Response to Intervention: The Opportunity and the Reality

1. Response to Intervention: The Opportunity and the Reality National Association of State Directors of Special Education Annual Conference Minneapolis, Minnesota October 25, 2005 George Batsche, Ed.D. Tampa, FL Judy Elliott, Ph.D. Long Beach, CA Judy Schrag, Ed.D. Seattle, WA W. David Tilly, Ph.D. Johnston, IA

2. RESPONSE TO Intervention POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Order at: www.nasdse.org Cost: $15 with discounts for large orders

3. Objectives • To review the “Whys” of RtI • To define RtI • To examine some RtI core principles • To examine data on what happens when you actually implement RtI • To take some time to process the information • To address questions and ideas from participants

4. RTI – Why do it?

5. Why RtI? The Pushes • The Vision of IDEA was not just that students would be found • The Vision of IDEA was not just that students would be identified • The Vision of IDEA was not just that students would be placed in special education • The Vision of IDEA was not just that students would receive services • The Vision of IDEA was also that the services to students with disabilities would be EFFECTIVE!

6. Why RtI? The Pushes: Final Purpose of IDEIA ‘04 • To assess and ensure the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with disabilities

7. The significant problems we have cannot be solved at the same level of thinking with which we created them. • Albert Einstein (1879 – 1955)

8. Why RtI?: Pushes and Pulls

9. Why RtI? The Pushes • Need to integrate general and special education • Need to document the effectiveness of special and remedial education • Need to align identification procedures with effective instruction • Need to reexamine assumptions underlying our practice • Need attend to AYP, SWD in high stakes testing, dissagregations – RtI fits hand and glove with NCLB

10. The Pushes: Need to Align General And Special Education Special Education Sea of Ineligibility General Education

11. Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

12. Need to Align Identification Procedures with Instruction • Assumption: Thorough understanding of the intrapersonal (within person) cause of educational problems is the most critical factor in determining appropriate treatment • Learning problems results from a complex interaction between curriculum, instruction, the environment and learner characteristics (e.g., Howell, 1993)

13. Need to Reexamine Assumptions Underlying Our Practice • The assessments that we use most frequently are reliable and valid for the purpose they are being used • Knowledge about the child is the most critical piece of information in planning effective intervention • Matching instruction to underlying student characteristics results in maximally effective instruction

14. One Last Assumption: Learning disability for most children so identified is a hardware not a software problem Big Point!!!!! Instruction Changes Neurology!

15. Why RtI? : The Pushes: Need to Meet AYP, SWD in high stakes testing, dissagregations • RtI is about maximizing results • RtI provides the mechanism for schools to take control of their outcomes • One of the keys of RtI is that it provides and iterative, self-correcting mechanism, driven by student results

16. Why RtI? The Pushes – In Sum • Most importantly, despite our best efforts many, many children with disabilities and at-risk learning characteristics are still not successful in acquiring basic skills

18. Why RtI? The Pulls

19. Why RtI? The Pulls • We know far more about the causes of disability (e.g., National Reading Panel) • We know more about effective instruction (e.g., scientifically-research based practice, standard treatment protocols) • We know more about the limitations of our current systems structures and have viable alternatives (e.g., tiered models, early intervention) • We have far better models for data based decision making (e.g., problem solving method) • We have far better Tools to help us make instruction effective (e.g.., CBM, DIBELS, CBA, CBE, Formative Evaluation, Problem Analysis etc.)

20. In Sum – Why RtI? • We can do better than we ever have before • It is not so much the issue any longer of “what works” • It is an issue of how do we deploy it so that it can work? • RtI is the most critical component if prevention and early intervention efforts are to be successful.

21. RTI – What is it?

22. Definition • RtI is the practice of providing high-quality instruction and intervention matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about change in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions. • IDEA 2004 provides for the use of RtI as part of the process to determine eligibility for learning disabilities.

23. Core Principles • We can effectively teach all children. • Intervene early. • Use a multi-tier model of service delivery • Use a problem solving method to make decisions within a multi-tier model.

24. Core Principles – Cont. • Use research-based, scientifically validated interventions/instruction to the extent available. • Monitor student progress to inform instruction. • Use data to make decisions. • Use assessment in screening, diagnosis, and progress monitoring.

