A School-wide Approach

Using SRBI to Improve the Effectiveness of Special Education Michael Coyne, Ph.D.

Associate Professor Neag School of Education University of Connecticut

CBER Goals

Research:

Conduct school-based research on developing and evaluating evidence based practices in literacy, behavior supports, and assessment

Translating Research to Practice:

Support schools, districts, and states in adopting, implementing, and sustaining evidence based practices

A School-wide Approach

Scientific Research Based Interventions (SRBI)

 Comprehensive evidence-based classroom instruction that is aligned with critical student academic and behavioral outcomes and that is coordinated at a school-wide level  Common assessments used to evaluate the effectiveness of classroom instruction and to identify and monitor students who require additional support to meet grade level academic and behavioral goals  Strategic leveraging of personnel, expertise, materials, and scheduling to provide a seamless continuum of intervention supports

A School-wide Approach

Why SRBI? Why Now?

 A convergence of factors are compelling schools to move towards conceptualizing academic and behavioral instruction, assessment, and intervention within a coordinated school-wide approach 

Challenges & Opportunities

A School-wide Approach

Higher Expectation for All Students

 Current difficulties in reading largely originate from rising demands for literacy, not from declining absolute levels of literacy  Increasing demands for higher levels of literacy in the workforce require that we do better than we have ever done before in teaching all children to read well.

A School-wide Approach Reading is essential to success in our society.

(National Research Council)  Children who experience low reading achievement in the early grades have greater likelihood of school dropout, pregnancy, and unemployment and consequently face great risks of negative academic, social, and economic outcomes.  The NIH views illiteracy as a

national health problem

A School-wide Approach

The Reading Achievement Gap

A School-wide Approach What research tells us about the achievement gap in reading:

 The achievement gap emerges early  The achievement gap grows more discrepant over time  The achievement gap is stubbornly resistant to change  The achievement gap is evident across all areas of literacy

A School-wide Approach

A School-wide Approach

A School-wide Approach

The Reading Achievement Gap in CT

A variety of indicators show:

 Consistently flat reading achievement in CT over the past 10 years  Persistently large achievement gaps in CT among subgroups

A School-wide Approach

Accountability for Outcomes

 Student achievement is assessed regularly through statewide testing  The effectiveness of schools’ instruction is evaluated by the results of these high stakes assessments

A School-wide Approach

Complexity of Teaching

 Limitations of a “solo practitioner” model  It is unrealistic to assume that individual teachers, working independently, can implement and sustain the host of research-based practices that we know are necessary to enable all student to reach grade level goals.

A School-wide Approach

Translating Research to Practice

 We have a large and compelling evidence base of effective practices in academic and behavioral curriculum, instruction, intervention and assessment  However, because each school is distinctive, it must adopt, implement, and coordinate a unique combination of evidence-based practices to maximize the contextual fit between practices and the educational environment.

A School-wide Approach

Working Smarter, Not Harder

 Working smarter means (a) doing less better, (b) investing in a sure thing, (c) investing in clear outcomes, and (d) committing to the long term.  Working smarter means coordinating and leveraging personnel, expertise, materials, and resources most effectively and efficiently.

A School-wide Approach

A Window of Opportunity

Although the challenges are considerable, an SRBI approach offers schools and districts a unique opportunity to significantly increase the effectiveness and efficiency of their educational practices so as to enable a higher percentage of students to meet essential academic and behavioral goals.

A School-wide Approach

RTI and Special Education

 An process for determining eligibility for special education services. An alternative to the IQ/Achievement discrepancy approach for determining the presence of a learning disability  A coordinated school-wide approach for intensifying instruction and intervention for

all

students at risk for not meeting grade level academic or behavioral goals, including students with disabilities.

A School-wide Approach

Assumptions about SRBI and Special Education

1.

The essential goal of special education is to design and provide “specially designed instruction” to better meet the individual needs of students with disabilities. 2.

The essential goal of SRBI is to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of instructional and behavioral supports for

all

students at risk for performing below grade level, including students with disabilities

A School-wide Approach

Assumptions about SRBI and Special Education

 The benchmark by which we should evaluate the success of SRBI practices is the extent to which it accomplishes #2 without jeopardizing #1.

