1 Response to Intervention (RtI): A Comprehensive, School-wide Approach KVEC Regional RtI Workgroup Wednesday, January 10 th 2007.

1

Response to Intervention (RtI): A Comprehensive, School-wide ApproachKVEC Regional RtI WorkgroupWednesday, January 10th 2007

2

Topics:

Definition and key components of of RtI Why RtI: Key rationale and benefits from

research, practice, and law What RtI looks like: School-wide implementation

of a comprehensive approach to RtI Tiers of instruction and intervention Data-based decision making Flexible, needs-based services delivery

Assessing school-wide readiness and planning steps

3

Response to Intervention Definition(NASDSE, 2005)“Response to Intervention (RtI) is the practice

of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions.”

4

Breaking Down the Components of RtI in the Definition: “Response to”

Data-based decision making Screening to identify and support early to prevent failure

“Intervention” Core instruction, differentiated instruction, and

intervention Scientifically-based, research-based Standards-based

Data on how “responds to intervention” of increasing intensity yields data on “in need of specialized instruction”

5

Some Key Ideas in This Definition:

Focus is on student and school-wide improvement and matching intensity of resources to student needs (based on data)

Focus is not on use of RtI solely for eligibility determination (RtI data emerge naturally from system of instruction, intervention, data-based decision making)

Requires a comprehensive, system-wide approach

6

Alignment of Comprehensive Approach to RtI with Research on Effective Schools:

Acknowledge student performance and seek solutions System-wide approach to improving instruction District vision focused on student learning and

instructional improvement Decisions based on data, not instincts, preferences Use of effective approaches to professional development Redefine leadership (ownership, building-based teams) Commitment to sustaining improvement over the long

term

7

Question:How do you spell RtI?

Answer:A Y P

8

The Promise and Benefits of an Integrated Approach to RtI:

Improved results for students at all levels Focus on early intervention (versus waiting to fail) –

finding the optimal instruction/intervention to get good results

Services and supports are needs-based – a coherent, flexible system

Data-driven decisions Important point – focus shifts from eligibility to

providing effective instruction/intervention and on maximizing results; eligibility derives naturally from systematic efforts at instruction and progress monitoring

Parent-friendly – focus is on helping improve outcomes, communicating with data related to instruction and progress

9

Benefits Noted in “A Parent’s Guide to Response-to-Intervention”

“The RTI process has the potential to limit the amount of academic failure that any student experiences and to increase the accuracy of special education evaluations…Information and data gathered by an RTI process can lead to earlier identification of children who have true disabilities and are in need of special education.”

National Center for Learning Disabilities, www.ncld.org

10

What is RTI: Key Foundations Multi-tiered instruction and intervention of increasing

or decreasing intensity, based on data on student needs

Data-based decision making and progress monitoring to inform instructional decisions at all tiers

Effective, research-based instruction/intervention at all tiers

Flexible, needs-based services, seamless system across general, remedial and special education

Use of systematic problem solving at all tiers for decisions

Use of web-based data-systems technology for decision-making efficiency

11

Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academics and Behavior

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions

5-10% Targeted Interventions5-10% Targeted Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

Decisions about tiers of support are data-based

A B

CDE

F

12

RtI at Middle and High School

Use of tiered approach to intervention – academics and behavior

Use of student performance data for decisions Critical component is starting with examining base (core/universal –

meeting the needs of most?) Changing core as needed, adding interventions and programs to

target needs (some), intervene individually for intensive needs for few Decisions about programs, interventions, needed to target,

based on data on needs (e.g., double language arts/reading blocks)

Fluid/flexible movement in intervention services Use of problem solving

13

Support for Comprehensive Approach to RtI in Law No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act (IDEA 2004)

14

Support in NCLB for a Comprehensive Approach to RtI Focus is on student progress – accountability for annual

yearly progress (AYP) for all students, including subgroups

Use of scientifically-based instruction, delivered by highly qualified teachers, aligned with state standards

Mandated intervention (think Tier 2)

How do you spell AYP? RtI

Assess and intervene early

Match intervention to needs

Improve progress of all

15

Support in IDEA 2004 for Comprehensive Approach to RtI

Big idea – Children with Disabilities (CWD) are general education students first – accountability for improved results in general education content standards and assessments

