Response to Intervention (RTI): An Introduction and Linkages with Ohio Initiatives

1
Response to Intervention (RTI) An Introduction
and Linkages with Ohio Initiatives

• Ohio Department of Education
• Office for Exceptional Children
• April 25, 2005
• Bill Bogdan and Rita Poth, SWO SERRC
• Janet Graden and Ed Lentz, Univ. of Cincinnati

2
Topics

• Why RTI
• Foundations in law (NCLB, IDEIA 2004)
• Alignment with Ohio Standards
• Rationale for changes (Key reports, conclusions)
• What is RTI
• Multi-tiered scientific-based intervention and
  response to intervention for decisions
• Alignment with Ohio SIG integrated intervention
  and decision making across tiers
• RTI and SLD

3
Topics (continued)

• Empirical Support for RTI
• Advantages of RTI
• Common Questions
• Challenges for Implementation
• Considerations for ODE/OEC

4
Why RTI Key Foundations and Supports in Law

• NCLB
• IDEIA 2004
• Ohio Operating Standards

5
Why RTI Support in Aspects of NCLB

• No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
• Big idea improvement of academic and behavioral
  results for all students, through
  scientifically-based instruction, curriculum, and
  intervention
• Identification and intervention of academic and
  behavior problems early, when they occur in the
  classroom
• Design and implementation of remedial and
  individualized interventions for students not
  responding to scientifically-based instruction
  and intervention on-going progress monitoring of
  student performance outcomes
• Inclusion of all students within a single
  standards-based accountability system
  documentation of student progress and outcomes
  through AYP

6
Why RTI Support in IDEIA 2004

• IDEIA 2004 Reauthorization
• Big idea Students with disabilities (SWD) are
  general education students first - content
  standards and assessments
• Inclusion of children with disabilities in NCLB
  assessments (and sub-group reporting for AYP)
• Early intervening (previously pre-referral
  intervention) strengthened and extended
• Changes in assessment language (from tests and
  evaluation to assessment and measurement)

7
RTI and IDEIA- Specific RTI Language

• Section 614 (5) Special Rule for Eligibility
  Determination
• In making a determination of eligibility under
  paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined
  to be a child with a disability if the
  determinate factor for such determination is (A)
  lack of appropriate instruction in reading,
  including in the essential components of reading
  instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the
  ESEA of 1965)

8
RTI and IDEIA Specific Language for SLD

• Section 614(b)(6)
• (A) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 607(b),
  when determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability as defined in section 602, a
  LEA shall not be required to take into
  consideration whether a child has a severe
  discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
  ability in oral expression, listening
  comprehension, written expression, basic reading
  skill, reading comprehension, mathematical
  calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

9
RTI and IDEIA Specific Language for SLD (cont.)

• Section 614(b)(5)
• (B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY. In determining
  whether a child has a specific learning
  disability, a LEA may use a process that
  determines if the child responds to scientific,
  research-based intervention as a part of the
  evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2)
  and (3).

10
IDEIA and RTI

• Specific language allowing RTI appears in SLD
  section however,
• Support for RTI approach is built in throughout
  IDEIA and NCLB (e.g., consideration of
  scientifically-based reading instruction,
  intervention requirements based on response to
  scientifically-based reading instruction, direct
  assessment and progress monitoring)

11
Ohio Alignment and Support for RTI

• Priorities of Office for Exceptional Children
  (aligned with ODE priorities)
• Standards Improve access to the general
  curriculum improve the participation and
  progress of CWD in the general curriculum
• Capacity Improve schools capacity to improve
  outcomes for all children encourage others to
  consider CWD and at-risk learners as general
  education students first
• Accountability Increase the performance of CWD
  on state and district assessments

12
Ohio Support for RTI Operating Standards for
Ohios Schools

• 3301-35-06
• instruction includes intervention and shall be
• consistent with educational research and proven
  practice
• appropriate to age, developmental needs, learning
  styles, abilities, English proficiency

