Identifying and implementing evidence-based practices in alternative educational setting

Transition of Youth and Young AdultsResearch-Based Academic and Behavioral Practices in Alternative Education Settings:Best Evidence, Challenges, and RecommendationsJoseph Calvin Gagnon Brian R. Barber

Article information:To cite this document: Joseph Calvin Gagnon Brian R. Barber . "Research-BasedAcademic and Behavioral Practices in Alternative Education Settings: Best Evidence,Challenges, and Recommendations" In Transition of Youth and Young Adults.Published online: 15 Jul 2015; 225-271.Permanent link to this document:http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X20150000028010

Downloaded on: 28 August 2015, At: 05:43 (PT)References: this document contains references to 0 other documents.To copy this document: [email protected] fulltext of this document has been downloaded 17 times since NaN*

Users who downloaded this article also downloaded:Michael P. Krezmien, Jason Travers, Marjorie Valdivia, Candace Mulcahy, MarkZablocki, Hanife E. Ugurlu, Lyndsey Nunes, (2015),"Disparate Disciplinary Confinementof Diverse Students in Juvenile Corrections", Advances in Learning and BehavioralDisabilities, Vol. 28 pp. 273-290

Access to this document was granted through an Emerald subscription provided byToken:BookSeriesAuthor:208BD9C6-0620-4D69-9DCE-E31DF4F0EB46:

For AuthorsIf you would like to write for this, or any other Emerald publication, then pleaseuse our Emerald for Authors service information about how to choose whichpublication to write for and submission guidelines are available for all. Please visitwww.emeraldinsight.com/authors for more information.

About Emerald www.emeraldinsight.comEmerald is a global publisher linking research and practice to the benefit of society.The company manages a portfolio of more than 290 journals and over 2,350 booksand book series volumes, as well as providing an extensive range of online productsand additional customer resources and services.

Emerald is both COUNTER 4 and TRANSFER compliant. The organization is a partnerof the Committee on Publication Ethics (COPE) and also works with Portico and theLOCKSS initiative for digital archive preservation.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X20150000028010

*Related content and download information correct attime of download.

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

CHAPTER 10

RESEARCH-BASED ACADEMIC

AND BEHAVIORAL PRACTICES

IN ALTERNATIVE EDUCATION

SETTINGS: BEST EVIDENCE,

CHALLENGES, AND

RECOMMENDATIONS

Joseph Calvin Gagnon and Brian R. Barber

ABSTRACT

Alternative education settings (AES; i.e., self-contained alternativeschools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools, and juvenilecorrections schools) serve youth with complicated and often serious aca-demic and behavioral needs. The use of evidence-based practices (EBPs)and practices with Best Available Evidence are necessary to increase thelikelihood of long-term success for these youth. In this chapter, we definethree primary categories of AES and review what we know about thecharacteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss the currentemphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard to both aca-demic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interventions

Transition of Youth and Young Adults

Advances in Learning and Behavioral Disabilities, Volume 28, 225�271

Copyright r 2015 by Emerald Group Publishing Limited

All rights of reproduction in any form reserved

ISSN: 0735-004X/doi:10.1108/S0735-004X20150000028010

225

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://dx.doi.org/10.1108/S0735-004X20150000028010

addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementation inAES, where there are often high percentages of youth requiring specialeducation services and who have a significant need for EBPs to succeedacademically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood. Wefocus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifying EBPs;(b) providing a brief review of EBPs and Best Available Evidence in theareas of mathematics, reading, and interventions addressing studentbehavior for youth in AES; (c) delineating key implementation chal-lenges in AES; and (d) providing recommendations for how to facilitatethe use of EBPs in AES.

Terry is often described as a thoughtful and likeable young man with a greatsense of humor. However, he has also had a long history of academic difficul-ties, behavior problems, and need for special education services in school.School records and comments by Terry’s teachers indicate that, when pro-vided with an individualized program of intensive instruction and behavioralsupports, Terry is able to make significant progress in the general educationcurriculum. Unfortunately, at the age of thirteen Terry was arrested andincarcerated for repeated criminal violations including assault, propertydamage, and passing bad checks. Over the next three years, Terry attendedan alternative school administered by a state system of juvenile corrections.Near the end of Terry’s third year of attending this school, a lawsuit wasinitiated on his behalf when it was discovered that, for almost two years, hereceived three or fewer hours of school per day. At times he received noschooling, and at no point during his incarceration did he receive the indivi-dualized and research-based instructional and behavioral interventions thatwere identified in his IEP.

Today more than ever, public schools in the United States are focused onrigorous academic standards, assessment of student achievement, and account-ability for outcomes (see Common Core State Standards [CCSS], 2010;National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of ChiefState School Officers, 2010; No Child Left Behind Act [NCLB], 2002). Toachieve these high academic standards, schools have intensified their efforts toidentify and implement effective, evidence-based educational practices that canproduce substantial and measurable improvements in student learning. In thisclimate of lofty goals and ambitious educational reform, it is perhaps surpris-ing to learn of Terry’s school experiences. However, some students and schools

226 JOSEPH CALVIN GAGNON AND BRIAN R. BARBER

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

have remained almost completely untouched by the school improvementinitiatives that have swept the country. Far from raising the bar on teachingand learning, many restrictive student placements (i.e., self-contained alterna-tive schools, therapeutic day treatment and residential schools (DTR), andjuvenile corrections schools (JC); collectively referred to in this chapter as alter-native education settings) fail to meet even the most basic standards of practicethat might be applied to any K-12 educational program. Concerns exist withregards to the quality of instruction and behavioral supports, as well ascompliance with federal regulations related to special education (Foley &Pang, 2006; Gagnon, 2010; Gagnon & Barber, 2010).

Alternative education settings (AES) typically serve adolescents (i.e.,grades 6�12) and the poor quality of many of these schools is evidentin several areas (Foley & Pang, 2006; Hockenberry, 2013; Lehr, Tan, &Ysseldyke, 2009). Concerns range from the lack of adherence to federalpolicy, to rarely implementing evidence-based instructional and behavioralintervention practices that are critical to the long-term success of troubledyouth. First, it is clear that AES often operate outside of common over-sight mechanisms (Cable, Plucker, & Spradlin, 2009; Gagnon, 2010; Lehret al., 2009). While greater autonomy can provide the conditions for crea-tive programming, it can also lead to violations of students’ rights. Forexample, NCLB (2002) ensures that all youth have access to rigorous curri-cula that are on students’ grade levels. In secondary JCs and DTRs, how-ever, there are rarely state policies governing their curriculum andoversight to ensure that curriculum aligns with state standards and assess-ments (Gagnon, 2010). Additionally, while many AES schools developtheir own curriculum, these professionals do not possess the expertise todo so and the available instructional materials are rarely aligned with stateassessments (Gagnon, Barber, Van Loan, & Leone, 2009; Gagnon,Maccini, Mulcahy, & Mason-Williams, 2014; Gagnon, Van Loan, &Barber, 2010; Maccini, Gagnon, & Mason-Williams, 2012).

Student participation in and accountability for their performance onstate assessments are also problematic. For example, in JCs and DTRs,fewer students participate in state assessments than public school studentsand most principals report no state mechanism for holding their schoolsaccountable (Gagnon, Haydon, & Maccini, 2010; Gagnon, Maccini, &Haydon, 2011). Unfortunately, there is no available research on secondaryalternative schools concerning their alignment of curriculum with statestandards and assessments, availability of appropriate instructional materi-als, and participation in and accountability for student performance onstate assessments.

227Research-Based Practices in AES

Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

The wide-scale problems with provision of education services in AES,and the aforementioned conditions of inadequate oversight, assessment,accountability, and curricula present formidable obstacles to improving thequality of instruction, behavioral supports, and special education servicesin AES. Notwithstanding, it remains critical to promote the identificationand implementation of evidence-based practices (EBPs) in these schools. Inthe remainder of this chapter, we define three categories of AES (i.e., self-contained alternative schools, DTRs, and JCs) and review what we knowabout the characteristics of youth in these schools. Next, we discuss thecurrent emphasis on identifying and implementing EBPs with regard toboth academic interventions (i.e., reading and mathematics) and interven-tions addressing student behavior. In particular, we consider implementa-tion specifically in AES, where there are often high percentages of youthrequiring special education services and who have a significant need for EBPsto succeed academically, behaviorally, and in their transition to adulthood.We will focus our discussion on: (a) examining approaches to identifyingEBPs; (b) providing a brief review of EBPs in the areas of mathematics,reading, and interventions addressing behavior for youth in AES;(c) delineating key implementation challenges in AES; and (d) providingrecommendations for how to facilitate the use of EBPs in AES.

ALTERNATIVE EDUCATIONAL SETTINGS AND

THE STUDENTS THEY SERVE

In our discussion of alternative schooling, it is necessary to make an initialdistinction between AES and alternative schools. For our purposes, we usethe former term as a broad classification of school settings and programsthat operate outside of regular public schools, including self-containedalternative schools, DTRs, and JCs. Alternative schools, by contrast,include “public elementary/secondary school[s] that address needs of stu-dents that typically cannot be met in regular school, provides nontradi-tional education, serve as an adjunct to a regular school, or fall outside thecategories of regular, special education, or vocational education” (U.S.Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 2002,p. 55). While both typologies potentially involve populations and servicesthat are of interest in a discussion of the nontraditional education oftroubled youth, a frequent delineation between more commonly successful


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

“true education alternatives” from those more disciplinary and/or thera-peutic in nature is based on program goals (see Raywid, 1994 for discussionof alternative school typologies). Our review includes self-contained alter-native schools distinguished by their use within the continuum of servicesfor students with or at risk for emotional and behavioral disorders, andschools meeting criteria as therapeutic or corrections-based alternativeschools. In the following sections, we delineate each of the school typesassociated as AES and include relevant characteristics regarding theiroperation and the students served.

Self-Contained Alternative Schools

Self-contained alternative schools are one type of AES that, according toRaywid’s original typology of alternative schools, has a primary focus onreforming or “changing the student” (U.S. Department of Education,National Center for Education Statistics, 2002, p. 5). Gagnon and Bottge(2006) reported that youth are often placed in self-contained alternativeschools due to behavioral problems and/or law violations, emotional con-cerns, academic failure, or as a proactive measure to support at-risk youth.However, recent research provides greater clarity on the reasons for thisspecific student change of placement. Carver and colleagues reported thatabout half of districts surveyed had policies in which youth could be placedin a self-contained alternative school solely for any one of the following:(a) physical altercations; (b) alcohol- or drug-related issues (i.e., possession,distribution, or use); (c) disruptive verbal behavior; (d) persistent academicfailure; (e) recurrent truancy; (f) use of a weapon other than a firearm; and(g) possession or use of a firearm (Carver, Lewis, & Tice, 2010). In fact,many states use self-contained alternative schools to address student misbe-havior. Specifically, 34% of responding states reported specific legislationlinking alternative school enrollment to school expulsion or suspension(Lehr et al., 2009).

There are over 10,000 self-contained alternative schools nationwide, ser-ving about 646,500 students (Carver et al., 2010). The characteristics ofyouth who are enrolled in self-contained alternative schools can varywidely, however, depending on the school’s intended purpose (Chiang &Gill, 2010; Foley & Pang, 2006), and there is limited information concern-ing which students are typically served in self-contained alternative schools.For example, in one study, students were usually from poor families,


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

African American, male, and below-regular public school peers in readingand mathematics achievement (Chiang & Gill, 2010). While older studiesnoted that only about 12% of youth in alternative schools were classifiedwith a special education label (Kleiner, Porch, & Farris, 2002), the mostrecent study indicated that almost half of students in this setting were clas-sified as emotionally/behaviorally disordered, 11% with learning disabilities(LD), and 13% with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder (a subset of thespecial education classification of “Other Health Impaired”). More detailedinformation on student characteristics is unavailable, but Lehr and Lange(2003) interviewed State Directors of Special Education and reported theirperceptions that, “Students attending alternative schools were most oftendescribed as students at risk of dropout, students with behavior problems(ranging from students in need of social skills training (SST) to thosewith severe conduct disorders), and students exhibiting academic trouble(e.g., failing grades, behind academically)” (p. 5).

Day Treatment and Residential Schools

DTRs have also been referred to by a number of different terms (e.g., DTRtreatment center schools, psychiatric facility schools). However, with twocaveats, we align our definition with the National Association forChildren’s Behavioral Health (NACBH) and National Association ofPsychiatric Health Systems (NAPHS) (Abts Associates, Inc., 2008):

Residential treatment is a specific level of care distinguished by the services and setting:

• 24-hour therapeutically planned behavioral health intervention highly supervised and

structured group living and active learning environment where distinct and indivi-

dualized therapies and related services are provided

• multidisciplinary team of clinically licensed professionals (including psychiatrists,

psychologists, social workers, nurses, special education teachers, activity therapists,

and others)

• diagnostic processes which address psychiatric, social and educational needs

• individualized assessment, treatment planning, and aftercare, involving the child and

family. (p. 12)

The first caveat is that we also include day treatment programs, whichare similar to residential programs in types and terms of services, but youthreturn home at the end of each day. Secondly, there is the reference to a“learning environment,” in the aforementioned definition, but for our pur-poses we specifically include programs with an education/school compo-nent. This issue is particularly relevant given that a recent study found that


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

over 10% of “residential treatment centers” do not provide schooling (AbtsAssociates, Inc., 2008).

There are an estimated 878 secondary DTRs in the United States(Gagnon et al., 2010). Within these schools, youth are often diagnosed witha mental disorder as per the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of MentalDisorders: DSM-5 (2013). As Gagnon, Rockwell, and Scott (2008) noted,however, this diagnosis may or may not be accompanied by an educationaldisability classification. Still, secondary-age youth in these settings areabout nine times more likely to be classified with an educational disabilitythan peers in regular public schools, and over 90% of those students areclassified as emotionally disturbed (Gagnon, Van Loan, & Barber).Information on the academic characteristics of secondary youth in DTRs islimited to two national surveys of teachers in this setting. In a national sur-vey of teachers in secondary residential treatment schools, educatorsreported that many of their students had difficulty acquiring even the mostbasic information from text (Wilkerson, Gagnon, Melekoglu, & Cakiroglu,2012). In another national study of secondary DTRs, teachers reportedthat only one-third of students “functioned at or above grade level inmathematics” (Maccini, Gagnon, Mulcahy, & Wright, 2013, p. 56).

