Supporting Secondary Students

Standards-BasedGrading and Reporting

A Model forSpecial Education

One of the most important functions ofreport cards and grades is to give fami-lies information on their children'sprogress in school. Families need toknow their children's strengths anddeficiencies, and interventions that canbe undertaken at home to promote suc-cess. Recognizing the need for meaning-ful progress reporting, many schoolshave begun implementing "standards-based" grading and reporting practices(Guskey, 2001], Rather than reduceinformation on student learning to asingle letter grade for each subject, stan-dards-based grading allows teachers toreport information on individual ele-ments of learning. This level of detail isespecially important to families of chil-dren with disabilities, for whom pivotalplacement and intervention decisions

hinge on this information. The Indi-viduals With Disabilities Education Act[IDEA) of 1997 and 2004 acknowledgesthis crucial need and requires that indi-vidualized education program (IEP)teams plan and document how progresswill be monitored and communicatedfor students with disabilities (20 U.S.C.§ 1414{d} [1) (A)). Despite this legalprovision and widespread agreement onits importance, evidence indicates lesscompliance with progress monitoringthan with any other IEP component(Etscheidt, 2006),

Challenges to Grading Studentsin Special IducatlonIn recent years a marked increase hasoccurred in both the number of studentswith disabilities included in general

Lee Ann Jung • Thomas R. Guskey

education classes as well as the amountof time they spend there [Handler,2003), Although a wealth of researchindicates the positive effects of includ-ing students with disabilities in generaleducation classrooms {e.g., Baker,Wang. & Walberg, 1995; Carlberg &Kavale, 1980; Hunt, Farron-Davis,Beckstead. Curtis. & Goetz, 1994;Waldron, 1998), the process poses sig-nificant challenges to grading andreporting on the performance of stu-dents included in those general educa-tion classes. Is it best to report achieve-ment on grade-level standards, forexample, or should grades be adapted?Should the grades be based on achieve-ment only, or on effort, progress, orsome combination of all three? For stu-dents with disabilities who receivemucb of their education outside thegeneral education classroom, the specialeducation teacher typically assigns mostgrades, whereas the general educationteachers determine grades for the fewsubject areas in which students are fullyincluded. For students with disabilitieswho are fully included in the generaleducation classroom, however, the divi-sion of grading responsibilities is lessclear [Bursucket et al.. 1996; Foilowayet al., 1994).

A common strategy for grading stu-dents who are included involves thegeneral education teacher's taking

48 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

responsibility for all areas on the regularreport card and the special educationteacher's taking responsibility forreporting on progress toward IEP goals.Although this approach seems logical,deciding the appropriate grade for ageneral education content area can bevery difficult, particularly if perform-ance in the content area is affected bythe disability.

Take, for example, an eighth-gradestudent who is unable to demonstrateproficienc7 on the eighth-grade stan-dards because of multiple, severe dis-abilities but has worked hard and pro-gressed well toward IEP goals. On onehand, to fail such a student who hasshown tremendous effort and progressclearly seems unfair. But on the otherhand, giving passing marks to a studentwho has not yet met prescribed per-formance standards for that grade levelalso seems inappropriate. Further com-plicating this matter are the legalrequirements of grading students withdisabilities. Most notably, lEPs must"enable the child to achieve passingmarks and advance from grade tograde" [Board of Education v. Rowley.1982). Therefore, a failing grade for astudent receiving special educationservices is considered an indicator thatappropriate educational services werenot provided.

Gmdllng AdaptatfoiuAlthough increasing numbers of stu-dents with disabilities are included ingeneral education classrooms for greaterportions of the day (Handler. 2003), lit-tle guidance or direction has come fromthe field of special education to helpaddress the challenge of grading stu-dents in inclusive settings. Lackingexplicit recommendations on grading,most genera! classroom teachers makeindividual, informal grading adaptationsfor such students (Polloway et al.,1994). To aid teachers in this adaptationprocess and to promote consistency, avariety of grading adaptations havebeen recommended over the years.Grading adaptations are procedures forindividualizing a grading system for astudent with disabilities (Silva, Munk, <&Bursuck, 2005). Such adaptations gener-ally fit within five categories: (a) con-

sidering progress on IEP goals; (b)measuring improvement over past per-formance; (c) prioritizing assignmentsor content differently; (d) including

Most general classroom teachers

make individual, Informal grading

adaptations for such students.

indicators of behavior or effort in thegrade; and (e) modifying the weights orscales for grading (Silva et al.).