13
RTI Support Operating Standards for Ohios
Schools

• 3301-35-06
• Intervention requirement and definition
  Intervention means alternative or supplemental
  instruction designed to help students meet
  performance objectives.
• Districts are required to provide students with
  sufficient time and opportunity to achieve
  performance objectives

14
RTI Support Ohio Standards for SWD Specific
Evaluation Requirements

• 33-51-06 (D) Evaluation Procedures
• Requirement to review existing evaluation data,
  including data from previous interventions,
  including interventions required by rule
  3301-35-06 of Admin. Code

15
RTI Support Operating Standards for SWD Specific
Evaluation Requirements

• 3301-51-06 (A,2)
• Each school district shall provide intervention
  to resolve concerns for the preschool or
  school-age child prior to conducting a full and
  individual evaluation.

16
RTI Support Ohio Standards for SWD Specific
Evaluation Requirements

• 3301-51-06 (A,3)
• Each district shall use data from interventions
  to determine eligibility for special education
  services, appropriate instructional practices,
  and access to the general curriculum.

17
Why RTI Reasons for Change

• Support for changes from various national
  commissions and reports
• LD Summit (2002)
• Presidents Commission (2002)
• National Research Center on LD (2003)
• National Research Council Report on Minority
  Over-Representation (2002)

18
Learning Disabilities Summit (2002)

• Endorsed a response to intervention model as the
  most promising method of alternative
  identification
• RTI can both promote effective practices in
  schools and help to close the gap between
  identification and treatment.
• Problem solving models have been shown to be
  effective in public school settings and research.

19
Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
Education (2002) Recommendations

• Focus on improving outcomes for children with
  disabilities (CWD)
• Focus on CWD as general education student first
  (curriculum, assessments)
• Needs-based, non-categorical, flexible systems
• Early intervention and response-to-intervention
  across tiers as model for serving all students

20
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
(2003)

• Ability/achievement discrepancy requirement
• Based on best guess at time
• Controversial even at that time (1970s)
• Consensus conclusion that does not work
• Problems with ability/achievement discrepancy
• Lack of validity (does not establish group of
  students with unique needs regardless of
  discrepancy groups respond to same kind of
  intervention with same results)
• Problems with reliability (decision reliability)
• Most important delays treatment wait to fail

21
Wait to Fail Problem

• Discrepancy formula doesnt identify as eligible
  until Grades 3-4
• Data from National Institute of Health (1999)
• If students are not reading at grade level by Gr.
  3, odds of reading at g.l. are 1 in 17
• 2 hrs. of intensive daily instruction required in
  Gr. 4 to make same gains as 30 min. of
  instruction in Kindergarten

22
Other Reasons for Change from Reports

• CWD drop out rates (2x peers) and rate of
  enrollment in higher education (1/2x peers)
• Over- and under-representation of ethnic
  minorities (National Research Council, 200X)
• 300 growth in SLD identification since 1976

23
Other Reasons (cont.)

• 80 of SLD identified for reading
• 50 of identified SLD do not meet state criteria
• Lack of demonstrated relationship between
  discrepant/non-discrepant LD students and
  effectiveness of reading strategies (respond
  equally to effective instruction)

24
Key Ideas from National Reports and
Recommendations (reflected in NCLB and IDEIA)

• Early intervening and prevention
• (not waiting to fail)
• Intervention and response to intervention data at
  all levels
• (multi-tiered approach to prevention and
  intervention school-wide to individual)
• Direct assessment, link to standards and
  instructional needs in general education
  curriculum and progress assessment
• Scientifically-based intervention and assessment

25
What is RTI Key Foundations

• Multi-tiered intervention of increasing or
  decreasing intensity, based on need
• Data-based decision making and progress
  monitoring at all tiers
• Effective, research-based intervention at all
  tiers
• Flexible services
• Ohio SIG includes these foundations

26
An Integrated Systems Approach Intervention
Based Services and Positive Behavior Supports
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Decisions about tiers of support are data-based
Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide
Interventions
27
Tier 1 Universal Intervention and Screening

• Universal core research-based curriculum/approach
  for all students linked to general education
  standards (effective reading curriculum
  school-wide Positive Behavior Support)
• Universal screening and use of data
  (Curriculum-Based Measurement, DIBELS for
  academic) to make decisions about those not
  progressing and in need of intervention

