions of SLD (Reschly & Hosp,
2004). Most notably, although conceptual definitions are multi-faceted, operational definitions have
typically reduced the construct of SLD to a singledimension, a discrepancy between achievement and
ability. In improving the process of SLD determination, understanding the com ponents of the conceptual
definition of SLD is important. In general, SLD involves learning and cognition disorders intrinsic to
the individual, which are specific in that they each significantly affect a relatively narrow range of
academic and performance outcomes (Bradley, Danielson, & Hallahan, 2002). The Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act of 1997 regulations define SLD as follows:

SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITY - 20 U.S.C. § 1401(26)(A); 34 C.F.R. § 300.7(c)(10)

(A) GENERAL - The term means a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest
itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathematical
calculations.

(B) DISORDERS INCLUDED - The term includes such conditions as perceptual disabilities,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia and developmental aphasia.

(C) DISORDERS NOT INCLUDED - The term does not include learning problems that are
primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional
disturbance, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage.
(cont. on next page)
10
 (cont.)

SLD identification procedures, therefore, need to adequately address the components in the
conceptual definition in a systematic and analytical fashion to accurately identify the presence of
a learning disability. Ideally, identification of SLD should include a student-centered,
comprehensive evaluation and problem-solving approach that ensures students who have a learning
disability are efficiently identified. Additionally, general education must assume significant
responsibility for delivery of high-quality instruction, research-based interventions, and prompt
identification of individuals at risk while collaborating with special education and related services
personnel (2004 Learning Disabilities Roundtable, 2005).

Previous SLD determination procedures and practiceshave been faulted in several areas: irrelevance
of aptitude-achievement discrepancy and cognitivemeasures to instructional planning or outcomes;
lack of equitable treatment across educational settings; and delays in disability determination.
Another criticism of practices has been that students were judged to have an SLD without assessing
the availability and use of general education interventions that have proven their effectiveness for
youngsters presenting similar behaviors of concern (e.g., limited reading acquisition). One could not
be confident that the achievement and behavior problems that a child presented were inherent to the
child or attributable to shortcomings in the instructional settings.

Earlier statutes regarding the determination of SLD included a provision for evaluating the extent
to which students had received appropriate learning experiences. However, no systematic process
was outlined in the earlier regulations for ensuring that the "learning experiences" provided before
referral for evaluation were those that have been found to be typically effective for the child's age
and ability levels (i.e., "appropriate"). The responsiveness to scientific-based intervention (e.g., RTI)
concept in IDEA 2004 is an elaboration or greater specification of this basic concept. W ith this
emphasis, school staffs may consider how a youngster's performance in general education and, more
specifically, the youngster's performance in response to specific scientific research-based instruction,
informs SLD determination.

11
I. B. Incidence/Prevalence
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/coe/indicator_cgg.asp

Children and Youth with Disabilities

(Last updated May 2015)
The number of children and youth ages 3–21 receiving special education services was 6.4 million, or
about 13 percent of all public school students, in 2012–13. Some 35 percent of students receiving special
education services had specific learning disabilities.

Enacted in 1975, the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), formerly known as the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA),
mandates the provision of a free and appropriate public school education for eligible children and youth ages 3–21. Eligible children and youth are
those identified by a team of professionals as having a disability that adversely affects academic performance and as being in need of special
education and related services. Data collection activities to monitor compliance with IDEA began in 1976.

From school years 1990–91 through 2004–05, the number of children and youth ages 3–21 who received special education services increased, as did
the percentage of total public school enrollment they constituted: 4.7 million children and youth ages 3–21, or about 11 percent of public school
enrollment, received special education services in 1990–91, compared with 6.7 million, or about 14 percent, in 2004–05. Both the number and
percentage of children and youth served under IDEA declined from 2004–05 through 2011–12, with some evidence of leveling off in 2012–13. By
2012–13, the number of children and youth receiving services under IDEA had declined to 6.4 million, corresponding to 13 percent of total public
school enrollment.

Figure 1. Percentage distribution of children ages 3–21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by
disability type: School year 2012–13

NOTE: Deaf-blindness, traumatic brain injury, and visual impairments are not shown because they each account for less than 0.5 percent of children served under
IDEA. Due to categories not shown, detail does not sum to total.
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3,
2014, from https://inventory.data.gov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259. See Digest of Education
Statistics 2014, table 204.30.

In school year 2012–13, a higher percentage of children and youth ages 3–21 received special education services under IDEA for specific learning
disabilities than for any other type of disability. A specific learning disability is a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved
in understanding or using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations. In 2012–13, some 35 percent of all children and youth receiving special education services had specific learning
disabilities, 21 percent had speech or language impairments, and 12 percent had other health impairments (including having limited strength, vitality,
or alertness due to chronic or acute health problems such as a heart condition, tuberculosis, rheumatic fever, nephritis, asthma, sickle cell anemia,
hemophilia, epilepsy, lead poisoning, leukemia, or diabetes). Children and youth with autism, intellectual disabilities, developmental delays, or
emotional disturbances each accounted for between 6 and 8 percent of students served under IDEA. Children and youth with multiple disabilities,
hearing impairments, orthopedic impairments, visual impairments, traumatic brain injuries, or deaf-blindness each accounted for 2 percent or less of
those served under IDEA.

Figure 2. Percentage of students ages 6–21 served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, placed in a regular
public school environment, by amount of time spent inside general classes: Selected school years 1990–91 through 2012–13

12
SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3,
2014, from https://inventory.data.gov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259. See Digest of Education
Statistics 2014, table 204.60.

About 95 percent of school-age children and youth ages 6–21 who were served under IDEA in 2012–13 were enrolled in regular schools. Some 3
percent of children and youth ages 6–21 who were served under IDEA were enrolled in separate schools (public or private) for students with
disabilities; 1 percent were placed by their parents in regular private schools; and less than 1 percent each were in separate residential facilities
(public or private), homebound or in hospitals, or in correctional facilities. Among all children and youth ages 6–21 who were served under IDEA, the
percentage who spent most of the school day (i.e., 80 percent or more of time) in general classes in regular schools increased from 33 percent in
1990–91 to 61 percent in 2012–13. In contrast, during the same period, the percentage of those who spent 40 to 79 percent of the school day in
general classes declined from 36 to 20 percent, and the percentage of those who spent less than 40 percent of time inside general classes also
declined from 25 to 14 percent. In 2012–13, the percentage of students served under IDEA who spent most of the school day in general classes was
highest for students with speech or language impairments (87 percent). Approximately two-thirds of students with specific learning disabilities (67
percent), students with visual impairments (64 percent), students with other health impairments (64 percent), and students with developmental delays
(62 percent) spent most of the school day in general classes. In contrast, 16 percent of students with intellectual disabilities and 13 percent of
students with multiple disabilities spent most of the school day in general classes.

Figure 3. Percentage of children 3–21 years old served under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by
race/ethnicity: School year 2012–13

NOTE: Race categories exclude persons of Hispanic ethnicity.

SOURCE: U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) database, retrieved October 3,
2014, from https://inventory.data.gov/dataset/8715a3e8-bf48-4eef-9deb-fd9bb76a196e/resource/a68a23f3-3981-47db-ac75-98a167b65259; and National Center for
Education Statistics, Common Core of Data (CCD), "State Nonfiscal Survey of Public Elementary/Secondary Education," 2012–13. See Digest of Education Statistics
2014, table 204.30 and table 204.50.

In school year 2012–13, the number of children and youth ages 3–21 who were served under IDEA as a percentage of total enrollment in public
schools differed by race/ethnicity. The percentage of children and youth served under IDEA was highest for American Indians/Alaska Natives (16

13
percent), followed by Blacks (15 percent), Whites (13 percent), children and youth of Two or more races (13 percent), Hispanics (12 percent), Pacific
Islanders (11 percent), and Asians (6 percent). In most racial/ethnic groups, the percentage of children and youth receiving services for specific
learning disabilities combined with the percentage receiving services for speech or language impairments accounted for over 50 percent of children
and youth served under IDEA.

The percentage distribution of children and youth ages 3–21 who received various types of special education services in 2012–13 differed by
race/ethnicity. For example, the percentage of students with disabilities served under IDEA for specific learning disabilities was lower among Asian
children (23 percent) than among children overall (35 percent). However, the percentage of students with disabilities who received services under
IDEA for autism was higher among Asian children (18 percent) than among children overall (8 percent). Additionally, students who received services
for emotional disturbances accounted for 8 percent of Black children served under IDEA, compared with 6 percent of children overall. Among children
and youth who received services, the percentages of Pacific Islanders (9 percent), American Indians/Alaska Natives (9 percent), and students of Two
or more races (14 percent) who received services for developmental delays under IDEA were higher than the percentage of children overall (6
percent).

Glossary terms: Disabilities, children with, Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Regular school
Data Source: Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)

PDF
Download/View the PDF containing this indicator and corresponding tables and figures. (104 KB)

Reference Tables
Table 204.30 (Digest 2014): Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by type of
disability: Selected years, 1976-77 through 2012-13
Table 204.50 (Digest 2014): Children 3 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), Part B, by race/ethnicity
and type of disability: 2011-12 and 2012-13
Table 204.60 (Digest 2014): Percentage distribution of students 6 to 21 years old served under Individuals with Disabilities Education Act
(IDEA), Part B, by educational environment and type of disability: Selected years, fall 1989 through fall 2012

National Center for Education Statistics - http://nces.ed.gov

U.S. Department of Education

14
I. C. Misdiagnoses

Schools and the Challenge of LD and ADHD Misdiagnoses*

Y
oungsters manifesting learning problems, misbehavior, and emotional upset
commonly are assigned psychiatric labels that were created to categorize
internal disorders. Thus, there is increasing use of terms such as learning
disabilities (LD), attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD), depression, and
so forth. This happens despite the fact that the problems of most youngsters are
not rooted prim arily in internal dysfunctioning. Indeed, m any of the troubles
manifested by youngsters would not have developed if their environmental
circumstances had been appropriately different.

Currently at schools, LD and ADHD are the two most commonly diagnosed
learning and behavior problems. Informed researchers, practitioners, and policy
makers in the U.S. and in other countries have cautioned about widespread
misapplications of the terms and large numbers of false positive misdiagnoses
resulting from indiscriminate use and classification practices that leave much to
be desired. The problem of false positives has become an increasing concern
because a significant number of older students are feigning symptoms of LD and
ADHD to obtain special accommodations in the classroom and in academic
testing situations (Harrison, Edwards, & Parker, 2007, 2008; Harrison &
Rosenblum, 2010; Sullivan, May, & Galbally, 2007).

Labeling students as LD and ADHD clearly is a serious matter. Strong images

are associated with these diagnostic labels. Sometimes the images are useful
generalizations; sometimes they are harmful stereotypes. Sometimes they guide
practitioners toward good ways to help; sometimes they contribute to "blaming
the victim" – making young people the focus of intervention rather than
improving system deficiencies that are causing the problems in the first place. In
all cases, diagnostic labels can profoundly shape a person's future and influence
what is and isn’t done to ensure equity of opportunity at school.
Many of the concerns related to diagnosing LD and ADHD have been discussed
widely (e.g., Adelman & Taylor, 2010). What often is not well understood is the
bias that results from making a differential diagnosis using the prevailing
classification schemes (i.e., special education diagnostic labels, the Diagnostic
and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders – DSM -V, the International
Classification of Diseases, 10th edition – ICD-10). Such taxonomies offer choices
only among categorical labels that denote internal dysfunctions. The problem

15
 is compounded by subtyping effortsthat focus only on differentiating within the
diagnosed group. All this ignores the reality that learning and behaviors problems
often begin with environmental factors. .Understanding the initial causes of students’
learning and behavior problems is best done from the perspective of a transactional
paradigm (i.e., reciprocal determinism) and dimensional labeling (Adelman & Taylor,
1995; Bandura, 1978; Rutter, Moffitt, Caspi, 2006). A transactio nal perspective
ensures full consideration o f ecological viewpoints, while not losing site of the
individual’s contribution to a given problem. Exhibit 1 illustrates the point.

Exhibit 1

A Continuum of Problems Based on a Transactional Understanding of Cause*

PRIMARY SOURCE OF CAUSE

Problems caused by Problems caused Problems caused by

factors in the equally by factors in the
environment (E) environment and person the person (P)

E (E p) E P (e P) P
|----------------------------------------------------------|--------------------------------------------------|
Type I Type II Type III
problems problems problems
(e.g., diagnosable
disorders such as LD
and ADHD)

• caused primarily by • caused primarily by a • caused primarily by

environments and systems significant mismatch between person factors
that are deficient individual differences and of a pathological
and/or hostile vulnerabilities and the nature
nature of that person's
• problems are mild to environment (not by a • problems are moderate
moderately severe and person's pathology) to profoundly severe
narrow to moderately and moderate to
pervasive broadly pervasive
• problems are mild to
moderately severe and pervasive

*Using a transactional view, the continuum emphasizes the primary source of the problem and,
in each case, is concerned with problems that are beyond the early stage of onset.

Adapted from the work of Adelman & Taylor and published in various resources.

As illustrated, when a learning, behavior, and/or emotional problem arises, a

transactional paradigm considers whether the primary instigating factors leading to the
problem stem from conditions in (a) the environment, (b) factors within a person, or
(c) a specific set of transactions. For example, some neighborhood, home, and school
environments seem to produce vulnerabilities to learning and behavior problems. In

16
contrast, subtle central nervous system disorders that produce learning disabilities and
attention deficit/hyperactivity disorders are much less common.

To be more specific: In this scheme, diagnostic labels m eant to identify extremely

dysfunctional problems caused by pathological conditions within a person are
reserved for individuals who fit the Type III category. Obviously, some problems
caused by pathological conditions within a person are not manifested in severe,
pervasive ways, and there are persons without such pathology whose problems do
become severe and pervasive. The intent is not to ignore these individuals. As a first
categorization step, however, it is essential they not be confused with those seen as
having Type III problems.

At the other end of the continuumare individuals with problems arising from factors
outside the person (i.e., Type I problems). Many people grow up in impoverished and
hostile environments. Such conditions should be considered first in hypothesizing
what initially caused the individual's learning, behavioral, and emotional problems.
(After environmental causes are ruled out, hypotheses about internal pathology
become more viable.)

To provide a reference point in the middle of the continuum, a Type II category is

used. This group consists of persons who do not function well in situations where their
individual differences and minor vulnerabilities are poorly accommodated or are
responded to hostilely. The problems of an individual in this group are a relatively
equal product of person characteristics and failure of the environment to accommodate
that individual.

There are, of course, variations along the continuum that do not precisely fit a
category. That is, at each point between the extreme ends, environment-person
transactions are the cause, but the degree to which each contributes to the problem
varies.

Clearly, a simple continuum cannot do justice to the complexities associated with

labeling and differentiating among learning and behavior problems in general and at
different periods in an individual’s development. The reality is that problems vary in
severity, pervasiveness, and chronicity; som e problems are not easily or reliably
assessed; many are not differentiated read ily or validly because problem s can have
more than one cause and/or manifestation.

Given all this, the continuum outlined in Exhibit 1 illustrates the potential value of
starting with a broad model of cause and can play a role in countering tendencies of
classification schemes to reify prevailing diagnostic criteria (Hyman, 2010). In
particular, it can counter the tendency to jump prematurely to the conclusion that a
problem is caused by deficiencies or pathology within the individual and thus can help
combat blaming the victim. It also helps highlight the notion that improving the way
the environment accommodates individual differences often may be a sufficient
strategy for correcting and preventing many learning, behavior, and emotional
problems.

17
 Schools Are Moving to Stem the Tide of Learning Problem Misdiagnoses

It is estimated that about 5% of school-aged children are diagnosed as having a

learning disability, with core symptoms designated as underachievement of basic
academic skills, especially reading, and deficits in processing abilities. By the early
2000s, learning disabilities had become the largest group in special education in the
U.S. (about 50% of those with IEPs). It was widely recognized that many were
inappropriately diagnosed in order to provide them with additional services. The
growing numbers became an excessive drain on already overburdened special
education budgets and contributed to the backlash to LD seen in the last
reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Act.
To stem the tide of false positive misdiagnoses of LD, the federal government adopted
the idea of requiring a school procedure called Response to Intervention (RTI) before
considering a formal diagnosis for special education eligibility (see Appendix). As the
RTI initiative spreads, it is intended to be a counter measure to premature diagnoses
of LD and ADHD.
It must be noted, however, that concerns have been raised about RTI. From a special
education perspective, there is fear that the process will inappropriately delay
identification of students with true LD and ADHD. As an intervention initiative, the
concern is that th e approach will be pursued simplistically. In many places, RTI is
viewed primarily as a matter of providing more and better instruction. This is too
limited in nature and scope to address the wide range of factors interfering with the
learning of many students. Instructional strategies always need to be conceived as one
part of a comprehensive system of cl assroom and school-wid e learning supports.
Viable school improvement requires that initiatives such as RTI help in differentiating
Type I, II, and III problems not only by responding early after onset, but also by
preventing many from occurring in the first place (Center for Mental Health in
Schools, 2011a, b).
Schools Are Not Mobilizing to Stem the Tide of Behavior Problem Misdiagnoses
After the 1997 reauthorization of IDEA allowed special education services for ADHD,
the rates of ADHD diagnosis increased an average of 3% a year. For IEP purposes,
these students are grouped under the “other health impairments” category and are the
largest group in that category. Students labeled as ADHD also may be diagnosed with
other problems such as LD; thus, some are served under the LD designation.
Current estimates are that about 5% ofschool-aged children are diagnosed as ADHD,
with core symptoms being (1) not paying attention when it is asked for, (2) being
highly active, and (3) acting impulsively when it is deemed inappropriate.
Approximately 75% of those diagnosed are male. In the past, it has been estimated that
less than half of those diagnosed will continue to show such symptoms as adults
(McCann & Roy-Byme, 2004); postsecondary institutions, however, are reporting a
dramatic increase in students with recent ADHD diagnoses who are seeking special
instructional and testing accommodations (Harrison & Rosenblum, 2010).
Singh (2008) cites studies indicating that a diagnosis of ADHD is 3-4 times more

18
likely when criteria specified in the DSM -IV (Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of
Mental Disorders, 4 th Edition) are used, as contrasted with criteria delineated in the
ICD-10 (International Classification of Diseases -10) for diagnosing Hyperkinetic
Disorder. In part this is attributable to differences in the classification systems and in
part to the differences in who does the diagnosis. In the U.S., many children and adults
are diagnosed as ADHD by general practitioners, including primary-care physicians.

Reported prevalence differs among states (e.g., ranging from 5 to 15% of school aged
children). These differences have raised concern that in some communities there is
substantial overdiagnosis. As with LD, there is concern that youngsters who manifest
“garden-variety” misbehavior or are simply immature may be misdiagnosed as
ADHD. For example, a study by Elder (2010) suggests that nearly 1 million children
in the U.S. may be misdiagnosed as ADHD because they are the youngest and most
immature in their kindergarten class. Concerns about ADHD misdiagnosis are
compounded because of the frequency with which the diagnosis leads to prescribing
medication. Reports appear rather regularly suggesting that medication is being
overprescribed (Volknow & Swanson, 2003; Zito, Safer, dosReis, et al., 2000).
Reports in 2007 indicated that about two-th irds of the 4-17 year old diagnosed group
were on medication.

Concerns have been raised about the possible role schools play in promoting ADHD
diagnoses and recommending medication. This has led to some community forums
and legislative hearings and proposals to stop teachers from suggesting to parents that
a student has ADHD and to prohibit all school personnel from recommending that
parents seek out a prescription for psychotropic medications.

Most schools, of course, are not seeking to increase the special education population;
some already find it hard to meet IDEA mandates. And yet, unlike the response to
concerns about LD, schools are not mobilizing to the same degree to counter the
dilemmas arising from the growing numbers of students diagnosed as ADHD. Of
particular concern is the need to play a role in
(1) identifying false positive diagnoses of ADHD,
(2) stressing that medication as an insufficient treatment (i.e., while medication is
associated with short-term performance improvements, there is no evidence
that it produces long-term improvements in academic achievement),
(3) clarifying for staff and parents the potentially serious side effects of ADHD
medications (i.e., the U.S. Food and Drug Administration warns about
possible cardiovascular effects, growth suppression, and development of
other psychiatric conditions; other social concerns are hypothesized).

And for the future, because stimulants drugs are widely used (e.g., by college students)
to gain short-term positive effects on academic performance, schools should be aware
that there is some advocacy for making these “cognitive enhancers” available to
healthy children as another aid in enhancing their attention and focus on school tasks.

19
 Ongoing Concerns about Diagnosing Student Problems

Because of the significant differences in reported prevalence of LD and ADHD across

the U.S. and around the world, concern has b een raised that in some places there is
substantial overdiagnosis (LeFever, Arcona, & Antonuccia, 2003; Singh, 2008). The
degree to which this is the case is compounded by parents and teachers seeking such
diagnoses and older students and adults feigning these disorders.

It is noteworthy that early research onLD and ADHD relied on samples that had been
previously diagnosed. A cursory look at recent studies indicates that researchers
increasingly are doing additional assessment to eliminate inappropriately diagnosed
individuals. The numbers turned away include common learning and behavior
problems inaccurately labeled. Unfortunately, because of the limitations on validly
assessing LD and ADHD, additional assessment to “validate” a previous diagnosis is
no assurance of avoiding misdiagnoses (see the sidebar below).

The Difficulties Diagnosing Learning and Behavior Problems

The problems in making a valid diagnoses of ADHD and LD will continue as long as they
are based on clinical assessment of behavioral symptoms, rather than on signs identified
in laboratory tests. The symptom criteria relied on are common behaviors found among
children in many cultures and vary significantly with development (e.g., Bauermeister,
Canino, Polanczyk, & Rohde, 2010; Elder, 2010; Evans, Morrill, & Parente, 2010). The
instability of symptom patterns and the many problems related to reliability and validity of
current assessment procedures are well recognized. Also well discussed are the
inequities and biases related to race, ethnicity, and primary language (e.g., Hosterman,
DuPaul, & Jitendra, 2008).

Recommendations to do more assessment of cognitive impairments and “soft signs” and

to emphasize multimethod assessment is not equivalent to assessing hard signs (e.g.,
Gupta & Kar, 2010; McConaughy, Harder, Antshel, et al., 2010; Singh, 2008). In the
absence of hard signs, conclusions about causality (e.g., genetics, neurobiological
factors) and subtle, internal central nervous system dysfunctioning remain speculative.

In discussing problems of diagnosing mental disorders in general, Hyman (2010) focuses

in on ADHD and concludes:

“The conceptualization of ADHD as a category discontinuous from normalcy is not

only implausible, but also inhibits the kind of research that would improve the ...
utility of the diagnosis and perhaps its validity. ... Arbitrary symptom counts do not
provide effective tools for family doctors and other primary care practitioners, who
evaluate the majority of children for ADHD, to make a diagnosis against the
moving developmental target of brain maturation.”

20
Differential diagnosis clearly is diffi cult and where LD and ADHD rates have
increased markedly there usually is a backlash suggesting significant misdiagnosis.
This happened with LD in the U.S. in the early 2000s; it is happening currently with
ADHD and LD in the United Kingdom. Questions inevitably arise such as:
How often are diagnoses arrived at inappropriately because of personal-
professional, social-cultural, and economic interests and biases?
What is the impact on research, practice, policy, and training of skewing
differential diagnosis in ways that maximize false positive and minimize false
negative diagnoses?
Can school interventions play a significant role in preventing and identifying
misdiagnoses?

Concluding Comments
The thinking of those who study learning, behavioral, and emotional problems has
long been dom inated by models stressing person pathology. This is evident in
discussions of cause, diagnosis, and intervention strategies. Because so much
discussion focuses on person pa thology, diagnostic systems have not been developed
in ways that adequately account for psychosocial problems. As a result,
comprehensive formal systems used to classify problems in human functioning convey
the impression that all learning, behavioral, or emotional problems are instigated by
internal pathology.
Most differential diagnoses of children's problems are made by focusing on identifying
one or more disorders (e.g., learning disabilities, attention-deficit/hyperactivity
disorder, oppositional defiant disorder, or adjustment disorders), rather than first
asking: Is there a disorder?
Overemphasis on classifying problems in terms of personal pathology skews theory,
research, practice, and public policy. One example is seen in the fact that
comprehensive classification systems do not exist for environmentally-caused
problems or for psychosocial problems (caused by the transaction of internal and
environmental factors).
Bias toward labeling problem s in terms of personal rather than social causation is
bolstered by factors such as (a) attributional bias – a tendency for observers to
perceive others' problems as rooted in stable personal dispositions and (b) economic
and political influences – whereby society's current priorities and other extrinsic forces
shape professional practice.
There is considerable irony in all this because so many school practitioners who use
prevailing diagnostic labels understand that most problems in hum an functioning
result from the interplay of person and environment. To counter nature versus nurture
biases in thinking about problem s, it's helps to approach all diagnostic procedures
guided by a broad transactional perspective of what determines human behavior.

