psychology paradigm shift - bravehostsaskedworkers.bravehost.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/... ·...

Psychology Paradigm Shift

Kelli D. Cummings, Ph.D., NCSP Saskatoon, SK (6/16/09)

Regina, SK (6/17/09)

The past is not the future...

Session Objectives

Review the basis for the movement toward the RtI model and answer the top, frequently asked questions.

Address the basic requirements for implementation of the RtI model.

Describe how the RtI model will affect children and schools.

Discuss how the RtI model will affect the work of psychologists in schools.

School Psychology Review (2004) Proceedings of the Multisite Conference on the Future of School Psychology

Why change?

What should change?

How can Psychologists in schools effect that change?

Absence of accountability. Focus on processes of service delivery rather than child outcomes. Marginally effective programs and interventions. Gaps between research and practice. Undocumented benefits of special education (particularly for students with high-incidence disabilities). Focus on classification and placement instead of intervention. Widespread use of assessment tools that lack validity.

What is important in practice? What are the criteria for success?

How are services delivered?

Why Change? (as summarized by Shinn, M.R., 2004)

Previous models constitute a "wait-to-fail" approach An endless supply of Students "Waiting to be Tested" for designation Time-consuming, costly assessment that

is not related to intervention diverts talented persons away from providing intervention

Enabling system that allows general education to keep providing a narrow range of instructional and behavioral options that don't meet the needs of many students Results that often force us to "cheat" to get students the services they need Results that often deny services to the students who need it the most.

Why Change? (continued) As summarized in Merrell, Ervin, & Gimpel (2007)... We have evidence that the current systems are not working, There is an urgent need to change current practices because of

unsatisfactory student achievement, We have strong and growing evidence that supports an alternative

(Problem-Solving) model of service delivery.

Exercise �  Form a small group (no more than 5 people) �  Identify a “scribe” or note-taker �  Ask each person in the group to describe what they

perceive to be current challenges when pondering a move to a response-to-intervention model.

�  Ask each person in the group to identify at least one question about RtI that they would like to see addressed in the presentation today.

What current challenges do you face? �  Resistance--flexibility of the school teams �  Practical considerations for implementation �  Possibility for differing roles across divisions �  Time - expectations for case loads �  Helping others to understand why a change could be good �  Need for professional development �  Support classroom teachers �  Working agreement between the Ministry of Education and

practitioners with regard to RtI implementation. �  Ensuring that RtI doesn't become "just another procedural

model" �  Maintaining collaboration and agreement on what RtI is

What current challenges do you face? �  Public perception - 'the more, the better' �  Student to Psychologist ratio �  Leadership (top-down? bottom-up?) - administrators ,

psychologists �  Empowering teachers �  Resistance to change � Clarity on the "working definition" of "inclusion" �  Lack of training, lack of ability when teaching reading

What questions would you like answered? �  What does the ideal RtI model look like? What can we learn

from other's growing pains? �  How to foster confidence in teachers, parents, ..., in the

model? �  Stages of implementation--how to set individual goals for

system progress? �  Will pre-service programs be changing content - or process

of curriculum to match RtI? �  Will NASP's (NASDSE) research be considered in the

“scaling up” of RtI in Saskatchewan?

� How do we implement "good interventions" if we don't know a student's strengths/weaknesses?

What questions would you like answered? � What does RtI "look like" across school divisions? � How do we have the time (team building, collaboration)

to "work effectively", to "work together"? � How do we move forward with the most effective

interventions? � What is the role of the psychologist at TIER 1? � Community living - identification - How do we balance

within the RtI framework? � What does this look like on a daily basis for

psychologists? � What are the evidence-based practices?

What questions would you like answered? � How do we get started? � How do we change the culture? � How do we determine if an evidence-based practice is

implemented with fidelity?

•  Issues with reliability and validity of testing procedures •  Absence of accountability & a disconnect between general and special education •  Disproportionality in special education •  Student outcomes that present challenges

Why Change?

Issues with reliability and validity of testing procedures �  "The IQ-Achievement discrepancy

does not reliably distinguish between good and poor readers and it does not predict response to remediation (Vellutino et al., 2000, p. 235)."

�  In a recent review of Canadian LD policies, Saskatchewan was the only province to specifically reject the discrepancy model in their resource documents (Saskatchewan Learning, 2004, p.16)

Kozey, M., & Siegel, LS. (2008). Definitions of learning disabilities in Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 162-171.

Validity �  "previously used [disability] categories...were somewhat fluid

and unreliable, which did not justify the time spent gathering the information. In addition, the previous definitions, when applied strictly, left no room for preventative action." (Quebec Ministry of Education, 2000; p. 16).

