Response to Intervention Why Now How The quality of a school as a learning community can be measured

1
Response to InterventionWhy Now?How?The
quality of a school as a learning community can
be measured by how effectively it addresses the
needs of struggling students. (Wright, 2006)

• Julie Zeilstra, M.A.
• Educational Diagnostician (Conroe ISD)
• Adjunct ProfessorLanguage, Literacy and Special
  Populations (Sam Houston State University)
• B.A., PsychologyHealth and Development (Stanford
  University)
• M.A., Physical Activity and Educational Services
  (The Ohio State University)
• Educational Diagnostician Certification (Sam
  Houston State University)

2
Case Study Suzie

• Suzie is a first grade student who is struggling
  in reading, writing, and math. Suzie completed
  kindergarten not meeting end of year grade-level
  expectations in many areas. She could identify
  only 6 uppercase letters and 3 lowercase letters
  and could not name any corresponding letter
  sounds. Suzie could only spell her first name
  but often forgot a letter or 2. Suzie entered
  first grade and after administration of the
  Beginning of Year assessments, her teacher met
  with her administrators, stating that this child
  was not at all ready for the first grade
  curriculum and needed to be returned for a second
  year in kindergarten to learn the foundation
  skills. Suzie was sent back to kindergarten for
  her second year. Suzie continued to struggle
  during her second year in kindergarten. Her
  parents asked the school if her daughter could
  receive some one on one or small group help, and
  they were told that the district does not begin
  remedial intervention until first grade. The
  parents were assured that Suzie would receive
  individualized care by her teacher. Suzie ended
  her second year in kindergarten knowing 18
  uppercase and 16 lowercase letters and only 8
  letter sounds. She could identify rhyming words
  but could not identify initial, medial or ending
  sounds in words. She could not count syllables
  in words or rapidly name colors or objects when
  asked. She could read only 4 high frequency
  words. Suzie moved on to first grade and was
  referred for special education after 4 weeks.
  She did not qualify for serviceswith an IQ of
  84, the Diagnostician stated that Suzie was
  achieving at a level commensurate with her IQ.
  Suzie continued to struggle through first grade
  participating in small group remedial reading
  programs, and she was eventually placed in second
  grade with failing grades in reading, writing,
  and math.

3
KWL Activity

• Response to Intervention
• KNOW (K) write down 3 things you already know
  about Response to Intervention.
• WANT TO KNOW (W) write down 3 things you want to
  know/learn about RTI.
• You will have 3 minutes.

4
Why the Need for Change?

• Substantial data exists suggesting the need for
  change.
• Datastudents in general
• More than 33 of children struggle to learn to
  read, and the prevalence of significant reading
  disabilities in children is 17-20 (NAEP, 2003).
• 1 in 3 students in 4th grade reads below the
  basic level of proficiency (US Department of
  Education, 2005).
• Annually, about 5 of students in grades 9-12
  leave school without graduating and 11 of youth
  ages 16-24 were found to have dropped out of
  school during the most recent national census
  (NCES, 2001).
• In the last 3 decades, US students on average
  have improved a little in math, science, and
  writing while remaining stable in reading (NCES,
  2003b, 2004a).
• The percentage of students reading at low levels
  has remained relatively stable over the past 10
  years (NCES, 2003).
• About 70 of 9-year-olds and 21 of 13-year-olds
  cannot perform basic numerical operations and
  simple problem-solving in math (NCES, 2003a).
• 22 of 17-year-olds do not achieve basic
  proficiency in writing (NCES, 2003a).
• Several studies show that children who are poor
  readers at the end of first grade almost never
  acquire average-level reading skills by the end
  of elementary school (Juel, C., 1988 Francis,
  D.J., et al., 1996 Shaywitz, S.E., et al.,
  1999).
• 74 of poor readers in the third grade remain
  poor readers through 9th grade (Fletcher Lyon,
  1998).

5

• Datastudents with disabilities
• People with disabilities are twice as likely not
  to complete high school or college than people
  without disabilities (National Organization on
  Disability, 2004).
• The employment rate for people with disabilities
  is only 35 compared to 78 for people without
  disabilities (National Organization on
  Disability, 2004).
• People with disabilities are 3 times more likely
  to live in poverty, 2 times more likely to have
  inadequate transportation, and 2 times more
  likely to go without needed healthcare (National
  Organization on Disability, 2004).
• Approximately 2 of students receiving special
  education services for reading disabilities will
  complete a 4-year college program (Lyon, 2001).
• Dataidentification of disabilities
• Approximately 10 of students in the US receive
  special education services Approximately half of
  these students are identified with a Learning
  Disability (Vaughn Fuchs, 2003).
• From 1975-2000, the number of students identified
  with LD has tripled (US Department of Education,
  2005).
• Prevalence rates for LD vary widely throughout
  the states, ranging from 3 in Kentucky to about
  10 in Rhode Island (Reschly et al., 2003).
• The majority of students who have been identified
  with LD have reading problems (Swanson, Harris
  Graham, 2003).
• Some estimates suggest that approximately 90 of
  students with learning disabilities lack phonemic
  awareness (Stanovich, 1986).
• Students from diverse populations are
  disproportionately over-represented in many
  categories of disability (US Department of
  Education, 2005).

