Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities through the RtI Process Presented by: Judy Hackett, NSSEO Kathryn Cox, ISBE ISBE Special Education Directors.

Addressing the Needs of Students with Disabilities through the RtI Process

Presented by:Judy Hackett, NSSEO Kathryn Cox, ISBE

ISBE Special Education Directors’

ConferenceAugust 6, 2009

Session Objectives

This session will:

•Describe how RtI addresses the needs of all students

•Provide examples of how the needs of students with identified disabilities can be addressed through RtI

•Provide examples and facilitate discussion among participants on best practices for incorporating RtI into the IEP process

•Provide additional insight into how state/local RtI plans and professional development should articulate how the needs of all students are addressed effectively

2

Addressing the Needs of All Students

3

• Intensifying an intervention for a student with an identified disability through PS process and progress monitoring

• Grouping students in a classroom for efficient instruction• Developing an intervention for the entire special education

class• Reviewing assessment results to help plan and/or adjust

small group instruction• Determining if a student is eligible for special education• Developing a behavior support plan based on problem

analysis

Does RtI mean … ?

4

• Intensifying an intervention for a student with an identified disability through PS process and progress monitoring

• Grouping students in a classroom for efficient instruction• Developing an intervention for the entire special education

class• Reviewing assessment results to help plan and/or adjust

small group instruction• Determining if a student is eligible for special education• Developing a behavior support plan based on problem

analysis

These are all examples of RtI…

5

The Illinois State RtI Plan

•“ISBE believes that increased student learning requires the consistent practice of providing high quality instruction matched to student needs.”

•“The success of all students toward the Illinois Learning Standards is improved when instructional and behavioral goals are frequently monitored.”

•“…it is through the continuous use of progress monitoring and analysis of student academic and behavioral growth that proper instructional and curricular responses may be made.”

6

The Illinois State RtI Plan

•RtI means:– “Using differentiated instructional strategies for all

learners,

– Providing all learners with scientific, research-based interventions,

– Continuously measuring student performance using scientifically research-based progress monitoring instruments for all learners and

– Making educational decisions based on a student’s response to interventions”

•RtI has three essential components:1.A three-tier model of school supports2.A problem-solving method for decision-making and 3.Integrated data collection that informs instruction

7

Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions 1-5%•Individual students•Assessment-based•High intensity

1-5% Tier 3/Tertiary Interventions•Individual students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Tier 2/Secondary Interventions 5-15%•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions• Some individualizing

5-15% Tier 2/Secondary Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response•Small group interventions•Some individualizing

Tier 1/Universal Interventions 80-90%•All students•Preventive, proactive

80-90% Tier 1/Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

School-Wide Systems for Student Success:A Response to Intervention (RtI) ModelAcademic Systems Behavioral Systems

Illinois PBIS Network, Revised May 15, 2008. Adapted from “What is school-wide PBS?” OSEP Technical Assistance Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions and Supports. Accessed at http://pbis.org/schoolwide.htm

8

Problem Solving Process

A reflective, collaborative problem solving framework is implemented to determine effectiveness of instruction and used to make decisions within a multi-tier model:

1. Is there a problem? What is it?2. Why is it happening?3. What are we going to do about it?4. Is it working?

What is the Problem?

Why is itoccurring?

Is it working?

What are we going to do about it?9

THE BIG THE BIG PICTUREPICTURE

Global Perspective on the Educational Process for Students with Identified Disabilities

10

Effective Response to Intervention implementation is…

…based on having an effective core program

The key to RtI is to developa comprehensive system ofinstruction with a research-based core curriculum and enhancement programs,and interventions designed to address the needs of all learners.

11

1. UNIVERSAL SCREENINGAND BENCHMARKING:

EARLY LITERACY MEASURES, SUCH ASDIBELS OR AIMSweb

CBM

(KEY CRITICAL INDICATORS)

FRAMEWORK FOR READING ASSESSMENT

STRATEGIC MONITORING (ROI)

PROGRESS MONITORING

(ROI)SYSTEMATIC PROBLEM SOLVING

PINPOINTING THE SPECIFIC AREA OF DIFFICULTY,

DIAGNOSTIC INFORMATION

TIER III

TIER III

3 X PER YEAR

TWICE MONTHLY

WEEKLY

TIER I

12

Schools/Programs need to identify specific tools for specific assessment purposes

Type Purpose For Tier(s) . . .

