-
Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Implications for
State and District Policies and PracticesC.A.S.E. January 25,
2006
Dr. George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for
School ReformSchool Psychology ProgramUniversity of South
Florida
-
If we can really understand the problem, the answer will comeout
of it, because the answer is not separate from the
problem.-Krishnamurti
-
There will be no prizes for predicting rain..
Prizes will be given only for building arks.
-
Advanced OrganizersThis is a process that will take timeRtI is
more about general education than special educationRtI is a
component of problem-solving, not an independent
processResponse-data basedIntervention-evidence-basedStrong basis
in statute and rule
-
Advanced OrganizersResponse-assessmentAdministered
frequentlyHighly sensitive to changesAligned with intervention
focus/outcomesIntervention-evidence basedAligned with local
demographicsDelivered with integrityContinuous progress
monitoringWhat are the implications for practice and
training???
-
www.nasdse.org
-
What is the Statutory and Regulatory Foundation for Problem
Solving and Response to Intervention?
-
Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving Process in
General and Special EducationIDEA Re-AuthorizationFocus on academic
outcomesGeneral education as baseline metricLabeling as a last
resortIncreasing general education optionsPooling building-based
resourcesFlexible funding patternsRtI Introduced as option for LD
eligibilityESEA Legislation-No Child Left BehindNational Emphasis
on ReadingEvidence-based Interventions
-
Why Problem-Solving ?BIG IDEASAYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB)
move focus of attention to student progress, not student
labelsBuilding principals and superintendents want to know if
students are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students
typeAccurate placements do not guarantee that students will be
exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of
progressEffective interventions result from good problem-solving,
rather than good testingProgress monitoring is done best with
authentic assessment that is sensitive to small changes in student
academic and social behavior
-
Big Ideas (cond)Interventions must be evidence based
(IDEA/NCLB)Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure of
problem severity Program eligibility (initial and continued)
decisions are best made based on RtIStaff training and support
(e.g., coaching) improve intervention skillsTiered implementation
improves service efficiency
-
Status of ReauthorizationTitle: Individuals with Disabilities
Education Improvement ActPassed House in 2003, Senate in 2004Signed
by President Bush in December.IN EFFECT July 1, 2005Regulations in
Fall
-
Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement ActIn
general._Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a
child has a specific learning disability as defined in section
602(29), a local educational agency shall not be required to take
into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between
achievement and intellectual ability in
-
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act(B)
Additional authority._In determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process
that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based
intervention.Process refers to Problem Solving ProcessResponds
refers to Response to Intervention
-
(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIBIGILITY DETERMINATION- In making a
determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall
not be determined to be a child with a disability if the
determinant factor for such determination is
(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the
essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section
1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965);(B) lack of instruction in math; or(C)
limited English proficiency.
-
Proposed RegsFor a child suspected of having a specific learning
disability, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation
described in 300.304 through 300.306, data that demonstrates
that--
(1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child
was provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction
in regular education settings, consistent with section
1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction
was delivered by qualified personnel; and
(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment
of student progress during instruction, was provided to the child's
parents.
-
Proposed Regs(c) If the child has not made adequate progress
after an appropriate period of time, during which the conditions in
paragraphs (b)(1) and (2) of this section have been implemented, a
referral for an evaluation to determine if the child needs special
education and related services must be made.
-
ImplicationsPoor/lack of instruction must be ruled outCurricular
access blocked by any of the following must be
addressedAttendanceHealthMobilitySufficient exposure to and focus
on the curriculum must occurFrequent, repeated assessment must be
conducted
-
So What Is Special Education-Really?Characteristics AND Need
(IDEA 04)Instructional and Related Services Necessary to Profit
from Education Supplements General EducationNote: Does not
supplant-particularly LDUnified system of EducationFunds (really??)
Instructional and Related Services When Those Reach a Certain Level
of IntensityWhat is Special? Intensity and Focus
-
Is It All About Reading? Yes!52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs70%
+/- of special education activities (e.g., evaluations, staffings,
IEPs) related to LD cases94% of students in LD because of
reading/language arts46% of IDEA $$ go to improve readingChanges in
LD Rules will affect the vast majority of special education
activities
-
Problem Solving and RtII really just want to be able to use RtI
without all of that problem-solving stuff--can I do that?
-
Problem SolvingA process that uses the skills of professionals
from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention
plans that improve significantly the school performance of
students
-
Problem Solving Process
-
Response to Intervention:How Well Are We Doing?A systematic and
data-based method for determining the degree to which a student has
responded to intervention.Determined solely through analyzing
dataBegins with using data to IDENTIFY the problemServices should
intensify for a student as the student response to intervention is
below expectations.It IS NOT Problem-Solving
-
Response to Intervention:How Well Are We Doing?What do we do
when a student has been placed in special education but the
students rate of progress has not changed significantly?This has
significant implications for special education re-evaluations under
the RtI model.