Given all this, is it any wonder that diagnoses of LD and ADHD are controversial?

21
 References
Adelman, H.S. (1995). Clinical psychology: Harrison, A.G. & Rosenblum, Y. (2010). ADHD
Beyond psychopathology and clinical documentation for students requesting
interventions, Clinical Psychology: Science accommodations at the postsecondary level.
and Practice, 2, 28-44. Canadian Family Physician, 56, 761-765.
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2010). Mental Hosterman, S.J., DuPaul, G.J., & Jitendra, A.K.
health in schools: Engaging learners, (2008). Teacher ratings of ADHD symptoms
preventing problems, and improving in ethnic minority students: Bias or behavioral
schools. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press. difference? School Psychology Quarterly, 23,
Bandura, A. (1978). The self system in 418-435.
reciprocal determinism. American Hyman, S.E. (2010). The diagnosis of mental
Psychologist, 33, 344-358. disorders; The problem of reification. Annual
Bauermeister, J.J, Canino,G., Polanczyk, G. & Review of Clinical Psychology, 6, 155-179.
Rohde, L.A. (2010). ADHD across cultures: LeFever, G.B., Arcona, A.P.& Antonuccia, D.O.
Is there evidence for bidimensional (2003). ADHD among American school
organization of symptoms? Journal of children: Evidence of overdiagnosis and
Clinical Child & Adolescent Psychology, 39, overuse of medication. The Scientific Reeview
362-372. of Mental Health Practice, 2, 1-21.
Center for Mental Health in Schools (2011a). Http://www.srmhp.org/0201/adhd.html
Implementing Response to Intervention in McCann, B.S. & Roy-Byrne, P. (2004).
context. Los Angeles: Author. Screening and diagnostic utility of self-report
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/impleme attention deficit hyperactivity disorder scales
ntingrti.pdf in adults. Comparative Psychiatry, 45, 175-83.
Center for Mental Health in Schools (2011b). McConaughy, S.H., Harder, V.S., Antshel,
Viable school improvement requires a K.M., Gordon, M., Eiraldi, R., & Dumenci, L.
developmental strategy that moves beyond (2010). Incremental validity of test sesion and
the skewed wish list and reworks classroom observation in a multimethod
operational infrastructure. Los Angeles: assessment of attentionz deficit/hyperactivity
Author. disorder. Journal of Clinical Child &
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/viable.pdf Adolescent Psychology, 39, 650-666.
Elder, T. (2010). The importance of relative Rutter, M., T. E. Moffitt, and A. Caspi (2006),
standards in adhd diagnoses: evidence based Gene-environment interplay and
on a child’s date of birth, Journal of Health psychopathology: multiple varieties but real
Economics, 29, 641-656. effects, J Child Psychol Psychiatry, 47(3-4),
Evans, W.N., Morrill, M.S., & Parente, S.T. 226-261.
(2010). Measuring inappropriate medical Singh, l. (2008). Beyond polemics: Science and
diagnosis and treatment in survey data: The ethics of ADHD. Nature Reviews, 9, 957-965.
case of ADHD among school-age children. Sullivan, B.K., May, K., & Galbally, L. (2007).
Journal of Health Economics, 29, 657-679. Symptom exaggeration by college adults in
Gupta, R. & Kar, B.R. (2010). Specific ADHD and learning disorderr assessments,
cognitive defects in ADHD: A diagnostic Applied Neuropsychology, 14, 189-207.
concern in diferential diagnosis. Journal of Volknow, N.D. & Swanson, J.M. (2003).
Family Studies, 19, 778-786. Variables that affect theclinical use and abuse
Harrison, A.G., Edwards, M.J., & Parker, K.C. of methylphenidate in the treatment of ADHD.
(2007). Identifying students faking ADHD: American Journal of Psychiatry, 160, 1-10.
Preliminary findings and strategies for Zito, J.M., Safer, D.J., dosReis, S., Gardner, J.,
detection. Archives of Clinical Boles, M., & Lynch, F. (2000). Trends in the
Neuropsychology, 22, 577-588. prescribing of psychotropic medications to
Harrison, A.G., Edwards, M.J., & Parker, K.C. preschoolers. Journal of the American
(2008). Identifying students feigning Medical Association, 283, 1025-1030.
dyslexia: Preliminary findings and strategies
for detection. Dyslexia, 14, 228-246.

22
 Appendix
Response to Intervention (RTI): An Aid in Countering Misdiagnoses

C
oncern about supporting the RTI movement led the U.S. Department of Education to
fund a technical assistance center, the National Center on Response to Intervention,
involving the Am erican Institutes for Research and rese archers from Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas (http://www.rti4success.org/ ). Clearly the RTI
center increasingly will shape how response to intervention is implemented. So we need to
begin by noting the ways in which that center defines and frames response to intervention,
and we highlight some concerns about the lack of emphasis on context.
The RTI center stresses that “the purpose of RTI is to provide all students with the best
opportunities to succeed in school, identify students with learning or behavioral problems,
and ensure that they receive appropriate instruction and related supports.” This purpose is
translated into a definition that states “response to intervention integrates assessment and
intervention within a multi-level prevention system to maximize student achievement and to
reduce behavior problem s. With RTI, schools identify students at risk for poor learning
outcomes, monitor student progress, provide evidence-based interventions and adjust the
intensity and nature of those interventions depending on a student’s responsiveness, and
identify students with learning disabilities or other disabilities.”
A RTI center guidebook describes four essential c omponents of response to intervention
as (1) a school-wide, multi-level instructional and behavioral system for preventing school
failure, (2) screening, (3 ) progress m onitoring, and (4) data-based decision m aking for
instruction, movement within the multi-level system, and disability identification (in
accordance with state law). The guidebook also states response to intervention is “a
framework for providing comprehensive support to students and is not an instructional
practice” and that “RTI is a prevention oriented approach to linking assessment and
instruction that can inform educators’ decisions about how best to teach their students.”

The approach formulated by the RTI center ismeant to be broad-based and preventative, but
it is too limited in how it frames what needs to go on in a classroomand schoolwide to enable
learning, engage students, and keep them engaged. For RTI to be highly effective, significant
changes are needed with respect to how administrators, teachers, student support staff, and
other key stakeholders transform those schools where a significant proportion of students lack
enthusiasm about attendance and about engaging in the day’s lesson plans. This is especially
the case in schools where many students have become disengaged from classroom instruction,
are behaving in disruptive ways, and are dropping out. To facilitate the success of such
students, staff must enable them to (1) get around interfering barriers and (2) (re)engage in
classroom instruction. Properly designed, RTI strate gies can help wi th all this if they are
embedded into the larger agenda for transforming classroom and schoolwide approaches in
ways that ensure equity of opportunity for all students to succeed at a given school. Applied
in a sequential and hierarchical manner RTI can aid in differentiating Type I, II, and III
problems and, thus, can help counter misdiagnoses.

Our center at UCLA stresses that major breakthroughs in countering students’ learning,
behavior, and emotional problems can be achieved only when school improvement policy,
planning, implementation, and accountability comprehensively address barriers to learning
and teaching and re-engage disconnected students. One major facet of this involves
redesigning and transforming a wide range of regular classroom strategies to enable learning.
Specifically, we place RTI in the context of the classroom and delineate it as a sequential and
hierarchical approach for all students. At the same time, we emphasize that classroom efforts
to enhance equity of opportunity must be embedded within a comprehensive schoolwide
system of student and learning supports (e.g., Center for Mental Health in Schools, 2011a).

23
 I. D. Identification

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalArea%2C13%2C

Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities Topic

Briefs -- Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CTopicalBrief%2C23%2C

Training Materials
Identification of Children with Specific Learning Disabilities Curriculum Module
http://nichcy.org/laws/idea/legacy/module11/

Dialogue Guide
Facilitator Handbook http://idea.ed.gov/download/facilitator.pdf

More on Identification of Specific Learning Disabilities

http://www.ideapartnership.org/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=844&oseppage=1

Presentations
RTI/EIS (Leadership 2006)
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CPresentation%2C16%2C

RTI-EIS (RIM 2007)

http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CPresentation%2C28%2C

Q&A Documents
Questions and Answers On Response to Intervention (RTI) and Early Intervening Services (EIS)
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

23
I. E. Barriers (Risk Factors),) others are distinct. Many protective buffers are
outcomes of efforts to engender full development.
PProtective Barriers, & Promoting From the perspective of interventions designed to
FFull Development address barriers to learning and development,
promoting healthy development is the other side of the
A s terms such as resilience and protective factors are
popularized, confusion and some controversies have
coin, and when these are done well, resilient behavior,
individual assets, and healthy behavior in children and
adolescents are engendered. Thus, protective buffers
arisen. In particular, an ongoing discussion centers on how are a natural by-product of comprehensive,
to reconcile differences among advocates of addressing multifaceted efforts to reduce risk factors and foster
risks and those who stress asset building and youth positive development, but the aims of such efforts go
development. Perhaps the following distinctions will help. well beyond what research has established so far as
protective factors
Risk factors. One way to think about risk factors is in
terms of potential external and internal barriers to It is a mistake, of course, to jump too quickly from
development and learning. Research indicates that the research that identifies compelling correlates to making
primary causes for most youngsters’ learning, behavior, assumptions about cause and effect. This is especially
and emotional problems are external factors (related to so when one understands that behavior is reciprocally
neighborhood, family, school, and/or peers). For a few, determined (i.e., is a function of person and
problems stem from individual disorders and differences. environment transactions). Many concepts labeled as
One facet of any emphasis on addressing barriers is risk and protective factors are so general and abstract
guided by the research on risk factors. (e.g., community disorganization, quality of school) that
they will require many more years of research to
Protective factors. Protective factors are conditions that identify specific causal variables. At the same time, it
buffer against the impact of barriers (risk factors). Such is evident that these general areas are of wide
conditions may prevent or counter risk producing contemporary concern and must be addressed in ways
conditions by promoting development of neighborhood, that represent the best evidence and wisdom that can
family, school, peer, and individual strengths, assets, be derived from the current knowledge base. The
corrective interventions, coping mechanisms, and special same is true of efforts to promote development.
assistance and accommodations. The term resilience
usually refers to an individual’s ability to cope in ways that Another mistake is to take lists of risk factors,
buffer. Research on protective buffers also guides efforts symptoms, or assets and directly translate them into
to address barriers. specific intervention objectives. The temptation to do
so is great – especially since such objectives often can
Promoting full development. As often is stressed, being be readily measured. Unfortunately, this type of
problem-free is not the same as being well-developed. approach is one of the reasons there is so much
Efforts to reduce risks and enhance protection can help inappropriate and costly program and service
minimize problems but are insufficient for promoting full fragmentation. It is also a reason why so many
development, well-being, and a value-based life. Those empirically supported interventions seem to account
concerned with establishing systems for promoting healthy for only a small amount of the variance in the
development recognize the need for direct efforts to multifaceted problems schools must address in
promote development and empowerment, including the enabling student learning. And, with respect to
mobilization of individuals for self-pursuit. In many cases, promoting development, such a piecemeal approach is
interventions to create buffers and promote full develop- unlikely to produce holistic results.
ment are identical, and the pay-off is the cultivation of
developmental strengths and assets. However, promoting Any school where large numbers of students manifest
healthy development is not limited to countering risks and learning, behavior, and emotional problems needs to
engendering protective factors. Efforts to promote full implement a comprehensive, multifaceted, and
development represent ends which are valued in and of cohesive continuum of interventions. This continuum
themselves and to which most of us aspire. must address barriers (reducing risks, enhancing
buffers) and promote full development. Policy makers
Considerable bodies of research and theory have and researchers must move beyond the narrow set of
identified major correlates that are useful guideposts in empirically supported programs to a research and
designing relevant interventions. And, as the examples in development agenda that pieces together systematic,
the box on the next page illustrate, there is a significant comprehensive, multifaceted approaches so that
overlap in conceptualizing the various factors. Some schools are effective in re-engaging the many students
barriers to development and learning who have become disengaged from classroom learning
(risk factors) and protective buffers are mirror images; and who are leaving school in droves.

24
 Examples of Barriers to Learning/Development,
Protective Buffers, & Promoting Full Development*
ENVIRONMENTAL C O N D I T I O N S ** PERSON FACTORS **

I. Barriers to Development and Learning (Risk producing conditions)

Neighborhood Family School and Peers Individual
>extreme economic deprivation >chronic poverty >poor quality school >medical problems
>community disorganization, >conflict/disruptions/violence >negative encounters with >low birth weight/
including high levels of >substance abuse teachers neurodevelopmental delay
mobility >models problem behavior >negative encounters with >psychophysiological
>violence, drugs, etc. >abusive caretaking peers &/or inappropriate problems
>minority and/or immigrant >inadequate provision for peer models >difficult temperament &
status quality child care adjustment problems

II. Protective Buffers (Conditions that prevent or counter risk producing conditions – strengths, assets,
corrective interventions, coping mechanisms, special assistance and accommodations)

Neighborhood Family School and Peers Individual

>strong economic conditions/ >adequate financial resources >success at school >higher cognitive
emerging economic >nurturing supportive family >positive relationships with functioning
opportunities members who are positive one or more teachers >psychophysiological
>safe and stable communities models >positive relationships with health
>available & accessible services >safe and stable (organized peers and appropriate peer >easy temperament,
>strong bond with positive and predictable) home models outgoing personality,
other(s) environment >strong bond with positive and positive behavior
>appropriate expectations and >family literacy other(s) >strong abilities for
standards >provision of high quality involvement and
>opportunities to successfully child care problem solving
participate, contribute, and be >secure attachments – early >sense of purpose
recognized and ongoing and future
>gender (girls less apt to
develop certain problems)

III. Promoting Full Development (Conditions, over and beyond those that create protective buffers, that
enhance healthy development, well-being, and a value-based life)
Neighborhood Family School and Peers Individual
>nurturing & supportive >conditions that foster >nurturing & supportive >pursues opportunities for
conditions positive physical & mental climate school-wide and personal development and
>policy and practice promotes health among all family in classrooms empowerment
healthy development & sense members >conditions that foster >intrinsically motivated to
of community feelings of competence, pursue full development,
self-determination, and well-being, and a value-
connectedness based life

*For more on these matters, see:

Huffman, L.,Mehlinger, S., Kerivan, A. (2000). Research on the Risk Factors for Early School
Problems and Selected Federal Policies Affecting Children's Social and Emotional Development and Their Readiness for
School. The Child and Mental Health Foundation and Agencies Network. http://www.nimh.nih.gov/childp/goodstart.cfm
Hawkins, J.D. & Catalano, R.F. (1992). Communities That Care. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Deci, E. & Ryan, R. (1985). Intrinsic Motivation and Self-Determination in Human Behavior. New York: Plenum.
Strader, T.N., Collins, D.A., & Noe, T.D. (2000). Building Healthy Individuals, Families, and Communities: Creating Lasting
Connections. New York: Kluwer Academic/Plenum Publishers
Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1994). On Understanding Intervention in Psychology and Education. Westport, CT: Praeger.

**A reciprocal determinist view of behavior recognizes the interplay of environment and person variables.
See the work of Piaget, Vygotsky, Bruner, Bandura, etc.

25
II. Learning Problems and Classroom Instruction

A. Opening the Door to Enhance Assistance, Partnerships,

and Teacher Learning

B. Learning Supports: Enabling Learning in the Classroom

C. Self-Study Survey to Enhance Classrooms

D. Continuing Education Resources to Enhance Classrooms

26
 II. A. Opening the Door to Enhance Assistance,
Partnerships, and Teacher Learning

New teachers need as much assistance and on-the-job training as can be provided.
All teachers need to learn more about enhancing classrooms to enable learning.

In opening the classroom door to enhance teacher effectiveness, the crux of the matter is to
ensure that effective mentoring and collegial practices are used. Learning effectively from and
partnering with colleagues is not just a talking game. It involves opportunities for mentors and
colleagues to model and guide change (e.g., demonstrate and discuss new approaches, guide
initial practice and eventual implementation, and follow-up to improve and refine). Preferably,
the modeling would take place in a teacher’s own classroom. However, if the school can
arrange it, the process also can be carried out in colleagues’ classrooms. Also, videotapes of
good practices in colleagues classrooms can be used in a variety of ways to enrich collegial
sharing.

One type of arrangement that can facilitate shared learning and enhanced efficacy is team
teaching with a mentor or a colleague. (For a discussion of team teaching, see Unit C in the
Center’s continuing education document entitled: Enhancing Classroom Approaches for
Addressing Barriers to Learning: Classroom-Focused Enabling; this can be downloaded from the
Center’s website.)

Another arrangement is for the school to use its specialist personnel (e.g., school psychologists, counselors,
special education resource teachers) in providing mentoring and demonstrations rather than as
“consultants.” That is, rather than telling teachers what they might do to address student learning, behavior,
and emotional problems, specialists should be trained to go into classrooms to model and then guide
teachers as they begin to practice and implement what they are learning.

27
 As Hargreaves cogently notes, the way to relieve the uncertainty and
open-endedness that characterizes classroom teaching is to create
communities of colleagues who work collaboratively [in cultures of shared
learning and positive risk-taking] to set their own professional limits and
standards, while still remaining committed to continuous improvement.
Such communities can also bring together the professional and personal
lives of teachers in a way that supports growth and allows problems to be
discussed without fear of disapproval or punishment.

Besides enhancing teacher learning, opening the classroom door allows for the addition of a
variety of forms of assistance and useful partnerships.

Increasingly, it is becoming evident that teachers need to work closely with other teachers and
school personnel, as well as with parents, professionals-in-training, volunteers, and so forth.
Collaboration and teaming are key facets of addressing barriers to learning. They allow
teachers to broaden the resources and strategies available in and out of the classroom to
enhance learning and performance.

Student learning is neither limited to what is formally taught nor to time spent in classrooms.
It occurs whenever and wherever the learner interacts with the surrounding environment. All
facets of the community (not just the school) provide learning opportunities. Anyone in the
community who wants to facilitate learning might be a contributing teacher. This includes
aides, volunteers, parents, siblings, peers, mentors in the community, librarians, recreation
staff, etc. They all constitute what can be called the teaching community. When a classroom
successfully joins with its surrounding community, everyone has the opportunity to learn and
to teach. Indeed, most schools do their job better when they are an integral and positive part
of the community. The array of people who might be of assistance are:

• Aides and a variety of volunteers

• Other regular classroom teachers
• Family members
• Students
• Specialist teachers and support service personnel
• School administrators
• Classified staff
• Teachers-in-training and other professionals-in-training

A few examples are highlighted in the Exhibit on the next page; others will be stressed in the
remaining units of this module.

28
 Exhibit
Examples of Opening the Door to Assistance and Partnerships

Using Aides and Volunteers in Targeted Ways

Chronically, teachers find classroom instruction disrupted by some student who is less interested in
the lesson than in interacting with a classmate. The first tendency usually is to use some simple form
of social control to stop the disruptive behavior (e.g., using proximity and/or a mild verbal
intervention). Because so many students today are not easily intimidated, teachers find such strategies
do not solve the problem. So, the next steps escalate the event into a form of Greek tragedy. The
teacher reprimands, warns, and finally sends the student to “time-out” or to the front office for
discipline. In the process, the other students start to titter about what is happening and the lesson
usually is disrupted.
In contrast to this scenario, you can train your aide (if you have one) or a volunteer who has the ability
to interact with students to work in ways that target such youngsters. The training of such individuals
focuses on what you want them to do when a problem arises and what they should be doing to
prevent such problems. In reaction to a problem, the aide or volunteer should expect you to give a
sign to go and sit next to the designated youngster. The focus is on re-engaging the student in the
lesson. If this proves undoable, the next step involves taking the student for a walk outside the
classroom. It is true that this means the student won’t get the benefit of instruction during that period,
but s/he wouldn’t anyway.
Using this approach and not having to shift into a discipline mode has multiple benefits. For one, you
are able to carry out your lesson plan. For another, the other students do not have the experience of
seeing you having a control contest with a student. (Even if you win such contests, it may have a
negative effect on how students perceive you; and if you somehow “lose it,” that definitely conveys
a wrong message. Either outcome can be counterproductive with respect to a caring climate and a
sense of community.) Finally, you have not had a negative encounter with the targeted student. Such
encounters build up negative attitudes on both sides which can be counterproductive with respect to
future teaching, learning, and behavior. Because there has been no negative encounter, you can reach
out to the student after the lesson is over and start to think about how you can use your aide or
volunteers to work with the student to prevent future problems.

Team Teaching

The obvious point here is that partnering with a compatible colleague enables the two of you to
complement each others’ areas of competence, provide each other with nurturance and personal
support, and allow for relief in addressing problems. (See Unit C)

Collaborating with Special Educators and other Specialists

Almost every school has some personnel who have special training relevant to redesigning the
classroom to work for a wider range of students. These specialists range from those who teach music
or art to those who work with students designated as in need of special education. They can bring to
the classroom not only their special expertise, but ideas for how the classroom design can incorporate
practices that will engage students who have not been doing well and can accommodate those with
special needs.

29
II. B. Learning Supports: Enabling Learning in the Classroom

The focus here is on what teachers can do to better address students’ learning, behavior,
and/or emotional problems. The emphasis is on six fundamental steps for enabling learning
in the classroom and schoolwide. These steps are intended to enhance student and learning
supports by
(1) rethinking assistance and support in the classroom
(2) heightening the emphasis on positive classroom and schoolwide climate
(3) emphasizing personalized intervention
(4) ensuring a continuum of interventions and using a sequential approach in
assessing responses to intervention
(5) extending ways to accommodate differences and disabilities
(6) expanding school improvement plans to include development of a
comprehensive system of student and learning supports
Step 1: Rethinking Assistance and Support in the Classroom

Bringing others into the classroom is essential to effectively (1) address

barriers to learning and teaching and (2) promote engagement, learning,
performance, and healthy development.

Successful schools are collaborative enterprises.All stakeholders need each other’s support
to enhance desired outcomes, especially for students who are not doing well at school.
Teachers need as much in-classroom support ascan be mobilized to enable student learning.
This is not a matter of additional hiring but of rethinking ways to bring more hands into the
classroom. Support can be mobilized not only byschool staff teaming to work more closely
with each other, but also by recruiting and directing parents, adult and student volunteers,
professionals-in-training, and others to help in the classroom.
With respect to a school’s student and learni ng support staff, a major need is to regularly
bring such personnel into classrooms as team members rather than as “consultants.” This
means teaching some support staff much more about classroom life and learning.

Guide 1 offers one example of a role that others can play in the classroom to

30
 Guide 1
An Example of a Role that Others Can Play in the Classroom
Related to Potentially Disruptive Students

Every teacher has had the experience of planning a wonderful lesson and havi ng the class
disrupted by one or two unengaged students (who often are more interested in interacting with
a classmate than pursuing the lesson). The first tendency usually is to use some simple form
of social control to stop the disruptive behavior (e.g., using proxim ity and/or a mild verbal
intervention). Because so many students today are not easily intimidated, teachers often find
such strategies don’t work. So, efforts to control are escalated. The teacher reprimands, warns,
and finally sends the student to “time-out” or to the front office for discipline. In the process,
the other students start to titter about what is happening and learning is disrupted.
In contrast to this scenario, teachers can involve others (e.g., support staff, volunteers) to work
with specific students in ways that help minimize disruptions, re-engage an errant student, and
provide response to intervention data. For example, a volunteer can be trained to watch for and
move quickly at the first indication that a student needs special guidance and support. The
volunteer is taught to go and sit next to the student and quietly try to re-engage the youngster
in the lesson. If this proves undoable, the volunteer takes the student to a quiet area in the
classroom and initiates another type of activity or, if necessary and feasible, goes out for a
brief walk. It is true that this means the student won’t get the benefit of instruction during that
period, but s/he wouldn’t anyway.
None of this is a matter of rewarding student bad behavior. Rather, it is a strategy for avoiding
the tragedy of disrupting the whole class while the teacher reprimands the culprit and in the
process increases a student's negative attitudes toward teaching and school. This use of others
allows teaching to continue, and as soon as time permits, it makes it possi ble for staff to
explore with the student ways to make the classroom a mutually satisfying place in which to
learn. Moreover, by handling the matter in this way, the teacher is likely to find the student
more receptive to discussing things than if the usual "logical consequences" have been
administered (e.g., loss of privileges, sending the student to time-out or to the assistant
principal).
Using this approach and not having to shif t into a discipline mode has multiple benefits. For
one, the teacher is able to carry out the day’s lesson plan. For another, the other students do
not have the experience of seeing the teacher having a control contest with a student. (Even
if the teacher wins such contests, it m ay have a negative effect on how students perceive them,
and if the teacher somehow “loses it,” that definitely conveys a wrong message. Either
outcome can be counterproductive with respect to a caring clim ate and a sense of community.)
Finally, the teacher has not had a negative encounter with the targeted student. Such
encounters build up negative attitudes on both sides which can be counterproductive with
respect to future teaching, learning, and behavior. Because there has been no negative
encounter, the teacher can reach out to the student after the lesson is over and start to think
about other ways to use an aide or volunteers to work with the student to prevent future
problems.

