The primary purpose of the present study was to evaluate the impact of Utah's prereferral intervention policy on the numbers of mildly handicapped students receiving special education services. Associated with this purpose, the study was also designed to identify the (a) types of prereferral intervention procedures available in school districts, (b) extent to which the procedures were implemented by schools, (c) effectiveness of the prereferral intervention procedures for maintaining students with handicaps in regular education, and (d) degree of prereferral intervention inservice training. In addition, LEA officials' perceptions regarding the prereferral intervention process were also examined. It was expected, in light of previous research, that the prereferral intervention mandate would decrease the numbers of students classified (a) mildly handicapped, (b) learning disabled, (c) behavior disordered, and (d) intellectually handicapped. Because there was no information to suggest otherwise, it was also expected that the mandate would fail to have a differential effect on rural and urban school districts and on the numbers of students classified as severely intellectually handicapped (control variable), whereas the degree of prereferral intervention inservice training provided teachers was expected to exert a systematic influence on the outcomes. Results of the evaluation showed that the prereferral intervention mandate failed to impact the numbers of students classified (a) mildly handicapped, (b) learning disabled, (c) behavior disordered, and (d) intellectually handicapped, and (e) severely intellectually handicapped (control variable). The mandate also failed to have a differential effect on rural and urban school districts. In addition, the results of the survey indicated that LEAs have implemented a variety of prereferral intervention procedures. However, within school districts, the number of schools implementing the procedures varied. LEA officials were uncertain whether the prereferral intervention procedures were effective or whether they should be maintained. LEA officials also indicated that teachers fail to benefit from their participation in the prereferral intervention process. Furthermore, they were uncertain whether the process is a bureaucratic hurdle and whether it should be maintained. (116 pages)

The referral of a student for a psycho-educational evaluation is one of the most important responsibilities of school-based personnel, in particular for the general education classroom teacher (Abidin & Robinson, 2002; Artiles & Trent, 1994; Hosp & Reschly, 2003). A referral for evaluation or intervention is also one of the most important predictors of future special education eligibility. The Commonwealth of Virginia has traditionally used Child-Study Committees (CSC) to address the provision of supportive interventions within regular classroom settings to students prior to referral for special education eligibility. The purpose of this study was to explore the effectiveness of the support given by CSCs to those students who were referred for academic and/or behavioral concerns. Effectiveness was measured by the alignment of the referral concern(s) with the assigned intervention to address this concern(s) as well as the notion that a referral was not delayed which would have delayed needed services for students. This inquiry addressed the intervention assistance given to elementary grade students who were referred in order: (a) to determine the outcomes of the CSC process by grade level, and by race and gender of students; and (b) to determine if the CSC process facilitated or delayed appropriate referral for special education services prior to the implementation of Response to Intervention (RTI) approaches in the state. Methods of quantitative descriptive content analysis were utilized. The findings of this study indicated that of the students (n=136) referred to the CSC, 62.5% were recommended for a complete evaluation and determined eligible for special education services. In addition, 77.2% of referrals were related to academic concerns, and 17.6% were for behavioral concerns; only 5.1% of the referrals were made for both academic and behavioral concerns. The percentage of students who recycled through the process was insignificant and there was not a delay in the referral for special education services, suggesting that the initial interventions were appropriate for the given student. Results further indicated that the retention and promotion status of the referred students was not affected by the process. As it relates to implications for practice, the CSC provided a systematic approach that school divisions may be able to utilize to determine the efficacy of interventions that address the current academic and/or behavioral needs of students in the classroom. It is recommended that future research in this area be conducted with a larger sample of the country, thus allowing more generalizability to other populations. In addition, as the CSC process develops, it would be interesting to examine the evolution of the process and the modifications made. / Ph. D.

Intervention assistance (IA) programs have been developed as a mechanism for avoiding costly special education referrals and for supporting teachers in their instruction of students with varying needs within the general education classroom (Safran and Safran, 1996). Although IA programs are designed to be consultative, multidisciplinary approaches to assisting teachers, some studies report that teachers conduct the majority of classroom-based interventions for a given student on their own prior to referring students to an IA team (Wilson, Hagen, Gutkin, and Oats, 1998). It is important to determine what interventions or strategies teachers commonly consider and what factors are associated with breadth and depth of intervention knowledge. The purpose of the present study was to replicate a portion of the research of Wilson et al. (1998), which assessed general education teachers knowledge of classroom-based interventions. The present study also extended the work of Wilson et al. by using an exploratory descriptive/nonexperimental design to examine the degree to which teachers individual professional characteristics, as well as the IA practices of the schools in which they work, were related to their knowledge of interventions. Twenty-nine general education teachers in Hillsborough County, FL responded to a vignette describing a typical classroom-based problem in a structured-interview format. Participants responses were then counted and coded for (a) how specifically interventions were described, and (b) what types of interventions the teachers used (e.g., instructional, behavioral, etc.). Teachers also completed a brief demographic questionnaire, which included items about the IA programs at their schools, as well as their individual referral history over the last two years, and the degree to which they had been trained in classroom-based interventions. Results were similar to Wilson et al. with regard to number of intervention ideas, but teachers were more specific than in previous investigations. Descriptive data regarding teachers' characteristics as problem-solvers and their perceptions of IA at their school are offered, but few noteworthy relationships were identified between these variables and structured interview outcomes. Nevertheless, the present study offers a glimpse into the intervention practices of general education teachers. Implications for both school psychology practice and research are offered.