�  A focus on a "medical model," which emphasizes etiology and symptoms, is potentially at odds with the purpose of educational evaluation, which is for needs assessment and intervention planning purposes.

�  A focus on a medical model is also in opposition to the trend in provincial funding mechanisms. (Kozey & Siegel, 2008)

Absence of Accountability … number of individuals identified with disabilities (particularly learning disabilities) could be reduced if more effective reading instruction was in place, noting that many students placed in special education may not have received adequate instruction in general education. (Consensus of 4 Major Reports from the Learning Disabilities Summit from Fletcher, et al.)

RtI requires documentation that the intervention is effective – otherwise a lack of response indicates a teaching problem rather than a learning problem.

RtI requires expertise in instruction and intervention as well as in assessment. (Good & Cummings, 2007)

We need to spend as much time assessing the quality of instruction as we spend assessing the response to the instruction.

Mid-year cutoff low risk

Increase intensity of Intervention: 1) Increase intervention fidelity 2) Increase time 3) Smaller Group Size

Implement a Research-Based Intervention

Individual Problem Solving with a pupil support team

Substantial Individualized Support with Special Education Resources

Non

sens

e W

ord

Flue

ncy

Good & Cummings, 2007

Disconnect between general and special education

Guidelines for decisions regarding special educa1on should be changed to encourage be#er integrated general and special educa1on services (U.S. Na1onal Research Council Report, 2002).

We have the capability to improve the educa1on of students with disabili1es by coordina1ng service delivery systems, to ensure that special educa1on becomes a service for children rather than a place where such children are sent (Shinn, 2004). Possible solu1ons? Provide incen1ves for whole-‐school approaches, and needs-‐based models of service delivery

Academic Achievement

�  Approximately 73% of students who entered Grade 10 in 00-01 graduated 3 years later, in their typical graduating year (02-03); for self-declared First Nations students the graduation rate was 55%.

�  The percent of Grade 4 students achieving "Adequate and Above" and "Proficient" in Reading was 79.5% for the Province, and 58.7% for self-declared First Nations students.

2008 Saskatchewan Education Indicators Prekindergarten to Grade 12.

Student Outcomes that present challenges Early school experiences are highly predictive of later academic difficulty and significant behavior problems.

Low scores on a Kindergarten phonemic awareness screening measure (< 10 phonemes correct/minute) predicted multiple office discipline referrals in Grade 5. (McIntosh, et al., 2006).

McIntosh, K., Horner, R.H., Chard, D.J., Boland, J.B., Good III, R.H. (2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: a longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275-291.

Differences in mean ODRs per year for students scoring above (n = 152) and below (n = 68) the DIBELS PSF benchmark, as assessed in spring of K.

Student Outcomes that present challenges Early academic and social-emotional challenges become increasingly difficult to remediate over time.

Grade

Wor

ds P

er M

inut

e

Middle 10%

Low 10%

1 2 3 4 5 6

Grade 1 Cohort

Grade 2 Cohort

Grade 3 Cohort

Grade 4 Cohort

Grade 5

Cohort

© 2007, Dynamic Measurement Group

Consensus Report—Alternatives Ø  Response to quality intervention is the most

promising method of alternate identification (designation) and can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment.

Ø  Any effort to scale up response to intervention should be based on problem solving models that use progress monitoring to gauge the intensity of intervention in relation to the student’s response to intervention.

Ø  Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and in research.

Pasternack, R.H. (2002, March). The Demise of IQ Testing for Children with Learning Disabilities. Paper presented at the National Association of School Psychologists 2002 Annual Convention, Chicago, IL.

•  Systems •  Data •  Practices

What is RtI?

23

SYSTEMS

PRACTICES

DATA

Suppor1ng Staff Behavior

Suppor1ng Student Performance

Suppor1ng Decision Making

Implemen(ng RtI Requires THREE Systems

Source: Shinn, M.R. & Phillips (2004, October). Advanced Plan Evalua1on. Paper presented at North Suburban Special Educa1on District Highland Park, Illinois.

School Systems....

To support staff behavior and effective resource allocation

25

Origins of RtI: Mul( Level Three-‐Tiered Model

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

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

Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive

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

Any Curriculum

Area

Students

A Con(nuum of Services: Impact Assessment

26

Saskatchewan Ministry of Education, 2009

The Parable of the River...

