Transcript LEVEL OF IMPLEMENTATION

SPECIAL EDUCATION
DECISION MAKING:
RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION
David Prasse, Ph.D.
Loyola University Chicago
[email protected]
Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.
Cornwall-Lebanon School District
[email protected]
Richard E. Hall, Ph.D.
Eastern Lancaster County School District
[email protected]
Influences on Current Practice
IDEA 1997
 LD Summit – August 2001
 President’s Commission on Special
Education
 Robert Pasternack’s Statements on Reform
 Reauthorization of IDEA (underway)

Four Phases to Decision-Making
1.
2.
3.
4.
Assess Lack of Instruction
Assess Response to Instruction During
Pre-referral Intervention.
Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency.
Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction.
Background Information:Ryan






Ryan is 8 years, 9 months and in third grade.
He has academic struggle in reading and received Reading
Recovery in first grade and now receives Title 1 services for
reading.
Ryan was evaluated for Gifted Support in second grade and
achieved a Full Scale IQ of 123 on the WISC-III.
Ryan’s rate of progress in math was above third grade level.
District standardized achievement test (Terra Nova) placed
reading skills at the 9th percentile and math skills at the 75th
percentile
CBA probes from third grade reading material indicated Ryan
read at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute.
Ryan…




Third grade local norms indicate typical third grade students read at a
median rate of 79 words correct per minute with this same material.
The Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery was administered by the
reading specialist and Ryan achieved a Broad Reading Standard Score
of 85.
Data from standard tests indicated a significant ability-achievement
discrepancy based on the 38 standard score difference between his FS
IQ and his reading score.
CBA indicated a significant discrepancy between Ryan’s fluency rate
and that of his third grade peers.
Baseline Data:Ryan






Ryan’s reading fluency rate was assessed using probes developed from the
third grade reading curriculum material.
Over 5 probes Ryan’s fluency was at a median rate of 39 words correct per
minute with 2 errors (95% accuracy).
Locally developed norms for third grade students indicated a fluency rate of
79 words correct per minute.
Data from Fuchs and Fuchs (1993) indicated a reading fluency acquisition
rate of 1.5 words correct per week over the course of the school year.
Baseline data indicated a flat to slightly downward trend in Ryan’s fluency
acquisition.
Assessment data from the Woodcock Diagnostic Battery and error analysis
indicated weaknesses in rapid, automatic decoding and word attack skills.
Ryan had single and double vowel confusions, difficulty with double vowels
/oo/, /ea/ and double consonants /sh/, /gh/, etc. Occasionally he would add
sounds to words. He had consistent difficulty with vowel final /e/ pattern
words.
Questions:

IS RYAN IDENTIFIABLE AS A
STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY?

DOES RYAN NEED SPECIAL
EDUCATION TO LEARN TO READ?
IDEA 97-FINDINGS & PURPOSES
Focus on high expectations
 Ensure access to the general education
curriculum
 Strengthen role of parents to ensure
meaningful participation
 Special education must become a service
rather than a place

FINDINGS & PURPOSES (cont.)
Provide special education & related services
and aids and supports in the regular
classroom
 Provide incentives for whole-school
approaches and pre-referral intervention
 Reduce the need to label as necessary to
address learning needs.

FINDINGS & PURPOSES (cont.)

Focus on teaching and learning, while
reducing paperwork and requirements that
do not assist in improving educational
results.
IDEA 97-EVALUATION
PROCEDURES

A variety of assessment tools and strategies to
gather relevant functional and developmental
information, including information provided by
the parent - to enable the child to be involved in
and progress in the general curriculum or, for
preschool children to participate in appropriate
activities.
IDEA 97-EVALUATION
PROCEDURES (cont.)
Evaluations provided by the parent
 Classroom-based observations and
assessments
 On the basis of that review, and input from
the child’s parents,identify what additional
data, if any, are needed to determine special
education needs.