A School-wide Approach

Assumptions about SRBI and Special Education

 As we talk about SRBI practices, we will focus on:  Opportunities and positive examples of how SRBI practices could increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education.  Challenges and possible unintended consequences of how SRBI practices could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education.

A School-wide Approach

Assumptions about SRBI and Special Education

 The academic and behavioral needs/profiles of many students with disabilities are more similar than different to the needs/profiles of students without identified disabilities who are experiencing learning difficulties  The academic and behavioral needs/profiles of many students with disabilities are more similar than different to the needs/profiles of other students with disabilities

A School-wide Approach

Assumptions about SRBI and Special Education

 There is probably a significant difference between how SRBI practices relate to Special Education for students with high incidence disabilities and low incidence disabilities.

A School-wide Approach

A school-wide approach for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of educational practices



Effectiveness:

Evidence-based practices in instruction, assessment, and intervention that have a high likelihood of resulting in improved student outcomes if implemented with fidelity and quality 

Efficiency:

A school-wide plan for supporting and coordinating the implementation of a unique combination or practices that maximizes feasibility and contextual fit through the strategic use of personnel, expertise, materials, and resources

“Working Smarter not Harder”

A School-wide Approach

A school-wide approach for increasing the effectiveness and efficiency of educational practices



Common Features:

 Consistent across schools/districts implementing SRBI practices  Non negotiables 

Flexibility:

 Distinctive combination of practices and implementation features unique to each school/district  Goal is to maximize the contextual fit with each unique school environment and community

A School-wide Approach

A School-wide Approach to Early Literacy & Beginning Reading Instruction

 What it’s not  A program, package, or product  One size fits all  Only top-down or bottom-up  A special education initiative  Just for kids who are struggling  Anything new  Business as usual

A School-wide Approach

A School-wide Approach to Early Literacy & Beginning Reading Instruction

 What it is  Evidence based practices in academic and behavioral curriculum, instruction, assessment, and intervention  Distinctive combination of practices that best fit each unique school context and community  Practices are coordinated at a school-wide level to best leverage personnel, expertise, materials, and resources most effectively and efficiently  Using data to continuously evaluate practices and make instructional decisions

Tier 1:

Comprehensive & Coordinated Instruction for All Students

A School-wide Approach

~5% ~15%

Tier 3:

Specialized, Individualized Intervention for Students with Intensive Needs

Tier 2:

Supplemental Intervention for Students Performing Below Grade Level ~80% of Students

A School-wide Approach

Comprehensive & Coordinated Classroom Instruction for All Students

     Aligned with key student outcomes Evidence based program(s) & materials Comprehensive, consistent, & high quality Implementation is coordinated & prioritized Ongoing teacher support 100% of Students

A School-wide Approach

The goal of classroom instruction is to enable a high percentage of students to meet grade level goals

80%

of Students

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction Aligned with key student outcomes

   

CT Blueprint for Reading Achievement CT Beyond the Blueprint CT Language Arts Framework Other evidence-based documents

80%

A School-wide Approach

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction Evidence-based Reading Program(s) & Materials

  Published program Eclectic combination of school designed materials and/or programs  Program(s) and/or materials are used consistently within and across grades 

Maximizing the % of students meeting grade level goals

80%

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction Classroom Instruction

    Comprehensive 

Is each outcome taught?

Systematic 

When is each outcome taught?

High Quality 

How is each outcome taught?

Differentiated 

Is instruction differentiated for different learners?

80%

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction Implementation of Instruction

 Time 

Sufficient, Consistent, and Prioritized

 Schedule 

All students receive core instruction



The schedule for classroom instruction coordinated within and across grades and in such a way so as to best leverage resources and personnel

80%

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction Teacher Support

    Knowledge of Content & Research Implementation of Classroom Instruction Fidelity of Implementation On-going Coaching and Support

80%

A School-wide Approach

Coordinated & Comprehensive Classroom Instruction



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing comprehensive and coordinated classroom instruction be an opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing comprehensive and coordinated classroom instruction result in unintended consequences that could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?

