It is crucial that special education teachers are equipped with the knowledge and skills necessary to improve outcomes for students with disabilities. Despite federal legislation and efforts of the field to identify and disseminate evidence-based practices for students with disabilities, it is uncertain whether all special education teachers provide instruction based on the best available research. To better prepare special education teachers, McLeskey et al. proposed 22 high-leverage practices (HLPs). We conducted this systematic review of meta-analyses to provide an initial investigation of the experimental evidence reporting on the effectiveness of the HLPs for students with, or at risk for, a disability. Results indicated the largest amount of evidence from meta-analyses related to intensive instruction, explicit instruction, and social skills, with few meta-analyses reporting on collaboration and assessment. The results highlighted disproportional evidence according to disability categories. Implications for future research, practice, and teacher education are discussed.
BallD. L.HillH. C.BassH. (2005). Knowing mathematics for teaching. American Educator, 29(14), 16–17, 20–22, 43–46.
2.
BillingsleyB.BettiniE.JonesN. D. (2019). Supporting special education teacher induction through high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 365–379. https://doi.org/ggqmw3
3.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.DoughtyT. T.CourtneyW. T. (2014). Virtual and concrete manipulatives: A comparison of approaches for solving mathematics problems for students with autism spectrum disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 44(1), 180–193. https://doi.org/f5m74t
4.
BouckE. C.SatsangiR.ParkJ. (2018). The concrete–representational–abstract approach for students with learning disabilities: An evidence-based practice synthesis. Remedial and Special Education, 39(4), 211–228. https://doi.org/gdxr5g
5.
BranhamA.BranhamA. M. (2020). Using high leverage practices to support early childhood special education students and families during distance learning. Minnesota State University Moorhead.
6.
BrownellM. T.BenedictA. E.LekoM. M.PeytonD.PuaD.Richards-TutorC. (2019). A continuum of pedagogies for preparing teachers to use high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 338–355. https://doi.org/ggqmw6
7.
CapobiancoB. M.DeLisiJ.RadloffJ. (2018). Characterizing elementary teachers’ enactment of high-leverage practices through engineering design-based science instruction. Science Education, 102(2), 342–376. https://doi.org/gcz5j6
8.
CheungA. C.SlavinR. E. (2013). Effects of educational technology applications on reading outcomes for struggling readers: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 48(3), 277–299. https://doi.org/gf5d2g
9.
CookB. G.BuysseV.KlingnerJ.LandrumT. J.McWilliamR. A.TankersleyM.TestD. W. (2015). CEC’s standards for classifying the evidence base of practices in special education. Remedial and Special Education, 36(4), 220–234. https://doi.org/gcmc43
10.
CookB. G.CookS. C. (2013). Unraveling evidence-based practices in special education. The Journal of Special Education, 47(2), 71–82. https://doi.org/bhqsfb
11.
CookB. G.CookS. C.CollinsL. W. (2016). Terminology and evidence-based practices for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Exploring some devilish details. Beyond Behavior, 25(2), 4–13. https://doi.org/gkjv
12.
CookB. G.OdomS. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in special education. Exceptional Children, 79(2), 135–144. https://doi.org/f4j96f
13.
CookB. G.TankersleyM.CookL.LandrumT. J. (2008). Evidence-based practices in special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44(2), 69–75. https://doi.org/fkvxtp
14.
CookB. G.TankersleyM.LandrumT. J. (2009). Determining evidence-based practices in special education. Exceptional Children, 75(3), 365–383. https://doi.org/gd23h9
15.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2014). Council for Exceptional Children standards for evidence-based practices in special education.
16.
Council for Exceptional Children. (2017). High-leverage practices in special education. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(5), 355–360. https://doi.org/gf86pk
17.
DenoS. L. (2016). Data-based decision-making. In JimersonS. R.BurnsM. K.VanDerHeydenA. M. (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention (2nd ed., pp. 9–28). Springer.
18.
