From the Discrepancy Model to a Response to Intervention Model

1
From the Discrepancy Model to a Response to
Intervention Model

• Tanya Kort, M.A.E.
• Julie Ellis, Ph.D.
• University of Florida

2
Overview

• The General Discrepancy Model
• The General RtI Model
• Assessment Advantages
• Interpreting and using Data
• Implementing Interventions
• Monitoring Progress
• Supporting Teachers

3
The Discrepancy Model

• With regard to a traditional discrepancy model,
  learning disabilities (LD) are determined
  primarily through the administration of cognitive
  (intellectual) and academic (achievement)
  testing. LD identification and special education
  services can be provided when a severe
  discrepancy between IQ and achievement, in
  conjunction with underlying processing issues
  have been found. Each state derives its own
  formula for establishing when a discrepancy can
  be considered severe.

4
Colorado RtI Definition

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

5
Response to Intervention

• IDEA 2004 sparked renewed interest in RtI models.
• RTI- provides quality instruction and
  intervention matched to student need.

6
Some Myths about RtI

• RtI is just another process to put students into
  special education
• RtI is just a means of delaying services and
  keeping many students out of special education
• RtI will open the floodgates to special
  education
• RtI is a simple and easy process that requires
  few changes and new skills

7
RtI Paradigm Shift

• A substantive change in how we think
• about
• student learning needs
• general and special education
• assessment and evaluation
• decision-making processes
• (Waldron Hayes, 2007)

8
RtI Model Discrepancy Model

• Intervene early Wait to Fail Model
• Low inference assessment High inference
  assessment
• -Direct measures of specific Ability/achievement
• skills discrepancy processing
• Multiple/ongoing data Assessment data
  collected
• points to make decisions in limited time
  settings
• Problem solving focused Problem solving
  focused on
• on teaching/learning within-child
  variables
• interaction
• Tiered intervention Eligibility criteria
  (In/Out)
• Special education as a Special education
  as a place
• service
• (Waldron Hayes, 2007)

9
Research on IQ-AchievementDiscrepancy
Processing

• IQ and academic achievement are not independent
  of each other
• With regard to reading difficulties, poor readers
  with an IQ/Achievement discrepancy are not
  different from poor readers with no
  IQ/Achievement discrepancy
• A high degree of variability in cognitive
  processing is typical
• (Waldron Hayes, 2007)

10
Core Principals of RtI

• All children can learn
• Intervene early
• Multi tier model of service delivery
• Problem solving methodology
• Use research based and validated instruction and
  interventions
• Make decisions based on data
• Monitor student progress
• If its not working . . . Change it!

11
Assessment in RtI

• Assessment used to
• Screen and identify students not making adequate
  progress
• Identifying individual needs for designing of
  intervention/instruction
• Monitor progress

12
Advantages of RtI

• Focus on providing effective instruction (not on
  eligibility)
• Immediate intervention placement
• Data driven decisions
• Unity of general and special education

13
The General RtI Model

• Tier 1
• Standardized scope and sequence.
• Instruction for the general classroom.
• All students receive Tier 1 instruction.
• 90 minutes a day
• All students are screened and monitored
• Flexible grouping

14
The General RtI Model

• Tier 2
• Differentiated instruction in the classroom using
  evidence-based intervention programs
• Students who are struggling receive additional
  targeted instruction in small groups
• 20-30 minutes extra instruction per day
• More frequent progress monitoring

15
The General RtI Model

• Tier 3
• Additional individualized instruction targeting
  specific deficits and
• Increased instructional time (50 min/day) for
  students who are treatment resistant
• Frequent progress monitoring
• Use sustained intensive evidence-based reading
  programs

16
Skills that predict early reading development

• Catts et al (2001)
• 5 things that predict reading difficulties with
  88 accuracy
• Sentence imitation ability
• Letter Identification
• Phonological Awareness Skills
• Rapid Automized Naming of colors
• Mothers level of Education

17
Skills that predict early reading development

• Phonological Awareness (specifically phonemic
  awareness)
• Relates directly to the ability to decode and
  spell (Hogan, Catts Little, 2005)
• Much research supporting its importance in
  learning to read
• Becomes less important in middle and high school
  reading comprehension

18
Skills that predict early reading development

• Oral language skills
• Verbal discourse processing
• Rapid naming skills
• Semantic syntactic skills
• Verbal memory skills

19
Skills that predict early reading development

• Letter-sound knowledge
• Letter naming
• Phonics

20
Advantages of catching them early

• Matthew effect minimized
• Prevent failure and subsequent issues related to
  self esteem etc.
• Proactive rather than reactive
• Better use of knowledge to improve service
  provision

21
Interpreting and using data

• Must consider individual characteristics in
  addition to data such as
• SES
• LEP (or differing dialect/language in the home)
• Family history of LD
• Medical history of child
• Age/development of child
• Preschool or daycare experiences
• Home environment factors
• Parent education level
• Background knowledge

22
Interpreting and using data
23
Implementing Interventions

• Buy in
• Resources personnel, space, equipment, programs
• Scheduling Issues
• Forming groups
• Maintaining integrity

24
Monitoring Progress

• DIBELS
• CBM
• Other screening measures (e.g., ERDA, MAZE
  passages, GATES, Rigby, Fox-in-the-Box, Everyday
  Math)
• Team problem solving meetings every 2 weeks (can
  be grade level problem-solving team)
• Some programs have inbuilt monitoring system

25
Questions to ask

• Are students learning the required material?
• Are students moving forward in the curriculum?
• Is the intervention intense enough and suitable
  in content in order to put the student on a
  trajectory for success?

