Transcript Tools for Improving Achievement District-wide

Response to Intervention:
Tools for Improving
Achievement District-wide
Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas, Providence College
Ina S. Woolman, Rhode Island Department of Education,
Office of Special Populations
October 2005
What is it?
Response to Intervention (RtI) is:
 a philosophy
 a system
 a shared responsibility
 a way to know if what we’re doing is
working
RtI: a philosophy
If a student isn’t performing as
expected, we will change what
WE’RE doing …
and keep doing so until
we find what works.
RtI: a system
Organizer: the Problem Solving
Approach
 Tools:

Benchmark Assessment
 Interventions
 Progress Monitoring


Support: the Expanding Circle
RtI: a shared responsibility

This is about each and every …
student
 class
 school
 district


For district-wide success, it needs to
be everybody’s business
RtI: a way to know if what
we’re doing is working
It’s really about a specific student’s
learning – has s/he Responded to
Intervention? Have we learned what
it takes … yet?
 So, however you’re using “RtI” at
the moment, keep the individual
student’s performance in mind.

What’s been going on in RI?




Focus on improving literacy instruction
Legislated/regulated Personal Literacy
Plans (PLP) and Secondary Programs
Learning Disabilities Interim Guidance
(rev’d 7/05:IDEA changes)
RtI Pilot School Project (PLUS)
Some shifts in emphasis

The primary goal of assessment is to inform interventions.

Assessment begins within general education and is an on-going
systematic gathering of data.

We need to consider the learner, the instruction, the curriculum
and the environment using a problem-solving approach.

More emphasis on designing and providing individual and/or small
group targeted instruction.

More and earlier involvement and collaboration between general
and special education professionals

Evaluating a student’s response to effective instruction and
intervention over time is a better means of assessing whether or not a
student is demonstrating a learning or other disability than a traditional
one-time special education evaluation.
Some key concepts and
practices
Foundation of effective general
education
 Progress monitoring assessment
 The Expanding Circle of Support
 The Problem Solving Approach

Foundation of effective
general education
Special
Education
for ~10%
Expanded Classroom
Support
for 5-10%
Effective, Evidence-Based
Comprehensive
Curriculum
for at least 80% of
students
Progress Monitoring Assessment

Benchmark Assessments


3 times a year for all students
Progress Monitoring Assessments

Weekly/Biweekly for all students
performing below grade-level receiving
intervention
The Expanding Circle of
Support
Special Education
Reading Specialist
Other Specialists
Counselor
Students
Teachers
Parents
School-Based Problem Solving Team
EL Teacher
Special Educators
School Psychologists-Diagnosticians
The Problem Solving
Approach
Define Problem
Environment
Instruction Curriculum
Learner
Implement Intervention
Questions…
Illustrative Examples …
Demonstrating:
 A problem solving approach
 An expanding Circle of Support
 Interventions and Progress
Monitoring
 Decision making based on students’
response to intervention
Two Case Studies
Actual student cases, adapted
 For illustrative purposes ONLY
 How processes can work in a school
 Procedures and teaming evolved
 Your school’s support systems may
look a little different

Chris and David
2nd graders
 Struggle with reading and retaining
information
 Received supplemental reading
services in first grade four times a
week, continue to receive reading
support in 2nd grade

Timeline of events
2003-2004 school year








September

Classroom Literacy Assessments - Screening

Identified as needing a PLP, Parent Consultation
October – November

Intervention 1 for Chris and David
November

Teacher Support Team Meeting

Intervention 1 continues for Chris and David; Intervention 2 for Chris
December

Teacher Support Team Meeting

Intervention 1 and 2 Continue
January

Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring

Building Problem Solving Team Meeting

Intervention 3 for Chris and David, Intervention 4 for David
February

Building Problem Solving Team meeting

Evaluation Team invited, Special Education Procedural Safeguards Begin
March

Referral and Evaluation Meetings with full expanded team
June

Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring
September:
Rigby results for all 2nd graders
Rigby-Sept
25
20
15
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
September Mean =15, SD =3
Chris
David
Intervention 1:
Chris and David
In small group worked with
classroom teacher on short vowel
words using Core Phonics and
Making Words Lessons daily for
twenty minutes.
 Six weeks
 Results?