School-wide, preventive focus - Pre-referral intervention (early intervening) strengthened and extended (allowance of up to 15% of SE funds)

Mandated remedial and individual interventions for children not responding to scientifically-based instruction

Support for flexibility in services and use of resources to improve outcomes

16

IDEA 2004 Requirement for Consideration of Instruction: Supports School-Wide FocusDetermination of Eligibility (300.306) – all CWD,

not just SLD(b) A child must not be determined to be a CWD

under this part (1) if the determinant factor for that determination is (i) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA); (ii) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or (iii) Limited English Proficiency)

17

IDEA 2004 re: Discrepancy Criteria

When determining whether a child has a SLD as defined in section 602, a LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in (8 areas cited)

18

IDEA 2004 re: RtI

In determining whether a child has a SLD (Specific Learning Disability), a LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures…

19

IDEA 2004 re: SLD

300.309 Determining the existence of a SLD. (a) The group described in 300.306 may determine that a child has a SLD, as defined in 300.8(c)(10), if-

20

SLD Determination (300.309 cont.) (1) The child does not achieve adequately

for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards: (lists 8 areas).

21

SLD Determination (300.309 cont.) (2)(i) The child does not make sufficient

progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or

22

SLD Determination (300.309)

(ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments, consistent with 300.304 and 300.305

23

SLD Determination (300.309 cont.) (b) To ensure that underachievement in a

child suspected of having a SLD is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in 300.304 through 300.306

24

SLD Determination (300.309)

Note: 1 & 2 that follow refer to all SLD determination, not imbedded under RtI

(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

25

SLD Determination (300.309)

(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

26

Why Discrepancy Models Should Be Abandoned (from Commentary to Proposed Federal Regulations)“The IQ discrepancy criterion is potentially

harmful to students as it results in delaying intervention until the student’s achievement is sufficiently low that the discrepancy is achieved. For most students, identification as having an SLD occurs at an age when the academic problems are difficult to remediate (citing Torgeson)

27

Why Discrepancy Models Should be Abandoned (from Preamble, cont.)“…the “wait to fail” model does not lead to

“closing the achievement gap” for most students placed in special education.” (citing Donovan & Cross)

28

Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI): A System-Wide Approach and Opportunity for School Psychologists

Janet L. Graden, PhD ([email protected])

University of Cincinnati

Ohio School Psychologists Association

Spring Conference

May 4, 2006

29

Why RTI: Some Important Research Findings Related to Reading and the “Wait to Fail” Problem

Discrepancy formula doesn’t identify as eligible until Grades 3-4

If delay intervention to age 9, 75% continue to have significant reading difficulty through high school, even with intensive intervention

2 hrs. of intensive daily instruction required in Gr. 4 to make same gains as 30 min. of instruction in Kindergarten

30

Importance of Early Identification and Intervention for Reading Problems:

94% of SLD students identified for reading and language arts

Research shows 90-95% respond (close gap) with scientifically-based reading instruction and intervention, delivered by highly qualified teachers (prevent the downward spiral)

31

Why RTI: Potential Advantages of Integrated, Tiered Approach Positive outcomes have been demonstrated in growing

body of research and practice, across many settings (Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota) Prevention and early intervention – significant Tier 1 gains,

improved outcomes Matching intensity of intervention to severity of need - efficiency Integration and alignment of general, remedial, and special

education decisions, resources, services Reduction of identification biases (emerging research) Improved parent communication, reduced due process

complaints

32

Research Findings from Implementation of System-wide RtI: Most students (90-95%) meet standards with

research-based instruction and intervention Few (2-6%) require most intensive,

individualized intervention Proportional representation for minority

subgroup of students needing intensive support (lack of disproportionality)

(Burns & colleagues, Marston, Witt & colleagues)

33

Changes in Practices – Before Referral and Evaluation

Previous Practices Wait for referral (often wait

to fail) Pre-referral Intervention responsibility

on teacher Anecdotal progress

reports Wait to fail – had to be

deficit to be eligible

RtI Practices Teams review universal

screening data and automatically intervene with 20-30%

Interventions are standard, designed by team and delivered flexibly by building personnel