6

• Datatraditional remediation efforts
• Intervention resources are traditionally limited
  in schools.
• Intervention is often provided too late to
  benefit struggling students.
• Intervention has traditionally focused on
  remediation once a child is already significantly
  behind his peers.
• Intervention is not provided until the student
  experiences chronic and profound failure (Wright,
  2006).
• Intervention is traditionally one-size-fits-all
  and not individualized to student need and
  learning style.
• Monitoring of effectiveness has traditionally
  occurred at the end of the interventionan
  ineffective intervention may continue for weeks
  and weeks with no to little positive impact on
  the childs performance.
• Intervention efforts have failed to address
  emotional/behavioral deficits.
• Remedial (process of correcting a deficiency)
  programs have not been successful once a student
  is labeled remedial, he or she tends to remain
  remedial (Allington Walmsley, 1995).
• Placement in a special education class resulted
  in lower achievement for students with mental
  retardation and students whose IQ are between 75
  and 90 (Kavale Forness, 1999).
• Remedial efforts have traditionally focused on
  the child as the problemthat there is something
  wrong with the student (disability).
• Approximately 60 of students are identified too
  late to derive full benefit from special
  education services (OSERS, 2001).

7
What are the Changes?

• Regular Education Initiative (REI)
• Federal policy focused on having as many students
  as possible remain in general education.
• Goal was to reduce the numbers of students in
  special education.
• Students with disabilities dont need separate,
  specialized teaching in a special education
  setting.
• Research showed that REI did not reduce the
  number of students in special education (NCES,
  2004).
• Inclusive Education
• Schools focused on how and where special
  education services were being provided.
• Were we truly following the IDEA principle of
  Least Restrictive Environment (LRE)?
• Goal was to provide special education services
  and supports in general education settings.
• Most general education teachers were supportive
  of inclusion but were not confident in their
  training to meet the needs of students with
  disabilities (Villa Thousand, 1996).
• Many general education teachers felt they needed
  additional training to make inclusion work
  (Murphy, 1996).
• No Child Left Behind Act2001 (NCLB)
• Goal was to improve learning outcomes for all
  students.
• Requirements for programs to be funded under NCLB
  is evidence of effectiveness.
• Requires states to monitor progress during
  program implementation (RTI).
• Focus on providing early intervention to at-risk
  students to improve academic readiness (Reading
  First, Early Reading First, Even Start).

8
What are the ChangesCont.

• Individuals with Disabilities Education
  Improvement Act2004 (IDEIA 2004)
• Many significant revisions to the federal law
  that governs special education.
• Focus was to improve outcomes for students with
  disabilities.
• Also has specific wording requiring
  evidence-based practices.
• Revised the eligibility criteria for
  identification of learning disabilities.
• Allows Local Education Agencies to use a model
  that assesses a childs response to scientific,
  research-based instruction to identify the
  presence of a learning disability (RTI Model).
• No longer requires states to use a Discrepancy
  Model to identify the presence of a learning
  disability.
• Response to Intervention (RTI)
• Recent initiative to reduce the number of
  students identified with learning disabilities.
• General Educationtargeting at-risk students
  early and providing preventive and proactive
  intervention.
• Within the next 2 to 3 years, education will
  change rather dramatically because of the
  implementation of Response to Intervention
  (Bender Shores, 2007).
• Teachers will be required to apply
  research-proven educational interventions,
  monitor student progress daily or weekly, and
  plan additional/more intense interventions for
  students who are not progressing adequately.
• In short, this is not merely another initiative
  this move to RTI promises to reform education in
  very significant ways, as educators in every
  classroom instruct and monitor progress on an
  individual basis for many of their students.
  (Bender Shores, 2007).
• RTI is crucial given the data proving that we are
  leaving many children behind.
• RTI requires schools and teachers to adopt a
  mission and belief that ALL students CAN and WILL
  learnit is our jobs to layer on interventions to
  make sure that ALL students learn.

