response to intervention (rti) getting started wayne callender brown bag presentation february...
TRANSCRIPT
Response to Intervention (RTI)Getting Started
Wayne CallenderBrown Bag Presentation
February 27,2008
© 2008
RTI...
• Allows for intervention immediately
• Focuses on alterable academic and behavioral skills and evaluates progress
• Seeks to solve problems rather than create placements
–Requires:
• (1) Effective Systems and • (2) Problem Solving components
An RTI School…
Establishes a tiered approach for addressing student needs, (i.e., Benchmark, Strategic and Intensive).
Maximizes the use of regular and special education resources for the benefit of all students.
Adopts interventions and instructional practices that are based in scientific research
Uses assessment for the purpose of instructional decision making (screening, diagnostic, and progress monitoring)
© 2008
Why RTI?
Despite the push for the popularized Pre-Referral concept of the 1980’s, resulting interventions have failed to reduce the number of students identified for services. Further, there is essentially no empirical evidence that most pre-referral processes resulted in better outcomes for students.
© 2008
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education
• “What we found was a system in need of fundamental re-thinking…”
• Reduce the number of students placed in special education through research-based interventions before referral
• Simplify the identification process – “Services first, assessment later”
• Incorporate Response to Intervention. Implement models during the identification process that are based on response to intervention and progress monitoring.
» President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)
© 2008
President’s Commission (Cont.)
• The Commission could not identify firm practical or scientific reasons supporting the current classification of disabilities.
• “The intent of IDEA is to focus on the effective and efficient delivery of special education. The current system wastes valuable special education resources in determining which category a child fits into rather than providing the instructional interventions a child requires.”
» President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)
© 2008
Special Education: Statistics of Interest
• 60% all students in special education are those with specific learning disabilities
• Up to 80% of SLD students are there because they haven’t learned to read.
• Students in Special Education:– Have less exposure to regular ed. curricula and have fewer
regular ed. friends– Academic achievement is no better than like, non-identified
peers
• Few students in special education ever close the achievement gap, even fewer exit.
• Placement in Special Education is a life altering event» President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)
RTI: Combines Effective Systems and Problem Solving
More than an alternative approach to eligibility!
Level I: Effective General Education: All students
Level II: Interventions within General Ed: Small group, research-based, supplemental and intensive; available to all students
Level III: Problem-Solving: Targeted individual interventions in general ed./
Title I/Spec. Ed.
Level IV: Special Education: Long-term Support
© 2008
To Get There in Practice, We Need to Establish the Following:
1. Systems - well designed structure for addressing all students
2. Assessment - for the purpose of identifying students in need, differentiating instruction, and evaluating student progress and program effectiveness
3. Intervention - Scientifically validated programs and teaching practices across all levels and in all areas
4. Problem Solving - Systems and individuals
© 2008
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
STEP 1. Well Designed Structure
Enter a School-Wide Systems for Student Success
© 2008
The Need for a Systemic Approach
The Man Fishing in the RiverThe Man Fishing in the River
© 2008
Re-define Regular EducationBenchmark – will do
fine with a good core program (75 – 80%)
Strategic – will need supplemental and reinforcement programs to hit targets (15%)
Intensive – will need an intensive program that accelerates learning in key skill areas (5%)
Regular Education
Regular Education
Special Education/Title 1
© 2008
Elementary 1 DIBELS Comparison
(focus: service delivery)
K 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benchmark %: 71 63 78 79 64 73 65
Strategic %: 11 26 13 9 22 12 15
Intensive %: 18 11 9 12 14 15 19
Median at each Risk Level Mean at each Risk Level
B = 71% 70%
S = 13% 15%
I = 14% 14%
© 2008
Elementary 2 DIBELS Comparison (Reading First)(focus: maximize student learning)
K 1 2 3 4 5 6
Benchmark %: 20 46 61 62 52 77
Strategic %: 31 43 15 18 24 14
Intensive %: 49 11 24 20 24 9
Median at each Risk Level Mean at each Risk Level
B = 56.5% 64%
S = 21% 24%
I = 22% 23 %
© 2008
Source: Jim Walt
© 2008
© 2008
© 2008
© 2008
© 2008
Old Thinking New Thinking
Problems Learning is a SIGN of a LEARNING
PROBLEM
Problems Learning is a Sign of a Break Down in the
Instructional Process-Many Students Have Problems
Learning at Points in Their Life
A LOTTA Testing to Get a Kid a LITTLE Help
A LITTLE Testing to Get a Kid a LOTTA
Help
Test to Identify Disability/Disease
Test to Identify Interventions that Make
a DifferenceAlan Coulter
Step 2: Assessment
Outcomes Driv
en
© 2008
Screen and monitor student performance using measures that are...standardizedsimple short-duration fluency measures
reading, spelling, written expression, mathematics
B
M
CCurriculum
Based
Measurement
R-CBM and Predictability of Passing State Reading Tests
STATE CUT SCORES
(WCPM)
ACCURACY IN PREDICTING PASS
(3rd Grade)
WA
OR
CO
IL
MI
OH
PA
NC
FL
100
110
110
110
100
110
114
110
110
90%
99%
90%
99%
72%
Unavailable
93%
100%
91% (Buck & Torgeson)
Source: BAX & Bradley
© 2008
SUMMARY OF VARIOUS VALIDITY STUDIES
STUDY SUBJECTS CRITERION MEASURE
MEASURE CORRELATIONS
Deno, Mirkin and Chiang, 1982
45
1st to 6th grade
with 18 LD
Allyn-Bacon, Ginn & Houghton-Mifflin Basal
Readers (3rd & 6th grade level)
Cloze .86 (3rd)
.87 (6th)
Fuchs, Fuchs and Maxwell, 1988
35
4th to 8th grade
Comprehensive Tests of Basic Skills (CRAB)
Cloze
Retell
.75
.74
Fuchs, Tindal, Fuchs et al, 1983
21
4th grade
general ed.
