ULTIMATE PURPOSE of RTI

1. Not to determine whether a student qualifies for special education, but rather to enhance the success of students with a variety of academic and behavioral needs. ULTIMATE PURPOSE of RTI

2. Core Principles We believe that… • ALL children can learn and achieve high standards as a result of effective teaching. • All students must have access to a rigorous, standards-based curriculum and research-based instruction. • Intervening at the earliest indication of need is necessary for student success (Pre K-12). • A comprehensive system of tiered interventions is essential for addressing the full range of student needs.

3. Core Principles • Student results are improved when ongoing academic and behavioral performance data are used to inform instructional decisions. • Collaboration among educators, families and community members is the foundation to effective problem-solving and instructional decision-making. • Ongoing and meaningful involvement of families increases student success. • All members of the school community must continue to gain knowledge and develop expertise in order to build capacity and sustainability. • Effective leadership at all levels is crucial for the implementation of RtI.

5. The overarching purpose of RtI implementation is to improve educational outcomes for all RtI Defined Response to Intervention is an approach that promotes a well- integrated system connecting general, compensatory, gifted, and special education in providing high quality, standards-based instruction & intervention that is matched to students’ academic, social- emotional, and behavioral needs. A continuum of evidence-based, tiered interventions with increasing levels of intensity and duration is central to RtI. Collaborative educational decisions are based on data derived from frequent monitoring of student performance and rate of learning. students.

7. Traditional vs. Problem-Solving

8. Curriculum Across the Tiers Universal Tier (Tier 1) • Provide foundation of curriculum and school organization that has a high probability (80 – 90% of students responding) of bringing students to a high level of achievement in all areas of development/content • Choose curricula that has evidence of producing optimal levels of achievement (evidence-based curriculum) Targeted Tier (Tier 2) • Supplemental curriculum aligned with Core Curriculum and designed to meet the specific needs of the targeted group Intensive Tier (Tier 3) • Focused curriculum designed to meet the specific needs of the targeted group and/or individual • Consideration of replacement Core curriculum

9. Instruction Across the Tiers Universal Tier • Instructional strategies that are proven effective by research • Instruction that is systematic and explicit • Differentiated instruction Targeted • Involves homogeneous small group or individual instruction • Explicit and systematic instruction targeting specific skill/content • Research-based instruction to such student factors as age, giftedness, cultural environment, level of English language acquisition, mobility, etc. • Supplemental to Tier I instruction -- increasing time and intensity Intensive • Explicit, intense instruction designed to unique learner needs • Delivered to individuals or very small groups • Narrowed instructional focus and increased time

10. Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) Small Group Counseling Parent Training (Behavior & Academic) Bullying Prevention Program FBA/BIP Classroom Management Techniques, Professional Development Small Group Parent Training ,Data Behavioral Systems Academic Systems 5-10% Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Individual Counseling FBA/BIP Teach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP) Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures Students Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive Interventions Individual Students or Small Group (2-3) Reading: Scholastic Program, Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, LeapTrack, Fundations Tier 1: Universal Interventions All settings, all students Committee, Preventive, proactive strategies School Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club) School Wide Consequence System School Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline, Surveys, etc.) Professional Development (behavior) Classroom Management Techniques,Parent Training 1-5% 80-90% 1-5% Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Students that don’t respond to the core curriculum Reading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended Day Writing: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just Write Narrative” by K. Robinson 5-10% Tier 1: Core Curriculum All students Reading: Houghton Mifflin Math: Harcourt Writing: Six Traits Of Writing Learning Focus Strategies 80-90% Three Tiered Model of School Supports: Anclote Elementary-Pasco County

11. Step 1 Results Monitoring Addl. Diagnostic Assessment Instruction All Students at a grade level Individualized Intensive Individual Diagnostic weekly Small Group Differen- tiated By Skill Standard Protocol Behavior Academics 2 times/month Bench- Mark Assessment Annual Testing ODRs Monthly Bx Screening None Continue With Core Instruction Grades Classroom Assessments Yearly Assessments How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol Step 2 Step 3 Step 4 Intensive 1-5% Supplemental 5-10% Core 80-90%

13. BEST PRACTICES of Tier I • Core Instruction • Assessment/Progress Monitoring • Data discussions • What should the overall process look like during Tier I?

