ULTIMATE PURPOSE of RTI

1
ULTIMATE PURPOSE of RTI

• Not to determine whether a student qualifies
  for special education, but rather to enhance the
  success of students with a variety of academic
  and behavioral needs.

2
Core Principles

• We believe that
• ALL children can learn and achieve high
  standards as a result of effective teaching.
• All students must have access to a rigorous,
  
• standards-based curriculum and research-based
  instruction.
• Intervening at the earliest indication of need
  is necessary for student success (Pre K-12).
• A comprehensive system of tiered interventions
  is essential for addressing the full range of
  student needs.

3
Core Principles

• Student results are improved when ongoing
  academic and behavioral performance data are used
  to inform instructional decisions.
• Collaboration among educators, families and
  community members is the foundation to effective
  problem-solving and instructional
  decision-making.
• Ongoing and meaningful involvement of families
  increases student success.
• All members of the school community must continue
  to gain knowledge and develop expertise in order
  to build capacity and sustainability.
• Effective leadership at all levels is crucial for
  the implementation of RtI.

4
(No Transcript)
5
The overarching purpose of RtI implementation
is to improve educational outcomes for all

• RtI Defined
• Response to Intervention is an
• approach that promotes a well-
• integrated system connecting
• general, compensatory, gifted, and
• special education in providing high
• quality, standards-based instruction
• intervention that is matched to
• students academic, social-
• emotional, and behavioral needs.
• A continuum of evidence-based,
• tiered interventions with increasing
• levels of intensity and duration is
• central to RtI.
• Collaborative educational decisions
• are based on data derived from

students.
6
(No Transcript)
7
Traditional vs. Problem-Solving
Focus on problems within child Focus on outcomes
Causes presumed to be largely due to internal variables Causes presumed to be largely due to external variables
Unexpected under-achievement (relative to ability) Unexpected under-achievement (relative to good instruction)
IQ-Achievement discrepancy Failure to respond to empirically validated instruction or interventions
Assumes better classification leads to better treatment Decisions about students based on PM data
8
Curriculum Across the Tiers

• Universal Tier (Tier 1)
• Provide foundation of curriculum and school
  organization that has a high probability (80
  90 of students responding) of bringing students
  to a high level of achievement in all areas of
  development/content
• Choose curricula that has evidence of producing
  optimal levels of achievement (evidence-based
  curriculum)
• Targeted Tier (Tier 2)
• Supplemental curriculum aligned with Core
  Curriculum and designed to meet the specific
  needs of the targeted group
• Intensive Tier (Tier 3)
• Focused curriculum designed to meet the
  specific needs of the targeted group and/or
  individual
• Consideration of replacement Core curriculum

9
Instruction Across the Tiers

• Universal Tier
• Instructional strategies that are proven
  effective by research
• Instruction that is systematic and explicit
• Differentiated instruction
• Targeted
• Involves homogeneous small group or individual
  instruction
• Explicit and systematic instruction targeting
  specific skill/content
• Research-based instruction to such student
  factors as age, giftedness, cultural environment,
  level of English language acquisition, mobility,
  etc.
• Supplemental to Tier I instruction -- increasing
  time and intensity
• Intensive
• Explicit, intense instruction designed to unique
  learner needs
• Delivered to individuals or very small groups
• Narrowed instructional focus and increased time

10
Three Tiered Model of School Supports Anclote
Elementary-Pasco County
11
How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment
Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Intensive
1-5
Supplemental
5-10
Core
80-90
12
(No Transcript)
13
BEST PRACTICES of Tier I

• Core Instruction
• Assessment/Progress Monitoring
• Data discussions
• What should the overall process look like during
  Tier I?

14
Core Instruction During Tier I

• Scientifically based core instructional programs
  and practices
• Based on state/district standards and benchmarks
• Intervention occurs within the general design of
  the classroom (flooding, flexible grouping)
• Instructional changes are made based on classroom
  and school-wide assessment

15
Data Discussions in Tier I

• Professional Learning Communities
• Data-dialogue meetings
• Grade or Content-level meetings
• Meeting should be efficient, organized and
  scheduled regularly
• Discuss
• Whole group, flexible group changes, class
  changes at secondary
• Curricular gaps based on review of class
  benchmarks or other data

16
Assessment in Tier I

• Progress monitoring is conducted primarily
  using school-wide screenings three times per
  year
• Classroom assessments
• Benchmarks
• Quarterly and Unit Assessments
• Common Assessments

17
The Overall Process of Tier I

• Teachers evaluate school-wide assessment data to
  inform instructional placement decisions
• Monitor all students
• Differentiate instruction, groupings,
  accommodations
• Complete documentation for students
• needing targeted interventions

18
BEST PRACTICES of Tier IIand how to Distinguish
from Tier I

• Problem Solving Process
• Data dialogue
• Assessment/Progress Monitoring
• Design of Instruction/Intervention
• What should the overall process look like at this
  tier?