Juvenile Correctional Schools

JC’s can serve youth who are detained and/or committed. Gagnon et al.(2008) define these settings: “Juvenile correctional facilities for detainedyouth are often locked facilities that house youth awaiting adjudication(i.e., the process by which a judge may or may not find a youth delinquent)(Sickmund, 2003). Juvenile correctional facilities for committed youth aresecure care settings where youth are confined and educated after adjudica-tion” (p. 3).

Across the United States there are about 300 JC facilities that housecommitted youth or a combination of detained and committed youth; thisexcludes a number of settings that may not be secure or are community-based programs (e.g., wilderness camps, probation, parole). Informationon the academic and behavioral characteristics of incarcerated youth ismuch more comprehensive than either self-contained alternative schools orDTRs. However, much of the research reports data from studies in com-mitment facilities or combined detention and commitment facilities, as it israther difficult to conduct research in detention facilities, where youth maybe housed for as little as 24�72 hours. There are approximately three to


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

four times more youth with disabilities in JCs than in regular public schools(Gagnon et al., 2009; Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005).Incarcerated youth with disabilities are most likely to be classified withemotional disturbance (ED; 46.4%) or LD (38.6%) (Quinn et al.). In areview of the characteristics of incarcerated youth, Gagnon and Barber(2010) also noted that, compared to nonincarcerated peers, these youthare: (a) several years behind in reading and writing, (b) more likely to havedifficulties with basic mathematics skills, (c) more likely to have failed acourse, been retained, and have few academic credits, and (d) less likelyto graduate. Similar to youth in DTRs, educators reported that manyincarcerated youth do not have the reading skills to obtain basic informa-tion from written material (Wilkerson, Gagnon, Mason-Williams, & Lane,2012).

Regarding behavior-related issues, the aforementioned percentage ofincarcerated youth with ED is approximately six times the percentage inregular public schools. In addition to possessing an ED that significantlyaffects their education, more than 50% of incarcerated youth are diagnosedwith Conduct Disorder or Oppositional Defiant Disorder (Teplin, Abram,McClelland, Dulcan, & Mericle, 2002). “Conduct Disorder is characterizedby behavior that violates either the rights of others or major societalnorms” (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 1). The DSM-5 identi-fies key behavioral patterns of youth with Oppositional Defiant Disorder,including an extended period of having an angry or irritable mood, beingargumentative or exhibiting defiant behavior, and vindictiveness. The com-bined academic, behavioral, and mental health needs of incarcerated youth,like those in DTRs and in self-contained alternative schools, are substantia-tion that EBPs are critical to their long-term success.

EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE VERSUS BESTAVAILABLE EVIDENCE

Implementation of evidence-based practice in AES is an important compo-nent of addressing the complicated academic and behavioral needs of youthin these settings. The importance of EBPs is noted in the literature(e.g., Gagnon & Barber, 2014), as well as in federal education and specialeducation regulations (Individuals with Disabilities Education ActRegulation (IDEA), 2006, Sec. 300.704(b)(4)(xi); NCLB, 2002; 20 USC6516, Sec. 1606(a)(1)). The support for EBPs in federal regulations is


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

particularly relevant, given the high percentage of youth with and at-risk fordisabilities in AES. IDEA and NCLB share a common definition of EBPs:

(A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective

procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and

programs; and

(B) includes research that —

(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses

and justify the general conclusions drawn;

(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid

data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observa-

tions, and across studies by the same or different investigators;

(iv) is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs in which indivi-

duals, entities, programs, or activities are assigned to different conditions and with

appropriate controls to evaluate the effects of the condition of interest, with a pre-

ference for random-assignment experiments, or other designs to the extent that

those designs contain within-condition or across-condition controls;

(v) ensures that experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to

allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically

on their findings; and

(vi) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of inde-

pendent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective, and scientific review.

(NCLB, 2002; 20 USC 7801 Sec. 9101(37)(B)(i-vi))

Despite the unequivocal value of implementing EBPs in AES, severalissues make the EBP paradigm difficult when considering instruction foryouth in these settings. Broadly, ongoing conversations about EBPs arenecessary to continually clarify terminology, definitions, review procedures,as well as criteria for the quantity of research needed, indicators ofmethodological quality, and implications of effect magnitude (Cook,Tankersley, & Landrum, 2009). Additionally, continued conversationconcerning the categorizing of EBPs is needed (Cook & Odom, 2013).Currently, the widely acknowledged categories of the What WorksClearinghouse (WWC) include a multitiered rating consisting of positiveeffects, potentially positive effects, no discernible effects, mixed effects,potentially negative effects, and negative effects (WWC, 2014).

As we have noted, a large percentage of youth in AES are classified withED or LD. However, researchers have acknowledged that a paucity ofexperimental research in the field of special education limits the ability toidentify EBPs for specific disability populations (Cook & Odom, 2013).The dearth of research is even more pronounced when we review studiesfocusing on academic interventions for secondary-aged youth with high


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

incidence disabilities (Edmonds et al., 2009; Maccini, Mulcahy, & Wilson,2007; Mooney, Epstein, Reid, & Nelson, 2003; Mulcahy, Krezmien, &Maccini, 2014). Although it may be necessary to do so, there are limitations tothe generalizability of education research on instruction that excludes youthwith ED or LD, or does not disaggregate data by disability type.

Researchers have also voiced concern regarding how little is knownabout taking EBPs to scale, specifically within AES (Lipsey, Howell, Kelly,Chapman, & Carver, 2010). For example, no studies of mathematics inter-ventions have been conducted in JCs (Gagnon & Barber, 2014). At most, ahandful of studies have been conducted in any AES that investigate inter-ventions for reading, mathematics, or that address youth behavior. Assuch, we are left with a rather sparse literature base and many practitionerswho are looking for guidance. Perhaps the best that our field can currentlyoffer are practice recommendations based on the Best Available Evidence.The conundrum is that teachers in AES are faced each day with strugglingstudents and a need for guidance, yet the availability of EBP research is ser-iously limited. Consequently, we must acknowledge a couple of importantpoints. First, “the process of conducting educational research and accumu-lating knowledge from research is tentative and cumulative” (Cook et al.,2009, p. 366). Undoubtedly, there will be occasions where teachers willneed to make difficult instructional and student behavior-related decisionsthat, while practical and intuitively appealing, may ultimately not fit cri-teria as evidence-based. For example, researchers (Forness, 2001; Maag,2006) reported small and inconsistent effects for SST; yet some teachersstill commonly use SST to address student’s social and behavioral needs(Burns & Ysseldyke, 2009). Perhaps those teachers’ approach is consistentwith Cook and colleagues’ view that, in lieu of identified EBPs, we shouldrely on practices that have some evidence, are based on sound theory, andhave compelling evidence that the technique has proven effective for otherstudents who may have some of the same characteristics (Cook,Tankersley, Cook, & Landrum, 2008).

Second, we must acknowledge that no single EBP will work for all stu-dents and that no single EBP, in isolation, will be sufficient to address allyouths’ needs (Cook, Tankersley, & Harjusola-Webb, 2008). Any discus-sion of EBP should make clear that there is no “magic bullet” that willremediate student academic or behavioral difficulties. EBPs, and practicesoffering Best Available Evidence, ideally should be combined to addressstudents’ learning and behavioral problems and promote academic andsocial achievement to the greatest extent possible (Maccini, Strickland,Gagnon, & Malmgren, 2008).


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

In the next sections, we provide a summary report of EBPs and BestAvailable Evidence for teaching mathematics, reading, and addressing thebehavior of secondary youth enrolled in AES. When no relevant informa-tion for an EBP can be found, we recommend that special educators applythe same principles used to identify EBPs (i.e., replication of findings,experimental research design, high-quality studies, large number of repre-sentative participants) to locate and implement practices exhibiting the BestAvailable Evidence (Puddy & Wilkins, 2011). The Council for ExceptionalChildren’s Interdivisional Research Group (2014) also acknowledges anecessary reliance on Best Available Evidence in the absence of EBPs. Inour current approach, we rely on literature reviews, meta-analysis, and theWWC (rather than primary sources) to identify EBPs and practices or pro-grams with Best Available Evidence. Our goal is to provide an overview,rather than a complete review of the research. Moreover, there areinstances where a literature review or meta-analysis did not contribute toour discussion of EBPs or Best Available Evidence and these were omitted(see, e.g., January, Casey, & Paulson, 2011; Mytton, DiGuiseppi, Gough,Taylor, & Logan, 2002). Even with the limitations in evidence, it remainsimportant to consider why there are current difficulties with translation ofwhat we do know or recommend into practice. Thus, in the final part ofthis chapter we turn our attention to implementation issues that plagueAES, and to providing recommendations for facilitating the translation ofresearch into practice.

INTERVENTIONS FOR MATHEMATICS, READING,

AND STUDENT BEHAVIOR IN AES

Available evidence indicates that secondary-age youth in AES often have sig-nificant difficulties with mathematics, reading, and behavior. Mathematicsknowledge and skills are necessary to be competitive in the 21st centuryworkplace and competency in mathematics “correlates powerfully withaccess to college, graduation from college, and earning in the top quartile ofincome from employment” (National Mathematics Advisory Panel, 2008,p. xii). Similarly, in the long-term, youth with better reading skills are morelikely to be employed full time, have stability in their employment, earn ahigh-school diploma, and avoid incarceration (Gagnon & Barber, 2014;Wilkerson, Gagnon, Mason-Williams, et al., 2012). Given the nature ofAES, it is not surprising that student behavior is also a major concern.Effectively addressing youth behavior is necessary to avoid the negative


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

trajectory of these youth that often includes educational failure, arrest, incar-ceration and recidivism, and unemployment (Gagnon & Barber, 2010;Gagnon & Richards, 2008). We now consider what is known about EBPsand Best Available Evidence in these three important areas.

Evidence for Mathematics Interventions

We begin our review of effective mathematics instruction by consideringEBPs for the broad category of secondary students, as opposed to thosestudents with specific disabilities. In a recent meta-analysis of secondarymathematics instruction, Slavin, Lake, and Groff (2009) reported positiveeffects for two cooperative learning strategies: (a) the Student Teams-Achievement Divisions (STAD), which combines cooperative learning withinterdependent reinforcement based on weekly quizzes; and (b) theIMPROVE approach that blends cooperative learning, metacognitive andindividualized instruction, and mastery learning. Outcomes for disadvan-taged and nondisadvantaged youth did not differ significantly in themeta-analysis as a whole, but there was no evaluation of results for strug-gling students or students with disabilities. Two other results from themeta-analysis were also particularly interesting. First, Slavin et al. foundinsignificant effects for curriculum/textbooks. This finding is somewhatinconsistent with information noted by the WWC, in that the I CAN LearnPre-Algebra and Algebra curriculum did show medium to large effects formathematics achievement (WWC, 2009). However, no other curriculumshowed similar effects. The limitations in the number of studies, number ofstudies that used group design, and predominant emphasis on basic mathe-matic skills (in contrast to problem solving or higher order mathematicsskills), makes any assertion that there are EBPs tentative.

Next, we look more closely at research on mathematics instructionspecifically for youth with ED and LD, groups that are known to beoverrepresented in AES. In a meta-analysis of mathematics interventionsfor students with ED covering 1976�2006, researchers reported just foursingle-subject studies at the secondary level (Templeton, Neel, & Blood,2008). In another literature review (1985�2005), Hodge and colleaguesreported six studies, which included middle or high schools students withED (Hodge, Riccomini, Buford, & Herbst, 2006); three additional studieshave been conducted since 2008 (Mulcahy et al., 2014). Again, it is difficultto contend that any practice is an EBP.

Mathematics research on secondary students with LD is fraught withsimilar problems, although somewhat more research is available. In a


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

review of research that spanned 1988�1995, Maccini and Hughes (1997)identified 20 secondary mathematics interventions for youth classified asLD. In a follow-up review, 23 additional studies were conducted between1995 and 2006 (Maccini et al., 2007). Results should be interpreted cau-tiously, as the number of studies and number of participants within the stu-dies make it difficult to assert that the interventions meet the standard ofEBP. Nonetheless, in keeping with the view that teachers need instructionalapproaches with the Best Available Evidence, we can recommend graduatedinstructional approaches (i.e., progressive instruction from concrete torepresentational to abstract) and contextualized video instruction (althoughthe specific use of videodiscs is an outdated technology and can bereplaced). Other instructional approaches resulted in significant effects, butin these cases only a single study was conducted. Still, the following arealso recommended consistently by experts in the field and are tentativelyrecommended for instructing secondary youth with LD: (a) (mnemonic)strategy instruction; (b) schema-based instruction; (c) peer-mediated instruc-tion; (d) explicit instruction; and (e) instructional adaptations (e.g., separatingconfusing concepts or terms, incorporating structured worksheets and cuecards, use of examples and nonexamples, graphing student progress;Gagnon & Maccini, 2007; Maccini & Gagnon, 2002, 2006, 2012).

The amount of mathematics research conducted specifically in AES israther disconcerting. Over a 40-year time span, only four studies have beenconducted which focused on secondary mathematics interventions in thera-peutic DTRs (Mulcahy & Krezmien, 2014). No such studies were con-ducted in JC and no known studies were conducted in alternative schools(Gagnon & Barber, 2014). However, it is unclear if a study of incarceratedyouth by Salend and Washin (1988) met the criterion of secure care. Giventhe nonexistence of research conducted in AES, researchers have relied pre-dominantly on research with secondary students with LD to make recom-mendations specific to AES mathematics instruction (Gagnon & Barber,2014; Gagnon & Bottge, 2006; Maccini, Gagnon, Cutting, & Leone, 2006;Maccini et al., 2008, 2013).

Evidence for Reading Interventions

A discussion of evidence-based reading interventions for adolescents mustbegin with the observation that the WWC identifies no reading interventionas an EBP having positive effects. Although we do not focus on those inter-ventions identified as potentially positive by the WWC, the following are


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

worthy of mention as they were identified as potentially positive and alsomet the level of available evidence that is considered medium to large: Read180, Cooperative Integrated Reading and Composition, Project CRISS,SuccessMaker, Fast ForWord, and student team reading and writing. Noneof these interventions were recognized as potentially positive specifically forsecondary students with LD or ED.

Our review of Best Available Evidence, then, is based on several reviewsand meta-analyses (Berkely, Scruggs, & Mastropieri, 2010; Burke, Boon,Hatton, & Bowman-Perrott, 2014; Edmonds et al., 2009; Gagnon & Barber,2014; Gaijiria, Jitendra, Sood, & Sacks, 2007; Garwood, Brunsting, & Fox,2014; Kim, Vaughn, Wanzek, & Wei, 2004; Ryan, Reid, & Epstein, 2004;Scammacca et al., 2007; Slavin Cheung, Groff, & Lake, 2008; Swanson,1999). The variability of evidence within and across the resources makes itdifficult to definitively assert that any of the interventions are evidence-based. Given what is known, however, several approaches could be consid-ered as Best Available Evidence.

