Contact Us
Donate Now

Special Education Resources Menu

Special Education

Curated Resources Menu

The Evidence Advocacy Center’s Special Education (SPE) Team has three goals.

Goal 1: The first goal is to improve the outcomes of preK-12 students with disabilities in reading, math, and behavior by distilling a limited number of doable Practice Statements in key assessment and intervention Categories and Subcategories based on scientific evidence. We believe by identifying these proven practices in Practice Statements, the information will be more readily available to decision makers to inform specialized instruction in mathematics, reading and writing for high and low incidence disabilities and for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities. Following the Practice Statements, we provide specific resources about writing quality IEPs. In some instances, mathematics resources are separate from reading and writing or behavior. We also recommend viewing the other menus on the EAC website.

Goal 2: For each of the Practice Statements, we will continue to identify (as evidence and research accumulates) Ineffective Practices, which must be discarded. Ineffective practices must be discarded not only because of their lack of benefit, but in many cases (e.g., the Ability Achievement discrepancy model for identifying students with learning disabilities), to prevent harm to students and waste of valuable resources.

Goal 3: We want to (re)iterate that it is the belief of the SPE Team that the powerful and appropriately intensive evidence-based practices identified as effective for general education students (see Instruction Menu to come) apply to all students, including students with disabilities. Importantly, however, the SPE Team recognizes that academic and behavioral outcomes for students with disabilities also are uniquely influenced by sets of procedures either established by institutional understandings of best practice and/or law (e.g., MTSS Benchmarking, IDEA-2004). The SPE Team believes the identification of Practice Statements and Ineffective practices can empower schools, teachers, members of other organizations and especially parents and families of students with disabilities. Clients can self-assess the extent to which they are implementing each action area and the areas in which they would like support from the SPE Team for their work.

Team Co-leads:

Stephanie Al Otaiba, Ph.D., Southern Methodist University, Patsy and Ray Caldwell Centennial Chair in Teaching & Learning and Professor, salotaiba@smu.edu

Kelly A. Powell-Smith, Ph.D., NCSP, Mount Saint Joseph University, Professor of Reading Science, kelly.powell-smith@msj.edu

Greg Benner, Ph.D., University of Alabama

Matthew K. Burns, Ph.D., University of Florida (Professor)

Elsa Cárdenas-Hagan, Ph.D., Valley Speech Language and Learning Center, Texas (Director)

Ben Clarke, Ph.D., University of Oregon (Department Head, Special Education and Clinical Services)

Robbin Codding, Ph.D., Northeastern University (Professor and Director of School Psychology Program)

Mary Kate DeSantis, Harvard Graduate School (Founder Left Side Strong)

Michael Fagella-Luby, Ph.D., Tennessee Christian University (Professor of Special Education and Core Faculty of the Alice Neeley Special Education Research and Service (ANSERS) Institute)

Scott Goldberg, Ph.D., Yeshiva University (Associate Professor of Education and Psychology)

Robert Horner, Ph.D., University of Oregon (Professor Emeritus, Special Education)

Michelle Hosp, Ph.D., Renaissance Learning (Director, Foundational Literacy) ; University of Massachusetts Amherst (Associate Adjunct Professor of Special Education)

David Hurford, Ph.D., Pittsburg State University/Center for Reading (Executive Director and Professor of Psychology)

Carolina Kudesey, University of Alabama (Doctoral Student in Special Education)

Kent McIntosh, Ph.D., University of Oregon (Professor & Philip H. Knight Chair, Special Education)

Kristen McMaster, Ph.D., University of Minnesota (Guy Bond Chair in Reading; co-program coordinator, special education)

Brian Poncy, Ph.D., Oklahoma State University (Professor and Director for the School Psychology Program)

Sarah Powell, Ph.D., UT Austin (Professor and Associate Director of the Meadows Center for Preventing Educational Risk)

Kathleen Roberts, Southern Methodist University (Doctoral Student)

Louise Spear-Swerling, Ph.D., Southern Connecticut State University (Professor Emerita, Special Education)

Stephanie Stollar, Ph.D., Reading Science Academy (Founder)

Brandi Tanner, Ph.D., Your IEP Source (Founder/CEO)

Jessica Toste, Ph.D., UT Austin (Associate Professor, Special Education)

Jeanne Wanzek, Ph.D., Vanderbilt University (Professor, Currey-Ingram Endowed Chair, Department of Special Education)

Kristen Wright, Ed.D., Sacramento County Office of Education, California (Executive Director, Equity, Diversity, Early Intervention Special Services)

Mitchell Yell, Ph.D., University of South Carolina (Fred and Francis Lester Palmetto Chair in Teacher Education, Special Education)

Contact Us

General Evidence-Based Practice Statements for Assessment & Intervention for Mathematics, Reading and Writing, & Behavior

To engage in effective evidence-based instructional practices, it is essential that the structure and financial resources necessary for assessment and instruction/intervention is established in your school and district. These necessary investments include:

  • Established daily time for math, reading and writing instruction to occur.
  • Established daily time for academic intervention to occur that is separate from core (Tier 1) instruction to ensure that all children and youth have access to core instruction.
  • Delivery of effective core instruction (e.g., explicitly, systematic, evidence-based).
  • Designated personnel available for delivering academic and behavioral interventions.
  • Commitment to providing ongoing training for interventionists (including educators, coaches, school administrators, para-educators).
  • Recognition that all existing curricula (whether it be core instruction or intervention) need to be supplemented and adapted to student needs.
  • Identification of a scope and sequence of measurable skills that vertically align with the curriculum that guide screening, progress monitoring, and instructional targets.

