The statewide implementation of instructional support teams (ISTs) in Pennsylvania is analyzed in terms of the challenge of bringing team-based problem-solving models to scale. The history of the phase-in of ISTs in more than 1,700 elementary schools is presented, and the salient research conducted on ISTs is reviewed. The results indicate that ISTs are effective in reducing referrals to special education and improving measures of academic learning time. Recommendations for widespread adoption of problem-solving teams are contextualized in a three-tier model of service delivery. Within this model, the use of problem-solving teams of teachers analyzing group data for the purpose of restructuring whole-group instruction is proposed as a method of assisting schools in meeting the requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Bickel, W., Zigmond, N., & McCall, R. (1998). Documentation and impact of Pennsylvania's Instructional Support Team process: Final report. Pittsburgh: Pennsylvania Bureau of Special Education and the University of Pittsburgh.
2.
Bickel, W., Zigmond, N., McCall, R., & McNelis, R. (1999). Instructional Support Team best practices in Pennsylvania: Final report. Pittsburgh: Pennsylvania Bureau of Special Education and the University of Pittsburgh.
3.
Chalfant, J.C., & Pysh, M.V. (1989). Teacher assistance teams: Five descriptive studies on 96 teams. Remedial and Special Education, 10(6), 49—58.
4.
Conway, S., & Kovaleski, J. (1998). A model for statewide special education reform: Pennsylvania's instructional support teams. International Journal of Educational Reform, 7, 345—351.
5.
Denton, C.A., Vaughn, S., & Fletcher, J.M. (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 201—211.
6.
Ellis, A. (2001). Research on educational innovations (3rd ed.). Larchmont, NY: Eye on Education.
7.
Feir, R. (1992). Refining Pennsylvania's funding mechanism and program rules for special education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Finance Association, New Orleans, LA.
8.
Flugum, K.R., & Reschly, D.J. (1994). Prereferral interventions: Quality indices and outcomes. Journal of School Psychology, 32(1), 1—14.
9.
Foorman, B.R., & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). Critical elements of classroom and small-group instruction promote reading success in all children. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 16, 202—211.
10.
Fuchs, L.S., & Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identification of learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 13, 204—219.
11.
Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157—171.
12.
Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172— 186.
13.
Gickling, E.E., & Rosenfield, S. (1995). Curriculum-based assessment . In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology (pp. 587—595). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
14.
Good, R.H., Gruba, J., & Kaminski, R.A. (2002). Best practices in using dynamic indicators of basic early literacy skills (DIBELS) in an outcomes-driven model. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 699—720). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
15.
Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson , & D. P. Hallahan (Eds.) Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467—519). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Gresham, F.M., Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Christ, T., et al. (2005). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response to intervention perspective. The School Psychologist , 59(1), 26—30.
17.
Hartman, W.T., & Fay, T.A. (1996). Cost-effectiveness of instructional support teams in Pennsylvania. Journal of Education Finance, 21, 555—580.
18.
Horowitz, S.H., Lichtenstein, B., Roller, C., Toombs, M., & Kukic, S. (2002). An intervention-oriented, multi-tier approach for identifying and serving students with learning disabilities. Unpublished paper prepared for the Learning Disabilities Roundtable, “Finding Common Ground.”
19.
Huck, R., Myers, R., & Wilson, J. (1989). ADAPT: A developmental activity program for teachers . Pittsburgh, PA: Allegheny Intermediate Unit.
20.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004, H.R. 1350, 108 Cong., 2nd Sess.
21.
Joyce, B., & Showers, B. (1982). The coaching of teaching. Educational Leadership, 40(1), 4—10.
22.
Kovaleski, J.F. (2002). Best practices in operating pre-referral intervention teams. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 645—655). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
23.
Kovaleski, J.F., Gickling, E.E., Morrow, H., & Swank, P.R. (1999). High versus low implementation of instructional support teams: A case for maintaining program fidelity. Remedial and Special Education, 20, 170— 183.
24.
Kovaleski, J.F., & Prasse, D.P. (2004). Response to instruction in the identification of learning disabilities: A guide for school teams. Helping children at home and school II: Handouts for families and educators. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.
25.
Kovaleski, J., Tucker, J., & Stevens, L. (1996). Bridging special and regular education: The Pennsylvania initiative. Educational Leadership, 53(7), 44—47.
26.
Lohrmann-O'Rourke, S., Knoster, T., & Llewellyn, G. (1999). Screening for understanding: An initial line of inquiry for school-based problems. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 1, 35—42.
27.
McCardle, P., & Chhabra, V. (Eds.). (2004). The voice of evidence in reading research. Baltimore: Brookes .
28.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel: Teaching students to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instructions: Reports of the subgroups. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health, National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.
29.
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, P.L. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425
30.
Noell, G.H., Witt, J.C., Slider, N.J., Connell, J.E., Gatti, S.L., Williams, K.L., et al. (2005). Treatment implementation following behavioral consultation in schools: A comparison of three follow-up strategies. School Psychology Review, 34(1), 87—106.
31.
Pennsylvania State Board of Education. (1990 ). Special Education Services and Programs, Section 14.24b, 22 Pennsylvania Code Chapters 14 and 342.
32.
Pennsylvania State Board of Education. (2001 ). Special Education Services and Programs, Section 31 Pa.B. 3021, 22 Pennsylvania Code Chapter 14.
33.
President's Commission on Excellence in Special Education. (2002). A new era: Revitalizing special education for children and their families. Washington, DC: Author.
34.
Rashotte, C.A., MacPhee, K., & Torgesen, J.K. (2001). The effectiveness of a group reading instruction program with poor readers in multiple grades. Learning Disability Quarterly, 24, 119—134.
35.
Rock, M.L., & Zigmond, N. (2001). Intervention assistance: Is it substance or symbolism?Preventing School Failure, 45, 153—161.
36.
Rosenfield, S. (1987). Instructional consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
37.
Scantron Corp. (2005). Performance series. Retrieved August 12, 2005, from http://www.scantron.com/education/k12_education/products/performance_series/index.shtml
38.
Schmoker, M. (1999). Results: The key to continuous school improvement (2nd ed.). Alexandria, VA: Association for Supervision and Curriculum Development.
39.
Schrank, F.A., Teglasi, H., Wolf, I.L., Miller, J.A., Caterino, L.C., & Reynolds, C.R. (2005). American academy of school psychology reply to response-to-intervention perspective. The School Psychologist, 59(1), 30—33.
40.
Shinn, M.R. (2002). Best practices in using curriculum-based measurement in a problem-solving model. In J. Grimes & A. Thomas (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV (pp. 671—697). Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
41.
Stanford Achievement Test series (10th ed.). ( 2004). San Antonio, TX: Harcourt .
42.
Valentine, M.R. (1988). Di ficult discipline problems: A family systems approach. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt .
43.
Vaughn, S., & Fuchs, L.S. (2003). Redefining learning disabilities as inadequate response to instruction: The promise and potential problems. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 137—146.
44.
Vaughn, S., Linan-Thompson, S., & Hickman, P. (2003). Response to instruction as a means of identifying students with reading/learning disabilities. Council for Exceptional Children, 69, 391—409.
45.
Ysseldyke, J.E., Thurlow, M., Graden, J., Wesson, C., Algozzine, B., & Deno, S. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision making: The University of Minnesota Institute. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 75—93.