IDEA ‘97: ASSESSING LACK
OF INSTRUCTION
(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR
ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION
In making a determination of eligibility
under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be
determined to be a child with a disability if
the determinant factor for such
determination is lack of instruction in
reading or math or limited English
proficiency. [IDEA §614(b)(5)]
What the Senate intended:
Students may be identified as LD because
they were not taught the “core skill of
reading” effectively.
 Not taught = lack of instruction (LOI)
 LOI will decrease over-identification and
focus schools’ efforts on instruction in the
primary grades.

DEFINITION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES
(excerpts from IDEA)

§300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning
disability. A team may determine that a child has a specific learning
disability if- (1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or
her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in
paragraph (a)(2) of this section, if provided with learning
experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels;

§ 300.543 A team may determine that a child has a specific learning
disability if… (6) Whether there is a severe discrepancy between
achievement and ability that is not correctable without special
education and related services;
LD Summit (August 2001)
Criticized wait to fail model
 Criticized disconnect between current
assessment practices and marker variables
 Criticized ability-achievement discrepancy
approach
 Pointed to response to instruction as
alternative evaluation procedure

PRESIDENTS COMMISION SPECIAL
EDUCATION: FINDINGS









Current system – process above results
Current system – wait to fail model
Dual system- general and special
Inadequate parent options and recourse
Culture of compliance
Identification methods lack validity
Better teacher preparation needed
Rigorous research and evidence-based practice
Focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives not
academic achievement
President’s Commission on Special
Education: Recommendations
Focus on results – not on process.
 Embrace a model of prevention not failure
 Consider children with disabilities as
general education children first.

President’s Commission on Special
Education: Recommendations (cont.)
Change the way we assess for LD.
 Eliminate the necessity for IQ-achievement
discrepancy.
 Shift to academically relevant assessments.
 Change focus from eligibility determination
to successful interventions.

President’s Commission on Special
Education: Recommendations (cont.)
Use response to instruction as a key
measure.
 Apply scientifically based instruction before
referring for evaluation.

The Commission believes that the approach to all
high-incidence disabilities needs to shift from a
failure model to a prevention model.
To prevent the wrong children from being served, the
Commission recommends that current regulations be
modified so that the student’s response to
scientifically based instruction is part of the criteria
for SLD.
Robert Pasternack’s Testimony to
the House Committee…
Statement by Robert Pasternack, Assistant Secretary for Special Education and
Rehabilitative Services On Learning Disabilities before the House of
Representatives Education and the Workforce Committee, Subcommittee on
Education Reform
Dr. Pasternack’s Statements
Half of the students receiving special
education are LD.
 80% to 90% of students with LD have
reading disabilities.
 Most students can learn to read with
scientifically based instruction.
 A very few students fail to respond to even
our best instructional approaches.

Dr. Pasternack’s
Statements (cont.)
Studies of responsiveness to intervention
generally do not find relationships with IQ
or IQ-discrepancy.
 May seem counterintuitive, but IQ tests do
not measure cognitive skills like
phonological awareness that are closely
associated with LD in reading.

Reading Statistics






5% of children learn to read effortlessly
20-30% learn relatively easily once exposed to reading
instruction
For 60% of children learning to read is a much more
formidable task
For at least 20-30% of children, reading is one of the
most difficult tasks that they will have to master.
For 5% of students even with explicit and systematic
instruction, reading will continue to be a challenge.
MacKenzie (2000), citing statistics from Lyon, Kamme’enue, Simmons, et al.
Summary: Problems with the
Discrepancy Approach

False positives (high IQ; average achievement)

False negatives (the slow learner myth)

Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI

Doesn’t link with intervention
Status of IDEA Reauthorization
Moving quickly through committee
 Many controversial issues
 Would include revision of procedure for LD
identification process

…when determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability as defined by this Act, the local educational agency
shall not be required to take into consideration whether the
child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and
intellectual ability in oral expression, listening
comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill,
reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or
mathematical reasoning.
Can we assume effective
instruction?
CURRICULUM CASUALTIES