80%

A School-wide Approach

Opportunities

   Intervention for students with disabilities is more effective when it builds off of powerful classroom instruction When students with disabilities move from grade to grade, they benefit from a coordinated approach to classroom instruction that uses consistent language and procedures Stronger classroom instruction for all students could decrease the number of students that become eligible for special education as the result of inconsistent instruction allowing special educators to focus more on students with disabilities

A School-wide Approach

Potential Unintended Consequences

   SRBI is interpreted as the same thing as full inclusion The assumption that Tier 1 classroom instruction, if differentiated appropriately, should meet the needs of all learners  Improved Tier 1 is not a replacement for a continuum of intervention options The SRBI logic of “all students in Tier 1” trumps the ability of an IEP team to individualize instruction

A School-wide Approach

Universal Assessment

 Purpose is to evaluate the effectiveness of instruction  for all students  for each student 100% of Students

A School-wide Approach

Students Performing Below Grade Level Goals:

At Risk

Students Meeting Grade Level Reading Goals:

Low risk

~5% ~15% Students Performing Significantly Below Grade Level Goals:

High Risk

~80% of Students

A School-wide Approach “Weighing cows won’t make ‘em fatter.”

Assessment data must:

 Answer important questions  Enable informed instructional decision making

A School-wide Approach

Purposes for Assessment Screening

- Assessments that are administered to determine which children are at risk for academic or behavioral difficulties and who will need additional intervention.

Diagnosis

- Assessments that help teachers plan instruction by providing in depth information about students’ skills and instructional needs.

Progress Monitoring

- Assessments that determine if students are making adequate progress or need more intervention to achieve grade level outcomes.

Outcome

- Assessments that provide a bottom-line evaluation of the effectiveness of the instructional program.

A School-wide Approach

Universal Assessments Screening/Benchmarking Assessments

    Aligned with key outcomes Predictive of future performance Must provide methods to document gain as well as grade-level performance Must balance the usefulness of the information with the time/effort to administer

20%

A School-wide Approach

Screening/Benchmarking Assessments Screening/Benchmarking Assessments

    Which Measures?

Administration 

When, how, and by whom?

Organization 

How are data stored, organized, and displayed

Data Based Decision Making 

How are decisions made about who needs and/or receives additional intervention

?

20%

Tier 1 Supports: Assessment

Tier 1 Supports: Assessment

Students Performing Below Grade Level Reading Goals:

At Risk

~25% Students Performing Significantly Below Grade Level Reading Goals:

High Risk

~35% Students Meeting Grade Level Reading Goals:

Low risk

~40% of Students

Tier 1 Supports: Assessment

Tier 1 Supports: Assessment

60 50 40 30 20 10 0 0 - 4 5 - 9 10 - 14 15 - 19 20 - 24 25 - 29 30 - 34 35 - 39 40 - 44 45 - 49 50 - 54 55 - 59 60 - 64 65 - 69 70 - 74 75 +

28% Low Risk 57% Some Risk 15% At Risk

Tier 1 Supports: Assessment

Students Performing Below Grade Level Reading Goals:

At Risk

~15% Students Performing Significantly Below Grade Level Reading Goals:

High Risk

~57% Students Meeting Grade Level Reading Goals:

Low risk

~28% of Students

A School-wide Approach

Screening/Benchmarking Assessments Using Screening/Benchmark Data to Identify Students Who Need Intervention

  Data Based Decision Rules  Supported by teacher knowledge of students Criterion  Criterion or benchmark goals   National or local norms Availability of resources?

20%

A School-wide Approach

Universal Assessments



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing universal assessments be an opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing universal assessments result in unintended consequences that could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?