-
Integrated Data SystemNine Characteristics:Directly assess the
specific skills within state and local academic standards.Assess
marker variables that lead to the ultimate instructional target.Are
sensitive to small increments of growth over time.Can be
administered efficiently over short periods.
-
Integrated Data SystemMay be administered repeatedly.Can readily
be summarized in teacher-friendly formats/displays.Can be used to
make comparisons across students.Can be used to monitor an IEP over
time.Have direct relevance to the development of instructional
strategies related to need.
-
What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is an overall integrated system of
service delivery.
Is Not:RtI is not just an eligibility systema way of reducing
the numbers of students placed into special education.
-
What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is effective for students who are
at risk for school failure as well as students in other disability
categories.
Is Not:RtI is not limited to students with learning
disabilities.
-
What RTI Is and Is Not Is:RtI is The use of RtI is an excellent
opportunity to more effectively align IDEA and NCLB principles and
practices.
Is Not:RtI is not just an special education approach.
-
Use of RtI in the Student Eligibility ProcessSo, how does the
eligibility process look different using the RtI approach vs.
traditional practices?
-
Adapted from Fletcher, 05, Used with Permission
-
High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still,
he couldnt shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this
was a new trick. We are being asked to accomplish things weve never
done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence
-
Traditional vs RtITraditionalDiscrepancyIQ/AchievementRule
OutSocioculturalSESSensoryDevelopmentalRule InPsychological
ProcessesDataNorm referencedRtIDiscrepancyChild/BenchmarksRule
OutIneffective instruction/accessSupplemental instructionIntensive
instructionRule InIdentification of effective
interventionsExtraordinary supports for
progressDataCurriculum-basedAuthentic
-
Re-EvaluationsTraditionalDiscrepancy continues to existLimited
progress toward benchmarksSupports criticalRtIGap is closingIf
response is poor, should we keep the student in the program?If
response is good, can we transition to a Tier 3,2 or 1?
-
Problem SolvingCan be applied to the student, classroom,
building, district, and problem levelsStudent-academic and/or
behavior problemClassroom- discipline, returning homeworkBuilding-
bullying, attendanceDistrict- over-/under-representationProblem-
problem common to students in building
-
Problem-Solving:What It Is and Is NotWhat it is.A process
designed to maximize student achievementA method focused on
outcomesA method to ensure accountability and intervention
evaluationIt is all about student progress, regardless of where or
who that student isWhat it is notA way to avoid special education
placementsA less expensive way of schooling
-
What Are the Barriers?
Its a different way of doing business for some.It requires an
expanded set of skills.Interventions are integrated, not done by
team members or special educators onlyRequires frequent data
collection and analysis--different cultureFocus is on HOW and
student is doing, not WHERE the student is going
-
What Are the Benefits?Enhanced Student
PerformanceAccountabilityGreater staff involvementGreater parent
involvementGreater student involvement
-
Discrepancy/Child Study vs Problem SolvingFocus on interventions
(not test scores)Low and high ability students respond equally well
to phonemic awareness and phonics interventions.
Assessment linked to developing and monitoring the effectiveness
of interventions (not to diagnoses or categories)
Balance between needs/resources (not strictly to
eligibility)
Change process (not a fix)
Student outcome-based, not placement-based (What students DO is
important, not what students are CALLLED)
-
Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special EducationExcedrin
Headache #1 for Special Education!
-
Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy ModelSpecial
education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of
students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it.
(Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)
Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to
move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek,
1998)
Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates
can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.
Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)
Its the nature of the program more than the label that makes the
difference.
-
Research on Problem-Solving/RtIFocused on accuracy of referral
methods and response to proven interventions
RtI methods (local comparisons and multiple measurement) were
superior to teacher referral for problem accuracy.
Teachers over-referred male students
Greater proportion of African American students responded
successfully to intervention relative to similarly at-risk
Caucasian students. Reduced disproportional placements.
Early intervention was powerful
Significant reduction in LD placements(VanDerHeyden, Witt, and
Naquin)
-
Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked
How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI
process?What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse
backgrounds? What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of
teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?
-
Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions AskedIs there evidence
that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM
compared to the discrepancy model?What happens when we compare the
accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared
to the discrepancy model?
-
How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI
process?Evidence from Iowa and Minnesota would suggest that it
takes 4-6 years (or more) to complete full implementation. Full
implementation includes policy and regulatory change, staff
development, and development of building/district-based
procedures.
