Transcript Document

Response to Intervention
Getting Started With
‘Response to Intervention’: A
Guide for Schools
Drawn from:
Tracey Hall, Center for Applied Special Technology
E. Johnson, D. McKnight, D. Fuchs, & M. A. McKnight
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
Jim Wright, www.interventioncentral.org
This team’s work in TnT over the last 9 years
www.interventioncentral.org
Response to Intervention
What is ‘Response to Intervention’ (RTI)?
• RTI is an assessment and intervention process for
systematically monitoring student progress and
making decisions about the need for instructional
modifications or increasingly intensified services
using progress monitoring data
– Johnson et al., 2006
• Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI): How to Do It
www.interventioncentral.org
2
Response to Intervention
Context for RTI
• RTI has been around for many years. It has
gained prominence due to recent changes in
special education law in the US.
• The goal of RTI is to monitor student progress
continuously and respond when a student is
failing to make adequate progress.
• Ideally, this process will result in fewer referrals
to the special education system, as problems
should be caught and resolved earlier.
www.interventioncentral.org
3
Response to Intervention
Components of RTI
• Schoolwide screening
– Is student at risk?
– Is intervention needed?
• Progress monitoring
– Is student making adequate progress?
– Is intervention working?
• Tiered service delivery
– Is a more intensive intervention required?
• Fidelity of Implementation
– Is the intervention being carried out appropriately?
www.interventioncentral.org
4
Response to Intervention
Core Classroom
Instruction:
Tier I
100% of students
Intervention:
 20% - 30% of
students
Tier II
Intensive Intervention:  5% - 10% of
students
Tier III
www.interventioncentral.org
5
Response to Intervention
Assumptions in Using RTI
• High quality instruction is taking place in the classroom.
– Classroom teachers are doing their jobs, supported by
appropriate professional development.
• The instructional and management methods used are
supported by the research literature.
– Decisions are based on data
• The goal is to identify problems as soon as they
develop.
– School is conducting universal screening and progress
monitoring
www.interventioncentral.org
6
Response to Intervention
What are advantages of RTI?
• One advantage of RTI in the diagnosis of educational
disabilities is that it allows schools to intervene early to
meet the needs of struggling learners.
• Another advantage is that RTI maps those specific
instructional strategies found to benefit a particular
student. This information can be very helpful to both
teachers and parents.
www.interventioncentral.org
7
Response to Intervention
The steps of RTI for an individual case…
1.
2.
3.
4.
5.
Under RTI, if a student is found to be performing well
below peers, the school will do the following:
Estimate the academic skill gap between the student and
typically-performing peers
Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s
depressed academic performance
Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to improve
the student's academic functioning
Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the
impact of the intervention
If the student fails to respond to several well-implemented
interventions, refer for full psychoeducational evaluation.
www.interventioncentral.org
8
Response to Intervention
1.
Estimate the academic skill gap between the
target student and typically-performing peers:
There are three general methods for estimating the
‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level:
•
•
•
Local Norms: A sample of students at a school is screened in an
academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989)
Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a
research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own
student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996)
Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: A minimum level, or
threshold, of competence is determined for a skill. The benchmark
is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school
success (Fuchs, 2003)
www.interventioncentral.org
9
Response to Intervention
Baylor Elementary School : Grade Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min : Sample Size: 23 Students
Group Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min: Book 4-1: Raw Data
31 34 34 39 41 43 52 55 59 61 68 71 74 75 85 89 102 108 112
115 118 118 131
Group Norms: Converted
LOCAL NORMS EXAMPLE: Twenty-three 4th-grade students
to Box-Plot
were administered oral reading
Curriculum-Based
nd Quartile)=71
Median (2fluency
Measurement passages at the 4th-grade level in their school.
rd Quartile=108
In their current
number form, these 3data
are not easy to
1st Quartile=43
interpret.
Billy=19
So the school converts them into a visual display—a boxplot —to show the distribution of scores and to convert the
scores to percentile form.
Hi Value=131
Low Value=31
When Billy, a struggling reader, is screened in CBM reading
0
20shows
40 a SIGNIFICANT
60
80 skill
100gap when
120 compare
140 to160
fluency,
he
his grade peers. Correctly Read Words-Book 4-1
www.interventioncentral.org
10
Response to Intervention
Research Norms: Example
Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample,
published, and applied by schools to their own student
populations
Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Ranges
By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Shapiro, 1996)
Grade
Correctly Read Words Per Min
Reading Errors
1
40-60
Fewer than 5
2
40-60
Fewer than 5
3
4
70-100
70-100
Fewer than 7
Fewer than 7
5
6
70-100
70-100
Fewer than 7
Fewer than 7
www.interventioncentral.org
11
Response to Intervention
Repub lic o f
Trinidad & To bag o
Ministry o f Educa tio n
Central Guida nce & Spe cial Education Units
Re ading Asse ssments
For Eleme ntary S choo ls
Tracey E. Hall
Center for Applied Special Technology
Marley W. Watkins & Frank C. Worrell
The Pennsylvania State University
www.interventioncentral.org
12
Response to Intervention
Repub li c o f
Tr ini dad & Toba go
Min istr y of Educa ti on
Cen tra l G uid ance & Speci al Educ ati on Uni ts
Beha vi ou ral R ati ng Sca les
Fo r El emen tary S choo ls:
In te rim M anu al
Frank C. Worrell
The Pennsylvania State University
Tracey E. Hall
Center for Applied Special Technology
Marley W. Watkins
The Pennsylvania State University
www.interventioncentral.org
13
Response to Intervention
Table 3.1
Descriptive Statistics for IPA Scores Across Grade Level and School Year
Infan t 1
Infan t 2
Beginning of Year
N
Telescoping
Segmenting
Word
Reading
Sentence
Reading
SD
Mean
99
N
Mean
SD
99
99
4.28
2.83
0.72
6.13
5.23
2.11
100
100
100
11.5
8.86
4.23
6.9
7.12
3.84
99
2.84
5.36
100
11.41
7.65
Middle of Year
N
Telescoping
Segmenting
Word
Reading
Sentence
Reading
SD
Mean
99
N
Mean
SD
99
99
6.62
4.15
1.64
6.71
6.69
2.93
100
100
100
13.40
11.90
5.69
6.35
7.15
3.91
94
5.33
6.57
98
13.67
7.89
SD
N
End of Year
N
Telescoping
Segmenting
Word
Reading
Sentence
Reading
Mean
99
99
99
8. 86
6. 13
2. 99
7. 22
7. 34
3. 95
90
4. 44
5. 02
1 00
Mean
SD
1 00
1 00
1 3. 83
1 1. 19
6. 31
6. 42
7. 72
5. 59
89
9. 30
4. 67
www.interventioncentral.org
14
Response to Intervention
2.
Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s
depressed academic performance:
There can be several possible underlying reasons why a
student is doing poorly in an academic area. It is crucial
to determine the reason(s) for poor performance in order
to select an appropriate intervention:
•
•
•
Skill Deficit: The student lacks the necessary skills to perform the
academic task.
‘Fragile’ Skills: The student possesses the necessary skills but is
not yet fluent and automatic in those skills.
Performance (Motivation) Deficit: The student has the
necessary skills but lacks the motivation to complete the
academic task.
www.interventioncentral.org
15
Response to Intervention
3.
Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to
improve the student's academic functioning:
Any intervention idea chosen for the student should be
backed by scientific research (e.g., research articles in
peer-reviewed professional journals) demonstrating that
the intervention is effective in addressing the student’s
underlying reason(s) for academic failure.
www.interventioncentral.org
16
Response to Intervention
4.
Monitor academic progress frequently to
evaluate the impact of the intervention:
Under RTI, interventions are monitored frequently (e.g.,
weekly) using valid and reliable measures that are
sensitive to short-term gains in student performance:
•
•
Measures for Basic Academic Skills: Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM)
probes are short, timed assessments that have been developed to measure
phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, math computation, writing, and
spelling skills (Shinn, 1989). We have this in reading. Math and writing to come.
Measures for Classroom Academic and General Behaviors:
–
Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs): These customized teacher rating
forms allow the instructor to evaluate the student’s behaviors each day
(Chafouleas et al. 2005).
–
Direct Observation: An external observer visits the classroom to observe
the student’s rates of on-task and academically engaged behaviors.
(Shapiro, 1996)
www.interventioncentral.org
17
Response to Intervention
5.
If the student fails to respond to a series of
several well-implemented interventions, consider a
referral for a full psychoeducational evaluation.
In the RTI model, the student would be referred
for a full evaluation if…
•
A series of research-based interventions have been
attempted.
There is documentation that the interventions were
carried out as designed (treatment/intervention integrity).
Progress-monitoring data shows that the student failed
to meet the goal set for his or her improvement (that is,
the student shows a ‘discrepancy in rate of learning’
relative to grade-peers).
•
•
www.interventioncentral.org
18
Response to Intervention
RTI: School-Wide Three-Tier
Framework (Kovaleski, 2003; Vaughn, 2003)
Tier I
‘School-Wide
Screening &
Group
Intervention’
Tier II
Tier III
‘NonResponders’ to
Tier I Are
Identified &
Given
‘Individually
Tailored’
Interventions
(e.g., peer
tutoring/fluency)
‘Long-Term
Programming for
Students Who
Fail to Respond
to Tier II
Interventions’
(e.g., Special
Education)
www.interventioncentral.org
19
Response to Intervention
Implementing RTI: Next Steps
Web resources for evidence-based intervention
strategies
•
Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (U of Oregon):
reading.uoregon.edu
•
What Works Clearinghouse (US Dept of Education):
www.w-w-c.org
•
Intervention Central: www.interventioncentral.org
www.interventioncentral.org
20
Response to Intervention
Implementing RTI: Next Steps
Web resources for progress-monitoring
• CBM Warehouse:
www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/inter
ventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml
• The Behavior Reporter (Behavior Report Card
Generator):
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/
tbrc/tbrc.php
www.interventioncentral.org
21
Response to Intervention
For a comprehensive directory of up-to-date RTI
Resources available for free on the Internet, visit
RTI_Wire at:
http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php
www.interventioncentral.org
22
Response to Intervention
References
•
Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Panahon, C.J., & Hilt, A.M. (2005).
What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs
with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42, 669-676.
•
Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical
issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 172-186.
•
Hall, T. E., Watkins, M. W., & Worrell, F. C. (2002). Reading assessments for elementary
schools. University Park, PA: CEDAR School Psychology Clinic.
•
Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to the
Identification of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from
http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc
•
Johnson, E., Mellard, D. F., Fuchs, D., & McKnight, M. A. (1006). Responsiveness to
intervention (RTI): How to do it? National Research Center on Learning Disabilities:
University of Kansas, Vanderbilt University.
www.interventioncentral.org
23
Response to Intervention
References Con’t
•
Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical
program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center
on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
•
Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention
(2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
•
Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and
eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing
special children (pp. 90-129). New York: The Guilford Press.
•
Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP [National Association of
Elementary School Principals] Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp.1,6.
•
Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools' capacity to
help struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the
Schools, 43, 99-107.
www.interventioncentral.org
24
Response to Intervention
END
www.interventioncentral.org
25