RtI: Response to Intervention and the Problem Solving Model

1. RtI: Response to Intervention and the Problem Solving Model Presented by Alison Boutcher Director Mid-State Special Education 2007-08

2. Reason for Change • Federal legislation: NCLB & IDEIA, Reading First • Problems with Traditional Service Delivery Model • Paradigm shift • We want to continually reassess our practices to be sure we are providing the best education for ALL students

3. IDEA 2004 Eligibility Determinations • A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if determinant factor is: • Lack of scientifically-based instructional practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction. • Lack of instruction in math • Limited English Proficiency

4. IDEA 2004 Specific Learning Disabilities • The LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

5. New IL Regulations • Each district shall, no later than the beginning of the 2010-11 school year, implement the use of a process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304.

6. New IL Regulations • In addition to using an identification process of the type required by subsection (b) of this Section, a district may use a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability.

7. Plan for RtI • No later than January 1, 2009, each district shall develop a plan for the transition to the use of a process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. Each district’s plan shall identify the resources the district will devote to this purpose and include an outline of the types of State-level assistance the district expects to need, with particular reference to the professional development necessary for its affected staff members to implement this process.

8. What is ‘Response to Intervention (RtI)’?(Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Schrag, Tilley, 2005) • A 3-tiered process for service delivery that increases the intensity of services when a student fails to respond to an intervention • Identifying and providing high quality instruction and research-based interventions matched to students’ needs • Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time to make important educational decisions • Educators use ongoing student performance data to determine if an intervention is working. If it is not, it is time to do something different.

9. Response to Intervention is Not: • An instructional program. It is a framework to make decisions about instructional needs based on student data • Intended to focus only on students who are below expected levels of proficiency • Just an eligibility system – a way of finding students eligible and/or reducing the numbers of students placed into special education.

10. Advantages of Using Response to Intervention • RtI will help you to: • Know immediately, “Is what we are doing working?” • Know which students need more • Know what each student needs • Provide structures to deliver what students need • Raise student achievement

11. Without Response to Intervention Special Education Sea of Ineligibility General Education

12. With a 3-Tiered Model: Bridging the Gap Special Education Amount of Resources Needed to Solve Problem Interventions General Education Intensity of Problem

13. 4 Critical Core Principles • Universal Screening • Intervention • Progress Monitoring • Intervention Efficacy and Fidelity

14. Universal Screening • 3 times each year – establish benchmarks • Tied to state academic standards and aligned to curriculum • Designed to measure basic academic skills • Typically administered school-wide to groups or individuals • Brief, reliable, valid

15. What Universal Screening Provides • Benchmark data norms for classrooms, grade levels, schools, districts • Information on the effectiveness of the core curriculum for most students • Information on the effectiveness of the core curriculum for subgroups • Data on which students are lagging well behind their peers

16. Interventions • Must be research-based • Should involve active engagement • Should modify the mode of task presentation • Should modify direct instruction time, pacing, guided and independent practice • Should include more cues and prompts

17. Progress Monitoring • Brief, frequent assessments • Evaluate student response to the intervention • Informs instruction

18. Intervention Efficacy and Fidelity • Teacher self-report/implementation logs • Ratings scales/checklist of steps • Direct observation • Permanent products created by teacher/student

19. School-Wide Systems for Student Success Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Of longer duration • 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 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90%

20. Identify the Concern and Define the Problem PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS Monitor and Evaluate Intervention(s) Problem Analysis Develop and Implement Intervention(s)

21. Often Some Steps are Skipped in the Process Identify the Concern and Define the Problem PROBLEM SOLVING PROCESS Monitor and Evaluate Intervention(s) Problem Analysis Develop and Implement Intervention(s) “we want to help children as quickly as possible”

22. Identify the Concern A mismatch between the student’s performance and the learning environment expectations Example:The expectation is for students to complete seat work. The identified student’s work is incomplete.

23. Operationally Define the Behavior • Objective • Observable • Measurable • addressing Frequency, Duration and Intensity

24. Operationally Defining Behavior • (Target behavior) ________________ means that the student (action verbs) ______________________ . Examples of the behavior include: • _____________________________ • 2) _____________________________ • 3) _____________________________ • Non-examples of the behavior include: • 1) _____________________________ • 2) _____________________________ • 3) _____________________________

25. Analyze the Problem • The Use of a Scientific Method of Hypothesis-driven Questioning and Answer Seeking • Why is this problem situation occurring? • What factors (student characteristics, classroom/school environment, teacher/learner interaction, curriculum, peer relations, home and/or community issues) are contributing to the mismatch that exists between actual and desired levels of performance for each problem?

26. Develop and Implement Interventions • What are interventions? • Planned strategies designed to change (improve) the behavior of a specific learner • Includes the documenting and analyzing of data

27. Monitor Interventions: Progress Monitoring • Systematic procedure for the frequent and repeated collection and analysis of student performance data • It may be used to monitor any academic or non-academic behavior • It allows for the examination of student performance across time to evaluate intervention effectiveness

28. EXAMPLE: “MARCO” Marco is in fifth grade. He was retained in kindergarten. Often he tells the teacher he doesn’t care about school. Marco has been earning D’s and F’s in all subjects. In 1st through 4th grades Marco earned B’s, C’s and D’s. He usually did better in Math and Science. Reading and Language Arts were always the most difficult. Marco has two older brothers and a younger sister in third grade. The brothers have a history of poor school attendance and poor school performance, however his sister typically earns B’s and C’s.