28
Tier 2 Targeted Intervention and Progress
Monitoring

• Targeted, more intensive research-based
  intervention for those students not making
  sufficient progress program or
  scripted/manualized approach still linked to
  standards and including Tier 1
• More frequent progress monitoring for data-based
  decision making (same data base as for Tier 1)

29
Tier 3 Intensive, Individualized Intervention
and Progress Monitoring

• Interventions based on individualized problem
  solving still linked to Tier 1 and 2 and general
  curriculum research-based interventions
• More frequent progress monitoring for data-based
  decision making (same data at Tier 1 2)
  depending on progress at this level may lead to
  consideration of eligibility determination

30
RTI Comprehensive Evaluation Core

• RTI core is the analysis of achievement and
  behavior, using direct measures in natural
  settings
• Precise measurement and analysis of skill levels
• Precise analysis of alterable conditions for
  intervention
• Application of powerful instructional design and
  behavior change methods
• Assessment of rate of learning, progress
  monitoring with formative evaluation
• Decisions based on data from intervention outcomes

31
RTI and Identification for SLD

• Documented difference between students
  performance and like-aged peers using
  local/state/national norms in relevant domains on
  direct performance measures
• Insufficient response to research-based
  instruction and interventions of increasing
  intensity and measurement precision
• Documented adverse impact on education performance

32
RTI and SLD Identification (cont.)

• Documented need for specially designed
  instruction and/or related services in order for
  child to obtain an appropriate education
• Application of exclusionary criteria including MR
  (CD), ED, speech/language
• Exit criteria defined in terms of targets for
  improved performance
• National Academy of Sciences Panel, Donovan
  Cross, 2002

33
What RTI Looks Like in Practice Versus Typical
Past Practice
Screen all students, deliver research-based core curriculum (Tier 1) Wait for referrals (often wait to fail)
For students not progressing in Tier 1, provide research-based intervention (Tier 2), with frequent progress monitoring Provide brainstormed interventions following teacher referral many students not achieving are not referred or identified early
For students not progressing in Tier 2, start problem solving for individualized research-based interventions (Tier 3), more frequent monitoring Often, referral to Intervention Assistance Team (too often seen as hurdle, another step, no problem solving, research-based intervention or progress monitoring)
Consideration of eligibility (considering RTI data, progress, need for specialized instruction) Testing (frustration if not eligible if eligible, no clear link to instruction and IEP from tests used)
34
Empirical Support for RTI

• What Does Work
• Early intervening for academics improves student
  outcomes - prevents academic failure and
  subsequent behavior problems
• Direct assessment of student performance,
  on-going progress monitoring (informs
  instruction, linked to content standards)
• Scientifically-based instruction and intervention
• Applied behavior analysis
• Curriculum-based measurementgraphingformative
  evaluation
• (Fuchs Fuchs, Gresham, 2001 Kellam et al.,
  1998)

35
Empirical Support for RTI

• What Has Not Worked
• Diagnosis and placement does not connect to
  effective instructionassessing for cognitive
  deficits does not link to ways to remediate
  deficits and improve student outcomes
• No differences in effective instruction and
  intervention for low achieving students with or
  without IQ/achievement discrepancies (effective
  instruction is effective instruction)
• (Fletcher et al., 1994 Reschly Ysseldyke
  2002 Tilly et al., 1999)

36
Advantages of RTI

• From research and practice, across many settings
  (Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, South Carolina)
• Prevention and early intervention for problems
• Matching intensity of intervention to severity of
  need
• Integration of general education and special
  education services
• Reduction of identification biases, over- and
  under-representation issues (seen as strong
  approach by OCR)
• Strong focus on student outcomes

37
Implications of Changes Anticipating Some Common
Comments and Questions

• More students will qualify and there will be
  inconsistencies across schools, districts, and
  states
• National/state data show existing inconsistency
• In states and districts implementing approach,
  has been no increase in students identified
• Services based on comprehensive, systematic data
  on intervention need

