ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF YOUR STUDENTS

1. ACADEMIC AND BEHAVIORAL EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICES TO MEET THE NEEDS OF YOUR STUDENTS Lewis Jackson, Ed. D. University of Northern Colorado Spring, 2012 CBOCES Schools

2. What does RTI Look Like?

3. What RTI is Supposed to Assure . . . • All students are within the triangle. There are no exceptions • All students have access to general curriculum • All students receive specialized instruction if they need it to support access to general education curriculum. At tier 1, this involves differentiated instruction, universal design, and accommodations/modifications. Push-in and pull-aside is emphasized as opposed to pullout. At tier 2, this may involve increased push-in with support and more pull-aside, but typically it involves pull-out that is either individualized or delivered in small group formats. At tier 3, there is more intense instruction that is either individualized or is in small groups or classes. Tier 3 should not replace Tier 1 or 2, and it should not eliminate access to general education curriculum. In many districts, tier 3 is associated with special education placement • All students experience progress monitoring in relation to the general curriculum. Monitoring is more intense in Tiers 2 and 3. • All students receive instruction employing research-based practices • There is collaboration between general and special educators such that educational opportunities are optimized. General education teachers play a prominent role in the delivery of services to students within the triangle.

4. How does Response to Intervention (RTI) relate to your services?

5. How should it relate to your services, if we were to fully apply the RTI concept with your students?

6. What it could look like . . .

7. Children who I have helped support in general education settings . . .

8. What I see (or suspect) is happening in many school districts in Colorado • Especially at the Elementary level, RTI is used as a service model for both struggling students and for students with mild disabilities, and it is used as a placement control device in relation to special education referral. Pullout is emphasized at tier 2 and SPED placement is emphasized at tier 3. I am uncertain as to whether special education placements have been reduced, but such placements may occur more efficiently and for students who more obviously need it. • The model’s emphasis on continued access to general education curriculum is a “work in progress” but it is having positive effects, especially in relation to literacy. • I am uncertain about its affects on behavioral concerns. It seems to me that PBIS as a rigorously enforced system of practices is in its twilight years, but some of its benefits remain, such as in school rules and slogans. At the same time, students with more severe behavioral problems may be benefitting less from RTI and more from simply the protective measures within IDEIA; services in tier 3 are probably not much different than from before RTI became vogue; and behavioral concerns remain a major headache for districts, who continue to want higher education to do a better job preparing special education teachers. I think the major issue is not teacher preparation, but rather a pervasive instructional paradigm emphasizing control, evident in both teacher education and in school services to these students.

9. What I see (or suspect) is happening in many school districts in Colorado (cont.) • Students with more severe disabilities are not typically viewed as part of the triangle; however, some districts make a deliberate effort to ensure access to general education through varying levels of inclusive services or through an emphasis on self-contained literacy instruction. • Some students who were once fully included no longer are because of pullout for intense instruction; some students who were mostly self-contained are experiencing more general education setting experiences, perhaps resulting from a combination of past momentum for inclusion in our state and the growing emphasis on accessing general education • There is an (unverified) potential for more students once viewed as “significant support needs” to now be viewed as “less disabled” and to be in caseloads of teachers who have traditionally served students described as having mild disabilities. This is probably less the result of RTI and more the result of ongoing trends in promoting general education access and curriculum. However, it shows up as an RTI issue in that these students may now experience more services in both Tier 1 and (especially) Tier 2 settings.

10. What I see (or suspect) is happening in many school districts in Colorado (cont.) • I have seen only minimal changes in collaboration, especially in relation to severe disabilities. Co-teaching is still a dream in most schools, except in tracked classes that feature heavy proportions of students with special education needs. Many general education teachers feel overwhelmed by the requirements of the student diversity already present in their classes and the corresponding demands placed on them via content standards, Tier 1 RTI processes, progress monitoring, and service to Tier 2 students. The net result might be a reluctance to assume more responsibilities, such as might be presumed to be required when students enter their classes with significant support needs.

11. What I see (or suspect) is happening in many school districts across the nation • More general education teachers seem willing today to include students with significant support needs, but they want support and (sometimes) additional training. This may be partly due to RTI initiatives in schools, but it is also likely due to changes in teacher education and to the long-term impact of PL 94-142 and related litigation since 1975. • After 20 years, more special education professionals are accepting inclusion as a viable option and (increasingly) as a best and necessary option. However, some who were once resistant tend to describe what is going on today as something other than inclusion (“It’s different from inclusion . . .”). RTI probably has conceptual roots in inclusion, and inclusion probably has benefitted from RTI, especially for students with mild disabilities. • School districts are slow to change placement practices. More typically, one sees RTI being an add-on service rather than being endorsed as a conceptual model requiring re-thinking education services in general. But there are enough exceptions to this statement to leave me still wondering about the long term impact of the RTI model . . . • Many programs serving student with significant support needs may now be more entrenched in their old practices, with some changes related to increased literacy and math instruction; other programs however are riding the wave of RTI and experiencing less resistance toward (at least) mainstreaming. The pattern adopted by a program may depend on the values of the teacher running the program, but it sometimes is a consequence of leadership initiatives.

12. Steps we can take to align our practices with RTI . . . • Enhancing community within our schools to benefit students within our caseload • Recognizing the contributions and practices of general educators, showing them how it is making a difference with our students • Increasing general education mainstreaming opportunities, especially in relation to academic courses • Increasing general education mainstreaming quality • Changing the focus our programs, and working with our staff (e.g., para-educators) to make this a reality • Promoting curriculum access via accommodations and modifications

13. Steps we can take to align our practices with RTI (continued) • Changing our grading practices to better match the rest of the school • Changing the curriculum we deliver in our self-contained settings • Changing the IEP Goals that we develop and expect to be realized to match the content of age- and grade-appropriate general education curriculum • Presuming competence rather than assuming inability • Using evidence-based practices that are derived from inclusive education research (e.g., embedding, ecologically-based practices, natural peer supports)

14. Steps we can take to align our practices with RTI (continued) • Using evidence-based practices that encourage independence in our students within the school and other settings (e.g., AAC systems with authentic vocabulary, daily schedules, video-based and pictorial instruction, self-management strategies, instruction within natural routines of the school) • Knowing the limits of self-contained 1:1 “direct instruction” • Knowing the limits of “functional curriculum,” and its devaluing impact on students with significant support needs and their teachers, in the eyes of the school community

15. Questions? Concerns? Comments?