Camille Catlett Virginia Buysse Heidi Hollingsworth FPG Child Development Institute

1. Creating National Guidance on Response to Intervention in Early Childhood:Updates on the DEC/NAEYC/NHSAJoint Position Statement Camille Catlett Virginia Buysse Heidi HollingsworthFPG Child Development Institute May 17, 201111th National Early Childhood Inclusion Institute Chapel Hill, NC

2. Process history

3. Definition Early childhood inclusion embodies the values, policies, and practices that support the right of every infant and young child and his or her family, regardless of ability, to participate in a broad range of activities and contexts as full members of families, communities, and society. The desired results of inclusive experiences for children with and without disabilities and their families include a sense of belonging and membership, positive social relationships and friendships, and development and learning to reach their full potential. The defining features of inclusion that can be used to identify high quality early childhood programs and services are access, participation, and supports.

4. Defining features Access – means providing a wide range of activities and environments for every child by removing physical barriers and offering multiple ways to promote learning and development.

5. Defining features Participation – means using a range of instructional approaches to promote engagement in play and learning activities, and a sense of belonging for every child.

6. Defining features Supports– refer to broader aspects of the system such as professional development, incentives for inclusion, and opportunities for communication and collaboration among families and professionals to assure high quality inclusion.

7. Recommendations • Create high expectations for every child to reach his or her full potential. • Develop a program philosophy on inclusion. • Establish a system of services and supports. • Revise program and professional standards. • Achieve an integrated professional development system. • Revise federal and state accountability systems.

8. Resources http://community.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/Early_Childhood_Inclusion

9. A new joint position statement Origins Key Concepts • Framework for linking assessment with instruction • Formative assessment • Instruction and tiered interventions/supports • Collaboration and data-based decision making

10. New partners • Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children (DEC) • National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) • National Head Start Association (NHSA)

11. New plans

12. Listening sessions Purpose • Obtain input on key issues related to RTI-EC • Use this information to inform the joint position statement Participants • 44 states, DC, and Puerto Rico • Variety of disciplines, professional roles, and organizational affiliations Procedures • 8 listening sessions (7 face-to-face, 1 online) • Questions posed at each session

13. Listening sessions: What we heard How much RTI is occurring across the country varies widely, but participants reported that many people are talking about it, if not implementing it • Preschool vs. school-age • Pilot programs • Confusion about connections between RTI and referral, eligibility, and Head Start’s 10% requirement

14. Listening sessions: What we heard Participants noted the need for a definition of RTI in early childhood that includes the key components of this approach RTI system • Assessment • Intentional teaching • Research-based curricula • Data-based decision-making • Family involvement • Professional development • Infrastructure supports (policies, resources) • Early childhood values and recommended practices (family-professional partnerships, developmentally appropriate practices, emphasis on the whole child, integrated approach across all domains of development and learning)

15. Listening sessions: What we heard Participants mentioned some supports already in place for implementing RTI in early childhood as well as resources that were lacking in this regard • Strong interest

16. Listening sessions: What we heard Participants stressed that a joint position statement should offer specific guidelines about how to implement RTI, build on available resources, and improve the quality of programs • Issue specific guidelines • Use language that is accessible to a variety of audiences • Provide recommendations that contribute to program quality improvement efforts already underway

17. How would you have answered? Does the input received during the Listening Sessions mirror what you are hearing about RTI in your state or community? How?

18. National experts meeting: Summary • There was general consensus among the national experts on the need for a joint position statement on RTI in early childhood. • National experts agreed on the need for a definition of RTI in early childhood that identifies key features of this approach. • National experts agreed on the need to provide guidance on how RTI should be implemented in early childhood programs and contexts.

19. National experts meeting: Summary Areas for clarification • How to connect RTI to curriculum • How to connect assessment to instruction • How to support development across multiple domains • Systemic supports necessary for implementation • Age range • Cultural and linguistic implications • Staffing: Who’s responsible for implementing RTI? Early childhood? Early childhood special education? Both?

20. National experts meeting: Summary • National experts agreed that there is a need to target a broad audience for the position statement that included program administrators, practitioners, policy makers, and family members. • National experts identified other organizations that should be involved in developing the joint position statement on RTI in early childhood.

21. Joint work group meeting: Summary Work group members nominated a variety of features that should define RTI in early childhood • A framework for organizing early care and education practices to address the needs of every child • Meaningful assessment to inform instructional planning and decision-making • Intentional teaching linked to standards and evidence-based practices • Methods to promote teaming and family engagement

22. Joint work group meeting: Summary Work group members suggested that RTI approaches need to focus on: • children birth to 5 and their families in different contexts • the cultural and linguistic diversity within the early care and education system • all developmental domains (including social-emotional development and academic learning)

23. Joint work group meeting: Summary Work group members mentioned that some foundational elements for building an RTI approach are already in place in many early childhood programs, but these are overshadowed by the challenges in implementing this approach • How can RTI fit with existing federal and state policies and regulations? • How can RTI avoid being viewed as an approach that focuses on children’s deficits in learning? • How can resources be found to effectively implement RTI? • How can RTI be more than the push-down of instructional practices used in k-12 programs for children? • How can the position statement provide additional information and guidance to support implementation of RTI in early childhood prior to kindergarten entry?

24. Reviewing the drafts • Draft 1 reviewed by Work Group members and National Experts via electronic platform (“landing pad”) – March 2011 • Draft 2 reviewed by Work Group members and National Experts via electronic platform (“landing pad”) – April 2011 • Draft 3 will be reviewed by Governing Boards prior to seeking national input

25. How would you answer? What state and national groups should be targeted to participate in the national review?

26. Watch the process unfold http://community.fpg.unc.edu/resources/articles/RTI-EC