Response to Intervention: Blistering Questions - Searing Answers

1
Response to Intervention Blistering Questions -
Searing Answers

• EED Winter Education Conference
• Informing Instruction Improving Achievement
• W. David Tilly III, Ph.D.
• Heartland Area Education Agency 11
• January 18, 2007

Correspondence about this presentation should be
directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500
Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is
davidtilly_at_mchsi.com, [phone].
2
Questions and Answers

• From many sources
• NASP Listserve
• National Association of State Directors of
  Special Education
• Presentations Around the Country
• Misinformation Coming Out From Various Avenues
• Comments on Regulations
• Ongoing Conversations
• Answers are based on best information at the time
• Some of the questions in the presentation arent
  in the handout
• Areas
• Assessment
• Due Process and Procedural Safeguards
• System Impacts

3
Assessment
4
Can We Just Do RtI and Forget the Problem Solving?

• No
• Problem solving is the decision making framework
  upon which each tier of RtI is built
• The same thinking structures are used at each
  level of the model

5
Problem Solving
6
Relationship Between Heartland Problem Solving
Model and 3-Tier Model
7
A New Way to Look At the 3-Tier Model
8
RtI Guiding Questions

1. Is the core program sufficient?
2. If the core program is not sufficient, why isnt
   it?
3. How will needs identified in the core be
   addressed?
4. How will the effectiveness and efficiency of the
   core be monitored over time?
5. Have improvements to the core been effective?
6. For which students is the core program sufficient
   or not sufficient and why?
7. What specific supplemental and intensive
   instruction is needed?
8. How will supplemental and intensive instruction
   be delivered?
9. How will effectiveness of supplemental and
   intensive instruction be monitored?
10. Which students need to move to a different level
    of instruction?

These Repeat for Supplemental Intensive
9
Will comprehensive evaluations change as a result
of RtI? If so, how?

• Yes
• Remember, Full and Individual
• RtI changes in the nature of the comprehensive
  evaluation away from testing for eligibility to
  an organization of data already collected on the
  students instructional progress for planning
  increasingly intense interventions. The
  regulations indicate that districts can choose
  RtI or a discrepancy model, but there is no point
  in a discrepancy model if RTI is in place.
  (NASDSE, 2006)

10
Illustration for Students with Disabilities
(e.g., Melissa)
Our Old System
Our New System

• WISC-III
• Woodcock Johnson R
• Stanford Diagnostic Reading Test
• Motor Screen
• Bender
• Teacher Interview
• Speech Screening
• Health History
• Social History
• Educational History

• Intervention Summary Review
• Vision-Hearing Screening
• Parent and Teacher Interviews
• CBM Normative Comparisons
• Curriculum-Based Evaluation Survey-Level
• Curriculum-Based Evaluation Specific-Level
  Procedures

11
300.304 Evaluation Procedures

• (4) The child is assessed in all areas related to
  the suspected disability, including, if
  appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and
  emotional status, general intelligence, academic
  performance, communicative status, and motor
  abilities
• Emphasis Added

12
Due Process and Procedural Safeguards
13
At what point in the RtI process must parents be
notified of their Due Process Rights?

• Same as always When someone reasonably asks the
  questions whether a student might have a
  disability
• Criteria for suspecting disability
• Both Intensity and Severity of problems

14
What protections are in the RtI system to protect
parents and students rights?

• Many
• Due process as a continuum
• Students doing fine get less than students who
  are challenged
• All or Nothing - NOT
• Protections
• Invitation early
• Consistent and effective communication about
  whats important
• The Trigger
• Progress monitoring data

15
Is it legal to collect individual student
performance data without getting parental
permission?

• Qualified yes
• Depends on why youre doing it
• General education instruction and improvement
• Special education entitlement decisions
• Omnibus notice is important

16
IDEIA 04 Regulations

• 300.302 Screening for instructional purposes is
  not evaluation. The screening of a student by a
  teacher or specialist to determine appropriate
  instructional strategies for curriculum
  implementation shall not be considered to be an
  evaluation for eligibility for special education
  and related services.
• (Authority 20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(E))

17
Given that we only have 60 days to complete a
comprehensive evaluation, how can we do that and
still maintain RtI integrity?

