Response to Intervention: An Overview

1. Theresa M. Janczak, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Exceptional Education Buffalo State College Theresa M. Janczak Response to Intervention: An Overview

2. Objectives • Develop a better understanding surrounding the construct of RtI • Discuss the impact of RtI relative to your role as an educator • Identify source materials related to RtI

3. Topics • Definition of RtI • Rationale: Where did it come from and why do we need it? • Support for RtI in Federal Law • Essential Features • RtI as a Multi-tiered Prevention System • Progress Monitoring and CBM • Next Steps • Resources

4. Defining RtI RtI is the practice of providing high-quality instruction/interventionmatched to student needs and monitoring progress on a frequent basis by examining learning rate over time and level of performance to inform educational decisions. NASDSE, 2005

5. Rationale: Why Do We Need RtI? • Dramatic increase in the number of students identified as LD = costly special education programs • Dissatisfaction with current method of identifying students with LD • Identification and services occur too late • 88% of poor readers in first grade will continue to poor readers in fourth grade (Juel, 1988)

6. Why Use RTI Instead of IQ/Achievement Discrepancy?

7. IQ-ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY MODEL Is there a significant difference between a student’s score on an IQ test and scores on an achievement test?

8. Limitations to the ‘test-score discrepancy model’ (Gresham, 2001): • Relies on a “WAIT to FAIL’ MODEL • Fails to consider that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a child's learning delay. • A ‘severe discrepancy’ between test scores provides no useful information about WHY the student is doing poorly academically. • Provides limited instructional utility • Lack of uniformity among states regarding discrepancy formulas

9. The Prominent Alternative: Defining LD in Terms of Severe Low Achievement RTI • LD as nonresponders to validated instruction. • ASSUMPTION: If a child does not respond to instruction that is effective for the vast majority of children, then there is something different about the child experiencing the nonresponse. • RtI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viable explanation for learning difficulty.

10. Where Did It Come From? • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) • Excessive paperwork limited instruction • 2 separate systems • Poor instruction may contribute to poor achievement • National Research Council (2002) • Advocated early screening and RtI models • LD Summit (2001) • IQ-Achievement discrepancy formulas inadequate • Need for alternative approaches • Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 • Promotes early screening and intervention • Recommends a multi-tier intervention strategy • Better integration between general and special education • On-going, systematic progress monitoring

11. IDEA 2004…The Changes IDEA 2004 includes two important innovations designed to promote change: • Explicitly allows states to use RtI to identify LD, and • Forbids states from forcing schools to use a discrepancy model to identify LD. • Until July 1, 2012

12. IDEA 2004 …The Changes • IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found eligible for special education if they have not received instruction in reading that is scientifically research-based, including the five essential components of reading instruction identified by the Reading First Program. • Phonics • Reading fluency • Vocabulary development • Reading comprehension • Phonemic awareness

13. IDEA 2004 … The Changes: Determining Specific Learning Disabilities • Ensure that underachievement of a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, … • Obtain data which 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 Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

14. IDEA 2004 … The Changes:Determining Specific Learning Disabilities • Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress, during instruction, which is provided to the child’s parents. • Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

15. Part 200 Regs. Authorizes the use of RtI in the State's criteria to determine learning disabilities (LD) and requires, effective July 1, 2012, that all school districts have an RtI program in place as part of the process to determine if a student in grades K-4 is a student with a learning disability in the area of reading. “Effective on or after July 1, 2012, a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria to determine that a student in kindergarten through grade four has a learning disability in the area of reading.” [8 NYCRR section 200.4(j)]

16. Response to Intervention is : …a focus on intervention rather than on what is wrong with the child … a focus on the solution rather than the problem … a focus on addressing the needs of all students having difficulty, not just those with labels … a focus on positive outcomes for all students … a focus on all educators being responsible for all children …better integration of programs and services for all children

17. CURRENT SYSTEM Reading Recovery Special Education Special Ed. Title I Remedial Reading General Education

18. Under an RtI System Special Education General Education Special Education Intervention General Education

19. Critical Features of RtI • High quality, research-based instruction and intervention • Interventions with increasing intensity • Measurement • universal screening for all 3 times per year • systematic and frequent progress monitoring to determine response by examining: • level of performance • rate of performance • Data-based decision-making • Multi-tiered Model