Universal Screening

Problem Identification for Systems & Groups

What’s the problem?

Tier 1 (core instruction

needs?)Tier 2 & 3 (who are students at-risk?)

Diagnostic Problem Analysis

Why is the problem occurring?

Primarily Tier 3

Progress Monitoring

Plan Development/Evaluation

What are we going to do?/Is it working?

Tier 1, 2 & Tier 3

Program Evaluation

Plan Evaluation

Is it working?

Primarily Tier 1, but 2 and 3, too

13

14

High School Question:Basic Skill Discrepancy? Or Content

Enhancements

What Service?

How?

Goal?

Evaluation Tool?

Instruction in Basic or Literacy Skills

Instruction in Content

Area Knowledge

Direct Service in Special Education

SIMCRISS STRATEGIES

Master Basic or Literacy Skills

CBM

Master Content Area Knowledge

Common Assessments

YES NO

Addressing the Needs of Students with Identified Disabilities through RtI

15

04/10/23 16

Example Data-Driven Decision Making For:

Behavior Change

17 04/10/23

Current Level of Performance/Baseline Data:

Behavior plan positively reinforces appropriate behaviors:-- keeping his body to self, -- following directions, --staying in his seat and --using appropriate words.

Student X was following plan at average rate of 73% of time but continued to engage in inappropriate touch (significant incidents of hitting others, touching others without their permission and throwing objects) at an average rate of 32 times per month. Inappropriate touch became the targeted behavior.

The IEP GOAL: Given interventions as outlined in Student X’s Behavior Plan, inappropriate touching will be reduced to no more than 10 times per month with quarterly benchmarks at 25, 20, 15, and finally 10.

Nicco - Inappropriate Touch 07-08 SY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Inappropriate Touch

Inappropriate Touch 48 33 26 22 31 34 33

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

Inappropriate Touch 07-08 SY

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Inappropriate Touch 48 33 26 22 31 34 33

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb March April

1804/10/23

Intervention & Progress MonitoringIntervention Plan

Student X follows a “Green and Red” Plan in which his behavior is rated for each activity throughout the day in four categories (Body to Self, Follow Directions, Stay in Seat, Use Appropriate Words). Student X makes basketball shots at the end of the day to correspond with the number of activities in which he has received all green checks.Progress MonitoringData provided the following information: Student X hit 41 times in Sept 08 and 186 times in Oct. 08 In Sept, 58% of those incidents occurred during exploratory times outside of the self contained classroom and in Oct., the percentage rose to 74%. Based upon analysis of time of day, class period and the behavioral antecedent and consequences changes were made to the behavior plan.

Number of Inappropriate Touch Oct 2007 through Dec. 2008

48

33

2622

3134 33

41

184

69

19

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

180

200

Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apri Sept Oct Nov Dec

Number of Hits

04/10/23 19

Insert Chart Here

Based on the intervention and the data analysis, the inappropriate touching behavior was reduced after the intervention was revised. Further data analysis by the team indicated the student will work on following directions for the 09-10 school year. Student X will increase his ability to follow directions at a rate of 86% of the time with quarterly increases of 80%, 82% and 84%. Monthly Average Percentage of Following the Plan for Student X 12/08 - 4/09

77%

81%

78%

75%

85%

70%

72%

74%

76%

78%

80%

82%

84%

86%

Dec Jan Feb March April

Monthly AVERAGE Percentage for Following Plan

Percentage of Incidents for Student X. 12/08-4/09

14%

23%

17%

20%

26%

0%

5%

10%

15%

20%

25%

30%

Hands to Self Follow Directions Remain in Seat Quiet Voice Hands on Table

Percentage of Incidents 12/08-4/09

04/10/23 20

Example Data-Driven Decision Making For:

Reading Instruction

21

Baseline Data: Student is an 8th grader with significant learning and emotional needs. He has demonstrated an unstable pattern of progress from September through January of the current school year. Baseline reading fluency at the start of the year was 35 words read correctly at grade 1. Previous reports indicate that he was reading between 7-11 words at a 2nd grade level, making limited progress on basic sight words.