Response to Intervention 1
(Core Phonics)
Assessment: Number of CVC words/15
14
12
10
8
Chris
David
6
4
2
0
Week
1
Week
3
Week
5
Week
7
First Week of November
Teacher Support Team Meeting
Who:

Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2 other Classroom
Teachers, Principal
Discussed:
 Intervention One Progress
 PLP modifications as necessary
Plan:




Intervention 1: Focused small group instruction on decoding
and spelling CVC words will continue for both, reading teacher
will help.
Intervention 2: To develop Chris’ auditory discrimination, he
will also begin using a software program that was recommended
by the Speech and Language Pathologist. It will be loaded on
the classroom computer.
Check both boys hearing and vision.
Classroom teacher continues to meet with parents to share
concerns and plan
Response to Intervention Data
for November
Intervention 2
Intervention 1 Continues
(software)
(Core Phonics)
Chris
Chris
David
100%
15
80%
12
60%
9
6
40%
3
20%
0
Wk 8
Wk 9
Wk 10
Wk 11
0%
Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4
TST Meeting - December

Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2

Discussed:
other Classroom Teachers, Principal




Chris and David made progress during Interventions.
Classroom teacher also reports improvement in class.
Both boys passed hearing and vision screening.
Plan:


Continue Intervention 1 with Classroom teacher and
Reading Specialist for both
Continue Intervention 2 using the software with Chris
through mid-January
Response to Intervention Data
for December and January
Intervention 1 Continues
(Core Phonics)
Chris
Intervention 2 cont.
(software)
David
Chris
20
100%
16
80%
12
60%
8
40%
4
0
20%
WK 12
Christmas
WK 15
0%
WK 5
Christmas
WK 8
Grade-wide Data: January
Phonemic Awarness
30
Percent Correct
Reading Level
Rigby
20
10
0
1
100
80
60
40
20
0
2
1
September and January
2
September and January
Reading Fluency
Spelling
80
Number of Words
Words Per Minute
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
1
0
1
2
September and January
Chris
David
2
September and January
Grade Mean
Building Problem Solving Team
End of January Meeting:



Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, Speech
and Language Pathologist, 2 other Classroom Teachers,
Principal and Parents
Discussed:
 Chris and David’s performance on the Interventions
 Chris and David’s performance on the grade-wide data
 Teacher’s concern regarding David’s slipping in class
 David’s parents do not report change in behavior at
home
Plan:
 Begin Intervention 3 with both boys expanding on
phonics work to include fluency of text practice
 Begin Intervention 4 with David in which he works
everyday with the reading specialist one-on-one for
fifteen minutes to review and practice decoding skills.
 If no progress, expand circle to include evaluation team
members
Building Problem Solving Team
February Meeting

Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Parents, Reading Teacher,

Discussed:
Speech and Language Pathologist, Principal, Diagnostic
Prescriptive Teacher, and School Psychologist




Chris’ continued progress
David’s lack of progress even with additional one-on-one
as well as withdrawal from class activities
Need for special education evaluation?
Plan:




Reading Teacher/Classroom Teacher to continue
Intervention 3: to work with Chris and David in a small
group on phonics and fluency
Reading Teacher to continue Intervention 4 with David
School Psychologist to observe David in class
Team discusses both boys for necessity of Special
Education Evaluation
Should referrals be made?
Is progress no longer being made?
OR …
 Are the supports being provided
more than what can be maintained
on a temporary basis?

Referral to Consider a Special
Education Evaluation

Does David need to be referred for special
education evaluation?
 Yes, although there is still some slow progress,
it is only through extensive interventions **
**This is when the official
special education process begins.

Does Chris need to be referred for special
education evaluation?
 … ?
 No.
ET Meeting: March
Considering David’s Referral

Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning,
Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …

The Evaluation Team asks:


Have interventions of appropriate type,
progression and intensity been implemented
with fidelity? Yes
Given David’s response to interventions, do
we suspect that he might have a disability?
Yes
ET Meeting: March
Planning David’s Evaluation

“What questions remain before we can
decide if there’s a disability, and what
evidence do we need to answer those
questions?”
David …
Rate of learning
Gaps
Have data
Need more
information
Intensity of Instruction
Have data
Exclusionary Factors
Have data
David’s Response to Interventions
3 and 4
Intervention 4
Intervention 3
(One-on-One Review and Practice)
CVC and CCVC words
Words Per Minute
(Fluency and Phonics)
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
WK WK WK WK WK WK
1
2
3
4
5
6
20
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
WK WK WK WK WK Wk
1
2
3
4
5
6
David’s Assessment Data:
Collected by Building Problem Solving Team
and Evaluation Team*
Classroom
Grades and
Work Samples
Bs and Cs First Quarter, Lower at Second Quarter – particularly in literacy where he received a CRunning Records
Level 11 94% accuracy, 40 WPM, 3/3 comp
Level 12 78% accuracy, 38 WPM, 1/3 comp, difficulty decoding blends + vowel patterns
Writing Samples
Short sentences, with multiple spelling errors. Difficulty writing more than one sentence about a
topic. Needs prompting to stay on task.
Math
Enjoys, accurately and quickly completes addition and subtraction drills, has good number sense,
difficulty reading word problems.
Observations
Withdrawn, very limited interactions with peers, responds to teacher’s questions but does not
initiate, completes independent work slowly and only with prompting from teacher
Standardized
Tests
*Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Low Average (83)
Phonological Awareness: Average (96)
Phonological Memory Poor (72)
Rapid Access Low Average (82)
*WIAT-II Written Language -Low Average (80)
Spelling Poor (73)
Written Expression Low Average (84)
*Test of Word Reading Efficiency Poor (74)
David’s ET Meeting
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
Findings:
RATE:
Limited Progress, Some Inconsistency
GAPS:
Single Word and Text Reading Fluency
Spelling
Phonological Memory
INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: One-on-one and ongoing review and feedback is necessary to make
progress, encouragement needed for
participation
LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION
PLAN:



Intensive literacy instruction WITH special
educator using a multisensory approach and
on-going review and practice
Use of daily feedback and data monitoring
to help motivate David to practice and
improve, as well as monitor progress
Small group session with counselor to
improve self-confidence
IF THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS
HAD BEEN USED …
… WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATER
Findings?
ABILITY: Average
ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI approach]:
Poor Reading Fluency
Poor Spelling
Low Average Written Expression
Average Math
SEVERE DISCREPANCY: Between Ability and
Achievement in the area of reading fluency
and spelling.
*LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATION*
… and NOW we begin to PLAN:

Intervention Strategy, and

Special Education
What about Chris?
 The
supports developed are
working
 But
… for contrast … what if he
HAD been referred?
ET Meeting: March
Considering Chris’ Referral

Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning,
Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …

The Evaluation Team asks:


Have interventions of appropriate type,
progression and intensity been implemented
with fidelity? Yes
Given Chris’ response to interventions, do
we suspect that he might have a disability?
No … look at his data …
Chris’ Response to
Intervention 3
Reading Fluency
Words per Minute
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6
Chris’ performance on 4 class-wide progress
monitoring assessment measures in September,
January and March of 2nd grade
Chris
2nd grade mean
Phonemic Awareness
Reading Level
Rigby
25
120
20
100
15
80
10
60
40
5
20
0
1
0
2
1
2
3
Spelling
Dolch List
18
16
14
12
10
8
6
4
2
0
220
215
210
205
200
195
190
185
180
1
2
1
2
3
The plan for Chris …
Chris’ Successful
Response to the Intervention Process



RATE: Progress demonstrated in 4 out of 5 areas
assessed.
GAP: Weakness in spelling, but not lower than 9095% of peers.
INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: Chris is responding to
small group intervention
Plan


Continue Intervention in Fall with focus on spelling as
well as reading comprehension and fluency
Monitor and adjust as needed
What if the traditional process had
been used with Chris?
… WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATER
Findings?
ABILITY: Low Average
ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI
approach]: Poor Reading Fluency,
Spelling, Written Expression and Low
Average Math
WISC-IV
Full Scale 84
WIAT-II
Reading 78
Written Language
80
Math 89
Oral Language 87
… WHAT WOULD YOUR TEAM HAVE DECIDED?
Either way – planning to support Chris would
have started late in the year
Conclusions:






Problem Solving and Intervention began early on
Successful intervention identified through the
process
Chris’ reading improved, David made slower and
more inconsistent progress in reading
At this time Chris’ needs can be met in general
education with small group instruction in
classroom and with reading specialist
At this time David needs were found to be
significantly greater than his peers and the
instructional intensity that is necessary for him
to make progress is best delivered by both
special and general education
System in place to monitor both boys’ future
progress and needs
2nd Grade Rigby
30
25
20
Rigby-Sept
15
Rigby-June
10
5
0
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59
September Mean =15, SD =3
June Mean =21, SD=3
Questions…
Using RTI to determine
disability…
Special Education Decision Making
Prerequisites to determining that a student has a
learning disability
Student must have been “provided with
learning experiences appropriate for
the child’s age and ability levels” and thus
the determining factor for the eligibility
determination is not “lack of
instruction in reading or math.”
Rhode Island Regulations Governing the
Education of Children with Disabilities, 2000
Curriculum, Instruction and
Environment
Evidence is gathered to record results of
successive interventions and to inform
new participants in the Expanding Circle
of Support
 Assessments to monitor progress
 Documentation of differentiated strategies
and fidelity of successive interventions
 Environmental conditions that support or
hinder the student’s learning
Expand the Circle of Support to
Consider Special Education?