(Note: Appended to this document are relevant references and resources.)

31
Step 2: Heightening the Emphasis on Positive Classroom and Schoolwide Climate

Every teacher wants what goes on in the classroom (and schoolwide)

to be stimulating, caring, and supportive.

The ideal is to have an environment where students and teachers feel positively
engaged in pursuing the learning objectives of the day. Stude nt engagement is
especially important in preventing problems. Thus, minimally, classroom
practices must enhance motivation to learn and facilitate active learning and do
so in ways that promote a climate and culture of mutual caring and respect. With
these ends in mind, everyone who works in the classroom needs to move from an
overemphasis on behavior modification to an understanding of the role of intrinsic
motivation in engaging and re-engaging students in instruction (see Appendix).

Simply stated, active learning is learning by doing, listening, looking, and asking;
but it is not just being active that counts. It is the mobilization of the student to
seek out and learn. Specific activities are designed to capitalize on student
interests and curiosity, involve them in problem solving and guided inquiry, and
elicit their thinking through reflective discussions and appropriate products.
Moreover, the activities can be designed to do all this in ways that enhance
engagement and intrinsic motivation by minimizing threats to and enhancing
feelings of competence, self-determination, and relatedness to others.

There are many examples of ways to facilitate active learning at all grade levels.
It can take the form of class discussions, problem-based and discovery learning,
a project approach, involvement in “learning centers” at school, e xperiences
outside the classroom, and independent learning in or out of school. Obviously,
computers and the internet can be valuable tools in all this.

Stimulating, caring, and supportive cl assrooms do m uch more than m otivate

learning of subject matter and academic skills. They provide conditions for social
and emotional learning. St udents learn to cooperate,share responsibility, develop
understanding and skills related to conflict resolution and mediation, and much
more. For staff, such classrooms provide a context for collaborating with
colleagues and with a variety of volunteers to ensure mutual support and counter
staff burn out. The mental health implications of all this are clear.

Guide 2 highlights what’s involved in promoting a welcoming, caring,

and hopeful atmosphere in the classroom and schoolwide.

32
 Guide 2
What’s Involved in Promoting a Welcoming, Caring, and
Hopeful Atmosphere in the Classroom and Schoolwide

In a fundamental sense, a welcoming induction and ongoing support are critical

elements both in creating a positive sense of community and in facilitating a
student’s (and staff) school adjustment and performance. As such, they are
prime conditions for learning and thus to interpreting a student’s response to
any intervention at school.

Schoolwide strategies for welcoming and supporting staff, students, and families at school
every day are part of creating a m entally healthy school – one where staff, students, and
families interact positively with each other and identify with the school and its goals.
Analyses of practice and research suggest that a proactive approach to developing positive
school and classroom climates requires careful attention to (1) enhancing the quality of life
at school and especially in the classroom for students and staff, (2) pursuing a curriculum
and enrichment opportunities that promote not only academic, but also social, and emotional
learning, (3) fostering intri nsic motivation for learning and teaching, and (4) providing a
comprehensive system of student and learningsupports that enables teachers and other staff
to be effective in addressing barriers tolearning and teaching and re-engaging disconnected
students.

Examples of the focus for practice advocated in the literature include

1. ensuring safety and providing social support mechanisms for students and staff
2. offering an array of options for pursuing goals along with meaningful participation by
students and staff in decision making
3. transforming the classroom infrastructure from a big classroom into a set of smaller
units organized to maximize intrinsic motivation for learning and not based on
ability or problem-oriented grouping
4. providing instruction and responding to problems in a personalized way
5. using a variety of strategies for preventing and addressing problems as soon as they
arise
6. creating a healthy and attractive physical environment that is conducive to learning
and teaching.

33
 Step 3: Emphasizing Personalized Intervention

Personalization goes beyond individualization.

Clearly, how classrooms are arranged and how instruction is organized helps or hinders
learning and teaching and affects behavior. In essence, an optimal design promotes
personalized and holistic learning and minimizes learning, behavior, and emotional
problems. When a problem does arise, it is addressed im mediately with response to
intervention strategies (including a range of what in the past have been called “prereferral”
interventions).
The old adage: Meet learners where they ar e! captures the com monsense view of good
classroom practices and is the core principle for good instruction. This sometimes is referred
to as the concept of the “match” or the problem of “fit.”
Unfortunately, this core principle often is interpreted only as a call for individualized
instruction which emphasizes matching a student’s current capabilities (e.g., knowledge and
skills). The irony in this is reflected in the all too frequent teacher lament: “They could do
it, if only they wanted to!"
Students who don’t want to are the bane of teachers and of efforts to assess a student’s
responses to intervention (e.g., such students always appear to have more significant skills
deficits than they actually have). For students with learning, behavior, and emotional
problems, motivation for classroom learning often is the primary concern.
Most school staff are well aware that motivational factors (e.g., attitudes) play a fundamental
role in determining instructional outcomes. A variety of instructional approaches are
effective when a student is motivated to learn what is being taught. And good abilities are
more likely to emerge when students are motivated not only to pursue assignments, but also
are interested in using what they learn.
Thus, in contrast to individualized instruction, we use the term personalization
to designate matching individual differences in both capability and motivation.
And, from a psychological perspective, we stress that it is the student’s
perception, not the teachers’, that determines whether the fit is good or bad.
Good practice, then, includes ensuring a good motivational match (especially an intrinsic
motivational match), and this often involves overcoming avoidance motivation. Schools
strive to design instruction that fits, but th e reality is that they can only approximate an
optimal fit. They are likely to come closest by personalizing instruction and other
interventions.
Personalized intervention planning recognizes that:
• Optimal performance and learning require motivational readiness
• Motivation represents both a process and an outcome concern
• School staff not only need to try to increase motivation – especially intrinsic
motivation – but also to avoid practices that decrease it.

34
All this calls for en suring that classrooms offer a broad range of content, outcom e, and
procedural options, including a personalized structure to facilitate learning. With real
options, learners can be involved in meaningful decision making, and thus gain a greater
sense of competence and self-determination and learn to be effective decision makers.
Personalized practices also call for development of nonthreatening ways to provide
information about learning and performance.

Personalized interventions can enhance stable, positive, intrinsic attitudes that mobilize
ongoing pursuit of desired ends at and away from school. Developing intrinsic attitudes is
basic to increasing the type of motivated practice (reading for pleasure for example) that is
essential for mastering and assimilating what has just been learned (again see the Appendix).

Because the learner's perception is a critical factor in defining whether the

environment is a good fit, a basic concern is that of eliciting learners' perceptions of
how well what is offered matches both their interests and abilities.

Properly designed and carried out, personalizing instruction can be sufficient in

facilitating classroom learning for most students, and this reduces the need for
specialized assistance.

Personalizing regular classroom programs also can improve the effectiveness of

prevention, inclusion, and assessment of responses to intervention.

35
Step 4: Ensuring a Continuum of Interventions and Using a Sequential Approach in
Assessing Responses to Intervention

Classroom redesign must enhance teacher capability to prevent and

handle problems and reduce the need for out of class referrals.

A school that pursues equity of opportunity for all students strives to develop a full
continuum of interventions and implements them sequentially and effectively. The
continuum begins with promoting assets and preventing problems; then, as necessary,
responds to problems as early as feasible after they appear and offers narrowly focused
treatments and specialized help for severe/chronic problems (see Guide 3).

Guide 3

A Continuum and Sequence of Interventions at a School

Personalized instruction and

use of natural opportunities to

(1) Promote Learning &

Healthy Development & as necessary

(2) Prevent Problems

Intervening as early after onset

of problems as is feasible

as
as necessary
necessary

Specialized assistance for those with

severe, pervasive, or chronic problems

Guide 4 outlines a sequential framework to guide pursuing the most appropriate

and least disruptive intervention need ed for individuals with learning and
behavior problems and for assessing responses to interventions (RTI).

36
 Guide 4 Instruction Sequence and Levels

Step I. Personalizing Instruction

Add Step II as necessary
Step 2. Special assistance*
>for students who continue to
have problems;
>maintained only as long as needed

*Step II. As necessary: Best special practices (special assistance, such as remediation,
rehabilitation, treatment) are used differentially for minor and severe problems

if needs
are minor Level A Focus
Interventions that address
observable factors required
for performing As soon as feasible,
contemporary tasks move back to Level A
(e.g., improving basic knowledge
skills, and attitudes)

If necessary,
move to Level B Level B Focus
Interventions that address
prerequisite factors
required for surface
level functioning As soon as feasible,
move to Level B
If necessary and for those
with severe and Level C Focus
chronic problems
Interventions that
address underlying
interfering factors
(e.g., serious external barriers,
incompatible behavior
and interests, faulty learning
mechanisms that may
interfere with functioning at
higher levels)

37
 With increasing numbers of students identified as troubled or in trouble, schools m ust
design systems for intervening prior to referral for special education assessment.
Otherwise, the system will grind to a halt. As illustrated in Guide 4, the first step is
to personalize instruction. The intent is to be highly responsive to learner differences
in both motivation and developed capabilities and, in the process, enhance a caring
learning environment. With personalized instruction in place, the next step involves
providing special assistance as needed. No te that this second step involves three
levels of focus and is introduced only if learners continue to have problems. This
sequence helps to minimize false positive diagnoses (e.g., of LD, ADHD) and
identifies those who should be referred for special education assessment.
###############################
To be a bit more specific:

Step I personalizing instruction. The intent is to ensure a student perceives

instructional processes, content, and outcomes as a good match with his or her
interests and capabilities.
A first emphasis is on motivation. Practices focus on (re)engaging the student in
classroom instruction, with special attention paid to increasing intrinsic motivation
and minimizing psychological reactance.
Matching developed capabilities is a parallel concern in Step 1. Practices focus
on accounting for current knowledge and skills.

Then, based on a student’s responses,

it is determined if special assistance (step 2) also is needed.
Step II special assistance. Students for whom personalized instruction is found to
be insufficient are provided supportive assistance. In keeping with the principle of
using the least intervention necessary (e.g., doing what is needed in ways that are
least intrusive, restrictive, disruptive), step 2 stresses use of different levels of
special intervention.

Level A. Students with minor problems begin with special interventions that
directly focuses on readily observable problems interfering with classroom
learning and performance. The initial focus is on directly facilitating learning
related to immediate tasks and interests and on expanding the range of interests.
Practices involve (1) continued adaptation of methods to match and enhance levels
of motivation and development and (2) reteaching specific skills and knowledge
when students have difficulty.

Level B. Students who continue to have problems may also require a focus on
necessary prerequisites (e.g., readiness attitudes, knowledge, and skills) they
haven’t acquired and need for functioning at the higher level. Again, procedures
are adapted to improve the match, and reteaching is used when the learner has
difficulty. If missing prerequisites are successfully developed, the focus returns to
observable factors (Level A).

38
 Level C. If Levels A and B interventions don’t ameliorate the problem, the
focus shifts to possible underlying factors. Students with severe and chronic
problems require attention at all three levels. Only at this level is the emphasis on
factors that may interfere with functioning (e.g., incompatible behaviors and
interests, dysfunctional learning mechanisms). In pursuing underlying interfering
factors (Level C), there is increased and intensified use of a wide range of
instructional techniques. As soon as feasible, the focus shifts back to prerequisites
(Level B) and then on to current tasks and interests (Level A). The special
strategies are used whenever and as long as necessary.
While the framework looks linear, we all know that learning is an ongoing,
dynamic, and transactional process.
The intent in proceeding in a sequential and hierarchical way is to use the
simplest and most direct approaches first whenever problems appear
minor. However, if available data indicate the presence of severe and
pervasive problems, instruction for missing prerequisites (Level B) is begun
immediately with a view to determining the need to address underlying
interfering factors.
Notes:
(1) Any student who is not learning as well as most others in the classroom is a candidate
for special assistance. Special assistance is an essential aspect of revamping classroom
systems to address the needs of all learners. Using effective special assistance is
fundamental to reducing misbehavior, suspensions, expulsions, grade retention, referrals
to special education, and dropouts.
(2) As with personalization, special assistance must systematically and fully focus on
motivation. This involves (a) assessing how motivated the student is for the assistance,
(b) overcoming negative attitudes, (c) enhancing motivational readiness, (d) maintaining
motivation throughout the learning process, and (e) nurturing intrinsic motivation for
ongoing engagement. Attending to these matters is key to maximizing maintenance,
generalization, and expansion of learning. Ignoring such matters means intervening with
passive (and often hostile) learners. When motivation considerations are given short
shrift, assessments and diagnoses are confounded, and intervention may just as readily
exacerbate as correct students problems.

(3) Special assistance often is just an extension of general strategies (e.g., expanding
options, reducing levels of abstraction, intensifying the way stimuli are presented and
acted upon, increasing the amount and consistency of guidance and support); sometimes,
however, major accommodations and more specialized interventions are needed (e.g., use
of multisensory techniques). In either case, the process objectives are the same – to
improve the match between the intervention and a learner's motivation and capabilities.
To accomplish these objectives, all who are available to work with the youngster in the
classroom (e.g., teachers, aides, volunteers, resource teachers, student support staff) must
take the time to develop an understanding of students who are not learning well. This
encompasses an appreciation of strengths as well as weaknesses (including missing
prerequisites and interfering behaviors and attitudes, vulnerabilities, limitations, likes,
dislikes).

###############################

39
 Step 5. Extending Ways to Accommodate Differences and Disabilities

Accommodative strategies are intended to affect students’

motivation by involving them in activities they value and
believe are attainable with appropriate effort.

Part of enhancing conditions for learni ng is to accommodate a wider range of

differences related to levels of motivation and current functioning. For
example, environments can be changed to better account for youngsters who
are very active and/or distractable.

Some behavioral expectations and standards initially must be relaxed for some
students,. This usually involves widening limits for a time so that certain
behaviors of a given student will not be designated as infringing the rules.

For students with low motivation or nega tive attitudes, the need is to identify
a range of learning options they perceive as of considerable personal value and
as attainable with an appropriate amount of effort.

Guide 5 offers a range of examples for

accommodating differences and disabilities.

40
 Guide 5

Accommodations

If students seem easily distracted, the following might be used:

• identify any specific environmental factors that distract students and make
appropriate environmental changes
• have students work with a group that is highly task-focused
• let students work in a study carrel or in a space that is “private” and uncluttered
• designate a volunteer to help whenever students becomes distracted and/or
start to misbehave, and if necessary, to help them make transitions
• allow for frequent "breaks"
• interact with students in ways that will minimize confusion and distractions
(e.g., keep conversations relatively short; talk quietly and slowly; use concrete
terms; express warmth and nurturance)

If students need more support and guidance, the following might be used:

• develop and provide sets of specific prompts, multisensory cues, steps, etc. using
oral,written, and perhaps pictorial and color-coded guides as organizational aids
related to specific learning activities, materials, and daily schedules
• ensure someone checks with students frequently throughout an activity to
provide additional support and guidance in concrete ways (e.g., model,
demonstrate, coach)
• support student efforts related to self-monitoring and self-evaluation and provide
nurturing feedback keyed to student progress and next steps

If students have difficulty finishing tasks as scheduled, try the following:

• modify the length and time demands of assignments and tests

• modify the nature of the process and products (e.g., allow use of technological
tools and allow for oral, audio-visual, arts and crafts, graphic, and computer
generated products)

(Cont.)

41
 Accommodations (Guide 5 cont.)
504 Accommodation Checklist
Various organizations concerned with special populations circulate lists of 504 accommodations.
The following is one that was downloaded from website of a group concerned with Fetal Alcohol
Syndrome (see http://www.come-over.to/FAS/IDEA504.htm ).
Physical Arrangement of Room
• seating student near the teacher • do not require lengthy outside reading assignments
• seating student near a positive role model • teacher monitor students self-paced assignments (daily,
• standing near student when giving directions/presenting weekly, bi-weekly)
lessons • arrangements for homework assignments to reach
• avoiding distracting stimuli (air conditioner, high traffic home with clear, concise directions
area) • recognize and give credit for student's oral participation
• increasing distance between desks in class
Lesson Presentation Test Taking
• pairing students to check work • allowing open book exams
• writing key points on the board • giving exam orally
• providing peer tutoring • giving take home tests
• providing visual aids, large print, films • using more objective items (fewer essay responses)
• providing peer notetaker • allowing student to give test answers on tape recorder
• making sure directions are understood • giving frequent short quizzes, not long exams
• including a variety of activities during each lesson • allowing extra time for exam
• repeating directions to student after they are given to the • reading test item to student
class: then have him/her repeat and explain directions to • avoid placing student under pressure of time or
teacher competition
• providing written outline
• allowing student to tape record lessons Organization
• having child review key points orally
• teaching through multi-sensory modes, visual, auditory, • providing peer assistance with organizational skills
kinestetics, olfactory • assigning volunteer homework buddy
• using computer-assisted instruction • allowing student to have an extra set of books at home
• accompany oral directions with written directions for child • sending daily/weekly progress reports home
to refer to blackboard or paper • developing a reward system for in-schoolwork and
• provide model to help students, post the model, refer to it homework completion
often • providing student with a homework assignment
• provide cross age peer tutoring notebook
• to assist the student in finding the main idea underlying,
highlighting, cue cards, etc. Behaviors
• breaking longer presentations into shorter segments • use of timers to facilitate task completion
Assignments/worksheets • structure transitional and unstructured times (recess,
hallways, lunchroom, locker room, library, assembly,
• giving extra time to complete tasks field trips, etc.)
• simplifying complex directions • praising specific behaviors
• handing worksheets out one at a time • using self-monitoring strategies
• reducing the reading level of the assignments • giving extra privileges and rewards
• requiring fewer correct responses to achieve grade (quality • keeping classroom rules simple and clear
vs. quantity) • making "prudent use" of negative consequences
• allowing student to tape record assignments/homework • allowing for short breaks between assignments
• providing a structured routine in written form • cueing student to stay on task (nonverbal signal)
• providing study skills training/learning strategies • marking student's correct answers, not his mistakes
• giving frequent short quizzes and avoiding long tests • implementing a classroom behavior management
• shortening assignments; breaking work into smaller system
segments • allowing student time out of seat to run errands, etc.
• allowing typewritten or computer printed assignments • ignoring inappropriate behaviors not drastically outside
prepared by the student or dictated by the student and classroom limits
recorded by someone else if needed. • allowing legitimate movement
• using self-monitoring devices • contracting with the student
• reducing homework assignments • increasing the immediacy of rewards
• not grading handwriting • implementing time-out procedures
• student not be allowed to use cursive or manuscript writing
• reversals and transpositions of letters and numbers should
not be marked wrong, reversals or transpositions should be
pointed out for corrections

42
 Step 6: Expanding School Improvement Plans to Include Development of a
Comprehensive System of Student and Learning Supports

Instruction must be supported by a broad-range of student

and learning supports focusing on factors interfering with
good instruction and productive learning.

Clearly, a wide range of external and internal barriers to learning and teaching pose
pervasive and entrenched challenges to educators across the country, particularly in
chronically low performing schools. Failure to directly address such barriers ensures
that (a) too many students will continue to struggle in school, and (b) teachers will
continue to divert precious instructional time to dealing with behavior and other
problems that can interfere with classroom engagement for all students.

The five steps outlined so far em phasize enhancing conditions for learning in the
classroom. Such strategies are fundam ental and essential, but the work can’t stop
there if all students are to have an equal opportunity to succeed at school. Classroom
improvements need to be part of a unified and comprehensive schoolwide system for
addressing barriers to learning and teaching and re-engaging disconnected students.

As illustrated in Guide 6, such a system is conceptualized

as an enabling or learning supports component.

As indicated in Guide 6, an enabling component involves first addressing interfering

factors and then (re)engaging students in classroom instruction. The reality is that
interventions that do not stress engaging students fully in classroom learning generally
are insufficient in sustaining, over time, student involvement, good behavior, and
effective learning at school. Such a component is especially critical where large
numbers of students are not doing well and at any school that is not yet paying
adequate attention to equity and diversity concerns.

Work related to pioneering initiatives around the country is providing realistic and
cost-effective guidance for fully integrating such a component into school
improvement policy and practice. See Where’s it happening? –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/nind7.htm

43
 Guide 6

An Enabling or Learning Supports Component to Address Barriers

and Re-engage Students in Classroom Instruction

Range of Learners
(based on their response to academic
instruction at any given point in time)

On Track
Motivationally
ready & able

Moderate Needs No barriers Instructional

Not very motivated; Component Desired
Outcomes for
Lacking prerequisite Enabling Classroom All Students
knowledge & skills; Barriers** Component* Teaching
to + (1) Academic
Different learning learning, (1) Addressing Enrichment achievement
rates, & styles; development, interfering Activity
and teaching factors (2) Social-
Minor High Standards emotional
vulnerabilities. (2) Re-engaging well-being
students in
High Needs classroom (3) Successful
Avoidant; instruction postsecondary
transition
Very deficient in Enhancing the Focus
current capabilities; on the Whole Child High Expectations
and Accountability
Has a disability; *In some places, an Enabling Component is called a Learning Supports
Component. Whatever it is called, the component is to be developed as a
Major health problems comprehensive system of learning supports at the school site.

**Examples of Risk-Producing Conditions that Can be Barriers to Learning

E n v i r o n m e n t a l C o n d i t i o n s Person Factors
Neighborhood Family School and Peers Individual
>extreme economic deprivation >chronic poverty >poor quality school >medical problems
>community disorganization, >domestic conflict/ >negative encounters with >low birth weight/
including high levels of disruptions/violence teachers neurodevelopmental delay
mobility & unemployment >parent/sibling substance >negative encounters with >psychophysiological
>violence, drugs, crime, etc. abuse or mental illness peers &/or inappropriate problems
>minority and/or immigrant >modeling problem behavior peer models >difficult temperament &
isolation >abusive caretaking >many disengaged adjustment problems
>Lack of positive youth >inadequate provision for students >inadequate nutrition and
development opportunities quality child care health care

Note: A reciprocal determinist view of behavior recognizes the interplay of environment and
person variables with negative environmental conditions exacerbating person factors.

44
 A comprehensive system of student and learning supports encompasses both a
continuum of interventions and organized content. The prototype for organizing the
content emphasizes six arenas encompassing interventions to:
• Enhance regular classroom strategies to enable learning (e.g., improving
instruction for students who with mild-moderate learning and behavior
problems and those have become disengaged from learning at school;
includes a focus on prevention, early intervening, and use of strategies
such as response to intervention)
• Support transitions (i.e., assisting students and families as they negotiate
school and grade changes and many other transitions)
• Increase home & school connections & engagement
• Respond to, and where feasible, prevent crises
• Increase community involvement and support (outreach to develop
greater community involvement and support, including enhanced use of
volunteers)
• Facilitate student and family access to effective services and special
assistance as needed.

As Guide 7 illustrated, the continuum andsix content arenas can be formed into
an intervention framework for a comprehensive system of learning supports.

The matrix provides a unifying fram ework for mapping what is in place and analyzing
gaps. Such a framework can guide school improvement planning for developing a
comprehensive system.

It is evident that teachers deserve to have their efforts enabled by a unified and
comprehensive system of student and learning supports. For such a system emerge,
however, teachers must mobilize all their colleagues to advocate for expanding school
improvement plans to include such development as a priority.

As aids to this end, our Center has developed a range of resources (see for example
Establishing a comprehensive system of learning supports at a school: Seven steps
for principals and their staff – http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/7steps.pdf

45
 Guide 7

A Unifying Intervention Framework to Aid Schools, Families, and Neighborhoods

in Providing a Comprehensive and Cohesive System of Supports
Integrated Intervention Subsystems

Subsystems for
Promoting
Healthy
Development Subsystem for Subsystem for
& Preventing Early Treatment &
Problems Intervention Specialized Care

In Classrooms

Arenas of Support for Transitions

Intervention
Content Crisis response/prevention

Home involvement

Community engagement

Student & Family Assistance

Pre-school

Grades k-3

Grades 4-5
Developmental Levels
Grades 6-8

Grades 9-12

Post-secondary

46
 A Few References and Resource Aids
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2006). The implementation guide to student learning supports in
the classroom and schoolwide: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2006). The school leader’s guide to student learning supports:
New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.