Assessment Practices to Inform Specialized Instruction

Assessment is a process of collecting data to make a variety of decisions (Ysseldyke et al., 2023). In Special Education in particular, we must recognize that assessment is not just testing students to identify a disability and determine eligibility for special education.

No longer are there as clear boundaries regarding where assessment for special education purposes begins. Now it is recognized that there are evidence-based processes for early identification through academic and behavioral screening assessment and appropriately intensive, evidence-based intervention promotes positive development and circumvents the need for special education.

Among the most common general educational assessment decisions is Screening, a process that determines if a student’s performance is sufficiently discrepant from an expected level of performance and growth to warrant intervention or further assessment and requires more intensive intervention. Assessment practices should identify a student’s current skills (present level of performance), enable educators to write meaningful and measurable IEP goals, and provide progress monitoring data towards those goals.

See also the Assessment Menu.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

Archer, A. L., & Hughes, C. A. (2011). Explicit instruction: Effective and efficient teaching. New York: Guilford Press.

Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. & Malone, A. S. (2017). The taxonomy of intervention intensity. Teaching Exceptional Children, 50, 35-43.

Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2025). On the Importance of Place: An Introduction to the Special Issue. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 243-245. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194251339464

Lemons C. J., Vaughn S., & Alsolami, A. (2024). Inclusive special education: What do we mean and what do we want? Remedial and Special Education, 45(6), 335–338. https://doi.org/10.1177/07419325241268856/

McMaster, K. L., Lembke, E. S., Shanahan, E., Choi, S., An, J., Schatschneider, C., Duesenberg-Marshall, M. D., Birinci, S., McCollom, E., Garman, C., & Moore, K. (2024). Supporting Teachers’ Data-Based Individualization of Early Writing Instruction: An Efficacy Trial. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 287-303. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241300324

Namkung, J. M., & Fuchs, L. S. (2024). Vulnerability to Achievement Stressors: More Evidence That Students With Learning Disabilities Require Intensive Intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 274-286. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241297051 (Original work published 2025)

Yell, M. L., & Bradley, M. R. (2024). The Individuals With Disabilities Education Act: Clarifying the Relationship Between Free Appropriate Public Education and Least Restrictive Environment. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 58(4), 246-256. https://doi.org/10.1177/00222194241305352

BOOKS:

Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Barnes, M. A.  (2019). Learning disabilities: From identification to intervention, 2nd edition.  New York: Guilford Press.

Kirschner, P. A., & Hendrick, C. (2020). How learning happens: Seminal works in educational psychology and what they mean in practice (1st ed.). Routledge.

Kirschner, P. A., Hendrick, C., & Heal, J. (2022). How teaching happens: Seminal works in teaching and teacher effectiveness and what they mean in practice. Routledge.

Okolo, C. M., Patton Terry, N., & Cutting, L. E. (2025). Handbook of learning disabilities (3rd Ed.). Guilford Press.

The Guilford Practical Intervention in the Schools Series: This series provides resources on effective content, behavioral and mental health interventions. These resources are designed for everyday use by educators. https://www.guilford.com/browse/education/guilford-series-intensive-instruction

WEBSITES:

Australian Education Research Organization: The Australian Education Research Organisation (AERO) is Australia’s independent education evidence body. They conduct research and share knowledge to promote better educational outcomes. Two specific areas of their work are relevant to the SPE menu, their information on diversity and cultural responsiveness and their page on disability and inclusion.

The CEEDAR Center: https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/

Center on Multi-tiered Systems of Support: https://mtss4success.org/resource/essential-components-mtss-rubric

International MTSS Association: https://www.mtssassociation.org/

Council for Exceptional Children: https://exceptionalchildren.org/

Council for Exceptional Children Division for Research: https://cecdr.org/

EAC Website: https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org/

IES WWC Practice Guides: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/practiceguides

IRIS Center: https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

International Dyslexia Association – New 2025 Definition of Dyslexia: https://dyslexiaida.org/2025-dyslexia-definition-project/

National Center on Intensive Intervention: https://intensiveintervention.org/

Evidence-Based Interventions for Students with Disabilities in Mathematics

Specially designed instruction should be explicitly tied to functional assessment activities to match patterns in student responding (e.g., accurate, fluent, or generalized responding) on directly observable math skills with empirically-validated intervention procedures. Intensive intervention should prioritize manageable amounts of content with high rates of active, accurate, academic responding that incorporate intact learning trials (stimulus, response, feedback) across items when appropriate. Instruction should continue until mastery levels of fluency are reached and these skills should be systematically combined with other related skills to support application across skills and contexts.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

Bailey, T. R., & Weingarten, Z. (2019). Strategies for Setting High-Quality Academic Individualized Education Program Goals. In. Washington, DC: National Center on Intensive Intervention, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education.