26
Outcome Examples

• School L utilized direct instruction and had
  implemented an intense reading intervention for
  first graders (for 3 months)
• Data led to 3 major decisions
• 1) Increased length of interventions from 3
  months to a full year
• 2) Set up a literacy intervention program in
  Kindergarten (1 extra hour a day)
• 3) Tracked the effect of first grade intervention
  on achievement in grades 1 2
• (Baker Smith, 2001)

27
Outcome Examples

• School G utilized whole language approaches
• Changes included
• 1) Started continued systematic collection of
  student performance data in reading
• 2) Set up scope sequence in Kindergarten
  including alphabetic understanding, phonemic
  awareness, developmental spelling
• 3) First grade teachers agreed to use a basal
  program
• (Baker Smith, 2001)

28
Supporting Teachers Systems Organization

• Standardize scope and sequence
• Teacher training, in-services and preparation
  meetings
• Team problem solving meetings every 2 weeks

29
Supporting Teachers Intervention/ESE personnel

• Model Tier 1 lessons
• Push into classrooms by reading intervention
  teachers
• Observations of and feedback to teachers on
  instructional methods in Tier 1

30
Supporting Teachers The School Psychologist

• Providing support/assistance with monitoring of
  student progress
• Observe students and lessons
• Gather, organize, analyze summarize data.
  Present data to teachers and guide the problem
  solving and decision making
• Consultative services teachers/parents
• Often involved with maintaining external
• integrity

31
Final Thoughts

• Think about students with reading problems in
  terms of how they change over time on measures of
  reading, and not based on
• Trying to distinguish between students with
  reading problems and students without on the
  basis of standardized measures of reading and
  intelligence administered at single points in
  time (Reschly Grimes, 1995)

32
Final Thoughts

• Viewing reading difficulties as low rates of
  change over time may be more helpful in
  understanding instructional interventions than
  viewing them in terms of the discrepancy model
  (Baker Smith, 2001)

33
Open Discussion
34
References

• Badian, N. (1982). The prediction of good and
  poor reading before kindergarten entry A 4-year
  follow-up. The Journal of Special Education, 16,
  3. 309-318.
• Baker, S., Smith, S. (2001). Linking school
  assessments to research-based practices in
  beginning reading Improving programs and
  outcomes for students with and without
  disabilities. Teacher Education and Special
  Education, 24(4), 315-332.
• Catts, H. (1997). The early identification of
  language based reading disabilities. Language,
  Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 28,
  86-89.
• Catts, H., Fey, M., Tomblin, J.B. Zhang,X.
  (2002). A longitudinal investigation of reading
  outcomes in children with language impairments.
  Journal of Speech, Language and Hearing Research,
  45, 1142-1157.
• Catts, H. Hogan, T. (2003). Language basis for
  reading disabilities and implications for early
  identification and remediation. Reading
  Psychology, 24. 223-246.

35
References

• Compton, D. L., Fuchs, D., Fuchs, L., Bryant,
  J. D. (2006). Selecting at risk readers in first
  grade for early intervention A two-year
  longitudinal study of decision rules and
  procedures. Journal of Educational Psychology,
  98, 394-409.
• Good, R. H., Gruba, J., Kaminski (2001). Best
  practices in using Dynamic Indicators of Basic
  Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS) in an
  outcomes-driven model. In A. Thomas J. Grimes
  (Eds.), Best practices in school psychology IV
  (pp. 679-700). Washington, DC National
  Association of School Psychologists.
• Olofsson, A. Niedersoe,J. (1999). Early
  language development and kindergarten
  phonological awareness as predictors of reading
  problems From 3 to 11 years of age. Journal of
  learning Disabilities, 32, 5, 464-472.
• Poe, M., Burchinal, M., Roberts, J. (2004).
  Early language and the development of childrens
  reading skills. Journal of School Psychology, 42,
  315-332.

36
References

• Snow,C., Tabors,P., Nicholson, P., and Kurland,
  B. (1995). SHELL Oral language and early
  literacy in kindergarten and first grade
  children. Journal of Research in Childhood
  Education, 10. 37-47.
• Snowling, M. (1981). Phonemic Deficits in
  Developmental Dyslexia. Psychological Research,
  43, 219-234.
• Reschly, D. J., Grimes, J. P. (1995). Best
  practices in intellectual assessment. In A.
  Thomas J. Grimes (Eds.), Best practices in
  school psychology III (pp. 763-773). Washington,
  DC National Association of School
  Psychologists.
• Roth,F.P., Speece, D.L. Cooper,D.H. (2002). A
  longitudinal analysis of the connection between
  oral language and early reading. The journal of
  Educational Research. 95, 5, 259-272.
• Waldron, N. Hayes, L. (2007). Critical elements
  of school change The connection between RtI and
  school-based reading initiatives. Presentation to
  the Florida Reading Research Conference, Tampa,
  FL..

37
Web Resources

• http//www.fcrr.org
• http//www.nrcld.org
• http//www.nationalreadingpanel.org
• http//www.ed.gov/programs/readingfirst
• http//www.interventioncentral.org
• http//getreadytoread.org

38
Thank you!