Making Response-To- Intervention (RTI) Work in Your Schools Jim Wright www.interventioncentral.org

1. Making Response-To-Intervention (RTI) Work in Your SchoolsJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

2. Any darn mule can kick a barn down, but it takes a carpenter to build one.--Lyndon Johnson

3. Changes to LD Definition in Part 200 (NYS Regs) Learning disabilities. In determining whether a student has a learning disability …, the school district: (i) may use a process that determines if the student responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures [Response-to-Intervention Model] …; and (ii) is not required to consider whether a student 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 [Discrepancy Model]. Emergency Adoption of Amendment of Section 100.2 and Parts 101, 200 and 201 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education to Conform to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004 – Effective September 13, 2005

4. Dueling Models: Discrepancy vs. Response to Intervention

5. Discrepancy (‘Wait to Fail’) Model LD identified by giving a battery of standardized tests and looking for significant gaps between students' achievement and intellectual ability. The tester infers that a profile of strengths and weaknesses revealed in cognitive and achievement tests have direct real-world application to the student’s classroom performance.

6. Inference as a Reasoning Tool in·fer·ence ‘The act or process of deriving logical conclusions from premises known or assumed to be true.’ -The American Heritage Dictionary

7. Learning Disabilities: Medical Model “Traditionally, disability is viewed as a deficit that resides within the individual, the severity of which might be influenced, but not created, by contextual variables.”(Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003)

8. Learning Disabilities: Medical Model Underlying premise-that LD is a ‘medical’ condition: • LD is explained as a neurological condition that impacts on learning. Because LD is a physical, within-child condition, it is unlikely that changes in classroom instruction will significantly improve academic performance • A formal battery of tests can diagnose LD, largely in isolation from classroom information • Based on the profile of needs uncovered by testing results, specific ‘treatments’ can be prescribed to help the student learn • These treatments are highly likely to be effective, making it unnecessary to measure their impact

9. Discrepancy Model: Limitations Some possible limitations to the 'discrepancy model‘: • is built upon a high-inference assumption (that LD is best explained as a medical condition) • requires chronic school failure before special education supports can be given • fails to consider that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a child's learning delays

10. Response-to-Intervention (RTI) Model LD identified as follows: • Schools identify children experiencing significant academic delays, • match them up with scientific, research-based interventions, • and monitor these students' progress. A child's failure to respond positively to several carefully selected, well-implemented interventions could then be viewed as evidence that the student has a learning disability and requires special education services.

11. Learning Disabilities: RTI Underlying premise-that LD is an interaction between child and instructional environment: • Student academic deficits can best be gauged by observing the child engage in tasks from classroom curriculum and reviewing work products • Interventions are a quasi-experiment (no assurance a priori that the intervention will actually benefit the student) • Ongoing progress-monitoring is required to document ‘response to intervention’ • LD is diagnosed when all competing external explanations for poor student performance (e.g., inadequate instruction) are ruled out

12. RTI Model: Limitations Some possible limitations to the ‘Response-To-Intervention Model‘ (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003): • Has ‘arbitrary cutpoint’ on a continuum of non-responding • Interventions and monitoring procedures have not been fully validated across grade levels • Lacks clear guidelines for when ‘enough is enough’ in intervention efforts

13. ‘Curriculum Train’

14. Instructional Variables: What Difference Does a Teacher Make? Statistician Dr. Richard Sanders analyzed longitudinal data from Tennessee state assessments—by teacher and by student… Findings…

15. “Three consecutive years of first quintile (least-effective) teachers in grades three-five yield math scores from the 35th to 45th percentile. Conversely, three straight years of fifth quintile (most-effective) teachers result in scores at the 85th to 95th percentile.” --USA Today, 2001 (Publication of the Society for the Advancement of Education)

16. 1. Identify & Verify the Scope of the Problem 2. Select Interventions That Address ‘Root Cause’ 3. Set Goals for Improvement 4. Monitor Student Progress & Evaluate Outcome Solving Student Academic or Behavioral Problems: A Four-Part Model

17. RTI: “ …a process that determines if the student responds to scientific, research-based intervention…” The devil is in the details!

18. Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level Target Student Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’) ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability(Fuchs 2003)

19. Tier I‘School-Wide Screening & Group Intervention’ Tier II ‘Non-Responders’ to Tier I Are Identified & Given ‘Individually Tailored’ Interventions (e.g., peer tutoring/fluency) RTI: School-Wide Three-Tier Framework (Kovaleski, 2003) Tier III ‘Long-Term Programming for Students Who Fail to Respond to Tier II Interventions’ (e.g., Special Education)

20. Tier II: ‘Non-Responders’ to Universally Available Instructional Support(Fuchs et al., 2003; Kovaleski, 2003) Tier II assistance can be provided through: • Team-based support to the classroom teacher, or • A “short-term course of pull-out intervention that is based on a standard protocol of empirically validated instructional treatments” e.g., peer tutoring with fluency-building procedures(Kovaleski, 2003)

21. Curriculum-Based Measurement & RTI

22. Progress-Monitoring Data (e.g. CBM) Collected Baseline Data (e.g. CBM) Collected Using Data for Intervention (RTI) Team Referrals Teacher Referral Initial Meeting Held Intervention Started & Monitored Follow-Up Meeting Held

23. Formative Assessment to Monitor Response to Intervention • Definition: “Ongoing assessment of progress toward a long-term or major objective.” • Example: Curriculum-Based Measurement in Reading Fluency or Math Computation

24. Formative Assessment: Advantages • Provides teacher with ‘pulse measures’: ongoing information about student progress • Permits teacher to see direct impact of teaching strategies on student performance • Allows teacher to create ‘local norms’ against which to compare the academic performance of a target student • Prevents instructor from spending too much time, effort on strategies that are ineffective

26. Sample Peer Tutoring Chart

27. Sample Peer Tutoring Charts

28. Curriculum-Based Measurement : Defining Characteristics: • ‘Tests’ preselected objectives from local curriculum • Has standardized directions for administration • Is timed, yielding fluency, accuracy scores • Uses objective, standardized, ‘quick’ guidelines for scoring • Permits charting and teacher feedback

29. CBM Techniques have been developed to assess: • Reading fluency • Math computation • Writing • Spelling • Phonemic awareness skills

30. www.interventioncentral.org