CORE JULY 28, 2011 What is RTI? (and why is it getting a bad rap?)

COREJULY 28 , 2011

What is RTI?(and why is it getting a bad

rap?)

The next two hours…

Overview of RTI

How RTI Started on the Wrong Foot

Why does RTI have such a bad rap? Implementation Mistakes (or What schools do that knock it off the

poor one wrong foot it was on to begin with…..)

Professional Opinions (or The Audacity of Thought)

Warning!

2 hours is not a lot of time!

Everything is circular! Everything is connected!

On the surface, RTI is a very simple concept. If you dig deeper, RTI requires a lot of thought and professional judgement…some people hate this!

What have you heard?

What is RTI?

Ready, Think, InspireReally Thoughtful InsightRotten Terrible InitiativeRadical Time-consuming InsanityResponse to Intervention

… is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs and, (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.”

National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005) Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, p. 5

Let’s break that down….Original Quote RTI terminology

“providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs”

Multi-Tier Level of Instruction and Support

“using learning rate over time and level of performance”

Progress Monitoring data taken frequently

“to make important educational decisions”

Problem Solving Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

5-10% 5-10%

10-15% 10-15%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

75-85% 75-85%Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

School-Wide Systems for Student Success

What’s really different about this?

Pro-active and Consistent Across Building/District

Everything is decided ahead of time: Academic expectations across grade level or district Assessments used early and across school Interventions available, scheduled, and ready for

students Progress Monitoring assessments in place Meeting to evaluate progress in place

Problem Identification

Asking IF there is a problem?A. Define area(s) of concern and prioritize.B. Review/Collect baseline data on primary area of

concern. Review Interview Observe Test

C. State discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring.

Problem Identification Occurs at Each Tier

Intensity of Problem

Lev

el o

f R

esou

rces General

Education

Special Education

General EducationWith Support

A Problem Defined…

At Tier 3: The difference between an individual student’s

performance and a criterion of success in a curriculum area.

At Tier 2: The difference between non-proficient students’

performance and a criterion of success in a curriculum area.

At Tier 1: The difference between how many students are

proficient on their accountability assessments and 100%. The desired state is for all students to be proficient.

(NASDSE, 2006)

Example of a Universal ProblemACADEMIC Area

Definitional Component Example

What Is Expected School Making AYP

What Is Occurring School Not Making AYP

The Situation End of Grade 3 & 5 ISAT

Example of a Targeted ProblemACADEMIC Area

Definitional Component Example

What Is Expected All first grade students identify all letter sounds.

What Is Occurring Ten students identify less than 100% of letter sounds.

The Situation First grade classrooms in Nearby Elementary

Example of an Intensive Problem ACADEMIC Area

Definitional Component Example

What Is Expected Reading 80 WRC at the Beginning of Grade 3

What Is Occurring Reading 35 WRC (3rd Percentile) at the Beginning of Grade 3

The Situation Beginning of Grade 3 in Anywhere, Illinois

Problem Identification Needs

Prerequisite to stating discrepancy: Determine what your expectations are for what you

want to occur Determine what data to use and comparison group to

use Collect data – uniformly and consistently

Universal Screener!!!

Universal Screeners

Characteristics of Universal Screeners Given to everyone Critical Skills Brief Repeatable Cheap and easy to administer and score Tells us who needs more assessment

Universal Screeners

Examples: DIBELS AIMSWEB Curriculum Based Measures (CBM) Early Warning System (high schools)

Examples of Percentile Rank Norms

2nd Grade Discrepancy Tier 1

80%

15%

5%

62%

31%

7%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Perc

en

t of

stu

den

ts

meeti

ng

cri

teri

a

Expected School W.

School

Does not meet -Explore Intensive

Does not meet -Explore Targeted

Meets Criteria - Coreprogramming

At Tier 1, 62% of 2nd grade students have met the expected criteria (55 WRC) compared to 80%.