Doabler, C. T., Cary, M. S., Jungjohann, K., Clarke, B., Fien, H., Baker, S., Smolkowski, K., & Chard, D. (2012). Enhancing core mathematics instruction for students at risk for mathematics disabilities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 44(4), 48–57. https://doi.org/10.1177/004005991204400405

Hughes, E. M., Powell, S. R., Lembke, E. S., & Riley-Tillman, T. C. (2016). Taking the guesswork out of locating evidence-based practices for diverse learners. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 31, 130–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12103

Jenkins, J. R., & Fuchs, L. S. (2012). Curriculum-Based Measurement: The paradigm, history, and legacy. In C. A. Espin, K. McMaster, S. Rose, & M. Wayman (Eds.), A measure of success: The influence of Curriculum-Based Measurement on education (pp. 7-23). University of Minnesota Press.

Klingbeil, D. A., Maurice, S. A., Van Norman, E. R., Nelson, P. M., Birr, C., Hanrahan, A. R., Schramm, A. L., Copek, R. A., Carse, S. A., Koppel, R. A., & Lopez, A. L. (2019). Improving mathematics screening in middle school. School Psychology Review, 48(4), 383–398. https://doi.org/10.17105/SPR-2018-0084.V48-4

Nelson, G., Kiss, A. J., Codding, R. S., McKevett, N. M., Schmitt, J. F., Park, S., Romero, M. E., & Hwang, J. (2023). Review of curriculum-based measurement in mathematics: An update and extension of the literature. Journal of School Psychology, 97, 1–42. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsp.2022.12.001

Powell, S. R., Bos, S. E., King, S. G., Ketterlin-Geller, L., & Lembke, E. S. (in press). Using the data-based individualization framework within math intervention. Teaching Exceptional Children. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221111114

Powell, S. R., Bouck, E. C., Sutherland, M., Clarke, B., Arsenault, T. L., & Freeman-Green, S. (2023). Essential components for math instruction. Teaching Exceptional Children, 56(1), 14­–24. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221125892

Powell, S. R., Fuchs, L. S., & Fuchs, D. (2015). Intensive intervention in mathematics. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 30, 182–192. https://doi.org/10.1111/ldrp.12087

Root, J., Saunders, A., Jimenez, B., & Gilley, D. (2023). Essential components for math instruction: Considerations for students with extensive support needs. Teaching Exceptional Children, 56(1), 34–43. https://doi.org/10.1177/00400599221120882

Solomon, B. G., et al. (2022). Mastery Measurement in Mathematics and the Goldilocks Effect. School Psychology, 37, 213-224.

Solomon, B. G., & Poncy, B. C. (2019). Growth under intervention by means of instructional time expended: Empirical illustrations of applicable models. School Psychology, 34(5), 566-575.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., Burns, M. K., Peltier, C., & Codding, R. S. (2021). The Science of Math – The Importance of Mastery Measures and the Quest for a General Outcome Measure. Communique, 50 (5), p. 1.

BOOKS:

Bryant, D. P. (Ed.) (2021). Intensifying mathematics interventions for struggling students. Guilford Press.

Codding, R. (2017). Effective math interventions: A guide to improving whole-number knowledge. Guilford Press.

Ma, L. (2020). Knowing and teaching elementary mathematics: Teachers’ Understanding of fundamental mathematics in China and the United States (3rd ed.) Routledge.

Stein, M., Kinder, D. Silbert, J. Carnine, D., & Rolf, K. (2017). Direct instruction mathematics (5th ed.). New York: Pearson.

Witzel, B. S. (2014). Bridging the gap between arithmetic & algebra. Council for Exceptional Children.

WEBSITES:

Institute for Education Sciences – Selected Practice Guides: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/Docs/PracticeGuide/rti_math_pg_042109.pdf

Iris Center: https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/rti-math/

Achieve the Core: https://achievethecore.org/category/774/mathematics-focus-by-grade-level

The Science of Math: https://www.thescienceofmath.com/universal-screening-in-mathematics

Meadows Center

Math SPIRAL

National Center for Intensive Intervention

PODCASTS/VIDEOS/PRESENTATIONS:

PaTTAN Math Conference 2023

School Psyched Podcast!

Evidence-Based Interventions for Students with Disabilities in Reading & Writing

Specially designed instruction should be explicitly tied to functional assessment activities to match patterns in student responding (e.g., accurate, fluent, or generalized responding) on directly observable reading and writing skills with empirically-validated intervention procedures. Intensive intervention should prioritize manageable amounts of content with high rates of active, accurate, academic responding (e.g., I do, We do, You do) that incorporate intact learning trials (stimulus, response, feedback) across items when appropriate, and that also includes cumulative review and practice. Instruction should continue until mastery levels of fluency are reached and these skills should be systematically combined with other related skills to support application across skills and contexts.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

Allor, J. & Al Otaiba, S.  (2024). Raising literacy expectations for students with intellectual and developmental disabilities: Lessons from a series of research studies. The Reading League Journal, 6(2), 34-42.

