Title: Response to Intervention (RTI): An Introduction and Linkages with Ohio Initiatives
1Response 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
2Topics
- 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
3Topics (continued)
- Empirical Support for RTI
- Advantages of RTI
- Common Questions
- Challenges for Implementation
- Considerations for ODE/OEC
4Why RTI Key Foundations and Supports in Law
- NCLB
- IDEIA 2004
- Ohio Operating Standards
5Why 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
6Why 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)
7RTI 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)
8RTI 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.
9RTI 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).
10IDEIA 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)
11Ohio 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
12Ohio 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
13RTI 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
14RTI 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
15RTI 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.
16RTI 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.
17Why 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)
18Learning 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.
19Presidents 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
20National 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
21Wait 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
22Other 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
23Other 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)
24Key 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
25What 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
26An 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
27Tier 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
28Tier 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)
29Tier 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
30RTI 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
31RTI 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
32RTI 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
33What 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)
34Empirical 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)
35Empirical 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)
36Advantages 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
37Implications 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
38Common 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
39Common 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
40Common 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)
41Common 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
42Common 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
43Research 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)
44Federal 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
45Federal 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.
46Approaching 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
47Challenges 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
48Considerations 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)
49Resources 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)
50Resources 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
)
51Resources 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.