Stu

den

t

LNF

Sam G 77

Isabel T 70

Michael T 69

Lauren S 68

David H 59

Lindsey B 40

Hannah 37

Hayden 37

Isabella 35

Katherine 33

Symone 32

Elyssa 31

Luke Z 29

Charles S 29

Lily R 24

Andy P 14

Jackson G 8

Sample of students in Low Risk criteria

Sample of students in Some-Risk criteria

Total meeting criteria = 79%

(>40 LNF)

Total in Emerging range (19%)

(29 < LNF <40)

Total in At-Risk range (2%)

(LNF < 29) Students in At-Risk range

Tier 2 Problem Identification

High Off TrackLacking 2 or more graduation requirementsBehind 4 or more CreditsCurrently failing 3 or more classesExcessive Referrals and/or Absences

Extreme Off Track 2-3 Years BehindNo chance for graduation in a traditional school settingDisengagement

At Risk for Off TrackLacking 1 of 3 Graduation requirements< 5%Absences3 or less Level 1 or 2 referrals

On TrackExceeding or Meeting all graduation requirements (Credits, FCAT Score, GPA)6 or less AbsencesNo referrals

Off Track Lacking 2 graduation requirementsBehind 1-3 Credits10% Absences3 or less Level 2 referrals or 2 Level 3 Referrals9th graders indentified “at high risk” (3 F’s in 8th grade)

Example: Credits Earned

1st Semester

09-10 < 3 Credits

08-09 < 9 Credits

07-08 <15 Credits

06-07 < 21 Credits

Pasco County Schools

On TrackAt Risk

Off TrackHigh Risk

Extremely off Track

0.00%

10.00%

20.00%

30.00%

40.00%

50.00%

60.00%

70.00%

Grad Plan 09-10

Grad Plan 08-09

Grad Plan 07-08

Problem Analysis

Why is it happening?A. Review RIOT data to…

Differentiate between skill problem vs. performance problem.

Determine situations in which the problem is most likely and least likely to occur.

Identify the factors of curriculum, instruction and environment that are contributing to the problem.

B. Generate plausible and alterable hypotheses.

C. Collection additional data as needed to validate or refute hypotheses.D. Select most validated and alterable hypotheses

CURRICULUM• Content of materials• Difficulty level of

materials• Sequencing• Organization• Perceived relevance

INSTRUCTION

• Instructional philosophy• Instructional approach or

method(s)• Expectations/objectives• Clarity & organization• Pace• Opportunities for practice• Duration of continuous

instruction• Nature & frequency of

feedback• Academic engaged time• Classroom Management

ICEL Domains

Environment

ENVIRONMENT• Arrangement of the

room• Furniture/equipment• Rules• Management plans• Routines• Expectations• Peer context• Peer and family

influence• Task pressure

LEARNER• Appropriateness of

curriculum and instruction

• Perception of learning environment

• Academic skills• Social/behavioral skills• Adaptive behavior skills• Motivation• Medical Issues

ICEL Domains Continued

Problem Analysis InterviewInstructional Planning Form (IPF)

Instructional Strategies Materials Arrangement Time Motivational Strategies

Skill Teaching Strategy

Student Name_______________________ Teacher Name________________ School Year ____________Goal ___________________________________________________________________________________

10/03 Adapted from the U of Oregon

IPF for 2nd Grade Reading

20/day

25/day

10/day

Bollman, 2006

Fluency + Accuracy +

Comprehension +

Fluency + Accuracy +

Comprehension -

Fluency +

Accuracy –

Fluency –

Accuracy +

Fluency –

Accuracy –

Re-Screen In 4 Mos. MAZE Pencil Tap Re-Read SLA

Problem Analysis

Self Monitoring Phonics/Decoding

Natalie 6 wrc

Matthew 14 wrc

Riley 51 wrcRenee 53 wrcMatthew 54wrc

Etc.

Plan Development

Review interventions and match to student needs

Include decisions about: Frequency Intensity Duration Data Collection

K 1 2 3 4 5

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red &BlueTrophiesText Talk

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red & BlueTrophies

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red & BlueTrophies

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red & BlueTrophies

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red & BlueTrophies

District 204 Literacy CurriculumScholastic Red & BlueTrophies

EdmarkKITMichael HeggertyReading MilestonesTrophies InterventionWindows to Literacy

Early Steps Tutoring Earobics EdmarkHorizonsMichael HeggertyReading MilestonesTrophies InterventionWindows to Literacy

EarobicsEdmarkHorizonsMichael HeggertyTrophies InterventionWindows to Literacy

EarobicsEdmarkHorizonsRead NaturallyQuckReadsReading MilestonesTrophies Intervention Wilson

HorizonsQuickReadsRead NaturallyReading MilestonesEdmarkTrophies InterventionWilsonWindows to Literacy

