Response to Intervention RTI Preventing and Identifying LD - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 125
About This Presentation
Title:

Response to Intervention RTI Preventing and Identifying LD

Description:

First-Grade Math Tutoring. Validated-Tutoring Protocol using Randomized Controlled Field Study ... topic, the students completed a cumulative review worksheet ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:108
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 126
Provided by: fuchs
Category:

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Response to Intervention RTI Preventing and Identifying LD


1
Response to Intervention(RTI) Preventing and
Identifying LD
  • Douglas Fuchs and Lynn S. Fuchs
  • Vanderbilt University

2
Presentation Outline
1. The Traditional IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
2. The Alternative Responsiveness-to-Interve
ntion
3. Implementing RTI An Overview
3
Major Alternative to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
  • Defining LD As
  • Severe Low Achievement
  • Using RTI

4
Defining LD in Terms of Severe Low Achievement
  • With RTI
  • LD as nonresponders to validated instruction.
  • Assumption If a child does not respond to
    instruction that is effective for the vast
    majority of children, then there is something
    different about the child causing the
    nonresponse.
  • RTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a
    viable explanation for learning difficulty.

5
Two Purposes of RTI
  • To reorient service delivery to provide early
    intervention
  • To provide an alternative method of LD
    identification

6
Newest IDEA
  • Cites Two Methods for LD Identification
  • 1. IQ-Achievement Discrepancy
  • 2. RTI

7
Typical RTI Procedure
  • All children in a class, school, district are
    tested once in the fall to identify student at
    risk for long-term difficulties.
  • The response of at-risk students to GE (Tier1) is
    monitored to determine whose needs are not met
    and therefore require more intensive tutoring
    (Tier 2).
  • For at-risk students, research-validated Tier 2
    tutoring is implemented. Student progress is
    monitored throughout intervention. Students are
    re-tested following intervention.
  • Those who do not respond to the validated
    tutoring are identified
  • As LD
  • For multi-disciplinary team evaluation for
    possible disability certification and special
    education placement.

8
Advantages of RTI Approach
  • Provides assistance to needy children in timely
    fashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail model.
  • Helps ensure that the students poor academic
    performance is not due to poor instruction.
  • Assessment data are collected to inform the
    teacher and improve instruction. Assessments and
    interventions are closely linked.
  • In some RTI models (e.g., Heartland, IA
    Minneapolis, MN Horry Co., SC), nonresponders
    are not given labels, presumed
  • to stigmatize
  • to represent disability categories (e.g., LD, BD,
    MR) that have little instructional validity.

9
Within RTI Identification
  • Tier 2 tutoring is viewed as the test to which
    at-risk students respond to determine
    disability.
  • That response needs to be measured and
    categorized as responsive (not LD) or
    unresponsive (LD) using an appropriate tool for
    such measurement.

10
Implementing RTI
  • An Overview

11
Approaches to Implementing RTI
  • Along Five Dimensions
  • 1. Number of tiers (2-5)
  • 2. How at-risk students are identified
  • - Percentile cut on norm-referenced test
  • - Cut-point on curriculum-based measurement
    (CBM)
  • 3. Nature of preventative treatment
  • - Individualized (i.e., problem solving)
  • - Standardized research-based protocol
  • 4. How response is defined
  • - Final status on norm-referenced test or using
    a benchmark
  • - Pre-post improvement
  • - CBM Slope and Final Status
  • 5. What happens to nonresponders
  • - Designated as having a disability
  • - Undergo abbreviated evaluation to categorize
    LD, BD, MR

12
Several Viable Approaches to Implementing RTI
  • In this presentation, we feature
  • the most widely researched model.
  • 1. 3-Tiers
  • 2. Standardized Research-Based Preventative
    Treatment
  • 3. CBM Benchmark to Designate Risk
  • 4. CBM Slope/Final Status to Define Response
  • 5. Nonresponders Undergo Abbreviated Evaluation
    to Distinguish LD, BD, and MR

13
RTI Dimension 1Three Tiers
  • Tier 1
  • General education
  • Research-based program
  • Faithfully implemented
  • Works for vast majority of students
  • Screening for at-risk pupils, with weekly
    monitoring of at-risk response to general
    education
  • Tier 2
  • Small-group preventative tutoring
  • Tier 3
  • Special education