The disproportionality of minority students in special education has received much attention throughout the years. Prereferral Intervention Teams (PITs) have been frequently recommended as a means of diminishing disproportionality. One purpose of this study was to examine the impact of PITs on the special education process. This was achieved through the calculation of risk ratios by ethnic/racial group at key phases of the special education process, (a) including referral to PITs, (b) referral for initial evaluations, (c) referral for special education, and (d) special education placement phases. Results indicated that African American students were significantly more likely to be represented at each phase. This study also aimed to determine if there was a difference in PIT implementation based on ethnicity and whether or not students proceeded through the special education process. There were significant correlations (p < .05) found between the “Behavioral Definition” and “Hypothesized Reason for Problem” components of the problem-solving process and phases of the special education process. Significant correlations (p < .05) were also observed between ethnicity, initial evaluations, and special education referrals and also between initial evaluations, special education referrals, and special education placements (p < .01). Using the Likert Scale and Scoring Rubric for Problem-solving Components to assess PIT implementation on 251 PIT records, five component scores of the scale served as dependent variables, while independent variables included ethnicity (Black/White), being referred for an initial evaluation (yes/no), and being referred for special education (yes/no). The results of 2 x 2 ANOVAs showed statistically significant differences (p < .10) between PIT records for students who were and were not referred for initial evaluations and students who were and were not referred for special education on only one component of PIT implementation. This indicates that overall PIT implementation was similar between students of different ethnicities, as well as between students who progressed through the special education process and those that did not. The current findings emphasized the importance of ensuring quality implementation of PITs and demonstrated their limited impact on disproportionality and student outcomes, such as referrals to special education, when implemented with poor integrity.

This qualitative inquiry evaluated the Student Support Team Project and its effects on preservice teachers’ knowledge and perceptions of prereferral intervention and student support teams. This investigation is important because prereferral intervention and student support teams have been used increasingly to provide assistance to teachers and to students who need assistance with academic, social and emotional problems. This has created a need to provide preservice education that helps to prepare teachers to use these resources to help their students. This investigation demonstrated a specific approach to such instruction for preservice teachers (i.e., the Student Support Team Project), including an evaluation to determine changes in perceptions and knowledge that resulted during and after participation in this project. Participants were preservice teachers enrolled in an alternative teacher certification program. The research design was qualitative. Data collection included semi-structured interviews, written reflections from the preservice teachers, input from key informants, field notes and research team reflective journals. The collection and analysis of data were done recursively and used constant comparative methods. Analysis of the data revealed three main categories: Knowledge, Knowledge Needed, and Project Feedback. Knowledge reflected the participants’ understanding of student support teams and their implementation and included the following themes: Knowledge about Data Collection, Knowledge about Intervention, Knowledge about Student Support Teams, and Generalization of Knowledge. Knowledge Needed reflected the knowledge participants needed to understand and work effectively with these teams, including the following themes: Knowledge Needed about Data Collection, Knowledge Needed about Intervention, Knowledge Needed about Student Support Teams, and Other Knowledge Needed. Project Feedback included perceived strengths and weaknesses of the Student Support Team Project, including the following themes: Project Helpful, Project Struggles, and Project Suggestions. One key finding was how preservice teachers’ understanding of student support teams evolved from vague ideas about teams, to increasingly specific case-focused ideas, and finally, to generalized understandings. Findings are discussed in relationship to the literature on prereferral intervention and teacher development. Implications for preservice teacher education are discussed. Future research is also suggested.

Response to Intervention (RTI) is a multi-tiered framework that focuses on the early identification and support of students who are struggling to learn. In the problem-solving model of RTI, where a multidisciplinary team uses data to drive decision making, much remains unknown about how RTI should be implemented when struggling English language learners (ELLs) are the focus of team deliberations. The development of the multidisciplinary problem-solving team (PST) is grounded in the assumption that professionals from different disciplines such as school psychology, special education, and counseling would make less biased decisions than a single individual. However, a group of professionals may still make biased decisions based on stereotypes of ethnicity (Orosco, 2010), social class (Knotek, 2003), and inadequate knowledge of second language acquisition and bilingualism (Orosco, 2010). Not much is known about the process of team decision-making; in fact, no research to-date has examined how a PST deliberates about struggling ELLs. A qualitative case study approach was utilized to investigate how one school’s multidisciplinary problem-solving team used data in their deliberations about struggling ELLs in early primary grades. Ten members of a PST at an elementary school in an urban area of Texas participated in this study; seven ELLs were the focus of the observed team meetings. Data were generated from the discourse of the team meetings, interviews, and school documents, including students’ cumulative folders and language proficiency assessment records. Data were analyzed using discourse analysis, content analysis, and pattern-matching logic. Findings revealed that the Tier 3 problem-solving process was not aligned with the district’s expressed intent. In addition, a hierarchy of control constrained the problem-solving process and restricted the PST’s ability to freely discuss the cases of struggling ELLs. Implications for implementing RTI with ELLs and suggestions for future research are presented. / text