1 / 31

The Politics and Policy of Response to Intervention and RtI Implementation

The Politics and Policy of Response to Intervention and RtI Implementation. Pete B. Marcelo, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent of Niles Township High School District 219. Overview. Define response to intervention (RtI) Review core components/principles of RtI

boris-pena
Download Presentation

The Politics and Policy of Response to Intervention and RtI Implementation

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. The Politics and Policy of Response to Intervention and RtI Implementation Pete B. Marcelo, Ph.D. Assistant Superintendent of Niles Township High School District 219

  2. Overview • Define response to intervention (RtI) • Review core components/principles of RtI • Discuss problems with the current special education system • History and timing of: law, regulations, policy, politics, and research related to RtI • Examine why now? • Share some implications of RtI implementation at the local level

  3. Definition ofResponse to Intervention (RtI) RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (NASDE and CASE, 2006)

  4. Essential RtI Components • Multiple tiers of instruction • Application of the problem-solving method • An integrated data collection system used to make educational decisions

  5. A Tiered Approach to Instruction(Morrison, 2007) Individualized Interventions ~ 5 – 10% Students INTENSIVE Special Education Eligibility ~ 10 – 15% of Students STRATEGIC ~ 75 – 85% of Students CORE Intensity of Needs

  6. A Tiered Approach to:Core Interventions(Morrison, 2007) “Options that are provided to students as a part of the general curriculum with specific intent”

  7. A Tiered Approach to:Strategic Interventions(Morrison, 2007) “Targeted interventions focus on students who need more assistance”

  8. A Tiered Approach to:Intensive Interventions(Morrison, 2007) “Intense and often individualized interventions are for students with the most extreme needs”

  9. Intervention Framework(Morrison, 2007) Intensive Interventions A few Supplemental Interventions Some Core/Universal Interventions All 1-5% Students 5-10% 80-90% Academic

  10. Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?(Morrison, 2007) Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, discipline referrals Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and classroom assessment Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal assessments

  11. Problem Solving Process(Morrison, 2007) Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary

  12. What is in the garbage can?

  13. Separation of special ed. students from general ed. students. Special ed has not closed the achievement gap Weak relationship between eligibility data and instructional intervention “wait to fail” model not early intervention Overrepresentation of minorities with ED, MR Special ed. not implementing scientifically based interventions 300% increase of LD students since 1975 Over half of referrals to special ed. for LD 90% of LD referrals due to reading problems Cost of special ed. Problems with current special education system

  14. History and Timing • 1960’s LD Definition Debate • 1970 Deno Cascade Model of Special Education • 1970’s Bergan’s Behavioral Intervention Model • 1975 PL 94-142 • 1980’s Regular Education Initiative • 1990’s Inclusion Movement

  15. History and Timing • 1997 Re-authorization of IDEA Comment period National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities letter to OSEP On LD identification • 2000 OSEP LD Initiative • Commissioned 9 white papers on LD • in response to NJCLD letter • 2000 National Reading Panel report • Identifies 5 reading skills • August 2001 LD Summit • Part of OSEP’s LD Initiative • Oct. 2001 President Busch’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education • Jan. 2002 NCLB signed • (standards, scientifically based instruction, • assessment, accountability)

  16. History and Timing • June 6th 2002 House Hearing on LD and early intervention • July 2nd 2002 “A new era: • re-vitalizing special education for children and families” • July 9th, 2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Ed. • Report to Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions • July 10th, 2002 President’s Commission Report to • House Committee on Education and the Workforce • July 25th 2002 Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common Ground • 2002 OSEP funded National Center on Learning Disabilities

  17. History and Timing • Feb. 25th, 2003 Paige releases President’s Principles • on IDEA re-authorization • April 29th 2003 House version of IDEA amendments released from Committee on Education and the Workforce • November 3rd 2003 Senate version of IDEA release from • Committee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions • December 4th and 5th National Research Center on Learning Disabilities • two day symposium on RtI • November 19th 2004 IDEA Amendments passed by Congress • Dec. 3rd 2004 IDEA re-authorization signed by Bush