-
Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence
disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public SchoolsProblem-solving
model phase-in began in 1994Adapted from Marston (2001).
-
What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse
backgrounds?VanDerHeyden, et al. report that students responded
positively to the method and that African-American students
responded more quickly than other ethnic groups.Marston reported a
50%decrease in EMH placements over a 6-year period of time.Marston
reported a drop over a 3-year period in the percent of
African-American students placed in special education from 67% to
55%, considering 45% of the student population was comprised of
African-American Students.
-
Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence
disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public SchoolsProblem-solving
model phase-in began in 1994Adapted from Marston (2001).
-
Percentage of African-American students at each stage of
referral process at 41
schoolsN=9643N=9170N=348N=416N=200N=154N=184N=124
-
What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers
and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?Swerdlik, et al.
conducted a longitudinal study of the impact of PSM/RtI in the
FLEXible Service Delivery system in Illinois. Results indicate that
both teacher and parent satisfaction with the PSM/RtI method was
superior to that of the traditional test-staff-place model.
-
Teacher Satisfaction at HeartlandQuestion 1: The problem solving
process supports teachers in improving the performance of students
whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes
the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports.
Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational
interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general
and special education. Source: Heartland AEA 11 Consumer
Satisfaction Survey 2000-2001
Gen Ed Teachersn=390Principaln=31Sp Ed
Teachersn=89Agree81.0%96.7%92.14%
-
Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will
accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model?Marston
(2001) reports a 40% decrease in special education placements for
LD programs.VanDerHeyden, et al., report a significant reduction in
the rate of placement in LD programsHeartland Early Literacy
Project (HELP) reported significant decreases in initial special
education placements in grades K (41%), 1 (34%), 2 (25%) and 3
(19%) across a 5 year initial implementation period.
-
Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence
disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public SchoolsProblem-solving
model phase-in began in 1994Adapted from Marston (2001).
-
What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods
used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy
model?VanDerHeyden, et al. reported that RtI methods (local
comparisons and multiple measurement) were superior to teacher
referral for problem accuracy.
VanDerHeyden, et al. reported identification of students for
eligibility for LD programs was accurate when compared to
traditional ability/achievement discrepancy methods.
-
Research and PSM/RtI
RtI and Traditional Discrepancy ComparisonAmanda VanDerHeyden
(2005)
QUALIFYYesNoPendingTotal
Poor RtI-Refer152421
Good RtI-Do Not Refer 915125
Total 24175 46
-
Essential ComponentsMultiple tiers of intervention service
deliverysuch as a three-tier modelProblem-solving methodAn
integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at
each tier of service delivery
-
RtI:The Conceptual ModelIntegrate with Core Instructional
Programs and Activities in the DistrictReading First, Early
Intervention, Positive Behavior Support
3-4 Tiered Model of Service Delivery and
Decision-MakingUniversal--What all students
getSupplemental--additional focus and intensityIntensive--modifying
instructional strategiesExtraordinary-- highly specialized
methods
Problem-SolvingCan occur at any levelIncreases in intensity
across levels
-
Integrating Problem-Solving into the Tiered Delivery SystemHigh
probability hypotheses that address poor performance must be built
into the tiers.Standard interventions that address these hypothesis
must be available in all general education settingsProgress
monitoring methods must be incorporated into general education
-
Tiers or LevelsTier One- Examining Universal
InterventionsQuestions:How is this student doing compared to other
students? GAP analysisWhat percent of other students are achieving
district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instructionHypothesesHo: Has
this student been exposed to an effective learning environment?Ho:
Has this student had access to an effective learning
environment?
-
Tiers or LevelsTier One- Examining Universal
InterventionsAssessment:AYP DataState-wide assessmentsDistrict-wide
assessmentsAttendance dataHealth dataInterventions:Improve quality
of instruction to all studentsImprove attendance
-
Tier 1: Example A82% of Caucasian Students are achieving AYP in
reading20% of African American Students are achieving AYP in
readingAfrican American student is referred for LD for a reading
problemQuestion: Is this student in an effective instructional
environment?
-
Tier 1: Example B85% of students in a 4th grade are achieving
AYPReferred student has been in the school for 4 years and is 2
years below benchmark expectationReferred student has been absent
an average of 55 days in the past 2 years.Question: Has this
student been exposed to effective instruction?
-
Tier 1: Example C90% of 3rd grade students are achieving
AYPReferred student has been in this school since Kgn, has
excellent attendance, no significant health history and has
received a variety of interventions in readingReferred student
performance is 50% of peers in reading and at grade level in
mathQuestion: Has this student been exposed to an effective
learning environment?