In a literature review covering 33 secondary reading studies from 1970through 2008, Slavin and colleagues noted generally positive effects forinterventions that included cooperative learning interdependent with rein-forcement based on mastery of reading skills (Slavin et al., 2008). Theresearchers also reported positive effects for strategy instruction and inter-ventions that combine large and small grouping, computer-assisted instruc-tion, and comprehensive professional development (PD). Key findingsshould be tempered by the fact that few studies existed for any givenintervention.

There are a number of literature reviews and meta-analyses concerningyouth with LD and in contrast, a dearth of information on youth with ED.Six reviews for youth with LD included a focus on interventions thataddressed student comprehension. However, many of the reviews and ana-lyses included elementary and secondary students and data were not alwaysdisaggregated for secondary youth. For example, the seminal review bySwanson (1999) identified the positive effects of strategy instruction and directinstruction on the reading comprehension of youth with LD, but data werenot disaggregated by grade. Similarly, Edmonds et al. (2009) conducted areview of research on secondary students with reading difficulties for the years1994�2004. A total of 29 studies were included. Sixteen studies included stu-dents with LD (vs. “reading difficulties”) and one study also included youthwith ED; no information was provided on study settings. A meta-analysiswas conducted on the 13 studies that focused on reading comprehension, andresearchers noted positive effects on reading comprehension when students


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

were taught reading comprehension practices including, “modeling andthinking aloud how to self-question and reflect during and after readingand engaging students to become actively involved in monitoring theirunderstanding and processing text” (Edmonds et al., p. 293). Results wereeven more pronounced for youth classified with LD.

In the first of the other four reviews concentrating on students with LD,Berkely et al. (2010) identified 40 studies (1995�2006) that focused on read-ing comprehension for students with LD. Of these, 24 were conducted atthe secondary level (i.e., 18 middle school, 6 high school). The researchersnoted the effectiveness of a variety of comprehension strategies, includingvarious methods of promoting student attention and thinking systemati-cally about text. Structured cognitive strategies were also noted as effective.Gaijiria et al. (2007) reviewed 29 studies (1978�2005), with 76% of studiesconducted at the secondary level. Salient results include support for: (a)text enhancements; (b) systematic instruction in cognitive strategies; and (c)direct instruction and reciprocal teaching to teach reading strategies to stu-dents. The large effects, specifically for middle- and high-school students,are noteworthy. Kim et al. (2004) conducted a review of the effects of gra-phic organizers on reading comprehension for students classified as LD.However, progress of students commonly fell below the 80% level (often con-sidered the minimum for “mastery”) and student gains did not transfer. Assuch, the data indicate the need for caution when considering the efficacy ofgraphic organizers on student comprehension. In the fourth review of interest,Scammacca et al. (2007) conducted a meta-analysis on 31 group designstudies of secondary youth with LD (grades 4�12) between 1980 and 2006.Due to the importance of comprehension, the researchers also conducted aseparate meta-analysis on 23 studies that included a reading comprehensionoutcome. One significant finding was that “teaching comprehension strategiesto older students with reading difficulties is associated with an overall effectequivalent to a gain of about one standard deviation” (Scammacca et al.,2007, p. 12). Also, students benefitted from direct approaches to teachingvocabulary, although the effect on comprehension remains unclear.

Concerning youth with ED, two reviews of research are applicable.Burke et al. (2014) recently identified 11 single-case research studies in theirreview. As with reviews focusing on students with ED in mathematics, con-clusions are tentative, given the small number of studies and the variedfocus of interventions. Two studies showed improved outcomes for a modi-fied version of direct instruction and single studies indicated positive effectsfor repeated readings and student-generated graphic organizers. However,in contrast to the Burke et al. review, the WWC (2014) identified repeated


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

readings as having only potentially positive effects for reading comprehen-sion for students with LD and no assertions are made for studentswith ED.

A third review focusing on youth with ED examined studies publishedbetween 2004 and 2012 and targeted reading comprehension or fluency out-comes for secondary students with ED in nongeneral education classroomsettings (Garwood et al., 2014). Conclusions from the review of nine studiesare difficult due to the number and quality of the studies. Additional con-cerns exist that studies conducted in JCs were within the review parameters,but were omitted.

From a setting-specific, rather than disability perspective, our examina-tion of literature reviews and meta-analyses did not uncover any secondaryreading intervention within alternative schools, with only one single-subjectdesign study in a therapeutic day treatment school (see Berkely et al., 2010)and eight studies conducted in JC schools (see Gagnon & Barber, 2014). Ina recent article, Gagnon and Barber (2014) summarized the outcomes ofthe eight reading studies conducted in JC schools. Overall, in JC schoolsthere was a primary emphasis on use of Corrective Reading. Generally,there were some gains from using a direct instruction approach on studentreading rate, fluency, and accuracy of oral reading, with limited evidenceof improvement in comprehension. However, methodological limitationsand the limited number of studies make it impossible to even makeBest Available Evidence assertions concerning setting-specific readinginstruction.

The ultimate goal of reading instruction at the secondary level is com-prehension or “gaining meaning from text” (Edmonds et al., 2009,p. 263). As such, it is encouraging that interventions do have a positiveeffect on reading comprehension of adolescents, and most notably, foryouth with LD. However, as we have discussed, the serious limitations ofthe research base prohibit specific conclusions or recommendations foryouth within AES.

Evidence for Interventions Addressing Student Behavior

Interventions that address secondary youth behavior are a rather broadcategory in which a number of outcomes are measured including recidi-vism, externalizing behaviors, aggression, violence, disruption, and bully-ing. When first considering the general education research, we look to arecent meta-analysis by Wilson and Lipsey (2007) in which the researchers


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

analyzed interventions focused on reducing student aggression anddisruptive behaviors. The researchers reviewed 249 experimental and quasi-experimental studies conducted in a variety of school settings that includedmiddle and high-school students. However, data on middle and high schoolstudents were not disaggregated. The researchers reported that the mosteffective approaches to reducing aggression and disruption were universalprograms (i.e., all the students in a classroom or school participate inan intervention) and selected/indicated programs (i.e., interventions forindividual youth at-risk or with problem behaviors). However, as manyprograms used cognitive interventions, it is difficult to identify the extent towhich positive effects were the result of the format or treatment modality(Wilson & Lipsey), and the researchers noted generally similar resultsacross treatment modalities (e.g., behavioral, cognitive, social skills).

The results obtained by Wilson and Lipsey (2007) are consistent withother sources of information. For example, Hahn et al. (2007) also focusedon universal interventions to identify the effects on student violence andaggression in reviewed studies published before December of 2004. Of the53 studies reviewed, 30 included middle-school students and four includedhigh-school students. Again, information was not reported or disaggre-gated for youth with disabilities, and similar to Wilson and Lipsey, Hahnand colleagues did not disaggregate results according to AES so it is notpossible to make specific conclusions based on school setting. Hahn et al.noted, however, that, “All school program intervention strategies (e.g.,informational, cognitive/affective, and social skills building) were asso-ciated with a reduction in violent behavior” (p. 122).

Another universal intervention for youth behavior is school-wide posi-tive behavior support (SWPBS) and a recent meta-analysis evaluated itseffectiveness (Solomon, Klein, Hintze, Cressey, & Peller, 2012). Howeveronly 6 of the 20 studies reviewed were conducted at the middle- or high-school level, and no information was provided on effects for youth withED or LD. Results indicate generally moderate effects, and thus there isguarded optimism toward the use of SWPBS at the secondary level.

Additionally, Vreeman and Carroll (2007) reviewed research (1966�2004) on school-based interventions designed to prevent bullying. Twenty-six studies were included and the researchers categorized them into thefollowing categories: 10 for curriculum, 10 for school-wide interventions,4 for SST, and 1 study each for mentoring and social work support.Sixteen studies included secondary students, but no results were reportedfor youth with disabilities. The important conclusion was that reductions inbullying were reported for seven of ten school-wide interventions, whereas


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

only four of ten curriculum-based interventions resulted in reducedbullying.

Durlak and colleagues also completed a meta-analysis of 213 school-based universal interventions (prior to 2008) designed to enhance studentsocial and emotional learning (SEL; Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki,Taylor, & Schellinger, 2011). The researchers defined SEL as “the processof acquiring core competencies to recognize and manage emotions, set andachieve positive goals, appreciate the perspectives of others, establish andmaintain positive relationships, make responsible decisions, and handleinterpersonal situations constructively” (Durlack et al., 2011, p. 406).Ninety-three of the studies focused on middle- or high-school students. Nosignificant differences in effects were noted based on student age. There isno mention, however, of students with disabilities. Positive effects of SELwere noted concerning academic achievement social and emotional skills,student attitudes, behavior, and academic achievement (Durlak et al., 2011).

With regard to class-wide interventions, Little, Akin-Little, and O’Neill(2014) conducted a meta-analysis on group contingency interventions span-ning 1980�2010. The researchers identified 50 studies, of which 10 studiesfocused on secondary students (and one with incarcerated youth with intel-lectual disabilities). While the authors concluded that (primarily interde-pendent) group contingency interventions were effective for addressingyouth behavior and promoting academic achievement, our conclusions aremuch more tentative in light of the few studies that addressed secondary youthand the lack of discussion specifically focused on students with disabilities.

The data on interventions for student behavior that are specific to sec-ondary youth with ED or LD, or to AES is less robust. One interventionwas noted by WWC for effectiveness with youth with ED. The CopingPower cognitive-behavioral intervention (CBI) positively affected earlymiddle school (i.e., fifth grade) student behavior (WWC, 2011). In a recentmeta-analysis of effective interventions (1958�2002) for juvenile offenders,Lipsey (2009) noted the largest mean effect sizes for the CBI. Lipsey doesrefer to the intervention as cognitive behavior therapy, however, and ques-tions remain concerning how many interventions were school-based andconducted by educators. In a review (1990�2003) of 16 studies focusing onCBI for secondary youth with disabilities, Cobb, Sample, Alwell, andJohns (2005) also reported the efficacy of CBI for secondary youth withdisabilities in terms of reducing youth dropping out of school. Two studieswere conducted in therapeutic residential schools and one study in a JCschool. Researchers concluded that CBI effectively reduces dropping outacross disability and for both younger and older adolescents. However, due


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

to some methodological limitations and the number of studies, cautionshould be exercised when considering the effects on youth with specificdisabilities and ages. Lastly, Pearson, Lipton, Cleland, and Yee (2002)made tentative conclusions from their review. The researchers reviewed69 studies from 1968 to 1996 and focused on the effectiveness of behavioraland cognitive-behavioral interventions for 548 study samples. Results weresomewhat limited, however, as the study selection and analysis was muchbroader than is pertinent to our current discussion (i.e., Pearson and collea-gues included several program types, including prisons, jails, probation,and parole). Also, youth and adults were included and no results weredisaggregated for youth or by type of program. The important result toconsider is that CBI was effective in reducing recidivism, but positiveeffects for behavioral programs could not be confirmed.

IMPLEMENTATION CHALLENGES IN ALTERNATIVE

EDUCATION SETTINGS

Identification of effective instructional practices in AES, or those used incontexts with similar restrictions or with similar student populations canprovide an initial understanding of the status of core academic and beha-vioral interventions, and shed light on the gap between recommendationsand practices, as well as potential PD needs (Cook et al., 2008). A difficultyin the adoption and use of EBPs, however, has been the imbalance betweendetermining which programs or interventions have strong research support,and how practitioners should consider this information with other con-straints outside the scope of evidence-based practice (Spencer, Detrich, &Slocum, 2012). That is, decision-making processes in which empiricalevidence is reviewed should also account for the various factors affectingthe implementation of selected practices (see Fixsen, Blase, Horner, &Sugai, 2009; Odom, 2009). For example, Durlak and DuPre (2008) notedfive domains that affect the ability of schools and other service agencies tosuccessfully enact EBPs: (a) community-level factors such as politicalclimate, funding, and policy; (b) provider characteristics; (c) nature of theintervention; (d) organizational capacity; and (e) training and technicalassistance (TA). These factors also impact the diffusion and implementationof effective interventions in AES. In this section, we highlight some importantways in which factors in these domains are related to characteristics of AES,


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

and influence the implementation of instructional and behavioral practices inthese settings.

Community-Level Factors

Teachers’ implementation of EBPs does not occur within a vacuum, butrather is affected by broader contextual factors that may support or inhibittheir efforts. School reforms and initiatives that occur within a shiftinglandscape of sociopolitical priorities and policies at the district, state, andfederal levels (e.g., Safe and Drug Free Schools Act, No Child Left BehindAct) play a role in the selection, adoption, and implementation of academicand behavioral practices (Coburn, 2003). Additionally, local policies andpriorities define the conditions under which AES schools are governedthrough the assignment of principals, allocation of resources, and the typesof in-service training provided to teachers, as well as the translation of dis-trict policies into curricula selection, reform initiatives, and accountabilitymechanisms.

As discussed earlier in this chapter, despite “top down” influences vialegislated reform efforts and initiatives, it is often the case that state andlocal education authorities provide little actual guidance for quality programcomponents in AES (Gagnon, 2010; Gregg, 1998). Moreover, the lack offederal and local coordination and oversight of AES by any single agency,whose primary responsibility is to oversee schools responsible for alternativeeducation, contributes to a situation in which legislated protections affordedto students with and without disabilities are frequently misunderstood andmisapplied (Leone & Meisel, 1997; Martin & Brand, 2006). In separatealternative schools, for example, only 40% of schools and programs for at-risk students are administered by the State Education Agency (SEA) orLocal Education Agency (LEA), with a majority governed by regionalcooperatives, contracted private entities, or partner postsecondary institu-tions (Carver et al., 2010). In JCs, LEAs are commonly cited as the agencyresponsible for delivery of educational services, although administrativestructures are often fractionated across juvenile justice agencies, state educa-tion agencies (SEAs), special juvenile justice school districts, correctionaleducation agencies, and combined juvenile justice and adult correctionsagencies (Wolford, 2000). The variation in governance structure results inconfusion regarding organizational purpose and program implementationstrategies (Lehr, 2004; Leone & Drakeford, 1999). Lehr, Lanners, andLange (2003) found for instance, that 28 states had policies requiring that


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

students in alternative programs complete state graduation requirements,12 states had policies indicating that social services must or should beprovided to students in alternative programs, 10 states had policies requiringwork or service-learning in alternative programs, and 9 states required anindividualized plan for students in alternative programs.