14
Tertiary Prevention Specialized Individualized

Systems for Students with Intensive Needs
CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE SUPPORT
5
Secondary Prevention Specialized Group Systems
for Students with At-Risk Behavior
15
Primary Prevention School-/Classroom- Wide Syst
ems for
All Students, Staff, Settings
80 of Students
15
Enhancing Tier 1
  • Using Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies in
  • Reading and Math

16
PALS for Grades 2-6Developed by Douglas Fuchs,
Lynn S. Fuchs, and colleaguesVanderbilt
University
  • www.peerassistedlearningstrategies.net

17
PALS Research
  • Based on Juniper Gardens Classwide Peer Tutoring
    model
  • Over 15 years of experimental research
  • Title I and Non-Title I schools
  • Urban and suburban schools
  • High, average, and low achievers
  • Students in special education
  • Validated Practice status from U.S. Department
    of Education

18
Partner Reading
  • Conducted for 11-12 minutes
  • Stronger reader reads aloud for 5 minutes
  • Weaker reader reads same text aloud for 5
    minutes
  • Weaker reader retells story for 1-2 minutes
  • Readers read quickly, correctly, and with
    expression
  • Coaches listen, correct mistakes, and mark points
    (1 point for each correctly read sentence and 10
    points for story retell)

19
Paragraph Shrinking
  • Conducted for 10 minutes
  • Stronger reader reads new text aloud for 5
    minutes, summarizing each paragraph
  • Name the most important who or what (1 point)
  • Name the most important thing about the who or
    what (1 point)
  • Shrink it to 10 or fewer words (1 point)
  • Weaker reader reads new text aloud for 5 minutes,
    summarizing each paragraph
  • Coach listens, corrects mistakes, and marks
    points

20
Prediction Relay
  • First 5 minutes
  • Stronger reader
  • Makes prediction (1)
  • Reads half page (1)
  • Checks prediction (1)
  • States main idea (3)
  • Makes new prediction
  • Continues to read
  • Second 5 minutes
  • Weaker reader
  • Makes prediction (1)
  • Reads half page (1)
  • Checks prediction (1)
  • States main idea (3)
  • Makes new prediction
  • Continues to read

21
Two Kinds of PALS Research
  • Randomized Controlled Trials
  • Classrooms randomly assigned to PALS vs.
    control.
  • Fidelity of treatment implementation assessed.
  • Individually administered pre-/posttests by
    trained examiners.

22
Improvement in Reading
Improvement Over 16 Weeks
23
Two Kinds of PALS Research
  • School-Wide Evaluations
  • Schools choose to implement PALS school-wide (or
    not).
  • No fidelity of treatment implementation
    assessed.
  • Group administered high-stakes tests.

24
Report Card Scores Based on Students Performance
on the TCAP (CTB/McGraw-Hill)
GOWER
93
94
Subject
MATH 76.0 (61) 107.8 (12)
READING 74.0 (60) 112.5 (25)
Language Arts 61.7 (60) 91.8 (33)
Science 74.4 (58) 95.6 (24)
Social Studies 60.1 (61) 81.4 (53)
Note 1 A score of 100 means that students of a
school are progressing at a rate equivalent to
that of the national rate. Note 2 The numbers
in parentheses represent Gowers standing in
relation to the Metro Schools other 66
elementary schools.
25
(No Transcript)
26
Important Features of PALS
  • Reciprocal roles (Coaches and Readers)
  • Structured activities
  • Individualized
  • More time engaged on task
  • Includes all students
  • Opportunities for success for all students
  • Encourages positive peer interactions
  • Practical AND effective

27
How Can Intervention Specialists Use PALS?
  • To strengthen Tier 1
  • To accomplish responsible and meaningful
    inclusion
  • To utilize paraprofessional or volunteer time and
    effort effectively
  • To structure pull-in (cross-age or same-age)
    tutoring

28
Effectiveness ofFirst-Grade PALS
  • Students in PALS and PALS Fluency outperform
    controls in PA, decoding, and word recognition
  • Students in PALS Fluency outperform controls in
    fluency and comprehension
  • Effective for students in Title 1 and
  • Non-Title 1 Schools
  • Effective for all learner types