"...the teacher's concern for getting through the
curriculum ...may...be a prime source of
curriculum casualties who end up in special
education."
Rosenfield, S. (1987). Instructional
consultation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum, p. 27.
Flu e n t
Re fl e ctive
Re ade rs /
W ri te rs
Reading
C
O
M
P
R
E
H
E
N
S
I
O
N
•
B ackground
Knowledge
•
Predicti ons
•
Clari fication/
ques ti oni ng
•
Monitoring
for Meaning
•
Summari zing
•
Is
Rocket
Making
Pers onal
Connections
• Au tom ati ci ty w ith
th e code
• S tru ctu re of th e
lan gu age
• Al ph abe ti c pri n ci ple
• Ph on ol ogical aware n es s
Earl y Lite racy Expe rie n ce s
an d
O ral Lan gu age De ve l opm en t
Science
Louisa Cook Moats
Features of an Effective
Early Literacy Program

Kindergarten screening for phonological awareness

Kindergarten intervention program to address phonological
awareness

Regular (quarterly) assessments of all students on
phonological/phonemic awareness and reading decoding

Flexible intervention (remedial) programs to address needs of
students who fall behind

Reading program based on sufficient time allocated to direct
instruction in phonemic awareness and efficient decoding of text
CONTINUUM OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION
IN “PHONICS” OR THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
IMPLICIT
Language
Experience
Whole
Words
EXPLICIT
Basal with
embedded
phonics
Linguistic
Word Families
based on
Orthographic
Families
Systematic
Phonics
Smith &
Goodman’s
Work
M eaning-Based
Basals
• M errill
Linguistics
• Open
Court
Using literature
and authentic
text with mini
lessons
e.g., Invitations
to Literacy
Whole Language
Systematic
Phonics with
Direct
Instruction
M ultisensory
Structured
Language
• Reading
M astery
• Corrective
Reading
• Project Read
• Wilson Language
System
• Preventing
Academic
Failure, etc.
Carmine
Engleman,
et al
Orton Gillinghambased approaches
Joy MacKenzie 3/00
Using Response to Instruction to
Determine Eligibility for Special
Education: Four Phases
1. Assessing Lack of Instruction
 2. Assessing Response to Instruction
 3. Determining Extent of Deficiency
 4. Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction

Phase 1: Assessing Lack of
Instruction
Appraising the Student’s Instructional
History and Current Instructional
Environment
APPROACHES TO ASSESSING
LACK OF INSTRUCTION
• Check of student’s history

Check on history of instructional
procedures

Assessment of current classroom
instructional environment
ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION
HISTORICAL FACTORS

Attendance – traditional approach

Moving – number of different schools

Discontinuity of instruction

Cultural/language mismatch
ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION
Can’t be done without assessing
instructional environment
 Ultimately is tied to treatment integrity
 Techniques and approaches same as those
necessary for all data-based decision
making
 Data-based decision making in special
education

ASSESSING LACK OF INSTRUCTION:
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT

To what extent is instruction planned?

How is instruction managed?

How is instruction delivered?

How is instruction monitored?
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
COMPONENTS
• Instructional match
 Teacher expectations
 Classroom environment
 Instructional presentation
 Cognitive emphasis
 Motivational strategies
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
COMPONENTS (cont.)
Relevant practice
 Informed feedback
 Academic engaged time
 Adaptive instruction
 Progress evaluation
 Student understanding

(Ysseldyke & Christenson, 1994)
ASSESSING THE INSTRUCTIONAL
ENVIRONMENT – METHODS
 Must
be structured
 Systematic
Instructional Environment
Assessment Instruments



THE FUNCTIONAL ANALYSIS OF ACADEMIC
BEHAVIOR (FAAB)
BEHAVIORAL OBSERVATION OF STUDENTS IN
SCHOOLS (BOSS)
ECOBEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM
(CISSAR)
WHAT CAN BE LEARNED







Academic engagement
Teacher directed instruction
Active teaching/learning
Opportunity to learn
Demonstrate/prompt/practice
Guided practice
Rate of accurate student response
Alternative to Phase I: Tier 1
School-wide Screening
and Intervention
Tier 1: School-wide Screening
and Intervention
Primary grades
 Early assessment of marker variables (e.g.,
DIBELS)
 Identification of high risk students
 Targeted intervention to high risk students
using research-based procedures (group)
 Ongoing monitoring of performance
(quarterly)