Funding sources for programs in AES are also highly variable (Aron,2006). A review of state-level legislation on alternative education (Lehret al., 2003) identified 32 states as having some policy or legal languageaddressing alternative education funding, ranging from very general lan-guage to detailed funding plans. As the National Governor’s AssociationCenter for Best Practices observed in 2001: “Most alternative educationprograms’ budgets are based on a variety of unreliable funding sources,such as grants, charitable contributions, and fees for service. Somealternative education programs may also receive state and local educationfunds � although these funds are often less than the per-pupil funding thattraditional schools receive” (p. 6�7). Similarly, in JC schools, multiplesources of funds are utilized to support the delivery of educational servicesto youth. Wolford (2000) reported considerable variation across states inthe amount of funds allocated to serve students in JC, and further notedthat, for 30% of surveyed states, the per-pupil cost of educating incarcer-ated youth was unknown.

A lack of administrative coordination also leads to: (a) isolation ofAES from education reform practices and public schools, (b) inadequatetransition and aftercare services, and (c) lack of collaboration (Leone &Drakeford, 1999). As an example, poor coordination of schools andgoverning agencies commonly results in delay or refusal to transfer aca-demic records, and consequently, “students remain out of school forextended periods of time or may even be placed in inappropriate pro-grams that fail to meet their academic needs, and can prevent youthfrom receiving credit they received” (Gary, 2014, p. 242). Moreover, asnoted earlier, fewer students in AES participate in state assessmentsthan public school students and most principals reported no statemechanism for holding their school accountable (Gagnon et al., 2010,2011). Without coordinated oversight, financial commitment, andaccountability to ensure and track student progress, educational servicesin AES may not be prioritized and can lack the necessary rigorto address students’ needs. These systemic and cross-system problemscan greatly inhibit programmatic support for and teacher ability toeffectively implement EBP.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Provider Characteristics

Even under ideal conditions, with district and school support and guidancefor implementing EBPs, there remains substantial variability in terms ofimplementation quality and quantity of research-based programs deliveredat the classroom level (Domitrovich et al., 2008). This variability is due, inpart, to the attitudes of instructional staff toward innovation or change, aswell as their self-efficacy and skill proficiency with a given education prac-tice. Because attitudes toward innovation can be a precursor to the decisionof whether or not to try a new practice, a major barrier to adoption andimplementation of EBPs is the mistrust teachers have of educationalresearch (Boardman, Arguelles, Vaughn, Hughes, & Klingner, 2005;Nelson, Leffler, & Hansen, 2009). A meta-analysis of 29 studies thatincluded over 4,000 practitioners found belief appraisals related to theintent to use and adoption of different kinds of EBPs in early childhood(Trivette, Dunst, Hamby, & Meter, 2013). In AES schools, educators mayalso mistrust educational research that has not been tested with the typesof students they teach and in the setting in which they work. This mistrustcan manifest as unwillingness to engage in practices (Cook et al., 2008).Moreover, teacher and administrator mistrust also affects their willingnessto collaboratively engage with researchers. This wariness often results inrestrictions for researchers with regard to data collection or even refusal ofentry into a facility and access to teachers and students. As such, validatingpractices for the AES setting is extremely difficult and little research is com-pleted in these settings (Blake, 2004; Drakeford, 2002; Mulcahy, Krezmien,Leone, Houchins, & Baltodano, 2008).

Teachers’ beliefs about their teaching efficacy also strongly influencetheir initial interest in implementing EBP (Berman, McLaughlin, Bass,Pauly, & Zellman, 1977; Guskey, 1988; Protheroe, 2008; Stein & Wang,1988). Teachers’ sense of efficacy, or their self-judgment of their capabilityto affect student performance has been associated with their instructionalbehavior (Allinder, 1994), persistence in a teaching situation (Gibson &Dembo, 1984), enthusiasm (Allinder, 1994; Guskey, 1988), and commit-ment to teaching (Coladarci, 1992). Moreover, teachers with a strong senseof efficacy appear more open to new ideas and willing to experiment withnew methods (Berman et al., 1977; Guskey, 1988; Jackson, 2002; Stein &Wang, 1988). For example, in a seminal study of federally funded programsintroducing innovative practices in schools, teachers’ efficacy beliefs werepositively associated with the percentage of project goals achieved, theamount of teacher change, and the sustained use of project materials and


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

methods (Berman et al., 1977). Conversely, researchers have shown thatteachers with low self-efficacy continue to rely on ineffective practices andare prone to refer students to special education when outcome expectationsfor practices are not met (Goodman & Webb, 2006; Podell & Soodak,1993). Given these empirical links, it is important to recognize the role ofteachers’ self-efficacy when requesting that they invest effort in programimplementation, and understand that positive perceptions of efficacy aremore likely to lead to successful experiences with the implementation ofEBPs.

Intervention Characteristics

Success in implementation of EBPs is predicated on perceptions that usingempirically validated practices in schools is a wise investment of time andresources (Weissberg, Kumpfer, & Seligman, 2003). Teacher’s judgments ofthe importance of an education practice and the intended outcomes or ben-efits (e.g., “This is a practice I should be using with the students withwhom I work”), as well as acceptability of the practice and outcomes(e.g., “This practice would be worth my time and effort”) play a majorrole in establishing social validity for, and consequently the use of EBPs(Foster & Mash, 1999). In education settings including AES, program- orpractice-specific variables seem to affect teachers’ judgments of importanceand acceptability, including: (a) the severity of the student target problembeing addressed; (b) the type of intervention; and (c) the amount of timerequired to implement the intervention procedures (Han & Weiss, 2005).

As previously mentioned, a large proportion of students in AES demon-strate high-intensity academic and behavioral needs requiring specialeducation services. Additionally, despite histories of school failure andcharacteristics that might be associated with disabling conditions, manyyouth in AES remain unidentified or have never been referred for a specialeducation evaluation (Carver et al., 2010; Foley & Pang, 2006; Leone,Meisel, & Drakeford, 2002). The high concentration of students requiringmore intensive instruction and supports has consequences for how and howwell educators should expect instructional practices to function in AES,particularly when resources for staff, training, instructional materials,implementation supports are limited. As Scott and Cooper (2013) noted,effective interventions in AES “share common features with tier III inter-ventions in all other [educational] settings, albeit with necessarily moreintensity” (p. 104). That is, the severity of student academic and behavioral


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

difficulties encountered in AES should be met with appropriately intensiveintervention strategies and supports. The issue of delivering high-intensityinstructional and behavioral supports to a majority of students in AESentails related considerations regarding group size, time for intervention,frequency of instructional sessions, and proportion and nature of interven-tion foci. Thus, addressing high concentrations of high-intensity needsmay require first addressing issues of staffing and resource allocation,and PD.

In addition to considerations regarding intervention intensity, the effec-tiveness of education practices in AES may also be diminished or under-mined by the aggregation of high-risk youth, such as when practicesinvolve academic tracking, retention, and relegation to restrictive settings.Grouping students in classrooms containing high numbers of students withpoor academic skills and/or behavior problems can effectively establish apeer contagion, in which the problematic learning and behavioral patternsof students in a classroom promote these attributes among individual stu-dents and potentiate iatrogenic intervention effects (Dishion, McCord, &Poulin, 1999; Reid, Patterson, & Snyder, 2002). For example, in a study byBarth, Dunlap, Dane, Lochman, and Wells (2004), classrooms containinglarger numbers of students with academic and behavioral problems resultedin higher levels of aggression, lower quality peer interactions, and decreasedacademic focus over a two-year period. Similarly, lower social competenceratings and negative effects on peer preference have been observed for stu-dents placed in classrooms accepting of student’s aggressive acts (Aber,Jones, Brown, Chaudry, & Samples, 1998; Stormshak et al., 1999).

Peer contagion effects are of particular concern in AES, where students’social and behavioral difficulties may be met with increased social reinforce-ment of delinquent acts. As compared to students in traditional schools,researchers have noted potentially negative effects on delinquent behaviorover time for students in AES (Cox, 1999; Reinke & Walker, 2006). Althoughunderstudies, some researchers have even hypothesized that youth educatedin JCs may learn criminal behavior from other delinquent juveniles, and thattheir schooling in these settings may perpetuate their delinquent behavior(Budeiri, 1999; Myner, Santman, Cappelletty, & Perlmutter, 1998).

Educators in AES are also concerned with the amount of time requiredto implement EBPs (e.g., Houchins, Puckett-Patterson, Crosby, Shippen, &Jolivette, 2009). A common issue in AES, and specifically within interimalternative settings, is that students experience a disrupted education punc-tuated by movement between schools (Booker & Mitchell, 2011;Rumberger, Larson, Ream, & Palardy, 1999). Researchers have found that


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

the characteristics of students who change schools tend to differ from thosewho do not, and that student mobility can have a negative effect on studentlearning (Herbers, Reynolds, & Chen, 2013; Raudenbush, Marshall, & Art,2011), as well as increase the likelihood of misbehavior, delinquency, andschool dropout (Gasper, DeLuca, & Estacion, 2010). Moreover, highlymobile students are roughly twice as likely to have reported delays ingrowth or development, to have a learning disorder, to have repeated agrade, or to have recurring behavioral problems (Gasper et al., 2010;Rumberger & Larson, 1998).

For students in AES, mobility issues are particularly salient, as theseschools often operate with a prescribed length of stay commensurate with atreatment program or confinement period. Indeed, AES students’ length ofstay is highly variable, from as little as 24 hours in interim settings to anaverage of 9 months to a year in JCs (Gagnon et al., 2009). As a result, tea-chers in AES encounter difficulty in matching needed services to individualstudents in a timely fashion, and in achieving sufficient treatment dosagewithin the parameters of a students’ stay (Houchins et al., 2009).Unfortunately, literature addressing the relationship between length oftreatment, common adaptations in AES, and youth education outcomes israre. This is likely because issues with length of treatment, and disruptionsto instructional practices due to student mobility contribute to poor esti-mates of treatment effectiveness (Bloom, 2005).

Organizational Capacity

Organizational contexts for educational services in AES vary in regard tothe quality of leadership and supervision, organizational norms and expec-tations, organizational climate, and climate for implementation (Aarons,Hurlburt, & Horwitz, 2011), each of which can affect implementation ofEBPs. Knowledgeable and supportive school leadership can be instrumen-tal in making EBPs a priority within an AES school, as reflected in thetime, resources, incentives, and training allocated for the program, as wellas the expectation of accountability. In the dissemination of empiricallyvalidated programs, both principal support and a high degree of teacherimplementation quality appear to be necessary to produce intervention effects(Kam, Greenberg, & Walls, 2003). When principals are made aware of theimportance of their support for implementation, and the need to encourageand monitor implementation, teachers’ implementation quality has beenfound to correspondingly increase (Rohrbach, Graham, & Hansen, 1993).


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Thus, principal support, whether measured in instrumental support orthrough affective stance, is an important factor in teachers’ implementationof EBPs.

Studies have also linked positive school climate with student achieve-ment and behavioral adjustment (Bryk & Schneider, 2002). School cli-mate is reflected by the staff’s perceptions of their relationships or of theworkplace environment, as well as by characteristics of the student body(Hoagwood & Johnson, 2003; Owens, 2004). Staff reports of schools’overall organizational health have been linked with greater efficacy,commitment, and job satisfaction, as well as with positive outcomes forstudents (Hoy, Hannum, & Tschannen-Moran, 1998). Constructs such asopenness in communication, orientation to change (Kallestad & Olweus,2003), and an open and supportive environment (Parcel et al., 2003) havebeen positively related to measures of implementation quality. In con-trast, poor staff morale, a sense of resignation, and a history of failedintervention attempts have been associated with difficulty in imple-menting and sustaining innovations (Gottfredson & Gottfredson, 2002).Although the organizational context of schools is considered highly rele-vant, little is known about the underlying mechanisms linking climate orhealth to AES schools’ successful implementation of EBPs. AES schoolsthat are organizationally healthy and provide a positive, supportive, andsafe environment for staff may contribute to staff members’ efficacy andwillingness to commit to interventions (Bradshaw, Koth, Bevans,Ialongo, & Leaf, 2008). Similarly, the staff’s collective self-efficacy, orthe perception that the faculty’s efforts as a whole has been positivelyassociated with student achievement (Goddard & Goddard, 2001) andmay play an important role in AES schools’ responses to the call forimplementing EBPs.

Training and Technical Assistance

The importance of high-quality training and PD to ensure initial profi-ciency and continued fidelity of implementation of EBPs is well recognized.PD and TA are vital to maintain teacher enthusiasm and commitment, pro-vide assistance with additional skill development, and promote on-site pro-blem solving (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). For teachers in AES, who arecommonly tasked with adapting instructional practices based on studentacademic and behavioral characteristics (Houchins et al., 2009; Spragueet al., 2013), the availability of high-quality PD and TA may play a major


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

role in the extent to which they are able to implement EBPs with fidelity(Dane & Schneider, 1998; Rohrbach et al., 1993).

Despite the importance of providing high-quality training, several barriersexist related to its provision within AES. For example, there are common dif-ficulties with financial resources that could affect the quality, frequency, andduration of training, as well as obtaining necessary training-related academicmaterials for teachers and students (Gagnon & Mayer, 2004). Additionally,there may be insufficient time allocated for PD (Rozalski & Engel, 2005). Thelack of resources may also affect the ability of an AES school to procure andschedule needed TA support (Lehr et al., 2009). A lack of support at the pro-gram, local education agency (LEA), and state levels is another major barrierto developing, implementing, and sustaining PD activities and subsequentimplementation plans. There is some evidence that teachers in alternativeschools felt relatively positive toward the support from their principals(Quinn & Poirier, 2006). However, across AES settings, teachers remain rela-tively isolated and reported little oversight, particularly by the LEA and StateEducation Agency (SEA) (Gagnon, 2010).