Change in Resource Alloca1on: Big Idea About Resource

•  Big Idea Fundamentally reengineer resource deployment system

28 Source:W. David Tilly III, Ph.D. Coordinator of Assessment Services Heartland AEA 11 6500 Corporate Dr. Johnston, IA 50131 (515) 270-9030

One Perspec1ve on History of Our Resource Deployment System

•  Our educa1on system has grown up through a process of “Disjointed Incrementalism” (Reynolds, 1988)

The current Education System’s Programmatic Evolution

K-12 Education

Gifted

Title 1

SPED

Migrant

ELL At Risk

Unintended Effects of a Disjointed System

•  Conflic1ng programs •  Conflic1ng funding streams •  Redundacy •  Lack of coordina1on across

programs •  Grouping of students/

resources based on instruc1onally irrelevant criteria

•  Nonsensical rules about program availability for students

•  Extreme complexity in administra1on and implementa1on of the programs

We need smart resource deployment systems

Fundamentally reengineer resource deployment system

– Resource deployment system must be con1nuous, not discrete

– Resources must be made available in direct propor1on to student need

– An instruc1onally relevant basis for resource deployment must be used

Staffing Profiles: Actual to Recommended

Position

Recommended Position FTE to Student Ratio

Recommended FTE Actual FTE

Superintendents of Student Services ~ 1 : 5000 ~ 33 19

Coordinators/Consultants ~1 : 2000 ~ 82 82

Special Education Teachers ~ 1 : 175 ~ 1094 965

English as an Addit ional Language Teachers ~ 1 : 500 ~ 326 74

Education/Teacher Assistants ~ 1 : 100 ~ 1640 3478

Psychologists ~ 1 : 1500 ~109 69

Physical Therapists ~ 1 : 6000 ~ 27 1

Occupational Therapists ~ 1 : 3000 ~ 55 19

Speech Language Pathologists ~ 1 : 1000 ~ 164 104

Counsellors ~ 1 : 1000 ~ 55 148

Social Workers ~ 1 : 1000 ~ 55 80


Staffing Profiles: 07/08 08/09

2007-2008 FTE 2008-2009 FTE Percentage ChangeSuperintendent(s) Student Services/Special Education 20 19 -5.15%

Supervisor(s)/Coordinator(s) 34 38 13.87%Consultant(s) 42 44 5.76%

Total Coordinators & Consultants 76 82

Classroom Teachers 9,553 9,495 -0.61%Special Education Teachers 935 965 3.24%Education/Teacher Assistants 3,516 3,478 -1.06%Psychologists 63 69 8.65%Physical Therapists 1 1Occupational Therapists 19 19Speech Language Pathologists 94 104 9.83%Counsellors 139 148 5.94%Social W orkers 79 80 1.82%English as an Additional Language Teachers 0 74Nurses 1 11Other 170 181 6.28%Total 14,667 14,727 0.40%

Staffing Profile


Role of the Psychologist in Facilitating Systems Change �  Facilitate Systems Change

� Create Readiness � Assist with initial implementation efforts �  Institutionalize the "prototype" � Agree and commit to ongoing evaluation

�  Support teachers and other school staff to adopt an interprofessional collaborative framework in the educational system

�  Evolve from a nearly exclusive focus on tertiary care to more preventive efforts at the primary and secondary levels

From: Merrell, K.W., Ervin, R.A., & Gimpel, G. (2007). School Psychology for the 21st Century: Foundations and Practices. New York: Guilford.

Practices....

To support student success

Deficit Model Assump1on: In every distribu1on of kids, some of them have specific deficits and therefore will fail to learn.

Historical Prac1ce: The job of the assessor is to assess students to iden1fy their deficits so we can provide services. We use the best tools available, matched to students’ presumed deficits. We use these data to help iden1fy what and how to teach.

Level below which we infer possible

deficits

Achievement Low High

Source:W. David Tilly III, Ph.D. Coordinator of Assessment Services Heartland AEA 11 6500 Corporate Dr. Johnston, IA 50131 (515) 270-9030

"Medical Model"

Risk Model Assump1on: All kids will learn basic skills to a basic level of proficiency. Some kids are at risk of not learning them.

Alternate Prac1ce: The job of the assessor is to to iden1fy students who are at risk of not learning basic skills to a minimum standard of proficiency. Also, the assessor iden1fies student paderns of performance on instruc1onally relevant subskills, curriculum, instruc1on and the environment to help iden1fy problem e1ology. We use these data to help iden1fy what and how to teach.

Minimum Proficiency

Achievement Low High

"Needs-Based Model"

Our Job

To Go From Here To Here

Big Ideas � What are the basic tenets of Problem-Solving? � How does Problem-Solving affect systems? � How will this change affect children/schools? � How will this change affect

teachers? administrators? staff? psychologists?

What is a Problem-Solving Model?