9
Activity Why do Students Under-Achieve?

• Think about the reasons children struggle in
  school?
• What are some factors that contribute to
  under-achievement?
• Think about teacher characteristics, student
  characteristics, and sociological factors (home
  environment) that can contribute to a childs
  difficulties in school?
• Write down as many factors as you can think
  ofyou will have 2 minutes.
• Low student motivation
• Lack of pre-school or day-care opportunities
• Lack of language-rich early experiences
• Lack of pre-readiness skills
• Excessive absences
• Frequent moves
• Lack of parental support/involvement
• Crisis in the home
• 2nd language learner
• Attention difficulties/behavioral difficulties
• Poor teacher-student relationship
• Low teacher expectations
• Low teacher motivation
• Lack of evidence-based instruction
• Poor classroom management/behavior management

10
Learning DisabilityDiscrepancy Model

• Learning Disability disorder in 1 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. (IDEIA 2004, Section 602A).
• The traditional model for identification of a
  learning disability was the Discrepancy
  Modelrequires presence of a severe difference
  between ones overall IQ and ones achievement
  (16 points has often been used as the criteria
  for severe discrepancy).
• Typically, children with LD (under this model)
  have average to above average IQ with
  lower-than-expected academic achievement
  (unexplained under-achievement).
• Children who have average IQ should be average in
  their academic achievement in every area.
• If a child has average IQ but is under-achieving
  (16 or more points for example), that is a
  learning disability.
• Many studies have shown that the discrepancy
  model does not reliably identify those students
  with learning disabilities (Fletcher, Morris,
  Lyon, 2003 Glutting, McDermott, Watkins, Kush,
  Konold, 1997 Stanovich, 2000 Spear-Swerling,
  Sternberg, 1996).

11
Criticisms of Discrepancy Model

• LD vs. LA (Low Achievers)does discrepancy model
  differentiate between these?
• Are we identifying the disorder is a basic
  psychological process.?
• Research shows that as many poor readers have no
  discrepancy between their IQ and achievement as
  have a discrepancy.
• IQ scores are not the best indicators of ability.
• Limited indicator of ability before age 10
  (Salvia Ysseldyke, 2004).
• Modestly predictive of ability after age 10
  (Sattler, 2001).
• Very poor predictor of reading skill (Graham
  Harris, 1997 Stanovich, 1993).
• FSIQs account for only about 35 to 50 of ones
  total achievement variance (Glutting, Youngstrom,
  Ward, Ward Hale, 1997).
• Students who have no discrepancy but are severely
  under-achieving do not qualify for services.
• IQ (92)-Ach (75)17 (LD)
• IQ (84)-Ach (70)14 (not LD)
• Wait to fail modeloften requires chronic school
  failure before qualifying for services.
• Provides no useful information about why the
  student is struggling and how to help him.
• Lack of uniformitydifferent states use different
  formulas.
• given the number of composites and subtest
  scores obtained in a typical evaluation (upward
  of 40 or more), it would be surprising if at
  least one significant discrepancy was not found.
  (Fuchs, 2003).
• Based on single test scores at one point in
  timereliability?

12
RTI Use in Identification of LD

• Local Education Agencies may use a model that
  assesses a childs response to scientific,
  research-based instruction to identify the
  presence of a learning disability.
• An underachieving student will be given
  evidence-based intervention in the area of
  underachievement.
• Progress will be monitored at least weekly.
• Rate of learning will be compared to grade level
  peers.
• The premise here is that Low Achievers (LA)
  should respond to evidence-based intervention
  (because research has proven increased student
  achievement).
• The students with true learning disabilities (LD)
  will not respond at an adequate rate to these
  evidence-based interventions (because they truly
  have learning disabilities).
• Dual-Discrepancy Model (Fuchs, 2003)
• Documented underachievement (discrepancy in
  performance) compared to peers.
• Documented discrepancy in rate of learning
  despite research-based interventions.

13
Dual-Discrepancy Model (Fuchs, 2003)
14
RTI in General Education

• Although RTI has been proposed as an alternative
  method in the identification of learning
  disabilities for eligibility for special
  education services, RTIs true value lies in
  general education.
• Simply put, Response to Intervention is, A
  process of implementing high-quality,
  scientifically validated instructional practices
  based on learner needs, monitoring student
  progress, and adjusting instruction based on the
  students response. (Bender Shores, 2007).
• RTI is a model of prevention, not a model of
  remediation, and not a wait to fail model of
  interventionat risk children are targeted early
  and are provided with specific interventions to
  address their weaknesses.
• RTI reforms must, Move the system toward early
  identification and swift intervention, using
  scientifically-based instruction and teaching
  methods. (Commission Report, 2002).
• RTI principles
• Every child is assessed several times per year in
  critical academic and/or behavioral
  domainsuniversal screening.
• At-risk children are identified early in their
  schooling (kindergarten/first grade).
• Interventions are individually designed and
  provided to close the gap with grade-level peers.
• Additional interventions are layered on if
  student is not making adequate rate of progress.
• Student progress is assessed weekly, bi-weekly,
  or daily and the data is used to guide
  instruction and decision-making.
• Implementation of RTI in general education
  classrooms, Will result in enhanced instruction
  for all students..and will offer a renewed
  emphasis on best practice instruction for all
  students. (Bender Shores, 2007).