Phase 2: Assessing Response to
Instruction during Pre-referral
Intervention
Pre-referral Intervention
“… (a) teacher’s modification of
instruction or classroom management to
better accommodate a difficult-to-teach
pupil without disabilities”
Fuchs, Fuchs and Bahr (1990) p. 128.
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated
Current Model
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated
Current Model
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated
Current Model
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Work Strategies
Into Class
Routines
Teacher Implements
Progress Evaluated
Current Model
Former Model
Concern Expressed
Conduct
Thorough
Assessment
Team Meets
Identifies Problem
Trial Teaching
Establish
Strategies
Work Strategies
Into Class
Routines
Teacher Implements
Assess
Continuously
Progress Evaluated
Phases of the
Instructional Support
Team Process
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
6.
7.
8.
General screening
Identifying students for IST
Conducting the initial assessment
Identifying the problem and goal
Selecting the strategy and planning the
intervention
Implementing the intervention
Evaluating the results of intervention
Interfacing IST with further evaluations for
eligibility for special education and IEP
Conclusions from PRI:
Were research-based strategies used?
 Were the strategies implemented with high
fidelity?
 What do the data show in terms of student
response?

CONFIRMATORY FORMAT

Select a high probability strategy (and state it
precisely)

Establish the strategy in the classroom through
"hands-on consultation"

Merge the strategy into the teacher's daily routine

Assess continuously the student's response to the
intervention

Assess the level of implementation
LEVEL OF
IMPLEMENTATION RUBRIC
5
-
Strategy is implemented exactly as stated.
4
-
Strategy is implemented as stated most of the time.
3
-
Strategy is implemented as stated some of the time.
2
-
Strategy is infrequently implemented as stated.
1
-
Strategy is not implemented as stated.
N.B. The statement of a strategy included the initial
description as well as any edits that are made to the
description in response to the student's ongoing needs.
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Lack of instruction is not evident.
This student has responded poorly to the intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of five days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed
for the duration of the intervention period. In spite of this assistance, the student's
rate of learning throughout the period has been slow. This response-to-instruction
pattern indicates that the student's lack of progress is more likely the result of
learning difficulties than a lack of effective instruction. Specially designed instruction
is likely needed for this student to acquire and retain new information.
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Student responds well to effective instruction.
This student responded well to the intervention strategy. After an initial adaptation period
of six days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed for the duration of the
intervention period. With this assistance, the student's rate of learning throughout the
period was steady and in a positive direction. This response-to-instruction pattern
indicates that the student's difficulties are more likely the result of a lack of effective
instruction than a disability. This student does not display a high degree of need for
special education because he can demonstrate acquisition and retention with adapted
instruction in the regular classroom.
100
90
80
70
60
wpm
50
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
21
23
25
27
29
Assessment Sessions
Description:
Response to instruction cannot be determined.
This student has responded poorly during the intervention strategy. However, in
spite of support, the intervention was not implemented as planned throughout the
intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the student's
lack of progress are more likely the result of learning difficulties or a lack of
effective instruction. Another period of support is needed to assist the teacher to
implement the strategy as designed in order to make a conclusion about this
issue.
Phase 3: Appraising the Extent of
Academic Deficiency
Is the student discrepant from
realistic expectations for his or her
grade and age level?
Verifying Academic Deficiency
Using CBM

Development of local norms

Determining discrepancy from local norms

2.0 X criterion
Cornwall-Lebanon SD Elementary Oral Reading Fluency Norms
Grade Level:
WPM:
Grade Level:
EPM:
1A
17.81
1A
9.56
1B
41.51
1B
5.53
1C
69.18
1C
3.85
2A
2B
75.92 112.74
2A
2B
4.41 2.47
3A
78.6
3A
5.24
3B
107.3
3B
3.21
4A
106.9
4A
3.35
4B
125
4B
2.8
5A
5B
129.27 146.24
5A
5B
2.39 1.75
2.0X calculation

Divide norm group mean by student’s score

Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency

Example: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X
Is there a role for normreferenced tests of academic
achievement?