Ø  A way of defining who we serve and how we serve them.

Ø  It employs:

Ø A NEEDS-‐BASED iden(fica(on perspec(ve, and Ø An outcomes-‐oriented focus

Source: Shinn, M.R. Problem-‐Solving Assessment at the Secondary Level: Iden1fying Educa1onal Need

42

The Problem Solving Process. . .

What ques(on are you trying to answer?

Source: Shinn, M.R. (2004). Using AIMSweb to Manage 3-‐Tier Progress Monitoring Informa1on as a Component of Response to Interven1on.

43

5. Plan Evaluation

Was the intervention plan successful?

1. Problem Identification

What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?

2. Problem Analysis

Why is the problem occurring? Do you have enough data to confirm or refute a hypothesis?

3. Plan Development

What is the goal? What is the intervention plan? How will progress be monitored?

4. Plan Implementation

How will implementation integrity be

ensured?

The Problem Solving Process. . .


44

Problem-‐Solving Emphasizes Preven6on at Each Level

•  Primary (ALL) –  Reduce new cases of academic and behavior problems

•  Secondary (SOME) –  Reduce current cases of academic and behavior problems

•  Ter(ary (FEW) –  Reduce complica(ons, intensity, severity of current cases


1 2

3 4

5

1 2

3 4

5

1 2

3 4

5

•  Assigning Blame •  A Cheaper and Faster Way of Assigning Disability Labels or Avoiding

En(tlement-‐-‐Crea(ng New Categories of Kids •  PuTng Barriers in the Way of Assis(ng Students (or Teachers) •  Evalua(ng Teachers •  Providing an Easy (Easier) Way of Transferring the Problem to Others •  GeTng Students into Special Educa(on with Less Paperwork (without

Legal Safeguards) •  Using the Same “Hammers” We’ve Always Used

What Problem Solving is NOT About


How have others done “it”? �  Eliminate designation by category � Base entitlement decisions upon the intensity of

supports needed to make progress � Use a Three-Pronged Criteria

�  Educational Progress � Discrepancy �  Instructional Needs

Source: Grimes, J., Kurns, S (2003, December). An Interven1on-‐based System for Addressing NCLB and IDEA Expecta1ons: A Mul1ple Tiered Model to Ensure Every Child Learns. Paper presented at the Na1onal Research Center on Learning Disabili1es Responsiveness-‐to-‐Interven1on Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

What effect does this change in criteria have on systems?

Percentage of Students Receiving Services for a Specific Learning Disability - St. Croix Education District (SCRED) vs. Region and MN

State Totals

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Perc

en

t o

f S

tud

en

ts

SCREDRegion 7STATE

SCRED 4.35%3.93%3.78%3.67%3.71%3.61%3.31%3.20%Region 7 3.95%3.97%4.02%3.91%3.93%3.96%3.99%3.83%STATE 4.11%4.23%4.24%4.21%4.16%4.13%4.12%4.21%

1995-96

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03


Percent of Students Receiving Services for a Specific Learning Disability - St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) vs.

Neighboring Districts

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

SCREDNorth BranchWillow River

SCRED 3.93 3.78 3.67 3.71 3.61 3.31 3.20North Branch 5.16 5.55 5.41 4.94 5.01 5.03 4.70Willow River 3.01 4.55 4.95 5.66 5.27 6.17 5.30

1996-97

1997-98

1998-99

1999-00

2000-01

2001-02

2002-03


What effect does this change in criteria have on student performance?

Hinckley/Finlayson's Early Literacy Measure - Percent Above Target in Kindergarten

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

2000-01 2001-02 2002-03School Year

Perc

ent

Abov

e Ta

rget

Series8


East Central's Reading Measure - Grade 1 Median Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1W 1SGrade and Period

Med

ian

Wor

ds C

orre

ct p

er M

inut

e

TARGET2000-012001-022002-03

Effects of Problem Solving on Systems


Hinckley/Finlayson's Reading Measure - Grade 1 Median Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1W 1SGrade and Period

Wor

ds C

orre

ct p

er M

inut

e

TARGET2000-012001-022002-03


East Central's Reading Measure - Grade 2 Median Scores

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

120

2F 2W 2SGrade and Period

Med

ian

Wor

ds C

orre

ct p

er M

inut

e

TARGET2000-012001-022002-03


Role of the Psychologist in Implementing Problem-Solving Practices

�  Utilize existing skill sets in a consultative fashion to facilitate the provision of prevention and intervention services in schools, e.g. knowledge of the following literature bases �  learning and development �  risk and resiliency �  effective-teaching

�  Acquire basic knowledge and competencies in the data-driven problem-solving process


Role of the Psychologist in Implementing Problem-Solving Practices

�  Redefine intervention focus to include primary and secondary prevention

�  Enhance knowledge of � Developmental trajectories relevant to various social-emotional/

mental health issues �  Evidence-Based Practices for the treatment of such issues �  Strategies to link systems of care to support the student, the

school, and the parents.