15
RTI and Three Tiered Model of Intervention

• RTI requires the use of a tiered model of
  interventionmost researchers support a
  three-tiered model but some LEAs use a
  four-tiered model.

Tier III (Tertiary) serves approximately 5 of
students intense, individual interventions
typically based on assessment (dyslexia
assessment psycho-educational evaluation)
Tier II (Secondary) serves approximately 15 of
students targeted, small-group interventions
at-risk students who have not responded
adequately to Tier I interventions
Tier I (Primary) should be effective for 80 to
85 of children core academic and behavioral
curriculum large group and small group
interventions for all students evidence-based
teaching methods and materials (general education
curriculum)
16
Tier I

• Tier I consists of the core curriculum (academic
  behavioral) that is provided to all students.
• Evidence-based instructional materials.
• Evidence-based teaching methods and strategies.
• Frequent progress monitoring of student
  achievement that will guide instruction,
  intervention, and decision-making.
• Tier I interventions should be effective for
  approximately 80 to 85 of children.
• Tier I interventions are proactive and preventive
  with implementation of evidence-based curricula,
  classroom management techniques, and teaching
  strategiesmethods that are proven to increase
  student achievement.

17
Tier II

• Tier II interventions are implemented for
  students who are not responding at an appropriate
  rate with implementation of Tier I interventions.
• Typically serves approximately 15 of students.
• Tier II interventions are targeted interventions
  for at-risk students.
• Typically provided in small groups (3 to 5
  students) inside or outside the classroom.
• More frequent, more intense, and more targeted
  intervention.
• Can be provided by general education teacher or
  other professionals in school.
• Typically involves some outside assistance from
  other teachers and/or experts in subjects areas
  or behavior (Bender Shores, 2007).
• Student progress is monitored frequently and data
  is utilized to guide instructional decisions.

18
2 Models of Tier II Interventions

• Many researchers define 2 models of Tier II
  interventions (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan, Young,
  2003 Bender Shores, 2007).
• Standard Protocolstand alone interventions.
• Standard group intervention programs.
• Typically address frequent referral concerns.
• Same intervention for all students.
• Typically outside the classroom (but can be done
  in the classroom).
• One size fits all approach (all students who are
  at-risk is reading get the same intervention).
• Efficient method of providing interventions for
  large numbers of struggling students.
• Problem-Solving Model.
• Intervention is developed based on individual
  student need and profile (not one size fits all).
• Interventions must be evidence-based.
• Intervention is developed using problem-solving
  process such as DPIE (Bender Shores, 2007)
• Ddefine the problem
• Pplan the intervention
• Iimplement the intervention
• Eevaluate the students progress
• Model typically preferred by educators.
• Requires a lot more time, staff participation,
  etc.not efficient for targeting interventions
  for large numbers of struggling students.

19
RTI Team/Intervention Assistance Team Guides
Transition Through Tier II

• Typically, students who are not responding
  adequately in Tier I (at-risk) are referred to
  the campus RTI Team/Intervention Assistance Team.
• The greatest strength of any RTI Team is the
  diversity of experience, skills, and knowledge
  that its combined membership can draw upon to
  identify the best intervention plan for a
  student. (Wright, 2006).
• RTI Teams should consist of professionals who are
  experts in various areas of student need
  general education teachers, special education
  teachers, reading specialists, Diagnosticians,
  Counselors, Speech Pathologists, School
  Psychologists, behavior specialists, math
  specialists, parents, etc.
• RTI Team responsibilities
• Identifying and defining the students presenting
  problem(s) and strengths.
• Identifying and defining the hypothesized cause
  of the problem(s).
• Selecting intervention(s) matched to student need
  and profile Individualizing standard, existing
  interventions to student need and profile.
• Designing the intervention plan what
  intervention who will implement the
  intervention frequency, duration, and setting of
  the intervention academic or behavioral goal
  method and frequency of progress monitoring
  method of sharing information with parents.
• Periodically meeting to review student progress
  (data) and make recommendations based on data
  (discontinue intervention revise intervention
  change intervention add on another
  intervention).
• Provide ongoing support and collaboration to
  classroom teacher.