14. Core Instruction During Tier I • Scientifically based core instructional programs and practices • Based on state/district standards and benchmarks • Intervention occurs within the general design of the classroom (flooding, flexible grouping) • Instructional changes are made based on classroom and school-wide assessment

15. Data Discussions in Tier I • Professional Learning Communities • Data-dialogue meetings • Grade or Content-level meetings • Meeting should be efficient, organized and scheduled regularly • Discuss • Whole group, flexible group changes, class changes at secondary • Curricular gaps based on review of class benchmarks or other data

16. Assessment in Tier I • Progress monitoring is conducted primarily using school-wide screenings three times per year • Classroom assessments • Benchmarks • Quarterly and Unit Assessments • Common Assessments

17. The Overall Process of Tier I • Teachers evaluate school-wide assessment data to inform instructional placement decisions • Monitor all students • Differentiate instruction, groupings, accommodations • Complete documentation for students needing targeted interventions

18. BEST PRACTICES of Tier II:and how to Distinguish from Tier I • Problem Solving Process • Data dialogue • Assessment/Progress Monitoring • Design of Instruction/Intervention • What should the overall process look like at this tier?

19. Data Dialogue in Tier II: • Consultation between consultant and teacher to define and analyze a measurable problem prior to problem-solving team meeting. • Focus on data that is specific to problem identified. • Problem-solving team meeting led with facilitator which is timed, sequential and efficient. • Identify achievement gap and rate of progress toward expectations

20. Assessment in Tier II: • Progress is monitored more often (weekly, bi-monthly) • Progress is monitored repeatedly for a period of time using consistent CBM tool • Trends in performance are used to gauge effectiveness of supports and interventions • Ineffective intervention plans are changed in a timely manner • Intervention plans are modified based on emerging needs

21. Design of Instruction/Intervention in Tier II: How to distinguish from Tier I • Instruction supplements, not supplants, core instruction • Focus on non-responders to Tier I • Short-term intervention • Homogeneous, same ability small group (3-5 students) instruction • Standard Protocol Interventions

22. Interventions: Tier 1 => Tier 2 • Smaller group size • Increased time • Increased intensity • Increased duration • Increased power of intervention selected • More systematic, direct instruction, etc.

23. How the Tiers Work • Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral • Greater the tier, greater support and “severity” • Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention • Continue until student strengthens response significantly • Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level) • Determine the relationship between sustained growthand sustained support.

24. Progress Monitoring • Measurable data collected weekly or every other week for Tier 2 • Tied to what observable and countable data you expect to change due to the selected interventions • Baseline – the number of behaviors per time period you see at the start • Target – goal – what you want to see • Data point – enter the count each time you progress monitor the behavior

26. BEST PRACTICES of Tier III: • Problem Solving Process (consider need for Problem Analysis in SJBOCES) • Data dialogue • Assessment/Progress Monitoring • Design of Instruction/Intervention • What should the overall process look like at this tier?

27. Problem-Solving Process in Tier III: • Identify why interventions have been unsuccessful • Develop and improve existing interventions or generate new interventions that are more intensive

28. Data Dialogue in Tier III: • Identical to Tier II, happens in problem-solving team meetings with same process (or Problem Analysis meeting as needed) • Consultants continue to dialogue with classroom teacher, parent, etc. between meetings to support intervention plan

29. Progress Monitoring in Tier III: More often • Progress monitoring may need to happen every week; however, depending on the grade level and/or skill less often may be sufficient (every other week) • Modifications are made to individualized instruction in response to the data collected

30. Design of Instruction in Tier III:and how to Distinguish from Tier II • The intervention may stay the same but will increase in • Intensity (more time per session) • Frequency (additional sessions during day or week) • Duration (implement intervention over longer period of time in weeks) • The focus of the intervention may change as well

31. Overall Process of Tier III: • Supplemental – continue to educate student in core curriculum and with the interventions that have been implemented if successful • Interventions and progress monitoring intensify • If the goal is to gain academic and behavior skills the lack of progress and inability to close the Gap with intensive interventions may indicate a disability issue

32. Learning Disabilities • Recent studies have shown that when students with severe reading problems are given early, intensive instruction, nearly 95% can reach the national average in reading ability!

