SchoolBased ProblemSolving: Working Toward Response to Intervention RtI in Illinois

1
School-Based Problem-SolvingWorking Toward
Response to Intervention (RtI) in Illinois

• OSEP Project Directors Conference
• Washington, D.C.
• July 27, 2005
• Kathryn Cox
• SIG Project Director
• Illinois State Board of Education
• Slides 6 15-65 borrowed with permission from a
  presentation by C. De La Cruz L. de
  Courcy-Bower, Northern Suburban Special
  Education District

2
Current Influences on Education

• Report of the National Reading Panel
• No Child Left Behind 2001
• Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
  Education
• IDEIA 2004

3
IDEIA 2004 Early Intervention

• Sec. 613.(f) Early Intervening Services
• LEAs may use not more than 15 of their IDEA
  funds to develop and implement early intervening
  services for K-12 students not identified as
  needing special education or related services but
  who need additional academic and behavioral
  support to succeed in the general education
  environment.
• Funds may be used to carry out coordinated, early
  intervening services aligned with activities
  funded by and carried out under the ESEA of 1965
  must supplement not supplant ESEA funds

4
IDEIA 2004 Eligibility Determination

• (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
  determinant 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 Elementary and
  Secondary Education Act of 1965)
• (B) lack of instruction in math or
• (C) limited English proficiency.

5

• (6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES-
• (A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section
  607(b), when determining whether a child
  has a specific learning disability as
  defined in section 602, the local educational
  agency shall not be required to take into
  consideration whether the 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.
• (B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- In determining
  whether a child has a specific learning
  disability, a local educational agency may
  use a process which determines if a child
  responds to scientific, research-based
  intervention as a part of the evaluation
  procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3).

6
Traditional Approach to Service Delivery
Reading Recovery
Special Education
Amount of Resources Needed To Solve Problem
Title 1
Peer Tutoring
Counseling
General Education
Sea of Ineligibility
Intensity of Problem
7
Problems with the Traditional Service Delivery
System

• The Philosophy The problem resides within the
  student. Could not the problem be the learning
  environment, home issues, or the curriculum?
• Due to the lack of documentation by the classroom
  teacher, past interventions were disregarded or
  retried.
• Little collaboration existed between
  professionals.
• Often unneeded and unrelated testing was
  performed.
• Special educators were not effective with their
  time. Often spent time doing unrelated in-depth
  norm referenced testing.

8
Problems with the Traditional Service Delivery
System

• The student did not receive any direct
  intervention until the 60-day evaluation process
  was completed. No timely intervention.
• Often students were good test takers and their
  test results did not show enough discrepancy.
  These students slip through the cracks of the
  system.
• The Traditional service delivery system created
  parallel systems . The staff (Gen. Ed., Spec.
  Ed., Title I, etc.) worked individually
  inhibiting effective service delivery.

9
Illinois Flexible Service Delivery (FSD) System

• FSD Definition The sharing of general and
  special education resources and the ongoing
  development of educational environments that are
  receptive and responsive to all students. This
  system focuses on functional assessment of
  student needs, the provision of more usable
  information to classroom teachers, and the
  development of interventions by a collaborative
  problem solving team.
• Target population Students at risk of academic
  failure due to learning and/or behavioral
  difficulties classroom performance is below
  expected levels

10
Purpose/Rationale of FSD

• Increase local district capacity to meet needs of
  a diverse student population in general education
  environment
• Pool resources to provide early intervening
  services to improve learning for students not
  identified as eligible for special education,
  Title I, etc., and improveservices to entitled
  students

11
History of FSD in Illinois

• Pilot Project began in fall of 1998
• Uses a school-based problem solving model
• Through June 30, 2005, involved 21 grant sites
• 9 individual school districts
• 12 special education cooperatives with multiple
  districts involved
• Title I schoolwide special education
  collaboration at several sites
• Flex Consortium
• Regular meetings among pilot sites and other
  districts to collaborate, share successes and
  problem solve challenges
• Training Activities
• State Conference
• Local and regional training3 cycles
• Problem solving basics
• Tools to effectively implement problem solving
• Intervention approaches and strategies
• Statewide Evaluation

12
2002-03 FSD Evaluation Results

• Average number of years on an intervention plan
  was 1.3, with a range of less than one year to
  four years.
• Interventions carried out as follows
• 46 by general education instructional staff
• 16 by related services personnel
• 12 by special education teachers
• 11 by parents
• Of the students receiving FSDS services
• 38 of cases were continued to the next school
  year
• 20 of cases were closed by years end
• 3 transferred out of their district
• 25 were referred for CSE, with 96 found
  eligible for special education