29
Berry ElementaryFirst-Grade TCAP Reading Scores
in Two Consecutive Years
Percentile (Total Reading)
School Year
30
PALS Activities forFirst Graders
  • Phonological Awareness (counting sounds,
    segmenting, and blending)
  • Letter-Sound Correspondences
  • Decoding (words and sentences)
  • Fluency (sight words, stories, and book reading)

31
Structure ofFirst-Grade PALS
  • Teacher-led practice
  • New Sounds, Hearing Sounds/Sounding Out, Sight
    Words, Rocket Words, Stories
  • Partner activities conducted in pairs
  • Sounds and Words, Speed Game,
  • Partner Reading (added during Week 10)
  • Teacher monitoring
  • Teams and reward system

32
Partner Activities
  • Sounds and Words
  • Saying sounds
  • Sounding out
  • Reading sight words
  • Reading story
  • Speed Game (increase fluency and word recognition
    through timed readings)
  • Partner Reading (partners take turns for 10
    minutes reading pages from trade
    books--introduced during Week 10)

33
(No Transcript)
34
(No Transcript)
35
PALS Programs
  • Reading
  • Kindergarten through Grade 6
  • Math
  • Kindergarten through Grade 6
  • For more information
  • flora.murray_at_vanderbilt.edu

36
RTI Dimension 2 Standardized Research-Based
Preventative Treatment
  • Tutoring
  • Small groups (2-4)
  • 3-4 sessions per week (30-60 min per session)
  • Conducted by trained and supervised personnel
    (not the classroom teacher)
  • In and out of classroom
  • 10-20 weeks

37
Tutoring
  • Small Groups (11, 13, 15, 110)
  • 10-12 wks, 3-4x per wk, 35-45 min per session
  • Point system for motivation
  • Immediate corrective feedback
  • Mastery of content before moving on
  • More time on difficult activities
  • More opportunities to respond
  • Fewer transitions
  • Setting goals and self monitoring
  • Special relationship with tutor

38
Tutor Training
  • Demonstration of each activity
  • Practice with each other
  • Demonstration of entire tutoring session
  • Practice with each other
  • Scheduled practice with other tutors, supervised
    by trainer
  • Practice with real students
  • Practice with trainers (as students)
  • Provide tutor with detailed feedback at each
    step
  • Weekly tutoring meetings to update on next series
    of lessons and problem solve

39
First-Grade Reading Tier 2 Tutoring
  • Validated-Tutoring Protocol using Randomized
    Controlled Field Study Conducted in 42
    First-Grade Classrooms in 10 Metro Schools

40
Overview of Our Study
  • Identified AR children
  • Assessed AR students on cognitive and academic
    measures and collected teacher ratings of
    attention/distractibility
  • Randomly assigned AR students to tutoring and
    control conditions tutored children in small
    groups 4 times per week for 9 weeks
  • Posttested students (will follow children at end
    grades 2-4)

41
RESULTS
  • The first-grade tutoring program resulted in
    improved performance on
  • Word identification
  • Reading Fluency
  • Comprehension
  • RD prevalence was lower among tutored students.

42
Tutoring
  • Small groups (groups of two to four students)
  • 4 times per week outside classrooms
  • Each session
  • 45 min of tutor-led instruction
  • 10 minutes of sight words practice
  • 5 minutes of letter sounds practice
  • 15 minutes of decoding practice
  • 15 minutes of reading fluency practice

43
Tutor-Led Instruction
  • Lessons are scripted
  • Detailed wording of steps and prompts involved in
    each activity

44
Tutoring Script
45
Tutoring Lesson
  • Steps included in the Sounds, Sight Words, and
    Decodable Words activities
  • Introducing new sound or word
  • Choral practice
  • Individual practice
  • 2 opportunities to produce correct sounds or
    words
  • Writing practice
  • Reading activities
  • Choral reading of previous story
  • Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
  • Choral reading of story
  • Choral reading of new story
  • Echoing the tutor, one line at a time
  • Choral reading of story
  • Individual speed reading
  • Each student reads new story 3 times, for 30
    seconds
  • Opportunity to earn incentives for increasing
    reading fluency