• There are a few keys here
• Do not define the levels structurally (e.g., 1
  general education, 2 title 1, 3 special
  education)
• Do not require a SPED referral prior to general
  education interventions
• Do not get permission for testing prior to
  implementing general education interventions
• Remember the purpose of your actions

18
Can parents request a comprehensive evaluation in
RtI systems?

• Certainly, parents can request anything they want
  to request
• They cannot, however, dictate what that
  comprehensive assessment will be
• That is a professional decision guided by your
  state rules
• Do not fight with parents over this!

19
Doesnt the Federal Law require that we give IQ
tests to identify students with disabilities?

• No
• The federal law does not require you to give any
  specific kind of tests
• The requirements for assessments are very broad

20
IMPORTANT POINT

• There is tremendous flexibility within IDEA
• One of Iowas greatest learnings as a state was
  that we did it to ourselves
• That is, most of the restrictions we perceived as
  barriers to changing what we were doing they
  were self imposed by our states interpretation
  of the Federal Law and Regulations

21
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few
Things in Assessment and Intervention 300.304

• Non discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis
• Administered in child's native language
• Validated for specific purpose for which they are
  used
• Administered by trained personnel in conformance
  with the instructions provided by their producer

22
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few
Things in Assessment and Intervention 300.304

• No single procedure may be used for determining
  an appropriate education
• Using technically sound instruments
• The evaluation must be conducted by a
  multidisciplinary team
• Include assessments to assess educational need -
  not just IQ
• The child must be assessed in all areas related
  to the suspected disability

23
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few
Things in Assessment and Intervention 300.304

• The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to
  identify all of the child special education and
  related services needs
• Assessment tools and strategies that provide
  relevant information in determining the
  educational needs of the child are provided

24
Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few
Things in Assessment and Intervention 300.304

• A variety of assessment tools and strategies are
  used to gather relevant functional and
  developmental information about the child...
• That may assist in determining the content of the
  childs IEP, including information related to
  enabling the child to be involved in and progress
  in the general curriculum

25
However..

• Your state may require specific things
• Iowas learnings - we did it to ourselves
• How we interpret federal law at a state level has
  profound impact on the things we do day to day in
  our schools

26
What Happened Assessments
Evaluation type, frequency, and percentage of
total assessments in Heartland AEA 11 1997-2002
Assessment Type Initial Evaluations Re-Evaluations
Functional Academic Assessment 8,513 (51) 5,201 (47)
Communication 2,985 (18) 851 (8)
Behavioral Assessment 2,037 (12) 1,817 (16)
Health 808 (5) 481 (4)
Social Functioning 688 (4) 589 (5)
Hearing 542 (3) 234 (2)
School Readiness 404 (2) 215 (2)
Motor Functioning 333 (2) 454 (4)
Vision 175 (lt1) 140 (1)
Educational History 111 (lt1) 149 (1)
Vocational 99 (lt1) 908 (8)
Intellect 15 (lt1) 7 (0)
Grand Total 16,710 11,046
Number of Students Assessed 8,189 5,027
27
If we dont use IQ tests in identification of
disability, will families still have access to
external agencies that need these data (e.g.,
SSI, Voc. Rehab)?

• Generally yes
• It is important for the educational system to be
  working with community, state and federal
  agencies to ensure access
• What is your systems responsibility to provide
  other systems with data?
• Think how you can influence this process

28
Cognitive processing is part of the SLD
definition in the IDEIA statute, shouldnt we be
assessing cognitive processing as part of our LD
comprehensive assessments?
29
Answer