For example, a student with a dis-ability, if judged the same way as classpeers, may have demonstrated C-levelproficiency in social studies for thegrading period. The teacher couldimplement a grading adaptation by giv-ing extra points if the student surpassedIEP goals or exerted high effort. Theor-etically, such adaptation providesencouragement and opportunities forsuccess to students for whom grade-level standards may not be attainable.In reality, however, such adapted gradescan lead such students to believe thattheir grades are not the result of whatthey do but who they are. This percep-tion, in turn, may actually decreasetheir motivation (Ring & Reetz, 2000).Such grading adaptations also introduceissues of unfairness [Bursuck, Munk, &Olson, 1999). And furthermore, evenwith such adaptations, most students inspecial education continue to receivelow passing grades, placing them athigh risk for low self-esteem and drop-ping out of school (.Donahue & Zig-mond, 1990).

Impllcaflieits of Standarcb-Bcuad GradingThe shift to standards-based gradingand reporting has further complicatedgrading students with disabilities whoare included in general education class-rooms. Although grading all students inspecial education on the basis of grade-level standards is inappropriate, most ofthe practices recommended to date arenot weil suited to a standards-basedgrading system. When teachers must

base their grades on specific learningstandards, the meaning of the gradechanges from a general overall assess-ment of learning (e.g.. How did this stu-dent perform in science?) to a muchmore detailed description of a student'sperformance on a discrete set of skills(e.g., How well did the student masterthe ability to classify minerals on thebasis of multiple physical criteria?)-When the primary question addressedin assigning a grade shifts to the level ofmastery of a particular learning stan-dard, teachers are likely to find the taskof grading students with disabilitiesmuch more troublesome (Thurlow,2002). To provide meaningful and inter-pretable indicators of achievement thatare useful for making accurate decisionsabout students in special education,more effective grading practices aresorely needed.

Selling a Solid FoundationBefore considering grading methodsspecific to students in special education,schools must have a high-quality grad-ing and reporting system in place for allstudents. Thoughtful and well-reasonedgrading policies can address many ofthe problems schools face with specialeducation grading. One fundamentalcomponent of a high-quality gradingand reporting system requires teachersto consider three distinct types of learn-ing criteria:

• Product criteria relate to students'specific achievements or level of pro-ficiency and are based on culminat-ing demonstrations of learning, suchas examinations, final reports, proj-ects, or portfolios, and overall assess-ments of learning.

• Proccs.^ criteria relate to students'effort, class behavior, or work habits.They also might include evidencefrom daily work, regular classroomquizzes, homework, class participa-tion, or punctuality of assignments.

• Progress criteria relate to how muchstudents gain from their learningexperiences. Teachers who useprogress criteria typically look athow far students have come ratherthan where students are (Guskey,1996, 2006; Guskey & Jung, 2006).

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • NOV/DEC 2007 • 49

Figure 1 . Inclusive Grading Model

Determine Whether Accommodationsor Modifications Are Needed

tEstablish Standards for Modified Use

Determine the Need for Additional Goals

tApply Fair and Equitable GradingPractices to Appropriate Standards

tClearly Communicate the Meaning of Grades

Most teachers base their grading onsome combination of these three typesof criteria (Brookhart, 1993; Frary,Cross, & Weber, 1993). The majority ofteachers also vary the criteria theyemploy from student to student, takinginto account individual circumstances(TVuog & Friedman, 1996). Althoughteachers do so in an effort to be fair, theresult is a "hodgepodge" grade (Brook-hart, 1991; Cizek, Fitzgerald, & Rachor,1996; McMillan, Myran, & Workman,2002) that is difficult for parents tointerpret {Friedman & Frisbie, 1995). AnA, for example, may mean that the stu-dent knew what the teacher expectedbefore instruction began (product), didnot learn as well as expected but triedvery hard (process), or made significantimprovement (progress).