-
TIER 1: Benchmark/SchoolwideBenchmark/Core Reading Programs:
1.Rigby Literacy (Harcourt Rigby Education, 2000)2.Trophies
(Harcourt School Publishers, 2003)3.The Nations Choice (Houghton
Mifflin, 2003)4.Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading (2003)5.Open Court
(SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2002)6.Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/McGraw-Hill,
2002)7.Scott Foresman Reading (2004)8.Success For All
(1998-2003)9.Wright Group Literacy (2002)
Reviewed by: Oregon Reading FirstComprehensive: Addressed all 5
areas and included at least grades K-3
-
TIER 1: School-Wide Discipline Programs:
Positive Behavior SupportProsocial Discipline
ProgramsSchool-wide Discipline CommitteeAttendance Programs
-
TIER 1: School-Wide Discipline Programs:
Positive Behavior SupportProsocial Discipline
ProgramsSchool-wide Discipline CommitteeAttendance Programs
-
Tiers or LevelsTier Two- Examining Supplemental
Interventions
Hypotheses:Ho: Student requires additional time for direct
instructionHo: Focus of the curriculum must
narrowAssessment:DIBELS, CBM, district
assessmentsInterventions:Increase AET (90-120-180)e.g., K-3
Academic Support PlanNarrow focus to fewer, barrier skillsDistrict
Supplemental Curriculum
-
Characteristics of Tier 2 InterventionsAvailable in general
education settingsOpportunity to increase exposure (academic
engaged time) to curriculumOpportunity to narrow focus of the
curriculumSufficient time for interventions to have an effect
(10-30 weeks)Often are standardized supplemental curriculum
protocols
-
TIER 2: StrategicStrategic/Supplemental Reading Programs:
Early (Soar to) Success (Houghton Mifflin)Read Well (Sopris
West)Reading Mastery (SRA)Early Reading Intervention (Scott
Foresman)Great Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.)REWARDS (Sopris West)Ladders to
Literacy (Brookes)Read Naturally Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
(PALS)
-
TIER 2: StrategicStrategic/Supplemental Behavior Programs:
Small Group SST Anger Control Training Peer/adult mentoring
program Tiered discipline program(e.g., positive rehearsal, time
out)
-
Tier 2: What is a Good Response to Intervention?Good ResponseGap
is closingCan extrapolate point at which target student will come
in range of peers--even if this is long rangeQuestionable
ResponseRate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap
is still wideningGap stops widening but closure does not occurPoor
ResponseGap continues to widen with no change in rate.
-
Tiers or LevelsTier Three: Examining Intensive Interventions
Hypotheses: Focus on child-specific issuesAssessment:DIBELS,
CBE, Diagnostic AssessmentsInterventions:Address verified
hypotheses
-
Characteristics of Tier 3 InterventionsDeveloped from
individualized student problem-solvingAssumption is that more of
the problem lies within the studentGoal is to find successful
interventions firstBased on intensity of the interventions required
for student success, determination is made about eligibility for
special education.Should comprise 4-5% of student
populationCriteria for Good RtI is same as Tier 2
-
TIER 3: INTENSIVE Reading Programs
Corrective Reading (SRA)
Language! (Sopris West)
Wilson Reading System Reading Mastery
Earobics (phonics/phonemic awareness; Cognitive Concepts)
Great Leaps/ Read Naturally (Fluency)
REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in Plus Program)
Soar to Success (comp.)
-
TIER 3: INTENSIVE Behavior Programs
Individual counseling/therapy Individual Behavior Plan Rapid
Response In-school alternative education Frequent, daily
mentoring
-
Example of Tier Level InterventionsCurricular FocusFrequency of
Progress MonitoringTier I905 areasCoreYearly or greaterTier
2120Less than 5Core+SupplementalMonthly or greaterTier 31802 or
lessCore+Supplemental+IntensiveWeeklyReading
-
Case ExamplesThanks to Joe Kovaleski and Ed Shapiro for the case
examplesPA State-wide RtI Initiative
-
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Data
Sept5030
35
Oct38
36
Nov40
Dec
Jan
Feb
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1:
ScreeningORF = 50 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpmComprehension skills are judged as at levels equal to ORF by
her teacher Is this student at risk?Current Gen Ed Instruction is
Working
NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsLisaContinue Tier 1
Instruction
-
RitaSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular
EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges
(based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
substantially different from ORF
-
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Data
Sept502020
24
Oct28
35
Nov34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1:
ScreeningORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpmComprehension deficits in all 4 of 5 areas are notedCurrent Gen
Ed Instruction is NOT WorkingIs this student at risk?
NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRitaRitaContinue
Tier 1 Instruction
-
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions &
InstructionSupplemental, small group instruction (3-4 students with
similar skill levels)Standard protocol intervention3x per week, 30
minutes eachTeam selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)Implemented
by 2 different available instructional personnelImplemented for 8
weeksProgress monitoring once every 2 weeks
-
Aimline= 1.50 words/week
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Data
Sept502020
24
Oct28
35
Nov34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention &
InstructionORF = 34 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for
some risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is
1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 1.85
words/weekGains above benchmark in 4 of 5 comprehension
areasStudent on target to attain benchmarkStep 2: Is student
responsive to intervention?
NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsRitaContinue
monitoring or return to Tier 1
-
StevenSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular
EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges
(based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
substantially different from ORF
-
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Data
Sept502020
24
Oct28
35
Nov34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education InstructionStep 1:
ScreeningORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44
wcpmComprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5 areasCurrent
Gen Ed Instruction is NOT WorkingIs this student at risk?
NoYesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRitaStevenContinue
Tier 1 Instruction
-
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions &
InstructionSupplemental, small group instruction in Ritas group
(3-4 students with similar skill levels)Standard protocol
implementation3x per week, 30 minutes eachTeam selects PALS (Peer
Tutoring Strategy)Implemented by 2 different available
instructional personnelImplemented for 8 weeksProgress monitoring
once every 2 weeks
-
Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.55 words/week
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Steven T2
20
18
22
21
24
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Data
Sept5020202020
2418
Oct2822
3521
Nov3424
28
31
36
Dec35
42
44
40
Jan45
Feb
Sheet2
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention &
InstructionStep 2: Is student responsive to intervention?ORF = 24
wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for some risk = 52
wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5 words/week
Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/weekBelow comprehension
benchmarks in 4 of 5 areasStudent NOT on target to attain
benchmarkIs student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?
NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsStevenContinue
monitoring or return to Tier 1
-
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions &
InstructionSupplemental, 1:3, pull-out instructionIndividualized
Problem-Solving, Targeted InstructionSpecific decoding and analysis
strategies Emphasis on comprehension strategies5x per week, 30
minutes eachImplemented by 2 different available instructional
personnelImplemented for 8 weeksProgress monitoring once every
week
-
Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.2.32 words/week
Chart5
20
18
22
21
24
28
31
36
Dec35
42
44
40
Jan45
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving
Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension
Strategies
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Steven T2
20
18
22
21
24
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Data
Sept5020202020
2418
Oct2822
3521
Nov3424
28
31
36
Dec35
42
44
40
Jan45
Feb
Steven T3
Steven T3
20
18
22
21
24
28
31
36
Dec35
42
44
40
Jan45
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving
Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension
Strategies
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Sheet3
-
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention &
InstructionStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier
3?ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away) for some
risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/weekAt or
above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areasStudent on target to
attain benchmarkStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention?Move
student back to Strategic intervention
NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility DeterminationStevenContinue
monitoring or return to Tier 2
-
BartSecond grade studentBeginning of school yearRegular
EducationScores at 20 wcpm in second grade materialTeacher judges
(based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
substantially different from ORF
-
Aimline= 1.50 words/weekTrendline = 0.95 words/week
Chart6
20
18
22
21
24
22
25
30
Dec26
28
30
28
Jan31
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving
Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension
Strategies
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Bart
LISA
50
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
LISA
Rita
20
Oct
Nov
Dec
Jan
Feb
Benchmark
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita
Rita T2
20
24
28
35
34
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Trendline = 1.85 words/week
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Rita- Tier 2
Steven T2
20
18
22
21
24
Dec
Jan
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Data
Sept5020202020
2418
Oct2822
3521
Nov3424
2822
3125
3630
Dec3526
4228
4430
4028
Jan4531
Feb
Steven T3
Steven T3
20
18
22
21
24
28
31
36
Dec35
42
44
40
Jan45
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving
Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension
Strategies
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Steven
Bart T3 SpEd
Bart T3 SpEd
20
18
22
21
24
22
25
30
Dec26
28
30
28
Jan31
Feb
Tier 2: Strategic -PALS
Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving
Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension
Strategies
School Weeks
Words Correct Per Min
Bart
-
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention &
InstructionStep 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier
3?ORF = 31 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away) for some