19
Data Dialogue in Tier II

• Consultation between consultant and teacher to
  define and analyze a measurable problem prior to
  problem-solving team meeting.
• Focus on data that is specific to problem
  identified.
• Problem-solving team meeting led with facilitator
  which is timed, sequential and efficient.
• Identify achievement gap and rate of progress
  toward expectations

20
Assessment in Tier II

• Progress is monitored more often (weekly,
  bi-monthly)
• Progress is monitored repeatedly for a period of
  time using consistent CBM tool
• Trends in performance are used to gauge
  effectiveness of supports and interventions
• Ineffective intervention plans are changed in a
  timely manner
• Intervention plans are modified based on emerging
  needs

21
Design of Instruction/Intervention in Tier II
How to distinguish from Tier I

• Instruction supplements, not supplants, core
  instruction
• Focus on non-responders to Tier I
• Short-term intervention
• Homogeneous, same ability small group (3-5
  students) instruction
• Standard Protocol Interventions

22
Interventions Tier 1 gt Tier 2

• Smaller group size
• Increased time
• Increased intensity
• Increased duration
• Increased power of intervention selected
• More systematic, direct instruction, etc.

23
How the Tiers Work

• Goal Student is successful with Tier 1 level
  of
• support-academic or behavioral
• Greater the tier, greater support and
  severity
• Increase level of support (Tier level) until
  you identify
• an intervention that results in a positive
  response to
• intervention
• Continue until student strengthens response
• significantly
• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier
  Level)
• Determine the relationship between sustained
  growthand sustained support.

24
Progress Monitoring

• Measurable data collected weekly or every other
  week for Tier 2
• Tied to what observable and countable data you
  expect to change due to the selected
  interventions
• Baseline the number of behaviors per time
  period you see at the start
• Target goal what you want to see
• Data point enter the count each time you
  progress monitor the behavior

25
(No Transcript)
26
BEST PRACTICES of Tier III

• Problem Solving Process (consider need for
  Problem Analysis in SJBOCES)
• Data dialogue
• Assessment/Progress Monitoring
• Design of Instruction/Intervention
• What should the overall process look like at
  this tier?

27
Problem-Solving Process in Tier III

• Identify why interventions have been unsuccessful
• Develop and improve existing interventions or
  generate new interventions that are more intensive

28
Data Dialogue in Tier III

• Identical to Tier II, happens in problem-solving
  team meetings with same process (or Problem
  Analysis meeting as needed)
• Consultants continue to dialogue with classroom
  teacher, parent, etc. between meetings to support
  intervention plan

29
Progress Monitoring in Tier III

• More often
• Progress monitoring may need to happen
  every week however, depending on the grade
  level and/or skill less often may be
  sufficient (every other week)
• Modifications are made to individualized
  instruction in response to the data collected

30
Design of Instruction in Tier IIIand how to
Distinguish from Tier II

• The intervention may stay the same but will
  increase in
• Intensity (more time per session)
• Frequency (additional sessions during day or
  week)
• Duration (implement intervention over longer
  period of time in weeks)
• The focus of the intervention may change as well

31
Overall Process of Tier III

• Supplemental continue to educate student in
  core curriculum and with the interventions that
  have been implemented if successful
• Interventions and progress monitoring intensify
• If the goal is to gain academic and behavior
  skills the lack of progress and inability to
  close the Gap with intensive interventions may
  indicate a disability issue

32
Learning Disabilities

• Recent studies have shown that when students with
  severe reading problems are given early,
  intensive instruction, nearly 95 can reach the
  national average in reading ability!

33
All laws not created equal

• There are 50 state definitions in addition to the
  federal definition for LD.
• Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array
  of methods used to determine intelligence.
• James Ysseldyke, a researcher at the University
  of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all
  school children in the United States could
  qualify as learning-disabled under one definition
  or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993)
• Eligibility rules often appeared class-based.
  Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated
  against low SES groups whose learning problems
  originated from "environmental, cultural, or
  economic disadvantage."
• Though Federal regulations from 1970s mandated
  use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially
  poorly researched, if at all.
• Used as a method to create a criteria for
  eligibility for LD and cap the number of students
  who were eligible for services.
• Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993,
  December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News
  World Report, 47.

34
All laws not created equal
According to the Children's Defense Fund,
middle-class children starting first grade have
been exposed to 1,000 to 1,700 hours of
one-on-one reading, while their low-income
counterparts have been exposed to only 25 hours.
It's little wonder that so many of these kids get
referred to special ed. (Washington Monthly,
June 1999)

• There are 50 state definitions in addition to the
  federal definition for LD.
• Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array
  of methods used to determine intelligence.
• James Yssseldyke, a researcher at the University
  of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all
  school children in the United States could
  qualify as learning-disabled under one definition
  or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993)
• Eligibility rules often appeared class-based.
  Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated
  against low SES groups whose learning problems
  originated from "environmental, cultural, or
  economic disadvantage."
• Though Federal regulations from 1970s mandated
  use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially
  poorly researched, if at all.
• Used as a method to create a criteria for
  eligibility for LD and cap the number of students
  who were eligible for services.
• Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993,
  December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News
  World Report, 47.