Center for Mental Health in School (2011). Implementing response to intervention in context.
Los Angeles: Author at UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/implementingrti.pdf

Center for Mental Health in School (2011). Moving beyond the three tier intervention pyramid
toward a comprehensive framework for student and learning supports. Los Angeles: Author
at UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/briefs/threetier.pdf

Center for Mental Health in School (2011). Where’s it happening? Los Angeles: Author at
UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/nind7.htm

Other Resources

One easy way to access a wide range of resources for enhancing classroom and schoolwide
interventions is to use our Center’s Online Clearinghouse Quick Finds. The menu of over 130
topics covers matters related to each of the steps highlighted in this set of practice notes; see
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/quicksearch.htm

For resources directly related to matters discussed in this set of Practice Notes, see:

>Center for Mental Health in School (2011). RTI and classroom & schoolwide learning
supports: A guide for teachers and learning supports staff. Los Angeles: Author at
UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtiguide.pdf

Also see the U.S. Department of Education’s What Works Clearinghouse – see Topics at
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/topics.aspx

To support efforts to guide expansion of school improvement planning to include development

of a comprehensive system of student and learning supports, see:

>One Hour Introductory Webinar. Strengthening school improvement: Developing a

comprehensive system of learning supports to address barriers to learning and teaching.
Developed by our Center in collaboration with the American Association of School
Administrators and Scholastic. – https://scholastic.webex.com/scholastic/lsr.php?AT=
pb&SP=TC&rID=48915112&rKey=09f14db0881f5159&act=pb

>Examples of what others already are doing – Where’s it happening? –

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/nind7.htm

>Toolkit for Rebuilding Student Supports into a Comprehensive System for Addressing
Barriers to Learning and Teaching –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/resourceaids.htm

47
 Appendix
Intrinsic Motivation and the Classroom*
Intrinsic motivation is a fundam ental concern in every classroom. Understanding intrinsic
motivation clarifies how essential it is to avoid processes that limit options, make students feel
controlled and coerced, and that focus mainly on “remedying” problems. Overreliance on extrinsic
motivation risks producing avoidance reactions in the classroom and to school and, thus, can reduce
opportunities for positive learning and for development of positive attitudes. Over time, the result
is that too many students disengage from classroom learning.

Practices for preventing disengagement and efforts to re-engage disconnected students (f amilies,
staff) require minimizing conditions that negatively affect intrinsic motivation and maximizing those
that enhance it.

Appreciating Intrinsic Motivation

Psychological scholarship over the last fifty years has brought renewed attention to motivation as
a central concept in understanding learning and attention problems. This work is just beginning to
find its way into personnel preparation program s and schools. One line of work em phasizes the
relationship of learning and behavior problems to deficiencies in intrinsic motivation and clarifies
the importance of focusing on
• feelings of self-determination
• feelings of competence and expectations of success
• feelings of interpersonal relatedness
• the range of interests and satisfactions related to learning.

Activities to correct def iciencies in intrinsic motivation are directed at im proving awareness of
personal motives and true capabilities, learning to set valued and appropriate goals, learning to value
and to make appropriate and satisfying choices, and learning to value and accept responsibility for
choice.

The point for emphasis here is that engaging and re-engaging students in learning involves matching
motivation. Matching motivation requires an appreciation of the importance of a student's
perceptions in determining the right mix of intrinsic and extrinsic reasons. It also requires
understanding the key role played by expectations related to outcome . Without a good m atch, social
control strategies can suppress negative attitudes and behaviors, but are unlikely to re-engage
disconnected students in classroom learning.

Strong intrinsic m otivation can be viewed as a fundamental protective factor and as a key to
developing resiliency. Students who are intrinsically motivated to learn at school seek out
opportunities and challenges and go beyond requirements. In doing so, they learn more and learn
more deeply than do classmates who are extrinsically motivated. Facilitating the learning of such
students is fairly straightforward and meshes well with school improvements that primarily
emphasize enhancing instructional practices. The focus is on helping establish ways for students
who already are m otivationally ready and able to achieve and maintaining and enhancing their
motivation. The process involves knowing when, how, and what to teach and also knowing when
and how to structure the situation so students can learn on their own.

*Note: While our focus here is on students, any discussion of motivation has applications
to family members and school personnel. Think about the challenge of home involvement
in schooling, and think about teacher burnout and dropout; think about systemic change.

48
In contrast, students who manifest learning, behavior, and/or emotional problems usually are not
motivationally ready and able to pursue nonpersonalized instructional practices. They often have
extremely negative perceptions of teachers, pr ograms, and school and generally are not open to
people and activities that they perceive as "the same old thing." Any effort to re-engage disengaged
students must begin by addressing negative per ceptions. Teachers and school support staff m ust
work together to reverse conditions that led to such perceptions. Minimally, exceptional efforts must
be made to enhance such a student’s perceptions that (1) the teacher and other interveners are
supportive (rather than controlling and indifferent) and (2) content, outcomes, and activity options
are personally valuable and obtainable.

Examples of practices for maximizing intrinsic motivation are:

• Personalized (as opposed to individualized) instruction
• Building relationships and planning instruction with an understanding of student
perceptions and including a range of real life needs, as well as personal and cooperative
experiences
• Providing real, valued, and attainable options and choices ensuring shared decision
making
• Enhancing feelings of competence, self-determination, and relatedness to valued others

Examples of minimizing threats to intrinsic motivation are:

• Ensuring a welcoming, caring, safe, and just environment
• Countering perceptions of social control and indifference
• Designing motivated applications as opposed to rote practice and deadening homework
• Ensuring extra-curricular and enrichment opportunities
• Providing regular feedback in ways that minimize use of evaluative processes that
threaten feelings of competence, self-determination, and relatedness to valued others

Motivation and School Improvement: Beyond Reinforcement Theory

Two common reasons people give for not bothering to learn something are "It's not worth it" and
"I know I won't be able to do it." In gener al, the amount of time and energy spent on an activity
seems dependent on how much it is valued by the person and on the person's expectation that what
is valued will be attained without too great a cost.

About Valuing
What makes something worth doing? Prizes? Money? Merit awards? Praise? Certainly! We all do
a great many things, some of which we don' t even like, because the activity leads to a desired
reward. Similarly, we often do things to escape punishment or other negative consequences that we
prefer to avoid.
Rewards and punishments may be m aterial or social. For those with learning, behavior, and
emotional problems, there is widespread use of such "incentives" (e.g., systematically giving points
or tokens that can be exchanged for candy, prizes, praise, free time, or social interactions).
Punishments have included loss of free time and other privileges, added work, fines, isolation,
censure, and suspension. Grades have been used both as rewards and punishments. Because people
will do things to obtain rewards or avoid punishment, rewards and punishment often are called
reinforcers. Because they generally com e from sources outside the person, they often are called
extrinsics.

49
Extrinsic reinforcers are easy to use and can immediately affect behavior. Therefore, they are widely
used. Unfortunately, the immediate effects are usually limited to very specific behaviors and often
are short-term. Moreover, extensive use of extrinsics can have some undesired effects. And,
sometimes the available extrinsics simply aren't powerful enough to get the desired results.

It is important to remember that what makes an extrinsic rewarding is that it is experienced by the
recipient as a reward. What makes it a highly valued reward is that the recipient highly values it. If
someone doesn't like candy, there is not much point in offering it as a reward. Furthermore, because
the use of extrinsics has lim its, it's fortunate that people often do things even without apparent
extrinsic reason. In fact, a lot of what people learn and spend time doing is done for intrinsic reasons.
Curiosity, for example, seems to be an innate quality that leads us to seek stimulation, avoid
boredom, and learn a great deal.

People also pursue som e things because of an innate striving for competence . Most of us val ue
feeling competent. We try to conquer some challenges, and if none are around, we usually seek one
out. Of course, if challenges seem unconquerable or make us too uncomfortable (e.g., too anxious
or exhausted), we try to put them aside and move on to something more promising.

Another important intrinsic motivator is an internal push toward self-determination. People seem
to value feeling and thinking that they have some degree of choice and freedom in deciding what
to do. And, hum an beings also seem intrinsically m oved toward es tablishing and m aintaining
relationships. That is, we value the feeling of interpersonal connection.

About Expectations
We may value something a great deal; but if we believe we c an't do it or can' t obtain it without
paying too great a personal price, we are likely to look for other valued activities and outcomes to
pursue. Expectations about these m atters are influenced by past expe riences that influence our
perceptions of how easy or hard it will be to obt ain a desired outcome. Sometimes we know we can
easily do something, but it may not be something we value pursuing. At other times, we may value
something a great deal but not believe we can do it or can only obtain it by paying too great a
personal price. Under such circumstances, we are likely to look for other valued activities and
outcomes to pursue.

Previously unsuccessful arenas usually are seen as unlikely paths to valued extrinsic rewards or
intrinsic satisfactions. We may perceive past failure as the result of our lack of ability; or we may
believe that more effort was required than we were willing to give. We may also feel that the help
we needed to succeed was not available. If our perception is that very little has changed with regard
to these factors, our expectation of succeeding now will be rather low. In general, then, what we
value interacts with our expectations, and motivation is one product of this interaction. (See next
page; also see the reference list for key citations on motivation.)

How many students does

it take to change a light bulb? Only one, but the student
has to want to change the bulb!

50
Valuing and Expectations in the Classroom
Engaging and re-engaging students depends on how the classroom and school address concerns
about valuing and expectations. Schools and classrooms that offer a broad range of learning and
enrichment opportunities (e.g., content, outcomes, procedural options) and involve students in
decision making are best equipped to m eet the challenge. At the risk of over-sim plifying things, the
following discussion underscores a few facets of motivation theory.
E x V
Can you decipher this? (Don't go on until you've tried.)
Hint: the "x" is a multiplication sign.
In case the equation stumped you, it is probably because the main introduction to motivational
thinking still tends to overem phasize reinforcement theory (which essentially stresses extrinsic
motivation). Despite this, you probably intuitively understand the following points.
“E” represents an individual's expectations about outcome (in school this often means expectations
of success or failure). “V” represents valuing, with valuing influenced by both what is valued
intrinsically and extrinsically. Thus, in a genera l sense, motivation can be thought of in term s of
expectancy times valuing and that intrinsic factors can be powerful motivators.
Within some limits (which we need not discuss here), high expectations and high valuing produce
high motivation, while low expectations (E) and high valuing (V) produce relatively weak
motivation. Appropriate appreciation of all this is n ecessary in designing a match for optimal
learning and performance.

Youngsters may greatly value the idea of im proving their reading. They usually are not
happy with limited skills and know they would feela lot better about if they could read. But,
often they experience everything the teacher asks them to do is a waste of time. They have
done it all before, and they still have a reading problem. Sometimes they will do the
exercises, but just to earn points to go on a field trip and to avoid the consequences of not
cooperating. Often, however, they try to get out of doing the work by distracting the teacher.
After all, why should they do things they are certain won't help them read any better.
(Expectancy x Valuing = Motivation 0 x 1.0 = 0)
High expectations paired with low valuing alsoyield low approach motivation. Thus, the oft-
cited remedial strategy of guaranteeing success by designing tasks to be very easy is not as
simple a recipe as it sounds. Indeed, the approach is likely to fail if the outcome (e.g.,
improved reading, learning math fundamentals, applying social skills) is not valued or if the
tasks are experienced as too boring or if doing them is seen as too em barrassing. In such
cases, a strong negative value is attached to the activities, and this contributes to avoidance
motivation.
(Expectancy x Valuing = Motivation 1.0 x 0 = 0)

Caution about Over-relying on Extrinsics

The discussion of valuing and expectations underscores that motivation is not something that can
be determined solely by forces outside the individual. Others can plan activities and outcomes to
influence motivation and learning; however, how the activities and outcom es are experienced
determines whether they are pursued (or avoided) with a little or a lot of effort and ability.
Understanding that an individual's perceptions can affect motivation has clarified some undesired
effects of over-relying on extrinsics.

51
Because of the prominent role they play in school programs, grading, testing, and other performance
evaluations are a special concern in any discussion of overreliance on extrinsics as a way to
reinforce positive learning. Although grades often are discussed as sim ply providing information
about how well a student is doing, many, if not most, students perceive each grade as a reward or
a punishment. Certainly, many teachers use grades to try to control behavior – to reward those who
do assignments well and to punish those who don' t. Sometimes parents add to a student's perception
of grades as extrinsic reinforcers by giving a reward for good report cards.
We all have our own horror stories about the negative impact of grades on ourselves and others. In
general, grades have a way of reshaping what students do w ith their learning opportunities. In
choosing what to study, students strongly consider what grades they are likely to receive. As
deadlines for assignments and tests get closer, interest in the topic gives way to interest in
maximizing one's grade. Discussion of interesting issues and problems related to the area of study
gives way to questions about how long a paper should be and what w ill be on the test. None of this
is surprising given that poor grades can result in having to repeat a course or being denied certain
immediate and long-range opportunities. It is simply a good example of how systems that
overemphasize extrinsics may have a serious negative impact on intrinsic motivation for learning.
And if the impact of current practices is harmfulto those who are able learners, imagine the impact
on students with learning and behavior problems!
The point is that extrinsic rewards can undermine intrinsic reasons for doing things. Although this
is not always the case and may not always be a bad thing, it is an important consideration in deciding
to rely on extrinsic reinforcers in addressing learning, behavior, and emotional problems.
Many individuals with learning problems also are described as hyperactive, distractable, impulsive,
behavior disordered, and so forth. Their behavior patterns are seen as interfering with efforts to
remedy their learning problem s. Although motivation has always been a concern to those who work
with learning and behavior problems, the emphasis in handling these interfering behaviors usually
is on using extrinsics as part of efforts to directly control and/or in conjunction with direct skill
instruction. For example, interventions are designed to improve impulse control, perseverence,
selective attention, frustration, tolerance, sustained attention and follow-through, and social
awareness and skills. In all cases, the emphasis is on reducing or eliminating interfering behaviors,
usually with the presumption that then the student will re-engage in learning. However, there is little
evidence that these strategies enhance a student’s motivation toward classroom learning.

About Psychological Reactance and Re-engagement

When students are not engaged in the lessons at hand, it is commonplace to find them pursuing
courses of action teachers find troublesome. The greatest concern usually arises when a student’s
behavior is disruptive. Schools react to such behavior with an array of social control strategies. At
one time, a heavy dose of punishment was the dominant approach. Currently, the emphasis is on
more positive practices designed to provide “behavior support” in and out-of-the-classroom.
An often stated assum ption is that stopping students’ misbehavior makes them amenable to teaching
and enhances classroom learning. In a few cases, this may be so. However, the assumption ignores
all the work on understanding psychological reactance and the need for individuals to restore their
sense of self-determination (Deci & Flaste, 1995). Moreover, it belies two painfulrealities: the
number of students who continue to manifest poor academic achievement and the staggering dropout
rate in too many schools.
Psychological reactance is a m otivational force that seems to arise when an individuals perceive
threats to their self-determ ination. When this happens, they are m otivated to react in ways that
protect or restore their sense of personal control.
The argument sometimes is made that the reason students continue to misbehave and not do well
at school is because the wrong socialization prac tices (e.g., punishment, illogical consequences) are

52
used or that good social control practices areimplemented incorrectly. Thus, the ongoing emphasis
is on convincing schools to (1) continue to minimize punishment and (2) do better in executing
programs for social skills training, asset development, character education, and positive behavior
support. The move from punishment to positive approaches is a welcome one. However, most of the
new initiatives have not focused enough on a basic system failure that must be addressed if
improved behavior is to be maintained. That is, strategies that focus on positive behavior have paid
too little attention to helping teachers understand psychological reactance and the implications for
engagement and disengagement related to classroom learning. Teachers tell us that they are taught
a bit about engaging students, but neither pre- nor inservice focus much on how to prevent students
from disengaging and how to re-engage a student who has become disconnected.

So: the irony is that overreliance on extrinsics to control behavior may exacerbate
student problems. Motivational research suggests that when people perceive their
freedom of choice is threatened, they have a psychological reaction that motivates
them to restore their sense of freedom. (For instance, when those in control say: You
can’t do that ... you must do this ..., the covert and som etimes overt psychological
reaction of students often is: Oh, you think so!) This line of research also suggests
that with prolonged denial of freedom, people’s reactivity diminishes, they become
amotivated and usually feel helpless and ineffective.
All this argues for 1) minimizing student disengagement and maximizing re-
engagement by moving school culture toward a greater focus on intrinsic motivation
and 2) minimizing psychological reactance and resistance and enhancing perceptions
that lead to re-engagem ent in lear ning at school by rethinking social control
practices.

If you didn’t make so many rules,

there wouldn’t be so many for me to break!

A Few References
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior.
New York: Plenum.

Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn (2nd ed.). By. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Dweck, C.S. (2007). The Perils and Promises of Praise. Educational Leadership, 65, 34–39.

National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (2003). Engaging schools: Fostering high
school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.

53
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on motivation at
school (pp. 171-196). New York: Routledge.

Stipek, D.J.(2001). Motivation to learn: Integrating theory and practice (4th ed.). Boston: Allyn
& Bacon
.
For popularized presentations, see:

Deci, E.L., with Flaste, R. (1995). Why we do what we do. New York: Penguin Books.

Pink, D. (2009). Drive: The surprising truth about what motivates us. NY: Riverhead Books.

For more about motivation, go to our Center’s Online Clearinghouse Quick Find on the topic –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/motiv.htm

54
II. C. Self-study Survey to Enhance Classrooms

Classroom-based Learning Supports

T
his arena provides a fundamental example not only of how learning supports overlap
regular instructional efforts, but how they add value to prevailing efforts to improve
instruction. Classroom-based learning supports enhance strategies in regular classrooms
to enable learning. Such supports can (a) prevent problems, (b) facilitate intervening as soon
as problems are noted, (c) enhance intrinsic m otivation for learning, and ( d) re-engage
students who have become disengaged from classroom learning. These ends are accomplished
by accounting for a wider range of individual differences, preventing and handling a wider
range of problems when they arise, and fostering a caring context for learning.
Of course, teachers can’t be expect ed to do all this alone. Enhancing classroom learning
supports involves opening the classroom door to invite in a range of colleagues* and
volunteers to collaboratively work on addressing barriers to learning and teaching.
A first focus is on ensuring instruction is personalized. This includes an emphasis on
enhancing intrinsic motivation for all students and especially those manifesting
mild-moderate learning and behavior problems; re-engaging those who have become
disengaged from learning at school; providing learning accommodations when necessary;
using response to intervention; addressing external barriers with a focus on prevention and
early intervening. Then, as necessary, adding special assistance in the classroom. Referrals
for special assistance outside the classroom are made only after in-classroom learning
supports are proven insufficient.
Work in this arena requires personalizing in-service professional development of teachers,
student and learning support staff, and all othe rs helping in the classroom. The focus is on
increasing the effectiveness of regular classroom instruction and reducing the need for
specialized services. Special attention is needed to increase the array of strategies for teaching
students to compensate for differences, vulnerabilities, and disabilities and for enhancing
accommodations and special assistance in the classroom as necessary. Additional knowledge
and skills also are needed for developing a classroom infrastructure that transforms a big class
into a set of smaller ones.
*As appropriate, support in the classroom is provided by student and learning
support staff. This involves restructuring and redesigning the roles, functions,
and staff development of these professionals so they are able to work closely
with teachers and students in the classroom.

55
Classroom-based Learning Supports

Use the following ratings in responding to items 1-5.

DK = don't know; 1 = not yet; 2 = planned; 3 = just recently initiated; 4 = has been functional for
a while; 5 = well institutionalized (well established with a commitment to maintenance

1. Is there a stated policy for enhancing Classroom-based DK 1 2 3 4 5

Learning Supports?

2. Is there a designated leader or leaders for enhancing DK 1 2 3 4 5

Classroom-based Learning Supports?

3. Do personnel involved in enhancing Classroom-based DK 1 2 3 4 5

Learning Supports meet regularly as a workgroup to
evaluate current status and plan next steps?

4. Is there a written plan for capacity building related to DK 1 2 3 4 5

enhancing Classroom-based Learning Supports?

5. Are there written descriptions available to give all

DK 1 2 3 4 5
stakeholders regarding current Classroom-based
Learning Supports?
____________________________________________________
Use the following ratings in responding to the next items.
DK = don’t know
1 = hardly ever effective
2 = effective about 25 % of the time
3 = effective about half the time
4 = effective about 75% of the time
5 = almost always effective

With respect to enhancing Classroom-based Learning

Supports, how effective are each of the following:

>current policy DK 1 2 3 4 5

>designated leadership DK 1 2 3 4 5

>workgroup monitoring and planning of next steps DK 1 2 3 4 5

>capacity building efforts DK 1 2 3 4 5

56
Classroom-based Learning Supports (cont.)
Yes but If no,
Indicate all items that apply. more of is this
this is something
Yes needed No you want?
I. Reframing the approach to classroom instruction to enhance
teacher capability to prevent and intervene as soon after
problems arise and reduce need for out of class referrals
A. Is instruction personalized (i.e., designed to match each ___ ___ ___ ___
student’s motivation and capabilities)?
___ ___ ___ ___
B. Is in-classroom special assistance available when needed?
C. Are there small group and independent learning options? ___ ___ ___ ___
D. Are behavior problems handled in ways that minimize ___ ___ ___ ___
negative impact on student attitudes toward classroom
learning (e.g, reduced reliance on social control strategies?)
E. Is there a range of curricula/instructional options & choices? ___ ___ ___ ___
F. Is there systematic use of response to intervention and ___ ___ ___ ___
related “prereferral” interventions?
G. Are materials and activities upgraded to ensure ___ ___ ___ ___
1. basic supplies are available in the classroom?
2. an increased range of high-motivation activities ___ ___ ___ ___
(with some specifically keyed to the interests of students
in need of special attention)? ___ ___ ___ ___
3. appropriate use of advanced technology?
4. other? (specify) ____________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
H. Is there a focus on fostering social and emotional ___ ___ ___ ___
development (e.g., using natural opportunities as
teachable moments)?
I. Which of the following can teachers request as special
interventions?
1. a "time out" situation? ___ ___ ___ ___
2. designated remediation specialists? ___ ___ ___ ___
3. family problem solving conferences? ___ ___ ___ ___
4. exchange of a student to improve student-teacher ___ ___ ___ ___
match and for a fresh start? ___ ___ ___ ___
5. referral for special out-of classroom assistance?
6. oher (specify) _______________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
J. What is done to assist a teacher who needs help in
teaching limited English speaking students? ___ ___ ___ ___
1. Is the student reassigned?
2. Does the teacher receive professional development ___ ___ ___ ___
for working with these students?
3. Are computer programs used to address ESL needs? ___ ___ ___ ___
4. Does a bilingual coordinator offer consultation? ___ ___ ___ ___
5. Is a bilingual aide assigned to the class? ___ ___ ___ ___
___ ___ ___ ___
6. Are volunteers brought in to help (e.g., parents, peers)? ___ ___ ___ ___
7. Other? (specify) _____________________

57
Classroom-based Learning Supports (cont.) Yes but
more of
If no,
is this
this is something
II. Opening the Classroom Door to Enhance Collaboration, Yes needed No you want?
Support, and Personalized Professional Development
A. Are others invited into the classroom to collaborate in
enhancing Classroom-based Learning Supports?
>other teachers to team/co-teach? ___ ___ ___ ___
>student support staff? ___ ___ ___ ___
>resource teacher? ___ ___ ___ ___
>specialists? ___ ___ ___ ___
>volunteers? ___ ___ ___ ___
>aides (e.g., paraeducators; other paid assistants)? ___ ___ ___ ___
>older students? ___ ___ ___ ___
>parents or other family members? ___ ___ ___ ___
>other? (specify)______________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
B. Personnel Preparation Related to Classroom-based
Learning Supports
1. Does in-service focus on enhancing the capacity for
pursuing learning supports in regular classrooms of
the following staff
>regular teachers? ___ ___ ___ ___
>student support staff? ___ ___ ___ ___
>resource teacher? ___ ___ ___ ___
>specialists? ___ ___ ___ ___
>other? (specify)______________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
2. Does the training for nonprofessionals (e.g., ___ ___ ___ ___
volunteers, aides, and other assistants) include a focus
on learning supports?
3. Is team teaching or co-teaching used for teachers to ___ ___ ___ ___
learn about Classroom-based Learning Supports?
4. Are there mentors/coaches who work with teachers
and other staff in the classroom to personalize ___ ___ ___ ___
personnel preparation?
5. Are demonstrations provided? ___ ___ ___ ___
6. Are workshops and readings offered regularly? ___ ___ ___ ___
7. Is there a focus on learning how to integrate intrinsic ___ ___ ___ ___
motivation into teaching and classroom management?
8. Is there a focus on strategies for re-engaging students ___ ___ ___ ___
who have disengaged from classroom learning?
9. Is there a focus on learning to use technology to ___ ___ ___ ___
enhance Classroom-based Learning Supports?
10. Is consultation available from persons with special
expertise such as
>student support staff (e.g., psychologist,
___ ___ ___ ___
counselor, social worker, nurse)? ___ ___ ___ ___
>resource specialists and/or special education
teachers? ___ ___ ___ ___
>bilingual and/or other coordinators?
>other? (specify) _________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
11. Are subgroups of staff clustered to facilitate ___ ___ ___ ___
personalized development to enhance Classroom-
based Learning Supports?
12. Is there a learning community at the school that ___ ___ ___ ___
focuses on Classroom-based Learning Supports?
13. Other (specify) ______________________ ___ ___ ___ ___