• The Department does not believe that an
  assessment of psychological or cognitive
  processing should be required in determining
  whether a child has an SLD. There is no current
  evidence that such assessments are necessary or
  sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many
  cases, these assessments have not been used to
  make appropriate intervention decisions. However,
  300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits, but does not
  require, consideration of a pattern of strengths
  or weaknesses, or both, relative to intellectual
  development, if the evaluation group considers
  that information relevant to an identification of
  SLD. In many cases, though, assessments of
  cognitive processes simply add to the testing
  burden and do not contribute to interventions. As
  summarized in the research consensus from the
  OSEP Learning Disability Summit (Bradley,
  Danielson, and Hallahan, 2002), Although
  processing deficits have been linked to some SLD
  (e.g., phonological processing and reading),
  direct links with other processes have not been
  established. Currently, available methods for
  measuring many processing difficulties are
  inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring
  processing difficulties and their link to
  treatment is not yet feasible . Processing
  deficits should be eliminated from the criteria
  for classification . (p. 797). Concerns
  about the absence of evidence for relations of
  cognitive discrepancy and SLD for identification
  go back to Bijou (1942 4 see Kavale, 2002).
  Cronbach (1957) characterized the search for
  aptitude by treatment interactions as a hall of
  mirrors, a situation that has not improved over
  the past few years as different approaches to
  assessment of cognitive processes have emerged
  (Fletcher et al., 2005 Reschly Tilly, 1999)

30
References

• Bradley, R., Danielson, L., Hallahan, D.P.
  (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning
  disabilities Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ
  Erlbaum.
• Bijou, S.W. (1942). The psychometric pattern
  approach as an aid to clinical assessmenta
  review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency,
  46, 354362.
• Kavale, K. (2002). Discrepancy models in the
  identification of learning disabilities. In R.
  Bradley, L. Danielson, D.P. Hallahan (Eds.).
  Identification of learning disabilities Research
  to practice (pp. 370371). Mahwah, NJ Erlbaum.
• Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of
  scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12,
  671684.
• Fletcher, J.M., Denton, C., Francis, D.J.
  (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for
  the identification of LD Operationalizing
  unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning
  Disabilities, 38, 545552
• Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D. (1999). Reform
  trends and system design alternatives. In D.J.
  Reschly, W.D. Tilly, III, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.).
  Special education in transition Functional
  assessment and noncategorical programming.
  Longmont, CO Sopris West.

31
A Few Key Clarifications From the USDE

• Question Many commenters requested more detail
  and specific guidelines on RTI models, such as
  information on who initiates the RTI process and
  who should be involved in the process how one
  ensures there is a strong leader for the RTI
  process the skills needed to implement RTI
  models the role of the general education
  teacher how to determine that a child is not
  responsive to instruction, particularly a child
  with cultural and linguistic differences the
  number of different types of interventions to be
  tried the responsibility for monitoring
  progress the measurement of treatment integrity
  and ways to document progress.

32
Answer

• There are many RTI models and the regulations are
  written to accommodate the many different models
  that are currently in use. The Department does
  not mandate or endorse any particular model.
  Rather, the regulations provide States with the
  flexibility to adopt criteria that best meet
  local needs. Language that is more specific or
  prescriptive would not be appropriate. For
  example, while we recognize that rate of learning
  is often a key variable in assessing a childs
  response to intervention, it would not be
  appropriate for the regulations to set a standard
  for responsiveness or improvement in the rate of
  learning. As we discussed earlier in this
  section, we do not believe these regulations will
  result in significant increases in the number of
  children identified with SLD.

33
Is the intent of RtI identification of LD kids?

• No
• The goal of RtI is to deliver evidence-based
  interventions and the second is to use students
  response to those interventions as a basis for
  determining instructional needs and intensity
  (NASDSE, 2006)
• Data from RtI practices can be used for a variety
  of purposes, including as ONE COMPONENT of the
  data that may be collected for special education
  identification

34
Entitlement for Special Education
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process Group and Individual Interventions
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
35
System Impacts
36
What are the major phases of RtI Implementation?