Group testing

Individual testing
Phase 4: Evaluating the Need for
Specially Designed Instruction

Deviations in materials

Deviations in planning

Deviations in personnel
Background Information:Ryan






Ryan is 8 years, 9 months and in third grade.
He has academic struggle in reading and received Reading
Recovery in first grade and now receives Title 1 services for
reading.
Ryan was evaluated for Gifted Support in second grade and
achieved a Full Scale IQ of 123 on the WISC-III.
Ryan’s rate of progress in math was above third grade level.
District standardized achievement test (Terra Nova) placed
reading skills at the 9th percentile and math skills at the 75th
percentile
CBA probes from third grade reading material indicated Ryan
read at a median rate of 39 words correct per minute.
Ryan…




Third grade local norms indicate typical third grade students read at a
median rate of 79 words correct per minute with this same material.
The Woodcock Diagnostic Reading Battery was administered by the
reading specialist and Ryan achieved a Broad Reading Standard Score
of 85.
Data from standard tests indicated a significant ability-achievement
discrepancy based on the 38 standard score difference between his FS
IQ and his reading score.
CBA indicated a significant discrepancy between Ryan’s fluency rate
and that of his third grade peers.
Baseline Data:Ryan






Ryan’s reading fluency rate was assessed using probes developed from the
third grade reading curriculum material.
Over 5 probes Ryan’s fluency was at a median rate of 39 words correct per
minute with 2 errors (95% accuracy).
Locally developed norms for third grade students indicated a fluency rate of
79 words correct per minute.
Data from Fuchs and Fuchs (1993) indicated a reading fluency acquisition
rate of 1.5 words correct per week over the course of the school year.
Baseline data indicated a flat to slightly downward trend in Ryan’s fluency
acquisition.
Assessment data from the Woodcock Diagnostic Battery and error analysis
indicated weaknesses in rapid, automatic decoding and word attack skills.
Ryan had single and double vowel confusions, difficulty with double vowels
/oo/, /ea/ and double consonants /sh/, /gh/, etc. Occasionally he would add
sounds to words. He had consistent difficulty with vowel final /e/ pattern
words.
Questions:

IS RYAN IDENTIFIABLE AS A
STUDENT WITH A DISABILITY?

DOES RYAN NEED SPECIAL
EDUCATION TO LEARN TO READ?
Next Question:

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF RYAN IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?
Classroom Environment Assessment:Ryan
Observations and interview data indicate the following:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Reading instruction consisted of the “Guided Reading Model” with a
literature-based or whole language approach as it’s foundation.
Ryan was taught with a heterogeneous group of student with widely
varying levels of reading development.
There were 23 students in the class.
The Title 1 tutor (a paraprofessional) was available to provide assistance
to struggling students on an as-needed basis.
The teaching of letter sounds was assumed to have been instructed in
first grade during Reading Recovery intervention.
Current instruction in letter sounds consisted of teaching letter sound
correspondence within words in text “to avoid decontextualized
language”.
Letter sounds, blending and other phonetic decoding skills were
instructed in an implicit manner

WHAT WOULD YOUR INTERVENTION
PLAN BE FOR RYAN?
Intervention Plan: Ryan
Read Instruction was changed for a small group of students in this
classroom by using a reading curriculum series “Horizons”
(McGraw-Hill) with the following components:
Homogeneous grouping of students with similar reading levels.
 Explicit and unambiguous instruction in letter-sound correspondences.
 Explicit instruction in and opportunities to look carefully at spellings,
sounding out and blending words.
 Frequent opportunities to discriminate new letter-sound correspondences from
previously learned correspondences.
 Reading material with controlled vocabulary so that there were opportunities
to read decodable stories.
 Prompt and direct error correction and modeling of newly introduced lettersound correspondences.
 Frequent review of learned skills.
 Instruction in sight word recognition of difficult to decode words

Ryan's Re s pons e to Inte r ve ntion
Baseline
Intervention Phase
90
80
Words Correct per Minute
70
60
Ry an
50
Peer Norm
Goal Rate
40
30
20
10
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Biw e e k ly Pr obe s
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

