Response to Intervention: Paradigm shift in assessment practices

1. Response to Intervention: Paradigm shift in assessment practices Kevin L. Buehler, Ph.D., NCSP Response to Intervention Consultant Knox County Schools

2. Activity • Write your biggest frustration about the definition of a learning disability. • Generate a solution to that frustration.

3. Frequently Mentioned Frustrations regarding LD • Students who don’t meet the LD criteria but continue to struggle academically • Students who do meet the LD criteria are not identified early enough • Students who struggle have to be labeled to receive classroom assistance

4. Solutions • Use different criteria • Identify students earlier • Provide effective interventions for all students who need classroom assistance

5. Easier said than done! However, these premises are the basis of the response to intervention model.

6. What’s wrong with the discrepancy model? • For students with word reading deficits, there are few meaningful differences between IQ-achievement discrepant poor readers and IQ-achievement consistent poor readers • Under the discrepancy model, one student qualifies for special education assistance, and the other does not, despite having similar reading achievement

7. The importance of early intervention • National Institutes of Health (1999) study: • If students are not reading at grade level by the third grade, the odds that they will ever read at grade level are only 1 in 17 • By the 4th grade, 2 hours of specialized daily instruction is required to make the same gain that would be obtained from only 30 minutes of specialized daily instruction in kindergarten

8. Impact of Effective Interventions

9. RTI Model • LD Criteria do NOT include a discrepancy requirement • Students get help early within the regular education setting • At-risk students are provided with research-based interventions

10. Presentation Objectives • Discuss the foundations of RTI • Review RTI model • Discuss the primary assessment component of the RTI process: Curriculum-Based Measurement • Review general implementation suggestions • Describe specific KCS procedures • Review KCS implementation data • Review available resources • Answer questions

11. Foundations of RTI

12. Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • 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 Theoretical Foundation 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%

13. Legal Foundation • RTI was proposed in IDEA 2004 as an alternative method for identifying LD students because of the following: • Over-identification of LD students • Problems with discrepancy model of identification • A lack of specific scientific, research-based instruction/intervention prior to referral • A disproportional number of minority placements

14. Special education regulations (IDEA) • Determination of Eligibility: “a child must not be determined to be a child with a disability … if the determinant factor for that determination is … lack of appropriate instruction in reading [or] math.” 34 CFR § 300.306 • LD procedures: “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” 34 CFR § 300.307 • The discrepancy model for identifying LD is considered “potentially harmful” to students

15. Implication • States cannot mandate the use of the discrepancy formula for identification of LD AND they must permit the use of RTI models.

16. IDEA regulations • … underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math by considering: • Data that demonstrates that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriateinstruction 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. 34 CFR § 300.309

17. Implication • Students cannot be identified with a learning disability without documenting numerous attempts in regular education to meet their needs using scientific research-based strategies • Student progress must be monitored • Progress data must be provided to parents * Note: Regardless of the method of identification for LD (discrepancy or RTI), a response-to-intervention-like process is required prior to certification.

18. Issues Not Addressed in IDEA • The federal regulations do not offer specific guidelines regarding how to implement RTI. • How long should the interventions last? • How many tiers, or levels, of interventions should be done? • Who conducts the interventions? • How is progress defined and measured?

19. Specific Texas regulations (i)  data that demonstrates the child was provided appropriate instruction in reading (as described in 20 USC, §6368(3)), and/or mathematics within general education settings delivered by qualified personnel; and

20. Specific Texas regulations (ii) data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal evaluation of student progress during instruction. Data-based documentation of repeated assessments may include, but is not limited to, response to intervention progress monitoring results, in-class tests on grade-level curriculum, or other regularly administered assessments. Intervals are considered reasonable if consistent with the assessment requirements of a student's specific instructional program.

21. Specific Texas regulations I)   does not make sufficient progress when provided a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention (as defined in 20 USC, §7801(37)), as indicated by the child's performance relative to the performance of the child's peers on repeated, curriculum-based assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting student progress during classroom instruction; or

22. Specific Texas regulations (II) exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both relative to age, grade-level standards, or intellectual ability, as indicated by significant variance among specific areas of cognitive function, such as working memory and verbal comprehension, or between specific areas of cognitive function and academic achievement.