46
Number of Sessions
  • Research tutoring groups completed 36 sessions.
  • 64 lessons created within lesson sequence
  • 16 weeks worth of lessons (4 times per week)

47
Topic Mastery/Review
  • Mastery of the topic was assessed each day.
  • If every student in the group achieved mastery of
    sight words on the first day of that set, the
    group moved to the next set on the following
    day.
  • Each student had two trials to master sight words
    during the session.
  • The group progressed to the next set regardless
    of mastery status after two sessions on the same
    set.
  • To ensure that the group would be able to cover
    more words and sounds

48
Tutoring Sets
49
Tutoring Mastery Checklist
50
Sequence of Sounds and Words
51
Sequence of Sounds and Words
52
Sequence of Sounds and Words
53
Sequence of Sounds and Words
54
Tutoring Sets
55
Early Tutoring Set
56
Early Tutoring Set
57
Later Tutoring Set
58
Later Tutoring Set
59
Later Tutoring Set
60
Later Tutoring Set
61
Tutoring Fluency Activity
  • Speed Game
  • Each student reads words three separate times for
    30 seconds each time.
  • If student reads farther on 2nd or 3rd try
    compared to 1st reading, fill in star on Star
    Chart.
  • Incentive given when all stars on Star Chart are
    completed.

62
Tutoring Fluency Activity
63
Tutoring Fidelity Checklist
64
First-Grade Math TutoringValidated-Tutoring
Protocol using Randomized Controlled Field Study
Conducted in 41 First-Grade Classrooms in 10
Metro Schools
65
Overview of Our Study
  • Identified AR children
  • Assessed AR children and a sample of NAR peers on
    cognitive and academic measures and collected
    teacher ratings of attention/distractibility
  • Randomly assigned AR students to tutoring and
    control conditions tutored children in small
    groups 3 times per week for 16 weeks
  • Posttested AR and NAR students on fact fluency,
    computation, concepts/applications, and
    arithmetic story problems (will follow children
    at end grades 2 and 3)

66
RESULTS
  • The first-grade tutoring program resulted in
    improved performance on
  • Math Calculations
  • Math Concepts/Applications
  • Math Word Problems
  • Woodcock-Johnson III Calculation
  • MD prevalence was lower among tutored students at
    the end of 1st grade and at end of 2nd grade.

67
Tutoring
  • Small groups (11 groups of two students and 16
    groups of three students)
  • 3 times per week outside classrooms
  • Each session
  • 30 min of teacher-led instruction
  • 10 min of student use of software, Math Flash
    (designed to improve automatic retrieval of math
    facts)

68
Teacher-Led Instruction
  • Concrete-representational-abstract model, which
    relies on concrete objects to promote conceptual
    understanding (e.g., base-10 blocks for place
    value instruction)
  • 17 scripted topics addressing number concepts,
    numeration, computation, story problems (e.g.,
    not geometry, measurement, charts/figures, money)

69
17 Scripted Topics
  • identifying and writing numbers to 99
  • identifying more, less, and equal with objects
  • sequencing numbers
  • using , and symbols
  • skip counting by 10s, 5s, and 2s
  • understanding place value (introduction)
  • identifying operations
  • place value (0-50)
  • writing number sentences (story problems)
  • place value (0-99)
  • addition facts (sums to 18)
  • subtraction facts (minuends to 18)
  • review of addition and subtraction facts
  • place value review
  • 2-digit addition (no regrouping)
  • 2-digit subtraction (no regrouping)
  • missing addends

70
17 Scripted Topics
  • All groups completed topics through 2-digit
    subtraction, but due to varying mastery rates,
    only 5 groups completed missing addends.
  • Each group completed 48 sessions.
  • Due to absences, the number of completed sessions
    for individual students ranged from 35 to 48
    (mean 43.8).

71
Topic Mastery/Review
  • Mastery of the topic was assessed each day.
  • If every student in the group achieved mastery
    prior to the last day of the topic, the group
    moved to the next topic (a few topics required
    completion of all 3 days).
  • For mastery assessment, students completed
    worksheets independently, with percentage of
    correct answers determining mastery (for most
    topics, 90 accuracy).
  • After the last day on a topic, the group
    progressed to the next topic regardless of
    mastery status.
  • On the first day of each topic, the students
    completed a cumulative review worksheet covering
    previous topics.
  • Review of topics 1-4 was conducted after winter
    break.