58
Classroom-based Learning Supports (cont.) Yes but
more of
If no,
is this
this is something
III. Enhancing the capability of student and learning supports Yes needed No you want?
staff and others to team with teachers in the classroom
A. Is there a focus on increasing student support staff (and
others’) understanding of processes, strategies, and
techniques involved in personalizing instruction? ___ ___ ___ ___
B. Are support staff (and others) taught how to work as
colleagues in the classroom with teachers and others? ___ ___ ___ ___
IV. Providing a broad range of curricular and enrichment
opportunities
A. Are the current curricula and instructional processes varied
enough to support personalizing instruction? ___ ___ ___ ___
B. Is social and emotional learning a specific curriculum
item? ___ ___ ___ ___
C. Is health education a regular part of the curriculum? ___ ___ ___ ___
D. Is computer literacy taught? ___ ___ ___ ___
E. What enrichment and adjunct programs are used regularly?
>library activities? ___ ___ ___ ___
>music/art? ___ ___ ___ ___
>student performances? ___ ___ ___ ___
>Are there several field trips a year? ___ ___ ___ ___
>Are there student council & other leadership opportunities? ___ ___ ___ ___
>Are there school environment projects such as
___ ___ ___ ___
-mural painting? ___ ___ ___ ___
-horticulture/gardening? ___ ___ ___ ___
-school clean-up and beautification? ___ ___ ___ ___
-other? (specify)__________________
>Are there special school-wide events such as
-sports? ___ ___ ___ ___
-clubs and similar organized activities? ___ ___ ___ ___
-student newspaper? ___ ___ ___ ___
-sales events? ___ ___ ___ ___
-poster contests? ___ ___ ___ ___
-essay contests? ___ ___ ___ ___
-book fair? ___ ___ ___ ___
-health fair? ___ ___ ___ ___
-pep rallies/contests? ___ ___ ___ ___
-attendance competitions? ___ ___ ___ ___
-attendance awards/assemblies? ___ ___ ___ ___
>other? (specify) ____________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
>Are guest contributors used (e.g., outside speakers/ ___ ___ ___ ___
performers)?
>Other (specify)?_________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___
F. What types of technology are available to the classroom? ___ ___ ___ ___
>computers in the classroom? (Internet? Skype? etc.)
>computer lab? ___ ___ ___ ___
>computer assisted instruction? ___ ___ ___ ___
>video recording capability? ___ ___ ___ ___
>instructional TV? ___ ___ ___ ___
>multimedia lab? ___ ___ ___ ___
>other? (specify)_________________________ ___ ___ ___ ___

59
Classroom-based Learning Supports (cont.) Yes but
more of
If no,
is this
this is something
Yes needed No you want?
V. Contributing to a positive climate in the classroom and
school-wide
A. Are teachers fully included in ensuring the school is
developing a unified, comprehensive, equitable, and
systemic approach to addressing barriers to learning and ___ ___ ___ ___
teaching?
B. Are classroom and school-wide approaches effective for
>creating and maintaining a caring and supportive ___ ___ ___ ___
climate?
>supporting high standards for positive behavior? ___ ___ ___ ___
C. With respect to professional and personal support,
1. Is there effective communication to and among staff? ___ ___ ___ ___
2. Are teachers and other staff involved in governance? ___ ___ ___ ___
3. Is there formal conflict mediation/resolution? ___ ___ ___ ___
4. Is there effective social support? ___ ___ ___ ___
D. Are there efforts to enhance broad stakeholder
involvement and engagement in ___ ___ ___ ___
>classrooms?
>school-wide events?
___ ___ ___ ___
>decision-making? ___ ___ ___ ___
E. Are the stakeholders who participate at the school well-
oriented and provided with enough training so that they
can ___ ___ ___ ___
function in the classroom and school-wide in ways that are
>knowledgeable and collegial?
>helpful for creating and maintaining a caring and ___ ___ ___ ___
supportive climate?

Indicate below other things you want the school to do to assist teachers’ efforts to address barriers to
learning and teaching and to re-engaging disconnected students.

Are there other ways the school currently is assisting teachers’ efforts to address barriers to students'
learning and teaching and to re-engaging disconnected students? (List below)

Note: Other matters relevant to Classroom-based Learning

Supports are included in the other self-study surveys.

60
II. D. Continuing Education Resources to Enhance Classrooms

CE Modules:
ENHANCING CLASSROOM APPROACHES FOR
ADDRESSING BARRIERS TO LEARNING:
CLASSROOM-FOCUSED ENABLING

fffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffff

The material in this continuing education document is

designed as an evolving set of modules and units. The
material can be read and taught in a straight forward
sequence, or one or more parts can be combined into a
personalized course. The set of modules delineates a
preservice/inservice preparation curriculum covering how
regular classrooms and schools should be designed to
ensure all students have appropriate opportunities to learn
effectively. This set of modules was developed with the intent
of placing them in the hands of school administrators, teacher
educators, teachers, school support staff, those who train
pupil service personnel, community members, and others. In
addition, this content is directly available to everyone as a
form of independent continuing education. It is available on
the Center’s website or can be ordered in hard copy.

O Module I provides a big picture context for understanding the problems schools face
and why every school must develop a component to address barriers to learning. This
component encompasses six programmatic areas. One of these areas is designated
as Classroom-Focused Enabling – which is designed to enhance classroom teachers’
capacity to address problems and foster social, emotional, intellectual, and behavioral
development.

O Module II focuses on the nuts and bolts of Classroom-Focused Enabling – covering

how teachers can transform the larger class by developing small learning groups and
independent learning options in order to enhance student engagement, facilitate
positive learning, prevent problems, and provide special assistance.

O Module III explores the role teachers can take in ensuring their schools provide a
context that supports and enhances classroom learning.

O See outline on next page.

The center operates under the auspices of the School Mental Health Project, Dept. of Psychology,
UCLA, Los Angeles, CA 90095-1563 Phone: (310) 825-3634. Support comes in part from the
Office of Adolescent Health, Maternal and Child Health Bureau (Title V, Social Security Act),
Health Resources and Services Administration (Project #U93 MC 00175) with co-funding from the
Center for Mental Health Services, Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration.
Both are agencies of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services.

61
Enhancing Classroom Approaches for
Addressing Barriers to Learning:
Classroom-Focused Enabling

Module I: Why isn’t instructional reform leading to success for all students?

A. Current School Reforms and Addressing Barriers to Student Learning

B. Needed: A Comprehensive, Multifaceted, and Integrated Approach to
Addressing Barriers to Learning and Promoting Healthy Development
C. Moving to a 3 Component Model for School Reform
D. A Framework for an Enabling Component at a School Site
E. Enhancing Regular Classroom Strategies to Enable Learning for All
F. Keeping Mutual Support, Caring, and a Sense of Community in Mind

Module II: Enabling All Students to Succeed: What’s a Teacher to Do?

Unit A: What is Good Teaching? Unit D: Special Classroom Assistance to

Engage, Guide, and Support Those
1) Principles, Guidelines, and Characteristics of Students Who Need More
Good Schools and Good Teaching
2) Underlying Assumptions and Major Program 1) Levels of Special Assistance
Elements of a Personalized Program 2) Level A – Special Assistance in the Classroom
3) A Collaborative and Caring Classroom: to Engage and Accommodate
Opening the Classroom Door 3) Level B – Special Assistance in the Classroom
to Develop Prerequisites
Unit B: Engaging Students (and their Families) 4) Level C – Special Assistance in the Classroom
in Learning: Real and Valued Options and to Address Factors Interfering with Learning
Decision Making 5) Sequencing Special Assistance
6) Referral When Necessary
1) About Motivation
2) Options Unit E: Capitalizing on Technology
3) Learner Decision Making
4) Research on Preferences, Choice, Control, and 1) Technology in the Classroom –
Student Engagement A Big Picture Overview
2) Applications and Benefits of Technology
Unit C: General Strategies for Facilitating in the Classroom
Motivated Performance and Practice 3) Supporting Special Assistance
4) Access to and By the Home
5) Some Websites for Classroom Resources
1) Creating a Stimulating and Manageable Learning
Environment
2) Providing Personalized Structure for Learning
3) Instructional Techniques
4) Turning Homework into Motivated Practice
5) Assessing Student Learning to Plan Instruction
and Providing Nurturing Feedback
6) Conferencing as a Key Process
7) Volunteers as an Invaluable Resource

Module III: Beyond the Classroom: Roles Teachers Must Play in Enhancing
a Comprehensive Approach for Addressing Barriers to Learning

A. Needed: A School-Wide Enabling Component

B. Needed: School-Community Partnerships
C. Needed: Better Attention from the Board of Education on
Addressing Barriers to Learning
D. Concluding Comments

***An accompanying document contains brief, related readings and a set of “tools” that
expand on the topics discussed – providing in-depth ideas and practices.

62
 Information Resource

Enhancing Classroom Teachers’ Capacity to

Successfully Engage All Students in Learning:
It’s the Foundation of Learning Supports
The following are a few Center resources to share directly with teachers and to use in
personnel development:
>Challenges and Opportunities in the Classroom –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/Newsletter/winter08.pdf
>Welcoming and Involving New Students and Families –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/welcome/welcome.pdf
>Addressing School Adjustment Problems –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/adjustmentproblems.pdf
>Engaging and Re-engaging Students in Learning at School --
http://www.smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engagingandre-engagingstudents.pdf
>Natural Opportunities to Promote Social-Emotional Learning –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/naturalopportunities.pdf
>Turning Big Classes into Smaller Units –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/small classes.pdf
>Volunteers as an Invaluable Resource –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/voluntresource.pdf
>Working with Disengaged Students –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/disengagedstudents.pdf
>School Engagement, Disengagement, Learning Supports, & School Climate –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/schooleng.pdf
>What Might a Fully Functioning Enabling or Learning Supports Component
Look Like at a School?– http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/whatmightafully.pdf
>Enhancing Classroom Approaches for Addressing Barriers to Learning:
Classroom-Focused Enabling – http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/contedu/cfe.pdf
Module I provides a big picture framework for understanding barriers to learning and how
school reforms need to expand in order to effectively address such barriers. Module II
focuses on classroom practices to engage and re-engage students in classroom learning.
Module III explores the roles teachers need to play in ensuring their school develops a
comprehensive approach to addressing barriers to learning.

Note: For more information on the Center at UCLA and its many resources, go to the website at
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu

Feel free to share and reproduce this document; no special permission is needed.

63
 Practice Notes

Turning Big Classes into Smaller Units

Just as it is evident that we need to turn schools with large enrollments into sets of small schools, we must
do the same in the classroom everyday. As a report in 2000 from the American Youth Policy Forum states:
“The structure and organization of a High School of the Millennium is very different than that of
the conventional high school. First and foremost, [the school] is designed to provide small,
personalized, and caring learning communities for students . . . . The smaller groups allow a number
of adults . . . to work together with the students . . . as a way to develop more meaningful
relationships and as a way for the teachers to better understand the learning needs of each student.”
The Key is Grouping
Aside from times when a learning objective is best accomplished with the whole class, the general trend
should be to create small classes out of the whole. This involves grouping students in various ways, as well
as providing opportunities for individual activity. At a fundamental level, grouping is an essential strategy
in turning classrooms with large enrollments into a set of simultaneously operating small classes.
Clearly, students should never be grouped in ways that harm them (e.g., putting them in low ability tracks,
segregating those with problems). But grouping is essential for effective teaching. Appropriate grouping
facilitates student engagement, learning, and performance. Besides enhancing academic learning, it can
increase intrinsic motivation by promoting feelings of personal and interpersonal competence, self-
determination, and positive connection with others. Moreover, it can foster autonomous learning skills,
personal responsibility for learning, and healthy social-emotional attitudes and skills.
A well-designed classroom enables teachers to spend most of their time rotating among small self-monitored
groups (e.g., two to six members) and individual learners. With team teaching and staff collaboration, such
grouping can be done across classrooms.
Effective grouping is facilitated by ensuring teachers have adequate resources (including space, materials,
and help). The key to effective grouping, however, is to take the time needed for youngsters to learn to work
well with each other, with other resource personnel, and at times independently. Students are grouped and
regrouped flexibly and regularly based on individual interests, needs, and for the benefits to be derived from
diversity. Small learning groups are established for cooperative inquiry and learning, concept and skill
development, problem solving, motivated practice, peer- and cross-age tutoring, and other forms of activity
that can be facilitated by peers, aides, and/or volunteers. In a small group, students have more opportunities
to participate. In heterogeneous, cooperative learning groups, each student has an interdependent role in
pursuing a common learning goal and can contribute on a par with their capabilities.
Three types of groupings that are common are:
• Needs-Based Grouping: Short-term groupings are established for students with similar learning
needs (e.g., to teach or reteach them particular skills and to do so in keeping with their current
interests and capabilities).
• Interest-Based Grouping: Students who already are motivated to pursue an activity usually can be
taught to work together well on active learning tasks.
• Designed-Diversity Grouping: For some objectives, it is desirable to combine sets of students who
come from different backgrounds and have different abilities and interests (e.g., to discuss certain
topics, foster certain social capabilities, engender mutual support for learning).
All three types provide opportunities to enhance interpersonal functioning and an understanding of working
relationships and of factors effecting group functioning. And, in all forms of grouping, approaches such as
cooperative learning and computer-assisted instruction are relevant.
(cont.)

Permission to reproduce this document is granted.

64
Recognize and Accommodate Diversity
Every classroom is diverse to some degree. Diversity arises from many factors: gender, ethnicity, race,
socio-economic status, religion, capability, disability, interests, and so forth. In grouping students, it is
important to draw on the strengths of diversity. For example, a multi-ethnic classroom enables teachers to
group students across ethnic lines to bring different perspectives to the learning activity. This allows
students not only to learn about other perspectives, it can enhance critical thinking and other higher order
conceptual abilities. It also can foster the type of intergroup understanding and relationships essential to
establishing a school climate of caring and mutual respect. And, of course, the entire curriculum and all
instructional activities must incorporate an appreciation of diversity, and teachers must plan ways to
appropriately accommodate individual and group differences.
Collaborative or Team Teaching
As Hargreaves notes:
“The way to relieve the uncertainty and open-endedness that characterizes classroom teaching is to create
communities of colleagues who work collaboratively [in cultures of shared learning and positive risk-taking]
to set their own professional limits and standards, while still remaining committed to continuous
improvement. Such communities can also bring together the professional and personal lives of teachers in
a way that supports growth and allows problems to be discussed without fear of disapproval or punishment.”
Obviously, it helps to have multiple collaborators in the classroom. An aide and/or volunteers, for example,
can assist with establishing and maintaining well-functioning groups, as well as providing special support
and guidance for designated individuals. As teachers increasingly open their doors to others, assistance can
be solicited from paid tutors, resource and special education teachers, pupil services personnel, and an ever
widening range of volunteers (e.g., tutors, peer buddies, parents, mentors, and any others who can bring
special abilities into the classroom and offer additional options for learning). And, of course, team teaching
offers a potent way to expand the range of options for personalizing instruction. Not only can teaming
benefit students, it can be a great boon to teachers. A good collaboration is one where colleagues mesh
professionally and personally. It doesn’t mean that there is agreement about everything, but there must be
agreement about what constitutes good classroom practices.
Collaborations can take various forms. For example, teaming may take the form of:
• Parallel Work – team members combine their classes or other work and teach to their strengths. This
may involve specific facets of the curriculum (e.g., one person covers math, another reading; they
both cover different aspects of science) or different students (e.g., for specific activities, they divide
the students and work with those to whom each relates to best or can support in the best way).
• Complementary Work – one team member takes the lead and another facilitates follow-up activity.
• Special Assistance – while one team member provides basic instruction, another focuses on those
students who need special assistance.
Usually, the tendency is to think in terms of two or more teachers teaming to share the instructional load.
We stress, however, the value of expanding the team to include support staff, aides, volunteers, and
designated students to help in creating small groupings. Teachers and support staff can work together to
recruit and train others to join in the collaborative effort. And, with access to the Internet and distance
learning, the nature and scope of collaboration has the potential to expand in dramatic fashion.
A Note About Students as Collaborative Helpers
Besides the mutual benefits students get from cooperative learning groups and other informal ways they help
each other, formal peer programs can be invaluable assets. Students can be taught to be peer tutors, group
discussion leaders, role models, and mentors. Other useful roles include: peer buddies (to welcome, orient,
and provide social support as a new student transitions into the class and school), peer conflict mediators,
and much more. Student helpers benefit their peers, themselves, and the school staff, and enhance the
school’s efforts to create a caring climate and a sense of community.

See: Enhancing Classroom Approaches for Addressing Barriers to Learning: Classroom-Focused Enabling
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/contedu/cfe.pdf
65
 Continuing Education Modules

Engaging and Re-engaging Students and Families:

Four Modules for Continuing Education*

UNIT I: MOTIVATION: TIME TO MOVE BEYOND BEHAVIOR MODIFICATION

(May, 2012)

*Unit I: Motivation: Time to Move Beyond Behavior Modification

Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engagei.pdf

*Unit II: Strategic Approaches to Enhancing Student Engagement

and Re-engagement
Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engageii.pdf

*Unit III: Enhancing Family Engagement and Re-engagement

Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engageiii.pdf

*Unit IV: Embedding Engagement and Re-engagement into a Unified and

Comprehensive System of Student and Learning Supports
Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engageiv.pdf

Permission to reproduce this document is granted.

66
 PRACTICE NOTES
Response to Intervention
(http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/responsetointervention.pdf)

he concept: effective would there be a referral for special

T Response to Intervention is finding its way into
schools with a significant push from the federal
education assessment. (If the problem proves to be
severe and disruptive, an alternative setting may be
necessary on a temporary basis to provide more
government. Properly conceived and implemented, the intensive and specialized assessments and
strategy is expected to improve the learning assistance.)
opportunities for many students and reduce the number
who are inappropriately diagnosed with learning A core difficulty here is that of mobilizing
disabilities and behavioral disorders. unmotivated students (and particularly those who
have become actively disengaged from classroom
The approach overlaps ideas about pre-referral instruction). If motivational considerations are not
interventions but is intended to be more systematically effectively addressed, there is no way to validly
implemented with special attention to enhancing teacher assess whether or not a student has a true disability
capability to carry out "well-designed and well- or disorder.
implemented early intervention." The aim also is to
improve assessment for determining whether more ##################################
intensive and perhaps specialized assistance and
diagnosis are required. (It is important to emphasize he intervention context:
that the tactic involves specific and well-monitored
plans for "identified" students and is not to be used as a
delaying tactic related to getting students the
T If Response to Intervention is treated simply as
a matter of providing more and better
interventions they need.) instruction, it is unlikely to be effective for a great
many students. However, if the strategies are
Response to Intervention has the potential to build understood broadly and as part and parcel of a
teacher capacity so that similar problems are prevented comprehensive system of classroom and school-wide
in the future. Implied in all this is that someone is learning supports, schools will be in a position not
working to ensure (1) classroom teachers have or are only to address problems effectively early after their
learning how to implement "well-designed early onset, but will prevent many from occurring. Such
intervention" in the classroom, and (2) support staff are a broad-based system is needed to reduce learning,
learning how to play a role, sometimes directly in the behavior, and emotional problems, promote
classroom, to expand the intervention strategies if social/emotional development, and effectively
needed. reengage students in classroom learning. This will
not only reduce the numbers who are inappropriately
############################## referred for special education or specialized services,
it also will enhance attendance, reduce misbehavior,
he process: close the achievement gap, and enhance graduation
T Response to Intervention calls for making changes
in the classroom designed to improve the student’s
rates.
##############################
learning and behavior as soon as problems are noted
and using the student's response to such modifications evising practices:
as info for making further changes if needed. The
process continues until it is evident that it cannot be
resolved through classroom changes alone.
D Response to Intervention is currently being
operationalized across the country. While there
will be variability in practice, the tendency is to
Through this sequential approach, students who have proceed as if all that is needed is more and better
not responded sufficiently to the regular classroom instruction. Clearly, this is necessary. And, the
interventions would next receive supportive assistance emphasis needs to go beyond direct instruction. The
designed to help them remain in the regular program, key is truly personalized instruction (see below).
and only when all this is found not to be sufficiently And, because the context for this is a school,

Permission to reproduce this document is granted.

67
instruction must be supported by school-wide The next concern is developmental capabilities. Thus:
interventions focusing on enhancing supports for
transitions and crisis events and home and community Step 1b stresses use of teaching strategies that
involvement. account for current knowledge and skills. In this
respect, the emphasis on tutoring (designated as
But, there will be students for whom all this is “Supplemental Services” in Title I) can be useful if
insufficient. In such cases, some other forms of the student perceives the tutoring as a good fit for
supportive assistance must be added to the mix – learning.
inside and, as necessary, outside the classroom.
Referral for special education assessment only comes Then, if necessary, the focus expands to encompass
after all this is found inadequate. special assistance. Thus:
Step 2 stresses use of special assistance strategies
To spell out the classroom-based approach a bit: to address any major barriers to learning and teaching,
with an emphasis on the principle of using the least
Step 1 involves personalizing instruction. The
intervention needed (i.e., doing what is needed, but no
intent is to ensure a student perceives instructional
more than that). In this respect, the range of strategies
processes, content, and outcomes as a good match
referred to as “Prereferral Interventions” and the
with his or her interests and capabilities.
programs and services that constitute student/learning
The first emphasis is on motivation. Thus: supports are of considerable importance. (Again, the
impact depends on the student’s perception of how
Step 1a stresses use of motivation-oriented well an intervention fits his or her needs.)
strategies to (re)engage the student in classroom
instruction. This step draws on the broad science-base Note: Prereferral interventions identify regular
related to human motivation, with special attention classroom problems, identify the source of the
problems (student, teacher, curriculum,
paid to research on intrinsic motivation and environment, etc.), and take steps to resolve the
psychological reactance. The aim is to enhance problems within the regular classroom. See the
student perceptions of significant options and Center’s Practice Notes on
involvement in decision making.
Prereferral Intervention –
smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/practicenotes/prereferral.pdf

For a range of resources from our center and links to other resources, begin with
the our online clearinghouse Quick Find on:
Response to Intervention –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/responsetointervention.htm
***Also, take a look at the Quick Finds on Classroom Focused Enabling and Motivation.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/websrch.htm

***And, if you would like to try a training tutorial, go to:

Classroom Changes to Enhance and Re-engage Students in Learning
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/classchange_tt/index.htm

***And, for even more, go to our continuing education modules on:

Enhancing Classroom Approaches for Addressing Barriers to Learning:
Classroom-Focused Enabling
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/contedu/cfe.pdf

***Finally, note that several other of the Center’s Practice Notes are relevant to this matter and
refer to additional resources.

68
 Continuing Education Modules

RTI and Classroom & Schoolwide Learning Supports:

Four Modules for Continuing Education
UNIT I: RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION:
IMPROVING CONDITIONS FOR LEARNING IN THE CLASSROOM

(April, 2012)

Unit I: Response to Intervention:

Improving Conditions for Learning in the Classroom
Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtii.pdf

Unit II: Implementing Response to Intervention Sequentially & Effectively

Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtiii.pdf

Unit III. Response to Intervention: Beyond Personalization

Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtiiii.pdf

Unit IV: Pursuing Response to Intervention as One Strategy in a

Comprehensive System of Student and Learning Supports
Access at: http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtiiv.pdf

Permission to reproduce this document is granted.

69
III. A School-Wide Component toAddress Barriers to Learning

A. The Concept of a Learning Supports Component

B. Operational Infrastructure for Addressing Barriers to Learning

70
 III. A School-Wide Component for Addressing Barriers to Learning

In many schools, when students are not doing well, the trend is to refer them directly for assessment
in hopes of referral for special assistance – perhaps even assignment to special education. In some
schools and classrooms, the number of referrals is dramatic. Where special teams exist to review
students for whom teachers request help, the list grows as the year proceeds. The longer the list, the
longer the lag time for review – often to the point that, by the end of the school year, the team has
reviewed just a small percentage of those referred. And, no matter how many are reviewed, there
are always more referrals than can be served.