35
Identifying Key Concerns with Previous IDEA Law

• For years, researchers have advocated for a
  change to the discrepancy model (a.k.a. wait
  to fail model.)
• Misidentification of LD greater of students
  in special education services (300 since 1975)
• Sympathy eligibility
• Eligibility as a back-up plan for limited reg.
  ed. services

36
Effectiveness of Instructional Approaches (Deno,
2005)
Intervention Effect Size
Special Ed Placement -.14 to .29
Modality Matched Instruction (Auditory) .03
Modality Matched Instruction (Visual) .04
CBA, Graphing Formative Eval. .70
CBA, Graphing, Formative Eval., systematic use of Reinforcement 1.00
37
Changing the way we IDSLD!

• New flexibility with IDEIA
• In determining whether a child has a
  specific learning disability, an LEA shall not be
  required to take into consideration whether a
  child has a severe discrepancy between
  achievement and intellectual ability.
• Law now provides districts/LEAs the option to
  eliminate IQ-discrepancy requirements
• Embraces model of preventionnot failure
• Students with disabilities are considered general
  education students first with interventions
  beginning in the general education classroom.
• Mandates that students cannot be identified as LD
  if they have not had appropriate instruction in
  reading, meaning research-based, scientific
  interventions.
• IMPLICATIONS
• General ed. must assume active responsibility for
  delivery of high-quality instruction,
  interventions, and prompt ID of at-risk students
  collaboratively.
• Special Ed must partner with gen. ed. to provide
  those interventions early on.

38
Old SLD Eligibility Process

• Referral made
• Rule-outs (not due to vision, hearing, motor,
  lack of instruction, cultural differences,
  language differences, etc.)
• IQ Achievement Discrepancy
• Establish Existence of Processing Deficit
• Need for specialized programming

39
Criteria for Identification for Specific Learning
Disability (must be used as of 8/15/09)

• To receive special education or related
  services for a Specific Learning Disability in
  the academic area(s) of Basic Reading, Reading
  Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Math Calculation,
  Math Reasoning, Written Expression, Oral
  Expression, and/or Listening Comprehension, a
  student must meet all of the SJBOCES adopted
  eligibility criteria below based upon state and
  federal Response to Intervention (RtI)
  regulations. Each section must be verified and
  the box checked.

40
SLD Criteria (cont.)

• 1. Significant underachievement will be observed
  in the students level of academic functioning
  compared to grade-level expectations on
  appropriate curriculum based measurement (CBM)
  assessments. Dual Discrepancy must be denoted by
  having a significant difference in both the
  students CBM scores AND growth (slope) measured
  against those of grade level students.
• This will be demonstrated by skills in the bottom
  10ile compared with grade-level peers on both
  national norms and local school norms (when
  available) on a Survey Level Assessment in the
  appropriate academic measure(s) using AIMSweb
  CBM and
• The slope or Rate of Improvement (ROI) on AIMSweb
  should be less than the expected rate of
  improvement for a student at the 50ile in the
  grade in which the student is being progress
  monitored.

41
SLD Criteria (cont.)

• 2. The student will also show scores at or below
  the 10thile on at least one additional district
  level assessment that measures Colorado State
  Standards, such as the Grade, Gates, Bear, NWEA,
  etc.
• 3. Standards-based achievement results are both
  below the average range and support the Dual
  Discrepancy in the area(s) of concern. Relevant
  scores on CSAP (when available) must be in the
  bottom four twelfths (a Proficiency Score of
  Unsatisfactory or the bottom third/Low end of
  Partially Proficient range).

42
SLD Criteria (cont.)

• 4. The student has been provided an
  evidence-based core curriculum in general
  education as well as at least two appropriate
  evidence-based interventions implemented in the
  area of concern which were provided with
  sufficient duration, intensity and fidelity by
  qualified personnel. At least one intervention
  was done in Tier 2 and at least one in Tier 3
  the Tier 3 intervention was conducted by or with
  involvement from the Special Education teacher.
  At least 6 to 8 weekly data points must have been
  collected on each intervention conducted.

43
SLD Criteria (cont.)

• Learning difficulties are not the result of lack
  of appropriate instruction in reading, lack of
  appropriate instruction in math, limited English
  proficiency, visual, hearing, or motor
  disability, mental retardation, emotional
  disturbance, cultural factors, or environmental
  or economic disadvantage.
• Student demonstrates a need for intense and
  frequent specialized instruction.