Ascenzi-Moreno, L. (2024). Toward a multilingual perspective on reading: Aligning emergent bilinguals’ resources with theories of reading and implications for instruction. The Reading Teacher, 77(6), 918-926. https://doi.org/10.1002/trtr.2324

Baldwin, L., Omdal, S. N., & Pereles, D. (2015). Beyond stereotypes: Understanding, recognizing, and working with twice-exceptional learners. Teaching Exceptional Children, 47(4), 216-225.

Breen, M. (2025). Using prosodic production to support reading comprehension. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 20-23.

Cardenas-Hagan, E. (2025). Syntax and reading comprehension among multilingual learners. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 37-40.

Collins, L. W., Cook, S. E. C., Ninci, J., & Weingrad, I. (2023). The Effects of Repeated Reading on Fluency for Students With and at Risk for EBD: An Evidence-Based Review. Behavioral Disorders, 49(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429231199668

Conner, C., Allor, J. H., Henry, A. R., Al Otaiba, S., & Ortiz, M. B. (2023). Planning and implementing  effective language and reading comprehension instructional techniques for students with  autism spectrum disorder and cognitive disabilities. The Reading Teacher, 77(1), 47-58.

Deacon, H., Hoferek, K., & MacKay, E. (2025). Supporting sentences: A powerful ingredient in  children’s reading instruction. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 18-23.

Denton, C. A., Hall, C., Cho, E., Cannon, G. E., Scammacca, N., & Wanzek, J. (2022). A meta analysis of the effects of foundational skills and multicomponent reading interventions on reading comprehension for primary-grade students. Learning and Individual Differences, 93(1), 102062-102090. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.lindif.2021.102062

Eberhardt, N. C., & Gillis, M. (2025). Teaching syntax: What teachers are asking. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 38-42.

Eberhardt, N. C., & Gillis, M. (2025). Teaching syntax: What teachers are asking – Part 2. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 24-28.

Elleman, A. M. (2017) Examining the Impact of Inference Instruction on the Literal and Inferential Comprehension of Skilled and Less Skilled Readers: A Meta-Analytic Review. Journal of Educational Psychology, 109, 761-781.

Filderman, M. A., Austin, C. R., Boucher, A. N., O’Donnell, K., & Swanson, E. A. (2022). A meta-analysis of the effects of reading comprehension interventions on the reading comprehension outcomes of struggling readers in third through 12th grades. Exceptional Children, 88, 163-184. https://doi.org/10.1177/00144029211050860

Gatlin-Nash, B. (2025). Leveraging the language strengths of Black students.  Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(1), 48-50.

Gillespie, A. & Graham, S. 2014). A Meta-Analysis of Writing Interventions for Students With Learning Disabilities. Exceptional Children, 80, 454-473.

Harris, K. R., Graham, S., Aitken, A. A., Barkel, A., Houston, J., & Ray, A. (2017). Teaching spelling, writing, and reading for writing: Powerful evidence-based practices. Teaching Exceptional Children, 49(4), 262-272.

Hennessy, N., & Salamone, J. (2025). Syntax and sentence comprehension: Challenges and opportunities. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 30-46

Hwang, H., Kendeou, P. (Pani), & McMaster, K. L. (2024). Fostering inference-making through video-based technology in young children with early reading difficulties. Journal of Special Education Technology. https://doi.org/10.1177/01626434241257203

Hwang, H., Orcutt, E., Reno, E., Kim, J., Harsch, R. M., McMaster, K., Kendeou, P., & Slater, S. (2023).  Making the most of read-alouds to support primary-grade students’ inference-making. The Reading Teacher. https://doi-org.ezp1.lib.umn.edu/10.1002/trtr.2226

Krimm, H., McDaniel, J., & Schuele, C. M. (2023). Conceptions and misconceptions: What do school-based speech-language pathologists think about dyslexia? Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 54(4), 1267–1281. https://doi.org/10.1044/2023_LSHSS-22-00199

Note – There was a mistaken chart in the original publication so see updated chart here:

Erratum to “Conceptions and Misconceptions: What Do School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists Think About Dyslexia?”…Krimm H, McDaniel J, Schuele C. Speech, and Hearing Services in Schools. 2023;54(4):1267-1281. (2025). Language, Speech & Hearing Services in Schools, 56(4), 1338–1339. https://doi.org/10.1044/2025_LSHSS-25-00056

Kuntze, M., Golos, D., & Enns, C. (2014). Rethinking literacy: Broadening opportunities for visual learners. Sign Language Studies, 14(2), 203-224.

Lemons, C. J. (2025). Brick by brick: How does the science of reading apply to learners with intellectual and developmental disabilities? The Reading League, 6(2), 5-13.

Li, M., Jerasa, S., Frijters, J. C., & Geva, E. (2024). Using phoneme discrimination to help emergent bilinguals with reading disabilities acquire new sounds. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 56(5), 310-322.

Lindstrom, E. & Stewart, J. (2025). Where to begin: Essential knowledge for educators about reading instruction and supports for students with IDD. The Reading League Journal, 6(2), 14-21.