High-quality grading and reportingsystems establish clear indicators ofproduct, process, and progress criteriaand then report each separately (Gus-key, 1994; Stiggins, 2001; Wiggins,1996). In other words, teachers separategrades or marks for achievement fromthose for homework, effort, workhabits, or learning progress. Schoolsthat have implemented such a systemfind it actually makes grading easier. No

Parents generally prefer this

approach because it gives

them more detailed and

prescriptive information about

their children's learning.

more information needs to be gathered,and teachers can avoid debates abouthow best to combine diverse types ofevidence into a single grade. Teachersalso report that students take home-work, effort, and other work habitsmore seriously when they are reportedseparately (Guskey, 2006). Parents gen-erally prefer this approach because itgives them more detailed and prescrip-tive information about their children'slearning. For students in special educa-tion, it means that families not onlyreceive specific feedback on their chil-dren's achievement but also essentialinformation on progress and effort thatcan be crucial to making interventionand placement decisions.

Inclusive Grading ModelOnce a school has in place a high-qual-ity grading and reporting system thatseparates product, process, and progresslearning goals, educators can developappropriate policies and practices forgrading students with disabilities whoare included in a standards-based learn-ing environment. The 5-step InclusiveGrading Model presented in Figure 1 isdesigned to fit a standards-based grad-ing and reporting system and meet legalrequirements for reporting progress ofstudents who have IEPs. The 5 steps ofthe model consist of the following:

1. Determine whether an accommoda-tion or a modification is needed foreach grade-level standard.

2. Establish the appropriate modifiedstandard for each area requiringmodification.

3. Outline any additional goals perti-nent to the child's academic success.

4. Apply equivalent grading practices tothe appropriate standards.

5. Clearly communicate the grades'meaning.

Let us consider each of these steps indetail.

Step 1: Determine WhetherAccommodation! or ModificotioniAre Needed

Each student who qualifies for specialeducation must have an IEP that out-lines a specific plan of individualizedannual goals, along with instructionalstrategies and adaptations needed forthe student to reach those goals. Eachstudent's IEP team meets at least onceper year to discuss progress and toupdate the IEP. For most students whoqualify for special education, adapta-tions are needed to give them access tothe general education curriculum. Byexplicitly connecting adaptation needswith the general curriculum standards,IEP teams can .set the stage for mean-ingful grading and reporting. Con-sidering each grade-level standard indi-vidually, teams should decide whetherno adaptations, accommodations, ormodifications are needed. Adaptationsthat provide access to the general cur-riculum but do not fundamentally alter

50 •COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

the grade-level standard are known asaccommodations (Freedman, 2005). Forexample, a high-school student who hasa learning disability in the area of writ-ten expression may require an audio-tape of science lectures due to difficultyin taking notes. Because of the learningdisability, this student may also need tobe administered exams orally. Althoughthe format for answering questions onexams is different in this instance, thecontent of the questions and the sub-stance of responses remains the same.Therefore, achievement on the grade-level standard in science is what shouldbe reported.

Some students receiving special edu-cation need curricular adaptations thatare more substantial than accommoda-tions. For those students, some or all ofthe grade-level standards may not beachievable during the academic year,and curricuiar modifications are need-ed. A modification is an adaptation tothe curriculum that fundamentallyalters the grade-level expectation{Freedman, 2005). For example, an IEPteam may determine that a fourth-grade student who has a severe mathe-matics learning disability will not beable to achieve the fourth-grade mathe-matics standards that academic year.For this student, the mathematics cur-riculum will need to be modified to pro-vide opportunities with mathematicscontent that are appropriate for the stu-dent's present level of development.These modifications would then benoted in the IEP.

Step 2: Establish Standardsfor Modified Areas

For the fourth-grade student in the fore-going example, communicating failureon the grade-level mathematics stan-dards provides no meaningful informa-tion about that student's achievementor progress. Instead, the IEP team mustdetermine a modified standard that thischild will be able to achieve with appro-priate special education services. Modi-fied standards should be clearly linkedwith the grade-level standard andrecorded on the IEP as an annual goalwith short-term objectives. A child withmental retardation, for example, maynot be ready to work on third-grade sci-

ence standards in mineral identification.The IEP team may choose to developscience standards on the skill of sortingand classifying that are fundamentallyrelated to the third-grade science stan-dards but also developmentally appro-priate for the student. For areas requir-ing these types of modification, achieve-ment on the modified standards is whatshould be graded and reported.