The development of a shared vision is necessary to appropriately targetand implement PD and TA (Durlak & DuPre, 2008). However, thedevelopment of this vision is negatively impacted by a lack of a sharedbackground and philosophy across disciplines, lack of cross-discipline PD,and frequent teacher and staff turnover. While researchers (Gagnon,Houchins, & Murphy, 2012) have acknowledged the importance of cross-discipline PD, this approach remains essentially unrealized within AES(Houchins, Shippen, & Murphy, 2012). Difficulties associated with cross-discipline PD and collaboration are most evident in JCs. For example, inJCs, teachers commonly hold a university degree, while most correctionalofficers possess only a high-school diploma (Stinchcomb, 2002). Moreover,noneducation staff rarely have training concerning youth disabilities andstrategies for working with them (Kvarfordt, Purcell, & Shannon, 2005).The lack of training and support provided to noneducational staff is parti-cularly relevant given the high percentage of incarcerated youth withdisabilities (Quinn et al., 2005). The differences in education and trainingare coupled with major philosophical differences wherein correctionalofficers typically respond to student misbehavior in a punitive manner thatexcludes youth from the learning environment (Barton & Butts, 2008;Nelson, Jolivette, Leone, & Mathur, 2010); whereas teachers, by training,may prefer a more proactive approach that focuses on promoting and rein-forcing positive student behavior (Gagnon & Barber, 2010). These diver-gent approaches and levels of training make it difficult to provide PD and


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

TA which brings the professionals together, validates their expertise, andstill maintains an appropriate emphasis on EBPs. When gaps in philosophi-cal approaches are bridged, these connections may be short-lived due to therapid turnover of teachers and correctional officers (Matz, Wells, Minor, &Angel, 2013; Wilkerson, Gagnon, Mason-Williams, et al., 2012).

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR IMPLEMENTING

PRACTICES WITH BEST AVAILABLE EVIDENCEIN AES

As we have noted above, a difficulty in translating limited research findingsto everyday practice continues to hamper the provision of an appropriateand high-quality education to all youth in AES. The research-to-practicegap is due also in part to the fact that, “as EBPs in education began to beidentified, relatively little attention was given to how to implement them,perhaps under the assumption that school personnel would eagerly andreadily apply identified EBPs” (Cook & Odom, 2013, p. 138). This is espe-cially true of educators working in AES, as they are often insulated fromthe reform efforts, change initiatives, and PD opportunities in which tradi-tional schools are involved (Aron, 2006; Ashcroft, 1999). Moreover,although EBPs represent the atypical conditions of AES limit the transfer-ability of knowledge regarding how such practices produce their effects,and there exists an ongoing tension between adapting interventions tosettings and students, and maintaining treatment integrity. Given thecaveats and complications surrounding implementation of EBPs and prac-tices reflecting Best Available Evidence specifically within AES, we makethree general but important recommendations to guide the facilitation ofresearch into practice in AES, including: (a) improving the communicationof research findings, (b) developing organizational structures that supportimplementation, and (c) prioritizing understanding of core interventioncomponents and acceptable adaptations to account for the local AEScontext.

Recommendation 1: Improve Communication of Research

Despite substantial effects for EBPs in controlled trials, a major challengehas been to spread awareness of this evidence more broadly to practitioners.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

The various factors that influence diffusion, or the spread of innovation,are on a continuum between “pure diffusion” that occurs spontaneouslythrough decentralized and informal efforts, and “active dissemination” thatoccurs purposefully through centralized and formal efforts (Rogers, 2003).National practice catalogues such as What Works Clearinghouse,SAMHSA’s Treatment Locator, Blueprints for Violence Prevention,OJJDP’s Model Programs Guide, Promising Practice Network, and othersare examples of active dissemination efforts, and encompass both centrallydriven efforts and inter-organizational networks to provide structuredopportunities to exchange ideas and foster innovation at the local level.Although these resources have no doubt facilitated the translation ofresearch into practice, teachers often indicate that they are most likely tolearn about new practices through informal channels � colleagues or prac-tical experience � and less often through formal means including scientificjournals, workshops, or trainings (Boardman et al., 2005). If diffusion ofEBP information is only somewhat influenced by active dissemination tech-niques, including online practice catalogues or repositories, then under-standing how specific practices come to be adopted, and how to facilitatepure diffusion may be key to the adoption of EBPs and Best AvailableEvidence (Dearing & Kreuter, 2010).

Through his diffusion theory, Rogers (2003) identified five factors thatincrease the likelihood that a new practice will be adopted: (a) Relativeadvantage � the perception that it is significantly better than current prac-tice; (b) Compatibility � the extent to which it fits with the provider’sexperience, values, and goals; (c) Simplicity � the new practice is easy tounderstand and use; (d) Trialability � the extent to which it can be triedbefore a decision is made; and (e) Observability � how readily the benefitscan be observed by others. All are based on the recognition that teachers’positive perception of new or scientifically validated practices is vital totheir adoption. Therefore, improving the communication of research meansthat researchers and program developers must include information notonly about the efficacy of an EBP, but also the relative value of its useful-ness and feasibility for a given context. As Cook, Cook, and Landrum(2013) noted, “Rather than focusing on the effect sizes of these programs,effective dissemination efforts highlighted how they are better than currentpractice, are compatible with current instruction, are simple to implement,do not require an irreversible commitment, and result in clear improvementin important student outcomes” (p. 172).

Given educator, administrator, and staff isolation from reform, lack ofoversight, and need for training encountered in AES, we believe that the


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

dissemination of research supporting instructional practices may best beaccomplished using a variety of mechanisms that supplement active disse-mination strategies. For example, disseminating the findings through inter-active meetings (e.g., briefings, luncheons, personal meetings), websites,electronic and social media, as well as through forums, professional confer-ences, seminars, and establishing professional networks are all ways inwhich simple messages, personal stories of use, and concrete examples ofEBPs in practice can be shared. Regarding the content and format of prac-tice messages, Cook et al. (2013) as well as others (e.g., Shonkoff & Bales,2011) recommend: (a) providing a snapshot of the big picture and how thefindings fit into the overall context with implications for action; (b) present-ing research in brief summaries; (c) using plain, nontechnical language,with light referencing and minimal statistical data; and, (d) weaving in illus-trations, anecdotes, analogies, and examples to help users relate findings totheir beliefs and experiences.

Even with these innovations in how information on EBPs might beshared, we believe that providing guidance for practical decision-makingregarding the selection and use of EBPs will be necessary, as educators inAES are likely to encounter obstacles that developers have not considered.For example, use of actual manipulatives to enhance mathematics instruc-tion must be informed by safety and security concerns, resulting in the deci-sion to use virtual manipulatives (see The National Library of VirtualManipulatives; Maccini et al., 2008). Even if we expect that effective prac-tices can feasibly be adopted as intended in AES, we must first ensure thatthe potential pitfalls of such practices are apparent and teachers can alsoconsider a range of adaptations that maintain the integrity of theintervention.

Recommendation 2: Develop Structures to Support Implementation

The growing momentum to use EBPs as response to educational difficultiesof students with disabilities and high-risk youth has, in some respects, out-paced our understanding of AES schools as organizational contexts forimplementing them. That is, schools’ ability to accept and use EBPs hasbeen afforded less attention than has been paid to their identification(Cook & Odom, 2013; Odom, 2009). As we have mentioned, considerableliterature identifies organizational context factors as one set of factorsaffecting implementation of EBPs (e.g., Aarons et al., 2011; Aarons &Sawitzky, 2006; Damschroder et al., 2009; Feldstein & Glasgow, 2008;


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Greenhalgh, Glenn, MacFarlane, Bate, & Kyriakidou, 2004; Rogers, 2003).Organizational context factors are important to consider during each stageof the implementation process (e.g., preimplementation, implementation,maintenance/enhancement), because, as Chinman, Imm, and Wanderman(2004) noted, there are many points where the implementation process canfalter, each increasing the possibility of poor outcomes and incorrect orinsufficient use of EBPs. Thus, specific to the exploration and eventualadoption of EBPs in AES, attention in the early stages of implementationshould include a focus on: (a) an organization’s capacity for innovation,(b) readiness for change, and (c) the organization’s receptive context(Aarons et al., 2011).

Organizational capacity is the preexisting knowledge/skills of staff, theirability to use new knowledge, and available specialization and mechanismsto support knowledge sharing. Schools and other organizations with highorganizational capacity, or that work to improve their capacity are muchmore likely to explore EBPs and eventually initiate them (Greenhalghet al., 2004). AES schools are particularly susceptible to organizationalcapacity challenges as they often employ instructional staff with varied edu-cation levels and considerable workloads, have multiple responsibilitiesranging from custodial to direct delivery of education services, and havefew readily available venues for knowledge sharing (Gagnon et al., 2012;Stinchcomb, 2002). According to Elliott and Mihalic (2004), most failuresin implementing EBPs are the result of inadequate organizational prepara-tion and/or capacity. Thus, providing training, ongoing follow-up coach-ing, and other support for AES school personnel in interpreting, analyzing,and applying evidence is an important solution for addressing organiza-tional capacity. Additionally, (a) promoting advanced education to admin-istrators and teacher leaders to familiarize them with ways to seek out andinterpret research; (b) building a critical mass of research- and data-engaged practitioners; and, (c) developing action research opportunities toextend educator skill sets may also be useful activities that will contributeto the development of organizational capacity to implement EBPs effec-tively in AES.

Regarding organizational readiness for change, several considerations areimportant and readiness of AES may vary widely and range from organiza-tions that are poised to change to organizations with high levels of inertiathat may stifle innovation (Aarons et al., 2011; Marsick & Watkins, 2003).Studies of organizational readiness to change identify both structural (e.g.,availability of computer resources) and process (e.g., cohesion, pressure forchange) variables that may be related to adoption of EBPs (Lehman,


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

Greener, & Simpson, 2002). In addition, readiness is also related to processfactors such as organizational culture and climate, and individual attitudestoward innovation (Aarons & Sawitzky, 2006; Armenakis, Bernerth, &Walker, 2007; Glisson & Schoenwald, 2005). As noted by Glisson andJames (2002) both culture (i.e., the normative beliefs and shared expecta-tions of the organization) and organizational climate (i.e., shared percep-tions of the psychological impact of the work environment on the provider)can impact the quality of instructional and service delivery and the adop-tion of EBPs. In AES, it is imperative to establish structures that promoteand support shared leadership and collaboration to reduce fear and mis-trust, and alleviate both culture and climate concerns that may be high.

Receptive contexts provide openness to change and minimize competingdemands, and can be found in organizations characterized by support forcreative innovation and new ideas, tolerance of differences, personal com-mitment, and psychological safety (Aarons et al., 2011). In addition, posi-tive social influences within organizations can be facilitated through events,communications, ideas, objects, and behaviors that support positive atti-tudes, beliefs, and behaviors relevant to EBP (Lewis & Seibold, 1993).Four social norms are positively associated with a receptive or open con-text: (1) support for creativity and risk taking, (2) teamwork, (3) speed ofaction, and (4) tolerance of mistakes (O’Reilly & Caldwell, 1985). Fosteringreceptive systems and organizational norms can be influential in shapingdesired attitudes and behaviors in which adherence to structure and proce-dure (e.g., EBP) provides social approval and rejection avoidance (Cialdini,Wosinska, Barrett, Butner, & Gornik-Durose, 1999). It follows that AESschools with social processes supporting openness and innovation would bemore likely to have education personnel and staff likely to accept variationin work routines tied to EBP. Additionally, identifying champions of evi-dence use, including principals and other administrators, teacher leaders,department chairs, evidence teams, and coaches will reflect the positiveclimate and receptive context that is necessary for EBP implementationin AES.

To successfully move toward effective adoption and implementation ofEBPs, significant organizational change and development accounting fororganizational context factors in AES may be required. For example, AESschools may need to critically examine their missions and values; gain newknowledge and skills; adjust their infrastructure to support new ways ofdoing business, and transform their organizational culture Fixsen, Naoom,Blase, Friedman, and Wallace (2005) noted that, when an agency or schooldecides to implement an evidence-based program or practice, there is


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

almost always the need for some organizational change to occur. Specificconsiderations that are critical to such organizational changes in AES mayinclude: (a) commitment of ongoing resources and support for providingtime and scheduling for coaching, participatory planning, exercise ofleadership; (b) evolution of teamwork, such as in communities of practice(Wenger, 1998; see Smith, Schmidt, Edelen-Smith, & Cook, 2013 fordiscussion); (c) commitment of leadership to the implementation process;(d) involvement of stakeholders in planning and selection of programs toimplement; (e) creation of an implementation taskforce made up of consu-mers, stakeholders; (f) suggestions for “unfreezing” current organizationalpractices; (g) resources for extra costs, effort, equipment, manuals, materi-als, recruiting, access to expertise, retraining for new organizational roles;(h) alignment of organizational structures to integrate staff selection, train-ing, performance evaluation, and ongoing training; and (i) alignment oforganizational structures to achieve horizontal and vertical integration(Fixen et al., 2005).

Recommendation 3: Understand Core Componentsand Acceptable Adaptations

Rohrback, Grana, Sussman, and Valente (2006) reported that, many times,school programs are adapted and components are eliminated to make themmore feasible. Changing or adapting the original design of an evidence-based program does not mean that it will not be as effective, however. If aprogram is implemented as designed with the intended population, evalua-tions of effectiveness become necessarily more focused on process andprogram-design adherence. According to many advocates of evidence-basedprograms, strict fidelity is essential to program effectiveness (see Harn,Parisi, & Stoolmiller, 2013 for discussion). On the other hand, there issome research that shows that “sensitivity and flexibility in administeringtherapeutic interventions produces better outcomes than rigid applicationof manuals or principals” (Levant, 2005, p. 14).

Recognizing that adaptations to EBPs are an imperative for AES, itmay be a useful endeavor to move toward researching core program com-ponents, as well as critical adaptations involved in the successful implemen-tation of practices or programs in these settings. Core components aredefined as the “essential and indispensable elements of a program or prac-tice needed in order to reach outcomes” (Fixsen et al., 2005, p. 24). Thegoal is to highlight these and then be able to execute adaptations without


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

decreasing effectiveness. Those in AES that contemplate adapting a pro-gram from its original format should first contact the program developersto ask about the core components, and attempt to understand the theoreti-cal foundation on which the program is premised, in order on to preserve itwhen making changes (Chinman et al., 2004).

Related to the identification of core components and acceptable adap-tations, it remains a significant challenge for EBPs to be “brought toscale” or to examine EBP “effectiveness in a wide range of populations,contexts, and circumstances, without substantial developer involvement inimplementation or evaluation” (Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.Department of Education, & the National Science Foundation, 2013,p. 9). Difficulties exist because the transferability of a program to anapplied setting from a research setting is not merely a change in location,but involves student factors, practitioner factors, intervention structurefactors, and organizational context factors that can impact the successfulscaling of EBPs (August et al., 2004). To date, few of the programsidentified as model or exemplary programs have been successfully imple-mented on a wide scale. Additionally, some programs are not goodinvestments and are therefore an inefficient use of AES schools’ limitedfinancial resources. To counter the lack of fit for programs that do notidentify core components, or that do not exhibit strong transferability tothe AES context we recommend employing practice-based evidence (PBE)as a way to supplement the use of Best Available Evidence, and help AESpractitioners answer questions such as whether treatments used in dailypractice associated with intended outcomes, for whom does an interven-tion work best, and, with limited resources, what interventions are bestto address specific types of student difficulties.