20
Tier III

• A small number of students who have not responded
  adequately despite Tier I and Tier II
  interventions may be referred to Tier III.
• This is typically when a student is referred for
  individualized assessment for special education.
• May also be more intense, more frequent, more
  targeted intervention.
• Tier III interventions typically target
  approximately 5 of students.
• Tier III interventions
• Typically assessment-based.
• Intensive supports.
• More frequent (daily).
• Individualized supports.
• Typically one on one intervention but some
  districts allow groups of one to three.

21
Key 1 Quality and Fidelity of Tier I
Interventions

• Remember, Tier I is the general education core
  curriculum provided to all students.
• If Tier I is implemented with Quality and
  Fidelity, it should be effective for 85 to 90
  of students.
• Tier I includes the following
• Academic Curriculum
• Evidence-based curriculum adopted by
  school/districtmust be scientifically validated
  curriculum for each subject area (Quality).
• Implementation of curriculum in a scientifically
  validated manneris the teacher implementing the
  curriculum in a manner consistent with the
  recommendations of the publishers of that
  curriculum (Fidelity)?
• Classroom Management/Behavior Management
• Evidence-based classroom management and behavior
  management methods proven to increase student
  engagement and pro-social behaviorPositive
  Behavior Supports (Quality).
• Consistent and correct implementation and use of
  these methods (Fidelity).
• Instructional Strategies/Methods
• Evidence-based instructional strategies proven to
  increase student engagement and
  achievementDifferentiated Instruction, Active
  Student Responding, Multiple Intelligences, etc
  (Quality).
• Consistent and correct implementation and use of
  these methods (Fidelity).
• Instructional Strategies/Methods for Each
  Subject
• Evidence-based teaching strategies and methods
  specific to each subject area that are proven to
  increase student achievement--activating prior
  knowledge, repeated reading, paired reading,
  reading actively, QAR, fluency practice daily,
  self-graphing of fluency (Quality).
• Consistent and correct implementation and use of
  these methods (Fidelity).
• We must ensure the quality and fidelity of Tier I!

22
Why Monitor Quality and Fidelity?

• The relationship between content knowledge and
  student learning and achievement is mediated by
  teaching effectiveness. (Foorman, Carlson
  Santi, 2007).
• Implementation of evidence-based instruction is a
  function of the attributes of the intervention
  itself (Quality) and the high quality
  implementation by the teacher (Fidelity).
• Studies show that teachers instructional
  strategies moderate student achievement.
• If a specific intervention is implemented
  incorrectly or not at all, the student does not
  have a true opportunity to respond to
  intervention. (Wright, 2007).
• Taylor, Pearson, Peterson Rodriquez (2003)
  examined instructional practices and reading
  outcomes
• Higher level questioning, modeling, coaching, and
  active student responding correlated with
  increased student achievement.
• Foorman, Seals, et al. (2003) studied teacher
  effectiveness
• Active student responding, student engagement,
  and less wasted time increased student
  achievement.
• Time spent on spelling instruction did not
  predict spelling achievement b/c the instruction
  was workbook activity driven.
• We cannot assume that all teachers have the
  knowledge, ability, and motivation to
  consistently and correctly implement the
  curriculum with evidence-based strategies.
• We must take the necessary steps to make sure
  that every teacher is given the training,
  guidance, support, and feedback needed to
  implement Tier I with quality and fidelity.

23
Plan To Ensure Quality and FidelityTier I

• Professional Development
• Studies show that teacher knowledge gained
  through professional development relates
  positively to student achievement (Foorman
  Moats, 2004 McCutchen et al., 2002).
• Studies also show that ongoing professional
  development can reduce the number of at-risk
  students in classrooms (OConnor, 2000).
• Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Elbaum et al. (2004)
  studied results of Tier I professional
  development for kindergarten teachers and
  delivery of Tier I reading instruction.
• Higher scores across 5 assessed reading skills
  than students in control group (no professional
  development).
• Mentors
• Studies show that pairing master teachers with
  inexperienced teachers to provide ongoing support
  in the implementation of curricula increases
  teacher effectiveness (Foorman Moats, 2004).
• Walk Throughs and Performance Feedback
• Studies show that full implementation of
  interventions occur when (Greenwood, Kamps,
  Jerry, Linebarger, 2007)
• Teachers have strong support from administrators.
• Teachers and administrators communicate early and
  frequently during implementation (at least 10
  times).
• The data is overwhelming regarding the positive
  impact of corrective feedback on performance.
• The data is overwhelming regarding the impact of
  positive reinforcement and schedules of
  reinforcement.
• Beginning of yearpredictable and frequent
  walk-throughs.
• As the year progressesfade to unpredictable and
  intermittent walk-throughs.