Step 3: Determine the Needfor Additional Goals

For some students receiving special edu-cation, additional IEP goals may be per-tinent to the student's development butextend beyond the general curriculum.A student with visual impairment, forexample, may have orientation andmobility goals as a part of the IEP. Forthis student, being able to walk inde-pendently from the classroom to thelunchroom, to outside, and so forth, isimportant to being a part of the class.Although this goal may not be includedwithin the structure of the regular reportcard, monitoring and reporting on thisgoal are Important. Schools should con-tinue to provide this information on aregular basis through a report card sup-plement so that families and others onthe team are able to make decisionsbased on the child's progress andachievement (National Center on Sec-ondary Education and TYansition, 2005).

Step 4: Apply Fair and EquitableGroding Proctices to AppropriateStandards

Once schools have a high-quality grad-ing and reporting system in place thatmakes the purpose of grading clear andoffers guidance on how to grade, IEPteams can apply grading practicesappropriate for students with disabili-ties. For most students, including thosein special education, the standardsbeing measured are grade-level stan-dards. In subject areas in which onlyaccommodations are needed, studentsreceiving special education shouldreceive grades according to the samecriteria as every other student in theclass, with no penalty for accommoda-tion unless otherwise noted on the IEP.A student who takes a history test oral-ly, for example, should be graded on thebasis of the content of his or her

responses. The grade should not be low-ered because of the response format.However, it also should not be raised onthe basis of effort, progress, or any otherfactor that is not a part of every otherstudent's achievement grade.

Modified standards should be

clearly linked with the grade-level

standard and recorded on the

IEP as an annual goal with

short-term objectives.

For subject areas in which modifiedstandards are used, grades should bebased on the modified standard, not thegrade-level standard. From the exampleabove, the student who has mentalretardation and is working toward alower level sorting and classifying sci-ence standard should be assigned agrade based on that modified standard.Measuring and reporting progress on astandard the IEP team has alreadyagreed to be unattainable would bemeaningless and, arguably, illegal.

Step 5: Communicatethe Meaning of the Grades

By providing information on students'specific achievements, separate fromindicators of progress and effort, andthen clearly communicating the mean-ing of each grade assigned, educatorscan offer families much better informa-tion about children's learning success. Ifsome or all the grades for achievementare based on modified standards, thenthe reporting system must include addi-tional information to ensure that fami-lies understand that their child's successis based on work appropriate for his orher development level, not the assignedgrade level. Assigning grades on thebasis of modified standards withoutcommunicating what was truly meas-ured is no more meaningful or fair thangiving failing grades on the basis ofgrade-level standards. Each grading peri-od, schools might include on the reportcard a column in which special nota-tions can be marked. Or a superscriptletter or an asterisk could simply be

TEACHING EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN • NOV/DEC 2007 • 51

added to the grade or mark to indicatethat it is based on modified standards.The accompanying footnote might thenstate, "Based on modified standards'"and direct the reader to the standards onwhich the grade was based.

By law, however, the notation on thereport card or transcript cannot, in anyway. identify the student as receivingspecial education services. For example,the wording "modified standard" is alegal notation if modifications are avail-able to all students, but "special educa-tion goals'" and "IEP goals" are not. Anaccompanying report might include thestudent's IEP goals or a narrativedescribing the details of the IEP.

Conclusion

Educators at all levels desperately needclear and specific guidance in develop-ing grading and reporting policies andpractices for students with disabilitieswho are included in general educationclasses. They also need concise andmeaningful data on the effects of suchpolicies and practices. Although somegrading adaptations have been studiedin terms of their perceived fairness toteachers and students, additional evi-dence is needed to determine the effec-tiveness of various adaptations for grad-ing the performance of students withspecial needs. For example, the follow-ing questions need to be addressed: Dofamilies understand their children'sprogress? Can IEP teams use grades tomake data-based decisions on the effi-cacy of interventions? Can schools usethe information to determine whether achild has made adequate progress toadvance to the next grade?

Students with disabilities and

their families can hove information

that they are able to interpret

accurately and use effectively.

Separating product, process, andprogress learning goals, and then situat-ing achievement grades within the con-text of accommodations and modifica-tions, offers a promising alternative tomodified grading within a standards-

based environment. The IEP serves todocument curricular accommodationsand modifications for students whoreceive special education. After consid-ering the accommodation and modifica-tion needs of students, IEP teams candetermine for each content areawhether students are to be held tograde-level standards or modified stan-dards. If the team modifies particularstandards they judge to be inappropriatefor the student, then no further gradingadaptations are needed. Achievement orproduct grades need not be adjusted byconsidering progress, effort, workhabits, or other behaviors. Process andprogress indicators remain an importantpart of grading and reporting but arekept separate from indicators of stu-dents' achievement of specific learningstandards. By reporting product,progress, and process goals separately,educators can eliminate inaccurategrades based on an arbitrary mix ofgrading elements or on inappropriatestandards. As a result, students withdisabilities and their families can haveinformation that they are able to inter-pret accurately and use effectively.