PBE is derived from data regarding the routine practice of practi-tioners, compared with EBPs in which evidence is derived most oftenfrom experimental studies (RCTs) (Smith et al., 2013). PBE studies are“observational cohort studies that attempt to mitigate the weaknesses tra-ditionally associated with observational designs in four main ways:(1) their exhaustive attention to patient characteristics to address con-founds or alternative explanations of treatment effectiveness; (2) their useof large samples and diverse sources of patients to improve sample repre-sentativeness, power, and external validity; (3) their inclusion of frontlineclinicians in the design and execution of studies to improve ecologicalvalidity; and (4) their use of detailed standardized documentation ofinterventions with training and quality control checks for reliability of


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

the measures of the actual process of care” (Horn, DeJong, & Deutscher,2012, p. 127).

As compared to RCTs that are the hallmark of evidence-based practice,PBE studies use associations among participant characteristics, processsteps, and outcomes to uncover best practices and combinations of treat-ments for specific types of students. While some criticism for the lack ofinternal study validity with PBE exists in education research (Smith et al.,2013), typical experimental methods are employed to achieve an under-standing of how practitioners can use and adapt practices in different con-texts (Dijkers, 2011), such as in AES. Importantly, PBEs are data (asopposed to protocol) intensive, and rigorous PBE studies require extensivedata sets to evaluate program variations for many outcomes within a singlestudy. The real value of PBE lies in the highly collaborative “bottom-up”use of local knowledge to confirm or discover treatment effects for specificpopulations. For AES, this mean that practitioners will need to be highlyengaged in the research process, and that issues of mistrust of research and“closed door” policies toward research engagement should be effectivelyalleviated by nature of the method of PBE research. For a review of processsteps to conducting PBE research, please see Horn et al. (2012), andKratochwill et al. (2012).

SUMMARY

The advances in research on academic and behavioral practices reviewed inthis chapter can assist youth in AES in developing reading, mathematics,and behavioral skills. However, the nature of evidence for effectiveness forthese practices is presently best characterized as emerging. Insofar as theuse of recommended practices in AES is based on Best Available Evidencerather than deemed as evidence-based, we believe their implementationmust be considered in light of the unique characteristics of the target stu-dents’ difficulties, contextual characteristics of AES, and maintaining pro-gram or intervention integrity. For education professionals working inAES, there is no choice but to try to adapt evidence-based and research-based practices to fit the needs of students, to overcome the unique contextfactors that characterize these settings, and to advocate as vigorously aspossible for necessary supports for implementation (e.g., training, materi-als, staffing) (Gagnon et al., 2008). In addition, the unusual and potentiallyextensive adaptations of EBPs that may be necessary in AES will require


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

thoughtful and flexible leveraging of available resources. To help identifyways to improve practices and student outcomes, the use of improved com-munication of research, organizational structures to support implementa-tion, and an understanding of core program components andacceptable adaptations will be important to identifying ways that EBPs canbe leveraged to ameliorate the effects of implementation challenges in AES.An overarching challenge may be convincing policy makers and other sta-keholders (i.e., taxpayers, educators, special education researchers) thatimproving educational programming in AES is a worthwhile investment.Raising awareness of the human and financial cost of continuing to neglectthe use of educational practices based on evidence of effectiveness in AESmay spark a renewed effort to engage in this critical work.

REFERENCES

Aarons, G. A., Hurlburt, M., & Horwitz, S. M. (2011). Advancing a conceptual model of

evidence-based practice implementation in public service sectors. Administration and

Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 38(1), 4�23.

Aarons, G. A., & Sawitzky, A. C. (2006). Organizational climate partially mediates the effect

of culture on work attitudes and staff turnover in mental health services. Administration

and Policy in Mental Health and Mental Health Services Research, 33, 289�301.

Aber, J. L., Jones, S. M., Brown, J. L., Chaudry, N., & Samples, F. (1998). Resolving conflict

creatively: Evaluating the developmental effects of a school-based violence prevention

program in neighborhood and classroom context. Development and Psychopathology,

10, 187�213.

Abts Associates, Inc. (2008). Characteristics of residential treatment for children and youth with

serious emotional disturbances. Cambridge, MA: Author. Retrieved from http://www.

nacbh.org/PubDocs/Characteristics%20of%20Residential%20Treatment.pdf. Accessed

on November 7, 2014.

Allinder, R. (1994). The relationship between efficacy and the instructional practices of special

education teachers and consultants. Teacher Education and Special Education, 17,

86�95.

American Psychiatric Association. (2013). Diagnostic and statistical manual of mental disor-

ders: DSM-5 (5th ed.). Washington, DC: Author.

Armenakis, A., Bernerth, J. B., & Walker, H. J. (2007). Organizational change recipients’

beliefs scale: Development of an instrument. Journal of Applied Behavior Science, 43,

481�505.

Aron, L. Y. (2006). An overview of alternative education (pp. 1�42). Washington, DC: The

Urban Institute.

Ashcroft, R. A. (1999). Training and professional identity for educators in alternative educa-

tion settings. The Clearing House: A Journal of Educational Strategies, Issues, and Ideas,

73(2), 82�85.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.nacbh.org/PubDocs/Characteristics%20of%20Residential%20Treatment.pdf

http://www.nacbh.org/PubDocs/Characteristics%20of%20Residential%20Treatment.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1177%2F088840649401700203

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1176%2Fappi.books.9780890425596

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1176%2Fappi.books.9780890425596


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10488-010-0327-7





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FS0954579498001576

August, G. J., Winters, K. C., Realmuto, G. M., Tarter, R., Perry, C., & Hektner, J. M.

(2004). Moving evidence-based drug abuse prevention programs from basic science to

practice: Bridging the efficacy-effectiveness interface. Substance Use and Misuse, 39,

2017�2053.

Barth, J. M., Dunlap, S. T., Dane, H., Lochman, J. E., & Wells, K. C. (2004). Classroom

environment influences on aggression, peer relations, and academic focus. Journal of

School Psychology, 42, 115�133.

Barton, W. H., & Butts, J. A. (2008). Building on strength: Positive youth development in juve-

nile justice programs. Chicago, IL: Chapin Hall Center for Children at the University of

Chicago.

Berkely, S., Scruggs, T. E., & Mastropieri, M. A. (2010). Reading comprehension instruction

for students with learning disabilities, 1995�2006: A meta-analysis. Remedial and

Special Education, 31, 423�436.

Berman, P., McLaughlin, M., Bass, G., Pauly, E., & Zellman, G. (1977). Federal programs

supporting educational change. Vol. VII: Factors affecting implementation and conti-

nuation. Report No. R-1589/7-HEW. The Rand Corporation, Santa Monica, CA.

Blake, B. E. (2004). A culture of refusal: The lives and literacies of out-of-school adolescents.

New York, NY: Peter Lang.

Bloom, H. S. (2005). Randomizing groups to evaluate place-based programs. In H. S. Bloom

(Ed.), Learning more from social experiments: Evolving analytic approaches. New York,

NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Boardman, A. G., Arguelles, M. E., Vaughn, S., Hughes, M., & Klingner, J. K. (2005). Special

education teachers’ views of research based practices. Journal of Special Education, 39,

168�180.

Booker, K., & Mitchell, A. (2011). Patterns in recidivism and discretionary placement in disci-

plinary alternative education: The impact of gender, ethnicity, age, and special educa-

tion status. Education and Treatment of Children, 34, 193�208.

Bradshaw, C., Koth, C., Bevans, K., Ialongo, N., & Leaf, P. (2008). The impact of school-

wide positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS) on the organizational health

of elementary schools. School Psychology Quarterly, 23, 462�473.

Bryk, A. S., & Schneider, B. (2002). Trust in schools: A core resource for improvement. New

York, NY: Russell Sage Foundation.

Budeiri, P. (1999). Secrecy shrouds decisions about release of juvenile major offenders � Far-

ranging negative ramifications likely. Richmond, VA: Mental Health Association of

Virginia Public Policy and Advocacy.

Burke, M. D., Boon, R. T., Hatton, H., & Bowman-Perrott, L. (2014). Reading interventions

for middle and secondary students with emotional and behavioral disorders: A quanti-

tative review of single-case studies. Behavior Modification, 1�26. (Online first).

doi:10.1177/0145445514551383. Retrieved from http://bmo.sagepub.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/

content/early/2014/09/25/0145445514551383.full.pdf+html

Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2009). Reported prevalence of evidence-based instructional

practices in special education. Journal of Special Education, 43, 3�11.

Cable, K. E., Plucker, J. A., & Spradlin, T. E. (2009). Alternative schools: What’s in a name?

Educational Policy Brief, 7(4), 1�12. Bloomington, IN: Center for Evaluation &

Education Policy.

Carver, P. R., Lewis, L., & Tice, P. (2010). Alternative schools and programs for public school

students at risk of educational failure: 2007�2008. NCES 2010-026. U.S. Department


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://bmo.sagepub.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/content/early/2014/09/25/0145445514551383.full.pdf+html

http://bmo.sagepub.com.lp.hscl.ufl.edu/content/early/2014/09/25/0145445514551383.full.pdf+html






http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1081%2FJA-200033240

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fetc.2011.0016

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2003.11.004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.jsp.2003.11.004

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2Fa0012883

of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. Government Printing Office,

Washington, DC.

Chiang, H., & Gill, B. (2010). Student characteristics and outcomes in alternative and neighbor-

hood high schools in Philadelphia. Princeton, NJ: Mathematica Policy Research, Inc.

Chinman, M., Imm, P., & Wanderman, A. (2004). Getting to outcomes 2004: Promoting

accountability through methods and tools for planning, implementation, and evaluation.

Santa Monica, CA: Rand Corporation.

Cialdini, R. B., Wosinska, W., Barrett, D. W., Butner, J., & Gornik-Durose, M. (1999).

Compliance with a request in two cultures: The differential influence of social proof

and commitment/consistency on collectivists and individualists. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 25, 1242�1253.

Cobb, B., Sample, P., Alwell, M., & Johns, N. (2005). The effects of cognitive-behavioral inter-

ventions on dropout for youth with disabilities. Clemson, SC: National Dropout

Prevention Center for Students with Disabilities. Retrieved from http://www.ndpcsd.

org/documents/Research_Syntheses/Research_Synthesis_Effects_of_CBI.pdf. Accessed

on November 16, 2014.

Coburn, C. E. (2003). Rethinking scale: Moving beyond numbers to deep and lasting change.

Educational Researcher, 32(6), 3�12.

Coladarci, T. (1992). Teachers’ sense of efficacy and commitment to teaching. Journal of

Experimental Education, 60, 323�337.

Common Core State Standards Initiative. (2010). Introduction to the common core state stan-

dards. Retrieved from www.corestandards.org/assets/ccssiintroduction.pdf. Accessed on

November 9, 2014.

Cook, B. G., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2013). Moving research into practice: Can we make

dissemination stick? Exceptional Children, 79, 163�180.

Cook, B. G., & Odom, S. L. (2013). Evidence-based practices and implementation science in

special education. Exceptional Children, 79, 135�144.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., Cook, L., & Landrum, T. J. (2008). Evidence-based practices in

special education: Some practical considerations. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44,

69�75.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Harjusola-Webb, S. (2008). Evidence-based special education

and professional wisdom: Putting it all together. Intervention in School and Clinic, 44,

105�111.

Cook, B. G., Tankersley, M., & Landrum, T. J. (2009). Determining evidenced-based practices

in special education. Exceptional Children, 75, 365�383.

Cox, S. (1999). An assessment of an alternative education program for at-risk delinquent

youth. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency, 36, 323�336.

Damschroder, L. J., Aron, D. C., Keith, R. E., Kirsh, S. R., Alexander, J. A., & Lowery, J. C.

(2009). Fostering implementation of health services research findings into practice: A

consolidated framework for advancing implementation science. Implementation Science,

4(50), 1�15. Retrieved from http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/50

Dane, A. V., & Schneider, B. H. (1998). Program integrity in primary and early secondary

prevention: Are implementation effects out of control? Clinical Psychology Review,

18(1), 23.

Dearing, J. W., & Kreuter, M. W. (2010). Designing for diffusion: How can we increase uptake

of cancer communication innovations? Patient Education and Counseling, 81(Suppl.),

1�21.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.ndpcsd.org/documents/Research_Syntheses/Research_Synthesis_Effects_of_CBI.pdf

http://www.ndpcsd.org/documents/Research_Syntheses/Research_Synthesis_Effects_of_CBI.pdf

http://www.corestandards.org/assets/ccssiintroduction.pdf

http://www.implementationscience.com/content/4/1/50

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3102%2F0013189X032006003


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F00220973.1992.9943869


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0272-7358%2897%2900043-3





Dijkers, M. P. J. M. (2011). External validity in research on rehabilitative intervention: Issues

for knowledge translation. FOCUS technical brief No. 33. Austin, TX: National Center

for the Dissemination of Disability Research.

Dishion, T. J., McCord, J., & Poulin, F. (1999). When interventions harm: Peer groups and

problem behavior. American Psychologist, 54, 755�764.

Domitrovich, C. E., Bradshaw, C. P., Poduska, J. M., Hoagwood, K., Buckley, J. A., Olin,

S., … Ialongo, N. S. (2008). Maximizing the implementation quality of evidence-based

preventive interventions in schools: A conceptual framework. Advances in School

Mental Health Promotion, 1, 6�28.

Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of

incarcerated youth. Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 139�144.

Durlak, J. A., & DuPre, E. P. (2008). Implementation matters: A review of research on the

influence of implementation on program outcomes and the factors affecting implemen-

tation. American Journal of Community Psychology, 41, 327�350.

Durlak, J. A., Weissberg, R. P., Dymnicki, A. B., Taylor, R. D., & Schellinger, K. B. (2011).

The impact of enhancing students’ social and emotional learning: A meta-analysis of

school-based universal interventions. Child Development, 82, 405�432.

Edmonds, M. S., Vaughn, S., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C., Cable, A., Tackett, K. K., &

Schnakenberg, J. W. (2009). A synthesis of reading interventions and effects on reading

comprehension outcomes for older struggling readers. Review of Educational Research,

79, 262�300.