  18. History and Timing • Dec. 29th 2004 Solicitation of public comments on federal law and considerations for regulations (7 public meetings Jan-Feb. 2005) • June 10th 2005 Dept. of Ed. Issues proposed regulations • and invites public comment • May 2006 NASDE and CASE white paper on RtI • Aug. 14th 2006 federal regulations published • June 28th 2007 23 Illinois Administrative Code Part 226 released • July 9th 2007 NASDE/CASE develop district and state RtI • planning and implementation tools • OSEP awards grant to American Institute of Research to create • National Center on RtI

  19. History and Timing • Dec 6th and 7th 2007 RtI Summit • Jan 1st 2008 ISBE releases Illinois RtI Plan

  20. Illinois State Regulations No later than January 1, 2009, each district shall develop a plan for the transition to the use of a process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. Each district’s plan shall identify the resources the district will devote to this purpose and include an outline of the types of State-level assistance the district expects to need, with particular reference to the professional development necessary for its affected staff members to implement this process. The transition plan developed pursuant to this subsection (c) may be incorporated into a district’s district improvement plan (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1.85(b)) if one exists.

  21. Common Elements • High quality instruction / behavior supports • Accountability • Scientific, research-based interventions / curriculum • Prevention / early intervention • Merging of building resources • Parent involvement • Student progress monitoring • Collaborative team-based decisions based on data • A “unified” system of educational services – ONE “ED”

  22. Components of the Infrastructure Building-based Leadership Team Data Coach Problem-solving Process Decision Rules Regarding RtI Data Sources and Decision-Making Tier 1 Focus Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2 Intervention Support and Fidelity Technology Support Technical Assistance

  23. Is It All About Reading? Yes! • 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs • 70% +/- of special education “activities: (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases • 94% of students in LD because of reading / language arts • 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading • Changes in LD Rules will effect the vast majority of special education “activities”

  24. Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention? Positive Response Gap is closing Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long range Questionable Response Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening Gap stops widening but closure does not occur Poor Response Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

  25. Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions Positive, Questionable, Poor Response Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines) Positive Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least). Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional independence. Questionable Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving. Poor Return to problem solving for new intervention

  26. Critical Components of Intervention Support Support for Intervention Integrity Documentation of Intervention Implementation Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components

  27. The Vision: To provide effective instruction/interventions to meet the needs of ALL students through early and scientifically-based interventions through careful systems planning N = ~32 students (1%) W = ~78 student (3%) • Tier 3 – Intensive, Individualized, Interventions • Individual students • Assessment-based • High intensity • Of longer duration • Tier 2 – Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Tier 1 – Core Instructional Interventions • All students • Prevention proactive ~ 5% N = ~472 students (22%) W = ~723 students (28%) ~ 10% N = ~1470 students (67%) W = ~1598 students (62%) ~ 80%

  28. Challenges in Implementing RTI • Building teachers’ knowledge and expertise in the five components of SBRI • Establishing the critical relationship between of assessing students and delivering data-driven, tailor-made interventions to at-risk students • Promoting an inquiry-based approach to intervention • Being a collaborative team member • Being a lifelong learner • Recognizing the opportunities that change brings

  29. Impact on Leaders:A Change in Focus Student progress, not labels are most important All students compared to general education expectations All students affect AYP A student’s response to intervention is the most important data Academic Engaged Time is the currency of problem-solving Training and coaching must be focused on PSM Increase the use of technology Interventions must be evidence-based

  30. Year 1 Goals Begin with small steps: Goals – Self Study Process • Building of Data System • Building of Intervention Systems • Leadership and Staff Development • Building of Problem Solving Teams and efficient functioning Year 2-3: Do the same – more and better – while ‘institutionalizing’ everyone’s thinking and practices.

  31. Tool: Problem-Solving Self Study Instruments

More Related