13
2002-03 FSD Evaluation Results (continued)

• 79 of students goals were met or exceeded or
  student performance improved
• Median of 27 days between request for problem
  solving services and convening first meeting

14
Future Plans for Statewide Expansion

• New proposed SPD Grant Project focused on
  school-based problem solving, early intervening
  services and RtI
• 4 Regional Professional Development Centers
  Collaboratives of LEAs, IHEs and parent entities
• Flex Training Cycles and Parent Training
• General Technical Assistance
• School Demonstration Sites
• On-site technical assistance
• Training for district problem-solving coaches
• Data collection for evaluation at the student and
  school levels
• Statewide Evaluation

15
Steps of Problem Solving
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation
3. Plan Development
4. Plan Implementation
16
Tertiary Prevention Specialized
Individualized Systems for High-Risk Students
CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT
5
Secondary Prevention Specialized Group Systems
for At-Risk Students
15
Primary Prevention School-/Classroom- Wide
Systems for All Students, Staff, Settings
80 of Students
17
Problem Solving Approach to Service Delivery
General Education with Intensive Support (could
include special education services in the LRE)
Amount of Resources Needed To Solve Problem
General Education with Support
General Education
Intensity of Problem
18
Intervention
Could include Special Ed. Services in the LRE
Amount of Resources Needed To Solve Problem
Intensive Instruction Core
Intensive Program
General Education with Support
Targeted Instruction Core Supplemental Program
General Education
Benchmark Instruction Core Program
Intensity of Problem
19
Progress Monitoring
Could include Special Ed. Services in LRE
Amount of Resources Needed To Solve Problem
Intensive Monitoring
General Education with Support
Targeted Monitoring
General Education
Benchmark Monitoring
Intensity of Problem
20
Response to Intervention
Could include Special Ed. Services in LRE
High
Amount of Resources Needed To Solve Problem
Response to Intervention Eligibility Decisions
Occur Here
General Education with Support
General Education
Low
Intensity of Problem
High
Low
21
Steps of Problem Solving
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation
3. Plan Development
4. Plan Implementation
22
Problem Solving Can Be Used For Anything!

• Direct Academic Behaviors
• Reading
• Mathematics
• Written Language
• Academic Supporting Behaviors
• Task/Homework Completion
• Academic Engaged Time
• Social Behaviors
• Social Skills
• Disruptive Behaviors

23
Steps of Problem Solving

• PROBLEM
• IDENTIFICATION

2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation
3. Plan Development
4. Plan Implementation
24
Step 1 Problem Identification

• Question What is the discrepancy between what is
  expected and what is occurring?
• List problem behavior(s) and prioritize.
• Collect baseline data on primary area of concern
  (target student and peer).
• Record Review
• Interview
• Observation
• Testing
• State discrepancy between target student
  performance and peer performance.

25
Steps of Problem Solving

• PROBLEM ANALYSIS

• Problem Identification

5. Plan Evaluation
3. Plan Development
4. Plan Implementation
26
Step 2 Problem Analysis

• Question Why is the problem occurring?
• Review RIOT data, think about why the problem is
  occurring, and determine appropriate additional
  RIOT data you need to collect to
• Differentiate between skill problem and
  performance problem (e.g., cant do vs. wont
  do).
• Determine situations in which the problem
  behavior is most likely and least likely to
  occur.
• Examine hypotheses for why a problem is
  occurring.
• Narrow down to the most validated and alterable
  hypothesis.

27
Domains for Hypothesis Generation
Peer Influences
Curriculum
Learner
Home/ Community
Classroom Environment
28
Steps of Problem Solving
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation

• PLAN DEVELOPMENT

4. Plan Implementation
29
Step 3 Plan Development

• Question What is the goal?
• A. Write the goal, a measurable statement of
  expected outcomes.
• Question What is the intervention plan to
  address the goal?
• B. Define logistics (e.g., what
  strategies/procedures will be used, when and how
  often the intervention will occur, who will
  implement the intervention and where it will be
  implemented, and when it will begin).
• Question How will progress be monitored?
• C. Define logistics (e.g., what materials are
  used, when and how often data will be collected,
  where data will be collected, and who is
  responsible).
• D. Decide on decision-making rules for plan
  evaluation.

30
Assessment Schedule

• Intensive Monitoring
• Assessing student needing intensive, effective
  instruction weekly.
• Question Is supplemental instruction or
  intervention effective or is a change in
  intervention needed?
• Strategic Monitoring
• Assessing at-risk students more frequently (e.g.,
  monthly)
• Question Is instruction sufficient to keep
  progress on track or is supplemental instruction
  needed?
• Benchmark Monitoring
• Assessing all students at critical times (e.g.,
  Fall, Winter, Spring)
• Question How is the school, curriculum and
  instruction doing?
• Question Which students may be at risk for
  falling behind?