24
Plan To Ensure Quality and FidelityTier I Cont.

• Fidelity Checklists/Intervention Checklist
  (Wright, 2007)
• Quick appraisal of key features of instruction
  (differentiation, active student engagement,
  positive behavior supports, etc).
• Can be completed during walk-through and used
  with teacher to provide performance feedback.
• Can be completed by teacher (self-appraisal)much
  research indicates the positive impact of
  self-monitoring on performance (Wright, 2007).
• Can be used to monitor teacher performance over
  time.
• Data can be used in end of year appraisal.
• Teacher Appraisal
• Heavy focus on quality and fidelity of Tier I
  instruction.
• Focus on performance over time and response to
  performance feedback given throughout the year.
• Walk-through observations and checklist data
  included in end of year appraisal.
• Lesson Plans
• Evidence-based requirements for every lesson
  differentiation, active student responding,
  positive behavior supports.
• School-Wide Positive Behavior Supports
• Commitment to implementation of evidence-based
  behavior management strategies proven to increase
  student engagement, promote pro-social behaviors,
  and increase student achievement.

25
Plan to Ensure Quality and Fidelity of Tier
ICont.

• Develop a Tier I Intervention Bank--evidence-based
  materials, strategies, and interventions
  (Wright, 2007)
• Classroom Management/Behavior Management Methods
  (Positive Behavior Supports).
• Instructional Strategies/MethodsGeneral (Active
  Student Responding, Differentiated Instruction,
  Collaborative Learning).
• Instructional Strategies/MethodsReading.
• Instructional Strategies/MethodsWriting.
• Instructional Strategies/MethodsMath.
• Develop and require a Tier I Intervention Plan
  for lower 20 of students
• Definition of academic/behavioral
  deficit(s)problem area(s).
• Definition of academic/behavioral
  strengthsassets.
• Results of required screenersmotivation check,
  interest inventory, learning style inventory.
• Definition of academic/behavioral goal(s) and
  timeframe.
• Description of evidence-based intervention(s),
  based on student profile, that will be
  implemented (what, who, how often, where, and how
  data will be collected).
• Home intervention plan (required conference with
  parent).
• Administrator Support
• The backing of educational leaders at the
  district and building level is absolutely central
  to the success of RTI. (Wright, 2007).
• Wright (2007) lists critical minimum
  requirements
• Allocation of resources to purchase intervention
  and progress monitoring resources.
• Staff time to allow regular intervention team
  meetings.
• Staff development to train staff about RTI.

26
Key 2 Quality and Fidelity of Tier II
Interventions

• Remember, Tier II Interventions are more intense,
  and more targeted small group interventions for
  students who have not responded adequately
  despite Tier I interventions.
• The number of students needing Tier II
  interventions should be small if Tier I
  interventions are implemented with quality and
  fidelity (less than 15 of students).
• Students spend the majority of their school day
  in Tier I (general education curriculum) so if
  Tier I is not implemented with quality and
  fidelity, gains made in Tier II are not likely to
  be maintained or generalized.
• Develop a strong, multi-disciplinary RTI Team
  (Wright, 2006)
• May require a re-definition of roles of many
  professionals.
• Must consist of campus experts in the area of
  concern for each child.
• RTI Team meeting between Tier I and Tier II
• Kovaleski (2003) defined the role of the RTI
  team
• Identifying and analyzing the nature of the
  students presenting problem(s).
• Selecting interventions matched to the students
  profile of need.
• Collecting and analyzing ongoing
  progress-monitoring data to judge whether the
  intervention plan is effective.
• Revise intervention plan based on data.

27
Key 2 Quality and Fidelity of Tier II
InterventionsCont.

• Develop a strong Tier II Intervention Plan
• Definition of student need(s), strengths, and
  baseline levels of performance.
• Definition of expected level(s) of
  performancegrade level peers.
• Hypothesized cause(s) of student weakness(s).
• Data from required screeners motivation check,
  interest inventory, learning style inventory.
• Definition of academic/behavioral goal and
  timeframe.
• Tier II Intervention (who, what, when, where,
  ratio, and method/frequency of progress
  monitoring) based on student need and profile.
• If stand-alone program is used, team will outline
  methods to individualize to student profile.
• Tier I Interventions to assist with acquisition,
  maintenance and generalization of targeted
  skills.
• Parent notification and involvement.
• Timeline for review of plan.
• Assignment of go to expert to provide ongoing
  collaboration and support to classroom teacher.
• Develop Evidence-Based Tier II Interventions and
  Intervention Bank.
• Evidence-based Tier II interventions for
  behavior/pro-social skills.
• Evidence-based Tier II interventions for each
  academic subject area.
• Diverse interventions that target various causes
  of under-achievement or behavior difficulties.
• Continue the Fidelity strategies of Tier I
  (walk-throughs, checklists, etc.)

