The present review builds on earlier research that evaluated the curricular features of core math programs to improve the performances of students with or at risk for mathematics difficulties. In this review, three elementary math programs, at Grades 2 and 4, were evaluated for the presence of eight instructional principles. Math intervention studies have empirically validated these principles for promoting math proficiency of students struggling with mathematics. Data were collected via a researcher-developed scoring rubric. Findings indicate that adherence to the instructional principles varied markedly within and across programs. In addition, the results indicated that the current textbooks contain a general lack of explicit instruction and provide too few practice opportunities to teach material to mastery. Implications for future curricular reviews and enhancing core math instruction are discussed.

This article examines the efficacy of a multitiered systemic reading intervention for increasing the intensity and quality of explicit literacy instruction that teachers provide in first-grade classrooms. Schools (j = 16) were randomly assigned to the treatment or comparison condition. In both conditions, teachers (i = 42) provided 90 min of Tier I reading instruction to first-grade students (n = 883). In the treatment condition, Tier I classroom teachers were trained to enhance their core reading instruction by making instruction more explicit and intensive through standardized protocols and ongoing coaching support. At-risk treatment students (n = 240) also received an additional 30 min of Tier II supplemental reading intervention that was highly aligned with Tier I instruction. The focus of this study is on the Tier I portion of the multitiered intervention and the impact of the Tier I Enhancing Core Reading Instruction intervention on teacher practices. Results indicate positive effects of the Tier I intervention on the quality of explicit instruction and the frequency and accuracy of group practice opportunities provided to students.

Appropriate assignment of accommodations is predicated on a clear distinction between target skills and access skills. In this study, we examine the agreement between test developer/researchers’ and educators’ classification of target and access skills as a possible explanatory mechanism for assigning accommodations. Findings indicate that participants with expertise in mathematics education had the highest agreement when classifying target skills, as evidenced by a higher overall sensitivity value and the greatest number of items with the highest sensitivity value. Conversely, special education faculty members had the highest overall agreement when classifying access skills, as evidenced by a higher overall specificity value. Mathematicians, however, had the highest sensitivity values for the greatest number of items. Implications for accommodation assignment practices are discussed.

No abstract

No abstract