20. RtI Model

21. Tier 3 Health Care Analogy • Tier 2 • inexpensive diuretics • frequent monitoring • experimentation w/more expensive medications e.g. ACE inhibitors, beta blockers) • on-going monitoring • Tier 1 • annual check-up • screened for high-blood pressure • monitor over the next 6-8 weeks to verify or disprove initial results Tier 1 • annual check –up • HBP screening indicates risk • monitor over next 6-8 weeks to verify or disconfirm risk

22. TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status AT RISK TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched-based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPONSIVE TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPONSIVE Three Tiers of RTI

23. TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status AT RISK TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched-based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TYPICAL RtI PROCEDURE • Screen all students to identify suspected at-risk students. • Monitor progress of students suspected to be at risk to (dis)confirm risk. • Provide second preventative tutoring to at-risk students, while progress is monitored to assess response.

24. TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status AT RISK TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched-based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TYPICAL RtI PROCEDURE • Move students who prove unresponsive to secondary preventative tutoring to tertiary prevention. They receive comprehensive evaluation to answer questions and to determine disability. • Monitor progress in tertiary prevention to set IEP goals, formulate effective programs, and determine exit decisions.

25. Universal Screening: Math

26. Universal Screening: Math

27. Who’s Benefitting From Intervention? NONRESPONDER RESPONDER A student who makes minimal or no gains after being taught with high quality, validated interventions. A student who makes expected gains and makes progress when evidence-based instruction is provided in the general education classroom.

28. How Do We Know Who’s Responding vs. Nonresponding? MONITOR STUDENT’S PROGRESS USING CURRICULUM BASED MEASUREMENTS (CBM)

29. CBM • A method of monitoring student progress • Basic skills assessment: • Reading • Mathematics • Spelling • Written expression • Timed and brief “probes” • Standardized administration • CBM probes – 1 to 5 minutes • Probes scored for: • Speed or fluency • Accuracy of performance

30. Three Purposes of CBM • Screening • Progress Monitoring • Instructional Diagnosis

31. Advantages of CBM • Quick and easy to administer • Curriculum overlap • Sensitive to change over short period of time • Backed by 25 years of empirical research supporting its use

32. Pre-Reading Measures Phoneme Segmentation Letter Sound Fluency Letter Name Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency Reading Measures Oral Reading Fluency Maze Fluency Curriculum – Based Measurement: Measures Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32. http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

33. Mathematics Measures Computation Concepts and Applications Spelling Measure Written Expression Measure Curriculum – Based Measurement: Measures Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32. http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

34. What We Look For in CBM INCREASING SCORES: Student is becoming a better reader. FLAT SCORES: Student is not profiting from instruction and requires a change in the instructional program.

35. Who’s Benefitting from Instruction? Reading 2 Sarah Smith Words Read Correctly Sep Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

36. What are some examples of CBMs for math and reading? Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (Pro-Ed Online, 2006); DIBELS (2006); Intervention CBM probes (Interventioncentral.org) FREE AIMSweb (2006)

37. Internet Resources for CBM Reading • Intervention Central—CBM Warehouse www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring www.studentprogress.org • Official DIBELS Homepage www.dibels.uoregon.edu • Research Institute on Progress Monitoring progressmonitoring.org

38. New System What’s Different? Old System No universal screening Little progress monitoring “WAIT to FAIL” model Focus on within-in child problems or deficits Clear eligibility criteria All students are screened Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling Ecological focus Tiered model of delivery

39. New System What’s Different? Old System Multidisciplinary team made up mainly of special education personnel Reliance on assessment, particularly standardized tests Assessment data collected during a limited # of sessions Problem solving or intervention team; include general and special educators Collaborative educational decisions based on ongoing school, classroom, and individual student data Multiple data points collected over time and in direct relationship to the intervention provided

40. New System What’s Different? Old System Comprehensive evaluation consisting of mainly formal assessment LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” as compared to a measure of the child’s ability (IQ-achievement discrepancy) Full and individualized evaluation relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RtI process LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students, even struggling ones.

41. Caution • The devil is in the details. The success of Response to Interventionwill depend on whether it is appropriately implemented by highly-trained professionals - and this is likely to be a problem. http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.htm