RoforencosBaker, E. T.. Wang, M. C , & Walberg, H. J,

(1995]. The effects of inclusion on learn-ing. Edacational Leadership. 52(4), 33-35.

Board of Education v. Rowley, 458 U.S. 176(1982).

Brookhart, S. M. (1991). Grading practicesand validity. Educational Measurement:Issues and Practice. 10{l), 35-36.

Brookhart, S. M. (1993). Teachers' gradingpractices: Meaning and values. Journal ofEducational Measurement, 30(2), 123-142.

Bursuck, W., Polloway, E. A., Plante, L.,Epstein, M. H., Jayanthi, M., &McConeghy, J. (1996). Report card grad-ing and adaptations: A national survey ofclassroom practices. Exceptional Children,62, 301-318.

Bursuck, W. D., Munk, D, D., & Olson, M. M.(1999). The fairness of report card gradingadaptations: What do students with andvirithout disabilities think? Remedial andSpecial Education, 20, 84-92.

Carlberg, C , & Kavale, K. A. (1980). The effi-cacy of special versus regular class place-ment for exceptional children: A ineta-analysis. Journal of Special Education. 14,296-309.

Cizek, G. J., Fitzgerald, S. M., & Rachor, R. E.(1996). Teachers" assessment practices:Prepaiation, isolation, and the kitchen

sink. Educational Assessment, 3{2),159-179.

Donahue, K.. & Zigmond. N. (1990).Academic grades of ninth-grade urbanlearning disabled students and low-achieving peers. Exceptionality, / ( I ) .17-27.

Etscheidt, S. K. (2006). Progress monitoring:Legal issues and recommendations for IEPteatns. TEACHING Exceptional Children.38(i], 56-60.

Frary, R. B., Cross. L, H., & Weber, L. J.(1993). Testing and grading practices andopinions of secondary teachers of aca-demic subjects: Implications for instruc-tion in measurement. EducationalMeasurement: Issues and Practice, 12{i),23-30.

Freedman, M. K. (2005). Student testing andthe law: The requirements educators, par-ents, and officials should know. Horsham,PA: LRP Publications.

Friedman, S. J.. & Frisbie. D. A. (1995). Theinfluence of report cards on the validity ofgrades reported to parents. Educationaland Psychological Measurement, 55(1),5-26.

Guskey, T. R. (1994). Making the grade:What benefits students. EducationalLeadership, 52(2). 14-20.

Guskey. T. R. (1996). Reporting on studentlearning: Lessons from the past—Pre-scriptions for the future, tn T R. Guskey(Ed.), Communicating student learning:1996 Yearbook of the Association forSupervision and Curriculum Development(pp. 13-24). Alexandria, VA: Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment.

Guskey, T. R. (2001). Helping standards makethe grade. Educational Leadership. 59(1),20-27.

Guskey, T R. (2006). Making high schoolgrades meaningful. Phi Delta Kappan,87[9], 670-675.

Guskey, T R., & Jung, L. A. (2006, Winter).The challenges of standards-based grad-ing. Leadership Compass, 4(2), 6-10.

Handler, B. R. (2003, April). Special educa-tion practices: An evaluation of education-al environmental placement trends sincethe regular education initiative. Paper pre-sented at the annual meeting of theAmerican Educatiotial Research Associa-tion, Chicago, IL.

Hunt. P., Farron-Davis, F, Beckstead, S.,Cunis, D., & Goetz, L. (1994). Evaluatingthe effects of placement of students withsevere disabilities in getierai educationversus special classes. Journal of theAssociation for Persons with Severe Handi-caps. 19, 200-214.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act.20 U.S.C § 1400 to 1491 (1997).

Individuals With Disabilities EducationImprovement Act, 20 U.S.G § 1400 to 1482(2004).

52 • COUNCIL FOR EXCEPTIONAL CHILDREN

McMillan, J. H., Myran, S., & Workman, D.(2002). Elementary teachers' classroomassessment and grading practices. Journalof Educational Research, 9S[4), 203-213.