20%

A School-wide Approach

Opportunities

     Students with disabilities are not left out of universal assessment Students at risk are identified by data based rules, not reliant on only teacher or parent referrals Intervention is triggered by need, not by gated eligibility procedures that are often expensive, time consuming, and unreliable Student achievement and progress is evaluated compared to grade level outcomes and norms  Acceleration not maintenance Record of universal assessments data helpful to interdisciplinary team

A School-wide Approach

Potential Unintended Consequences

   Some universal assessment measures may not be reliable or valid for some students with disabilities We don’t have good universal assessments in every area Universal screening/benchmark measures don’t tell us everything we need to know about students’ academic or behavioral needs/profiles  Doesn’t take the place of a comprehensive evaluation

A School-wide Approach

Supplemental Intervention For Students at Risk for Performing Below Grade Level

 Screening data used to identify students  needing additional intervention Intervention options are evidence  based, consistent, and coordinated Intervention is planned, scheduled and implemented to best leverage resources  Assessment data is used to adjust and intensify intervention

5% 15% 80%

of Students

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options Intervention

 Programs/Materials 

Evidence based



http://www.fcrr.org/FCRRReports/LReports.aspx



Consistent & Coordinated



No intervention “silos”



Implemented with fidelity and quality

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options Alterable Components

       Content Instructional Design Programs/Materials Interventionist/ Interventionist Expertise Grouping Dosage Scheduling

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Content

 Reading  Comprehension, vocabulary, Phonemic Awareness, Phonics, Fluency 

Content becomes increasingly targeted

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Instructional Design

    Initial teaching of skills/strategies Reteaching of skills/strategies Review and practice of skills/strategies

Features of effective instruction

   Explicit instruction Scaffolded instruction Opportunities to practice with high quality feedback

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Program/Materials

     “Double dose” of core materials Intervention component of core materials School designed strategies/activities Stand alone program Highly scripted/systematic program

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Interventionist

     Student Volunteer Paraprofessional Classroom Teacher Specialist

Interventionist Expertise

    Amount of training with intervention Experience implementing intervention Student success Availability of coaching/support

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Grouping

 Size of intervention group  10 students, 4 students, one-on-one    Within class grouping Across class grouping Across grade grouping

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options

intensity/resources

Dosage

   How much time per day?

How many days per week?

How many weeks?

Scheduling

  When will intervention take place?

Where will intervention take place?

20%

A School-wide Approach

Intervention Options Intervention Implementation

 Continuum of scheduling, grouping, and delivery alternatives are coordinated at a school-wide level to best leverage personnel, expertise, materials, and resources

20%

A School-wide Approach

Program Components Core Program

(Open Court) 90 minutes, five days per week for all students

Supplemental fluency program

(Read Naturally)

Intervention phonics program 1

(Rewards – group of 6)

Intervention phonics program 2

(Wilson Reading – groups of 3) 20 minutes, three days per week for some students (parent volunteers) 30 minutes, three days per week for students needing some extra support (classroom teacher) 45 minutes, five days per week for students needing intensive support (specialist)

A School-wide Approach

Supplemental Intervention



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing a continuum of intervention options be an opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to implementing a continuum of intervention options result in unintended consequences that could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?

20%

A School-wide Approach

Opportunities

    Breaks down the disciplinary boundaries of

who

can provide

what

 type of intervention to No “intervention silos”

whom

More intervention options (content, materials, expertise, grouping scheduling) available to better meet the needs of students with disabilities Mechanisms in place to increase the intensity of intervention for students with disabilities Availability of intervention options within general education allows special educators to focus on students with the most intensive needs

A School-wide Approach

Potential Unintended Consequences

     Less powerful interventions in general education replace more powerful interventions in special education  SRBI is not a program, place, or intervention  Supplemental intervention is not the same thing as accommodations and modifications The availability of general education intervention options is used as an excuse to reduce costs or eliminate special education resources/services Providing intervention to students without disabilities takes resources away from providing intervention to students with disabilities Available intervention standard protocols trumps the ability of an IEP team to individualize instruction Special educators’ expertise as interventionists become underused (only case managers)

A School-wide Approach

Intensifying Intervention Support

• Schools use individual student progress monitoring data to identify students with the most intensive learning and behavioral needs based on lack of response to core instruction and targeted intervention • Students at high risk receive individualized intervention at higher levels of intensity (e.g., more time, smaller group size, with highly trained professional, etc.)

5%

A School-wide Approach

   

Stacy

A first grade student who moved to East School in December.

On the January benchmark ORF assessment, she read 4 correct words per minute (cwpm).