33. All laws not created equal… • There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition for LD. • Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array of methods used to determine intelligence. • James Ysseldyke, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled under one definition or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993) • Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from "environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage." • Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially poorly researched, if at all. • Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of students who were eligible for services. Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

34. All laws not created equal… “According to the Children's Defense Fund, middle-class children starting first grade have been exposed to 1,000 to 1,700 hours of one-on-one reading, while their low-income counterparts have been exposed to only 25 hours. It's little wonder that so many of these kids get referred to special ed.” (Washington Monthly, June 1999) • There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition for LD. • Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array of methods used to determine intelligence. • James Yssseldyke, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled under one definition or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993) • Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from "environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage." • Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially poorly researched, if at all. • Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of students who were eligible for services. Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

35. Identifying Key Concerns with Previous IDEA Law • For years, researchers have advocated for a change to the “discrepancy model” (a.k.a. “wait to fail model.”) • Misidentification of LD = greater # of students in special education services (300% + since 1975) • “Sympathy” eligibility • Eligibility as a “back-up plan” for limited reg. ed. services

36. Effectiveness of Instructional Approaches (Deno, 2005)

37. Changing the way we ID…SLD! New flexibility with IDEIA: “In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, an LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability.” • Law now provides districts/LEAs the option to eliminate IQ-discrepancy requirements • Embraces model of prevention—not failure • Students with disabilities are considered general education students first with interventions beginning in the general education classroom. • Mandates that students cannot be identified as LD if they have not had appropriate instruction in reading, meaning research-based, scientific interventions. IMPLICATIONS: • General ed. must assume active responsibility for delivery of high-quality instruction, interventions, and prompt ID of at-risk students collaboratively. • Special Ed must partner with gen. ed. to provide those interventions early on.

38. ‘Old’ SLD Eligibility Process • Referral made • Rule-outs (not due to vision, hearing, motor, lack of instruction, cultural differences, language differences, etc.) • IQ – Achievement Discrepancy • Establish Existence of Processing Deficit • Need for specialized programming

39. Criteria for Identification for Specific Learning Disability (must be used as of 8/15/09) To receive special education or related services for a Specific Learning Disability in the academic area(s) of: Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Math Calculation, Math Reasoning, Written Expression, Oral Expression, and/or Listening Comprehension, a student mustmeet all of the SJBOCES adopted eligibility criteria below based upon state and federal Response to Intervention (RtI) regulations. Each section must be verified and the box checked.

40. SLD Criteria (cont.) 1. Significant underachievement will be observed in the student’s level of academic functioning compared to grade-level expectations on appropriate curriculum based measurement (CBM) assessments. Dual Discrepancy must be denoted by having a significant difference in both the student’s CBM scores AND growth (slope) measured against those of grade level students. • This will be demonstrated by skills in the bottom 10%ile compared with grade-level peers on both national norms and local school norms (when available) on a Survey Level Assessment in the appropriate academic measure(s) using AIMSweb CBM; and • The slope or Rate of Improvement (ROI) on AIMSweb should be less than the expected rate of improvement for a student at the 50%ile in the grade in which the student is being progress monitored.

41. SLD Criteria (cont.) 2. The student will also show scores at or below the 10th%ile on at least one additional district level assessment that measures Colorado State Standards, such as the Grade, Gates, Bear, NWEA, etc. 3. Standards-based achievement results are both below the average range and support the Dual Discrepancy in the area(s) of concern. Relevant scores on CSAP (when available) must be in the bottom four twelfths (a Proficiency Score of Unsatisfactory or the bottom third/Low end of Partially Proficient range).

42. SLD Criteria (cont.) 4. The student has been provided an evidence-based core curriculum in general education as well as at least two appropriate evidence-based interventions implemented in the area of concern which were provided with sufficient duration, intensity and fidelity by qualified personnel. At least one intervention was done in Tier 2 and at least one in Tier 3; the Tier 3 intervention was conducted by or with involvement from the Special Education teacher. At least 6 to 8 weekly data points must have been collected on each intervention conducted.

43. SLD Criteria (cont.) • Learning difficulties are not the result of lack of appropriate instruction in reading, lack of appropriate instruction in math, limited English proficiency, visual, hearing, or motor disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, or environmental or economic disadvantage. • Student demonstrates a need for intense and frequent specialized instruction.