29. “MARCO” Assistance Using a Problem Solving Process • Identify the Concern/Define the Problem • Analyze the Problem • Develop and Implement an Intervention • Monitor and Evaluate the Intervention

30. “MARCO” Identify the Concern Marco is not performing as expected in class. He is expected to earn C’s or above in all subjects at the 5th grade level. Marco is earning D’s and F’s.

31. “MARCO” • Defining the Problem: • Not performing in class as expected means • Marco is completing less than 100% of his paper and pencil classroom assignments, quizzes and tests • b) He is scoring at less than 70% accuracy

32. “MARCO” • Narrow the Focus (Examine the Data) - • Examples of Target Behavior: • 1. He has completed 8 of the last 16 in-class assignments • 2. Of the last 12 in-class assignments he has completed 3/4 of the work leaving 1/4 not completed • 3. On the past 3 tests and 6 quizzes he has earned an average of 65% accuracy - on the tests he averaged leaving seven items blank and on the quizzes he left an average of four items blank • Non-examples include: • - lack of homework completion • - performance insmall group work • - in-class assignments in which there is not sufficient time to completework

33. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #1 Student Characteristics - language, cognitive, health, self-perception, behavior/motivation The records reflect average-to-above grades through 4th grade and group test scores ranging from the 25th to 65th percentile. The teacher and students fully understand Marco when speaks and he appears to completely understand others. Health records reflect no concerns. There is a question about how he feels about himself and his motivation. - The team agrees to gather more information by interviewing Marco.

34. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #2 Classroom/School Environment - physical arrangements, instructional setting, presence and/or absence of resources, professional expertise There are 23 students in the classroom with a classroom aide helping with three “lower functioning” students. She also helps others in the class depending on the situation. The teacher has ten years of experience and has successfully worked with other studentsin the past with a background similar to Marco’s. - No concerns.

35. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #3 Teaching/Learning Interaction - teacher expectations, presentation style, instructional routine The school psychologist has observed in the classroom numerous times. She reports that Marco consistently follows along and is attentive. The teacher notes that her classroom expectations are consistent with district specified grade level learning objectives. She mentions that all the other students are “keeping pace”. - This is not an identified area of concern.

36. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #4 Curriculum - subjects, types of tasks, curricular expectations The teacher notes Marco performed better in the first quarter, his poorer performance started at the beginning of the second quarter. The curriculum is no longer review, it has gotten more challenging. She believes it now may be too hard for Marco. This leads the team to a hypothesis. - If the curriculum is modified Marco will complete all his in-class work with 70% or higher accuracy.

37. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #5 Peer Relations The classroom teacher reports that she has observed Marco interacting age-appropriately with many other students. The playground supervisor notes Marco plays well with other boys at recess. - Not an area of concern.

38. “MARCO” Analyze the Problem Factor #6 Home and/or Community Issues There are questions about support and assistance and home. There are further concerns about possible negative influence by older brothers. The team determines these are secondary issues and will not address them at this time.

39. “MARCO” • Develop and Implement an Intervention • What to do next: • 1. The school social worker will speak with Marco during the next week. She will interview him trying to better understand his feelings about himself and his performance at school. She will determine what kind of correlation exists between his thoughts and feelings related to this and his school performance. • The special education teacher and school psychologist will meet with the classroom teacher during the next week to modify the math and language arts curriculum (the teacher prioritized these two are • INTERVENTION: • After math and language arts are modified, the teacher will instruct Marco using these modifications.

40. “MARCO” • Monitor and Evaluate the Intervention • Monitor • In-class paper and pencil tasks • Quizzes • Tests • Amount completed • % Correct • Evaluate • The team agreed to review the data in six weeks

41. NEXT STEPS • After reviewing the data from the interventions the team will determine: • It’s working - continue • It’s sort of working - refine it and continue • It’s not working - analyze why, consider other hypotheses and develop a different intervention • It’s not working - there are no other reasonable hypotheses and/or resources to assist, so consider other programs/services

42. What To Do With Egbert?? • 1st Grade, falling behind in reading • Slow progress compared to peers • Likely to miss benchmarks related to passing 3rd Grade reading test • Distractible, inattentive, disruptive • Sound Familiar

43. Graph Current Status Words Correct Per Minute Class=24 Egbert=11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

44. Determine Goal: Class=1.5 wd growth per week; Egbert Goal: 2 wd growth per week Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

45. Monitor Egbert’s Progress Relative to Goal Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

46. Formative Evaluation: Change Intervention Change Intervention Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

47. Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress Change Intervention Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

48. Raise Goal to 2.5 WCM Growth Change Intervention Change Goal Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

49. Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress Change Intervention Change Goal Discontinue Tier II Words Correct Per Minute Class Growth Class=24 Egbert=11 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks

50. Decisions Re: Egbert • Fade Tier II academic intervention • Reduce number of weekly sessions • Monitor progress to ensure continued progress • Evaluate behavioral intervention (not shown here) • Depending on results, consider enhancing, fading, or discontinuing • Do NOT consider more intensive interventions