According to benchmark goals for Winter of 1st grade, Stacy is at high risk for failing to meet the end of year goal.

An analysis of assessment protocols indicated that Stacy: • • • • Had established phonemic awareness Knew all her letter sound correspondences Lacked a strategy for decoding words Knew very few sight words

A School-wide Approach

Stacy’s Instructional Plan

• Take part in all classroom reading instruction (i.e., core instruction).

• Receive small group intervention (5-6 students) focusing on decoding, for 30 minutes, four time a week.

• Monitor progress weekly.

20%

A School-wide Approach

60 50 20 10 40 30 Aimline Dec.

Scores

Jan.

Scores

Feb.

Scores

March

Scores

April

Scores

May

Scores

June

Scores

A School-wide Approach

• • • • •

Stacy’s Instructional Plan (adjustments)

Receive more intensive systematic intervention program 45 minutes, 5 days a week with group of 2-3 students.

Review sight words with classroom teacher 10 minutes, 2 times a day Preview critical components of core instruction with instructional assistant before whole class instruction.

Continue to monitor progress weekly.

Literacy team meet to review Stacy’s progress weekly.

5%

A School-wide Approach

A change in intervention 60 50 20 10 40 30 Aimline Dec.

Scores

Jan.

Scores

Feb.

Scores

March

Scores

April

Scores

May

Scores

June

Scores

A School-wide Approach

Intensifying Intervention Support



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to intensifying intervention be an opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to intensifying intervention result in unintended consequences that could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?

5%

A School-wide Approach

Opportunities

   Progress monitoring allows for the timely adjustment of intervention intensity for students with disabilities Mechanisms in place for intensifying intervention for students who do not respond to supplemental intervention Data based focus on acceleration of learning could prevent students from disabilities stagnating in special education

A School-wide Approach

RTI and Special Education

 An process for determining eligibility for special education services. An alternative to the IQ/Achievement discrepancy approach for determining the presence of a learning disability  A coordinated school-wide approach for intensifying instruction and intervention for

all

students not meeting grade level academic and behavioral goals.

A School-wide Approach

Problems with IQ/Achievement Discrepancy

 The academic needs/profiles of IQ- discrepant students do not differ significantly from non discrepant low achievers  “Wait-to-fail” model  Unable to determine “instructional casualties” from students with disabilities

A School-wide Approach

REFERRAL SCREENING NEW MODEL ELIGIBILITY TESTING TREATMENT 1-2

Not Eligible Eligible

TREATMENT

Responders Non-Responders Responders

Monitor

Non-Responders

ELIGIBILITY TESTING

Not Eligible Eligible

TREATMENT 3

Responders Non-Responders

Monitor

A School-wide Approach

Critical Features/Questions of an RTI Approach to Eligibility

 The effectiveness of the Intervention is paramount  Evidence-based (powerful)  Implemented with fidelity and quality  How to determine “inadequate response”  Role of a “comprehensive evaluation”

A School-wide Approach

RTI: Eligibility for Special Education



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to special education eligibility be an opportunity to increase the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?



How might moving toward an SRBI approach to special education eligibility result in unintended consequences that could potentially decrease the effectiveness and efficiency of Special Education?

5%

A School-wide Approach

Opportunities

       More reliable, valid, and conceptually sound approach for identifying students with learning disabilities (and behavioral disorders?) Focus shifts from who is eligible to concerns about providing effective instruction: breaks down the silos Identification is not dependent on teacher referral Allows placement of student in intervention immediately rather than after time-consuming and often delayed expensive assessments. Student’s referral includes data indicating how the student has responded to various interventions “Appropriateness” of instruction measured, not surmised Promotes unity of special and general education: a seamless system: Lines up NCLB and IDEA 2004

A School-wide Approach

Potential Unintended Consequences

    Initial implementation of RTI eligibility process results in

less

reliable, valid, and conceptually sound approach for identifying students with learning disabilities Inconsistencies within and across schools/districts in implementing RTI eligibility process Moving through tiers of underpowered interventions in general education prevents students with disabilities from receiving intensive individualized support in special education SRBI practices (effective or ineffective) result in students with disabilities not accessing their legal protections under IDEA