Data.... To support effective decision making

Big Ideas � What tools can I use for formative evaluation of

student progress? � How might I implement a system of benchmark

data collection within a school? � How does CBM data inform instruction?

The Current Assessment Situa(on…

The Problem? Not Not Enough Data!

Source: Shinn, M.R. (2004). FiJng Frequent Progress Monitoring Into a Contemporary 3-‐Tiered Preven1on Model.

Just Not the RIGHT Data!

Assessment Practices (Howell & Nolet, 2000)

Traditional Assessment

�  Goals tend to be for "outside-the-classroom" purposes

�  Assessment results are used to make high-stakes decisions, typically about within-child processes

�  Assessments are not readily linked to ongoing evaluation

Problem-Solving Assessment

�  Goals tend to be for "inside-the-classroom" purposes

�  Assessment results may still be used to make high-stakes decisions, but are typically more ecologially-based

�  Assessments include a plan for monitoring intervention effectiveness.

Assessment Practices (Merrell, Ervin, & Gimpel, 2007) �  Standardized, norm-referenced tests (SNRTs) are

appropriate for some evaluation purposes...but tend to be overutilized, while "alternative assessment practices" (e.g., CBM/A, FBA) tend to be underutilized.

Assessment Practices (Merrell, Ervin, & Gimpel, 2007; Kaminski & Cummings, 2007)

�  RtI requires a collective movement from the field, toward a revised view of assessment that includes the following tenets: � Assessment data should be collected using a multi-trait, multi-

method inquiry process, � The primary goal of assessment should be to develop

recommendations that will guide the implementation of effective interventions for individual students and/or groups of students,

� All evaluations should be treated as "hypothesis tests", and ongoing, formative assessment data must be collected to validate our intervention choices,

� We should spend as much time assessing the intervention as we do the child's response to it.

What to Measure : Use Quality Tools

(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2000)

1.   Technical adequacy (reliability and validity); 2.   Capacity to model growth (able to represent student

achievement growth within and across academic years);

3.   Treatment sensi6vity (scores should change when students are learning);

4.   Independence from specific instruc6onal techniques (instruc1onally eclec1c so the system can be used with any type of instruc1on or curriculum);

5.   Capacity to inform teaching (should provide informa1on to help teachers improve instruc1on);

6.   Feasibility (must be doable).


CBM and RTI within a Problem-‐Solving Model

Assessing and Documen6ng “En6tlement to Special Educa6on”

1.   Iden(fy Problem Severity–Discrepancy 2.   Iden(fy Rates of Improvement—Benefit 3.   Iden(fy Level of Instruc(on—Educa6onal Need

CBM is a cri(cal component in evalua(ng RTI

65

What to Measure? What Area? What Measure? Assessment Materials?

Basic Skills (Reading, Spelling, Written Expression, Math Computation

Curriculum-Based Measurement

AIMSweb, EdCheckup, Easy CBM

Early Literacy Letter Naming, Letter Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation, Nonsense Words

DIBELS, AIMSweb, Test of Oral Reading Fluency (TORF)

Work Completion Satisfactory Home Work Assignments Completed

Assignment Calendar Worksheets

Social Behaviors Case Identified Observational Systems

Student-Teacher Interaction Code (STIC; Shinn, 1989), Initiation-Response Assessment (IRA; Cummings, 2008)

Global Academic and Social Behaviors, Including Content Area Achievement

Case Identified Global Behaviors (e.g., Participation), “Anchored” Weekly Ratings, Grades, Points

Home-Made Reporting Systems, Mainstream Consultation Agreements


66

Tier 1: Benchmark Assessment of ALL Students


67

Tier 2: Strategic Monitoring of At-‐Risk


68

Tier 3: Frequent Monitoring


69

Systems

Data Prac(ces

School Success

1.   Assess student performance of

the big ideas (priority indicators) 2.   Analyze individual performance

and plan instruc(on by need 3.   Design interven(ons for strategic

and intensive students 4.   Set reasonable ambi(ous goals

and monitor progress forma(vely

5.   Monitor and evaluate interven(ons and instruc(onal groups and adjust

Universal/ School-‐Wide Academic Support


Role of the Psychologist in Data-based Decision Making

�  Acquire basic knowledge and competencies in Curriculum-Based Measurement, Function-based Behavioral Assessment, formative assessment, and formative evaluation.