DOES RYAN STILL QUALIFY FOR
SPECIAL EDUCATION?
Case Implications:Ryan
 An
assessment of reading instruction identified several problems
with the instruction provided to Ryan and others in the class with
weak reading skills.
Reading groups were heterogeneous and difficult to
teach.
 The teacher provided instruction based on the
erroneous assumption that most students had lettersound correspondence mastery.
 Letter-sound correspondence instruction was implicit
and unsystematic and involved teaching these skills
within words and text.
 Text did not have controlled vocabulary

Ryan…






There was little if any logic to the sequence of lettersound instruction
There was no real direct instruction in sounding out and
blending words
Student error correction and teacher modeling was
inconsistent.
Review activities were highly inconsistent
When these instruction problems were addressed Ryan
responded with an accelerated fluency rate.
Background Information: Ethan








Chronological Age: 11 years, 4 Months and in Grade: 5
A history of challenging classroom behavior since 3rd grade
Ethan is frequently off-task and disrupts instruction by making high
frequency irrelevant and inappropriate verbal comments during
instruction.
He frequently requests to use the restroom and stays in the restroom
for 20 to 30 minutes.
He gets out of his seat without permission and wonders the classroom.
At home he refuses to do certain chores such as clean his room.
He can be argumentative and disrespectful with his mother, father and
teacher.
He rarely completes assigned class work or homework.
Baseline Data: Ethan

Ethan’s average work completion: 33.75%; class average: 70.63

Ethan’s time-on-task rate Average: 42%; class average: 85%

Ethan’s average rate of calling out: 8/hr.; Class average: 6/hr.

Average Restroom use per day: 14; Class average per student: 2

Ethan’s average out of seat without permission: 22; Class average 8

Ethan’s frequency of disrespectful comments to teacher: 32: Class
average 2

HOW WOULD YOU ASSESS THE
CLASSROOM ENVIRONMENT FOR
ETHAN?
Classroom Environment Assessment

Teacher verbal reinforcement ratio 8 negative/neutral comments to 1
praise

Rules posted but vaguely stated

The probability of Ethan getting attention for inappropriate comments
was approximately 80%

The probability of Ethan getting attention for “correct” behavior was
approximately 40%.

Motivational system: Tokens dispensed for “doing a good job”

Verbal praise statements were not specific, did not describe behavior.

Consequences for inappropriate behavior consisted of 1) a verbal
warning, 2) in class timeout, 3) sent to principals office and phone call
home.

Contacts with home were infrequent and centered around misbehavior
Assessment Information: Ethan

Functional Behavioral Assessment indicated Ethan’s challenging
classroom behavior served the function of escaping, avoiding and/or
postponing nonpreferred academic tasks, particularly those requiring
writing.

Ethan’s behavior was effected by modeling of similar behavior by his
older brother.

Ethan engaged in disruptive behavior to gain teacher and peer
attention.

FBA indicated that parent support and consequences were critical
factors at those times when Ethan did complete work.

WHAT WOULD BE YOUR
INTERVENTION BASED ON THESE
DATA?
The Plan Design (Ethan)

Goal: When Ethan is given academic assignments during the school
day he will appropriately complete (e.g., complete the task with 70%
accuracy or better) at least 50% of these assignments for 3 consecutive
days by February 28, 01.
Antecedent Strategies






Modify task demands for written assignments.
When possible offer choices between tasks
Offer extra support for new learning activities and preparation for
difficult tasks
Provide and schedule of task demands for the day that he can check off
as he completes them, (e.g., a schedule board)
Incorporate information about animals into instruction (an areas of
interest)
Alternate preferred and nonpreferred tasks in his schedule
Reinforcement Strategies