risk = 52 wcpmTarget rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 0.95 words/weekBelow
comprehension benchmarks in all areasStudent NOT on target to
attain benchmark
NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility DeterminationBartContinue
monitoring or return to Tier 2
-
School-Wide Positive Behavior Support Grade Level Social Skill
Training35%50%55%60% Benchmark75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim
Line= Trend Line
-
35%50%55% Benchmark75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line=
Trend Line65%60%
-
35%50%55% Benchmark75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line=
Trend Line65%60%
-
35%50%55% Benchmark 75%= Peer Group= Target Student= Aim Line=
Trend Line65%60% Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP) Home-School Notes
Individual Self-Control TrainingTier 3 - Intensive80%75%
-
How Do We Determine Eligibility:Need?Significant
DiscrepancyIntensity of support for Tier 3 interventionsCannot move
to Tier 2-level interventions without intense supportsNot
responsive to Tier 3 and need intense interventions to achieve
successful outcomesCommon criterion: improved outcomes
-
Early InterventionSchool Readiness Uniform Screening System
(SRUSS)ESI-KDIBELSClearly Defined Developmental Standards for
3-5All Kindergarten Students screened with DIBELS in first 21 days
of school
-
2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System
ResultsESI-K: Students with Valid Scores(N=175,806)
-
2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System
ResultsDIBELS Letter Naming Fluency: Students with Valid
Scores(N=175,023)
-
2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System
Results2004 DIBELS Initial Sounds Fluency: Students with Valid
Scores(N=174,913)
-
RtI Format in KindergartenIdentify 40% at moderate/high
riskRe-assess 1 month laterDid levels of risk change?Re-assess 1
month later (November)Did levels of risk change?Identify
moderate/high risk studentsIncrease AETRe-assess 1 month
laterIncrease focus and intensityContinue progress
monitoringModerate/high risk at end of yearUse information to plan
first grade intervention processAIP developmentMethods for
significantly increased time and focus
-
What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and
Districts?Early intervention Use Kgn DIBELS and similar assessments
for this purposeAccess to and Use of Data Student data is the most
accurate means of referring students for assistance and making
judgments about intervention effectivenessAccurate Tier 1 Decisions
Special education cannot cure large-scale pedagogical problems one
student at a time
-
What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and
Districts?Evidence-Based and Available Tier 2 Interventions Good
example is K-3 Academic Support PlanIdentifying SUCCESSFUL Tier 3
interventions PRIOR to making an eligibility determinationStaff
Professional DevelopmentTechnology Support for Data Management and
Access to Evidence-Based Tier 2 and 3 Interventions
-
Do We REALLY Want To Do This?It DependsIf we are interested in
as many students AS POSSIBLE achieving benchmarks AND AYP--its the
best thing we haveIf we are looking to solve pedagogical management
problems for diverse populations, then probably not.
-
How Long Will It Take to Implement this Effectively?3-6
yearsTake it one step (e.g., skill) at a time.Start with young
students (Kgn/DIBELS)Consider Tier 1 issuesCreate Tier 2 options
with existing staff and resourcesDevelop a 5 year PDP for staffEase
their job with social support and technologyUse networks-avoid
reinventing the wheel.
-
How Do We Increase Resources?TIME in and FOCUS of the
curriculumFocused Reading InterventionsK-3 Academic Support
PlanMiddle School Rigorous Reading RequirementsIntensive
Accelerated ClassroomReading FirstEarly InterventionDIBELS
ScreeningPositive Behavior SupportAfter School ProgramsParent
InvolvementProfessional Development for Teachers
-
Personnel Critical to Successful ImplementationDistrict-Level
LeadersBuilding LeadersFacilitatorTeachers/Student
ServicesParentsStudents
-
PSM/RtI Content:All PersonnelUnderstanding of:National, state,
district policies regarding RtILink between NCLB, IDEA 04, AYP and
RtIBeliefs, knowledge and skills that support implementation of
RtISteps in the PSM, multilevel RtI model, and how eligibility is
determined using RtIFundamental utility of using progress
monitoring
-
Role of District LeadersGive permission for modelProvide a
vision for outcome-based service deliveryReinforce effective
practicesExpect accountabilityProvide tangible support for
effortTrainingCoachingTechnologyPolicies
-
District Leaders: Content KnowledgeUnderstanding of:Professional
development delivery model that best supports implementationStaff
and budget requirements to integrate general and special education
services for the implementation of RtIRelationship between
implementation and expectations for improved student
performanceBarriers that will occur and that must be addressed
during implementationUse of, and support for, technology necessary
to ensure efficient and effective implementationEssential stages of
change and variables necessary for the smooth transition to the use
of PSM and RtI
-
Role of the PrincipalSets vision for problem-solving
processSupports development of expectationsResponsible for
allocation of resourcesFacilitates priority settingEnsures
follow-upSupports program evaluationMonitors staff
support/climate
-
The Principal:Content KnowledgeUnderstanding of:Need for
universal, supplemental and intensive instructional strategies and
interventionsComponents of a successful PDPNeed for and skills in
data-based decision-making and the need to share outcome data
frequentlyNeed to publicly recognize the relationship between staff
efforts and student outcomesNeed to involve and inform parents of
the essential elements of RtI and their role in the process
-
Role of the FacilitatorEnsures pre-meeting preparationReviews
steps in process and desired outcomesFacilitates movement through
stepsFacilitates consensus buildingSets follow-up
schedule/communicationCreates evaluation criteria/protocolEnsures
parent involvement
-
Role of ParticipantsReview Request for Assistance forms prior to
meetingComplete individual problem-solvingAttitude of consensus
buildingUnderstand dataResearch interventions for problem area
-
The Participants:Content KnowledgeAn understanding of:The
relationship between RtI and student achievementNeed to increase
