Problem Solving and RTI: It all begins with Tier i

1. Problem Solving and RTI:It all begins with Tier i Matthew Burns, Ph.D.

2. RTI The systematic use of assessment data to most efficiently allocate resources in order to enhance learning for all students. Burns & VanDerHeyden, 2006

3. How did we get here? • Accountability and proficiency • Concerns about special education • Research into human learning

4. Accountability • Reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act • RTI was born in special education, but it was conceived in NCLB

5. RTI and NCLB • 300.309 – Diagnosing LD • (i) The child fails to achieve a rate of learning to make sufficient progress to meet State-approved results in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when assessed with a response to scientific, research-based intervention process;

6. Pine River El: Pine River – Backus J.W. Smith: Bemidji Sebeka El.: Sebeka Harrison El.: Brainerd Lincoln El.: Brainerd Longfellow Choice: Rochester McGregor El.: McGregor Laura MacArthur El.: Duluth Nettleton Magnet School: Duluth Dayton’s Bluff El.: St. Paul Farnsworth Magnet School: St. Paul Museum Magnet/Rondo School: St. Paul Roosevelt Magnet School: St. Paul

7. Keys to SuccessSt. Paul Pioneer Press June 4th 2006 • Reading Above All Else • Emphasize reading and writing especially K-2 • Beyond the Classroom • After school programs and social services • Continuous Assessment/Small-Group Instruction • Formal and informal assessments to provide an appropriate level of challenge • Effective Staff • Strong leadership and cohesive staff with co-planning • Structured, Disciplined Environment

8. R (or R or R) – t – I (or I) • Response or responsiveness or resistance • T = to • Instruction or intervention • Standard protocol or problem solving

9. Low Intensity More Resources High Intensity More Resources Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem Low Intensity Less Resources High Intensity Low Resources INTENSITY OF STUDENT NEED An Approach to Solving Problems

10. Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions (Burns, Deno, & Jimerson, 2007) • General Education: Universal screening and progress monitoring: All students, • Standard Protocol Treatments: Small group tutoring (3-6) in general education: 20% of students at any time • Problem Analysis: Individualized interventions in general education : 5% of students at any time

11. Problem-solving Any set of activities designed to “eliminate the difference between ‘what is’ and ‘what should be’ with respect to student development” (Deno, 2002; p. 38).

12. RTI and Problem-Solving TIER III TIER I I Measurement Precision Problem-Analysis Measurement Frequency TIER I

13. Problem Solving • Tier I – Identify discrepancy between expectation and performance for class or individual • Tier II – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify category of problem. Assign small group solution. • Tier III – Identify discrepancy for individual. Identify causal variable. Implement individual intervention.

14. Problem-Solving Step 1 – Classwide or Individual Problem

15. Tier I • General Education: Universal screening and progress monitoring for all students. Includes quality core curriculum.

16. Kindergarten • Phonemic Awareness • Initial Sound Fluency; ISF • Phonemic Segmentation Fluency; PSF • Rhyme • Initial sound deletion • Letter Knowledge • Letter Naming Fluency; LNF • Graphophonemic Knowledge • Letter Sound Fluency; LSF • Nonsense Word Fluency; NWF (also decoding)

17. Developmental Activities • 1st grade – Phonemic awareness and phonics instruction • 2nd grade – Explicit phonics instruction, writing, and fluency • 3rd grade – Fluency and comprehension • 4th grade – read to learn • Upper elementary & Middle School – Vocabulary and comprehension • High school – Comprehension and application

18. Other grades • First grade • Word list • Spelling • Reading fluency • Second through sixth grade • Reading fluency at grade level • Seventh grade + • Maze

22. Reading Instruction in Elementary School • Two hours each day • Explicit instruction • Free-choice reading • Word study • Writing

23. Keys to Effective Reading Curriculum • Explicit Phonics • Decodable Text

26. ClasswideIntervention http://kc.vanderbilt.edu/pals/

28. Problem-Solving in Tier II 1. Identify discrepancy for individual. 2. Identify category of problem. 3. Assign small group solution

29. Re-examining National Reading Panel Data Burns (2002), Psychology in the Schools

30. National Reading Panel • Is phonemic awareness instruction effective in helping children learn to read? • Reviewed 52 studies of PA instruction. • Three general outcomes were explored • PA tasks such as phoneme manipulation, • Reading tasks such as word reading, pseudoword reading, reading comprehension, oral text reading, reading speed, time to reach a criterion of learning, and miscues, and • Spelling

31. National Reading Panel Results • PA instruction demonstrated better efficacy over alternative instruction models or no instruction • Improved PA measures (strong), reading (d = .53) and spelling skills • Teaching one or two PA skills was preferable to teaching three or more • PA instruction benefited reading comprehension (Ehri et al.).

