Transcript Response to Intervention: Implementation Considerations Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs December 17, 2007

Response to Intervention:
Implementation Considerations
Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D.
Office of Special Education Programs
December 17, 2007
• general overview, integration of RtI and PBS
and any federal guidelines for states that you
think may help us align the two.
• 2 hours
Overview
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Advantages of RTI
Relationship between PBS and RTI
IDEA Regulations
5 Dimensions of RTI
Four Parts of RTI Sequence
Implementation Issues
Implementation Assistance
Potential Advantages of RTI Approach
• Emphasizes use of research-validated instruction.
• Provides assistance to needy children in timely fashion. It is
NOT a wait-to-fail model.
• Helps ensure that a student’s poor academic performance is not
due to poor instruction.
• Assessment data are collected to inform the teacher and improve
instruction. Assessments and interventions are closely linked.
• Provides for a more collaborative approach where all staff are
responsible for all students
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Behavioral
Systems
80-90%
1-5%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Intensive
Targeted
Universal
Few
RTI
Some
A Continuum of
Support for All
All
IDEA Regulations
• A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria for
determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as
defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted
by the State:
• Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between
intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a
child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR
300.8(c)(10);
• Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response
to scientific, research-based intervention; and
• May permit the use of other alternative research-based
procedures for determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).
IDEA Regs cont.
• To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of
having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of
appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must
consider, as part of the evaluation described in 34 CFR
300.304 through 300.306:
• Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the
referral process, the child was provided appropriate
instruction in regular education settings, delivered by
qualified personnel; and
• Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of
achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal
assessment of student progress during instruction, which
was provided to the child’s parents.
IDEA Regs cont.
• The public agency must promptly request
parental consent to evaluate the child to
determine if the child needs special education
and related services, and must adhere to the
timeframes described in 34 CFR 300.301 and
300.303, unless extended by mutual written
agreement of the child’s parents and a group
of qualified professionals, as described in 34
CFR 300.306(a)(1):
Implications
– Determination of the additional variety of
assessment tools that will be considered in
addition to RTI- if RTI is part of the criteria for
determining LD eligibility- to complete a
comprehensive evaluation to determine
eligibility for special education
– LEAs need to be able to demonstrate the
strategies used for increasing the child’s rate
of learning and
Implications
• OSEP does not take a position on:
– a specific number of tiers within an RTI model
– the slope of progress or absolute level of
achievement that determines movement
between tiers
– whether or not an RTI process includes
special education as a component of the tier
system
Implementing an RTI Approach:
5 Dimensions
1. Number of tiers (2-5)
2. Nature of preventive intervention
– Individualized (e.g., problem solving)
– Standardized scientific research-based protocol
3. How at-risk students are identified
– Percentile cut on norm-referenced test (screening)
– Cut-point on curriculum-based measurement (CBM)
with 5 weeks of CBM progress monitoring
Implementing an RTI Approach:
5 Dimensions (continued)
4. How ‘response’ is defined
•
Final status on norm-referenced test or using a
benchmark
– Improvement from pretest to posttest
– CBM slope and final status
5. What happens to nonresponders
•
Comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation to
distinguish:
•
•
•
•
specific learning disability (SLD)
behavioral disability (BD)
mental retardation (MR)
speech-language impairment (SLI)
Simplified RTI Procedure:
Four Parts
1. All children in a class, school, or district are tested
once in the fall to identify those students at risk for
long-term difficulties
2. The responsiveness of at-risk students to general
education instruction (Tier 1) is monitored to
determine those whose needs are not being met
and therefore require a more intensive intervention
(Tier 2: Small Group)
Simplified RTI Procedure:
Four Parts (continued)
3. For at-risk students, a research-validated Tier 2
intervention is implemented; student progress is
monitored throughout; and students are re-tested
after the intervention
4. Those students who do not respond to validated
intervention are identified for multi-disciplinary
team evaluation for possible disability
determination and special education placement
What Works
Effective intervention practices
+
Effective implementation practices
=
Good outcomes for
consumers
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
(NRCLD) – Model Sites
• Model sites’ distinguishing features
– Core reading program
– Use of universal academic screening
– Conducted progress monitoring on the
interventions in Tier 2 and more intensive
– Schools were characterized as “good schools;
you felt good about what you saw happening
in the schools”
NRCLD Sites – Issues Across All Sites
• None of the schools conducted fidelity
measures on the Tier 2 interventions
• Schools didn’t have explicit cut scores for
decision making (Is the student responsive?)
