How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve acceptable prevention outcomes and to achieve accept

1
How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve
acceptable prevention outcomes and to achieve
acceptable patterns of LD identification? Doug
Marston Discussant
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
Marston, D. (2003, December). How many tiers
are needed within RTI to achieve acceptable
prevention outcomes and to achieve acceptable
patterns of LD identification? Paper presented at
the National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention
Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
2
How Many Tiers Are Needed for Response to
Intervention to Achieve Acceptable Prevention
Outcomes Sharon Vaughn Tiers of Intervention
in Kindergarten Through Third Grade Rollanda E.
OConnor How Many Tiers Are Needed for
Successful Prevention and Early Intervention?
Heartland Area Education Agencys Evolution from
Four to Three Tiers W. David Tilly III
3
Sharon Vaughn

• Tier I
• All of K-3 students
• Core reading program Phonemic awareness,
  alphabetic understanding, fluency, vocabulary,
  and comprehension
• General education teacher in general education
  classroom
• 90 minutes per day, flexible grouping
• Ongoing professional development Research
• Benchmark 3X year
• Tier II
• For students falling behind grade level
  benchmarks
• Supplement to Core Reading Instruction (30 min.
  daily)
• Small group (13, 14, 15), Interventionist
  varies
• Systematic, explicit instruction tied to critical
  elements
• Instructional phases last 10 weeks, typically
  10-20 weeks
• Progress monitoring twice per month
• Tier III
• 13 customized instruction by interventionist
  (varies)
• Two 30 min./daily sessions in addition to 90
  minutes daily

4
Rollanda E. OConnor

• Tier I Professional Development
• All K-3 students
• 4 days of professional development Instruction
  and Assessment
• Research-based instruction integrated with
  background core reading
• General education teacher in general education
  classroom
• 3 X per year review of benchmarks and student
  progress
• Tier II Small Group Instruction, 3 Days per Week
• Supplemental instruction (10-15 min. daily, three
  days per week)
• Instruction targeted student weaknesses
• Small group (12, 13, 14)
• Interventionist was project staff
• Instructional phases lasted 8 weeks to several
  years
• Core skills measured monthly
• Tier III Daily Small Group or Individual
  Instruction
• 11 or 12 instruction by research staff
• Daily instruction
• Monthly progress monitoring

5
W. David Tilly

• Level I
• Modification and adaptation of Core Instructional
  Curriculum
• Large scale screening for Project HELP students
  in K-3
• Initiate 4 step Problem Solving process
• Core reading program National Reading Panel
• Ongoing professional development Research
• Benchmark 3X per year with early literacy
  measures
• Level II
• Core Instruction and Supplemental Instructional
  Resources
• Problem Solving process
• Small group instruction
• Differentiated instruction, interventions varied
• Measure 3X per year
• Level III
• Core Instruction and Intensive Resources
• Problem Solving process
• Differentiated instruction

6
Vaughn
OConnor
Tilly

• Tier I
• All K-3 students
• Core Reading Program
• Flexible grouping
• Gen. Ed. Teacher
• 90 minutes per day
• Ongoing Professional Development Research
• Benchmark 3X year
• Tier II
• Supplement to Core
• Small group
• 10-20 weeks
• Frequent Monitoring
• Tier III
• 13 Instruction
• 2 - 30 min./daily sess.
• 2/month monitoring

7
Vaughn
OConnor
Tilly

• Tier I
• All K-3 students
• Core Reading Program
• Flexible grouping
• Gen. Ed. Teacher
• 90 minutes per day
• Ongoing Professional Development Research
• Benchmark 3X year
• Tier II
• Supplement to Core
• Small group
• 10-20 weeks
• Frequent Monitoring
• Tier III
• 13 Instruction
• 2 - 30 min./daily sess.
• 2/month monitoring

• Tier I Prof. Dev.
• All K-3 students
• 4 days of prof. dev.
• Integrated with core
• Gen. ed. teacher
• Gen. ed. classroom
• 3 X per year review
• Tier II Sm Grp. 3X/Wk
• Supplemental Inst.
• Student weaknesses
• 12, 13, 14
• Research staff
• 8 weeks to several yrs
• Skills meas. monthly
• Tier III Daily Instruction
• 11 or 12 instruction
• Research staff

8
Vaughn
OConnor
Tilly

• Level I
• CI (adapt. and mod.)
• Lrg. scale screening K-3
• Problem Solving
• National Reading Panel
• Ongoing prof. dev.
• Early literacy measures
• Benchmark 3X per yr
• Level II
• CI and Supp. Inst.
• Problem Solving
• Small group instruction
• Differentiated instruction
• Measure 3X per year
• Level III
• CI and Intensive Res.
• Problem Solving