One solution might be to convince policy makers to fund more remediation and related services at
schools. However, even if the policy climate favored more special programs, such interventions
alone are not a comprehensive approach for addressing barriers to learning. More services to treat
problems certainly are needed. But so are prevention and early-after-onset programs that can reduce
the number of students teachers send to review teams.

Schools committed to the success of all children must be redesigned to enable learning by
addressing barriers to learning. Enabling is defined as "providing with the means or opportunity;
making possible, practical, or easy; giving power, capacity, or sanction to." The concept of an
enabling component is formulated around the proposition that a comprehensive, multifaceted,
integrated continuum of enabling activity is essential in addressing the needs of youngsters who
encounter barriers that interfere with their benefitting satisfactorily from instruction.

A key element of an enabling component involves building the capacity of classrooms to enhance
instructional effectiveness. Such “classroom-focused enabling” involves personalized instruction
that accounts for motivational and developmental differences and special assistance in the classroom
as needed. This has been emphasized in the preceding sections of this packet and clearly is an
important facet in clarifying who has a true learning disability and who is experiencing
commonplace learning problems. .

In this section, we move from the classroom to a school-wide orientation to addressing barriers to
learning and promoting healthy development. A great deal of our Center’s recent work focuses on
clarifying the reality that school reform initiatives are unlikely to produce desired student results as
long as they are limited to prevailing approaches. Specifically, we stress that reformers primarily
focus on teaching and generally ignore functions that are essential to enable teaching and learning.
Thus, the concept of an enabling component is meant to underscore that school restructuring has to
encompass more than instructional reform. Beyond the classroom, the concept calls for weaving
together school and community resources to address problems experienced by teachers, students,
and families. It encompasses efforts to promote healthy development and foster positive functioning
as the best way to prevent many learning, behavior, emotional, and health problems and as a
necessary adjunct to correcting problems. In addition to enhancing classroom-based efforts to enable
learning, we operationalize the concept to cover five other program areas. These include a wide
array of school-wide interventions to provide prescribed student and family assistance, respond to
and prevent crises, support transitions, increase home involvement, and outreach to develop greater
community involvement and support. By defining the concept in terms of these six areas, a broad
unifying framework is created around which education support programs can be restructured.

71
III. A. The Concept of a Learning Supports Component

By continuing to marginalize student and learning supports, policy makers

continue to marginalize all students who are not doing well at school.

E
fforts to transform rather than just tinker w ith student and learning supports require an
expansion of current school improvement policy. In most places, school improvement policy
and practice is guided primarily by a two component framework (i.e., an instructional
component and a management component). The result: all interventions for addressing barriers to
learning and teaching and re-engaging disconnected students are given secondary consideration at
best. As already noted, this marginalization is an underlying and fundamental cause of the widely
observed fragmentation and disorganization of student and learning supports.
EXPANDING SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT POLICY
Ending the disorganization and effectively weaving together whatever a school has with whatever
a community is doing to confront barriers to equity of opportunity calls for establishing a three
component school improvement framework. As illustrated below, an expanded policy framework
is intended to make addressing barriers to enable learning a primary commitment of school policy.

Expanded Policy Prototype

Two Component Framework Three Component Framework

Learning
Instructional
Instructional Supports
Component
Component Component*

Expanding School Improvement

Policy and Practice Management
Management Component
Component

*States and districts are trending toward using the um brella term Learning Supports.
Learning supports are defined as the resources, strategies, a nd practices that provide
physical, social, emotional, and intellectual supports to enable all students to have an
equal opportunity for success at school by directly addressing barriers to l earning and
teaching. In the classroom and school-wide, such supports encompass efforts to reduce
the overemphasis on using extrinsic reinforcers and enhance an emphasis on intrinsic
motivation to promote engagement and re-engagement.
Learning supports are designed to directly address interfering factors and to do so in
a way that (re-)engages students in classroom instruction. Attention to both these matters
is essential because, in general, interventions that do not ensure a student’s meaningful
engagement in classroom learning are i nsufficient in sustaining student involvem ent,
good behavior, and effective learning at school.

72
The type of policy expansion illustrated above isunderway in trailblazing states and districts (e.g.,
see Where’s it Happening? – online at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/trailblazing.htm).
Of special note is the initiative in Alabama where the state education agency has adopted the three
component policy framework with plans for statewide implementation. Forty districts in the state
already are moving forward.
RETHINKING ACCOUNTABILITY AND ADOPTING LEARNING SUPPORTS STANDARDS
Because school improvement policy across the country is "standards-based" and accountability
driven, expanding the prevailing accountability framework and establishing standards for learning
supports are key facets in driving effective implementation of a three component policy.
School Accountability
School accountability is a policy tool with extraordinary power to reshape schools – for good and
for bad. As everyone involved in school im provement knows, currently the only accountability
indicators that really count are achievement test scores. Achievement tests drive school
accountability, and what such tests measure has become the be-all and end-all of what is attended
to by many decision makers. This produces a growing disconnect between the realities of what it
takes to improve academic performance and the direction in which many policy makers and school
reformers are leading the public. The disconnect is especially evident in schools serving what often
are referred to as “low wealth” families.
The move to a three component policy framework is intended to expand the framework for school
accountability. See the Center's prototype focuses not only on achievement, but on personal and
social development and on improvementsthat directly address barriers to learning and teaching.
Standards for a Learning Supports Component
Current discussions about standards for school improvement have become locked into debates over
the initiative for Common Core State Standards. This limited focus is another indicator of the type
of disconnect from reality resulting from the prevailing two component policy framework.
The move to a three component framework provides a focus on the need to complement curriculum
and teaching standards with standards and related quality indicators for student/learning supports.
See the Center's prototype outline of standards and indicators for a learning supports component.

While not easy, m oving to a three com ponent policy fram ework is essential to
student success at school and beyond. Establishing equity of opportunity for students
in over 15,000 school districts and over 90,000 schools in the USA is a n unlikely
goal until school improvement policy expands to a fully integrated three-component
policy framework.
An expanded policy framework will be a major driving force for transforming how
schools address the many overlapping problems they must deal with each day. It also
is crucial in advancing the agenda for whole child development and enhancing
school climate.
Those currently leading the way in transforming student and learning supports are
doing so because they understand the wide range of factors that interfere with
students connecting with good instruction. They recognize that too many teachers are
confronted with a large proportion of students who are not motivated and ready to
learn what is on the teaching agenda for the day. They are committed to designing
the type of unified, comprehensive, and equitable system of learning supports
we have outlined.

73
 Reframing Intervention for Student and Learning Support
Changing the individual while leaving the world alone is a dubious proposition.
Ulric Neisser (1976)

A
learning supports component is established by coalescing existing student and learning
supports into a cohesive unit and, over a period of several years, developing the component
into a comprehensive intervention system that is fully integrated with instructional efforts.
A unified and comprehensive system of learning supports is key to enabling all students to have an
equal opportunity to learn at school and all teachers to teach effectively. Such a system is especially
important where large numbers of students are not succeeding. As illustrated below, a
learning supports component encompasses classroom and school-wide approaches and is designed
to enable students to get around the barriers and re-engage in classroom instruction.

A Learning Supports Component to Address Barriers

and Re-engage Students in Classroom Instruction*

Range of Learners
(based on their response to academic
instruction at any given point in time)

On Track Desired
Motivationally ready Outcomes
& able No Barriers for
Instructional All Students
Component
Moderate Needs (1) Academic
Not very motivated/ Learning (1) Classroom achievement
lacking prerequisite Supports
knowledge & skills/ teaching
Component (2) Social-emotional
different learning Barriers*
rates & styles/minor to learning, (2) Enrichment well-being
(1) Addressing
vulnerabilities development, barriers activity
& teaching (3) Successful
(2) Re-engaging High transition to
High Needs students in Standards post-secondary
Avoidant/very classroom life
deficient in current instruction
capabilities/has a High Expectations
disability/major Enhancing the & Accountability
health problems Focus on the
Whole Child

*A learning supports component is operationalized as a unified, comprehensive, equitable, and

systemic approach for addressing barriers to learning and teaching and re-engaging
disconnected students. In keeping with public education and public health per spectives,
interventions are designed to provide physical, social, emotional, and intellectual supports to
enable learning and engagement for all students and especially those experiencing behavior,
learning, emotional, and physical problems. The interventions are meant to play out in the
classroom and school-wide at every school and in everycommunity. In promoting engagement
and re-engagement, the interventions stress a reduced emphasis on using extrinsic reinforcers
and an enhanced focus on intrinsic motivation as a process and outcome consideration.

74
 INTERVENTION PROTOTYPE
While interventions are com monly framed in term s of tiers or levels, such a framework is an
insufficient organizer. To escape the trend to generate laundry lists of program s and services at each
level, it is necessary also to group them into a circumscribed set of arenas reflecting the content
purpose of the activity. So, our intervention prototype has two facets:
• one organizes programs and services into a circumscribed set of content arenas of activity;
• the second conceptualizes levels of intervention as a full continuum of integrated
intervention subsystems that interweave school-community-home resources.
Content Arenas of Activity

As the following exhibit illustrates, the facet of the prototype that focuses on content
categorizes student/learning supports into six content arenas. These encompass efforts to
• enhance strategies in regular classroom to enable learning (e.g., working
collaboratively with other teachers and student support staff to ensure instruction is
personalized with an emphasis on enhancing intrinsic motivation for all students
and especially those manifesting mild-moderate learning and behavior problems;
re-engaging those who have become disengaged from learning at school; providing
learning accommodations and supports as necessary; using response to
intervention in applying special assistance; addressing external barriers with a
focus on prevention and early intervening)
• support transitions (e.g., assisting students and families as they negotiate the many
hurdles encountered during school and grade changes, daily transitions, program
transitions, accessing supports, and so forth)
• increase home and school connections and engagement (e.g., addressing barriers
to home involvement, helping those in the home enhance supports for their
children, strengthening home and school communication, increasing home support
of the school)
• increase community involvement and collaborative engagement (e.g., outreach to
develop greater community connection and support from a wide range of entities,
including enhanced use of volunteers and other community resources, establishing
a school-community collaborative)
• respond to, and where feasible, prevent school and personal crises (e.g., preparing
for emergencies, implementing plans when an event occurs, countering the impact
of traumatic events, implementing prevention strategies; creating a caring and safe
learning environment)
• facilitate student and family access to special assistance (including specialized
services on- and off-campus) as needed
A brief discussion of and examples related to each of these arenas is provided in Chapters 4-9.

Over the last decade, versions of the six basic arenas have been incorporated in a variety of venues
across the country (see exam ples highlighted and lessons learned in Where’s it Happening? –
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/nind7.htm ).

75
 Prototype for Six Content Arenas

School improvement must include plans to develop a more effective system for directly
dealing with factors that keep too many students from succeeding at school and beyond
The first concern is providing a range of supports in the classroom and as necessary
outside the classroom so that teachers can enable the learning of students who are not
doing well.
Our work over many years stresses that the supports needed cluster into the six content
arenas illustrated below. (We think of them as the curriculum of learning supports.)

Classroom-based Learning Supports

to Enable Learning and Teaching

Supports for Transitions Student and Family

Special Assistance
Leadership
&
Infrastructure
Home Involvement,
Engagement, and Crises Assistance and
Re-engagement Prevention
in Schooling

Community Outreach
and Collaborative
Engagement

Note: All categorical programs can be integrated into these six content arenas. Examples
of initiatives, programs, and services that can be unif ied into a comprehensive system of
learning supports include positive behavioral supports, programs for safe and drug free
schools, programs for social and emotional development and learning, full service
community schools and family resource and school based health centers, CDC’s
Coordinated School Health Program, bi-lingual, cultural, and other diversity programs,
compensatory education programs, special education programs, mandates stemming from
education legislation, and many more.

76
 Continuum of Integrated Subsystems: Expanding the 3-tier Model
Beyond intervention content, a fundamental second facet of a unified and comprehensive system or
learning supports is an integrated continuum of interventions that strives to
$ promote healthy development and prevent problems
• intervene early to address problems as soon after onset as is feasible
• assist with chronic and severe problems.

As graphically portrayed below, (a) each level represents a subsystem, (b) the three
subsystems overlap, and (c) all three require integration into an overall system that encompasses
school and community resources. Note that this framework expands thinking beyond the three tier
pyramid that schools currently use.

Intervention Continuum: Interconnected Subsystems

School Resources Community Resources

(facilities, stakeholders, (facilities, stakeholders,
programs, services) programs, services)

Examples: Examples:
• General health education • Recreation & Enrichment
• Social and emotional • Public health &
Subsystem for Promoting safety programs
learning programs
Healthy Development & • Prenatal care
• Recreation programs
• Enrichment programs
Preventing Problems • Home visiting programs
primary prevention – includes • Immunizations
• Support for transitions
universal interventions • Child abuse education
• Conflict resolution
(low end need/low cost • Internships & community
• Home involvement per individual programs) service programs
• Drug and alcohol education • Economic development
• Drug counseling • Early identification to treat
• Pregnancy prevention health problems
• Violence prevention • Monitoring health problems
• Gang intervention Subsystem for Early Intervention
early-after-onset – includes • Short-term counseling
• Dropout prevention • Foster placem’t/group homes
• Suicide prevention selective & indicated interventions
(moderate need, moderate • Family support
• Learning/behavior • Shelter, food, clothing
accommodations & cost per individual)
• Job programs
response to intervention
• Work programs • Emergency/crisis treatment
• Family preservation
• Special education for Subsystem for Treatment of • Long-term therapy
learning disabilities, severe and chronic problems • Probation/incarceration
emotional disturbance, indicated • Disabilities programs
and other health interventions as part of a • Hospitalization
impairments “system of care” • Drug treatmen
(High need/high cost
per individual programs)

77
As noted, the prevailing formulation of the intervention continuum in education mainly stresses a
3-tiered, level model, especially in the context of turning Response to Intervention (RtI) and positive
behavioral supports (e.,g., PBIS) into school-wide practices.

The simplicity of the tiered presentation as widely adopted is appealing and helps underscore
differences in levels of intervention. However, focusing simply on levels of intervention, while
essential, is insufficient. Three basic concerns about such a formulation are that it mainly stresses
levels of intensity, does not address the problem of systematically connecting interventions that fall
into and across each level, and does not address the need to connect school and community
interventions. As a result, it has done little to promote the type of intervention framework that policy
and practice analyses indicate is needed to guide schools in developing a unified and comprehensive
system of student and learning supports. In contrast, the above exhibit illustrates that
intervention tiers/levels are better conceived as a set of integrated, overlapping subsystems that
embrace both school and community resources.

As illustrated below, the six arenas and the continuum constitute the prototype intervention
framework for a comprehensive system of learning supports. Such a framework is meant to guide
and unify school improvement planning related to developing a learning supports component. The
matrix provides a framework for mapping what is in place and analyzing gaps.

Intervention Prototype Framework for a Unified and

Comprehensive, snd Equitable System of Learning Supports

Integrated Intervention Continuum (levels)

Subsystem for Subsystem for Subsystem of
Promoting Early Treatment
Healthy Intervention (“System of Care”)
Development
& Preventing
Problems
Classroom-based
learning supports

Supports for transitions

Arenas of Crisis response/prevention
Intervention
Content Home involvement
& engagement

Community involvement &

collaborative engagement

Student & family

special assistance
Specialized assistance
Accommodations for & other intensified
differences & disabilities interventions
(e.g., Special Education
& School-Based
Behavioral Health

78
 Effectively designed and developed at a school, a learning supports component increases supports
for all students. The emphasis is on
• unifying student and learning supports by grouping the many fragmented approaches
experienced at school in ways that reduce responding to overlapping problems with
separate and sometimes redundant interventions
• addressing barriers to learning and teaching through improving personalized instruction
and increasing accommodations and special assistance when necessary
• enhancing the focus on motivational considerations with a special emphasis on
intrinsic motivation as it relates to individual readiness and ongoing involvement and
with the intent of fostering intrinsic motivation as a basic outcome
• re-engaging disconnected students
• adding specialized remediation, treatment, and rehabilitation as necessary, but only as
necessary
In doing all this, a learning supports component enhances equity of opportunity, plays a major role
in improving student and school performance, fosters positive school-community relationships, and
promotes a positive school climate.
CONCLUDING COMMENTS
As Dennie Wolf stressed over a decade ago as director of the Opportunity and Accountability
Initiative at the Annenberg Institute for School Reform:
“Clearly, we know how to raise standards. However, we are less clear on how to support
students in rising to meet those standards” Then, she asked: “Having invested heavily in
‘raising’ both the standards and the stakes, what investment are we willing to make to
support students in ‘rising’ to meet those standards?”
Ultimately, the answer to that question will affect not only individuals with learning, behavior ,
emotional, and physical problems but the entire society.
It is time for school improvement to encompass policy and planning that enables every school to
replace its outdated patchwork of programs and services used in addressing barriers to learning and
teaching. Part II discusses how to organize the six content arenas. Part III explores ways to move
forward.

Do not follow where the path may lead.

Go, instead, where there is not path and leave a trail. (Anonymous)

79
 Center References and Resources Re. a Learning Supports Component

See:
Resource Catalogue -- http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/materials/resources.htm

Systems Change Toolkit -- http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/summit2002/resourceaids.htm

Transforming Student and Learning Supports: Developing a Unified,

Comprehensive, and Equitable System ---
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/book/book.pdf

You missed another day of school.

Aren't you worried that you'll fail? Nope -- Congress passed a law
ensuring Every Student Succeeds!
\ /

82
III. B. Operational Infrastructure for Addressing Barriers to Learning
Changes to enhance equity of opportunity made at the district
central office mean little if they do not play out at the school level

ecause student and learning supports are so-marginalized, it is not surprising that the current
B operational infrastructure at schools reflects this state of affairs. It tends to look like this:

Facilitating Learning/Develop.
Instructional Component
Leadership
for instruction Review team
for moderate-
severe problems
School
(Various teams and Improvement
work groups focused Team
on improving instruction) Review team
for disability
concerns
Governing/Managing
Management/
Governance Component

Leadership for
governance and
administration

(Various teams and work groups

focused on improving governance
and management)
Note that there is no designated leadership for student and learning supports. Note also the situation
related to the teams focused on individual students experiencing learning, behavior, and emotional
problems. These teams mainly meet to review and make decisions about special assistance needs
and referrals. In the process, they usually develop a perspective on the type of systemic
improvements that could prevent problems and stem the tide of referrals. However, addressing these
concerns is not one of their formal functions. And, in general, these teams have little or no
connection to discussions and decisions about school improvement needs.

RETHINKING THE SCHOOL’S OPERATIONAL INFRASTRUCTURE

The following ehibit illustrates the basic features of an operational infrastructure prototype
that fully integrates an emphasis on student/learning supports. The prototype was designed with a
view to the type of interconnected leadership and workgroups necessary for developing
a unified, comprehensive, and equitable system for addressing barriers to learning and
teaching and re-engaging disconnected students.

83
 Prototype for an Integrated Operational Infrastructure at the School Level
(This operational infrastructure should be paralleled at the district level -- see Appendix D.)
Instructional Learning Supports
Component Component

Leadership for Leadership for

Instruction Learning Supports

School
(Administrator & various Improvement
teams and workgroups Team Review team
focused on improving for moderate-
instruction) Learning severe problems
Supports
Leadership
Team Review team
for disability
concerns

Management/Governance Ad hoc and standing workgroups

Component
Leadership for
governance and
administration
(Including teams and workgroups
focused on management and
governance)
Note: Each of the three primary and essential components for school improvement requires
1. administrative leadership and other advocates/champions with responsibility and
accountability for ensuring the vision for the component is not lost,
2. a leadership team to work with the administrative lead on system development,
3. standing workgroups with designated ongoing functions and occasional ad hoc workgroups
to accomplish specific short-term tasks.
To ensure coordination and integration, the leaders for the instructional and learning supports
components are fully integrated members of the management/governance component, and if a special
team is assigned to work on school improvement, the leaders for all three components are on that team.

This reworking of the operational infrastructure is a necessity for ending the marginalization of student
and learning supports. Working with a system development leadership team (e.g., a Learning Supports
Leadership Team), a learning supports’ administrative lead can facilitate continuous development of
a unified, comprehensive, equitable, and systemic approach to addressing barriers to learning and
teaching. As conceived, each component’s administrative lead is responsible and accountable not only
for improving his or her component’s performance but for fully integrating it with the other two.

84
At the school level, the administrative lead and the leadership team meet weekly to guide and monitor
daily implementation and ongoing component development. The initial focus is on mapping and
analyzing all resources and related budget allocations for student and learning supports. As highlighted
earlier in this book, such resources include student support personnel (e.g., school psychologists,
counselors, social workers, nurses; compensatory and special education staff); specialized services;
special initiatives; grants; programs for afterschool, wellness, dropout prevention, attendance, drug
abuse prevention, violence prevention, pregnancy prevention; parent/family/health centers; volunteer
assistance; community resources linked to schools, and more. Allocated funds come from the general
budget, compensatory and special education, and special projects (including those supported by extra-
mural sources).
Using the framework for a unified and comprehensive system of learning supports (review earlier
exhibit), resource analyses identify critical gaps, redundancies, and which funds can be redeployed to
develop the system. Then, priorities are set for moving forward in a cohesive and integrated way.
At the district level, the need is for administrative leadership and capacity building support that helps
maximize component development at each school. Note: it is crucial to establish the district’s
leadership for this work at a high enough level to ensure the administrator is always an active
participant at key planning and decision-making tables (e.g., a cabinet level administrative leader, such
as an associate superintendent).

How Can Small Schools Staff a Reworked Operational Infrastructure?

All schools are confronted with (1) improving instruction, (2) providing learning supports to
address barriers to learning and teaching, and (3) enhancing management and governance.
The challenge in any school is to pursue all three functions in a cohesive, equitable, and
effective manner. The added challenge in a small school is how to do it with so few personnel.

In small schools, the key is to modestly convert existing personnel roles and functions to
establish the type of operational infrastructure illustrated in above exhibit. Usually, the
principal and whoever else is part of a school leadership team will lead the way in improving
instruction and management/governance. As constituted, however, such a team may not be
prepared to advance development of the Learning Supports Componet. Thus, someone
already on the leadership team must assume this role and be provided training to carry it
out effectively.
Alternatively, someone in the school who is involved with student supports (e.g. a pupil
services professional, a Title I Coordinator, a special education resource specialist) can be
invited to join the leadership team, assigned responsibility and accountability for ensuring the
vision for the component is not lost, and provided Component leadership training. The leader,
however chosen, will benefit from eliciting the help of other advocates/champions at the school
and from the community.

HOW DOES A CASE-FOCUSED TEAM DIFFER FROM

A SYSTEM DEVELOPMENT LEADERSHIP TEAM?

Every school that wants to improve student and learning supports needs a mechanism to enhance how
schools address barriers to learning and teaching and re-engage disconnected students. As noted, most
schools have teams that focus on individual student and related family problems (e.g., a student
assistance team, an IEP team). These teams pursue functions such as referral, triage, and care

85
monitoring or management. They are not, however, empowered or positioned to focus on systemic
improvements that could prevent problems and stem the tide of referrals. The follwoing exhibit
contrasts their case-by-case focus, with the functions required for system development leadership.

Contrasting Team Functions

A Case-oriented Team A System Development Leadership Team

Focuses on specific individuals Focuses on all students and the resources,
and discrete services to address programs, and systems to address barriers to
barriers to learning learning & promote healthy development
Sometimes called: Possibly called:
Child Study Team Learning Supports Leadership Team
Student Study Team Learning Supports Resource Team
Student Success Team Resource Coordinating Team
Student Assistance Team Resource Coordinating Council
Teacher Assistance Team School Support Team
IEP Team
EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONS: EXAMPLES OF FUNCTIONS:
>aggregating data across students and from
>triage
teachers to analyze school needs
>referral >mapping resources at school & in the
>case monitoring/management community
>case progress review >analyzing resources & formulating priorities
>case reassessment for system development (in keeping with the
most pressing needs at the school)
>recommending how resources should
be deployed and redeployed
>coordinating and integrating school resources
& connecting with community resources
>planning and facilitating ways to strengthen
and develop new programs and subsystems
>developing strategies for enhancing resources
>establishing workgroups as needed
>social "marketing"

Two metaphors help differentiate the two types of teams and the importance of both sets of
functions. A case-orientation fits what is usually referred to as the starfish metaphor.
The day after a great storm had washed up all sorts of sea life far up onto the beach, a
youngster set out to throw back as many of the still-living starfish as he could. After
watching him toss one after the other into the ocean, an old man approached him and said:
It's no use your doing that, there are too many, You're not going to make any difference.
The boy looked at him in surprise, then bent over, picked up another starfish, threw it in,
and then replied: It made a difference to that one!
This metaphor, of course, reflects all the important clinical efforts undertaken by staff alone and
when they meet together to work on specific cases.

