Transcript Response to Intervention (RtI): A Three

Response to Intervention (RtI):
A Three-Tiered Model for Students
If we do the right thing, all kids
can learn.
2008 ASCD Convention
Morial Convention Center, Room 231
New Orleans, LA
Sunday, March 16, 2008
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
1
Introductions

Dr. Robert (Bob) Howell, Executive Director,
Special Education, RtI Administrator (Retired)

Sandy Patton, Executive Director, Learning
Resources and Project Director, RtI (Retired)

Dr. John Kerr, Deputy Superintendent. Curriculum
and Instruction, Colorado Springs School District
11 (Retired)

Marcia Kaplan, Curriculum, Instruction and
Technology Consultant
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
2
Goals for Today

Gain a deeper understanding of RtI

Learn how to get started with RtI

Understand the critical components of RtI

Acquire implementation strategies and benefit from
mistakes made by presenters

Share your successes with those around you

Take home resources and research to help you as
you implement RtI
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
3
Audience Knowledge Level
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
4
Question/Attendance
Cards
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
5
What is RtI
RtI is the practice of:

providing high-quality
instruction/intervention matched to student
needs

using learning rate (and/or other outcomes)
over time and level of performance to make
important educational decisions (NASDSE,
2005)
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
6
High Quality
Instruction/Interventions


Use of Evidence-Based (Scientifically Supported)
Strategies, Programs and Procedures
Includes Effective Curriculum

Includes Effective Instructional Strategies and
Procedures (2005)

Curriculum and instruction approaches must have
a high probability of success for the majority of
students

Offer as soon as it is clear the student is lagging
behind
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
7
High Quality
Instruction/Interventions (cont.)

Increase intensity of instruction and practice

Opportunity for explicit and systematic
instruction/practice

Provide skillful instruction with good error
correction, immediate feedback

Guided by and in response to progress monitoring
data

Must provide a supportive atmosphere for learning
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
8
Learning Rate/Level of
Performance

Learning Rate is referenced to a
student’s performance compared to
baseline rates and peer performance

Level of Performance is referenced to
the student’s relative standing
compared to expected performance
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
9
Components of RtI

Use multi-tier model of service delivery

Use scientific, research-based interventions

Monitor classroom performance

Conduct universal screening/benchmarking

Make data based decisions using a problem
solving model

Monitor progress frequently

Fidelity of treatment
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
10
Components of RtI (cont.)

Common belief system

Know weak areas

Professional Learning Communities in place as a
vehicle for collaboration

Commitment to change strategy

Understanding that RtI is educational reform
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
11
Components of RtI (cont.)

Leadership is critical

RtI is only as successful as the building
principal

Key staff member support

Support from the district

Money

Staff Development

Expectations
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
12
RtI is for ALL Students

RTI practices are built on the belief that all
students can learn and everyone supports
all students

RTI focuses on student intervention need
and not “What is wrong with the student?”

Systems Change: Integrated approach

No one building/district will look the same
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
13
How RtI Came to Be

Triage

Problems in the traditional system (Wait to fail)

Integration between general and special
education

Undocumented benefits of special education

Variability and accuracy of eligibility
determination

Integration of eligibility determination with
instruction
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
14
How RtI Came to Be (Cont’d)

Provisions of IDEA 2004 allow school
districts to use scientific, research-based
interventions as an alternative method for
identifying SpEd students

Aligns with No Child Left Behind (2001)
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
15
How RtI Came to Be (Cont’d)
Before NCLB

Accreditation

Audits

Met and unmet mandates

The State cleaned up bad marks

The State looked for ways to reduce numbers

The State developed Discrepancy Formula

IDEA identified/classified
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
16
How RtI Came to Be (Cont’d)
After NCLB

Disaggregated Sub-groups - White, African
American, Latino, American Indian, Asian/Pacific
Islanders, Free/Reduced Lunch, Migrant, Special
Education. English Language Learners

IDEA formatted to follow NCLB

Replaced discrepancy formula with interventions
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
17
Power Behind RtI
Research is minimal on RtI but powerful
research on interventions and problem
solving - Forman, Reschly, Fuchs &
Fuchs, Wise, Deno, Batsche, Vaughn,
Bergan, et.al.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
18
Power Behind RtI (Cont’d)

Often result of instructional causalities

Not limited to elementary students

Brain research - Dr. Jack Fletcher’s Work
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
19
What’s Happening in the Brain?
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
20
Brain Research
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
21
Brain Research
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
22
Implications