• Tier I
• All K-3 students
• Core Reading Program
• Flexible grouping
• Gen. Ed. Teacher
• 90 minutes per day
• Ongoing Professional Development Research
• Benchmark 3X year
• Tier II
• Supplement to Core
• Small group
• 10-20 weeks
• Frequent Monitoring
• Tier III
• 13 Instruction
• 2 - 30 min./daily sess.
• 2/month monitoring

• Tier I Prof. Dev.
• All K-3 students
• 4 days of prof. dev.
• Integrated with core
• Gen. ed. teacher
• Gen. ed. classroom
• 3 X per year review
• Tier II Sm Grp. 3X/Wk
• Supplemental Inst.
• Student weaknesses
• 12, 13, 14
• Research staff
• 8 weeks to several yrs
• Skills meas. monthly
• Tier III Daily Instruction
• 11 or 12 instruction
• Research staff

9

• Common Ground Report
• Learning Disabilities Summit (August 2001)
• Mission was to propose improvements that would
  better identify students with learning
  disabilities in public schools.
• National Association of School Psychologists
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association
• Council for Exceptional Children/Division for
  Learning Disabilities
• International Reading Association
• Association for Higher Education and Disability
• International Dyslexia Association
• Learning Disabilities Association of America
• National Center for Learning Disabilities

10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
(No Transcript)
13
(No Transcript)
14
Results Contrasts of Student Performance
Vaughn OConnor Tilly
GAINS K 15 seg. (W-S) 1 30 words 2 30
words 3 30 words COMPARISONS Yr 1 vs.
Yr 2 (Kind.) E.S. .71 Yr 1 vs. Yr 2
(1st) E.S. ..26 Yr 1 vs. Yr 3 (Kind.)
E.S. 1.08 Yr 1 vs. Yr 3 (1st) E.S. .39
GAINS Early Exit Tier 2 60 words No
Exit 20 words COMPARISONS T1 vs.
Control Significant T1 T2 vs. Control
Significant
GAINS Average students gained .5 SD
words COMPARISONS T1 vs. Control E.S.
.19-.52 Mean E.S. .34 T2 vs. Control E.S.
.40-.67 Mean E. S. .55 T2 T3 vs. Control E.
S. lt .55
15
Results Movement of Students Through Tiers
Vaughn OConnor Tilly
45 Tier II Students Early Exit 10 Mid
Exit 14 Late Exit 10 No Exit 11 24.4
to Tier III
Control 15 to Spec. Ed. Tier I 12 to
Spec. Ed. Tier II III 8 to Spec. Ed.
Decreases in Spec. Ed. Placement Rate At 36
Schools Kindergarten 55 1st Grade
32 2nd Grade 21 3rd Grade 19
16
Synthesis of Findings

• How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve
  acceptable prevention outcomes?
• The Tier I data indicate students made gains and
  the interventions were effective, but based on
  low to moderate effect sizes, it would be fair to
  question whether enough students made large
  enough gains when compared to controls.
• The Tier II data shows students did significantly
  better than controls and generated moderate
  effect sizes (about .55) to support this finding.
  It would appear 50-75 of students receiving
  Tier II interventions responded to instruction.
• It was not possible to determine what percentage
  of the total population responded in Tier II.

17
Synthesis of Findings

• How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve
  acceptable prevention outcomes (cont.)?
• Tier III data provided the best data for
  achieving acceptable prevention outcomes.
• The gains of students receiving both Tier II and
  III were significantly greater than controls and
  the effect sizes higher than those reported for
  Tier I and II.
• There is some data to indicate close to 40 of
  Tier III students made satisfactory gains.
• If we look at the entire student population of
  one of the studies, we can estimate that about
  92 of students responded to either Tier I, II,
  or III interventions.

18
Synthesis of Findings

• How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve
  acceptable patterns of LD identification?
• Regarding Tier I results there was little data
  reported supporting this tier alone as a means of
  determining special education eligibility.
• A review of Tier II data shows approximately
  25-50 of the students receiving Tier II
  interventions were nonresponders.
• It was not possible for Tier II to calculate what
  percentage of the total student population this
  represents.
• Tier III data from one study showed 7 out of 10
  Tier III students entered special education.
• Data from the same study indicated about 6 of
  the student population participating in the three
  tier model was eligible for LD services.

19
Future Study for RTI

• Age of students
• Academic domains
• General education involvement
• Length of intervention
• Criteria for movement through Tiers
• Role of team in decision-making
• Intervention integrity
• Scalability