Response to Intervention in General, Remedial, and Special Education

1. Response to Intervention in General, Remedial, and Special Education Daniel J. Reschly dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu 615-708-7910 Delaware Department of Education May 7, 2007 Reschly RTI

2. What To Do With Egbert?? • 1st Grade, falling behind in reading • Slow progress compared to peers • Likely to miss benchmarks related to passing 3rd Grade reading test • Distractible, inattentive, disruptive, non-compliant • Sound Familiar • WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Driven by Federal Legislation • Consider NCLB and IDEIA Reschly RTI

3. What To Do With Egbert?? • 9th Grade, failing 3 of 5 classes at first 9 weeks • Attendance is declining • Homework non completion • Poor performance on weekly or unit tests • Defiant, distractible, inattentive, disruptive, non-compliant • Sound Familiar • WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Driven by Federal Legislation • Consider NCLB and IDEIA Reschly RTI

4. Egbert in the Traditional System • Refer Egbert • Preferral “intervention” (check a box) • Comprehensive Evaluation-Battery of Tests, “common battery”? • Assessment largely outside of the natural context • Dubious generalizations from test behavior to classroom • Eligibility assessment unrelated to intervention • Team decision-making • SLD diagnoses often inaccurate Reschly RTI

5. PROBLEM SOLVING CHART Does the *%$# thing work? Yes No Don’t mess with it! Did you mess with it? You Idiot! Yes No No Hide it! Yes Will you catch hell? Does anyone else know? No Yes You poor slob! Ignore it Can you blame somebody else? No Yes NO PROBLEM

6. What Is Response to Intervention (RTI)? • Scientifically-based instruction/interventions matched to student needs • Formative evaluation including frequent progress monitoring in relation to benchmarks, with decision rules applied • Decisions driven by student RTI, including gen’l ed instruction/intervention, remedial services/individual interventions, sp ed eligibility, placement, annual review and exit • Implementation requires: Allocating (aligning) resources to deliver effective interventions that produce improved child outcomes Reschly RTI

7. RTI Model Differences • Restricted vs Comprehensive System Wide • LD Identification • Do Tiers I and II, then traditional evaluation • Or Use RTI in eligibility determination and in the design, implementation, and evaluation of IEPs • Academic only or Academic and Behavior • False dichotomies: Standard Protocol vs Problem Solving vs Recognition of Both • Choices determined by nature of problem • Use of both in many situations Reschly RTI

8. RESPONSE TO Intervention POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Order at: www.nasdse.org Cost: $15 with discounts for large orders Reschly RTI

9. Purpose of the RTI Process • Improve results in academic, behavioral, and emotional regulation domains, through • High quality interventions • Formative evaluation • Student results drive decisions about needs and intensity of interventions • Improve, eliminate disproportionate representation • Identification of disabilities through procedures that are valid and connected to effective special ed interventions • Improve special education results and increase exit from sp ed • Prevention and early identification-intervention Reschly RTI

10. Why RTI? • Dissatisfaction with ach. results • Expensive programs with undocumented benefits, General Ed. Title I and Sp Ed • Poor overall outcomes re: benchmark tests, graduate rates, early adult outcomes • Overrepresentation in sp ed • Disjointed programs across general, remedial and special ed.-compromised outcomes and wasted resources Reschly RTI

11. 13 16 18 41 42 29 30 30 35 31 58 54 52 27 24 Reschly RTI

12. Special Education Placement Effects: High Incidence Disabilities Treatment/InterventionaEffect Size EMR/Special Classes (IQ 60-75) -.14 Special Classes (IQ 75-90) -.34 Resource for SLD and E/BD +.29 Traditional Placement Practices Have Weak Relationships to Outcomes Special Education as a Solution? Note: Effect size is expressed in SD units, analogous to a z-score Reschly RTI

13. Old Assumptions re: High Incidence Disabilities (SLD, MMR, E/BD) • Disabilities Inherent in Individual?-BUT, Context and prevention are crucial • Identify and Treat Underlying Causes-BUT, Failure of process training • Prescribe Methods that Capitalize on Strengths and Avoid Weaknesses-BUT, Failure of Aptitude by Treatment Interaction in Research and Practice Reschly RTI

14. Old Assumptions, cont. Unique Treatment Methods and Teacher Training by Disability But, Same methods work for virtually all High Incidence I SWD, LD, ED, EMR IQ Essential to Accurate Classification-BUT Same kids found with problem solving processes and measures Identifying Disability and Sp Ed Placement Solves Problem Dubious Effects of Special Education Reschly RTI