Progress monitoring data reviewed by team to make decisions

34

Change in Practices: During Evaluation

Previous Practices Most information

collected after referral Testing had most

influence on eligibility decision

Little focus on exclusionary criteria

Proving deficits, waiting to fail

RtI Practices Most information already

gathered when comprehensive evaluation begins

RtI data have most influence on eligibility decision

Exclusionary criteria are fully analyzed

Diagnostic and other assessment used as needed to fill in missing information needed for intervention planning

35

Changes in Practices: After Evaluation and for the IEP

Previous Practices Frequently, more evaluation

was needed to establish goals and services

If not eligible, frustration of educators, parents, and lack of student support and progress

No clear link between assessment and IEP, as required by IDEA

RtI Practices IEP team has extensive

information on student response to instruction by time eligibility is established

Clear, on-going link between assessment and IEP – same data methods used to progress monitor on IEP goals

36

Comprehensive, School-wide Approach to RtI Use of a tiered model Data-based decision making at all tiers Scientifically-based instruction and

intervention Needs-based (based on data on response

to instruction/intervention) flexible services delivery and eligibility

37

Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academics and Behavior

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions

5-10% Targeted Interventions5-10% Targeted Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

Decisions about tiers of support are data-based

A B

CDE

F

38

Key Features of an Effective Integrated Model

Administrative Leadership

Collaborative Strategic Planning

(CPS)

Scientifically-Based

Research

Data-Based Decision Making

Culturally Responsive

Practices

Academic & Behavior Supports Across 3-tiers

39

Tier 1: Universal Instruction and Screening for All Students

Purpose: Maximize learning for all students and minimize the number of students in need of intervention

What: Universal core scientifically-based general education

curriculum and effective, differentiated instruction for all students (addresses learning needs for most students – allowing 80-90% to meet performance indicators) (reading core instruction of 90 min./day recommended)

Use of data (e.g., state testing data, DIBELS, CBM) to Evaluate and improve instruction Universally screen all students to identify those in need of

intervention (Fall, Winter, and Spring universal screening)

40

Tier 1 (cont.) School-wide planning/problem-solving team

(including parent representation) is used for continuous improvement planning, including:Evaluating effectiveness of core curriculum and

instruction/behavior (effective for 80% of students?, if not, strengthen core)

Monitoring progress of AYP subgroupsDetermining flexible use of school resources to

meet student needs, based on dataPlanning and implementation of high quality

professional development to meet student needs, based on data

Assuring parent participation at all levels

41

NCLB Definition of Scientifically-Based Reading Research (SBRR, ESEA, Sec 1208(6)(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and

objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties, and

42

SBRR (cont.)(b) includes research that –

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

(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusion drawn;

43

SBRR (cont.)

(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations, and

(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through comprehensive, rigorous, objective, and scientific review

44

Tier 2: Supplemental, Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring (Some Students) Purpose: Identify students not making sufficient progress

with core instruction and provide supplemental, more intensive instruction and research-based intervention to close the gap (increase the rate of progress to meet standards)

Tier 2 is still general education instruction and intervention (may be provided by classroom teachers, remedial teachers, or special education teachers)

More frequent progress monitoring (typically 1x/wk) for data-based decision making

45

Tier 2 (cont.):

Supplemental interventions typically are standard research-based interventions, on top of core instruction, automatically in place based on data

Data-based problem-solving teams (e.g., grade level team with resource personnel) review student progress data frequently (e.g., monthly) to make instructional decisions (differentiate modify as needed, increase or decrease intensity, consider movement to individualized problem solving – Tier 3)

46

Tier 2 (cont.)

Parent involvement in decisions for their child with the child’s teacher - best practices, not a legal requirement, as are still general education interventions (note: typically do not “suspect a disability” until after implement more intensive, research-based individualized interventions and progress monitoring take place)

47

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Intervention and Progress Monitoring (Few Students) Purpose: provide intensive sustained support for

students in need (based on initial assessment in Tier 1 screening or progress in Tier 2)

Interventions based on individualized problem solving; still supplemental to core Tier 1 and 2 and general curriculum; research-based interventions and/or based on research-based principles and delivered by highly skilled and trained interventionists

Interventions and support (resources) are still general education, targeted to few who need it (1-5% at any time, from research)

48

Tier 3 (cont.)