Elliott, D. S., & Mihalic, S. (2004). Issues in dissemination and replicating effective prevention

programs. Prevention Science, 5(1), 47�53.

Feldstein, A. C., & Glasgow, R. E. (2008). A practical, robust implementation and sustainabil-

ity model (PRISM) for integrating research into practice. The Joint Commission Journal

on Quality and Patient Safety, 34, 228�243.

Fixsen, D., Blase, K., Horner, R., & Sugai, G. (2009, February). Scaling up evidence-based

practices in education. SISEP scaling up brief. OSEP Technical Assistance Center on

State Implementation of Scaling Up Evidence-based Practices, Raleigh, NC.

Fixsen, D. L., Naoom, S. F., Blase, K. A., Friedman, R. M., & Wallace, F. (2005).

Implementation research: A synthesis of the literature. FMHI Publication #231.

University of South Florida, Louis de la Parte Florida Mental Health Institute, The

National Implementation Research Network, Tampa, FL.

Foley, R. M., & Pang, L. (2006). Alternative education programs: Program and student char-

acteristics. The High School Journal, 89, 10�21.

Forness, S. R. (2001). Special education and related services: What have we learned from

meta-analysis? Exceptionality, 9, 185�197.

Foster, S., & Mash, E. (1999). Assessing social validity in clinical treatment research: Issues

and procedures. Journal of Consulting and Clinical Psychology, 67, 308�319.

Gagnon, J. C. (2010). State level curricular, assessment, and accountability policies, practices,

and philosophies for exclusionary school settings. Journal of Special Education, 43,

206�219.

Gagnon, J. C., & Barber, B. R. (2010). Characteristics of and services provided to youth in

secure care facilities. Behavioral Disorders, 36, 7�19.

Gagnon, J. C., & Barber, B. R. (2014). Instructional practice guide for teaching reading and

mathematics in juvenile correctional schools. Journal of Correctional Education, 65,

5�23.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1353%2Fhsj.2006.0003

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1207%2FS15327035EX0904_3


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-006X.67.3.308

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.1467-8624.2010.01564.x



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FB%3APREV.0000013981.28071.52

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.54.9.755

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1080%2F1754730X.2008.9715730


Gagnon, J. C., Barber, B. R., Van Loan, C. L., & Leone, P. E. (2009). Juvenile correctional

schools: Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Education and Treatment of

Children, 32, 673�696.

Gagnon, J. C., & Bottge, B. (2006). Mathematics instruction in secondary interim, short- and

long-term alternative placements. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for

Children and Youth, 51, 39�47.

Gagnon, J. C., Haydon, T., & Maccini, P. (2010). Juvenile correctional schools: Assessment

and accountability policies and practices. Journal of Correctional Education, 61, 23�45.

Gagnon, J. C., Houchins, D. E., & Murphy, K. M. (2012). Current juvenile corrections profes-

sional development practices and future directions. Teacher Education and Special

Education, 35, 333�344.

Gagnon, J. C., & Maccini, P. (2007). Teacher-reported use of empirically-validated and

standards-based instructional approaches in secondary mathematics. Remedial and


Gagnon, J. C., & Mayer, M. (2004). Educating juveniles with disabilities in correctional set-

tings. In L. M. Bullock, R. A. Gable, & K. J. Melloy (Eds.), Fifth CCBD mini-library

series (pp. 1�59). Arlington, VA: Council for Children with Behavioral Disorders.

Gagnon, J. C., Maccini, P., & Haydon, T. (2011). Assessment and accountability in public and

private secondary day treatment and residential schools for students with emotional

and behavioral disorders. Journal of Special Education Leadership, 24, 79�91.

Gagnon, J. C., Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Mason-Williams, L. (2014). Mathematics in

secondary psychiatric schools: Curricular and assessment policies and practices.

Exceptionality, 22, 51�67.

Gagnon, J. C., & Richards, C. (2008). Making the right turn: A guide about youth involved in

the juvenile corrections system (pp. 1�61). Washington, DC: National Collaborative on

Workforce and Disability for Youth, Institute for Educational Leadership.

Gagnon, J. C., Rockwell, S., & Scott, T. M. (2008). Positive behavior supports in exclusionary

schools: A practical approach based on what we know. Focus on Exceptional Children,

41(1), 1�20.

Gagnon, J. C., Van Loan, C. L., & Barber, B. R. (2010). Secondary psychiatric schools:

Characteristics and approaches to curriculum. Preventing School Failure: Alternative

Education for Children and Youth, 55, 42�52.

Gaijiria, M., Jitendra, A. K., Sood, S., & Sacks, G. (2007). Improving comprehension of expo-

sitory text in students with LD: A research synthesis. Journal of Learning Disabilities,

40, 210�225.

Garwood, J. D., Brunsting, N. C., & Fox, L. C. (2014). Reading comprehension and fluency

outcomes for adolescents with emotional-behavioral disorders: Recent research synthe-

sized. Remedial and Special Education, 35, 181�194.

Gary, J. (2014). A prison to school pipeline: Preparing incarcerated youth for reentry into

society and public school. Education Connection, 34, 241�244.

Gasper, J., DeLuca, S., & Estacion, A. (2010). Coming and going: Explaining the effects of

residential and school mobility on adolescent delinquency. Social Science Research, 39,

459�476.

Gibson, S., & Dembo, M. (1984). Teacher efficacy: A construct validation. Journal of

Educational Psychology, 76, 569�582.

Glisson, C., & James, L. R. (2002). The cross-level effects of culture and climate in human ser-

vice teams. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 23, 767�794.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)









http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.ssresearch.2009.08.009

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0022-0663.76.4.569


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fjob.162


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.3200%2FPSFL.51.1.39-47


Glisson, C., & Schoenwald, S. K. (2005). The ARC organizational and community interven-

tion strategy for implementing evidence-based children’s mental health treatments.

Mental Health Services Research, 7, 243�259.

Goddard, R. D., & Goddard, Y. L. (2001). A multilevel analysis of teacher and collective effi-

cacy. Teaching and Teacher Education, 17, 807�818.

Goodman, G., & Webb, M. A. (2006). Reading disability referrals: Teacher bias and other fac-

tors that impact response to intervention. Learning Disabilities: A Contemporary

Journal, 4, 59�70.

Gottfredson, D. C., & Gottfredson, G. D. (2002). Quality of school-based prevention pro-

grams: Results from a national survey. Journal of Research in Crime and Delinquency,

39, 3�35.

Greenhalgh, T., Glenn, R., MacFarlane, F., Bate, P., & Kyriakidou, O. (2004). Diffusion of

innovation in service organizations: Systematic review and recommendations. Milbank

Quarterly, 82, 581�629.

Gregg, S. (1998). Schools for disruptive students: A questionable alternative? Charleston, WV:

Appalachia Educational Laboratory, Inc.

Guskey, T. R. (1988). Teacher efficacy, self-concept, and attitudes toward the implementation

of instructional innovation. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 63�69.

Hahn, R., Fuqua-Whitley, D., Wethington, H., Lowry, J., Crosby, A., Fullilove,

M., … Dahlberg, L. (2007). Effectiveness of universal school-based programs to prevent

violent and aggressive behavior: A systematic review. American Journal of Preventive

Medicine, 33(2S), S114�S129.

Han, S. S., & Weiss, B. (2005). Sustainability of teacher program implementation of school-

based mental health programs. Journal of Abnormal Child Psychology, 33, 665�679.

Harn, B., Parisi, D., & Stoolmiller, M. (2013). Balancing fidelity with flexibility and fit: What

do we really know about fidelity of implementation in schools? Exceptional Children,

79, 181�194.

Herbers, J. E., Reynolds, A. J., & Chen, C. (2013). School mobility and developmental out-

comes in young adulthood. Development and Psychopathology, 25, 501�515.

Hoagwood, K. E., & Johnson, J. (2003). School psychology: A public health framework: I.

From evidence-based practices to evidence based policies. Journal of School Psychology,

41, 3�21.

Hockenberry, S. (2013, June). Juveniles in residential placement, 2010. In Juvenile offenders

and victims: National report series. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office

of Justice Programs, Office of Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Hodge, J., Riccomini, P. J., Buford, R., & Herbst, M. (2006). A review of instructional inter-

ventions in mathematics for students with emotional and behavioral disorders.

Behavioral Disorders, 31, 297�311.

Horn, S. D., DeJong, G., & Deutscher, D. (2012). Practice-based evidence research in rehabili-

tation: Alternative to randomized controlled trials and traditional observational studies.

Archives of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 93, 127�137.

Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., & Jolivette, K. (2009).

Barriers and facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education.

Preventing School Failure, 53, 159�166.

Houchins, D. E., Shippen, M. E., & Murphy, K. M. (2012). Evidence-based professional devel-

opment considerations along the school-to-prison pipeline. Teacher Education and



Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2FS0742-051X%2801%2900032-4

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FS0954579412001204



http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.0887-378X.2004.00325.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0742-051X%2888%2990025-X

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.apmr.2011.10.031


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.amepre.2007.04.012

Hoy, W. K., Hannum, J., & Tschannen-Moran, M. (1998). Organizational climate and student

achievement: A parsimonious and longitudinal view. Journal of School Leadership, 8,

336�359.

Individuals With Disabilities Education Act 34 C.F.R. pts. 300 and 301 (2006).

Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education & the National Science

Foundation. (2013). Common guidelines for education research and development.

Washington, DC: Authors.

Jackson, J. W. (2002). Enhancing self-efficacy and learning performance. The Journal of

Experimental Education, 70, 243�254.

January, A. M., Casey, R. J., & Paulson, D. (2011). A meta-analysis of classroom-wide inter-

ventions to build social skills: Do they work? School Psychology Review, 40, 242�256.

Kallestad, J. H., & Olweus, D. (2003). Predicting teachers’ and schools’ implementation of the

Olweus bullying prevention program: A multilevel study. Prevention & Treatment, 6(1),

1�31.

Kam, C. M., Greenberg, M. T., & Walls, C. T. (2003). Examining the role of implementation

quality in school-based prevention using the PATHS curriculum. Prevention Science, 4,

55�63.

Kim, A., Vaughn, S., Wanzek, J., & Wei, S. (2004). Graphic organizers and their effects on the

reading comprehension of students with LD: A synthesis of research. Journal of

Learning Disabilities, 37, 105�118.

Kleiner, B., Porch, R., & Farris, E. (2002). Public alternative schools and programs for stu-

dents at risk of education failure: 2000-01. NCES 2002-004. Washington, DC: U.S.

Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics.

Kratochwill, T. R., Hoagwood, K. E., Kazak, A. E., Weisz, J. R., Hood, K., Vargas, L. A., &

Banez, G. A. (2012). Practice-based evidence for children and adolescents: Advancing

the research agenda in schools. School Psychology Review, 41, 215�235.

Kvarfordt, C. L., Purcell, P., & Shannon, P. (2005). Youth with learning disabilities in the

juvenile justice system: A training needs assessment of detention and court services per-

sonnel. Child & Youth Care Forum, 34(1), 27�42.

Lehman, W. E. K., Greener, J. M., & Simpson, D. D. (2002). Assessing organizational readi-

ness for change. Journal of Substance Abuse Treatment, 22, 197�209.

Lehr, C. (2004). Alternative schools and students with disabilities: Identifying and understand-

ing the issues. In Information brief (Vol. 3, No. 6). Minneapolis, MN: University of

Minnesota, Institute on Community Integration.

Lehr, C. A., & Lange, C. M. (2003). Alternative schools and the students they serve:

Perceptions of state directors of special education. In Policy research brief (Vol. 14,

No. 1, pp. 1�11). Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota, Institute on Community

Integration.

Lehr, C. A., Lanners, E. J., & Lange, C. M. (2003). Alternative schools: Policy and legislation

across the United States. Minneapolis, MN: Alternative School Research Project,

Institute on Community Integration, University of Minnesota.

Lehr, C. A., Tan, C. S., & Ysseldyke, J. (2009). Alternative schools: A synthesis of state-level

policy and research. Remedial and Special Education, 30, 19�32.

Leone, P. E., & Drakeford, W. (1999). Alternative education: From a ‘last chance’ to a proac-

tive model. Clearing House, 73(2), 86�88.

Leone, P. E., Meisel, S., & Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs for youth with

disabilities in juvenile corrections. The Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 46�50.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2Fs10566-004-0880-x








http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F1522-3736.6.1.621a

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1023%2FA%3A1021786811186

Leone, P. E., & Meisel, S. M. (1997). Improving education services for students in detention

and confinement facilities. Children’s Legal Rights Journal, 17(1), 1�12.

Levant, R. F. (2005). Report of the 2005 presidential task force on evidence-based practice.

Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Lewis, L. K., & Seibold, D. R. (1993). Innovation modification during intraorganizational

adoption. Academy of Management Review, 18, 322�354.

Lipsey, M. W. (2009). The primary factors that characterize effective interventions with juve-

nile offenders: A meta-analytic overview. Victims & Offenders: An International Journal

of Evidence-Based Research, Policy, and Practice, 4, 124�147.

Lipsey, M. W., Howell, J. C., Kelly, M. R., Chapman, G., & Carver, D. (2010). Improving the

effectiveness of juvenile justice programs: A new perspective on evidence-based practice.

Washington, DC: Center for Juvenile Justice Reform. Retrieved from http://cjjr.george-

town.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf. Accessed on January 7, 2014.

Little, S. G., Akin-Little, A., & O’Neill, K. (2014). Group contingency interventions with chil-

dren � 1980�2010: A meta-analysis. Behavior Modification, 38, 337�354.

Maag, J. W. (2006). Social skills training for students with emotional and behavioral disorders:

A review of reviews. Behavioral Disorders, 32, 5�17.

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2002). Perceptions and application of NCTM’s standards by

special and general education teachers. Exceptional Children, 68, 325�344.

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2006). Mathematics instructional practices and assessment

accommodations by secondary special and general educators. Exceptional Children, 72,

217�234.

Maccini, P., & Gagnon, J. C. (2012). Mathematics in juvenile correctional schools: Curricular

and assessment practices. Learning Disabilities: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 11�22.

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C., & Mason-Williams, L. (2012). Mathematics in juvenile correc-

tional schools: Curricular and assessment practices. Learning Disabilities: A

Multidisciplinary Journal, 18, 11�22.

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C., Cutting, C., & Leone, P. (2006). Math instruction for committed

youth within juvenile correctional schools. Journal of Correctional Education, 57,

210�229.