15. Meaningfulness of Special Education High Incidence Categories (www.ideadata.org) Table 1-13, retrieved 1-16-07 CategoryPrevalence RangeFactor ofNotes • MR: 0.4% (NJ) to 3.0% (WV) 7Xs (9 at 0.4) • ED: 0.2% (AR) to 2.4% (DC) 12Xs (VT=2.0) • LD: 2.2% (KY) to 7.7% (OK) 3Xs • Sp/L: 0.5% (HI) to 4.3% (WV) 8Xs • OHI: 0.5% (CA) to 2.4% (RI) 5Xs • All: 8.9% (CO) to 15.9% (RI) 1.8Xs Notes: Child disability count as a percentage of the 6-17 population. Reschly RTI

16. Some things do not make sense Reschly RTI

17. Progression of Research, Policy, and Legal Requirements • RESEARCH: Scientific research with practice demonstrations leading to • POLICY: Multiple policy analyses in presented in prestigious reports leading to • FEDERAL LAW: Multiple layers of Federal legal requirements leading to • STATE LAW: Changes in state rules leading to • SCALING UP: Scaling up efforts in states Reschly RTI

18. What Works? See Kavale (2005), Learning Disabilities, 13, 127-138 and other sources TreatmentEffect Size • Applied Behavior Analysis. + 1.00 • CBM+Graphing+Formative Evaluation + reinforcement + 1.00 • Explicit Instruction and Problem Solving + .70 to 1.50 • Comprehension Strategies +1.00 • Math Interventions +.60 to 1.10 • Writing Interventions +.50 to .85 Reschly RTI

19. Policy and Legal Influences • NICHD LD Studies • Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press. • Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.pdf • National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html • LD Summit Researchers Recommendations (Bradley et al., 2002) • Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) report, http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports.html Reschly RTI

20. Commonalties in Policy Recommendations • Accountability-Improved results for all students and better results are possible!! (Gloeckler) • Integration of general, remedial, and sp ed through multiple tiers of intervention • Scientifically-based interventions with problem solving • Progress monitoring with formative evaluation • Decisions at all levels driven by child response to intervention • Abandon IQ-Achievement discrepancy in LD Identification Reschly RTI

21. Progression of Federal General and Special Education Legislation 1960-70s To 2000s Assistance Results [__________________________________________] ESEA EHA NCLB/ Rdg 1st IDEA 2004 Procedures Outcomes Number Served Improvement Reschly RTI

22. Major Legal Themes (NCLB, IDEA) • Scientifically-based instruction • More frequent assessment, progress monitoring, formative evaluation • Well integrated multiple tiers of Intervention • Decisions driven by child responses to instruction-intervention in general, remedial, and special education • Alignment of resources to enhance positive outcomes Reschly RTI

23. Changes in Legal RequirementsIDEA (2004) • ‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local educational agency 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. Reschly RTI

24. Response to Intervention (IDEA, 2004) • ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—In deter- mining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency 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). • Does response to intervention appear in the law? Reschly RTI

25. Final Regulation • NEW AND SIGNIFICANT: • (b must consider, as part of the evaluation described data that demonstrates that— • (1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child was provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings, consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by qualified personnel; and • (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, was provided to the child's parents. Reschly RTI

26. Prevention-Early Intervention • LEA can use 15% of federal IDEA funds to support prevention and early identification-treatment • Purpose: minimize over-identification and unnecessary sp ed referrals • Provide academic and behavioral supports; and professional development re: early literacy and behavior • MUST use the 15% if LEA has “significant disproportionality Reschly RTI

27. Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual and Small Groups • Intense, Prolonged Intervention • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • Standard protocol reading • interventions • Targeted Small Group or Individual • Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • Targeted Individual Behavior • Interventions • Universal Interventions • Effective Academic In- • struction • Universal Interventions • School-wide positive • Behavior • Effective classroom and • Behavior management 80-85% 80-85% Multiple Tiers Implemented Through Progress Monitoring and Formative Evaluation (Sugai, Horner, & Gresham, 2002) Enter a School-Wide Systems for Student Success • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual and Small Groups • Intense, Prolonged Interventions 5-10% 5-10% 10-15% 10-15% Reschly RTI

28. Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision • Tier I: General Education: All students; Effective instruction, 80-85% at benchmarks • Tier II: Standard Protocol and Problem Solving:(about 10 to 20 weeks)Small group and individualized interventions • Decision Making: Continue Program, Modifications, Comprehensive Evaluation?? • Tier III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction in General and/or Special education • Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation Reschly RTI

