The SPRINT Team Process: Effective Data-Based Functional Assessment, Response-to-Intervention, and Intervention Teams to Solve Students’ Academic and Behavioral Problems Howard M. Knoff, Ph.D. Director, Project ACHIEVE Director, Arkansas Department of Education State Improvement Grant [email protected]
50
Embed
The SPRINT Team Process: Effective Data-Based Functional Assessment, Response- to-Intervention, and Intervention Teams to Solve Students’ Academic and.
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
The SPRINT Team Process:
Effective Data-Based Functional Assessment, Response-to-Intervention, and Intervention Teams to Solve
Students’ Academic and Behavioral Problems
Howard M. Knoff, Ph.D.
Director, Project ACHIEVEDirector, Arkansas Department of
An Introduction to RtI An Inductive Analysis and Determination
of the Characteristics of RtI The SPRINT (School Prevention, Review,
and Intervention Team) Process Critical SPRINT Points Our Path to a National Research Agenda
Introduction to RtI. . .
What are the Regulatory versus Functional Foundations of the
Response to Intervention process?
The Reauthorization of IDEA
The “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act”
Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004 Signed by President Bush, December, 2004 Fully in effect on July 1, 2005 Proposed Regulations out for Comment—
Closed in November, 2005 Regulations approved– August, 2006 ??????
Changes in Legal Requirements(IDEA, 2004)
‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether 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 in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.
Response to Intervention (IDEA, 2004)
‘‘(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 as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).”
So. . . What does this Mean???
State regulation can’t require only a Discrepancy approach to LD eligibility
An LEA can use a Problem-solving “process” as their approach to LD eligibility
This “process” can involve a child’s “response” to “research-based intervention”
But. . . What does this Mean in a Real Classroom with Real
Students?
An Inductive Analysis of RtI:
1. In order to determine if a student is responding to an intervention, there needs to be a need for the intervention, and there needs to be an intervention.
An Inductive Analysis of RtI . . .Continued
2. In order for there to be a need for an intervention, there must be some gap between a desired academic outcome or behavior, and the student’s actual academic or behavioral status.
An Inductive Analysis of RtI . . .Continued
3. Once we functionally analyze the identified gap and determine WHY it is occurring, we should be able to identify and implement the highest probability of success evidence-based or research-based intervention.
An Inductive Analysis of RtI . . .Continued
4. The scientific process use to identify academic or behavioral student-oriented gaps, to functionally analyze the gaps and WHY they are occurring, and to identify, implement, and evaluate the impact of the interventions linked to the functional assessment involves a:
Data-based Problem-Solving Process
Problem/Functional Analysis
Formative andSummative Evaluation
Strategic Intervention
Problem Solving and Data-Based Functional Assessment
Problem Identification
P/FA: WHY?
F&SE: DID IT WORK?
SI: HOW?
Problem Solving and Data-Based Functional Assessment Questions
PI: WHAT?
So. . .functionally. . . What is a RtI???
A student’s response to an “intervention” can be either a process (or moderator) variable or an outcome (dependent) variable
* Process Variable: Typically, a student-specific condition or reaction (e.g., to the intervention or its implementation process) that either enhances or diminishes the student’s ability (or, for example, motivation) to benefit from the intervention.
* Outcome Variable: In a concrete sense, a student’s outcome behavior that demonstrates that the intervention either did or did not work.
What Determines the Success of an RtI Process ???
Accurate Identification of the “Problem” and the Gap between this and a desired Outcome
Successful Differentiation between the “Problem” and a “Symptom”
Accurate Functional Analysis of the Gap (i.e., WHY the gap exists)
Successful Selection of the Research-based Intervention that links to the Functional Analysis
Appropriate Training, Preparation, Implementation, and Evaluation of the Intervention
Introducing the SPRINT Process
SPRINT: S chool P revention, R eview, and IN tervention T eam
What are the Goals of the SPRINT Process?
To address the needs of students experiencing academic or behavioral difficulties by:
Using a systematic problem-solving process that links functional assessment to evidence-based or research-based interventions.
Consulting with classroom teachers so that the identified interventions are implemented with integrity and success.
To establish assessment and intervention baselines in case more intensive interventions are needed later.
To increase the knowledge and skills of all of the teachers and other professionals involved.
Key Points
SPRINT is available for any academic, behavioral, teacher or student concern
Teachers, support staff, administrators, or parents can request a SPRINT Team consultation
The SPRINT Process focuses on the ….
General education/classroom
environment
General education/classroom teacher
Use of collegial consultation
What is the SPRINT’s Primary Service Delivery Model ???