DeWildtC. (2018). ASD program development in special education teacher preparation: An exploratory study [Doctoral dissertation, Western Michigan University]. ScholarWorks@WMU. https://scholarworks.wmich.edu/dissertations/3318
19.
Every Student Succeeds Act. (2015). P.L. 114-95.
20.
FirestoneA. R.AramburoC. M.CruzR. A. (2021). Special educators’ knowledge of high-leverage practices: Construction of a pedagogical content knowledge measure. Studies in Educational Evaluation, 70, Article 100986. https://doi.org/gkjz
21.
FuchsD.FuchsL. S.SteckerP. M. (2010). The “blurring” of special education in a new continuum of general education placement and services. Exceptional Children, 76(3), 301–323. https://doi.org/gh59vp
22.
FuchsL. S.DenoS. L.MirkinP. K. (1984). The effects of frequent curriculum-based measurement and evaluation on pedagogy, student achievement, and student awareness of learning. American Educational Research Journal, 21(2), 449–460.
23.
Georgia Department of Education. (2020, September14). Georgia’s tiered system of supports for students essential components: High leverage practices.
24.
GerstenR.ChardD. J.JayanthiM.BakerS. K.MorphyP.FlojoJ. (2009). Mathematics instruction for students with learning disabilities: A meta-analysis of instructional components. Review of Educational Research, 79(3), 1202–1242. https://doi.org/cvb84r
25.
GerstenR.FuchsL. S.ComptonD.CoyneM.GreenwoodC.InnocentiM. S. (2005). Quality indicators for group experimental and quasi-experimental research in special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 149–164. https://doi.org/fqzj
HirschS. A. (2004). Impact of parent education on participation and satisfaction in multidisciplinary meetings for specific learning disabilities [Doctoral dissertation, Oklahoma State University].
28.
HlasA. C.HlasC. S. (2012). A review of high-leverage teaching practices: Making connections between mathematics and foreign languages. Foreign Language Annals, 45(S1), S76–S97. https://doi.org/gkj2
29.
HornerR. H.NewtonJ. S.ToddA. W.AlgozzineB.AlgozzineK.CusumanoD.PrestonA. (2018). A randomized waitlist controlled analysis of team-initiated problem solving professional development and use. Behavioral Disorders, 43(4), 444–456.
30.
HughesE. M.WitzelB. S.RiccominiP. J.FriesK. M.KanyongoG. Y. (2014). A meta-analysis of algebra interventions for learners with disabilities and struggling learners. The Journal of the International Association of Special Education, 15(1), 36–47.
31.
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act. (2004). 20 U.S.C. § 1400 et seq.
KunschC. A.JitendraA. K.SoodS. (2007). The effects of peer-mediated mathematics instruction for students with disabilities: A review of the literature. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 22(1), 1–12. https://doi.org/drdb5p
34.
MagginD. M.CookB. G.CookL. (2019). Making sense of single-case design effect sizes. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 34(3), 124–132. https://doi.org/gh7r5c
35.
MagginD. M.WehbyJ. H.FarmerT. W.BrooksD. S. (2016). Intensive interventions for students with emotional and behavioral disorders: Issues, theory, and future directions. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 24(3), 127–137. https://doi.org/gkj3
36.
MaheadyL. J.PattiA. L.RaffertyL. A.del Prado HillP. (2019). School-university partnerships: One institution’s efforts to integrate and support teacher use of high-leverage practices. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 356–364. https://doi.org/ggqmw2
McDonaldM.KazemiE.KavanghS. S. (2013). Core practices and pedagogies of teacher education: A call for a common language and collective activity. Journal of Teacher Education, 64(5), 378–386. https://doi.org/f5dg7h
39.
McDuffieK. A.MastropieriM. A.ScruggsT. E. (2009). Differential effects of peer tutoring in co-taught and non-co-taught classes: Results for content learning and student-teacher interactions. Exceptional Children, 75(4), 493–510.
McLeskeyJ.BillingsleyB.BrownellM. T.MaheadyL.LewisT. J. (2019). What are high-leverage practices for special education teachers and why are they important?Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 331–337. https://doi.org/ggqmwm
42.
