Response to Intervention: Implementation Considerations

1. Response to Intervention: Implementation Considerations Jennifer Doolittle, Ph.D. Office of Special Education Programs December 17, 2007

3. general overview, integration of RtI and PBS and any federal guidelines for states that you think may help us align the two. • 2 hours

4. Overview • Advantages of RTI • Relationship between PBS and RTI • IDEA Regulations • 5 Dimensions of RTI • Four Parts of RTI Sequence • Implementation Issues • Implementation Assistance

5. Potential Advantages of RTI Approach • Emphasizes use of research-validated instruction. • Provides assistance to needy children in timely fashion. It is NOT a wait-to-fail model. • Helps ensure that a student’s poor academic performance is not due to poor instruction. • Assessment data are collected to inform the teacher and improve instruction. Assessments and interventions are closely linked. • Provides for a more collaborative approach where all staff are responsible for all students

6. Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive • Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive Academic Systems Behavioral Systems 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%

7. RTI A Continuum of Support for All Few Some All

8. IDEA Regulations • A State must adopt, consistent with 34 CFR 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State: • Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10); • Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and • May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).

9. IDEA Regs cont. • To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306: • Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and • Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

10. IDEA Regs cont. • The public agency must promptly request parental consent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services, and must adhere to the timeframes described in 34 CFR 300.301 and 300.303, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a group of qualified professionals, as described in 34 CFR 300.306(a)(1):

11. Implications • Determination of the additional variety of assessment tools that will be considered in addition to RTI- if RTI is part of the criteria for determining LD eligibility- to complete a comprehensive evaluation to determine eligibility for special education • LEAs need to be able to demonstrate the strategies used for increasing the child’s rate of learning and

12. Implications • OSEP does not take a position on: • a specific number of tiers within an RTI model • the slope of progress or absolute level of achievement that determines movement between tiers • whether or not an RTI process includes special education as a component of the tier system

13. Implementing an RTI Approach: 5 Dimensions • Number of tiers (2-5) • Nature of preventive intervention • Individualized (e.g., problem solving) • Standardized scientific research-based protocol • How at-risk students are identified • Percentile cut on norm-referenced test (screening) • Cut-point on curriculum-based measurement (CBM) with 5 weeks of CBM progress monitoring

14. Implementing an RTI Approach: 5 Dimensions(continued) • How ‘response’ is defined • Final status on norm-referenced test or using a benchmark • Improvement from pretest to posttest • CBM slope and final status • What happens to nonresponders • Comprehensive multidisciplinary evaluation to distinguish: • specific learning disability (SLD) • behavioral disability (BD) • mental retardation (MR) • speech-language impairment (SLI)

15. Simplified RTI Procedure: Four Parts • All children in a class, school, or district are tested once in the fall to identify those students at risk for long-term difficulties • The responsiveness of at-risk students to general education instruction (Tier 1) is monitored to determine those whose needs are not being met and therefore require a more intensive intervention (Tier 2: Small Group)

16. Simplified RTI Procedure: Four Parts(continued) • For at-risk students, a research-validated Tier 2 intervention is implemented; student progress is monitored throughout; and students are re-tested after the intervention • Those students who do not respond to validated intervention are identified for multi-disciplinary team evaluation for possible disability determination and special education placement

17. What Works Effective intervention practices + Effective implementation practices = Good outcomes for consumers

18. National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD) – Model Sites • Model sites’ distinguishing features • Core reading program • Use of universal academic screening • Conducted progress monitoring on the interventions in Tier 2 and more intensive • Schools were characterized as “good schools; you felt good about what you saw happening in the schools”

19. NRCLD Sites – Issues Across All Sites • None of the schools conducted fidelity measures on the Tier 2 interventions • Schools didn’t have explicit cut scores for decision making (Is the student responsive?) • Lack of specification and implementation of the Tier 2 and more intensive interventions • Lack of documentation of superior reading outcomes

20. Implementation Research (Fixsen et al., 2005) “Policy is allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs” Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action” “Training does not predict action”

21. Stages of Implementation • Exploration • Installation • Initial Implementation • Full Implementation • Innovation • Sustainability

22. Implementation Logic • Outcome-based • Data-based decision making • Evidence-based practices • Systems support for accurate & sustained implementation • Coaching and consultation • Administrative support

23. Emphasize data-based decision making • Self-assessment & action planning • Continuous self-improvement • Strengths & needs • Strategic dissemination

24. Consultation & Coaching • Critical for States to consider for LEAs • Sources of funding and professional development (State Improvement Grants) • New role of State staff • Utilize resources currently in place (homegrown) • Recruit effective personnel from exemplar schools as coaches for developing districts • Ongoing training for coaches • FTE allocated to school appropriate to school’s need • Direct observation, behavior rehearsal, data review • Collect data on coaching frequency, duration, and helpfulness

25. Coaches • Establish a network of highly skilled personnel who have • Fluency with RTI systems and practices • Capacity to deliver technical assistance • Capacity to sustain team efforts • Follow-up training throughout the year • Specialized topics • Communication and problem-solving

26. Active Administrative Participation • Active member of leadership team • Gives initiative priority • Invests in 2-3 year implementation

27. NRCLD Model Sites’ Advice to Schools Implementing RTI • Provide training on specific interventions • Use benchmarking to help to identify goals • Train a variety of staff, not just teachers • Make sure administrators are really on board • Partner with a local resource center • Take it slow; the process works, but it is a slow process • Address the students scoring in the 0-20th %ile

28. Assisting SEAs with Implementation • Center on State Implementation and Scaling-up of Evidence-based Practices (SISEP) • SISEP will provide the critical content and foundation for establishing a technology of large-scale, sustainable, high-fidelity implementation of effective educational practices. • SISEP will work with 6 states to improve their capacity to carry out implementation, organizational change, and systems transformation strategies to maximize achievement outcomes

29. National Center on Response to Intervention (RTI Center) • www.RTI4Success.org • Provide technical assistance and dissemination about RTI models • Target audience: SEAs • Four focus areas • Knowledge production • Implementation supports/TA • Information dissemination • Evaluation

30. Final Comments • Building a plane while flying – not unlike other areas in the past (assessment, behavior) • Blending the state of science with the state of practice (standard treatment & problem solving) • Where does sped fit into the new multi-tiered model of prevention and intervention?

31. Web Resources • National Research Center for Learning Disabilities • http://www.nrcld.org/ • IRIS Center for Faculty Enhancement • http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/ • Department of Education IDEA Web site • http://idea.ed.gov • RTI Summit Information • www.RTISummit.org • Click on “Resources”

32. RTI IDEA Partnership: www.ideapartnership.org/page.cfm?pageid=17 Progress Monitoring Technical Assistance Center: www.studentprogressmonitoring.org Resources