Word Reading Test (at students
grade level)
Oral Reading Fluency
.79
Fuchs, Tindal, Shinn, Fuchs and
Deno, 1983
47
5th grade
general ed.
Word Reading Test (at students
grade level)
Oral Reading Fluency
.72
Jenkins & Jewell, 1993
335
2nd to 6th grade
with 15 LD,
1 MR, 1 ED
Oral Reading Fluency
.86 (2nd)
.82 (3rd)
.86 (4th)
.68 (5th)
.63 (6th)
VALIDITY STUDIES (2)STUDY SUBJECTS CRITERION
MEASUREMEASURE CORRELATIONS
Parker, Hasbrouck and Tindal, 1992
64
4th to 6th grade
using lowest readers & Title 1
Students Basal Reader (1 below, 1
at, and 1 above
grade level)
Maze .76 (4th)
.76 (5th)
.59 (6th)
Tindal, Fuchs et al, 1983
25
4th grade
general ed.
Word Reading Test (at students
grade level)
Oral Reading Fluency
.70
Tindal, Shinn et al, 1983
47
6th grade
general ed.
Word Reading Test (at students
grade level)
Oral Reading Fluency
.66
Parker, Hasbrouck and Tindal, 1992
64
4th to 6th grade using lowest
readers and Title 1
Students Basal Reader (1 below, 1
at, and 1 above grade level
Maze .76 (4th)
.76 (5th)
.59 (6th)
Source: Aimsweb Training Workbook
© 2008
How Much Diagnostic Assessment and When
• Primary Purpose: Identifying what to teach
• Under what circumstances? – Strategic/Low Benchmark students – Some Intensive students– Key function is to identify what to teach - not
for explanation or curiosity purposes
© 2008
Use Functional Academic Assessments
• Assessing Reading: Multiple Measures (CORE)
• HM Phonics Screener
• CBM/DIBELS
• Curriculum Based Evaluation (CBE)– Reading– Writing – Math
© 2008
Cognitive Processing and Interventions: ATI or Matching Strengths Effects
• Treatment/Intervention Effect Size
Modality Matched Instr. (Aud.) +.03
Modality Matched Instr. (Vis.) +.04
Simultaneous/Successive .??
Right Brain/Left Brain .??
Cultural Leaning Style .00
“NOTHING FOR KIDS”
“FEEL GOOD ASSESSMENT”Source: Daniel J. Reschly
© 2008
Two Types of Progress Monitoring:
Type of Assessment: Answers:
In-Program Are studentsAssessment learning the
content?
CBM/DIBELS Are they generalizing?
1)
2)
© 2008
STEP 3. Use a Scientifically Validated Approach
• Investigate the research base of your programs and interventions
• Identify sources of information for evaluating effectiveness of programs
• Know your own context and needs• Match interventions with student needs
(benchmark, strategic and intensive)• Monitor the extent to which they are
effective• Change ineffective programs and
strategies
Adapted from Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne © 2003
TIER 1: Core Program (Benchmark)
A Core Instructional Program of Validated Efficacy Adopted and Implemented School-wide.
A core program is the “base” program designed to provide instruction for the majority of students school-wide.
In general, the core program should enable 80% or more of students to meet academic and behavioral expectations.