86
The development leadership focus is captured by what can be called the bridge metaphor.
In a small town, one weekend a group of school staff went fishing together down at the
river. Not long after they got there, a child came floating down the rapids calling for help.
One of the group on the shore quickly dived in and pulled the child out. Minutes later
another, then another, and then many more children were coming down the river. Soon
every one in the group was diving in and dragging children to the shore, resuscitating them,
and then jumping back.
But, there were too many. All of a sudden, in the midst of all this frenzy, one of the
group stopped jumping in and was seen walking away. Her colleagues were amazed and
irate. How could she leave when there were so many children to save? About an hour later,
to everyone's relief, the flow of children stopped, and the group could finally catch their
breath.
At that moment, their colleague came back. They turned on her and angrily shouted:
How could you walk off when we needed everyone here to save the children?
She replied:
It occurred to me that someone ought to go upstream and find out why so
many kids were falling into the river. What I found is that the old wooden
bridge had several planks missing, and when some children tried to jump
over the gap, they couldn't make it and fell through into the river. So I got a
team together, and we fixed the bridge.
Fixing and building better bridges is a good way to think about prevention, and it helps underscore
the importance of taking time to improve and enhance resources, programs, and systems.

Who’s on a Learning Supports Leadership Team?

Where feasible, a Learning Supports Leadership Team is formed as an inclusive group of

informed, willing, and able stakeholders. This might include the following:
• administrative lead for the component
• school psychologist
• counselor
• school nurse
• school social worker
• behavioral specialist
• special education teacher
• representatives of community agencies involved regularly with the school
• student representation (when appropriate and feasible)
• others who have a particular interest and ability to help with the functions

Schools with few student and learning support staff will begin with only a few people.
Because schools have case-oriented teams that team may be able to expand its focus to cover
the functions of a system development leadership team. This can work if the team is trained
and facilitated to split its time and agenda effectively.

Once a Learning Supports Leadership Team is operational at a school, the organizational focus can turn
to connecting it with other local schools, the district, and the community.

87
 e M o d el
Som
r a m s and
Prog
t i c e N o tes
Prac
r vi n g Al l
for Se
r e n W ell
Chil d

88
 Classroom-based Learning Supports to Enable Learning and Teaching

Good instruction is necessary but not sufficient when students

are experiencing external or internal challenges that inhibit learning.

Learning supports in classrooms are essential to address factors interfering with learning and
enhance equity of opportunity for all students to succeed at school and beyond.

A vailable evidence makes it clear that what most school improvement guides and plans stress
is not sufficient to address the many problems experienced at schools each day.

For example, looking through the lens of how well a classroom enables equity of opportunity for
all students to succeed leads to a recognition that instruction usually is not designed to account for
a wide range of individual differences and circumstances. Moreover, too little accommodation and
specific help is provided to students who m anifest learning, behavior, em otional, and physical
problems. And, in situations where students havebecome disconnected from classroom instruction,
professional preparation generally has not equipped teachers to re-engage such youngsters.

To be more specific: in mapping and analyzing how classrooms address barriers to learning and
teaching and re-engage disconnected students, we find the following:
(1) Teaching is organized at most schools in ways that presume classroom teachers can do
the job alone.
(2) Insufficient attention is being paid to creating a stimulating and caring, as well as
manageable learning environment.
(3) Efforts to personalize instruction mainly are interpreted in terms of using technology and
are not adequately differentiating instruction with respect to motivational differences.
(4) Classrooms are not focusing enough on promoting intrinsic motivation, preventing
problems, responding as soon as feasible after problems arise, and providing appropriate
special assistance when students display specific problems.
(5) Teachers’ professional development has not effectively prepared them with respect to
understanding intrinsic motivation, and this contributes to a tendency to overrely on
rewards and punishment as strategies for teaching and controlling behavior.
(6) Classrooms are not designed to be an effective first responder when special assistance for
a student and family is needed.
All this hinders and undermines efforts to engage students in learning. Moreover, these conditions
contribute to the type of psychological reactance that generates behavior and emotional problems
and works against re-engaging disconnected students.

Enhancing learning supports in classroom s helps with these m atters by increasing teacher
effectiveness in accounting for a wider range of individual differences, fostering a caring context,
and preventing and handling a wider range of problems when they arise (see exhibit).

89
 Key Facets of Enhancing Learning Supports in Classrooms

• Reframing the approach to classroom instruction to enhance teacher capability

to prevent and intervene as soon after problems arise and reduce need for out of
class referrals (e.g. personalizing instruction; enhancing necessary special assistance
in the classroom; developing small group and independent learning options; reducing
negative interactions and over-reliance on social control; expanding the range of
curricular and instructional options and choices; systematic use of response to
intervention and related prereferral interventions)
• Opening the classroom door to invite in various forms of collaboration, support,
and personalized professional development (e.g., co-teaching and team teaching
with resource teachers; working with student support staff in the classroom; using
volunteers in targeted ways to enhance social and academic support; bringing in
mentors; creating a learning community focused on intrinsic motivation concepts,
their application to schooling, how to minimize use of rewards and punishment, and
how to re-engage students who have become disengaged from classroom learning)
• Enhancing the capability of student and learning supports staff and others to
team with teachers in the classroom (e.g., enhancing student support staff
understanding of personalized instruction and how to work as colleagues in the
classroom with teachers and others to enhance success for all students)
• Providing a broad range of curricular and enrichment opportunities (e.g.,
stimulating instructional content and processes, ensuring open access to and choice
from a variety of enriching options)
• Contributing to a positive climate in the classroom and school-wide (e.g.,
enhancing feelings of competence, self-determination, and relatedness to others at
school; reducing threats to such feelings; ensuring staff have good professional and
social supports; providing for conflict resolution)

FRAMEWORK AND DESIGN FOR

ENHANCING CLASSROOM-BASED LEARNING SUPPORTS

Everyone who works in schools knows that the way the classroom setting is arranged and instruction
is organized can help or hinder learning and teaching. The ideal is to have an environment where
students and teachers feel comfortable, positively stimulated, and well-supported in pursuing the
learning objectives of the day.

Designing classrooms with this ideal involves enabling teachers to personalize and blend instruction
for all students, provide a greater range of accommodations and enrichment options, and add special
assistance in the context of i mplementing “Response to Intervention (RtI).” From a motivational
perspective, the emphasis is on active learning (e.g., authentic, problem-based, and discovery
learning; projects, learning centers, enrichment opportunities) and reducing negative interactions
and overreliance on social control disciplinary practices. To f acilitate all this, big classes are
transformed into a set of smaller workgroups by using small group and independent learning
options. (Note how these design features reflect Universal Design for Learning principles.) Properly
implemented, the changes can increase the effectiveness of regular classroom instruction, prevent
problems, support inclusionary policies, and reduce the need for specialized services.

90
The following exhibit illustrates a prototype framework for enhancing classroom learning
supports. The approach is sequential and hierarchical. It reflects research indicating that “meeting
students where they are” often is defined too narrowly. Differentiated instruction in most regular
classrooms mainly focuses on individual differences in students’ developmental capabilities and
pays little systemic attention to differences in motivation, especially intrinsic motivation. And, too
little is done within classrooms to follow-up with special assistance when students manifest
problems.

Prototype Framework for Enhancing Classroom Learning Supports

First Shift to Personalized Instruction

Step 1. Personalizing the
Regular programs (If it is not feasible to change a particular environment and program
teacher's program, move students who
(nonpersonalized) manifest problems learning to another
classroom that is personalizing instruction.)
(Step 2 is added only for
students who continue to
have problems)
The aim is create a good “match” or “fit” with the
learner’s capabilities and motivation. Step 2. Special assistance*
(maintained only as long as needed)
*see Exhibit 4.3

What’s the First Step? Personalized Instruction

As essential as it is to attend to dif ferences in capability, motivational differences often are the
primary concern in personalizing learning, especially for students m anifesting problems. We all
know students who have learned m uch more than we anticipated because they were highly
motivated; and we certainly know students who learn and perform poorly when they are not invested
in the work.

So, our definition of personalization emphasizes that it is the process of accounting for individual
differences in both capability and motivation. Furthermore, from a psychological perspective, we
stress that it is a student’s perception that determines whether the instructional “fit” or “match” is
good or ba d. Given this, personalizing instruction m eans ensuring conditions for learning are
perceived by the learner as good ways to attain goals s/he wants to reach. Thus, a basic intervention
concern is that of eliciting learners' perceptions of how well what is offered matches both their
interests and abilities. This has fundameental implications for all efforts to assess students and
manage behavior.

Personalized instruction is intended to enhancelearning and to prevent many learning and behavior
problems. And, it provides an essential foundation for ameliorating learning, behavior, and
emotional problems. Indeed, just providing a student with a personalized program may be sufficient
to reverse some problems. Other problems, of course, need something more. As highlighted in
the above exhibit, the prototype designates that “something more” as Step 2 special assistance.
We will discuss this soon.

91
 About Personalizing Instruction
After years of being bandied about, the term personalization (of learning/instruction/education)
has come to the policy forefront in the U.S., the United Kingdom, Canada, and beyond. It is
emphasized in the common core standards initiative, proposed model core teaching standards,
the administration's 2010 National Education Technology Plan, the Race to the Top guidelines,
and by a variety of reformers and philanthropies.

Despite some ongoing controversies, few argue against the goal of personalization which is to
help schools function better in addressing the diverse needs and interests students bring each
day. There is also agreement that new technologies can be helpful to a degree in accomplishing
the goal. And, there is agreement that improved forms of formative assessments are an
important element.

In 2010, the U.S. Department of Education included the following definition in its national
technology plan (Administration's National Education Technology Plan, 2010):
“Personalization refers to instruction that is paced to learning needs, tailored to learning
preferences, and tailored to the specific interests of different learners. In an environment
that is fully personalized, the learning objectives and content as well as the method and
pace may all vary (so personalization encompasses differentiation and individualization).”
http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/learning-engage-and-empower

As part of a series of special reports on the topic, Education Week issued Taking Stock of
Personalized Learning in 2014. That report highlighted recent definitional efforts and some
ongoing issues. http://www.edweek.org/ew/collections/personalized-learning-special-report-
2014/index.html?intc=EW-PLSR_10.22-EML

Unfortunately, discussions of personalized learning often leave the impression that the process
is mainly about incorporating technological innovations. For the most part, the discussions also
fail to place personalized learning within the context of other conditions that must be improved
in classrooms and school-wide to address factors interfering with student learning and
performance. And, ironically, interventions used to facilitate instruction and control behavior of
students who manifest learning and behavior problems often over-emphasize extrinsics,
especially in efforts to reduce or eliminate misbehavior. Because over-use of extrinsics can
undermine intrinsic motivation, such practices can be counterproductive to personalized
learning.

In the 1960s, at UCLA we initiated a focus on a personalized approach to learning as

fundamental to effective teaching and to preventing and correcting learning, behavior, and
emotional problems. Since then, we have continued to develop and apply the approach.

From our perspective, the aim of personalizing learning is to enhance stable, positive, intrinsic
attitudes that mobilize and maintain engagement in learning (in the classroom, throughout the
school, and away from school). Developing intrinsic attitudes is basic to increasing the type of
motivated practice (e.g., reading for pleasure) that is essential for mastering and assimilating
what has just been learned. Personnel preparation programs have not focused enough on these
matters.

92
So, what does it take to personalize a classroom?
First of all, the teacher m ust expect and value individual differe nces in students’ motivation and
development. The teacher must also offer options for learning and help students make decisions
among the alternatives. The emphasis in such decision making must be on encouraging students to
pursue what they perceive as a good match in terms of learning activities and structure. And as new
information about what is and isn’t a good match becomes available, there must be a willingness to
revise decisions.
Given that a teacher is m otivated to personalize a classroom program, both the students and the
teacher have to learn how to make it a reality. This usually involves moving toward personalization
through a series of transition steps (see Personalizing Learning and Addressing Barriers to Learning
online at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/personalizeI.pdf). In general, this requires offering an
appropriate variety of learning options as a starting point, facilitating student understanding of the
content, processes, and outcomes related to the options, and establishing ways for some students to
work independently and in small cooperative learning groupings while the teacher pursues
one-to-one and small-group interactions.
What’s the Second Step? Special Assistance in the Classroom (as needed)
When students require m ore than personalized in struction, it is essential to address the problem
immediately. That is, with personalized instruction in place, the next step involves providing special
assistance as needed. In most instances, such assistance is provided in the classroom.
As illustrated in next exhibit, Step 2 involves three levels of intervention. Note that this second
step is introduced only if learners continue to have problems after instruction is personalized. Note
also that special assistance is built on the foundation of personalized instruction.
To be a bit more specific:
Step 1 personalizing instruction. The intent is to ensure a student perceives instructional
processes, content, and outcomes as a good match with his or her interests and
capabilities.
A first emphasis is on motivation. Practices focus on (re)engaging the student in
classroom instruction, with special attention paid to increasing intrinsic motivation
and minimizing psychological reactance.
Matching developmental capabilities is a parallel concern in Step 1. Practices focus
on accounting for current knowledge and skills.
Then, based on a student’s responses to personalized instruction, it is determined if special
assistance (step 2) also is needed.
Step 2 special assistance. Students for whom personalized instruction proves
insufficient are provided supportive assistance. In keeping with the principle of
using the least intervention needed (e.g., doing what is needed in ways that are
least intrusive, restrictive, disruptive), step 2 stresses use of different levels of
special intervention. With respect to sequence:
• students with minor problems maintain a direct focus on readily observable
problems interfering with classroom learning and performance (Level A);
• students who continue to have problems often require a focus on necessary
prerequisites (e.g., readiness attitudes, knowledge, and skills) they haven’t
acquired (Level B);
• when interventions at Levels A and B don’t ameliorate the problem, the focus
shifts to possible underlying factors.
Students with severe and chronic problems require attention at all three levels.

93
(More on special assistance is discussed in the context of Student and Family Special Assistance.)

This sequence can help minimize false positive diagnoses (e.g., LD, ADHD) and identify those who
should be referred for special education assessment.

Special Assistance Sequence and Hierarchy

Step 2 is introduced as necessary using best practices for special assistance (remediation,
rehabilitation, treatment). These are applied differentially for minor and severe problems.

If needs
are minor Level A
Focus on observable
factors required
for performing As soon as feasible,
contemporary tasks move back to Level A
(e.g., basic knowledge
skills, and attitudes)

If necessary,
move to Level B Level B

Focus on prerequisite
factors required for
surface level As soon as feasible,
functioning move to Level B

If necessary, Level C
move to Level C
Focus on underlying
interfering factors
(e.g., serious external barriers,
incompatible behavior
and interests, faulty
learning mechanisms
that may interfere with
functioning at higher levels)

Primary concerns throughout are to (a) ensure motivational readiness, (b) enhance motivation during
learning, and (c) increase intrinsic motivation as an outcome. Also important is minimizing
conditions that decrease engagement in learning. Remember that the impact at any time depends on
the student’s perception of how well an intervention fits his/her motivation as well as capabilities.

94
With respect to both personalization and special assistance, understanding intrinsic motivation
clarifies how essential it is to avoid processes that limit options and decision making and that make
students feel controlled and coerced. Restricting the focus m ainly to “remedying” problems cuts
students off from experiences that enhance good feelings about learning at school. Overemphasis
on controlling behavior produces psychological reactance. Overreliance on extrinsic motivation risks
undermining efforts to enhance intrinsic m otivation and can produce avoidance reactions in the
classroom and to school. All this can reduce opportunities for positive learning and for development
of positive attitudes. Over time, such practices result in too many students disengaging from
classroom learning.

In contrast, practices that capitalize on intrinsic motivation enable and support learning. Such
practices offer a broad range of content, outcomes, and procedural options, including a personalized
structure to support and guide learning. With real options com e real opportunities f or involving
learners in decision making. The focus on intrinsic motivation also stresses the importance of
developing nonthreatening ways to provide ongoing information about learning and performance.
And, of course, it calls for a significant focus on enrichment opportunities.

Where Does Response to Intervention Fit as a Learning Support?

Response to Intervention (RtI) is a prominently advocated strategy in efforts to

address learning problems as soon as they arise. The process involves analyses of
authentic responses made to instruction, as well to other interventions designed to
address problems. The goal is to identify not only students’ needs but also their
interests. Thus, the analyses must consider (a) motivational as well as
developmental considerations and (b) whether the problem requires a deeper look.
Does the problem stem from the student not having acquired readiness skills? Does
it arise from “critical student dispositions” that have produced avoidance motivation
to curricula content and instructional processes? What accommodations and
interventions are needed to ameliorate the student’s problems? And, when problems
persist, what other external and internal factors must be considered? All this is
consistent with the prototype that first personalizes instruction and then assesses
learning and behavior problems using a hierarchical set of interventions. And
implementing these processes effectively is best accomplished through collaborative
actions. For more, see Response to Intervention
(http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/rtii.pdf).

A Few Words about Transforming Disciplinary Practices

In discussing her early frustrations with maintaining order in the classroom, Margaret Metzger
notes that it was helpful to keep in mind her own experiences as a student.

“If I was going to stay in education, I knew I had to get past the discipline issues.
. . . I wrote down what I liked and hated about my own teachers . . . . I
remembered how much I wanted the teachers I adored to like or notice me; I
remembered how criticism bruised my fragile ego; I remembered how I resented
teacher power plays. Mostly, I remembered how much I hated the infantilizing
nature of high school. . . . I reminded myself that I already know a lot – just from
the student side of the desk. If I could keep remembering, I could convey genuine
empathy and have honest interactions.”

95
Clearly, managing learning requires order in the cl assroom. Misbehavior disrupts; it may be hurtful;
it may disinhibit others. When a student misbehaves, a natural reaction is to want that youngster to
experience and other students to see the consequences of misbehaving. A hope is that public
awareness of consequences will deter subsequent problems. As a result, schools spend considerable
time and resources on discipline – sometimes embedding it all in the broader concept of classroom
management. To minimize misbehavior schools stress the importance of student self-discipline and
employ a variety of external disciplinary and so cial control practices. The latter include some
practices that model behaviors which foster (rather than counter) development of negative values.

In schools, short of suspending the individual, punishment essentially takes the form of a decision
to do something to students that they do not want done. In addition, a demand for future compliance
usually is made, along with threats of harsher punishment if compliance is not forthcoming. And,
the discipline may be administered in ways that suggest a student is an undesirable person. As
students get older, suspension increasingly comes into play. Indeed, suspension remains one of the
most common disciplinary responses for the transgressions of secondary students.

As often happens with reactive procedures, the benefits of using punishment to control behavior are
offset by many negative consequences. These include increased negative attitudes toward school and
school personnel which often lead to behavior problems, anti-social acts, and various mental health
problems. Disciplinary procedures also are associated with dropping out of school. It is not
surprising, then, that some concerned professionals refer to extreme disciplinary practices as
"pushout" strategies.
With the growing awareness that widely used discipline practices are insufficient and often
counterproductive, advocates for a more positive approach have called for a greater focus on
prevention by adding programs for character education, social skills and emotional “intelligence”
training, and positive behavior support initiatives. A more transformative perspective emphasizes
developing a comprehensive approach encompassing:

• efforts to prevent misbehavior (e.g., improving programs to enhance student

engagement and minimize conditions that foment misbehavior; enhancing home
responsibility for childrens’ behavior and learning; promoting a school climate that
embraces a holistic and family-centered orientation; working with students to
establish a set of logical consequences that are reasonable, fair, and nondenigrating)

• actions taken during misbehavior (e.g., reestablishing a calm and safe atmosphere and
applying established logical consequences in keeping with the framework for
personalization and special assistance)

• steps taken afterwards (e.g., making program changes if necessary; preventing further
problems with those who misbehaved by following-up with special assistance).

Remember: The aim is not only to reduce misbehavior, but to use events as teachable moments to
enhance personal responsibility (social and moral), integrity, self-regulation/self-discipline, a
work ethic, appreciation of diversity, and positive feelings about self and others.

Chapter 9 focuses on addressing behavior problems when special assistance is needed for individual
students and their families.

And for more, see:

Behavioral Initiatives in Broad Perspective (http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/behavioral/behini.pdf).

96
 OPENING THE CLASSROOM DOOR TO ENHANCE COLLABORATION AND
PERSONALIZED PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT RELATED TO LEARNING SUPPORTS

As former teacher Claudia Graziano related in an Edutopia article:

New teachers, however naive and idealistic, often know before they enter the
profession that the salaries are paltry, the class sizes large, and the supplies
scant. What they don't know is how little support . . . they can expect once the
door is closed and the textbooks are opened.

The point seems evident: Even the best teachers can’t do the job alone. Teachers need a system of
supports in the classroom and school-wide to help when students are not responding effectively to
instruction. This means classrooms and schools need to have a more open-door policy.

Opening the classroom door can enhance student support, staff development, and outcomes. The
crux of the matter is to ensure bot h in-class mentoring and collaboration with other teachers and
student support staff, as well as with parents, professionals-in-training, volunteers, and so f orth.
Collaboration and teaming are key to facilitating personalized instruction and special assistance,
creating a stimulating and manageable learning environment, and generally addressing barriers to
learning and teaching.
ABOUT ENHANCING THE CAPABILITY OF STUDENT AND LEARNING SUPPORTS STAFF
TO COLLABORATE IN THE CLASSROOM

Student support staff (e.g., school psychologists, counselors, social workers, nurses) have
specialized expertise. Their training prepares them to provide targeted direct assistance and support
to students and their families and to offer consultation to teachers, school administrators, and other
school staff.

However, effective collaboration with teachers involves much more than consultation and making
recommendations about addressing student problems. It involves helping teachers (re)design their
classrooms to address barriers to learning and teaching; this requires spending time in the classroom
working collaboratively with teachers to model, guide, and team in implementing systemic changes.

With some additional training, student and learning support staff can bring into the classroom not
only their special expertise, but ideas for how the classroom design can incorporate practices that
will engage students who have not been doing well and accommodate those with special needs. This
type of in-classroom collaboration can go far in enabling student learning and enhanci ng teacher
competence for preventing and correcting problems.

The personnel preparation program s for student and learning supports staff generally do not prepare
them for classroom teaching. So, if they are to effectively collaborate in the classroom, the nature
and scope of their preparation program s needs to expand. For instance, they m ust learn what is
involved in implementing personalized instruction and special assistance in the classroom and how
to effectively team with teachers and other colleagues in developing a unified and comprehensive
system of classroom and school-wide learning supports.

NEEDED: ENRICHMENT OPPORTUNITIES AS A KEY FACET OF LEARNING SUPPORTS

Because so many people think of enrichment as a frill, it is not surprising when such activities are
overlooked in discussing learning supports. Moreover, youngsters who m anifest learning, behavior,
and emotional problems are seen as needing all the time that is available in order to deal with their
problems and “catch up” and thus often are deprived of available enrichment opportunities.

97
The reality is that enrichment activities increase the possibilities for creating a good motivational
match and for facilitating learning, development, and remediation. Enrichment embellishes the
classroom and school environment and increases the likelihood that students will discover new
interests, information, and skills through exploration, inquiry, discovery, and recreation. The
activities can play a role in preventing, minimizing, and overcoming school and individual problems.
In some cases, enrichment experiences lead to lifelong interests or careers.

From a motivational perspective, many enrichment opportunities can be offered as personal choice
activities that are open to all and are intended to enhance nonspecific motivation and developmental
capabilities. Among enrichment offerings at schools are activities related to the arts, science,
computers, athletics, student government, school newspapers and may include participation in clubs,
exhibitions, performances, service learning programs, and competitions. Such activities often are
more attractive and intriguing than those offered in the specified curriculum. In part, this is because
they are not required, and individuals can seek out those that match their interests and abilities.

Because they are seen as extra-curricular, the impact of enrichment experiences is not separated out
in assessing academic accountability. Nevertheless, it is a reasonable assumption that much will be
learned, and equally as important, the learning will be pursued with a sense of value and joy and will
enhance students’ feelings of competence, self-determination, and affiliation with significant others.

Staffing a broad range of enrichment activities is another facet that calls for opening the school and
classroom doors to colleagues and volunteers who have special knowledge and skills to add to the
mix. In addition, students who have specific talents can play a special role.