72
Math Flash
  • Math fact flashes on and disappears from computer
    screen.
  • Student types fact from short-term memory.
  • If correct, computer applauds, says the fact, and
    awards a point (5 points a trinket for the
    toy box at the bottom of the screen).
  • If incorrect, computer removes incorrect fact,
    replaces it with correct fact, and says the
    fact.
  • At end of each session, feedback is provided
    about number of correct and highest math fact
    mastered.

73
Math Flash
  • Design reflects assumption that active and
    repeated pairing of problem stem with correct
    answer in short-term memory establishes the
    association in long-term memory.
  • Facts are organized in families of increasing
    difficulty.
  • Once response to a math fact is consistently
    correct, it is moved to a mastered set.
  • Cumulative review on mastered facts is provided
    (if student responds incorrectly, it is moved out
    of the mastered set).

74
(No Transcript)
75
(No Transcript)
76
(No Transcript)
77
RTI Dimension 3 How At-Risk Students are
Designated
  • Curriculum-Based Measurement

78
A Primer Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
  • Teachers assess students academic performance,
    using brief measures.
  • Each alternate form of the CBM test assesses
    performance on a measure of what is expected by
    end of year.
  • The CBM score is viewed as an indicator of
    overall performance.
  • Major RTI purposes
  • To designate risk (measured on 1 occasion near
    beginning of the year)
  • To describe rate of response to instruction
    (measured weekly on alternate forms, with a slope
    of improvement calculated)

79
What We Look For in CBM
  • INCREASING SCORES
  • Student is responding to the instructional
    program.
  • FLAT SCORES
  • Student is not responding to the instruction
    program.

80
Sarahs Progress on Words Read Correctly
Sarah Smith
Reading 2
Words Read Correctly
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
81
Jessicas Progress on Words Read Correctly
Jessica Jones
Reading 2
Words Read Correctly
Sep
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Mar
Apr
May
82
CBM Indicators of Reading Competence
  • Kindergarten Letter-Sound Fluency
  • Grade 1 Word-Identification Fluency
  • Grades 2-3 Passage Reading Fluency
  • Grades 4-6 Maze Fluency

83
KindergartenLetter-Sound Fluency
  • Teacher Say the sound that goes with each
    letter.
  • Time 1 minute
  • p U z u y
  • i t R e w
  • O a s d f
  • v g j S h
  • k m n b V
  • Y E i c x

84
Grade 1Word-Identification Fluency
  • Teacher Read these words.
  • Time 1 minute.
  • two
  • for
  • come
  • because
  • last
  • from
  • ...

85
Grades 2-3 Passage Reading Fluency
  • Number of words read aloud correctly in 1 minute
    on end-of-year passages

86
CBM passage for Correct Words Per Minute
87
CBM Passage Reading Fluency
  • Not interested in making kids read faster
  • Interested in kids becoming better readers
  • The CBM score is an overall indicator of reading
    competence
  • Students who score high on CBM
  • Are better decoders
  • Are better at sight vocabulary
  • Are better comprehenders
  • Correlates highly with high-stakes tests

88
Grades 4-6 Maze Fluency
  • Number of words replaced correctly in 2.5 minutes
    on end-of-year passages from which every 7th word
    has been deleted and replaced with 3 choices

89
Computer Maze
90
CBM Indicators of Math Competence
  • At each grade level, the items on the test
    systematically sample the skills expected for
    mastery at the end of the year.

91
(No Transcript)
92
(No Transcript)
93
(No Transcript)
94
(No Transcript)
95
(No Transcript)
96
(No Transcript)
97
(No Transcript)
98
(No Transcript)
99
(No Transcript)
100
(No Transcript)
101
(No Transcript)
102
(No Transcript)
103
(No Transcript)
104
(No Transcript)
105
RTI Dimension 3 Designating Risk with CBM
Screening
  • All students are tested once in the fall.
  • Students scoring below a cut-score are designated
    at risk.
  • For these at-risk students, response to GE is
    monitored using CBM.