McMaster, K. L., Birinci, S., Shanahan, E., & Lembke, E. (2023). Supporting Students’ Early Writing Development through Data-Based Instruction. In Cabell, S. Q., Neuman, S. B., & Patton Terry, N., Eds. Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy. Guilford.

Murray, B. K., Guerrero, S. L., Rhodes, K. T., & Washington, J. A. (2025). Language variation and syntax: Recognizing the linguistic strengths of African American children. Perspectives on  Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 42-45.

Norbury, C., & Nation, K. (2011). Understanding variability in reading comprehension in adolescents with autism spectrum disorders: Interactions with language status and decoding skill. Scientific Studies of Reading, 15, 191-210. https://doi.org/10.1080/10888431003623553

Roberts, G. J., Solis, M., & Chance, B. (2019). Embedding self-regulation into reading interventions to support reading and behavior outcomes. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(2), 78-86.

Solari, E. J., Petscher, Y., & Hall, C. (2021). What does science say about Orton-Gillingham interventions? An explanation and commentary on the Stevens et al. (2021) meta-analysis.  The Reading League Journal, 2(2), 46-50.

Solari, E. J., Kehoe, K. F., Cho, E., Hall, C., Vargas, I., Dahl-Leonard, K., Richmond, C. L., Henry, A. R., Cook, L., Hayes, L., & Conner, C. (2022). Effectiveness of interventions for English learners  with word reading difficulties: A research synthesis. Learning Disabilities Research and  Practice, 37(3), 158-174. https://10.1111/ldrp.12286

Spear-Swerling, L. (2018). Structured literacy and typical literacy practices: Understanding differences to create instructional opportunities. Teaching Exceptional Children, 51, 201-211. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059917750160

Spencer, M., & Wagner, R. K. (2018). The comprehension problems of children with poor reading comprehension despite adequate decoding: A meta-analysis. Review of Educational  Research, 88, 366–400. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654317749187

Stevens, E. A., Walker, M. A., & Vaughn, S. (2017). The effects of reading fluency interventions on the reading fluency and reading comprehension performance of elementary students with learning disabilities: A synthesis of the research from 2001 to 2014. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 50, 576-590. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022219416638028

Swanson, E., Wanzek, J., Vaughn, S., Fall, A-M., Roberts, G., Hall, C. & Miller, V. (2017). Middle  school reading comprehension and content learning intervention for below average readers. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 33(1), 37-53. https://doi.org/10.1080/10573569.2015.1072068

Toste, J. R., Williams, K. J., & Capin, P. C. (2017). Reading big words: Instructional practices to  promote multisyllabic word reading fluency. Intervention in School and Clinic, 52, 270-278.

Truckenmiller, A. J., *Yohannan, J., & Cho, E. (2020). Linking reading assessment data to instructional planning: A component-skills approach. Communiqué, 48, 15-18.

Vanderheyden, A. & , Burns, M. (2018). Is More Screening Better? The relationship between frequent screening, accurate decisions, and reading proficiency. School Psychology Review, 47, 62-82. 10.17105/SPR-2017-0017.V47-1

Van Dyke, J. A., & Powell-Smith, K. A. (2025). Guide to syntax and language comprehension resources. Perspectives on Language and Learning Disabilities, 51(2), 57-62.

Vaughn, S., Denton, C. A., & Fletcher, J. M. (2010). Why intensive interventions are necessary for students with severe reading difficulties. Psychology in the Schools, 47, 432-444. https://doi.org/10.1002/pits.20481

Wei, Y., Spear-Swerling, L., & Mercurio, M. (2020). Motivating students with learning disabilities to read. Intervention in School and Clinic, 1-8. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451220928956

Werfel, K. L., & Krimm, H. (2017). A preliminary comparison of reading subtypes in a clinical sample of children with specific language impairment. Journal of Speech Language and Hearing Research, 60(9), 2680-2686. https://doi:10.1044/2017_JSLHR-L-17-0059

Whalon, K. (2018). Enhancing the reading development of learners with autism spectrum disorder. Seminars in Speech and Language, 39, 144-157. https://doi.org/10.1055/s-0038-1628366

Whitbread, K. M., Knapp, S. L., & Bengtson, M. (2021). Teaching foundational reading skills to students with intellectual disabilities. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 53(6), 424-432.

BOOKS:

Cabell, S. Q., Neuman, S., B., & Patton Terry, N. (2024). Handbook on the Science of Early Literacy. New York: Guilford.

Honig, B., Diamond, L., Gutlohn, L., & Cole, C. L. (2008). Teaching reading sourcebook (2nd ed.). Arena Press; CORE.

Kester, E. S. (2014). Difference or disorder? Understanding speech and language patterns in culturally and linguistically diverse students. Bilinguistics, Inc.

Spear-Swerling, L. (2022). Structured literacy interventions: Teaching Students with reading difficulties, Grades K-6. New York: Guilford.

Vaughn, S., Boardman, A., & Klingner, J. (2024). Teaching reading comprehension to students with  learning difficulties, 3rd edition. New York: Guilford.