• Consensus Building
• Infrastructure Building
• Implementation

37
In a 3-tier model, you said that tier 3 is not
just special education, can you explain?

• Significant problems if we do this
• Tier 3 is the most intense level of intervention
  - not special education. A student who does not
  respond to these intense interventions MAY
  qualify for special education
• either the intensity or type of intervention
  required to improve student performance either
  exceeds the resources in general education or
• are not available in general education settings
• There are students with intensive learning needs
  that will not qualify for SPED
• ELL
• Not exposed to SBRR C and I
• Talented and gifted

38
Isnt RtI just another way of doing prereferral
intervention?

• RtI is more than prereferal services
• It is a comprehensive service delivery system
  that requires significant changes in how a school
  serves all students.
• When thought of as a prereferral system, it
  remains the province of special education and the
  desired integration of general education and
  special education services around the goal of
  enhanced outcomes for all students will not be
  achieved
• Prereferral implies referral
• Can be perceived by the system as the new way to
  get kids in SPED

39
Doesnt implementing RtI move us toward a
noncategorical special education system?

• No
• The issues of RtI and Noncategorical are separate
  issues
• You can have one and not the other

40
Possible Systems
Categorical
Noncategorical
RtI
Yes
Yes
Given new Regs, it is unclear What not Rti Is
and if thatspossible. Lets take a look
Probably Not
Not RtI
41
To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

• (a) The group described in 300.306 may
  determine that a child has a specific learning
  disability, as defined in 300.8(c)(10), if
• (1) The child does not achieve adequately for the
  childs age or to meet State-approved grade-level
  standards in one or more of the following areas,
  when provided with learning experiences and
  instruction appropriate for the childs age or
  State-approved grade-level standards
• (i) Oral expression.
• (ii) Listening comprehension.
• (iii) Written expression.
• (iv) Basic reading skill.
• (v) Reading fluency skills.
• (vi) Reading comprehension.
• (vii) Mathematics calculation.
• (viii) Mathematics problem solving.

42
To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

• (2)(i) The child does not make sufficient
  progress to meet age or State approved
  grade-level standards in one or more of the areas
  identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section
  when using a process based on the childs
  response to scientific, research-based
  intervention
• or (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths
  and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or
  both, relative to age, State-approved grade level
  standards, or intellectual development, that is
  determined by the group to be relevant to the
  identification of a specific learning disability,
  using appropriate assessments, consistent with
  300.304 and 300.305

43
To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

• (b) 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
  300.304 through 300.306
• (1) 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
• (2) Data-based documentation of repeated
  assessments of achievement at reasonable
  intervals, reflecting formal assessment of
  student progress during instruction, which was
  provided to the childs parents.

44
To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

• (c) 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 300.301 and 300.303,
  unless extended by mutual written agreement of
  the childs parents and a group of qualified
  professionals, as described in 300.306(a)(1)
• (1) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made
  adequate progress after an appropriate period of
  time when provided instruction, as described in
  paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section and
  
• (2) Whenever a child is referred for an
  evaluation.
• (Authority 20 U.S.C. 1221e3 1401(30)
  1414(b)(6))

45
Since RtI is new, shouldnt we be moving slowly?
After all, the old system wasnt all that bad.

• According to at multiple consensus reports, the
  old system WAS that bad
• Wait to fail
• Delaying effective treatment
• Use of less than research-based strategies
• Progress not monitored systematically
• Many, many children remain nonreaders

46
Which is better, a problem solving system or a
standard treatment protocol? Which should we
implement?

• This question is a red herring
• The answer is Both
• Putting them in competition misses the point.

47
How Does it Fit Together? Group-Level Diagnostic
Std. Treatment Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1
48
How Does it Fit Together? Uniform Standard
Treatment Protocol
Step 2
Step 3
Step 4
Step 1
49
Where can I go to get more information on
individual skills assessment related to
instructional programming?

• A really good sources is Ken Howells work
• Howell, K Nolet, V. (1999). Curriculum-Based
  Evaluation - Teaching and Decision Making.
  Pacific Grove, CA Brooks-Cole.
• NASP has a LOT of resources
• Shinn, M. R., Walker, H. M., Stoner, G. (Eds.)
  (2002). Interventions for academic and behavior
  problems II Preventive and remedial approaches.
  Bethesda, MD National Association of School
  Psychologists.

50
Isnt the research base on RtI limited to
beginning reading?

• No
• We know most about reading
• The research is catching up with math
• We have a lot of information on RtI in
  social-emotional-behavioral areas
• It is called Positive Behavior Supports
• A substantial body of research exists to
  demonstrate the impact of an RtI model on the
  current system (e.g., referral rates, risk
  indices) as well as student variables (e.g.,
  achievement). Fewer studies exist on the
  long-term outcomes for students from both
  models.