28
Early Data on RTI

• Data from early reading RTI programs in Iowa
  showed that fewer students were ultimately placed
  in special education programs after
  implementation of RTI (Tilly, 2003).
• 41 reduction in kindergarten
• 34 reduction in first grade
• 25 reduction in second grade
• 19 reduction in third grade
• Extensive scientific research shows how early
  intervention for students identified at risk in
  reading has impressive results (Snow, et al.,
  1998).
• RTI procedures are particularly helpful in
  identifying students with learning difficulties
  in the early primary grades (OConnor, 2003).
• Many students who's learning difficulties were
  identified in first grade were able to be
  successful in third grade after intervention
  (OConnor, 2003).
• By using RTI with pre-k students, teachers were
  able to prevent some special education placements
  altogether (Tilly, 2003).
• RTI procedures helped third grade students
  improve their reading skills significantly
  (Torgeson, 2003).
• RTI program in New York (Vellutino et al., 2006)
  targeting early reading intervention
• Of the students (at-risk) who received
  kindergarten only or kindergarten and first grade
  intervention, 84 performed in the average range
  on reading measures by the end of third grade.

29
Early RTI Data Cont.

• RTI program for at-risk students in mathfirst
  grade (Fuchs et al., 2005)
• Tier II interventions tutoring and computer
  practice (40 minutes3 times/wk) in groups of 2
  or 3.
• Tutoring concrete-representational-abstract
  method.
• Results
• Improved performance on computation, concepts,
  applications, and completion of word problems.
• Growth of the at-risk students was, on some
  measures, equal to or greater than than students
  who were not at-risk.
• This early intervention reduced the prevalence of
  math disability by an average of 35.
• RTI program for 3rd grade at-risk students in
  math (Fuchs et al., 2006)
• Tier I whole class implementation of Hot Math
  curriculum (Fuchs et al., 2002).
• Tier II Hot Math tutoring (30 minutes3
  times/wk) in groups of 2 to 4.
• Results
• Vast improvement on all measures for the majority
  of students.
• Substantial impact on reducing the number of
  children at risk for math disability in third
  grade.
• RTI program for reading in first grade (McMaster
  et al., 2003)
• Tier II Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)
  or PALSfluency.
• Non-responders were put into more intensive PALS
  tutoring with an adult.
• Results significant improvements in phonological
  awareness, decoding, word rec., and fluency.

30
More Early Data

• OConnor (2000) studied 3 tier model from
  1997-1999 in 3 high-poverty schools.
• Tier I professional development alone reduced
  the percentage of at-risk kindergarteners from
  40 to 30.
• Tier II small group intervention reduced at-risk
  kindergarteners to 18.
• Greenwood, Maheady, Delquadri (2002) studied
  RTI in a low SES elementary school.
• Interventionclass-wide peer tutoring program for
  reading, spelling, and math.
• 90 min/day4 days/week.
• Significant improvement in student engagement.
• Reduction in behavior problems.
• Significant academic improvements compared to
  control groups.
• Higher levels of achievement, lower drop out
  rates, and lower use of special education
  services in middle school and high school
  (compared to control groups).
• Vaughn, Linan-Thompson, Kouzekanani (2003) gave
  the same reading intervention to students in 3
  group sizes (1 to 1, 1 to 3, and 1 to 10).
• Students in 1 to 1 and 1 to 3 groups made
  considerable more gains than in the 1 to 10
  groups.
• No significant differences were found between the
  1 to 1 and 1 to 3 groups.
• Elbaum, Vaugh, Hughes, Moody (2000) studied
  many interventions and found that 1 to 1
  intervention yielded no different outcomes than
  small group intervention.