More frequent/intensive progress monitoring for data-based decision making (same data as Tier 1 & 2, collected at least 1-2x/week)

Sufficient time and opportunity for intervention (research-based suggestions are for Tier 2 interventions of several weeks to be able to see and evaluate progress; some recommend minimum of 20 weeks for Tier 2 reading (Torgesen) and 5-9 targeted and individualized interventions (Witt and colleagues)

49

Tier 3 (cont.)

Problem-solving team is individualized to student, includes parent, teacher, typically resource person, possibly administrator

Tier 3 does not automatically mean suspecting a disability or special education

When data suggest that a disability is suspected, initiate procedures, timeline for eligibility determination, considering “response to intervention” data level – gap in performance from standards slope – rate of growth and whether “closing the gap” intensity of efforts required for progress – in need of specialized

instruction

50

Rethinking What Eligibility Means within RTI Approach: Focus on demonstrated needs, services

required to make progress Relies on data that naturally emerge from

decision making and instruction across tiers

Different from long-standing categorical approach to disability determination

51

Key Aspects of Eligibility Determination Using RtI Tier 1

Use of scientifically-based core instruction delivered by HQT Adequate time and opportunity to progress Universal screening data established need

Tier 2 Use of scientifically-based targeted intervention based on need, delivered by

HQT Adequate opportunity to progress Progress monitoring data (1-2x/wk) establish need for more intensive,

individualized intervention Clear decision rules

Tier 3 Use of individualized intervention based on research and use of problem solving Adequate opportunity to progress Progress monitoring data (1-2x/wk) to evaluate progress Clear decision rules

52

RtI and Comprehensive Evaluation Comprehensive evaluation is required; federal

regulations are non-prescriptive, allow for flexibility and team decisions

No requirement for testing in Federal Regulations Data from RtI contribute to comprehensive evaluation

and meet many federal requirements Need for specialized instruction, not due to lack of research-

based instruction, requirement to review all existing data Data also typically include observation, classroom

performance assessments, interview data, performance on state grade-level assessments (required)

53

Getting Started: Building Capacity for School-Wide Implementation: Use of collaborative planning team representing

key groups (classroom teachers, parents, support personnel) and including administrator – a necessary component for ownership and successful implementation!

Recognize that a school-wide change process typically takes 3-5 years for full implementation of all components, although some good student results often are seen in one year

Using research on effective implementation

54

Managing Complex Change

VISION+

COLLAB+

INCENTIVES+ RESOURCES+ ACTION PLAN+ = CHANGE

SKILLS+ INCENTIVES+ RESOURCES+ ACTION PLAN+ = CONFUSION

VISION+ INCENTIVES+ RESOURCES+ ACTION PLAN+ = ANXIETY

VISION+ SKILLS+ RESOURCES+ ACTION PLAN+ = RESISTANCE

VISION+ SKILLS+ INCENTIVES+ ACTION PLAN+= FRUSTRATION

VISION+ SKILLS+ INCENTIVES+ RESOURCES+ = TREADMILL

Adapted from Knoster, T.(1991) Presentation at TASH Conference, Washington, D.C. (Adapted from Knoster Enterprise Group, Ltd.)

SKILLS+COLLAB+

COLLAB+

COLLAB+

VISION+ SKILLS+ INCENTIVES+ RESOURCES+ ACTION PLAN+ = SABOTAGE

COLLAB+

COLLAB+

55

Research on Effective Implementation of Scientifically-Based Practices

Takes 2-4 years of planning, work, on-going problem solving during implementation

Information and training alone does not lead to change in practices (true across disciplines)

Need for on-site practice, coaching, support (research shows have to practice new skill 20-30 times to become automatic)

56

Stages of Implementation Exploration (getting information, thinking about it) Installation (planning, getting ready, getting

components in place, examining data, resource and policy decisions)