38
Common Questions/Comments

• Intervention takes too much time the
  intervention process delays identification
• Problems are identified and intervened with early
• Progress monitoring is frequent to assure child
  is progressing, or decision to move to more
  intensive level
• Identification of need for more intensive
  intervention is data-based link to
  identification and IEP is natural progression

39
Common Questions/Concerns

• Due process complaints will increase
• In states/districts/schools that have implemented
  tiered intervention model, due process complaints
  have not increased (decreases documented
  state-wide in Iowa)
• With early, frequent parent involvement and focus
  on research-based interventions, frequent
  progress monitoring, and data-based decisions,
  high level of parent satisfaction has been seen

40
Common Questions/Comments

• We wont need school psychologists (or we will
  need more of them)
• Evidence from state-wide implementation (Iowa)
  and from several regional examples (OH, IL, SC)
  shows that there is no reduction in school
  psychologists, and depending on existing use and
  services, often do hire more (more valued for
  comprehensive role)

41
Common Questions/Comments

• Need to assess psychological processing for SLD
• Federal definition does not use language
  psychological processing
• LD Panel (OSEP, 2002) consensus statement that
  systematically measuring processing difficulties
  and their link to treatment is not yet feasible.
• Recent research on neurobiology physiological
  changes follow effective instruction and learning

42
Common Questions/Comments

• Need to assess ability for SLD
• No federal requirement for test of ability
  language is assessment
• Methods for exclusionary consideration (ruling
  out mental retardation) consideration of
  adaptive behavior
• Consideration of sources of evidence for
  ability in broad sense

43
Research Conclusions on IQ Use in Eligibility
Determination

• IQ tests given to young children are
  comparatively not good predictors of later
  reading difficulties. Furthermore, IQ is not a
  strong indicator of how well a young child will
  respond to intervention programs for reading.
  Therefore, I do not recommend IQ tests as
  essential for early identification of boys and
  girls at risk for reading difficulty. (Shaywitz,
  2003, p. 147).
• IQ test performance does not predict performance
  on state accountability assessments (McGrew
  Evans, 2004)

44
Federal Definition

• Specific learning disability means a disorder in
  one or more of the basic psychological processes
  involved in understanding or in using language,
  spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an
  imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read,
  write, spell or do mathematical calculations

45
Federal Definition (cont.)

• including conditions such as perceptual
  disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain
  dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental
  aphasiaThe term does not include learning
  problems that are primarily the result of visual,
  hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental
  retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of
  environmental, cultural, or economic
  disadvantage.

46
Approaching SLD Eligibility from an RTI
Perspective Whats Needed for Successful
Implementation

• Effective use and documentation of
• Problem solving
• Implementation of scientifically-based
  instruction and intervention at multiple tiers
• Data-based decision making at all tiers
• Flexible, needs-based services delivery

47
Challenges in Implementation

• Need for building capacity supporting
  school-wide and systems change
• Planning for professional development needs
  within RTI model
• Role changes
• Services delivery needs (services based on needs,
  data, flexibility)
• Research to practice gap

48
Considerations and Next Steps for ODE

• Supporting LEAs in implementation of RTI
• Existing partners, models, resources (SIG,
  SERRCs, experiences of SW Ohio partners)
• Existing NCLB initiatives and supports (general
  education linkages)
• Partnerships with other states and within Ohio
  NASDSE resources
• Areas for learning (resources, visitations with
  existing models)

49
Resources and References

• Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
  Education (July, 2002) (www.ed.gov/inits/commissio
  nsboards/whspecialeducation/)
• LD National Summit Panel (2002)
  (www.air.org/ldsummit/)
• National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
  (www.nrcld.org)

50
Resources and References

• National Academy of Sciences/National Research
  Council Report on Minority Students in Special
  and Gifted Education (2002) Donovan, M.S.
  Cross, C.T. (Eds.) (www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html
  )

51
Resources and References

• McGrew, K. Evans, J. (2004). Expectations for
  students with cognitive disabilities Is the cup
  half empty or half full. NCEO Synthesis Report
  55.
• Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. NY
  Knopf.