Wanzek, J., Al Otaiba, S., & McMaster, K. L. (2020). Intensive reading interventions for the elementary grades. New York: Guilford Press.

Young, N., & Hasbrouck (2024). Climbing the ladder of reading and writing. New York: Benchmark

WEBSITES:

PODCASTS/VIDEOS/PRESENTATIONS:

Linda Diamond & Paige Pullen, Progressively Incorrect podcast, 2025,  Connecting Learning, Literacy, and Instruction. https://podcasts.apple.com/ca/podcast/s5e02-linda-diamond-paige-pullen-on-connecting-learning/id1602317019?i=1000726961204

Louise Spear-Swerling, PaTTAN podcast, 2019, Structured Literacy https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UIUtX6HGtPw

Louise Spear-Swerling, Reading Horizons podcast, 2025, the “How” of Structured Literacy, https://readinghorizons.com/literacytalks/expert-insights-with-dr-louise-spear-swerling-prioritizing-the-how-in-literacy-instruction/

Tiffany Hogan, Windward School podcast episode 6, See Her Speak, https://open.spotify.com/episode/3505cycjG9l9IiYoMjspeu?si=GwU5CF7DTUWtpSzKqeQW0g (High incidence, developmental language disorders)

Tiffany Hogan, Windward School podcast episode 38, DLD, Language, and Systemic Change in Reading. https://open.spotify.com/episode/0WjrA2vDXkYUPk4yHzX7mJ?si=Yu-Woj-2S4uXl7yM-duBiw

Evidence-Based Interventions for Students with Emotional and Behavioral Disabilities

Specially designed instruction for students with emotional and behavioral disabilities (EBD) should be grounded in functional behavioral assessment to target observable social, emotional, and academic behaviors and link student needs to empirically validated interventions. Intensive intervention should focus on arranging the environment to prompt desired behavior and teach needed skills using structured approaches such as modeling, practice, and instructional responses to behavior. Learning trials should include clear antecedents and immediate feedback to promote skill acquisition and regulation. Evidence-based interventions such as positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS), self-management strategies, peer-assisted learning, and opportunities for choice-making should be prioritized. Structured routines should allow for cumulative review, ongoing practice, and transfer across settings and skills. Instruction should continue with sufficient intensity until students reach mastery and can generalize skills and should intentionally integrate social skills instruction and responsible problem solving to promote successful application to academic and behavioral skills across a variety of diverse settings and contexts.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

Collins, L. W., Cook, S. E. C., Ninci, J., & Weingrad, I. (2023). The effects of repeated reading on fluency for students with and at risk for EBD: An evidence-based review. Behavioral Disorders, 49(1), 46–60. https://doi.org/10.1177/01987429231199668

Commisso, C. E., Gaier, K., Kern, L., Majeika, C. E., Van Camp, A. M., Wehby, J. H., & Kelly, S. (2019). How to make adaptations to Check In/Check Out to increase Its effectiveness. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(1), 30-37. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059919858329

Filderman, M. J., McKown, C., Bailey, P., Benner, G. J., & Smolkowski, K. (2022). Assessment for effective screening and progress monitoring of social and emotional learning skills. Beyond Behavior, 32(1), 15-23. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742956221143112

Michael, E., Bailey, P., Benner, G. J., & Sanders, S. (2023). Welcome to our class! Building classroom rapport to support the development of social and emotional learning skills. Beyond Behavior, 32(1), 36-44. https://doi.org/10.1177/10742956221145951

Matusevich, H. A., Shogren, K. A., Raley, S. K., Lane, K. L., Frey, B. B., & McNaught, J. (2025). What goals are important to high school students? A goal content analysis. Exceptionality, 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1080/09362835.2025.2513088

McDaniel, S. C., Bruhn, A. L., & Mitchell, B. S. (2015). A tier 2 framework for behavior identification and intervention. Beyond Behavior, 24(1), 10-17. https://doi.org/10.1177/107429561502400103

McDaniel, S. C., Lochman, J. E., Tomek, S., Powell, N., Irwin, A., & Kerr, S. (2018). Reducing risk for emotional and behavioral disorders in late elementary school: A comparison of two targeted interventions. Behavioral disorders, 43(3), 370-382. https://doi.org/10.1177/0198742917747595

Pelton, K. S. L., Lane, K. L., Oakes, W. P., Buckman, M. M., Royer, D. J., & Sherod, R. L. (2025). Mapping the research base for universal behavior screeners. Review of Educational Research, 0(0). https://doi.org/10.3102/00346543251315168

Simonsen, B., Freeman, J., Dooley, K., Maddock, E., Kern, L., & Myers, D. (2021). Evidence-based behavior management strategies for students with or at risk of EBD: A mega review of the literature. Remedial and Special Education, 42(6), 365–380.

Slocum, T. A., Detrich, R., Wilczynski, S. M., Spencer, T. D., Lewis, T. J., & Wolfe, K. (2014). The evidence-based practice of applied behavior analysis. The Behavior Analyst, 37(1), 41–56.  https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4883454/?