the range of empirically validated instructional practices in the
general education classroomUses of the problem-solving
methodTechnology and other supports available and necessary to
implement RtIAdministrative and leadership support necessary to
maximize the implementation of RtINeed to provide practical models
and examples with sufficient student outcome dataNeed for
demonstration and guided practice opportunities
-
Student Services Staff:Content KnowledgeAn understanding of:The
different models for evaluating student performance differences and
their impact on the development of instructional and assessment
practicesEvaluation strategies to assess instructional quality in
general and special education classrooms and programsCBM and
related continuous progress monitoring technologies to relate
individual student performance to instructional quality dataNeed
for and models of social support and the role of support staff in
the provision of that support for school staffSpecific training in
coaching, mentoring and data management strategies
-
Role of ParentReview Request for Assistance form prior to
meetingComplete individual problem solvingPrioritize
concernsAttitude of consensus building
-
Student InvolvementIncreases motivation of studentReduces
teacher loadTeaches self-responsibility
-
Impact on Leaders:A Change in FocusStudent progress, not labels
are most importantAll students compared to general education
expectationsAll students affect AYPA students response to
intervention is the most important dataAcademic Engaged Time is the
currency of problem-solvingTraining and coaching must be focused on
PSMIncrease the use of technology Interventions must be
evidence-based
-
Staff SupportRisk-free or risky environment?Expectations may be
most important factorAlternative not Less
-
What is a Team?Facilitators VisionAgreement through CONSENSUSWe
agree to try and seeNo one person is an expert-a show maker or a
show stopperPeople stay focused on common goal-Development of
Effective InterventionsInterpersonal conflicts do not affect
outcomeThis is about the studentWe are seeking an significant
improvement-not a cureResources must be managed wellPrimary
resource is time
Special emphasis on low SES and minority studentsTraining
Notes
This is a slide that depicts in pictorial fashion what we are
doing as we proceed along an eligibility determination decision
making process.
Some question may arise as to who the non-responders in special
ed may be. These are students for whom the level and intensity of
the decided special ed interventions suggest a higher level of
intensity. For example, students identified as eligible, placed in
a resource or itinerant service level, and do not respond to the
intensity of treatment may need for self-contained services. The
level of the response to special education services determines the
level of special education needs down the cascade of
services.Perhaps something here about how the effectiveness of
special education is determined, in great part, by the
effectiveness of general education in any given building.Training
Notes:
This is the decision model at Tier 1. Lisas ORF is above
benchmark for some risk, her comprehension skills are judged as at
levels equal to that reflected in her ORF. Therefore, she is not at
risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum
(in this case, Open Court) is working and she is making the
expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a
disability.
You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum)
instruction.Training Notes:
Rita is in the same class, and at the fall benchmark screening
she scores 20 wcpm. The teacher judges that her comprehension
skills are equally low and not reflected as being substantially
different than ORF.Training Notes
This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual
displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk
about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the
25th to 75th percentile of the normative group.
Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this
language which I think works):
In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result
in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students
to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set
number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so
there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student
should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to
comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have
something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency.
We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering
information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as
being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we
want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the
100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents,
they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and
expository text.
Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are
administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50%
on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and
deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading
comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at
100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use
it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look
at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on
reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that
if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension
may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may
recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not
able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension
questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one
correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages
for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly
understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become
concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on
specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even
though a student may read the text.
Training Notes:
Decision making at Tier 1 shows that Rita is NOT making
sufficient progress in general education setting, and that the
instruction within the core curriculum is not sufficient for her to
meet benchmarks. As such, you move to a Tier 2, Strategic
intervention.
