Response to Intervention (RTI): An Introduction and Linkages with Ohio Initiatives

1. Response 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

2. Topics: • 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

3. Topics (continued): • Empirical Support for RTI • Advantages of RTI • Common Questions • Challenges for Implementation • Considerations for ODE/OEC

4. Why RTI: Key Foundations and Supports in Law • NCLB • IDEIA 2004 • Ohio Operating Standards

5. Why 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

6. Why 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)

7. RTI 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)…”

8. RTI 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.”

9. RTI 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).”

10. IDEIA 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)

11. Ohio 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

12. Ohio Support for RTI: Operating Standards for Ohio’s 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

13. RTI Support: Operating Standards for Ohio’s 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

14. RTI 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

15. RTI 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.”

16. RTI 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.”

17. Why RTI: Reasons for Change • Support for changes from various national commissions and reports • LD Summit (2002) • President’s Commission (2002) • National Research Center on LD (2003) • National Research Council Report on Minority Over-Representation (2002)

18. Learning 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.”

19. President’s 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

20. National 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”

21. “Wait to Fail” Problem • Discrepancy formula doesn’t 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

22. Other 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

23. Other 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)

24. Key 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

25. What 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

26. 1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions 1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions 5-10% Targeted Interventions 5-10% Targeted Interventions 80-90% School-Wide Interventions 80-90% School-Wide Interventions F B A E D C An 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

27. Tier 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

28. Tier 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)

29. Tier 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

30. RTI 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

31. RTI and Identification for SLD • Documented difference between student’s 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

32. RTI 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

33. What RTI Looks Like in Practice Versus Typical Past Practice

34. Empirical 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 measurement+graphing+formative evaluation (Fuchs & Fuchs, Gresham, 2001; Kellam et al., 1998)

35. Empirical Support for RTI • What Has Not Worked: • Diagnosis and placement does not connect to effective instruction…assessing 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)

36. Advantages 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

37. Implications 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

38. Common 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

39. Common 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

40. Common Questions/Comments: • We won’t 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)

41. Common 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

42. Common 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

43. Research 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)

44. Federal 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…

45. Federal Definition (cont.) • …including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia…The 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.”

46. Approaching SLD Eligibility from an RTI Perspective: What’s 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

47. Challenges 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

48. Considerations 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)

49. Resources and References: • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (July, 2002) (www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/) • LD National Summit Panel (2002) (www.air.org/ldsummit/) • National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (www.nrcld.org)

50. Resources 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)