• Lack of specification and implementation of
the Tier 2 and more intensive interventions
• Lack of documentation of superior reading
outcomes
Implementation Research
(Fixsen et al., 2005)
• “Policy is
– allocation of limited resources for unlimited
needs”
– Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action”
• “Training does not predict action”
Stages of Implementation
•
•
•
•
•
•
Exploration
Installation
Initial Implementation
Full Implementation
Innovation
Sustainability
Implementation Logic
– Outcome-based
– Data-based decision making
– Evidence-based practices
– Systems support for accurate & sustained
implementation
• Coaching and consultation
• Administrative support
Emphasize data-based decision making
•
•
•
•
Self-assessment & action planning
Continuous self-improvement
Strengths & needs
Strategic dissemination
Consultation & Coaching
• Critical for States to consider for LEAs
– Sources of funding and professional development
(State Improvement Grants)
– New role of State staff
• Utilize resources currently in place (homegrown)
• Recruit effective personnel from exemplar schools as
coaches for developing districts
• Ongoing training for coaches
• FTE allocated to school appropriate to school’s need
• Direct observation, behavior rehearsal, data review
• Collect data on coaching frequency, duration, and
helpfulness
Coaches
• Establish a network of highly skilled
personnel who have
– Fluency with RTI systems and practices
– Capacity to deliver technical assistance
– Capacity to sustain team efforts
• Follow-up training throughout the year
– Specialized topics
– Communication and problem-solving
Active Administrative Participation
•
•
•
Active member of leadership team
Gives initiative priority
Invests in 2-3 year implementation
NRCLD Model Sites’ Advice to Schools
Implementing RTI
•
•
•
•
•
•
Provide training on specific interventions
Use benchmarking to help to identify goals
Train a variety of staff, not just teachers
Make sure administrators are really on board
Partner with a local resource center
Take it slow; the process works, but it is a slow
process
• Address the students scoring in the 0-20th %ile
Assisting SEAs with Implementation
• Center on State Implementation and Scaling-up of
Evidence-based Practices (SISEP)
– SISEP will provide the critical content and
foundation for establishing a technology of largescale, sustainable, high-fidelity implementation of
effective educational practices.
– SISEP will work with 6 states to improve their
capacity to carry out implementation, organizational
change, and systems transformation strategies to
maximize achievement outcomes
National Center on Response to
Intervention (RTI Center)
• www.RTI4Success.org
• Provide technical assistance and dissemination
about RTI models
• Target audience: SEAs
• Four focus areas
–
–
–
–
Knowledge production
Implementation supports/TA
Information dissemination
Evaluation
Final Comments
• Building a plane while flying – not unlike
other areas in the past (assessment,
behavior)
• Blending the state of science with the
state of practice (standard treatment &
problem solving)
• Where does sped fit into the new multitiered model of prevention and
intervention?
Web Resources
• National Research Center for Learning Disabilities
– http://www.nrcld.org/
• IRIS Center for Faculty Enhancement
– http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/
• Department of Education IDEA Web site
– http://idea.ed.gov
• RTI Summit Information
– www.RTISummit.org
– Click on “Resources”
Resources
RTI IDEA Partnership:
www.ideapartnership.org/page.cfm?pageid=17
Progress Monitoring Technical Assistance Center:
www.studentprogressmonitoring.org