Training Notes
The data based decision making team decides that the PALS
program, a peer tutoring program, would be an excellent method for
Rita to improve her reading. The specifics of PALS are described by
clicking the link and showing the audience the following
information off the link:
Click PALS Manual, Sample, PALS Student Question Card. This
illustrates two examples of the strategies of the PALS program,
paragraph shrinking and prediction relay.2. Return to click DEMO
VIDEO, PALS, and show the two video clips from the PALS. Although
the images are small and cannot be enlarged, they illustrate the
nature of a standard protocol intervention.
The intervention will be implemented in small groups from the
second and third grade where students have similar skill levels and
needs. The team puts the intervention into place 3 times per week
for 30 minutes each, two different instructional personnel (the
special ed teacher and an instructional aide) are available to
facilitate the intervention, and the intervention will be in place
for 8 weeks with PM conducted every 2 weeks.
Given that this is a strategic intervention, one increases the
intensity of the supplemental instruction AND the PM over the
benchmark, tier 1 level, but not at the level that will occur at
tier 3. Remind the audience that it is the variation in intensity
of instruction and the frequency of monitoring that are key
variables that change as one moves up the tiers.Training Notes:
This graph depicts the outcomes of the Tier 2 intervention. The
aimline, based on the decided level of expected progress is shown
in blue dots, the actual outcomes of the intervention is shown by
the trendline. The dashed blackline shows the anticipated outcomes
over time based on the intervention imlementation.
A question will arise as to whether one now continues the
intervention until benchmarking occurs again in winter. I believe
that IF the resources are available to continue the process until
benchmarking, that would be the right decision. The student would
then be exited from tier 2 as long as they met benchmarks. IF a
resource problem develops and the team cannot sustain the effort,
the child would be exited to tier 1 at the end of 8 weeks but
obviously would be carefully examined as the second benchmark
period was implemented.Training Notes:
The decision making process at tier 2 shows that Rita was
responsive to the intervention and would not be a student who is
considered any further to have a disability. Given her data, she
would probably be exiting from the tier 2 intervention and return
to tier 1, core instruction only intervention .
Training Notes
Steven is a third student from the same class. All the same
things from previous slides introducing students apply
here.Training Notes:
The decision process at Tier 1 shows that instruction in the
core curriculum alone is not working, so one move to a tier 2
strategic intervention.Training Notes:
Steven is placed into the same group with Lisa for PALS. This
slide just reiterates that this is a tier 2 strategic
intervention.Training Notes:
Stevens performance on ORF is shown here. While he is making
some progress, the rate of improvement over the 8 weeks is about 3
times slower than the target which is shown on the aimline. One can
see that if the same trend was maintained he is unlikely to meet
the winter benchmark.Training Notes:
The decision making process at tier 2 shows that while gains
were present, they were far below the expected level. As such,
Steven needs to move to tier 3 interventions which would be greater
in intensity and with more frequent progress monitoring. At this
point he has NOT been responsive to intervention,
Training Notes:
At tier 3, the teams looks specifically at Stevens skill
development and pulls together an individualized plan that
emphasizes specific decoding and analysis strategies, increases the
intensity of instruction (5x per week), and increases the frequency
of PM (once per week). Two additional peers with similar level of
need at Tier 3 are grouped with Steven, these students come from a
different class within his grade within his school. Again, two
different personnel are selected to implement the strategies, a
regular ed teacher and a special ed teacher.
Training Notes
This slide depicts the outcomes of the intensive strategic
intervention effort. As seen in the trendline, Steven shows
substantial improvement here and reaches a level of gain that is
likely to lead to a successful winter benchmark. Again, the
question of whether he would continue until the winter benchmark
will be raised. Given that this would now be 16 weeks after
starting tier 2 intervention, it is likely that the winter
benchmark is about to occur so the team would likely leave him in
the strategy until the benchmark was taken. Assuming he meets the
benchmark, the team may ease him back to tier 2 strategies again to
see if a less intense effort will sustain his progress.Training
Notes:
Decision making at tier 3 shows that Steven is responsive to
intervention and there should be no need to move toward a special
ed determination decision. Given his data, one would probably
continue monitoring through the end of the benchmark period and if
he maintains his progress, return to a Tier 2 intervention.
Training Notes:
Bart is the 4th student from the same class.Training Notes:
Bart moves through the same process as Rita and Steven, but with
far less success. As one can see, even with intensive tier 3
intervention, Barts progress does not reach the level that will
likely lead him to meet winter benchmarks. Given that we have moved
through tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, and these interventions
have been done with integrity, Bart is referred for consideration
for special education eligibility.Training Notes
Bart is NOT responsive to intervention at the level that will
lead to successful outcomes, even with intensive interventions. As
such, one moves to a special ed eligibility determination.