Maccini, P., Gagnon, J. C., Mulcahy, C. A., & Wright, K. (2013). Mathematics instructional

practices in psychiatric schools for secondary students with emotional/behavioral

disorders and learning disabilities. International Journal on School Disaffection, 10,

47�71.

Maccini, P., & Hughes, C. A. (1997). Mathematics interventions for adolescents with learning

disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 12, 168�176.

Maccini, P., Mulcahy, C. A., & Wilson, M. G. (2007). A follow-up of mathematics interven-

tions for secondary students with learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research

and Practice, 22, 58�74.

Maccini, P., Strickland, T., Gagnon, J. C., & Malmgren, K. W. (2008). Accessing the general

education math curriculum for secondary students with high incidence disabilities.

Focus on Exceptional Children, 40(8), 1�32.

Marsick, V. J., & Watkins, K. E. (2003). Demonstrating the value of an organization’s learn-

ing culture: The dimensions of the learning organization questionnaire. Advances in

Developing Human Resources, 5, 132�151.

Martin, N., & Brand, B. (2006). Federal, state, and local roles supporting alternative education.

Washington, DC: American Youth Policy Forum.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf

http://cjjr.georgetown.edu/pdfs/ebp/ebppaper.pdf









Matz, A. K., Wells, J. B., Minor, K. I., & Angel, E. (2013). Predictors of turnover intention

among staff in juvenile correctional facilities: The relevance of job satisfaction and

organizational commitment. Youth Violence and Juvenile Justice, 11, 115�131.

Mooney, P., Epstein, M. H., Reid, R., & Nelson, J. R. (2003). Status of academic intervention

research for students with emotional disturbance. Remedial and Special Education, 24,

273�287.

Mulcahy, C. A., Krezmien, M., & Maccini, P. (2014). Teaching mathematics to secondary stu-

dents with emotional and behavioral disorders: Challenges and practical suggestions for

teachers. Preventing School Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 58,

69�79.

Mulcahy, C. A., & Krezmien, M. P. (2014). Interventions for improving mathematics perfor-

mance among secondary students with ED: A methodological review. Unpublished

manuscript.

Mulcahy, C. A., Krezmien, M. P., Leone, P. E., Houchins, D. E., & Baltodano, H. (2008).

Lessons learned: Barriers and solutions for conducting reading investigations in juvenile

corrections settings. Reading and Writing Quarterly, 24, 239�252.

Myner, J., Santman, J., Cappelletty, G., & Perlmutter, B. (1998). Variables related to recidi-

vism among juvenile offenders. International Journal of Offender Therapy and

Comparative Criminology, 42(1), 65�80.

Mytton, J. A., DiGuiseppi, C., Gough, D. A., Taylor, R. S., & Logan, S. (2002). School-based

violence prevention programs. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 156,

752�762.

National Governor’s Association Center for Best Practices. (2001). Setting high academic stan-

dards in alternative education. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Governors Association Center for Best Practices, Council of Chief State School

Officers. (2010). Common core state standards. Washington, DC: Authors.

National Mathematics Advisory Panel. (2008). Foundations for success: The final report of the

national mathematics advisory panel. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.

Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., Leone, P. E., & Mathur, S. R. (2010). Meeting the needs of adju-

dicated youth with behavioral challenges: The promise of juvenile justice. Behavioral

Disorders, 36, 70�80.

Nelson, S. R., Leffler, J. C., & Hansen, B. A. (2009). Toward a research agenda for understand-

ing and improving the use of research evidence. Portland, OR: Northwest Regional

Educational Laboratory.

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. No. 107�110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002).

Odom, S. L. (2009). The tie that binds: Evidence-based practice, implementation science, and

outcomes for children. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education, 23, 53�61.

O’Reilly, C. A., & Caldwell, D. F. (1985). The impact of normative social influence and cohe-

siveness on task perceptions and attitudes: A social information processing approach.

Journal of Occupational Psychology, 58, 193�206.

Owens, R. G. (2004). Organizational behavior in education: Adaptive leadership and school

reform (8th ed.). Boston, MA: Pearson Education, Inc.

Parcel, G. S., Perry, C. L., Kelder, S. H., Elder, J. P., Mitchell, P. D., Lytle, L. A., …,

Stone, E. J. (2003). School climate and the institutionalization of the CATCH program.

Health Education and Behavior, 30, 489�502.

Pearson, F. S., Lipton, D. S., Cleland, C. M., & Yee, D. S. (2002). The effects of behavioral/

cognitive-behavioral programs on recidivism. Crime and Delinquency, 48, 476�496.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2Fj.2044-8325.1985.tb00195.x

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1001%2Farchpedi.156.8.752







Podell, D. M., & Soodak, L. C. (1993). Teacher efficacy and bias in special education referrals.

Journal of Educational Research, 86, 247�253.

Protheroe, N. (2008). Teacher efficacy: What is it and does it matter? Principal, 87(5), 42�45.

Puddy, R. W., & Wilkins, N. (2011). Understanding evidence Part 1: Best available research evi-

dence. A guide to the continuum of evidence of effectiveness. Atlanta, GA: Centers for

Disease Control and Prevention.

Quinn, M. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2006). Study of effective alternative education programs: Final

grant report. Washington, DC: American Institutes for Research.

Quinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M., & Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth

with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 71,

339�345.

Raudenbush, S. W., Marshall, J., & Art, E. (2011). Year-by-year cumulative impacts of attend-

ing a high-mobility elementary school on children’s mathematics achievement in

Chicago, 1995�2005. In G. J. Duncan & R. J. Murnane (Eds.), Whither opportunity?

Rising inequality, schools, and children’s life chances (pp. 359�375). New York, NY:

Russell Sage Foundation.

Raywid, M. A. (1994). Alternative schools: The state of the art. Educational Leadership, 52(1),

26�31.

Reid, J. B., Patterson, G. R., & Snyder, J. (2002). Antisocial behavior in children and adoles-

cents. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.

Reinke, W. M., & Walker, H. (2006). Deviant behavioral contagion in education. In K.

Dodge, T. Dishion, & J. Lansford (Eds.), Deviant peer influences in programs for youth:

Problems and solutions (pp. 122�140). New York, NY: Guilford Press.

Rogers, E. M. (2003). Diffusion of innovations (5th ed.). New York, NY: Free Press.

Rohrbach, L. A., Graham, J. G., & Hansen, W. B. (1993). Diffusion of a school-based sub-

stance abuse program: Predictors of program implementation. Preventive Medicine, 22,

237�260.

Rohrback, L. A., Grana, R., Sussman, S., & Valente, T. W. (2006). Type II translation:

Translating prevention interventions from research to real-world settings. Evaluation

and the Health Professions, 29, 302�333.

Rozalski, M. E., & Engel, S. (2005). Literacy education for correctional facilities: The “hope”

for technology. Reading and Writing Quarterly: Overcoming Learning Difficulties, 21,

301�305.

Rumberger, R. W., & Larson, K. A. (1998). Student mobility and the increased risk of high

school dropout. American Journal of Education, 107(1), 1�35.

Rumberger, R. W., Larson, K. A., Ream, R. K., & Palardy, G. J. (1999). The educational con-

sequences of mobility for California students and schools. Berkeley, CA: Policy Analysis

for California Education. Retrieved from https://gse.soe.berkeley.edu. Accessed on

January 29, 2015.

Ryan, J. B., Reid, R., & Epstein, M. H. (2004). Peer-mediated intervention studies on aca-

demic achievement for students with EBD: A review. Remedial and Special Education,

25, 330�341.

Salend, S. J., & Washin, B. (1988). Team-assisted individualization with handicapped adjudi-

cated youth. Exceptional Children, 55, 174�180.

Scammacca, N., Roberts, G., Vaughn, S., Edmonds, M., Wexler, J., Reutebuch, C. K., &

Torgeson, J. K. (2007). Intervention for adolescent struggling readers: A meta-analysis

with implication for practice (pp. 1�41). Portsmouth, NH: RMC Research Corporation,


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

https://gse.soe.berkeley.edu







http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F10468-000

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F10468-000


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1006%2Fpmed.1993.1020

Center on Instruction. Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/coi_

struggling_readers.pdf. Accessed on January 29, 2015.

Scott, T. M., & Cooper, J. (2013). Tertiary-tier PBIS in alternative, residential, and correc-

tional school settings: Considering intensity in the delivery of evidence-based practice.

Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 101�119.

Shonkoff, J. P., & Bales, S. N. (2011). Science does not speak for itself: Translating child devel-

opment research for the public and its policymakers. Child Development, 82(1), 17�32.

Sickmund, M. (2003). Juveniles in court. Juvenile offenders and victims: National report series.

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Justice, Office of Justice Programs, Office of

Juvenile Justice and Delinquency Prevention.

Slavin, R. E., Cheung, A., Groff, C., & Lake, C. (2008). Effective reading programs for

middle and high schools: A best-evidence synthesis. Reading Research Quarterly, 43,

290�322.

Slavin, R. E., Lake, C., & Groff, C. (2009). Effective programs in middle and high school

mathematics: A best-evidence synthesis. Review of Educational Research, 79, 839�911.

Smith, G. J., Schmidt, M. M., Edelen-Smith, P. J., & Cook, B. G. (2013). Pasteur’s quadrant

as the bridge linking rigor with relevance. Exceptional Children, 79, 147�161.

Solomon, B. G., Klein, S. A., Hintze, J. M., Cressey, J. M., & Peller, S. L. (2012). A meta-

analysis of school-wide positive behavior support: An exploratory study using single-

case synthesis. Psychology in Schools, 49, 105�121.

Spencer, T. D., Detrich, R., & Slocum, T. A. (2012). Evidence-based practice: A framework

for making effective decisions. Education and Treatment of Children, 35, 127�151.

Sprague, J. R., Scheuermann, B., Wang, E., Nelson, C. M., Jolivette, K., & Vincent, C. (2013).

Adopting and adapting PBIS for secure juvenile justice settings: Lessons learned.

Education and Treatment of Children, 36, 121�134.

Stein, M. K., & Wang, M. C. (1988). Teacher development and school improvement: The pro-

cess of teacher change. Teaching and Teacher Education, 4, 171�187.

Stinchcomb, J. B. (2002). From rehabilitation to retribution: Examining public policy para-

digms and personnel education patterns in corrections. American Journal of Criminal

Justice, 27, 1�17.

Stormshak, E. A., Bierman, K. L., Bruschi, C., Dodge, K. A., Coie, J. D., & the Conduct

Problems Prevention Research Group. (1999). The relation between behavior problems

and peer preference in different classroom contexts. Child Development, 70(1), 169�182.

Swanson, H. L. (1999). Reading research for students with LD: A meta-analysis of interven-

tion outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 32, 504�532.

Templeton, T. N., Neel, R. S., & Blood, E. (2008). Meta-analysis of math interventions for

students with emotional and behavioral disorders. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral

Disorders, 16, 226�239.

Teplin, L. A., Abram, K. M., McClelland, G. M., Dulcan, M. K., & Mericle, A. A. (2002).

Psychiatric disorders in youth in juvenile detention. Archives of General Psychiatry, 59,

1133�1143.

The Council for Exceptional Children’s Interdivisional Research Group. (2014). Evidence-

based special education in the context of scarce evidence-based practice. Teaching

Exceptional Children, 47, 81�84.

Trivette, C. M., Dunst, C. J., Hamby, D. W., & Meter, D. (2013). Research synthesis of stu-

dies investigating the relationships between practitioner beliefs and adoption of early

childhood intervention practices. Practical Evaluation Reports, 4(1), 1�19.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/coi_struggling_readers.pdf

http://www.rti4success.org/sites/default/files/coi_struggling_readers.pdf

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2F0742-051X%2888%2990016-9


http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02898967

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1007%2FBF02898967

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1111%2F1467-8624.00013

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1598%2FRRQ.43.3.4





http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1002%2Fpits.20625

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1001%2Farchpsyc.59.12.1133






U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2002). The

Condition of Education 2002. NCES 2002�025. Washington, DC: Author.

Vreeman, R. C., & Carroll, A. E. (2007). A systematic review of school-based interventions to

prevent bullying. Archives of Pediatrics and Adolescent Medicine, 161, 78�88.

Weissberg, R. P., Kumpfer, K. L., & Seligman, M. E. P. (2003). Prevention that works for

children and youth: An introduction. American Psychologist, 58(6/7), 425�432.

Wenger, E. (1998). Communities of Practice: learning, meaning and identity. Cambridge:

Cambridge University Press.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2009). Middle school math: I CAN Learn Pre-Algebra and

Algebra. WWC Intervention Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education

Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department

of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=228. Accessed on November 9, 2014.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2011). Children classified as having an emotional disturbance:

Coping Power. WWC Intervention Report. Washington, DC: National Center for

Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S.

Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_

reports/wwc_copingpower_102511.pdf. Accessed on November 11, 2014.

What Works Clearinghouse. (2014). Repeated reading. WWC intervention report. Washington,

DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov/

ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=576Wilkerson, K. L., Gagnon, J. C., Mason-Williams, L., & Lane, H. (2012). Reading instruction

for students with high incidence disabilities in juvenile corrections. Preventing School

Failure: Alternative Education for Children and Youth, 56, 219�231.

Wilkerson, K. W., Gagnon, J. C., Melekoglu, M. A., & Cakiroglu, O. (2012). Reading instruc-

tion in secondary day treatment and residential schools for youth with emotional or

behavioral disorders. Remedial and Special Education, 33, 78�88.

Wilson, S. J., & Lipsey, M. W. (2007). School-based interventions for aggressive and disruptive

behavior: Update of a meta-analysis. American Journal of Preventive Medicine, 33(2S),

S130�S143.

Wolford, B. I. (2000). Juvenile justice education: Who is educating the youth? Richmond, KY:

Eastern Kentucky University, Training Resource Center.


Dow

nloa

ded

by U

nive

rsity

of

Flor

ida,

Doc

tor

Jose

ph C

alvi

n G

agno

n A

t 05:

43 2

8 A

ugus

t 201

5 (P

T)

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/interventionreport.aspx?sid=228


http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_copingpower_102511.pdf

http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/intervention_reports/wwc_copingpower_102511.pdf




http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1016%2Fj.amepre.2007.04.011

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1001%2Farchpedi.161.1.78

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1037%2F0003-066X.58.6-7.425

http://www.emeraldinsight.com/action/showLinks?crossref=10.1017%2FCBO9780511803932



Identifying and implementing evidence-based practices in alternative educational setting

Documents

Transcript of Identifying and implementing evidence-based practices in alternative educational setting