106
Designating Reading Risk with Fall CBM Screening
  • K LSF
  • 1 WIF
  • 2 PRF
  • 3 PRF
  • 4 PRF
  • 5 MF
  • 6 MF

107
Designating Math Risk with Fall CBM Screening
  • COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
  • K
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
  • 6

108
For At Risk, We Monitor Response to GE
  • Administer weekly CBM to all at-risk students for
    6-8 weeks.
  • At end of 6-8 weeks, identify children whose
    slope (rate of improvement) is inadequate.
  • These students enter Tier 2.

109
Inadequate Reading Slope to Tier 1 GE (Weekly
Improvement)
  • K LSF
  • 1 WIF
  • 2 PRF
  • 3 PRF
  • 4 PRF
  • 5-6 MF

110
Inadequate Math Slope to Tier 2 GE (Weekly
Improvement)
  • COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
  • K
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5-6

111
Decision 4 Defining Reading Nonresponse To
Tier 2
  • K LSF 1 30
  • 1 WIF 1.8 30
  • 2 PRF 1 60
  • 3 PRF .75 70
  • 4 PRF .30 80
  • 5-6 MF .25 15

112
Decision 4 Defining Math Nonresponse
  • COMPUTATION CONCEPT/APPS
  • K .30/12 .35/12
  • 1 .35/10 .40/10
  • 2 .30/10 .40/10
  • 3 .30/20 .70/20
  • 4 .70/20 .70/20
  • 5 .70/15 .70/7
  • 6 .70/25 .70/7

113
Decision 5 Abbreviated Evaluation to
Distinguish LD, BD, and MR
  • Brief IQ Measure (e.g., 2-subtest WASI)
  • Teacher Behavior Rating Scale (e.g., Social
    Skills Rating Scale, Quay) and classroom
    observation of problem behavior

114
Case StudiesFirst-Grade Reading
115
Grade 1Word-Identification Fluency
  • Teacher Read these words.
  • Time 1 minute.
  • two
  • for
  • come
  • because
  • last
  • from
  • ...

116
RTI Overview
  • Fall CBM screen cut-point to designate risk
  • Monitor at-risk students weekly for 8 weeks to
    determine GE response (GE is Open Court
    Reading).
  • Students whose CBM slope (rate of improvement)
    across the 8 weeks of GE is low (increase) enter preventive tutoring.
  • Preventive tutoring 3 times/week for 12 weeks
    45 min per session in groups of 3 taught by
    trained and supervised paraprofessionals
  • Students whose slope (rate of improvement) across
    the 12 weeks of preventive tutoring is low word/week increase) receive abbreviated SPED
    Evaluation.

117
Case A
118
Case B
119
Case C
120
Frequently Asked Questions
  • Will this process delay identification?
  • Does each child have to go through RTI or can a
    child have a traditional assessment?
  • What will be required for professional
    development?
  • Who is responsible for the various activities
    required to implement RTI as a method of LD
    identification?

121
Frequently Asked Questions (continued)
  • How long will the SPED evaluation be and what
    professional is likely to give this?
  • What proportion of students is likely to be
    identified as at risk (for Tier 1 monitoring) and
    for the Tier 2 diagnostic trial?
  • Are schools currently implementing RTI as a
    method of LD identification and, if so, how can I
    learn more about their methods?

122
Other Questions
123
For Information about the OSEP LD Initiative
  • www.NRCLD.org
  • www.air.org/ldsummit/
  • www.ld.org/advocacy/CommonGround.doc
  • www.erlbaum.com
  • Identification of Learning Disabilities
    Research to Practice, Renée Bradley, Louis
    Danielson, and Daniel Hallahan (Eds.), 2002

124
For Information about Progress Monitoring
Materials
  • Reading probes
  • flora.murray_at_vanderbilt.edu
  • Math probes and/or software
  • Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
  • Pro-Ed 512-451-3246
  • Web math system
  • www.mhdigitallearning.com
  • AIMSweb software, measures, admin scoring
    guides
  • www.aimsweb.com or http//www.edformation.com

125
For Information about Progress Monitoring,
Training Research
  • National Center for Student Progress Monitoring
  • www.studentprogress.org
  • studentprogress_at_air.org
  • National Research Center on Learning
    Disabilities
  • www.nrcld.org
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com