Initial implementation (getting started, supporting on-site practices)

Full implementation (school-wide adoption, alignment, support)

Sustainability (on-going support and adaptation, on-going professional development)

57

Administrator/Building-level Team: Support Roles and Activities for RtI Implementation Vision/mission – highlight student outcome focus,

school improvement focus Problem solving and planning on use of logical,

flexible use of resources based on data Commitment to research-based practices to improve

child outcomes Provide time and support for implementation Ensure use of sustained, meaningful, high quality

professional development Evaluate student outcome data and implementation

data – supportive climate for use of data

58

Educator Roles in RtI

In schools with comprehensive models, results show that there are not reductions in staff, they are used differently, e.g., School psychologists: data-based decision making, data systems

and technology, research-based programs and intervention, supporting implementation, progress monitoring, individualized interventions

Reading teachers: provide Tier 2 and 3 interventions, based on data on needs, coaching

Intervention Specialists: provide Tier 2 and 3 interventions, progress monitoring

Speech and Language Pathologists: Assisting with planning Tier 1 core approaches and delivering Tier 2 and 3 interventions

59

Typical Implementation Activities by Year: Year 1: Planning, reviewing data and instructional

practices and use of resources, setting up structure, communicating about benefits, building skills through professional development (PD)

Year 2: Implementation begins (school-wide or within grade/s), use of universal screening data, targeted interventions, continued planning and PD

Year 3: Data-based decision making, evaluating outcomes, making adjustments, continued planning

60

Assessing District and School Readiness for a Comprehensive Approach to RtI Instruction/Intervention

Use of scientifically-based reading curriculumUse of school-wide positive behavior supportScientifically-based instruction and

intervention across tiers, in general, remedial, and special education

Other initiatives that support concepts (e.g. Reading First, other)?

61

Assessing Readiness (cont.)

Services DeliveryNeeds-based, flexible use of resourcesDecisions (entry, exit) are based on student

performance data (same data as for other educational decisions), not just on professional judgment or normative tests not linked to curriculum

Staff skills and current capacity

62

Assessing Readiness (cont.)

Assessment/Data-Based Decision MakingUse of reliable assessment systems for

academic decisions across tiers, screening, targeting interventions, progress monitoring (e.g., CBM, DIBELS)

Use of reliable assessment for behavior decisions across tiers (e.g., SWIS)

Use of technology (web-based systems to allow for ease of use of data for decisions)

63

Closing Points

Remember it is about continuous improvement to maximize

student outcomes, not about a different way to sort students

school change takes time, commitment, support, collaboration

the efforts are worth it – research from effective implementation sites shows significant student improvements

64

Resources and References: Reports President’s Commission on Excellence in

Special Education (July, 2002) www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/

LD National Summit Panel (2002) www.air.org/ldsummit/

National Center on Learning Disabilities www.ncld.org

65

Resources and References: Reports National Academy of Sciences/National

Research Council Panel Report (2002) www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html

RtI Policy Implementation Paper for State Departments and other resources (myths, implementation tools)

www.nasdse.org

66

Resources: Research-Based Instruction and Intervention Research-Based Instruction

US DOE What Works Website:

www.w-w-c.org Reading

http://reading.uoregon.edu.curricula www.fcrr.org www.texasreading/org/utcria

Targeted Interventions www.interventioncentral.org www.fcrr.org

67

Resources for Tiered Model:

Assessment: CBM: www.aimsweb.comDIBELS: http://dibels.uoregon.edu

Positive Behavior Support:www.pbis.org

68

References for RtI:

Burns, Appleton, & Stehower (2005). Meta-analytic review of RtI. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394.

Burns & Senesac (2005). Comparison of a dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406.

Burns et al. (in press) Handbook for RtI (includes Ohio chapter)

Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18, 201-211.

69

References for RtI:

McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton. (2005). Responding to no-responders. Exceptional Children, 71,445-463.

School Psychology Review (2006) Special Issue on Implementation of Tiered Models

Speece, Case, & Molloy. (2003). Response to general education instruction as a first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 147-156.

Torgesen (2004). Preventing early reading failure (www.aft.org.pubs-reports/americaneducator/)