Focus on customized interventions for the
student

Implemented through problem solving
problem process
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
23
Discuss pitfalls and problems
you have encountered with RtI
or any implementation of
intervention programs with
which you have had
experience
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
24
Reporting Out
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
25
Problem Solving Process
A process that uses the skills of
professionals from different
disciplines to develop and evaluate
intervention plans that improve
significantly the school performance of
students
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
26
Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem
Problem
Analysis
Evaluate
Implement Plan
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
27
Problem Solving Process

Problem identification

Problem analysis

Intervention selection

Intervention implementation

Intervention evaluation
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
28
Steps in Problem Solving
Process

Step 1: Concern Description

Step 2: Goals and Benchmarks

Step 3: Intervention Planning

Step 4: Progress Monitoring &
Analysis

Step 5: Evaluation of Outcomes
and/or Decisions
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
29
Problem Solving Team

Designated Problem Solving Team, not
Child Study Team or Staffing Team

Diverse membership of best people

Meets regularly

Defined roles

Uses data to make decisions

Process to recognize hard work and to
celebrate successes
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
30
Take 5 minutes and discuss
with your neighbor how you
have formed and used
problem solving teams
effectively
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
31
Reporting Out
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
32
Critical Implementation
Components

Site Assessment using rubric

Strong administrative leadership

Qualified staff

Program champion(s)

Program integration

Training and technical assistance

Implementation fidelity
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
33
Multi-Tiered Model

Each tier represents increasingly intense level of
services associated with increasing levels of
learner needs

All students, including those with disabilities are
found in Tiers I, II, and III

The nature of the academic or behavioral
intervention changes at each tier, becoming more
rigorous as the student moves through the tiers

Students move up and down the tiers depending
on need
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
34
Universal Screening

School staff conduct universal
screening in all academic areas and
behavior to all students three
times/year to identify students at risk

Benchmarks document whether a
child is on track compared to peer
group and/or state standards
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
35
Use of Data

The purpose of using data driven decision
making is to find the best instructional
approach for a student with an academic or
behavioral problem

Decisions are made by teams consisting of
professionals knowledgeable about the
student, and the parent

Decisions are made through the problem
solving process
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
36
Progress Monitoring

Documents student growth over time to determine
whether the student is progressing as expected in
intervention

CBMs are primarily used as a method for progress
monitoring because they are brief, easy to
administer and score, and are good predictors of
student ability

Progress monitoring data provide a picture of the
student’s performance and rate of growth to inform
instructional and curricular changes so that every
student reaches proficiency on targeted skills
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
37
Lack of Response to
Interventions

Defined as rate of improvement, or progress slope
that is not sufficient for the student to become
proficient with state standards without more
interventions

Decisions to advance students from one tier to
another is based upon analysis of the progress
monitoring data to determine if the student is
responsive, e.g. 4 - 6 data points below the aim line
after interventions have been altered may show a
student is non-responsive
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
38
Fidelity of Treatment

Fidelity refers to the degree to which RTI
components are implemented as designed,
intended, and planned

Fidelity is achieved through sufficient time
allocation, adequate intervention intensity,
qualified and trained staff, and sufficient materials
and resources

Fidelity is vital in universal screening, instructional
delivery and progress monitoring
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
39
Discuss with your neighbor
how to motivate staff to do the
hard work of implementing RtI
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
40
Reporting Out
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
41
Identification of SpEd
Students

District procedures set out criteria for
using RTI data to identify SpEd
students

Process for certification of sites

District criteria must incorporate
federal regulations - [34 CFR Sections
300.309 through 300.311]
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
42
Challenges

Hard, time consuming work

Threatening to some educators

Focus on teaching not learning

Limited interventions available

Limited knowledge on how to use the intervention

Taking things off the plate that are not evidence
based
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
43
Professional Development
Challenges

Educators as a group are not trained
(undergraduate and/or graduate) in
evidence-based practices or often choose
not to use knowledge they have

Teacher resistance (“I’d rather be fishing
syndrome” or I’m already overwhelmed
syndrome”)

RtI requires systematic and systemic large
scale change to be effective
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
44
Sustainability Challenges