Well-designed and structured enrichment activities are basic to encouraging proactive behavior and
should be an integral part of daily classroomtime. However, they should not be used as a behavior
modification strategy (i.e., used as rewards and withdrawn as punishment). Rather, think of them
as engagement strategies. They can help re-engage a student in classroom instruction. Offered before
school, they can lure students to school early and thus reduce tardies. Offered at lunch, they can
reduce the incidence of harassment and other negative interactions. After school, they provide
alternatives to antisocial interactions in the community.

LEARNING SUPPORTS HELP CREATE AND MAINTAIN A POSITIVE CLIMATE

In focusing on climate, the intent to establish and m aintain a positive context that facilitates
classroom learning. In practice, school and classroom climates range from hostile or toxic to caring
and supportive and can fluctuate daily and over the school year. The impact on students and staff
can be beneficial or another barrier to learning and teaching.

Analyses of research suggest that school and classroom climate are significantly related to matters
such as student engagement, behavior, self-efficacy, achievement, and social and emotional
development, principal leadership style, stages of educational reform, teacher burnout, and overall
quality of school life. For example, studies report strong associations between achievement levels
and classrooms that are perceived as having greater cohesion and goal-direction and less
disorganization and conflict. Research also suggests that the impact of classroom and school climate
may be greater on students from low-income homes and groups that often are discriminated against.

From a psychological perspective, classroom climate is perceived as an emergent quality. Each

individual at a school has a personal view of the climate in a classroom and school-wide. That view
reflects the degree to which the setting is seen as enhancing or threatening the individual’s feelings
of competence, self-determination, and relatedness to significant others in the setting and is further
influenced by what others in the setting communicate about the climate.

98
 A Couple of Notes About School Climate

• Given the correlational nature of school climate research, cause and

effect interpretations remain speculative. The broader body of
organizational research does indicate the profound role accountability
pressures play in shaping organizational climate. Thus, it is likely that the
increasing demands for higher achievement test scores and control of
student behavior contribute to a school climate that is reactive, over-
controlling, and over-reliant on external reinforcement to motivate
positive functioning. Regardless of the current status of research,
understanding the nature of classroom and school climate is a basic
element in improving schools, and learning supports are a basic
component in enhancing creating and maintaining a positive climate.

• Classroom and school climate sometimes are referred to as the learning

environment or the supportive learning environment, as well as by terms
such as atmosphere, ambience, ecology, milieu, conditions for learning.
It generally is acknowledged that the climate is a temporal, and
somewhat fluid, perceived quality which emerges from the complex
transaction of many factors and reflects the influence of the underlying,
institutionalized values and belief systems, norms, ideologies, rituals,
and traditions that constitute the school culture. And, of course, the
climate and culture at a school are affected by the surrounding political,
social, cultural, and economic contexts (e.g., home, neighborhood, city,
state, country).

CONCLUDING COMMENTS

Teachers need le arning supports in their classrooms. This arena provides a

fundamental example not only of how learning supports overlap regular instructional
efforts, but how they add value to prevailing efforts to improve instruction and
learning and ameliorate learning, behavior, and emotional problems.

Classroom-based learning supports can prevent problems, facilitate intervening as

soon as problems are noted, enhance intrinsic motivation for learning, and re-engage
disconnected students in classroom learning. This is accomplished by (a) reframing
how the classroom personalizes instruction and provides more classroom-based
special assistance to account for a wider range of individual differences, (b) opening
the classroom door to enhance collaboration and personalized professional
development related to learning supports, (c) enhancing the capabilities of student
and learning supports staff to team with teachers in the classroom, (d) ensuring
enrichment opportunities, and (e) facilitating emergence of a positive climate for
learning.

99
 For more specific examples of ways to enhance Classroom-based Learning
Supports, see the self-study survey included in this packet. (Also accessible
at http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/toolsforpractice/classroomsurvey.pdf )

For Free and Easily Accessed Online Resources Related to

Classroom-based Learning Supports
See our Center’s Quick Find on
Classroom-Based Learning Supports
>http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/classenable.htm
Also see related topics listed on the Quick Find menu
>http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/quicksearch.htm

A Few of the References Used in Preparing this Article

Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1993). Learning problems and learning disabilities: Moving
forward. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole.
Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (2005). Classroom climate. In S.W. Lee, P.A. Lowe, & E. Robinson
(Eds.), Encyclopedia of School Psychology. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (2006). The implementation guide to student learning supports in
the classroom and schoolwide: New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand
Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Administration's National Education Technology Plan (2010), Transforming American
education: Learning powered by technology. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education. http://www.ed.gov/technology/netp-2010/letter-secretary
American Youth Policy Forum (2000). High schools of the millennium report. Washington, DC:
Author.
Batsche, G.M., Kavale, K.A., & Kovaleski, J.F. (2006). Competing views: A dialogue on
response to intervention. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 6-19.

100
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M.W. (2010). Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies
for Effective Practice. New York: Guilford Press.
Brophy, J. (2004). Motivating students to learn. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
CCSSO (2011). Interstate Teacher Assessment and Support Consortium, InTASC model core
teaching standards: A resource for state dialogue. Washington, DC: Author.
http://www.ccsso.org/Resources/Programs/Interstate_Teacher_Assessment_Consortium_(In
TASC).html
Center for Mental Health in Schools (2001). Enhancing classroom approaches for addressing
barriers to learning: Classroom Focused Enabling. Los Angeles: Author at UCLA.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/contedu/cfe.pdf
Center for Mental Health in School (2011). Moving beyond the three tier intervention pyramid
toward a comprehensive framework for student and learning supports. Los Angeles: Author
at UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/briefs/threetier.pdf
Center for Mental Health in Schools (2012). RTI and classroom & school-wide learning
supports. Los Angeles: Author at UCLA.
http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/dbsimple2.asp?primary=2311&number=9897
Center for Mental Health in School (2012). Engaging and Re-engaging Students and Families.
Author at UCLA. http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/pdfdocs/engagei.pdf
Chase, P., Hilliard, L., Geldhof, G., et al. (2014). Academic achievement in the high school
years: The changing role of school engagement. Journal of Youth and Adolescence, ePub
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10964-013-0085-4
Cohen, J. (2006). Social, emotional, ethical and academic education: Creating a climate for
learning, participation in democracy and well-being. Harvard Educational Review, 76,
201-237.
Cohen, J,. McCabe, E.M, Michelli, N.M & Pickeral, T. (2009). School climate: Research, policy,
teacher education and practice. Teachers College Record, 111, 180-213.
http://www.tcrecord.org/Content.asp?ContentId=15220
Debnam, K.J., Johnson, S.L., Waasdorp, T.E., & Bradshaw, C.P. (2014). Equity, connection, and
engagement in the school context to promote positive youth development. Journal of
Research on Adolescence, 24, 447–459.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jora.12083/full
Deci, E.L. (2009). Large-scale school reform as viewed from the self-determination theory
perspective. Theory and Research in Education, 7, 244-252.
Deci, E.L. & Ryan, R.M. (2002). The paradox of achievement: The harder you push, the worse it
gets. In J. Aronson (Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Contributions of social
psychology. (Pp. 59-85). New York: Academic Press.
Ferri, B.A. (2011). Undermining inclusion? A critical reading of response to intervention (RTI).
International Journal of Inclusive Education, 1-18, iFirst article.
http://syr.academia.edu/BethFerri/Papers/688978/Undermining_inclusion_A_critical_reading
_of_response_to_intervention_RTI_
Feshbach, S. & Adelman, H. S. (1971). An experimental program of personalized classroom
instruction in disadvantaged area schools. Psychology in the Schools, VIII, 114-120.
Fredricks, J.A., Blumenfeld, P.C., & Paris, A.H. (2004). School engagement: Potential of the
concept, state of the evidence. Review of Educational Research, 74, 59-109.

101
Froiland, J., Oros, E., Smith, L., & Hirchert, T. (2012). Intrinsic motivation to learn: The nexus
between psychological health and academic success Contemporary School Psychology, 16,
91-102. http://www.casponline.org/pdfs/pdfs/intrinsic_motivation.pdf
Fullan, M. 2009. Michael Fullan's Answer to "What Is Personalized Learning?" Microsoft
Education Partner Network.
http://cs.mseducommunity.com/wikis/personal/michael-fullan-s-answer-to-quot-what-isperso
nalized-learning-quot/revision/3.aspx
Guess, P., & Bowling, S. (2014). Students’ perceptions of teachers: Implications for classroom
practices for supporting students’ success. Preventing School Failure: AlternativeEducation
for Children and Youth, 58, 201-206.
http://www.tandfonline.com/toc/vpsf20/58/4#.U9_PH03n_QN
Hargreaves, D. (2006). Personalising learning 6: The final gateway: School design and
organisation. London: Specialist Schools and Academics Trust. iNet – International
Networking for Educational Transformation. (2010). What we do: Our priorities:
Personalising learning. Taunton, Somerset: Specialist Schools and Academics Trust.
www.ssat-inet.net/whatwedo/personalisinglearning.aspx
Lee, H.S. & Anderson, J.R. (2013). Student learning: What has instruction got to do with it?
Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 3.1-3.25. http://www.annualreviews.org
McRae, P. (2010). The politics of personalization in the 21st century.
http://www.teachers.ab.ca/Publications/ATA%20Magazine/Volume-91/Number-1/Pages/The
-Politics-of-Personalization-in-the-21st-Century.aspx
National Center on Response to Intervention (2010). Essential Components of RTI – A Closer
Look at Response to Intervention. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, Office of
Special Education Programs, National Center on Response to Intervention.
http://www.rti4success.org/images/stories/pdfs/rtiessentialcomponents_051310.pdf
National Research Council and the Institute of Medicine (2004). Engaging schools: Fostering
high school students’ motivation to learn. Washington, DC: National Academies Press.
Ryan, R. M., & Deci, E. L. (2009). Promoting self-determined school engagement: Motivation,
learning, and well-being. In K. R. Wentzel & A. Wigfield (Eds.), Handbook on motivation at
school (pp. 171-196). New York: Routledge.
Software & Information Industry Association. (2010, November). Innovate to educate: System
[re]design for personalized learning. 2010 Symposium Report. In collaboration with ASCD
and the Council of Chief State School Officers. Washington, DC. Author: M.A. Wolf.
http://siia.net/pli/presentations/PerLearnPaper.pdf
Stiglbauer, B., Gnambs, T., Gamsjager, M. & Batinic, B. (2013). The upward spiral of
adolescents' positive school experiences and happiness: Investigating reciprocal effects over
time. Journal of School Psychology, 51, 231-242 http://www.sciencedirect.com
Taylor, L. & Adelman, H.S. (1999). Personalizing classroom instruction to account for
motivational and developmental differences. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 15, 255-276.
U.S. Department of Education. What Works Clearinghouse.
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/topics.aspx
Wehrmeyer, M. L. & Sands, D. J. (1998). Making it happen: Student involvement in education
planning, decision making, and instruction. Baltimore, MD: Paul Brookes Publishing Co.
West, D.M. (2011). Using technology to personalize learning and assess students in real-time.
Washington, DC: Center for Technology Innovation at Brookings.

102
 What is UDL?
http://www.udlcenter.org/aboutudl/whatisudl
Universal Design for Learning is a set of principles for curriculum development that
give all individuals equal opportunities to learn.
UDL provides a blueprint for creating instructional goals, methods, materials, and
assessments that work for everyone--not a single, one-size-fits-all solution but rather
flexible approaches that can be customized and adjusted for individual needs.

Why is UDL necessary?

Individuals bring a huge variety of skills, needs, and interests to learning. Neuroscience
reveals that these differences are as varied and unique as our DNA or fingerprints.
Three primary brain networks come into play:

Recognition Networks Strategic Networks Affective Networks

The "what" of learning The "how" of learning The "why" of learning

How we gather facts and Planning and performing tasks. How learners get engaged and
categorize what we see, hear, and How we organize and express our stay motivated. How they are
read. Identifying letters, words, or ideas. Writing an essay or solving challenged, excited, or interested.
an author's style are recognition a math problem are strategic tasks. These are affective dimensions.
tasks.
Differentiate the ways Stimulate interest and
Present information and that students can express motivation for learning
content in different ways what they know
More ways to provide
More ways to provide More ways to provide Multiple Means of
Multiple Means of Multiple Means of Action Engagement
Representation and Expression

Source: CAST - What is UDL? (http://www.cast.org/research/udl)

Learn more about UDL:

Learn about the UDL concept Learn about the principles Go to UDL Online Modules

Last Updated: 07/31/2014

NATIONAL CENTER ON UNIVERSAL DESIGN FOR LEARNING, AT CAST

40 HARVARD MILLS SQUARE, SUITE 3; WAKEFIELD, MA 01880-3233
TEL.: (781) 245-2212, EMAIL: [email protected]
103
IES PRACTICE GUIDE
NCEE 2009-4045
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI)

and Multi-Tier Intervention in the Primary Grades
http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/rti_reading_pg_021809.pdf
Summary

This guide offers five specific recommendations to help educators identify struggling readers and
implement evidence-based strategies to promote their reading achievement. Teachers and
reading specialists can utilize these strategies to implement RtI and multi-tier intervention
methods and frameworks at the classroom or school level. Recommendations cover how to
screen students for reading problems, design a multi-tier intervention program, adjust instruction
to help struggling readers, and monitor student progress.

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence

Recommendation Level of evidence

1. Screen all students for potential reading problems at the beginning of

the year and again in the middle of the year. Regularly monitor the Moderate
progress of students at risk for developing reading disabilities.

Tier 1 intervention/general education

2. Provide time for differentiated reading instruction for all students based
Low
on assessments of students’ current reading level.

Tier 2 intervention

3. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational

reading skills in small groups to students who score below the benchmark
Strong
score on universal screening. Typically, these groups meet between
three and five times a week, for 20 to 40 minutes.

4. Monitor the progress of tier 2 students at least once a month. Use these
data to determine whether students still require intervention. For those
Low
students still making insufficient progress, schoolwide teams should
design a tier 3 intervention plan.

Tier 3 intervention

5. Provide intensive, systematic instruction on up to three foundational

reading skills in small groups to students who score below the benchmark
Low
score on universal screening. Typically, these groups meet between
three and five times a week, for 20 to 40 minutes.

104
IES PRACTICE GUIDE
NCEE 2010-4038
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Improving Reading Comprehension in Kindergarten Through 3rd Grade

http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/practice_guides/readingcomp_pg_092810.pdf

Summary
Students who read with understanding at an early age gain access to a broader range of texts,
knowledge, and educational opportunities, making early reading comprehension instruction
particularly critical. This guide recommends five specific steps that teachers, reading coaches,
and principals can take to successfully improve reading comprehension for young readers.

Table 2. Recommendations and corresponding levels of evidence

Levels of Evidence

Minimal Moderate Strong

Recommendation Evidence Evidence Evidence
1. Teach students how to use reading comprehension
‹
strategies.

2. Teach students to identify and use the text’s organizational

‹
structure to comprehend, learn, and remember content.

3. Guide students through focused, high-quality discussion

‹
on the meaning of text.

4. Select texts purposefully to support comprehension

‹
development.

5. Establish an engaging and motivating context in which

‹
to teach reading comprehension.

105
IES PRACTICE GUIDE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
WHAT WORKS CLEARINGHOUSE

Improving Adolescent Literacy: Effective Classroom and Intervention

http://www.ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/PracticeGuide.aspx?sid=8

Summary

This guide presents strategies that classroom teachers and specialists can use to increase the
reading ability of adolescent students. The recommendations aim to help students gain more
from their reading tasks, improve their motivation for and engagement in the learning process,
and assist struggling readers who may need intensive and individualized attention.

Recommendations Level of Evidence

1. Provide explicit vocabulary instruction. Source PDF – Strong

2. Provide direct and explicit comprehension strategy instruction. Source PDF – Strong

3. Provide opportunities for extended discussion of text meaning and interpretation. Moderate

4. Increase student motivation and engagement in literacy learning. Source PDF Moderate

5. Make available intensive and individualized interventions for struggling readers Strong
that can be provided by trained specialists.

106
 o f S o me Basic
Q u ick O verview
A s
Resource

lect ed R eferences
A. Se
s , O rganizations &
B. Agencie
Internet
inds
C. Quick F

107
 A. Selected References

Baker, S., Fien. H & Baker, D. (2010). Robust reading instruction in the early grades:
Conceptual and practical issues in the integration and evaluation of tier 1 and tier 2
instructional supports. Focus on Exceptional Children, 42, 1-20.
Blatchford, P., Bassett, P. & Brown, P. (2011). Examining the effect of class size on classroom
engagement and teacher-pupil interaction: differences in relation to pupil prior attainment
and privary vs. second schools. Learning and Instruction, 21, 715-730.
Case, L., Speece, D., Silverman, R., et al. (2010). Validation of a supplemental reading
intervention for first grade children. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 43, 402-417.
Catts., H., Compton, D., Tomblin, J et al (2012) Prevalence and nature of late emerging poor
readers. Journal of Educational Psychology, 104 (1) 166-181
Chambers, B., Slavin, R., Madden, N. et al. (2011). Small group, computer assisted tutoring to
improve reading outcomes for struggling first and second grades. Elementary School
Journal, 111, 625-640.
Compton, D., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L. et al. (2010). Selecting at risk first grade readers for early
intervention: eliminating false positives and exploring the promise of a two stage gated
screening process. Journal of Educational Psychology, 102, 327-340.
Coyne, M., Kame'eniu, E. & Carnine, D. (2011). Effective teaching strategies that accommodate
diverse learners. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Merrill.
Denton, C. (2012). Response to intervention for reading disabilities in the primary grades: some
answers and lingering questions. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 232-243.
Dufrene, B. Reisener, C., Olmi, D., et al. (2010). Peer tutoring for reading fluency as a feasible
and effective alternative in response to intervention systems. Journal of Behavior Education,
19, 239-256.
Hill, D., Kings, S., Lemons, C. et al. (2012). Fidelity of implementation and instructional
alignment in response to intervention research. Learning Disabilities Research & Practices,
27, 116-124.
MuCulley, L., Katz, S. & Vaughn, S. (2013). Reading instruction and students with learning
disabilities. In J. P. Bakken, F. E. Obiakor & A. F. Rotatori (Eds.), Learning disabilities:
Practice concerns and students with LD, Advances in special education (Vol. 25). Bingley,
UK: Emerald.
O'Connor, R., Bocian, K. Sanchez, V. et al. (2014). Access to a responsiveness to intervention
model: does beginning intervention in kindergarten matter? Journal of Learning Disabilities
47, 307-328.
Okilwa, N., & Shelfy, L. (2010). The effects of peer tutoring on academic performance of
students with disabilities in grades 6 through 12. A synthesis of the literature. Remedial and
Special Education, 31, 450-463.
Reed, D., Sorrells, A., Cole, H. et al. (2013). The ecological and population validity of reading
interventions for adolescents; can effectiveness be generalized? Learning Disability
Quarterly, 36, 131-144.

108
>A Synthesis of Peer-Mediated Academic Interventions for Secondary Struggling Learners
J. Wexler, D. Reed, N. Pyle, M. Mitchell, & E. Barton (2015). Journal of Learning Disabilities,
48, 451-470.
Abstract: A synthesis of the extant research on peer-mediated reading and math interventions
for students in regular or alternative education settings with academic difficulties and
disabilities in Grades 6 to 12 (ages 11–18) is presented. Interventions conducted between
2001 and 2012 targeting reading and math were included if they measured effects on at least
one academic outcome measure. A total of 13 intervention studies were synthesized in which
10 studies employed an experimental or quasi-experimental design and three studies used
a single-case design. Findings from the 13 studies revealed mostly moderate to high effects
favoring peer mediation, particularly when implementing a peer-mediated feedback
component. In addition, findings suggest such interventions have social validity among
adolescents and teachers. More rigorous research on secondary peer-mediated math
interventions, peer-mediated interventions in alternative settings, and effective ways to pair
dyads to incorporate a structured feedback component is warranted. Implications for
peer-mediated instruction for academically struggling adolescents are discussed.
>Early Response-to-Intervention Measures and Criteria as Predictors of Reading Disability
in the Beginning of Third Grade. K. Beach & R. O' Connor (2015). Journal of Learning
Disabilities, 48, 196-223.
Abstract: We explored the usefulness of first and second grade reading measures and
responsiveness criteria collected within a response-to-intervention (RtI) framework for
predicting reading disability (RD) in third grade. We used existing data from 387
linguistically diverse students who had participated in a longitudinal RtI study. Model-based
predictors of RD were analyzed using logistic regression; isolated measure/criteria
combinations for predicting RD were analyzed using classification analysis. Models yielded
superior classification rates compared to single measure approaches and did not
systematically misclassify English learners. However, particular first and second grade
measure/criteria combinations also showed promise as isolated predictors of RD in word
reading/text fluency. Model-based approaches were required for acceptable classification of
students with RD in comprehension. Although the former finding is promising for early
identification of students in need of more intensive instruction in lexical or fluency-based
skills, the latter finding reaffirms literature attesting to the comllexity of RD in
comprehension and difficulty of predicting deficits using early measures of reading, which
primarily assess word reading skill. Results replicated well with an independent sample, thus
enhancing confidence in study conclusions. Implications regarding the use of RtI for
predicting RD are discussed.
>An Examination of the Efficacy of a Multitiered Intervention on Early Reading Outcomes
for First Grade Students at Risk for Reading Difficulties. H. Fien, J. Smith, K. Smolkowski, S.
Baker, N. Nelson, & E. Chaparro (2015). Journal of Learning Disabilities, 48, 602-621,
Abstract: This article presents findings of an efficacy trial examining the effect of a
multitiered instruction and intervention model on f irst grade at-risk students' reading
outcomes. Schools (N = 16) were randomly assigned to the treatment or control condition.
In the fall of Grade 1, students were assigned to an instructional tier on the basis of Stanford
Achievement Test-10th Edition scores (31st per centile and above = Tier 1; from the 10th to
the 30th percentile = Tier 2). In both conditions, students identified as at risk (i.e., Tier 2;
n = 267) received 90 minutes of whole group instruction (Tier 1) and an additional 30 min of
daily small group intervention (Tier 2). In the treatment condition, teachers were trained to
enhance core reading instruction by making instruction more explicit and increasing practice
opportunities for students in Tier 1. In addition,at-risk readers were provided an additional
30-min daily small group intervention with content that was highly aligned with the Tier 1
core reading program. Results indicate signif icant, positive effects of the intervention on
students' decoding and first semester fluent reading and potentially positive effects on
reading comprehension and total reading achievement.
109
 B. Agencies, Organizations, and Internet Sites
There are many agencies and organizations that help and advocate for those with
disabilities. The following is a list of agencies, organizations and sites that offer
information and resources related to special education in general, and, in some cases,
to learning problems and learning disabilities specifically. This is not a comprehensive
list, but is meant to highlight some premier resources and serve as a beginning.

CES - Cooperative Educational Services National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

Website: http://www.ces.k12.ct.us/ (NRCLD)
http://www.nrcld.org

Council for Learning Disabilities Teaching Learning Disabilities

http://www.c http://www.teachingld.org

Learning Disabilities Association of America (LDA) National Center for Learning Disabilities
www.ldanatl.org
http://www.ncld.org/

110
TOPIC: Learning Problems & Disabilities -- http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/learnprob.htm

TOPIC: Response to Intervention -- http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/responsetointervention.htm11

TOPIC: "Individuals with Disabilities Education Act" and Accommodations/Inclusion --

http://smhp.psych.ucla.edu/qf/idea.htm

111
 CONCLUDING COMMENTS

From the foregoing perspective, then, proposed translations of research into practice
should be evaluated in terms of whether they are appropriate for Type I, II,
or III learning problems and where they fit into a comprehensive scheme of
intervention needs.

Turning the matter around, researchers primarily concerned with application (i.e.,
improving intervention for those with learning problems) must at the very
least broaden their view of teaching; optimally, they need to expand their
view of intervention beyond teaching. With respect to the former, my col-
leagues and I have argued that it seems particularly important to focus on
motivation as a primary intervention concern and, in doing so, to pursue per-
sonalized, sequential, and hierarchical teaching strategies. Beyond teaching,
it is important to think in terms of a societal approach encompassing an inte-
grated continuum of preventive and treatment services. There is a consider-
able agenda of research that warrants attention related to these ideas.

As the world around us is changing at an

exponential rate, so must the way we ap-
proach learning problems. Over the coming
decade, we all will be called upon to play a
role in doing something about the many in-
dividuals who have trouble learning aca-
demic skills. In responding to this call, it
will be essential to have a broad under-
standing of what causes learning problems
(including learning disabilities) and what
society in general and schools in particular
need to do to address such problems. Any-
one concerned with research applications
must evaluate them within a broad context,
not just from the narrow perspective of spe-
cific assessment practices or direct instruc-
tion of observable skills. To do less is to
risk too much.

112