23. Research Foundation • Reading Research • When students get behind in first grade it is hard for them to catch up • Intensive scientific research-based interventions are needed for struggling readers to catch-up • Growth in reading fluency requires a lot of accurate practice • Struggling readers do not get enough accurate practice

24. Research Foundation • Reading Research • A student at the 10th percentile reads about 60,000 words a year in 5th grade • A student at the 50th percentile reads about 900,000 words a year in 5th grade • Average students receive about 15 times as much practice in a year

25. Research Foundation • Effectiveness of LD programs for students identified using the discrepancy model has been low: • Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000) • Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998) • Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind. • Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly) • It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

26. Research Foundation • Using the discrepancy model: • Children must fail before they can be identified as LD, with identification typically occurring in grades 3-5 • IQ and academic achievement are not independent; so difference scores are unreliable (which results in poor reliability and validity of classification) • Is not supported in research in terms of prognosis or cognitive profiles

27. Research Foundation • Traditional Assessment • Medical model (diagnostic purpose) • Deficit oriented • Child centered (one at a time) • “Wait to fail” • Refer-test-place • Focuses on diagnosis rather than prevention

28. Alternative to IQ-Achievement Discrepancy Model • Defining LD as severe deficit in: • Achievement Level AND • Rate of Academic Progress

29. Defining LD in terms ofa dual deficit • LD is defined as non-responders (low achievement and poor progress) to validated scientific research-based instruction • RTI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viable explanation for a learning disability Assumption: If a child does not respond to instruction that is effective for the vast majority of students, then there is something different about the student causing the non-response

30. Assessment paradigm shifts • Move from refer-test-place to assessment-intervention-evaluation practice • Move from high inference measures to low inference measures • Move from static (one shot) testing to dynamic (continuous) progress monitoring of response to intervention

31. RTI model

32. RTI Model • A process where at-risk students are provided increasing levels of intervention prior to consideration for LD • Seeks to determine what instructional supports are needed to solve student achievement problems • Eliminates a “wait to fail” model because at-risk students get help promptly within the regular education setting • Intended to address problems with the discrepancy model of identifying students with LD

33. Essential Components of RTI • Universal screening • Multiple tiers of intervention • Progress monitoring • Problem-solving or standard protocol approach • Integrated data collection/assessment system • Scientific research-based interventions

34. Universal Screening • Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is the recommended tool to identify students who are at-risk (have low academic skills) and require interventions • CBM is a technically sound and thoroughly researched progress monitoring system

35. Universal Screening • CBM: • Is a standardized test • Is given to everyone • Measures critical skills • Is brief • Can be repeated frequently • Is inexpensive and easy to administer and score • Provides data to assist with decision making at the individual student, class, school or district level • Tells us what students are “at-risk” and need supplemental instruction/intervention

36. Multiple Tiers of Intervention • Levels of intervention with increasing frequency &/or intensity from one tier to the next. Some recommend 2 tiers and some recommend 3.

37. 3 Tier Model SpecialEducationConsideration HIGH Tier IIIIncreasedInterventions Intensity of Intervention Tier II Supplementary Interventions Tier ICore Curriculum Monitoring Frequency &Degree of Unresponsiveness LOW HIGH

38. Tier guidelines • Each tier of intervention builds on the next. • In other words, supplemental intervention in each tier adds to the student’s core curriculum instruction.

39. Progress Monitoring • Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is the recommended tool for measuring student response to the intervention.

40. Progress Monitoring • The purpose of progress monitoring is to take frequent measures of a student’s performance to determine whether he or she is making progress in response to the intervention.

41. Why Not Pre and Post Test? Pre-Test (10 Weeks) Post-Test ?

42. Problem Solving or Standard Protocol Approach • Problem Solving • A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

43. Problem Solving or Standard Protocol Approach • Standard Protocol • A standard set of interventions available to students when they enter the RTI process

44. Problem Solving or Standard Protocol Approach • Combined • Using a standard set of interventions, but using a problem-solving team to individualize those interventions

45. Integrated Data Collection / Assessment System • AIMSweb, DIBELS, etc. • Benchmark Data Collection • Progress Monitoring

46. Scientific, Research-Based Interventions • Interventions that address academic deficits must be available in general education settings • Progress monitoring methods must be incorporated into general education

47. Scientific, Research-Based Interventions • Employs systematic, empirical methods • Involves rigorous data analyses • Relies on methods that provide reliable data across settings, subjects, and evaluators • Uses experimental or quasi-experimental designs • Allows for replication of the study • Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or panel of independent experts 34 C.F.R. 300.35

48. What Are Interventions • Targeted assistance based on progress monitoring • Administered by classroom teacher, specialized teacher, or external interventionist • Provides additional instruction • Individual, • Small group, • and/or technology assisted

49. Interventions are NOT • Preferential seating • Shortened assignments • Parent contacts • Classroom observations • Suspension • Doing MORE of the same / general classroom assignments • Retention • Peer-tutoring

50. Example of computer-based intervention: Destination Reading/Math Example of teacher directed small-group intervention: Scott Foresman Early Reading Intervention Scientific, Research-Based Interventions