Tan, T. X., Wand, J. H., Zhour, Y., & Deng, Y. (2023). Young children’s pre-academic and social skills: Role of parents’ locus of control and children’s ADHD behaviours. Oxford Review of Education, 50(5), 641-657. https://doi.org/10.1080/03054985.2023.2268517

BOOKS:

Browder, D. M., Spooner, F., & Courtade, G. R. (2020). Teaching students with moderate and severe disabilities. Guilford Publications.

Hollins-Sims, N. Y., Kaurudar, E. J., & Runge, T. J. (2022). Creating equitable practices in PBIS: Growing a positive school climate for sustainable outcomes. Routledge.

Simonsen, B., & Myers, D. (2025). Classwide positive behavioral interventions and supports: A guide to proactive classroom management (2nd ed). Guilford Press.

The Guilford Practical Intervention in the Schools Series: This series provides resources on effective behavioral and mental health interventions, including guides on classroom management, bullying prevention, and suicide prevention. These resources are designed for everyday use by educators. https://www.guilford.com/browse/education/guilford-practical-intervention-schools-series

PRACTICE GUIDES:

IES Practice Guide: Reducing Behavior Problems in the Elementary School Classroom. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/4

IES Practice Guide: Teacher-Delivered Behavioral Interventions in Grades K-5. https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/WWC/PracticeGuide/31

Meadows 10 Key Policies and Practices for Schoolwide and Classroom-Based Behavior Supports. https://meadowscenter.org/resource/10-key-policies-and-practices-for-schoolwide-and-classroom-based-behavioral-supports-with-strong-evidence-of-effectiveness-from-high-quality-research/

MEDIA AND COURSE MODULES:

The Teaching Behavior Together Podcast provides teachers with strategies to increase their classroom management: https://metacast.app/podcast/the-teaching-behavior-together-podcast/3ERfIhdn

Conscious Discipline. https://consciousdiscipline.com/e-learning/podcasts/podcast-episode007/

National Center on Intensive Intervention in partnership with the CEEDAR Center at the University of Florida. (2013). Course Enhancement Modules: Classroom and Behavior Management: https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/cems/classroom-and-behavior-management/

National Center on Intensive Intervention in Collaboration with UConn and CEEDAR Center has designed a series of courses to support educators implementing intensive learning and behavioral interventions. This video webinar guides users through where to access the course contents and all essential resources: Intensive Intervention Course Content Resources Web Tour | NCII

WEBSITES:

Center on Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports: http:/www.pbis.org

Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports Apps: PBISApps is a not-for-profit organization supporting educators to create more effective, equitable learning environments for all students through high-quality data systems and training: http:/www.pbisapps.org

ReACT Strategies: This site provides a collection of resources from IES-sponsored research into decreasing racial discipline disparities: https://blogs.uoregon.edu/react/strategies/

OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Support (PBIS): https://pbis.org

This website provides (a) descriptions of Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier3 behavior supports in schools, (b) examples of elementary, middle and high schools that have implemented PBIS well, and (c) summary of research examining both the fidelity of PBIS implementation, and the effects of PBIS on student outcomes.

National Center on Intensive Interventions: https://intensiveintervention.org

This website targets Tier 2 and Tier 3 supports with tools and procedures for conducting functional behavioral assessments, designing individualized behavior support plans, and protocols for collecting data to monitor and improve behavior support.

Comprehensive, Integrated, Three-Tiered (Ci3T) Model of Prevention: https://www.ci3t.org

This website focuses on an approach to multi-tiered systems of support that include academic, behavioral, and social/emotional outcomes. Tools and procedures are provided for assessment, fidelity, implementation and improvement.

IRIS Center Behavior Module (IRIS Center – Vanderbilt University) provides evidence-based strategies focused on classroom behavior management and supports. It is designed to help educators create positive, structured learning environments for students with diverse behavioral needs. https://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/module/beh1/

NAMI (National Alliance on Mental Illness): Their Back to School Resources section includes tools for educators, parents, and students to foster mental health and resilience in school environments. Check it out here.

CEEDAR Center. (2014). Handout #7 Examples of Evidence-Based Behavior Interventions. CEEDAR Center Resources. https://ceedar.education.ufl.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/09/Handout-7-Examples-of-Evidence-Based-Behavior-Interventions.pdf?

Writing Quality Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

Assessment for special education eligibility for students with reading and mathematics difficulties, (i.e., SLD) in IDEA-2004 requires information on Present Level of Academic and Functional Performance (PLAFP) to enable IEP goals to be written and progress toward those goals to be reported to parents at least as often as for students without disabilities. Without observable and measurable goals and frequent progress monitoring, interventions that are failing to reduce a student’s Performance Discrepancy may continue longer than necessary.

IEP goals should be measurable, meaningful, and ambitious, but attainable. Each of these characteristics is important.

  1. Measurable IEP goals describe the skill or behavior in clear and observable terms. The conditions under which the skill or behavior is to be performed should be specified. The criteria or level of performance expected should be described and the timeline for achieving the goal should be specified.
  2. Meaningful goals increase the odds of future academic success. They represent growth that results in achieving meaningful outcomes or increasing the likelihood of achieving those outcomes in the future (i.e., reducing the achievement gap).
  3. Ambitious goals represent sufficient progress to close achievement gaps or exceed what is typically expected. Research suggests that goal ambitiousness is more important than attainability. Students achieve at the level expected. Consider what might be possible with a strong intervention that is implemented well.
  4. Attainable means that we consider what other students with similar initial skills have achieved.