Behavior specific praise with teacher training to increase the verbal
reinforcement ratio to 3-to-1 reinforcement for on-task behavior to
correction/reprimand or neutral statements.
A token reinforcement for each assignment completed to an acceptable
level (70% accuracy).
Token exchange for eliminate of an assignments. Specific time for
token exchange.
A Daily and Weekly report sent home giving an evaluation of the
school day based on goals achieved, (e.g., Super Day – completes 60
% or more of his work, Acceptable Day – Completes at least 50% of
his school work, Unacceptable Day – completes less than 50% of his
school work).
Ethan received a daily home reward for a Super Day and a Weekly
reward for a Super Week (4 out of 5 Super Days)
Assignment Completion rate
Baseline
Intervention
Baseline
Return to Intervention
100
90
% of Assignments completed
80
70
60
Class Average
50
Ethan
40
30
20
10
0
1
3
5
7
9
11
13
15
17
19
Days
21
23
25
27
29
31
33
35
37

Does Ethan qualify for special education?
Case Implications: Ethan

Functional behavioral assessment indicated that much of Ethan’s
challenging behavior served the function of escape, avoid and/or
postponement of nonpreferred academic tasks, particularly those
requiring writing.

Ethan’s behavior was effected by modeling of similar behavior by his
older brother.

Ethan will engage in disruptive behavior to gain teacher and peer
attention.

FBA indicated that parent support and consequences were critical
factors at those times when Ethan did complete work.
Background Information: Juan






Juan moved from Colombia,to the U.S. in May of 1999.
He was enrolled in school in September 1999. Due to his age (7
years) and English As A Second Language (ESL) status, he was
placed in first grade.
Anecdotal report indicated Juan had prior schooling in
Columbia of unknown quality.
He began first grade with poor English proficiency.
ESL instruction intensively focused on learning the letters of the
alphabet, beginning counting and basic English vocabulary.
By May of 2000, he spoke in unprompted sentences in English
and was generally using one to three words in a sentence when
speaking.
Juan




Juan’s end of year first grade report card noted that due to
his lack of English proficiency, he was not graded for
Reading, Writing or content subjects.
In Math, he was graded as “needing improvement” in most
areas. He understood how to compute basic addition and
subtraction.
Juan was at the beginning stage of writing words and
learning how to make letters and space between words.
He was referred to the pre-referral team due to insufficient
academic progress. He needed 1:1 assistance in all
academic areas. Goals were developed for reading, writing
and math. Juan did not meet any of his reading and
writing goals but achieved his math goal.
Baseline Data: Juan






Juan could consistently identify an average of 6 (5.5) from
the basic sight word being instructed
Comparison peers could identify an average of 6 (6.2) of
these sight words
3 comparison students were identified who have been in the
U.S. for about the same amount of time.
Intellectual screening using nonverbal measures indicates
Juan’s ability is in the Average range.
Similar screening of Comparison peers indicated average
ability.
Both Juan and comparisons had similar levels of math
proficiency

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF JUAN IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?
Classroom Environment Assessment: Juan

Juan’s second grade classroom consisted of 21 students.

2 other students received ESL services.

Reading instruction included whole group instruction that
was “literature based” and small group and individual oneon-one instruction to develop sight vocabulary recognition
using flash card, multisensory techniques and word games.

ESL instruction intensively focused on learning the letters of
the alphabet, beginning counting and basic English
vocabulary.
Assessment Information: Juan

Both Juan and comparisons were assessed at the end of each
week.

A baseline was established for Juan and comparison peers

Students were asked to identify words from the list of 30
basic sight words that were being instructed.

Number of words identified correctly were recorded and
graphed.

WHAT WOULD YOUR INTERVENTION
PLAN BE FOR JUAN?
Intervention Components: Juan

Students received instruction on letter sounds in small group and one-toone instructional arrangement.

Drill sandwich intervention was used by using flashcards with a 20 to 80
ratio of know to unknown words.

Student engaged time for reading instruction was increased by 20%

Letter sound instruction was provided via computer-based-instruction for
12 minute per day.

Various word games were used to develop automatic word recognition of
targeted sight words.
Juan and Peer comparisons
30
Jaun
Peer
25
Words Recognized
Linear (Jaun)
Linear (Peer)
20
15
10
5
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Days
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20

DOES JUAN QUALIFY FOR SPECIAL
EDUCATION?
Case Implications: Juan

Juan’s response to intervention was significantly discrepant from the acquisition rate
of 3 comparison peers who were match according to the approximate time in the U.S.,
intellectual ability level and pre-intervention sight word reading level.