�  Enhance report writing skills so that Psychological Reports become living documents that are used for "inside-the-classroom" purposes that link directly to intervention.

�  Include formative evaluation activities with every referral.


Role of the Psychologist in Data-based Decision Making (Gresham & Lopez 1996)

�  Include markers of social validity with every referral. �  Social significance of the goals (What should we change?) �  Social acceptability of the procedures used to attain those goals

(How should we change it?) �  Social importance of the effects of the intervention (How will

we know it was effective?)

The Psychologist’s Role in the RtI Model

Heartland AEA (IA) vs. Na(onal U.S. Pajerns of Psychology Prac(ce

73

Reschly, D.J., Ikeda, M.J., Tilly, W.D.III., Allison, R., Grimes, J.P., & Upah, K.F. (2000, April). School psychology without IQ: Roles, assessment, sa6sfac6on, supervision, and evalua6on. Symposium, Annual Conven1on of the Na1onal Associa1on of School Psychologists, New Orleans, LA.

Study:

Compared Heartland school psychologists (N = 60) to a na(onal U.S. sample (N = 900)

Pasternack, R.H. (2002, March). The Demise of IQ Tes1ng for Children with Learning Disabili1es. Paper presented at the Na1onal Associa1on of School Psychologists 2002 Annual Conven1on, Chicago, IL.

Psychological Assessment in Tradi(onal & Alterna(ve Delivery Systems

74 Pasternack, R.H. (2002, March). The Demise of IQ Tes1ng for Children with Learning Disabili1es. Paper presented at the Na1onal Associa1on of School Psychologists 2002 Annual Conven1on, Chicago, IL.

0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24 26 28 30

U.S. Iowa

Psychological Assessment in Tradi(onal & Alterna(ve Delivery Systems

75

U.S.

Ability

Educa1onal

Behavior Observa1on

Projec1ves

Visual-‐Motor

Pre-‐school/Family

Social/Emo1onal

Iowa

Ability

Educa1onal

Behavior Observa1on

Projec1ves

Visual-‐Motor

Pre-‐school/Family

Social/Emo1onal

Pasternack, R.H. (2002, March). The Demise of IQ Tes1ng for Children with Learning Disabili1es. Paper presented at the Na1onal Associa1on of School Psychologists 2002 Annual Conven1on, Chicago, IL.

Psychologists' Job Sa(sfac(on

76

0

1

2

3

4

5

Work Colleagues Supervision Pay Promotion

<Low

J

ob S

atis

fact

ion

H

igh>

U.S. Iowa

Current Roles of School Psychologists in the U.S. and Iowa


0 2 4 6 8

10 12 14 16 18 20 22 24

Estim

ated

Hou

rs P

er W

eek U.S. Iowa

Current Roles of School Psychologists in the U.S. and Iowa


U.S.

Assessment

Direct Interven1on

Problem Solving

Systems/Consulta1on

Research/Evalua1on

Iowa

Assessment

Direct Interven1on

Problem Solving

Systems/Consulta1on

Research/Evalua1on

Summing it up: Outcomes �  Problem-Solving RtI is implemented across the

educational system. It is: � Proactive �  Supportive of students and teachers �  Focused on promoting competence

�  Problem-Solving RtI: � Reduces the number of children needing greater supports of

special education �  Increases student achievement �  Is fiscally sound, effective and efficient

© 2007, Dynamic Measurement Group

Why Focus on Outcomes? �  If you don’t know what is important, everything

is. �  If everything is important, you will try to do

everything. �  If you try to do everything you will be asked to

do more. �  If you do everything you won’t have time to

figure out what is important.

Putting it all Together...Implications for Psychology Practice

RtI Readiness Questionnaire

(Beebe-Frankenberger & Cummings, 2005 1. How clear is your understanding of the Response-to-Intervention (RTI) model?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all clear Neutral Very clear

2. Based upon what you know about the RTI model, how likely is it that you would recommend the RTI process to your colleagues at your school or district?