31
RTI Data--Behavior

• RTI for behavior for 2nd grade students
  (Fairbanks, 2007)
• Baseline school-wide Positive Behavior Supports
  (school-wide expectations, positive
  reinforcement-tickets, predictable consequences
  for rule infractions).
• Tier I intervention Check-In and Check-Out group
  intervention (Hawken Horner, 2003)review of
  school rules, individual goals, opportunity to
  earn points, praise and corrective feedback
  daily.
• Fidelity once a week the counselor would visit
  each classroom and assess accuracy (fidelity
  checklist used).
• Tier II intervention Functional Behavior
  Assessment done to identify problem behavior,
  antecedents and consequences influencing the
  behavior/ A function based individualized
  behavior support plan was implemented.
• Fidelity Fidelity checklist to ensure that
  behavior plan was being implemented.
• Results (10 students in study)
• 4 students responded to Tier I and did not need
  further intervention.
• 4 students moved on to Tier II and 2 students
  stayed in Tier I as controls.
• Problem behavior was significantly reduced for
  all 4 students in Tier II.
• RTI for dangerous behavior in a Head Start
  setting (Barnett, 2006)
• Tier IPositive Behavior Supports implemented by
  classroom teacherpositively stated rules that
  were posted, taught, practiced, and reviewed
  daily consequence hierarchy positive
  reinforcement, high interest activities to
  increase student engagement.
• FidelityStandardized behavioral code (ICC) to
  assess teachers implementation.
• Tier IIembedded skills practice for additional
  opportunities to practice problem solving skills,
  individualized, systematic teacher praise for
  appropriate behavior.
• Tier IIIsafety plan for student, social story
  use with student, verbal script to be used at
  school and at home for student.
• ResultsDangerous or aggressive behaviors
  decreased to 0 for the student and her peers

32
Conclusion

• Traditionally, schools have lowered the
  expectations or modified the curriculum to
  accommodate struggling learners.
• The student was viewed as the problem and we must
  work around that.
• Eventually, when the student gets far enough
  behind, he may qualify for special education.
• Some Intervention Assistance Teams lost sight of
  their primary goal to collaborate and develop
  interventions to help children and to keep
  children out of special education.
• Many IAT meetings were transformed into referral
  meetings for special education testing.
• RTI views a childs weaknesses as a result of
  student-environment interactions.
• To change the outcome, we must change our
  intervention.
• What are we doing or not doing? What must we do
  or change to help this student?
• The child is not viewed as the problem.
• Solutions are made through problem solving,
  individualized interventions, layering on
  interventions, and monitoring students progress
  frequently to guide our instruction.
• RTI is not another initiative that will
  eventually fade away in a few years.
• The data regarding student outcomes indicates the
  urgent need for change.
• Too many children are falling through the cracks.
• Special education placements are not benefiting
  many childrenthey are falling further and
  further behind.
• Frequent progress monitoring and implementation
  of specific educational interventions based on
  that monitoringthe essence of RTIhas been
  proven to be among the best instructional
  practices available. (Bender Shores, 2007).

33
Case Study Revisited

• Think about how things may have been different
  for Suzie if her school was utilizing a RTI
  approach.
• A universal screener (early in her first
  kindergarten year) showed that Suzie was in the
  lower 10 of the class in key early literacy
  skills. A Tier I plan was developed by her
  teacher which identified deficits in phonemic
  awareness and receptive/expressive language
  skills and strengths in visual-spatial skills
  (problem-solving with pictures, shapes, and
  manipulatives). An interest inventory revealed
  that Suzie loves puzzles, leggos, and animals.
  Suzies teacher began daily small group, in-class
  instruction and practice in multi-sensory,
  evidence-based, phonemic awareness activities.
  Suzie was also paired with a parent volunteer who
  read to Suzie every day for 20 minutes from books
  about animals. The parent volunteer was trained
  on strategies to activate Suzies prior knowledge
  prior to reading the passage. After reading the
  passage, the volunteer guided Suzie through the
  SQ3R strategy to build her language skills and
  reading comprehension. Suzies teacher used
  active student responding techniques (response
  cards and choral responding) to allow Suzie to
  get at least 20 to 25 opportunities to respond
  during instruction in every lesson. The teacher
  met with Suzies parents and they agreed to a
  home program that included 15 minutes of
  monitored practice on Starfall.com (a free online
  early reading program) every night. The school
  speech patholgist came to the parent conferenc
  and gave the parents a list of easy strategies to
  encourage language development in the home.
  Suzies progress was monitored weekly using a
  criterion referenced phonemic awareness probe and
  a story retelling probe. After 8 weeks of
  intervention, a middle of year screener showed
  that Suzie was no longer at-risk in her phonemic
  awareness skills and she was able to retell a
  story read to her with 80 accuracy. Suzie was
  behind her peers in letter identification and
  sound identification so Suzie was placed in a
  daily, 30-minute, multi-sensory phonics program
  called Saxon Phonics. By the end of
  kindergarten, Suzie was no longer at-risk in any
  area. A summer home-program was developed for
  the parents to implement.