Information dissemination networks are limited

Lack of team/collaborative efforts

Time for collaboration

Turnover in leadership, particularly school
principals and lead staff

Organized opposition

Failing to use power of parents
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
45
Resources

www.nasdse.org

www.nwrel.org/nwrcc/rti/

www.ritap.org/rti/resources/web_resources.php

www.interventioncentral.org

www.autoskill.com/intervention/rti.php

www.k12.wa.us/SpecialEd/RTI.aspx

www.cssd11.k12.co.us/RTI/
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
46
Research and References
Barnett, D. W., Daly, E. J., III, Jones, K. M., & Lentz, F. E., Jr. (2004).
Empirically based special service decisions from single-case
designs of increasing and decreasing intensity. The Journal of
Special Education, 38, 66-79.
Bergan, J. R. (1977). Behavioral consultation. Columbus, OH: Charles
E. Merrill.
Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and
therapy. New York: Plenum Press.
Bradley, R., Danielson, L. C., & Hallahan, D. P. (2002). Identification of
learning disabilities: Research to practice. Washington, DC:
Lawrence Erlbaum Associates.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
47
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Brown-Chidsey, R., & Steege, M. W. (2006). Response to Intervention:
Principles and Strategies for Effective Instruction. New York:
Guilford Press.
Deno, S. (1985). “Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging
alternative.” Exceptional Children, 52, 219-684.
Deno, S., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification.
Minneapolis, MN: Leadership Training Institute for Special
Education.
Donovan, M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and
gifted education. Washington, DC: National Academy Press.
Fletcher, J. M., Lyon, G. R., Barnes, M., Stuebing, K. K., Francis, D. J.,
Olson, R. K., & Shaywitz, S. E. (2002). Classification of Learning
Difficulties: An Evidence-based Evaluation. Mahwah, NJ:
Lawrence Erlbaum.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
48
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Fuchs, D., & Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention:
What, why, and how valid is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99.
Gersten, R., & Dimino, J. A. (2006). RTI (Response to intervention): Rethinking
special education for students with reading difficulties (yet again).
Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 99-108.
Heller, K. A., Holtzman, W. H., & Messick, S. (Eds.). (1982). Placing children in
special education: A strategy for equity. Washington, DC: National
Academy Press.
Klingner, J. K., & Edwards, P. A. (2006). Cultural considerations with response
to intervention models. Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 108-117.
Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation: An
individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
49
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M., A., & Kalamon, K. (in press). Reconsidering
response to intervention: Conceptual, methodological, and psychometric
issues. In S. Jimmerson, M. Burns, and A. VanDerHeyden (Eds.) The
handbook of response to intervention. New York: Springer Science, Inc.
Kratochwill, T. R., Elliott, S. N., & Stoiber, K. C. (2002). Problem solving
consultation. In A. Thomas and J. Grimes (Eds.). Best Practices.
Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.
National Reading Panel. (2000). Teaching children to read: An evidence
assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its
implications for reading instruction. Bethesda, MD: Author.
National Association of State Directors of Special Education. (2005).
Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation.
Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special
Education.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
50
Research and References
(Cont’d)
Newell, M., & Kratochwill, T. R. (in press). Response to intervention: Cultural
issues and considerations. In S. Jimmerson, M. Burns, and A.
VanDerHeyden (Eds.) The handbook of response to intervention. New
York: Springer Science, Inc.
Reschly, D. J., Tilly III, W. D., & Grimes, J. P. (1999). Special Education in
Transition: Functional Assessment and Non-categorical Programming.
Longmont, CO: Sorpis West.
Rosenfield, S., Silva, A., & Gravois, T. A. (in press). Bringing instructional
consultation to scale: Research and development of IC and IC teams. In W.
Erchul & S. Sheridan (Eds.) Handbook of research in school consultation:
Empirical foundations for the field. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum
Sheridan, S. M., Kratochwill, T. R., & Bergan, J. R. (1996). Conjoint behavioral
consultation: An individual guide. New York: Plenum Press.
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
51
Take Home Points
RtI is HARD WORK
 RtI is educational reform
 The benefits are worth it
 Must have strong problem solving
process
 Three tiered model with fluid tiers
 Fidelity is critical
 RtI is for ALL kids

7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
52
Goals for Today

Gain a deeper understanding of RtI

Learn how to get started with RtI

Understand the critical components of RtI

Acquire implementation strategies and benefit
from mistakes made by presenters

Share your successes with those around you

Take home resources and research to help you as
you implement RtI
7/20/2015
© TECedge 2008
53
Questions/Answers from
Question Cards
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
54
Contact Information:
Sandy Patton
[email protected]
or
Marcia Kaplan
[email protected]
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
55
Presentation Available at:
www.tecedge.net/RtIpresentation.htm
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
56
Thank You and Good Luck
7/20/2015
©TECedge 2008
57