1 2 3 4 5

Not likely Neutral Very likely

3. Would you like more training or assistance in implementing the RTI model?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all Neutral Yes, definitely

4. How acceptable do you find RTI as a way to make special educational decisions?

1 2 3 4 5

Not at all acceptable Neutral Very acceptable

5. To what extent do you anticipate barriers to the implementation of RTI activities in your school and/or district?

1 2 3 4 5

No barriers Some barriers Many barriers

What's Next? Summary from Future Directions in Professional Psychology Practice 1.  Increase involvement in prevention and early intervention

for all students; 2.  Provide services such as counselling and/or referrals

related to mental health and behavioural needs; 3.  Have strategic involvement with school-based teams and

families to provide comprehensive, integrated,holistic, and culturally-affirming assessments that move beyond the traditional psychometric approach;

4.  Identify appropriate intervention strategies; 5.  Identify barriers to intervention;

Future Directions in Professional Psychology Practice 6.  Collect responses to intervention (RtI) data; 7.  Continue to broaden approaches in working with students

and teachers, to understand learning styles, learning differences, and learning needs;

8.  Engage in a variety of responsibilities that provide a balance of direct and indirect services, including consultation, in-service, program development, and research; and

9.  Enhance collaboration with other professionals and disciplines by providing partnerships and team approaches to facilitate the accountability of outcomes and interventions.

Psychologists are... �  Take a few minutes, and write down at least three keywords

that you feel describe your future professional roles and activities.

�  Share these words with your neighbor...

Psychologists are... �  Problem-solvers �  Consultants �  Prevention and Early Intervention Specialists �  Curriculum Specialists �  Detectives �  Mindful of their client, the student �  Aware of being one piece of the puzzle �  Flexible �  Educators �  Innovators �  Advocates �  Relationship-builders �  Facilitators

Summary Thoughts   There is no question that current attempts to broadly expand RTI

models are uneven and not uniformly effective. But that is a problem with adult learning, not with the research on how children learn. The issues involve large-scale implementation, not more research on how to do response to intervention models or whether they are effective.

  Clearly, all the best intentions and new designs for improving the identification process and delivery of scientifically-based interventions will fall short if the professional educators,

administrators, and related and support personnel responsible for implementing these designs do not have the knowledge, skill, will, or resources to implement and sustain them.

  Formal training and ongoing technical assistance and support will be necessary for classroom teachers and related service providers to perform these tasks with fidelity and to use performance data in ways that inform classroom instruction.”

D. Carnine, Testimony Before U.S. Congress, March, 2003


We Have the Capacity to Reduce the Barriers to Quality Services

•  These are SOLVABLE Problems-‐-‐We Know What, How, and When

•  The Problem, Then is Resolve and Adult Learning

References & Support

Kelli D. Cummings, Ph.D., NCSP Adjunct Assistant Professor, University of Oregon Senior Research Scientist, Dynamic Measurement Group

[email protected]

Email:

References

Four Major Reports from the Learning Disabilities Summit (References for the Context of RtI: From U.S. Legislative Efforts)

1. President’s Council on Special Education Excellence (2002). A NEW ERA: Revitalizing Special Education for Children and their Families. Washington, DC: US Department of Education.

2. Fordham Foundation Report--

Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E., Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B., Schulte, A. & Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking Learning Disabilities. In C.E. Finn, A.J. Rotherham, and C.R. Hokanson (Eds). Rethinking special education for a new century (pp. 259-287). Washington DC: Thomas B. Fordham Foundation.

3. National Research Council (2002). Executive summary. Disproportionate representation

of minority students in special education. Washington, DC: Author. 4. Learning Disabilities Summit--

Bradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D. (Eds.) (2002). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah NJ: Erlbaum. www.air.org/ldsummit

References for the Context of RtI: From the Educational Research Community

•  Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., & Parker, C. (1999). Noncategorical special education services for students with severe achievement deficits. In D. Reschly, W.D. Tilly, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.) Special education in transition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

•  Ysseldyke, J.E., & Marston, D. (1999). Origins of categorical special education services in schools and a rationale for changing them. Special education in transition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

•  Tilly, W.D., Reschly, D.J. & Grimes, J.P. (1999). Disability determination in Problem-Solving systems: Conceptual foundations and critical components. In D. Reschly, W.D.Tilly, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.) Special education in transition. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Additional References for RtI

•  Fletcher, J.M., Coutler,W.A., Reschly, D.J., & Vaughn, S. (2004). Alternative Approaches to the Definition and Identification of Learning Disabilities: Some Questions and Answers. Annals of Dyslexia.

•  Gresham, F.M, Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Christ, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., Shinn, M.R. (In press). Comprehensive Evaluation of Learning Disabilities: A Response to Intervention Perspective. The School Psychologist.

•  Hale, J.B., Naglieri, J.A., Kaufman, A.S., Kavale, K.A. (2004). Specific Learning Disability Classification in the New Individuals with Disabilities Education Act: The Danger of Good Ideas. The School Psychologist.