McLeskeyJ.BrownellM. (2015). High-leverage practices and teacher preparation in special education (Document No. PR-1). Collaboration for Effective Educator, Development, Accountability, and Reform Center.
43.
OdomS. L.BrantlingerE.GerstenR.HornerR. H.ThompsonB.HarrisK. R. (2005). Research in special education: Scientific methods and evidence-based practices. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 137–148. https://doi.org/gf8rqw
44.
OdomS. L.Collet-KlingenbergL.RogersS. J.HattonD. D. (2010). Evidence-based practices interventions for children and youth with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Preventing School Failure, 54(4), 275–282. https://doi.org/ctwnsd
45.
O’FlahertyJ.BealE. M. (2018). Core competencies and high leverage practices of the beginning teacher: A synthesis of the literature. Journal of Education for Teaching, 44(4), 461–478. https://doi.org/ggjrfw
46.
PetersonA.DanielsonL.FuchsD. (2019). Introduction to intensive intervention: A step-by-step guide to data-based individualization. In EdmondsR. Z.GandhiA. G.DanielsonL. (Eds.), Essentials of intensive intervention (pp. 10–27). Guilford Press.
47.
PowellS. R.SteckerP. M. (2014). Using data-based individualization to intensify mathematics intervention for students with disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 46(4), 31–37. https://doi.org/gh43tf
48.
RiccominiP. J.MoranoS.HughesC. A. (2017). Big ideas in special education: Specially designed instruction, high-leverage practices, explicit instruction, and intensive instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(1), 20–27. https://doi.org/gf86pm
49.
Russo-CampisiJ. (2017). Evidence-based practices in special education: Current assumptions and future considerations. Child & Youth Care Forum, 46(2), 193–205. https://doi.org/f92g66
SayeskiK. L. (2018). Putting high-leverage practices into practice. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50(4), 169–171. https://doi.org/gf86pv
52.
ShadishW. R.HedgesL. V.HornerR. H.OdomS. L. (2015). The role of between-case effect size in conducting, interpreting, and summarizing single-case research (NCER 2015-002)National Center for Education Research, Institute of Education Sciences. U.S. Department of Education.
53.
SiddawayA. P.WoodA. M.HedgesL. V. (2019). How to do a systematic review: A best practice guide for conducting and reporting narrative reviews, meta-analyses, and meta-syntheses. Annual Review of Psychology, 70(1), 747–770. https://doi.org/gftjxg
Van GarderenD.StormontM.GoelN. (2012). Collaboration between general and special educators and student outcomes: A need for more research. Psychology in the Schools, 49(5), 483–497.
57.
VaughnS.WanzekJ. (2014). Intensive interventions in reading for students with reading disabilities: Meaningful impacts. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 29(2), 46 –53. https://doi.org/gg26g8
58.
WilburneJ.PollyD.FranzD.WagstaffD. A. (2018). Mathematics teachers’ implementation of high-leverage teaching practices: A Q-sort study. School Science and Mathematics, 118(6), 232–243. https://doi.org/gkj4
59.
WilliamsonP. (2013). Enacting high leverage practices in English methods: The case of discussion. English Education, 46(1), 34–67.
60.
WindschitlM.ThompsonJ.BraatenM.StroupeD. (2019). Sharing a vision, sharing practices: How communities of educators improve teaching. Remedial and Special Education, 40(6), 380–390. https://doi.org/ggqmwz
61.
ZimmermanK. N.PustejovskyJ. E.LedfordJ. R.BartonE. E.SeveriniK. E.LloydB. P. (2018). Single-case synthesis tools II: Comparing quantitative outcome measures. Research in Developmental Disabilities, 79, 65–76. https://doi.org/gdvnq3
62.
ZirkelP. A. (2008). A legal roadmap of SBR, PRR, and related terms under the IDEA. Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(5), 1–5. https://doi.org/gj6w
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