Examples:
Reading Math BehaviorHoughton Mifflin Everyday Mathematics PBSOpen Court Mathland
Saxon Math
Adapted from Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne © 2003
TIER 2: Supplemental Programs/Support(Strategic) Support and extend the critical elements of a core or basic program
Provide additional instruction in one or two areas (i.e., fill the gaps for phonological awareness, fluency)
Provide more instruction or practice in particular area(s) of need
May include large group, small group, one-on-one instruction
Provide additional support
Provide more teacher scaffolding
Provide more explicit and systematic instruction
Provide more opportunities for reinforcement
Examples:
Reading Math BehaviorRe-teach Number Power PBS - Read Naturally Building Blocks targetedPhonics for Reading Error Analysis
Number WorldsAdapted from Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne © 2003
TIER 3: Intervention Programs (Intensive)
Provides considerable instructional support and intervention
Designed for children who demonstrate difficulty and are performing substantially below (two or more years below grade level) 20th percentile
Provide more explicit, systematic instruction to accelerate learning to a high criterion level of performance
Focus on more than one area (e.g., phonics, fluency, and comprehension)
Addresses the function of behaviors in question; provides replacement behaviors
Teacher instruction to meet the needs of students who are struggling in their classrooms
Instruction provided by person trained in intervention program
Typically delivered in small group settings
Examples:Reading Math BehaviorEarly Reading Intervention Corrective Math PBS – Corrective Reading Connecting Math Concepts FBA
Adapted from Simmons, Kame’enui, Harn & Coyne © 2003
© 2008
Interventions Are Not…
• Accommodations• Adaptations• Interagency referrals• Special education settings• Assessments, evaluations, screenings• Classroom observations• Advice or consultations• Assisting with instructional methods and
materials• Places
© 2008
STEP 4: Establish a Problem-Solving Process
Problem Solve at the Three Levels:
1. Problem Solve Systems
2. Problem Solving Instructional Groups
3. Problem Solving Individual Students
© 2008
Paradigm Shift
• Student problems can be defined and changed
• Questions will drive assessments
• Assessments will lead to instructional decisions and be low in inference
• Enabled learning rather than discrepancy or diagnosis is the goal
© 2008
Problem Solving
• Student’s in need of additional support are identified through implementation of benchmark testing
• Develop and implement interventions designed to meet the needs of groups of students
• If response is not adequate, problem solving is used to identify ways in which interventions may be intensified for the group and/or individual student
© 2008
Summary of Effectiveness Report
Source: DIBELS
Individual Problem SolvingIndividual Problem Solving
WRITE AN INTERVENTION PLAN Identify the specific problem to be addressed Establish a goal that reflects an ambitious degree of
improvement Identify how the problem will be measured Specify what intervention is to be implemented Establish an implementation plan and timeline Create a plan for monitoring progress along with
decision rules to gauge intervention effectiveness Establish a follow-up date Identify the case manager to oversee implementation
and evaluate progress monitoring
© 2008
RTI and Special Education Eligibility: Key Considerations
1. Effectiveness of Interventions
2. Accurate expectations for growth (Ambitious, but realistic)
3. Sensitive measures of student growth to inform instruction
4. How much response is enough?
© 2008
Determining Response To Intervention (Case Study)
Espin: 2nd Grade
Reading Level = 10 wpm, 1st Grade
Benchmark for 2nd Grade = 90 wpm
Necessary Gain (wpm) = 80
9 wks = 8.8
18 wks = 4.4
27 wks = 2.96
Ambitious Goal: 3 wpm/wk
Minimum Timeframe: 27 weeks
Ensure the Intervention is Working and at the Anticipated Rate!
© 2008
Dual Discrepancy Eligibility Criteria
When a student exhibits large differences from typical levels of performance in achievement, social behavior, or emotional regulation
AND
With evidence of insufficient response to high-quality interventions in academic and/or behavioral domains of concern.
© 2008
Focus on TrajectoryWhat Does the Future Hold?
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
1st Qtr 2nd Qtr 3rd Qtr 4th Qtr
Strategic
Benchmark
Intensive
© 2008
Consider... Regulation: Is RTI Optional?
• NEW AND SIGNIFICANT:• (b must consider, as part of the evaluation described data that
demonstrates that—
(1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, thechild 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. Source: Daniel J. Reschly
© 2008
Comparing Features of Reading First and Response to Intervention
Essential Features RTI Reading First
System meets the needs of a range of students (i.e. benchmark, strategic, intensive) 3 3Universal screening and functional academic assessments used to identify and place students according to instructional needs 3 3Differentiated instruction meets the needs of individual students
3 3Research-based interventions and instructional practices used by teachers 3 3Full range of school resources used to meet needs of students (i.e., special education, Title I, etc.) 3 3Professional development used to maximize instructional effectiveness 3 3Frequent progress monitoring to evaluate effectiveness of interventions and ensure adequate student response to instruction 3 3Uses a team process to evaluate and problem solve instructional supports for students 3 3Develops intervention plans for students whose needs cannot be adequately addressed within the system (e.g., require intervention/instruction not available as part of the overall system)
3
Uses information relevant to a student’s response to intervention (progress monitoring data, review of intervention duration, intensity, and fidelity) as part of process for determining eligibility for special education
3
© 2008
Quote
We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous attempts at planned educational change. The benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and all too often, the situation has seemed to worsen. We have, however, gained clearer and clearer insights over this period about the do’s and don’ts of bringing about change….One of the most promising features of this new knowledge about change is that successful examples of innovation are based on what might be most accurately labeled “organized common sense.”
(Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii)
Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of educational change. New York, NY : Teachers College Press.