31
Steps of Problem Solving
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
5. Plan Evaluation
3. Plan Development

• PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

32
Step 4 Plan Implementation

• Question How will implementation integrity be
  ensured?
• Provide support to those implementing
  interventions
• Observe intervention in action
• Make adjustments to intervention plan if needed
• Collect and graph data on intervention goal

33
Steps of Problem-Solving
1. Problem Identification
2. Problem Analysis
3. Plan Development

• PLAN EVALUATION

4. Plan Implementation
34
Step 5 Plan Evaluation

• Question Is the intervention plan effective?
• A. Is the student making progress toward the
  goal?
• Is the student decreasing the discrepancy between
  him/her and the general education peers?
• Is the plan able to be maintained in the general
  education setting without more individualized,
  intense/specialized services?

35
A. Is the student making progress toward the goal?
36
B. Is the student decreasing the discrepancy
between him/her and the general education peers?
37
C. Is the plan able to be maintained in the
general education setting without individualized,
intense/specialized services?
38
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Plan Evaluation Decision



39
Lincoln SchoolHighland Park, Illinois
40
Applications of Problem-Solving at Each Level in
the Area of Reading
Tier 3 Intensive / Individual
5
Tier 2 Targeted / Group
15
Tier 1 Universal / Systems
80 of Students
41
Benchmark Assessment and Universal Curriculum
Instruction Evaluation
5
15
Tier 1 Universal / Systems
80 of Students
42
Benchmark Assessment

• School-wide
• 3 times per year (fall, winter, spring)
• Curriculum-Based Measurement
• Words Read Correctly Per Minute
• Purposes
• Early Identification of At-Risk
• Evaluation of Curriculum and Instruction

43
3rd Grade Fall Benchmark Data (Note Student
names are fictitious)
44
Examples of Reviewed Reading Programs
5

• UNIVERSAL
• Benchmark/Core Programs
• Rigby Literacy (Harcourt Rigby Education, 2000)
• Trophies (Harcourt School Publishers, 2003)
• The Nations Choice (Houghton Mifflin, 2003)
• Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading (2003)
• Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/
• McGraw-Hill, 2002)
• Scott Foresman Reading (2004)
• Success For All (1998-2003)
• Wright Group Literacy (2002)

15
80 of Students
45
Instructional Planning Form
10/03 Adapted from the U of Oregon
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
Targeted Group Intervention and Strategic
Progress Monitoring
5
Tier 2 Targeted / Group
15
80 of Students
49
Targeted Group Intervention at Lincoln School

• Identification of students at-risk
• Flexible instructional grouping of students
• Common Reading Time
• 3 times per week
• 30 minutes each
• ALL staff become reading interventionists
• Monthly training in interventions

50
3rd Grade Winter Benchmark Data
51
Examples of Reviewed Reading Programs

• TARGETED
• Strategic/Supplemental
• Early (Soar to) Success (Houghton Mifflin)
• Read Well (Sopris West)
• Reading Mastery (SRA)
• Early Reading Intervention (Scott Foresman)
• Great Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.)
• REWARDS (Sopris West)
• Ladders to Literacy (Brookes)
• Read Naturally
• Peer Assisted Learning Strategies (PALS)

5
15
80 of Students
52
3rd Grade Targeted Intervention Groups
53
Progress Monitoring of Targeted Intervention
Groups

• Monthly CBM
• Data-based decision-making
• Adequate progress towards goal ? maintain
  intervention
• Inadequate progress towards goal ? change
  intervention
• Met goal ? consider fading intervention

54
With Very Low Performers, Not Satisfactory to
Wait This Long
Benchmark Data
55
Not Making Adequate Progress Towards Goal
Graph of Student Monthly Progress
56
Making Adequate Progress Towards Goal
Graph of Student Monthly Progress
57
Data To Show The Gap Is Not Closing
Benchmark Data
58
Data to Show the Gap is Closing
Benchmark Data
59
Individual Problem Solving

• Individualized, intensive interventions
• Weekly progress monitoring
• Data-based decision-making
• Monthly grade-level team meetings

60
3rd Grade Winter Benchmark Data
61
Examples of Reviewed Reading Programs
5

• INTENSIVE Intervention
• Corrective Reading (SRA)
• Language! (Sopris West)
• Wilson Reading System
• Reading Mastery
• Earobics (phonics/phonemic awareness Cognitive
  Concepts)
• Great Leaps/ Read Naturally (Fluency)
• REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in Plus
  Program)
• Soar to Success (comp)