Juan’s rate of progress in the Math curriculum was consistent with typical peers when
he received accommodations for below grade level reading.

Because of Juan’s low reading achievement and limited English proficiency and the
fact that quality of his previous instruction prior coming to the U.S. was unclear. A
more true measure of his learning abilities may be his resistance to intervention.

A resistance to intervention model was used during pre-referral intervention as a
method of ruling out lack of instruction as a contributing factor in Juan’s academic
struggles.
Juan’s resistance to intervention was used as the basis for referral to MDT evaluation
to consider his need for specially designed instruction.

Background Information: Aaron

Aaron is 8 years, 1 months and in second grade.

He experienced difficultly acquiring basic reading skills in first grade.

He was tutored privately for10 weeks over the summer by his first grade teacher.

He was referred to the pre-referral intervention team in September of 2nd grade.

CBA probes from the second grade reading material indicated Aaron read at a median
rate of 25 words correct per minute.

Second grade fall local norms indicate typical second grade students read at a median
rate of 49 words correct per minute with this same material.

CBA indicated a large discrepancy between Aaron’s fluency rate and that of his
second grade peers.

WHAT ASPECTS OF THE
INSTRUCTIONAL ENVIRONMENT
WOULD YOU ASSESS TO DETERMINE
IF AARON IS FAILING BECAUSE OF A
LACK OF INSTRUCTION?
Standardized Test Results: Aaron

Woodcock-Johnson III Test of Cognitive ability 106 Average

Woodcock-Johnson III Tests of Achievement in Reading
Domain
Broad Reading
Basic Reading Skills
Reading Comprehension
Phoneme-Grapheme
Knowledge
Word Recognition
Reading Fluency
Passage Comprehension
Word Attack
Reading Vocabulary
Spelling Sounds
SS Classification
83 Low Average
92
Average
85 Low Average
89 Low Average
90
78
88
96
87
77
Average
Deficient
Low Average
Average
Low Average
Deficient
Assessment for Intervention Design: Aaron




Parent interview, teacher interview and student interview using the FAAB
Multiple classroom observations using the Eco-Behavior Observation Matrix
Phonics survey
Trial teaching
 Inconsistent home-school communication
 Often compares himself to higher functioning siblings
 Parent assistance for reading results in conflicts
 Breaks in instruction, e.g., vacation result in lost skills
 Gets teacher attention through avoidance or immature dependent behavior
 Excessively slow in responding
 Fails to give close attention to details
 Avoids difficult tasks
 Limited instructional match
 Frequent amount of “down time” during instruction
 Frequent vowel confusions
 Reinforced by successful experiences
 Student identified things that help him; being able to use a visual aid, talking to
himself when he daydreams, preview of words.
Intervention Plan:Aaron
Restructured class schedule to reduce “down time” and increase opportunities
to respond in reading instruction in small group.
 Review of vowel decoding rule
 Explicit instruction in and opportunities to look carefully at spellings,
sounding out and blending words.
 Repeated Readings to directly target reading fluency.
 Goal setting, charting and public display of graphs.
.Tangible reinforcement for achieving goals
.Brief family consultation regarding home reading activities, conflict
management and sibling issues.
 Instruction in sight word recognition of difficult to decode words
 Visual display of phonic rules
 Teacher verbal reinforcement and attention for task effort while ignoring
immature or dependent behaviors
 Brief structured activities provided for vacation periods.

Aaron's Re ading Flue ncy Data
80
Baseline
70
Phase 1
Repeated Readings
Drill sandwich
Behavior Plan
Phase 2
Goal setting
Reinforcement
Parent activities
60
Words per Minute
50
40
30
20
10
0
17-Sep
10/15/02
31-Oct
11/8/02
11/15/02
25-Nov
1/14/03
Probe Dates
2/18/03
3/3/03
3/10/03
3/17/03
3/24/03
4/4/03
Does Aaron qualify for special
education?