Problem-Solving – Consultation – Intervention
NOT
Wait to Fail – Refer – Test – Place
Intervention Roulette
Problem/Functional Analysis
Formative andSummative Evaluation
Strategic Intervention
Problem Solving and Data-Based Functional Assessment
Problem Identification
Framing “The Gap”
PREREQUISITES:
A Grade-Level “Academic Roadmap” in all Curricular Areas that Specifies the Functional Academic Skills that Students should master and be able to demonstrate and apply
A Developmentally-Sensitive “Behavioral Roadmap” that Specifies the Personal/Self-Management, Interpersonal, and Environmental/Situational Behaviors that Students should master and be able to demonstrate and apply in the school setting
The Grade-Level “Academic Roadmap”
NEED, IN EACH CURRICULAR AREA, FROM PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL:
State Standards, Benchmarks, Outcomes Curricular Scope & Sequence Goals and
Objectives that cross-reference the State Standards and Benchmarks
Criteria for Student Mastery of these Standards, Benchmarks, Goals, and Objectives
Authentic and Functional Assessments that reliably and validly determine Mastery
The Developmentally-Sensitive “Behavioral Roadmap”
NEED AT EACH DEVELOPMENTAL/MATURATIONAL/GRADE LEVEL, FROM PREKINDERGARTEN THROUGH HIGH SCHOOL, SPECIFIC BEHAVIORAL EXPECTATIONS RELATED TO:
Personal/Self-Management BehaviorsAttention Control SkillsEmotional Control SkillsSelf-Concept/Self-Esteem Skills
The Difference between Students’ Instructional Mastery of Academic Skills as Contrasted with their Expected Mastery—based on State and Curricular Benchmarks at their Chronological Age—in: Literacy: phonemic awareness, sound-symbol
Mathematics: numeration, calculation, application Language arts Science, social studies
The Difference between Students’ Mastery of Functional Behavioral Skills as Contrasted with the Expected Mastery—based on Developmental and Normative “Standards” at their Chronological Age.
Accommodations: help students compensate for learning
processes that cannot be remediated. do not change the specific nature of the
student’s area of weakness or disability. minimize, eliminate, or circumvent the impact
of a student’s area of weakness or disability so the student can make academic and/or behavioral progress or demonstrate existing knowledge.
Critical Points . . .
All Staff in a School need to be Trained in and Utilize Data-based Functional Assessment and Problem-Solving.
Effective Instruction and Primary Prevention Activities are anchored in Problem-Solving approaches.
Without Primary Prevention Activities, the need for Secondary and Tertiary Interventions is not known.
The Severity of a Student’s “Problem” (especially in the absence of Primary Prevention) does not predict the Intensity of the Interventions needed
Critical Points . . .
All SPRINT referrals are referrals for problem solving.
Students are not referred. . . Instructional environments are referred.
The focus is on early intervention, not “waiting to fail.”
Coordinated & well-integrated resources are needed early on to maximize success.
Components of the Instructional Environment
Teacher-Instructional Factors:Are teachers well-matched to their students and curricula?
Curricular Factors:Are curricula well-matched to students and teachers?
Student Factors:Are students prepared and “programmed”for success?
Fundamental Points…cont.
All interventions must be outcome-based. Interventions must be formatively evaluated to
monitor progress over time. Progress monitoring is but one approach to formative (and summative) evaluation.
The primary goals of intervention: Help students to master and demonstrate academic
and behavioral skills and succeed in general education environment.
Help students to increase (???) their Speed of Skill Mastery and Acquisition.
So. . .What is our Path?
We Need: To Analyze, Recognize, and Publicize our Research and
Practice Gaps. Curricular Areas
To Utilize Evidence-based Blueprints for the Effective School-wide Implementation of Instructional Support Systems and Positive Behavioral Support Systems for All Students across All Grades
To Recognize that RtI’s Inclusion in IDEA is a Great Opportunity, but that it was probably Premature
To Question the Need for a “Tiered Model” System or Forge a National Consensus on it
The Current Tiered Model System:
Is Confusing because there is not one agreed-
upon system and this is making professional conversation and communication challenging
Is Unnecessary as it is not required by IDEA, nor does it facilitate problem-solving, student identification, or student intervention
May be a Disservice to Students because it may guide generic eligibility decisions and directions at the expense of individual educational
planning
May be Epidemiologically Inaccurate relative to the population numbers suggested at the
different tiers.
So. . .What is Our National RtI Research Agenda Path?
The Focus: preK through Grade 12 (or through at least age 21)
All Curricular/Academic Areas All Behavioral/Behavioral Disorder Areas Integration and Coordination across:
Data-based Functional Assessment and Problem-Solving (including Progress Monitoring and Formative/Summative Evaluation approaches)
So. . .What is our Path. . .or. . . Our National RtI Research Agenda?
Integration and Coordination across: Consultation Processes Linking Assessment to Intervention Intervention (Again– preK to Grade 12;
All Academic/Behavioral Areas; for“Typical,” “Strategic Intervention,”
“Intensive Need” Students; for Students across the Disability areas)
Behavioral Intervention: Primary Prevention
Positive School and Classroom ClimatesEffective Classroom InstructionEffective Instructional Grouping
Effective Classroom ManagementStudent Instruction in “Zones of Success”
Social Skill Instruction and UseWell-Designed and Implemented