National Center on Secondary Education andTYansition. (June, 2005). Key provisionson irdiisilion; IDEA 1997 compared (oH.R. 1350 (IDEA 2004). Retrieved fromhttp: / /ncset .org/publicat ions/related/idedtransition.asp

Polioway. E. A-. Epstein. M- H-. Btirstick, W.D.. Roderique, T. W, McConeghy, J. L., &Jayanthi, M. (1994). Classroom grading: Anational survey of policies. Remedial andSpecial Education. 15. 162-170.

Ring, M. M., & Reetz, L. (2000). Modificationeffects on attribution of middle school stu-dents with learning disabilities. LearningDisabilities Research & Practice, 15. 34-42.

Silva. M.. Munk, D. D., & Bursuck. W. D.(2005). Grading adaptations for studentswith disabilities. Intervention in Schooland Clinic, 41, 87-98.

Stiggins. R. J. (2001). Report cards. InStudent-involved classroom assessment(3rd ed.; pp. 409-465). Upper SaddleRiver, NJ: Merrill/Prentice Hall,

Thurlow, M. L. (2002). Positive educationalresults for all students: The promise ofstandards-based reform. Remedial andSpecial Education. 2H. 195-202.

Trtjog. A. L., & Friedman. S. J. (April. 1996).Evaluating high school teachers' writtengrading policies from a measurement per-spective. Paper presented at the annualmeeting of the National Council onMeasurement in Education, New York.

Waldron. N, L. (1998). The effects of aninclusive school program on students withmild and severe learning disabilities.Kxceptional Children. 64. 395-405.

Wiggins, G- (1996). Honesty and fairness:Tbward better grading and reporting. In TR. Guskey (Ed,). Communicating studentlearning: 1996 Yearbook ofthe Associationfor Supervision and Curriculum Develop-ment (pp. 141-176). Alexandria, VA:Association for Supervision and Cur-riculum Development.

Lee Ann Jung (CEC KY Federation), Assis-tant Professor. Special Education and Reha-bilitation Counseling; and Thomas R.Guskey, Profe.^sor. Educational Policy Studiesand Evaluation. University of Kentucky,Lexington.

Address correspondence to Lee Ann Jung. 124Taylor Education Building. University ofKentucky. Lexington. KY 40506 (e-mail:liung@iiky.edu).

TEACHING Exceptional Children. Vol. 40,No. 2. pp. 4S-S.i.

Copyright 2007 CEC.

Response toInlcrvMitfoB WORKSHOP

• rs 2 dayshington, DC Metro Area

Council for Exceptional ChildrenRegional

Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide for Every Teacher

# 1 BEST SELLING PUBLICATIONat CEC'S 2007 Annual Convention

RANKED n3 TOP ATTENDED WORKSHOPat CEC'S 2007 Annual Convention

For educators who are new to the Response toIntervention (RTI) approach, this workshop offers

an overview of key concepts and guidelines of RTI thatbenefit students in inclusive classrooms. Cara Shores,co-author of Response to Intervetition: A Practical Guidefor Every Teacher, demonstrates how general and specialeducation teachers can use research-based interventionto individualize instruction, monitor student progress, andimplement strategies to meet students' specific needs.

A true working workshop, the RTI 2-day, providespractical information designed to enable teachers andadministrators to implement the RTI process effectivelyin their districts, schools, and classrooms. Be prepared toplay an active role! Participants will have the opportunityto apply their knowledge as they work in teams todevelop an RTI plan for a student from their school.

*Earr} 1.2 Continuing Education Units for each 2-dayworkshop! Presenter and Co-Author: Cara Shores

LEARNER OUTCOMESParticipants will be able to:• Identify the major components of two models of RTI

Identify resources for selection of research-basedstrategies and curriculum-based measurement

• Utilize the RTI process to identify learning problemsbased on student outcome data.

Washington, DC Metro Area

November 15-16Sheraton Reston11810 Sunrise Valley DriveReston, VA 20191

Registration $399CEC Member $299Hotel Room $179 per day703-620-9000

Council foiExcepfionalChildren

CEC extends its thanks to CorwinPress for supporting the 2007 RTIRegional Workshops. CtWWIN

Register now! Call 1-888-232-7733 or online at www.cec.sped.org

TEACHING ExcEP-noNAi, CHIUIREN • NOV/DEC 2007 • 53