51
Are there any experimental studies comparing RtI
to the historical system?

• No, and there probably wont be any
• The question is not of great interest
• Outcomes of the historical system are known
• Outcomes from many RtI implementations are known
• The important question is one of scaling which is
  a different research question than one invoked
  when we ask whether practices like RtI are
  effective or implementable

52
If we implement RtI, wont we lose school
psychologist positions? Cant teachers do all
that stuff?

• The data are to the contrary
• Aware of no large-scale RtI implementations
  nationally where school psychologists have been
  dramatically cut
• Heartland case in point
• Over 10 years ago, 35 psychologists
• Now circa 62 in line psychologist positions
• More in specialty roles
• It is up to us

53
It is up to us We dont want to do this..
54
What knowledge will be necessary to build in the
system to do RtI?

• Knowledge and skills influence educator efficacy.
  Levels of efficacy serve as good predictors of
  levels of practice implementation. PD plan must
  ensure solid understanding of RtI, including
• difference between the deficit and risk models of
  student performance and the assessment methods
  germane to each model (assessment for
  identification and instructionally relevant
  assessment)
• difference between the intensity of a problem
  (gap between actual and desired performance) and
  the severity of a problem (determined by response
  to intervention)

55
What knowledge will be necessary to build in the
system to do RtI?

• relationship between the problem-solving model
  and RtI
• range of interventions at Tiers 1, 2 and 3
• central role that assessment of instructional
  quality plays in RtI
• need for a wide range of empirically validated
  instructional practices in both general and
  special education programs
• impact of using RtI on placement outcomes,
  funding patterns and job security
• essential role that progress monitoring measures
  play in RtI and
• importance of determining appropriate
  interventions based on student data.

56
What skills will be necessary to build in the
system to do RtI?

• Skills represent the practice component of
  knowledge and are derived from the breadth of the
  knowledge base. Skills that are not taught in the
  context of the knowledge base will not be
  sustained. Skills necessary to implement RtI
  include
• assessing instructional quality with relevant
  assessment practices (e.g., CBM, CBE, DIBELS)
• judging instruction quality (class performance)
  and individual student levels of risk (response)
  through interpretation of assessment data
• making accurate decisions regarding improving
  instruction quality, selecting high-quality
  supplemental interventions and developing
  instructional accommodations
• making reliable student eligibility decisions
• collaborating and communicating and
• using technology to manage, display and
  disseminate assessment data.

57
What happens to the placement rate of students in
LD programs when the RtI approach is used instead
of the discrepancy formula?

• In many cases, it goes down
• Vail, AZ
• Heartland AEA 11, IA
• documented reductions in special education
  placement rates during the first years of RtI
  implementation, particularly for grades K-3.
• These reductions in placements occur concurrently
  with basic skill improvement within the same
  population.
• fewer children are being placed in special
  education because more children are
• (1) being identified earlier via objective
  universal screenings
• (2) are receiving intensive, scientifically
  validated instructional interventions early in
  their education and
• (3) as a result, are more successful at acquiring
  basic skills.

58
(No Transcript)
59
(No Transcript)
60
(No Transcript)
61
(No Transcript)
62
Will the patterns of strengths and Weaknesses/RtI
option currently permitted in IDEA 2004 result in
differential placement rates across school
districts?

• Yes, there will be a difference in placement
  rates depending on the option chosen by an LEA.
  The discrepancy option has a documented history,
  which is largely responsible for the advocacy to
  change the federal law and regulations.
• Variations in placement rates isnot a new
  phenomenon.

63
What is the relationship between RtI and adequate
yearly progress (AYP)?

• There is a direct and positive relationship
  between RtI and AYP.
• RtI aligns student needs with appropriate
  instruction.
• Assessing a students performance and adjusting
  instruction based on response increases the
  likelihood of positive outcome
• AYP is a measure of academic proficiency.
• Improved proficiency is reflected in the schools
  and the LEAs AYP measures.

64
Question How do you spell AYP?
RtI