15
80 of Students
62
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Plan Evaluation Decision



63
Making Adequate Progress Towards Goal
Graph of Student Weekly Progress
64
Not Making Adequate Progress Towards Goal
Graph of Student Weekly Progress
65
Changed Intervention ? Now Making Adequate
Progress
Graph of Student Weekly Progress
66
A Model to Build RTI From References on
Problem-Solving Model and Non-Categorical,
Needs-Based Services

• Shinn, M.R., Good, R.H., Parker, C. (1999).
  Noncategorical special education services for
  students with severe achievement deficits. In D.
  Reschly, W.D. Tilly, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.)
  Special education in transition. Longmont, CO
  Sopris West.
• Ysseldyke, J.E., Marston, D. (1999). Origins
  of categorical special education services in
  schools and a rationale for changing them.
  Special education in transition. Longmont, CO
  Sopris West.
• Tilly, W.D., Reschly, D.J. Grimes, J.P. (1999).
  Disability determination in Problem-Solving
  systems Conceptual foundations and critical
  components. In D. Reschly, W.D. Tilly, and J.P.
  Grimes (Eds.) Special education in transition.
  Longmont, CO Sopris West.

67
References for the Context for RTI

• 1. Presidents Council on Special Education
  Excellence (2002). A NEW ERA Revitalizing
  Special Education for Children and their
  Families. Washington, DC US Department of
  Education.
• 2. Fordham Foundation Report--
• Lyon, G. R., Fletcher, J.M., Shaywitz, S.E.,
  Shaywitz, B.A., Torgesen, J.K., Wood, F.B.,
  Schulte, A. Olson, R. (2001). Rethinking
  Learning Disabilities. In C.E. Finn, A.J.
  Rotherham, and C.R. Hokanson (Eds). Rethinking
  special education for a new century (pp.
  259-287). Washington DC Thomas B. Fordham
  Foundation.
• 3. National Research Council (2002). Executive
  summary. Disproportionate representation of
  minority students in special education.
  Washington, DC Author.
• 4. Learning Disabilities Summit--
• Bradley, R., Danielson, L., Hallahan, D. (Eds.)
  (2002). Identification of learning disabilities
  Research to practice. Mahwah NJ Erlbaum.
  www.air.org/ldsummit

68
References for RtI

• Fletcher, J.M., Coulter,W.A., Reschly, D.J.,
  Vaughn, S. (In press). Alternative Approaches to
  the Definition and Identification of Learning
  Disabilities Some Questions and Answers. Annals
  of Dyslexia.
• Gresham, F.M, Reschly, D.J., Tilly, W.D.,
  Fletcher, J., Burns, M., Christ, T., Prasse, D.,
  Vanderwood, M., Shinn, M.R. (2005). Comprehensive
  Evaluation of Learning Disabilities A Response
  to Intervention Perspective. The School
  Psychologist.
• Hale, J.B., Naglieri, J.A., Kaufman, A.S.,
  Kavale, K.A. (2004). Specific Learning Disability
  Classification in the New Individuals with
  Disabilities Education Act The Danger of Good
  Ideas. The School Psychologist.

69
References Specific to Topic

• Fuchs, L. S., Fuchs, D. (1998). Treatment
  Validity A Unifying Concept for
  Reconceptualizing the Identification of Learning
  Disabilities. Learning Disabilities Research and
  Practice, 13(4), 204-219.
• Pericola Case, L., Speece, D. L., Eddy Molloy,
  D. (2003). The validity of response-to-instruction
  paradigm to indentify reading disabilities A
  longitudinal analysis of individual differences
  and context factors. School Psychology Review,
  32, 557-582.
• Shinn, M. R., Shinn, M. M., Hamilton, C.,
  Clarke, B. (2002). Using Curriculum-Based
  Measurement to promote achievement in general
  education classrooms. In M. R. Shinn, G. Stoner
  H. M. Walker (Eds.), Interventions for academic
  and behavior problems Preventive and remedial
  approaches (pp. 113-142). Bethesda, MD National
  Association of School Psychologists.

70
Websites on Best Practice and Curriculum Review

• National Reading Panel www.nationalreadingpanel.o
  rg
• Florida Center for Reading Research www.fcrr.org
• Oregon Reading First Center reading.uoregon.edu
• Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts
  www.texasreading.org
• Texas Reading Initiative www.tea.state.tx.us

71
Kathryn Coxkcox_at_isbe.net217-782-5589Reminder
All presentations will be posted on the
post-conference website.