Goal: Given a reading passage at the 1st grade (instructional) level, Student will increase reading rate and fluency to 60 words read correctly.

22

Intervention: This student was one of 22 who participated in a school-wide pilot program using SRA Corrective Reading. Students were assessed prior to beginning the intervention in January.

Progress Monitoring: All students were progress monitored using AIMSweb probes for Reading Fluency along with curriculum based measures within the SRA program. Teachers and Psychology interns assisted with the monitoring and the analysis of the data (see artifacts).

Insert Chart Here

• Progress Monitoring • errors

Progress Summary

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13

Probe

Wo

rds

Re

ad

Co

rre

ct

(WR

C)

23

Data Analysis:

Following the implementation of the SRA Corrective Reading program, student made steady progress throughout the remainder of the school year. Student ended the year with 51 words read correctly on a 1st grade reading passage. Based on the student’s response to this intervention, he will continue in the SRA Corrective Reading program.

Based on observational data, student’s self-esteem improved significantly over the course of the school year. This was noted by his willingness to read aloud in class, his desire to attempt reading tasks independently and his success on independently reading his 55 question Constitution exam and earning 100%.

Incorporating RtI into the IEP Process

24

•Specify timeframe

•Specify desired behavior

•Specify measurement condition

•Specify criterion for success

•Check: Can you graph this goal?

Writing OBSERVABLE and MEASUREABLE Goals

25

Essentials for Writing Strong Goals

•Present Level of Performance

•Benchmarks (Short-term and Long-term)

•1-2 Goal Areas (Prioritize!)

•Written in Observable and Measurable terms (It can be graphed)

•Written as Outcome-Based (GOM)

•Realistic, yet Ambitious

26

In (number) weeks, when (condition) occurs, (learner) will (behavior) to a (criterion).

Example: In 6 weeks, when given a 4th grade reading passage, Bradley will read 100 WRC with 6 or less errors.

Nonexample: Katrina will answer comprehension

questions regarding the main idea and supporting details in age appropriate materials.

27

Realistic and Ambitious Reading Goals Based on Normative Sample of Student Receiving Standard Reading InstructionFuchs, Fuchs, Fernstrom, Germann, and Hamlett (1993)

Grade Level Passages

Realistic Goal Ambitious Goal

6-8 .3 WRC per week .65 WRC per week

5 .5 WRC per week .8 WRC per week

4 .85 WRC per week 1.1 WRC per week

3 1.0 WRC per week 1.5 WRC per week

2 1.5 WRC per week 2.0 WRC per week

1 2.0 WRC per week 3.0 WRC per week

Goal= Current Performance + (Rate of Growth X Number of weeks)Lily’s Goal= 42 words read + (1.5 WRC per week X 33 weeks)= 91.5 WRC

28

•Consider the Severity of the Discrepancy

•Consider the Intensity of the Program

At Tier 3, when Grade-Level Expectations are not appropriate, use a Growth Rateto Set the Goal

29

Logical Task--

– Grade 4 Student getting Tier 3 interventions without an IEP: We’d set our goal for Grade Level Material (Grade 4)

– Grade 4 Student with Severe Educational Need getting Tier 3 interventions who has an IEP: May not be Grade Level Material

30

Setting the Goal Material

With Severe Discrepancy, we recommend using an Ambitious Growth Rate Method to set goals

Identify Growth Rate for Typical Students and Expect FASTER Rate of Improvement

2.0 WRC * 6 Weeks = 6 + Current Performance= Goal WRC31

32

Writing a Goal is Straightforward with Good DataWe Start with a Survey Level Assessment (SLA)