HorizonsRead NaturallyQuckReadsReading MielstonesTrophies InterventionWilson

TIER 1

TIER 3

TIER 2KITJolly PhonicsMichael HeggertyStarlitTrophies Intervention

Early Steps TutoringJolly PhonicsMichael HeggertyRead NaturallyTCM NonfictionTrophies Intervention

Michael HeggertyRead NaturallyTCM NonfictionTrophies Intervention

Read NaturallyTCM NonfictionTrophies InterventionSoar to SuccessLexia

Read NaturallyRewardsTCM NonfictionTrophies InterventionSoar to SuccessLexia

Read NaturallyRewardsTCM NonfictionTrophies InterventionSoar to SuccessLexia

Indian Prairie District 204 Reading Materials by Tier

Resources Matched with Interventions

Mon. Tues. Wed. Thurs Fri.

9:15-9:45

9:45-10:15

9:15-9:45

9:45-10:15

9:15-9:45

9:45-10:15

9:15-9:45

9:45-10:15

9:15-9:45

9:45-10:15

Mike IV1 IV2 FB2 w/ 2 A/Mi

Works w/ 2A & 2Mi

Works w/ 2A & 2Mi

Works w/ 2A & 2Mi

Carolyn TP2 TP1 FB1 w/ 2C

TP 1 TP2 TP1 TP2 TP1 TP2

LisaErica

TP1 TP2 Prog Mon

Plan Mtg

TP1 TP2 TP1 TP2 TP1 TP2

Margie IV2 IV1 IV2 Plan Mtg

IV1 w/ 2C

w/ 2C

IV2 w/ 2C

IV1

IV = Intervention Kit TP = Teacher Pals FB = Fluency Builder

Plan Evaluation

Review progress dataMake decisions

Re-do Problem Solving cycle Simple adjustment - Intensify Continue Discontinue

Plan Evaluation Data Review

Plan EvaluationBenchmark Data

Plan Evaluation Needs

Pre-requisites: Determine what is OK growth and what isn’t Pre-determined alternative paths or possible changes

What do all four steps have in common?

Did you notice a pattern emerging when we reviewed the problem solving process?

There are a lot of pre-requisites to sitting down at a problem solving meeting!

What are the pre-requisites?

Starting Out of the Wrong Foot

Let’s look at RTI definition again… the practice of (1) providing high-quality

instruction and interventions matched to student needs and, (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

Keep this in mind as we review the introduction of RTI to the school system.

What does the law say?

Federal LawIN GENERAL….when determining when a child has a

specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability….

ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY …in determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may us a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures . . .

What does the law say?

Illinois Administrative Code 226“…each district shall, no later than the

beginning of the 2010-2011 school year, implement the use of a process that determines how a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure…When a district implements the use of a process of this type, the district shall now use any child’s participation in the process as the basis for denying a parent’s request for an evaluation.”

State Legislation

More importantly, Rule 226.130 requires Illinois districts to complete a plan for transition (RtI Plan) to the use of a process that determines how a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedure by January 1, 2009

Illinois State Board of Education Beliefs

The Illinois State Board of Education (ISBE) believes that increased student learning requires the consistent practice of providing high quality instruction matched to student needs. Response to Intervention (RtI) is a general education initiative which requires collaborative efforts from all district staff, general educators, special educators and bilingual/ELL staff. In a quality educational environment student academic and behavioral needs must be identified and monitored continuously with documented student performance data used to make instructional decisions.

The Illinois State Response to Intervention Plan, January 1, 2008

ResourcesRead the Real Words

HandoutsIDEA 2004IL Administrative Code 226IL RTI PlanGuidance Document and NDSEC explanation

Law vs. Best Practice

What does the law focus on?

What does RTI focus on?

What do you think educators’ responses are to the law?

Compare what the law requires and what is actually required to have an RTI system in place.

Why does RTI have such a bad rap?Let’s discuss!

Implementation Mistakes Trying to fit your old system into an RTI system Use of tests that do not have the characteristics of a

screener, as a screener (ISAT, MAP) Spending so much time on tests for analysis for

everyone, instead of for few identified by screener Adding on tests instead of replacing Adding meetings instead of streamlining Not educating staff about why we are doing what we

are doing Doing it to get kids qualified for special education

Why does RTI have such a bad rap?Let’s discuss!

Professional OpinionFrom black and white, to gray all over (law)Working as a teamConsidering multiple data points

Questions/Suggestions