Improving the quality of IEP goals and frequent progress monitoring is one of the most solvable problems in special education. Doing so requires a well-sequenced set of skills to be mastered, as well as measures providing data that serve as indicators of intervention effectiveness and skills acquired. Progress monitoring practices must be efficient and criteria for mastery must be defined. The following progress monitoring principles should be considered when developing IEPs:

  1. Progress monitoring occurs monthly for students receiving targeted (secondary) intervention supports.
  2. Progress monitoring occurs weekly for students receiving intensified individualized intervention supports.
  3. Monitor progress two ways: use measures closely linked to the focus of instruction to assess progress on short-term objectives and grade level measures to assess progress on grade level skills.

Progress monitoring should provide instructionally relevant and timely information to inform instruction and result in decisions that enable educators to improve student outcomes.

In addition to goals and progress monitoring, the plan for supporting the student should be described clearly stating what materials will be used, what staff will be involved, the setting, the amount of time and number of days per week. Responsibilities are clearly designated.

ARTICLES AND BOOK CHAPTERS:

Bailey, T. R., & Weingarten, Z. (2019). Strategies for setting high-quality academic Individualized Education Program goals. In. Washington, DC: National Center on Intensive Intervention, Office of Special Education Programs, U.S. Department of Education. https://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED599697.pdf

Goran, L., Harkins Monaco, E. A., Yell, M. L., Shriner, J., & Bateman, D. (2020). Pursuing academic and functional advancement: Goals, services, and measuring progress. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 333-343. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920919924

Hedin, L., & DeSpain, S. (2018). SMART or not? Writing specific, measurable IEP goals. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 51(2), 100-110. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059918802587

Lesh, J. J. (2020). IEP 101: Practical tips for writing and implementing Individual Education Programs. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 278-280. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920917904

Patti, A. L. (2015). Back to the basics: Practical tips for IEP writing. Intervention in School and Clinic, 51(3), 151-156. https://doi.org/10.1177/1053451215585805

Yell, M. L., Bateman, D., & Shriner, J. (2020). Developing and implementing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEPs: Bringing it all together. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 52(5), 344-347. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059920919087

Yell, M. L., Katsiyannis, A., Ennis, R. P., Losinski, M., & Christle, C. A. (2016). Avoiding substantive errors in Individualized Education Program development. TEACHING Exceptional Children, 49(1), 31-40. https://doi.org/10.1177/0040059916662204

BOOKS:

Burton, N. (2017). Creating effective IEPs: A guide to developing, writing, and implementing plans for teachers. SAGE Publications.

Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. The ABCs of CBM: A Practical guide to Curriculum-Based Measurement (2nd ed.). The Guilford Press.

Yell, M. L., Bateman, D. F., & Shriner, J. G. (2021). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEPs. Rowman & Littlefield Publishers.

VIDEOS/PRESENTATIONS/PODCASTS:

Promoting progress: The Role of the Goal. In this webinar, Alex Marken and Dr. Mitch Yell from the PROGRESS Center and Christopher Colosimo from Elkhorn Area School District (WI) provide an overview of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA)’s requirements for measurable annual goals, explain the critical role that goals play in the development of a high-quality IEP, share essential elements for goal writing, and identify tips for developing goals that promote progress for students with disabilities. https://promotingprogress.org/resources/promoting-progress-role-goal

Yell, M. L., & Bateman, D. F. (2025, March 12 – 15). Someone is always watching: Seven keys to crafting & implementing educationally meaningful IEPs [conference session]. Council for Exceptional Children Special Education Convention & Expo, Baltimore, MD, United States. https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/crafting-ieps-bateman-yell.pdf

Yell, M. L., Bateman, D. F., & Shriner, J. G.. (2025, March 12 – 15). Developing educationally meaningful and legally sound IEPs [conference session]. Council for Exceptional Children Special Education Convention & Expo, Baltimore, MD, United States. https://evidenceadvocacycenter.org/wp-content/uploads/legally-sound-ieps-bateman-shriner-yell.pdf

School Psyched! Podcast

WEBSITES:

Download a PDF of the Menu

*Full disclosure: Many members of the Evidence Advocacy Center are authors who receive royalties or are part of organizations that provide fee-based services. The EAC does not recommend instructional materials or fee-for-service organizations. EAC makes available information about evidence-based services and educational products (except instructional materials). Any consulting services or products will be entirely up to the individual EAC members and the EAC does not oversee or regulate the actions, behavior, or activities of the organizations referenced by the EAC or receive any payment from these organizations related to these services or products.

Interested in a custom menu of evidence-aligned resources for your organization?

EAC works closely with state departments of education, districts and schools, educator preparation programs, policy makers, advocacy organizations, and parent and family advocates to create menus that align with their specific goals and initiatives.

Contact Us