High-Leverage Practices
for Students with Disabilities
The term “high-leverage practice” and its corresponding definition emerged in general education more than ten years ago (Ball & Forzani, 2011; Grossman et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2013). In partnership with the Collaboration for Effective Educator Development, Accountability, and Reform (CEEDAR), the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC) developed and published a set of high-leverage practices (HLPs) for special educators and teacher candidates.
The HLPs are organized into four domains: Collaboration, Data-Driven Planning, Instruction in Behavior and Academics, and Intensify and Intervene as Needed. Each domain has pillars and embedded practices infused with culturally inclusive pedagogies.
This site will provide the initial grounding and thinking for how professionals can think about HLPs, reorient toward the most essential (pillar) practices, and demonstrate how the remaining HLPs (embedded) practices function to support implementation. HLPs are meant for ALL educators to support all students hence resources are provided for a variety of roles of those implementing practices.
This site is currently under construction, so check back regularly for updates.
Overview of HLPs
The high-leverage practices for special education were first introduced in 2017 by team leads Drs. James McLeskey and Mary-Dean Barringer and their colleagues. A deceptively simple concept, HLPs are a relatively small set of key practices all educators should know and have in their toolbelt. Overwhelmed teacher educators, professional development providers, and educators all struggling to learn and implement a seemingly endless list of evidence-based and other practices connected immediately with the HLPs (McLeskey et al., 2019). Henceforth, spawned substantial professional development efforts (Windschitl et al., 2019), updates to teacher preparation programs (Billingsley et al., 2019; Maheady et al., 2019), and various literature reviews and statistical analyses (e.g., Nelson et al., 2022).
In their introduction to the original version of this text, McLeskey and team wrote, “…these practices must represent the essence of effective practice in special education” (p. 9). This echoed others who called for HLPs to be identified as those which could reasonably be taught and learned during preparation programs (Ball et al., 2009; McDonald et al., 2013; Windschitl et al., 2012) and therefore be the foundation of practice-based teacher education (Leko et al., 2015) for special education. However, the intention was not for these practices to be used solely for special educators’ “students.” Instead, the HLPs for students with disabilities are practices for all educators given that students with disabilities are present in just about every general educator’s classroom. Additionally, the HLPs for students with disabilities are not only effective for students with IEPs, but evidence also shows they are effective for all students (Nelson et al., 2022).
The original HLPs for Special Education, have been renamed HLPs for Students with Disabilities and are now organized by four domains (Collaboration, Data-Driven Planning, Instruction in Behavior and Academics, and Intensify and Intervene as Needed). The HLPs have been reorganized into pillar and embedded practices. Pillar Practices are the most essential HLPs for educators to initially master and implement while Embedded Practices are necessary to adequately support pillar practices. Each domain has pillar and embedded practices which are explained further within the Domain Menu and HLP descriptors.
Culturally inclusive pedagogies and practices (CIPP) are those theories and practices that have centered multiple layers of sociocultural diversity and understanding in the educational sphere. That is, considering the wholeness of context, content, and constructs (e.g., people, resources, environments, etc.) that intersect and interact in the education space and influence life-centered outcomes. CIPP challenges deficit-based understandings of disability, “presumes competence” (Biklen & Burke, 2006), and interrogates intersectional oppressions.