29. Multi-Tiered Behavior Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision • Level I: General Education : School wide positive discipline, effective classroom organization and management, teacher assistance teams • Level II: Individualized Problem Solving re: Behavior: Targeted, intense individual interventions in general education • Decision Making? Continue Program, Modifications, Comprehensive Evaluation • Level III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction in General or Special education • Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation Reschly RTI

30. Formative Evaluation • Frequent assessment of progress • Referenced to goals based on benchmarks toward passing state tests • Decision rules regarding modification of goals or instructional programs • All decisions about student needs and instructional intensity are based on child RTI Reschly RTI

31. Characteristics of Effective Formative Evaluation Measures • Direct measures of skills • Natural settings • Efficient re: costs and time required • Sensitive to small increments of growth in relevant skills • Results can be graphed in relation to goals • Reliable in terms of stability • Valid re: relationship to broad indicators of competence • Example: CBM oral reading fluency and reading comprehension Reschly RTI

32. Tier I: General Education, Universal Stage, Primary Prevention • Academics and Behavior • Scientifically-based • Explicit instruction • Systematic intervention • Inter-related, reciprocal relationships, mutually supported • Discuss separately here, but acknowledge the essential inter-relationship of academics and behavior Reschly RTI

33. Tier I: Academic Interventions • Scientifically-based instruction in reading • Curricula-content-Big ideas, e.g., reading • Phonemic Awareness • Alphabetic principles • Fluency • Vocabulary • Comprehension • Study of IHEs pre-service preparation in rdg • 14 of 72 taught all 5 components and many taught none, see http://www.nctq.org/nctq/ Reschly RTI

34. IHEs and SBRR Five Components Source http://www.nctq.org/nctq Sample N=72 • 5 Components • Phonemic • Alphabetic • Fluency • Vocabulary • Compre-hension 43% N=31 13% 15% 7% 11% 11% N=11 N=8 N=8 N=9 N=5 Components 5 4 3 2 1 0

35. Tier I: Academic Interventions • Teaching Methodology Explicit Instruction • Modeling, guided practice, practice to automaticity, integration; You do it with feedback, You do it independently, You do it automatically • Frequent responding with feedback, Brisk pace • Systematic Instruction • Sequential, Hierarchical • Include all reading components each day • Beat the odds teachers: http://rea.mpls.k12.mn.us/BEAT_THE_ODDS_-_Kindergarten_Teachers.html Reschly RTI

36. Tier I: Assessment: Academics • Routine Assessment of Progress • Screen all students, begin in kindergarten; 3 times per year with appropriate early literacy measures • More intense instruction and monitoring within classroom for students below trajectories toward passing state benchmark tests • Grouping, instructional materials, time, paraprofessionals Pat Vadasy at U of WA • Increase assessment to 2 Xs per month Reschly RTI

37. Reading Benchmarks (DIBELS) Reschly RTI

38. KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: Winter KTG 25 sounds correct/min. New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction Reschly RTI

39. KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: Winter KTG 25 sounds correct/min. Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction Reschly RTI

40. Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: 35 correct New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction Reschly RTI

41. Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: May 35 per minute Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction Reschly RTI

42. Nonsense Word Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: 25 correct per minute New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction Reschly RTI

43. Nonsense Word Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: 25 correct per minute Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction Reschly RTI

44. KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: Winter KTG 25 sounds correct/min. Students needing greater Gen’l Ed monitoring and Interventions Reschly RTI

45. 1st Gr. Nonsense Word Fluency Benchmark: Winter First Grade 50 Words Per Minute ?? Reschly RTI

46. Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency Benchmark: End of 1st=42 WCM Winter=71 WCM End of 2nd=100 WCM ?? Reschly RTI

47. Behavioral Assessment and CBM Measures • Focused on determination of change • Formative evaluation critical • Tied to effective practices and better outcomes • Applications in general, remedial, and special education • Identification of disabilities-integrates identification with treatment Reschly RTI

48. Why Behavior Assessment (including CBM) • Determine current levels in academics and behavior; degree of need • Monitor progress, assess change • Foundation for formative evaluation-improving interventions • Determine success of interventions • Decisions based in child response to interventions Reschly RTI

49. Foundations of CBM • Deno & Mirkin (1977) Breakthrough • Brief samples of behavior • Use of oral reading fluency samples • Production per unit of time • Fluency and accuracy combined • Words read correct per minute • Math-digits correct • Spelling-letters correct Reschly RTI

50. Prior Barriers to CBM Use • Cumbersome for practitioners, developing own passages • Conceptual issues: Passages from curriculum or generic passages? • Teachers’ concerns about comprehension: Word calling?? • Inertia; satisfaction with current practices • IDEA: assessment of change not required Reschly RTI