32. Means and Ranges of Effect Sizes by Reading Outcome Measure

33. Assess 4 NRP Areas • Phonemic Awareness • Phoneme segmentation fluency • Phonics • Nonsense word fluency • Fluency • Oral reading fluency • Vocabulary/Comprehension

34. Tier II • Effective – at least moderate ES • Costs – Low as possible, cost/ES, cost effective (comes with a lot), dedicated teacher time • Delivery • Group/individual (two to six considering efficiency) • Total students (20%) • Who - teacher supervision with some peer and or adult tutoring • Pull out – in addition to, some pull out component, 3 to 5 X/week, approximately 30 minutes (kinder – 20min tops). No less than 8 weeks. • Grades of kids – earlier better, certainly K-2. • Measure – fluency measure of reading at least monthly • Materials • Ease – much easier if compiled, but not prerequisite • Availability – standardized (manual)

35. Logistics 3rd Grade Classroom Teacher A 25 Kids 1 Paraprofessional 3rd Grade Classroom Teacher A Parapro A 5 Kids 20 Kids

36. Logistics Teacher A 3rd Grade 25 Kids Teacher B 3rd Grade 25 Kids 5 Kids 5 Kids 10 Kids 3rd Grade – 60 Kids Total

37. Logistics Teacher A 3rd Grade 40 Kids 5 Kids 5 Kids 10 Kids 3rd Grade – 60 Kids Total Teacher L 5 Kids Teacher B 5 Kids Teacher D 5 Kids Teacher J 5 Kids Teacher F 5 Kids Teacher H 5 Kids Title 1 Teacher 5 Kids Itinerate or Specialist 5 Kids Parapro A 5 Kids Reading Specialist 5 Kids Parapro C 5 Kids Parapro B 5 Kids

38. Lower Elementary Grade K 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 8:30 to 9:00 & 10:30 to 11:00 Grade 1 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 9:00 to 11:00 Grade 2 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 10:00 to 12:00 Grade 3 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 9:00 to 10:00 & 1:00 to 2:00 Logistics

39. Lower Elementary Grade K 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 8:30 to 9:00 & 10:30 to 11:00 Grade 1 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 9:00 to 11:00 Grade 2 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 10:00 to 12:00 Grade 3 2 Classrooms – 50 kids Reading 9:00 to 10:00 & 1:00 to 2:00 Logistics Title 1 and Reading Specialist 10:30 9:30 11:00 1:30

40. Problem Solving in Tier III 1. Identify discrepancy for individual. 2. Identify causal variable. 3. Implement individual intervention

41. Change in education is like: committing suicide by standing in front of a glacier

42. For More Information Barnett, D.W., Daly, E.J., Jones, K.M., & Lentz, F.E. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirically-based special service decisions for increasing and decreasing intensity using single case designs. The Journal of Special Education, 38, 66-79. Burns, M. K., Appleton, J.J., Stehouwer, J.D. (2005). Meta-analytic review of responsiveness-to-intervention research: examining field-based and research-implemented models. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23, 381-394. Burns, M. K. (2007). RTI WILL fail, unless . . . . Communiqué, 35 (5), 38-40. Burns, M. K., Hall-Lande, J., Lyman, W., Rogers, C., Tan, C. S. (2006). Tier II interventions within response-to-intervention: Components of an effective approach. Communiqué, 35 (4), 38-40. Burns, M. K. & Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2006). Response to intervention: The effect on and role for school psychology. School Psychology Forum, 1 (1), 3-15. Burns, M. K., Dean, V. J., & Klar, S. (2004).  Using curriculum-based assessment in the responsiveness to intervention diagnostic model for learning disabilities.  Assessment for Effective Intervention, 29 (3), 47-56. Burns, M. K. & Senesac, B. J. (2005). Comparison of dual discrepancy criteria for diagnosis of unresponsiveness to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43, 393-406. Burns, M. K. & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2006). Using response to intervention to assess learning disabilities: Introduction to the special series. Assessment for Effective Intervention, 32, 3-5. Christ, T. J., Burns, M. K., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. Communiqué, 34 (3), 1, 6-8. Gresham, F.M. (2002). Responsiveness to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L. Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. Gresham, F. M., Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D., Fletcher, J., Burns, M. K., Christ, T., Prasse, D., Vanderwood, M., & Shinn, M. (2004). Comprehensive evaluation of learning disabilities: A response to intervention perspective. Communiqué, 33 (4), 34-35. AND The School Psychologist, 59 (1), 26-29.

44. burns258@umn.edu