Resources for Problem-Solving RtI Implementation �  Idaho Results-Based Model:

Callender, W. A. (2007). The Idaho results-based model: Implementing response to intervention statewide. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 331–342).New York: Springer.

http://www.idahoschoolpsych.org/positionpapers/20061024-BestPracticesinRBM.pdf

�  Heartland Area Education Agency 11: http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us/

�  RtI Action Network: http://www.rtinetwork.org/

Websites for Data Collection Using Curriculum-Based Measurement �  AIMSweb-Charting the Path to Literacy:

http://www.aimsweb.com/

�  Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills: www.dibels.uoregon.edu

�  Easy CBM: http://easycbm.com/

�  Edcheckup: http://www.edcheckup.com/

Websites for Curriculum Review �  Florida Center for Reading Research:

www.fcrr.org

�  Oregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.edu

�  Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts: www.texasreading.org

�  Texas Reading Initiative: www.tea.state.tx.us

Functional Behavioral Assessment: References & Support Handbooks

�  Crone, D.A., & Horner, R.H. (2003). Building Positive Behavior Support Systems in Schools: Functional Behavioral Assessment. New York: The Guilford Press.

�  Crone, D.A., Horner, R.H., & Hawken, L.S. (2004). Responding to Problem Behavior in Schools: The Behavior Education Program. New York: The Guilford Press.

�  O’Neill, R.E., Horner, R.H., Albin, R.W., Sprague, J., Storey, K., & Newton, J.S. (1997). Functional Assessment and Program Development for Problem Behavior: A Practical Handbook (2nd ed.). Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks/Cole Publishing Company.

Functional Behavioral Assessment: References & Support Websites:

�  OSEP Center on Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports

http://www.pbis.org/main.htm

�  Schoolwide PBIS Team Training Manual

http://pbismanual.uoecs.org/

Additional References from the Presentation Beebe-Frankenberger, M. & Cummings, K.D. (2005). Response to Intervention

(RtI) Acceptability Rating Form. Missoula, Montana: Authors. Cummings, K.D., Atkins, T.A., Allison, R., & Cole, C. (2008). Response to

Intervention: investigating the new role of special educators. Teaching Exceptional Children, 40(4), 24-31.

Gresham, F.M., & Lopez, M.F. (1996). Social validation: A unifying concept for school-based consultation research and practice. School Psychology Quarterly , 11(3), 204-227.

Howell, K.W., & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd ed.). Belmont, CA: Wadsworth.

Kaminski, R.A., & Cummings, K.D. (2007). Assessment for learning: using general outcomes measures. Threshold, Winter 2007, 26-28. Available: http://ciconline.org/threshold.

Additional References from the Presentation Kozey, M., & Siegel, L.S. (2008). Definitions of learning disabilities in

Canadian provinces and territories. Canadian Psychology, 49(2), 162-171. McIntosh, K., Horner, R.H., Chard, D.J., Boland, J.B., Good III, R.H.

(2006). The use of reading and behavior screening measures to predict nonresponse to school-wide positive behavior support: a longitudinal analysis. School Psychology Review, 35(2), 275-291.

Merrell, K.W., Ervin, R.A., & Gimpel, G. (2007). School Psychology for the 21st Century: Foundations and Practices. New York: Guilford.

National Research Council Report (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington, D.C.: National Academy Press. http://www.nap.edu/

School Psychology Review (2004). Special Issue: Proceedings of the Multisite Conference on the Future of School Psychology. Volume 33 No. 1.

MOVING FORWARD �  School teams - RtI process

� Aligning with Curriculum and Instruction

�  Behavioral Observations �  Report Writing (Samples) �  Referrals �  Electronic Resources (Curriculum Based Measurement) �  Number of ways that the RtI model is being implemented in

school divisions (Preview these - what is an appropriate "fit") �  Collaboration (e.g., forum)

MOVING FORWARD �  Integration of "key people."

e.g., Curriculum, administration (school level, superintendents), "the team" - including learning resource/classroom teachers

� Data collection methods or systems, e.g., AIMSWeb

�  Ethical Responsibilities

MOVING FORWARD � Outlines of BEST PRACTICES � Case Studies �  Educational Institutes - How do our training institutes

reflect current needs in the field? �  School attendance - How can we in the Ministry of

Education work together (across Branches/Units) so that "kids are in school and stay in school?"

MOVING FORWARD �  More training in Functional Behavior Assessment �  Cultural/Language diverse students - Assessments

� U of R course - Functional Behavior Assessment [email protected] [email protected] www.education.gov.sk.ca/ChildrensServicesPublications www.education.gov.sk.ca/ProfessionalLearningOpportunities

psychology paradigm shift - bravehostsaskedworkers.bravehost.com/wp/wp-content/uploads/2015/... ·...

Documents