Tier Goal Material Time Frame and Frequency

Criterion for Success

Tier 1: Benchmark

Grade-Level Materials

Benchmark to Benchmark, 3 Times per Year

Adequate Progress and Meeting Benchmark

Tier 2: Strategic Grade-Level Materials

Benchmark and Monthly

Adequate Progress and Meeting Benchmark

Tier 3: Frequent PM

Individualized Based on Severity of Need

Weekly Progress and Reduce the Gap

33

Summary Chart for Goal Setting in 3 Tiers and RTI

Other Connections to the IEP

•The IEP must provide for:

–Frequent (weekly) student progress monitoring using scientific, research-based tools

–Use of progress monitoring data to determine the effectiveness of the interventions and any needed changes

–Evaluation of implementation integrity

•The student needs to receive:

– Instruction in the “big ideas” of grade placement curriculum

–More allocated instructional time than peers without IEPs in area(s) of concern

–Additional instructional time that includes direct, explicit instruction in skill deficits

34

RtI Planning & Training – Building on ongoing system to address student needs

35

3604/10/23

Eligibility Process Building upon district RtI

planning/criteria/document of evidence of need

Overview & Basics Philosophy/Framework

Common Language

Implementation Use of interventions

tied to needIntegrity/fidelity of tools

Plan Review & Revisions Ongoing cycle of planning

and review of data

Team Building & Coaching

Includes role flexibility/technical expertise

Sustainability Critical review of comprehensive plan, stakeholder perspectives, phases of development, next level of

sophistication in implementation

RtI Professional Development Training Blocks

Special Education

Eligibility/Entitlement

37

Response to Intervention (RtI) is “the practice of providing 1) high-quality instruction/ intervention matched to student needs and 2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to 3) make important educational decisions” (Batsche, et al., 2005). This means using differentiated instructional strategies for all learners, providing all learners with scientific, research-based interventions, continuously measuring student performance using scientifically research-based progress monitoring instruments for all learners and making educational decisions based on a student’s response to interventions.

RtI has three essential components: 1) using a three tier model of school supports, 2) utilizing a problem-solving method for decision-making, and 3) having an integrated data system that informs instruction.

RtI and Eligibility?

The Illinois State Response to Intervention (RtI) PlanJanuary 1, 2008

It is important to note that RtI within a three-tier intervention model is also a part of special education eligibility decision-making required by 34 CFR 300.309 and 23 IAC 226.130.

By the 2010-2011 school year, documentation of the RtI process shall be a part of the evaluation process for students when a specific learning disability (SLD) is suspected. After [emphasis added] implementing an RtI process, a district may [also] use a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement as part of the evaluation process for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

38

Basic Purpose of Special Education Eligibility

•Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance

•Response to Intervention is not sufficient to predict student attainment of set benchmark

•Student is not a functionally independent learner

•Student demonstrates a NEED for special education services based on level of intensity

39

Discrepancy Educational Progress

Instructional Needs

Entitlement Decision

Tells us whether or not interventions require special education.

Entitlement Decision

Tells us how unique the student is com-pared to peers.

Tells us whataccelerateslearning.

Tells us what and how to teach.

40

Presentation Summary

• RtI is applicable to all students, students with and without identified needs. It is neither a general education nor special education process – it is a process to improve student outcomes.

• RtI is a framework and a process that is data-driven and effective in identifying student needs/developing plans and evaluating effectiveness of IEP plans/special education programs and interventions.

• RtI requires intensive, ongoing professional development, training and supports for staff in data collection and analysis, determining what interventions are effective for what students need and how to objectively evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention plan or IEP.

• RtI embedded in the IEP process is a work in progress – in terms of eligibility, goal/plan development and a more global application and implementation across educational settings.

41

If you want to feel safe and secure, Continue to do what you have always done.If you want to grow, go to the cutting edge Of our profession.Just know that when you do, there will be a Temporary loss of sanitySo know when you don’t quite know whatyou are doingYou are probably growing! Madeline Hunter

42

Contact Information

Dr. Judy HackettSuperintendentNSSEO799 West KensingtonMt. Prospect, IL 60056Phone: 847-463-8100Email: [email protected]

Kathryn CoxPrincipal Ed. Consultant & I-ASPIRE Proj. DirectorISBE100 N. 1st StreetSpringfield, IL 62777Phone: 217-782-5589Email: [email protected]