In spite of successive research based
interventions, is the student no longer
making progress toward Grade Level
Expectations?
or

Is the student’s progress dependent on a
level of support that cannot be
maintained over time in general
education?
IF YES…SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCESS BEGINS
Evaluation Team
Consideration of Referral
The team of parents and qualified school
personnel answers three questions:
1.
Have interventions of appropriate type,
progression and intensity been
implemented with fidelity?
No → Consult on additional interventions
Yes → Question 2
Evaluation Team
Consideration of Referral
2.
Given student’s response to
interventions, do we suspect that the
student might have a disability?
No → Consult and continue supports
within general education
Yes → Question 3
Evaluation Team
Consideration of Referral
3.
Are there questions remaining before we
can decide if there’s a disability, and
what evidence do we need to answer
those questions?
• rate of learning?
• gaps?
• intensity of instructional need?
If yes … conduct relevant comprehensive
evaluation
IDEA, 2004
Learning Disabilities

The new IDEA allows the use of “a process that determines
if a child responds to scientific, research-based
interventions” in determining learning disabilities
… Rhode Island guidance expects teams to use this
process.

The new IDEA prohibits teams from being required to
consider a severe discrepancy between achievement and
ability
… Rhode Island guidance does not include the concept
or practice of considering a severe discrepancy
between ability and achievement
New Direction:
To determine a learning disability using
Response to Intervention model
Questions from the interim guidance document
1.
Does the evidence from a variety of sources of converging data
indicate that the student’s needs are greater than 90% to 95% of
age appropriate peers?
RATE
Is the student's learning rate slower, even with high quality interventions?

AND
GAP
Is the student's performance significantly lower?
and/or
Within a student’s own performance is there a marked gap in different
areas?


Additionally…
2. After careful review, can we rule out any other possible primary
causes for this student’s distinct needs?


Exclusionary conditions
Other considerations
If the answer to the first two questions is “Yes,” the team needs to answer
the third question:
3. Does the student require special education and related services in
order to meet his/her needs? That is …

Is the instructional intensity needed for the student to make progress
greater than 90%-95% of the student's age appropriate peers?
If the answer to all three questions is “Yes,” the team may
determine that the student has a learning disability and requires
special education supports and services.
Questions…
PLUS Schools Pilot: Planning
Learning with Unified Supports
An ongoing project since February
2004 at:
 Garden City School, Cranston
 Old County Road School, Smithfield
 Sowams School, Barrington
 State Street School, Westerly
Preparing to share their learning …
The shifts that we are making in
Rhode Island





Considering the learner, the instruction, the curriculum and
the environment using a problem-solving model
Gathering data systematically on an on-going basis
Designing and providing responsive individual and/or small
group intervention in the area of need
Using assessments to inform interventions
Evaluating a student’s response to effective instruction and
intervention over time
To support these changes we are:



Designing effective building-level intervention teams
Collaborating more and earlier
Changing roles of specialists
What we’ve learned
Key Components





A Professional Learning Community
Progress Monitoring Assessment
Team Implementation within the Problem
Solving Process
Interventions
Changing Roles and Maintaining Sufficient
Staff Support
Key: a professional learning
community




Shared purpose, collaboration, evidencebased decision-making
The problem-solving approach is used at
school and district as well as individual
and classroom levels
Job-embedded learning
Awareness of varied levels of acceptance
of the changes –tailored supports (CBAM)
Key: progress monitoring
assessment



Wide understanding of the variety of assessment
types and their roles for benchmarking, progress
monitoring and evaluation
Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) plays a
significant role in RTI decisions
Assessments are used to make more informed
instructional decisions

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring –
www.studentprogress.org
Key: team implementation within
the problem-solving process


Buildings may have one or more “teams”
Functions and membership of support
team(s) vary as appropriate:




During the process
Depending on purpose
Depending on student characteristics and
need
Support may begin in grade-level meetings or
other collegial gatherings
Key: interventions




Interventions are part of all instruction, not just
literacy
Staff have a large repertoire of interventions classroom differentiation, standard protocol,
small group, individualized
Interventions vary – in format, teacher/provider,
group size, intensity
All interventions are monitored and adjusted
based on data

Intervention Central
• www.interventioncentral.org

What Works Clearing House• www.whatworks.ed.gov
Key: changing roles and maintaining sufficient staff support




Collaborative approach to sharing
responsibility and providing supports
Specialists support interventions for nonidentified students
More direct observation and support –
less testing
Documentation, public awareness and
support of the combined efforts required
to support this process
Questions
Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas,
Providence College
[email protected]
 Ina S. Woolman, RI Dept. of
Education, Office of Special
Populations [email protected]
