Response to Intervention RTI

1. Response to Intervention (RTI) Syracuse (NY) City School District September 2006 Updated June 2008

2. RTI Project Committee The original information contained in this power point is the result of work by a committee convened by Joanne Downes, Former Director of Special Education in March of 2006. Guidelines have been updated in accordance with federal and state-level provisions. The following research- based guidelines provided by Syracuse City School District staff are a collaborative effort to meet the needs of all students in our district.

3. Committee MembersFormer and Current Kristi Cleary, School Psychologist Carol Connell, Special Education Liaison Sheila Donahue, Speech/Language Pathologist/ PST Chair Joanne Downes, Former Director of Special Education Valerie Gray, SBIT TA Chris Hoffman-Hoxie, Special Education Liaison Laurie Holtsbery, Elementary General Education Teacher Margaret Morone-Wilson, Principal Linda Mulvey, Asst. Director of Special Education Stephanie Pelcher, SBIT/STARS Coordinator Joan Reilley, Middle School General Education Teacher Sondra Roth, Coordinating School Psychologist *Karen Scholl, Regional Associate for the NYS Education Dept. Anthony Tolbert, Director of Elementary Education *consultant

5. Reauthorization of IDEA-2004(Individuals with Disabilities Education Act)

6. IDEA 2004 Part B regulations regarding RTIofficial regulations to be published in Federal Register in August 2006 �the State must permit the use of a process based on a child�s response to scientific, research-based intervention. �if the child has participated in a process that assesses the child�s response to scientific, research-based intervention, the documentation must include the instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected,�

7. Implementation of Response to Intervention Programs: April 2008 NYSED memo Encourages all school districts in NYS to take timely actions to implement response to intervention (RtI) programs Endorses RtI as an important educational strategy to close achievement gaps for all students

8. Part 100.2 NYSED Regs Defines RtI to minimally include Appropriate instruction Screenings of all students Instruction�.

9. New IDEA: Eligibility Criteria 1. Child makes insufficient progress toward goals using a Response to Intervention (RTI) model. 2. Exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance and/or achievement relative to intellectual development.

10. Who is the targeted student population?

13. Why do we need RTI? The discrepancy model fails to address the following:

14. What are the components of RTI?

15. Four Tier Intervention Model(Frank Gresham, Ph.D)

17. What is considered an intervention?

18. Research-Based Components of Academic Interventions (Pfiffner & Barkley, 1998; Zentall & Meyer, 1987) Active-Engagement � high response rate during intervention � �working� and �doing� rather than just listening Practice!!!!! � practice correct target skill Immediate, Corrective Feedback � immediate procedure in place to correct student errors so they don�t continue to produce/practice errors (e.g., peer tutor, adult, computer program, correction sheet) Use of academic materials within the student�s instructional level

19. Research-Based Components of Behavioral InterventionsPfiffner and Barkley (1998) Clear, brief, and visible modes of presentation of rules and instructions to serve as a reminder of what is expected � e.g., poster in classroom, reminder on student�s desk Immediate and frequent delivery of consequences � reward the good, ignore or punish the undesired immediately after good or undesirable behavior is exhibited. This may be faded over time. Powerful incentives to reinforce appropriate behavior � e.g, verbal praise, small tangible, desired reward Planning ahead by prompting the child to remember rules and consequences prior to entering a situation. -- e.g., verbal reminders and/or reference to posting of rules

20. Monitoring of Student Progress Use same tool as used during baseline (i.e, student�s level of performance prior to intervention) Frequent (e.g., weekly) Use of scientifically-based tools that have been found to demonstrate sufficient reliability and validity, have alternate forms and benchmarks, and are sensitive to student improvement (The National Center of Student Progress Monitoring, March 2006) DIBELS Curriculum-Based Assessment (CBA) Monitoring Basic Skills Program (MBSP)

21. What is Treatment/Intervention Integrity? Treatment Integrity is the implementation of an intervention as it was designed (e.g., frequency, duration, specific steps) �If we are going to implement interventions, and use data from these interventions to determine a child�s eligibility for special education services, we must be confident that the student�s outcome (either positive or negative) is a response to the intervention and not a response to someone�s failure to implement the intervention.� (Cochrane & Castle, 2006)

22. Ways to Evaluate Treatment/Intervention IntegrityLane & Beebe-Frankenberger (2004), Gresham (1989), Gresham et al. (2000) Direct Observation � independent observer calculates how many steps of the intervention were carried out Self-Report � person implementing intervention calculates how many steps of the intervention were carried out and/or how many intervention sessions occurred Interview -- Another person interviews the intervention implementer and calculates % of steps of plan completed and/or how many intervention sessions occurred

23. Ways to Evaluate Treatment/Intervention IntegrityLane & Beebe-Frankenberger (2004), Gresham (1989), Gresham et al. (2000) Permanent Products � Intervention implementer collects a permanent product for each component and/or session of the intervention. Manualized Interventions � Intervention has a step-by-step guide for implementation, and the implementer follows the guide exactly as written.

24. Treatment/Intervention IntegrityGuidelines Strive for at least 80% of plan steps completed each intervention session. Strive for at least 8-12 weeks of intervention implementation. Complete checks on treatment integrity intermittently throughout intervention period and/or track frequency of intervention implementation as sessions occur.

25. Critical Components for Intervention Design and Implementation Checklist for PST Evaluation and CSE Referral Submission/Case Review Baseline data (e.g., student�s level of functioning prior to the intervention) Goals defined � measurable and attainable (e.g., goals for progress address primary area(s) of concern) Outcome data/Graphs (e.g., progress monitoring and outcome data) Intervention specifically defined and directly tied to student goal(s), as per data Integrity Information (e.g., frequency tracking, plan implemented as designed)

26. Additional Factors to Consider in Intervention Design and Implementation Questions to Raise at Evaluation and CSE Case Review Were the attempted intervention(s) intense enough (i.e., frequent, practice and at instructional level) that the student should have responded barring the presence of an educational disability? Did a problem-solving process occur to find what works for the student?

27. Additional Factors to Consider in Intervention Design and Implementation Were the intervention(s) able to be carried out within a general education setting? Could the interventions be maintained with existing school resources (e.g., time, people, materials)? Did the intervention(s) target appropriate academic areas, taking into consideration the hierarchy of academic skill building?

28. Additional Factors to Consider in Intervention Design and Implementation Did progress monitoring occur on a weekly basis so that progress to goals(s) could be ascertained? Are there enough data to make an informed decision? Was the method chosen to monitor progress appropriate for the type of intervention chosen? Did it match the concerns and match the focus of intervention? (e.g., for task completion a daily record is kept of progress)

29.

30. None of us is as smart as all of us.--Anonymous