25. Essential Components • Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery—such as a three-tier model • Problem-solving method • An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery

26. Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • High Intensity • Of longer duration • Tier 3: Intensive, Individual Interventions • Individual Students • Assessment-based • Intense, durable procedures • Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response • Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions • Some students (at-risk) • High efficiency • Rapid response Three Tier Model of School Supports • Tier 1: Universal Interventions • All students • Preventive, proactive • Tier 1: Universal Interventions • All settings, all students • Preventive, proactive 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% Students 80-90% Multi-Tier Model of Service Delivery

27. Define the Problem Is there a problem and what is it? Develop a Plan What shall we do about it? Problem-Solving Method Evaluate/Response to Intervention Analyze the problem Did our plan work? Why is it happening?

28. Integrated Data System Nine Characteristics: • Directly assess the specific skills within state and local academic standards. • Assess marker variables that lead to the ultimate instructional target. • Are sensitive to small increments of growth over time. • Can be administered efficiently over short periods.

29. Integrated Data System • May be administered repeatedly. • Can readily be summarized in teacher-friendly formats/displays. • Can be used to make comparisons across students. • Can be used to monitor an IEP over time. • Have direct relevance to the development of instructional strategies related to need.

30. What RTI Is and Is Not Is: • RtI is an overall integrated system of service delivery. Is Not: • RtI is not just an eligibility system—a way of reducing the numbers of students placed into special education.

31. What RTI Is and Is Not Is: • RtI is effective for students who are at risk for school failure as well as students in other disability categories. Is Not: • RtI is not limited to students with learning disabilities.

32. What RTI Is and Is Not Is: • RtI is The use of RtI is an excellent opportunity to more effectively align IDEA and NCLB principles and practices. Is Not: • RtI is not just an special education approach.

33. Use of RtI in the Student Eligibility Process So, how does the eligibility process look different using the RtI approach vs. traditional practices?

34. Data? So, what do the data say about RtI in places around the country that have been using it?

35. Field-Based Evidence • National Networks for Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention Initiatives • “Innovations” Conference • National RtI Listserve • National Research Council on Learning Disabilities

36. Arkansas California Colorado Florida Illinois Iowa Kansas Louisiana Michigan Minnesota Missouri Montana New Zealand North Carolina Ohio Pennsylvania Rhode Island Singapore South Carolina Utah Washington Wisconsin Wyoming States Implementing PSM/RtI at the state, district, pilot levels

37. Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked • How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process? • What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds? • What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?

38. Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked • Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model? • What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy model?

39. How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process? • Evidence from Iowa and Minnesota would suggest that it takes 4-6 years (or more) to complete full implementation. Full implementation includes policy and regulatory change, staff development, and development of building/district-based procedures.

40. Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public Schools Problem-solving model phase-in began in 1994 Adapted from Marston (2001).

41. What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds? • VanDerHeyden, et al. report that students responded positively to the method and that African-American students responded more quickly than other ethnic groups. • Marston reported a 50%decrease in EMH placements over a 6-year period of time. • Marston reported a drop over a 3-year period in the percent of African-American students placed in special education from 67% to 55%, considering 45% of the student population was comprised of African-American Students.

42. Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public Schools Problem-solving model phase-in began in 1994 Adapted from Marston (2001).

43. Percentage of African-American students at each stage of referral process at 41 schools N=9643 N=200 N=184 N=348 N=416 N=154 N=9170 N=124

44. What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI? • Swerdlik, et al. conducted a longitudinal study of the impact of PSM/RtI in the FLEXible Service Delivery system in Illinois. Results indicate that both teacher and parent satisfaction with the PSM/RtI method was superior to that of the traditional test-staff-place model.

45. Teacher Satisfaction at Heartland Question 1: The problem solving process supports teachers in improvingthe performance of students whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports. Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general and special education. Source: Heartland AEA 11 Consumer Satisfaction Survey 2000-2001

46. Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model? • Marston (2001) reports a 40% decrease in special education placements for LD programs. • VanDerHeyden, et al., report a significant reduction in the rate of placement in LD programs • Heartland Early Literacy Project (HELP) reported significant decreases in initial special education placements in grades K (41%), 1 (34%), 2 (25%) and 3 (19%) across a 5 year initial implementation period.

47. Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence disabilities (1990-2001):Minneapolis Public Schools Problem-solving model phase-in began in 1994 Adapted from Marston (2001).

48. What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy model? • VanDerHeyden, et al. reported that RtI methods (local comparisons and multiple measurement) were superior to teacher referral for problem accuracy. • VanDerHeyden, et al. reported identification of students for eligibility for LD programs was accurate when compared to traditional ability/achievement discrepancy methods.

49. Research and PSM/RtI RtI and Traditional Discrepancy Comparison Amanda VanDerHeyden (2005) QUALIFY Yes No Pending Total Poor RtI-Refer 15 2 4 21 Good RtI-Do Not Refer 9 15 1 25 Total 24 17 5 46

50. Time To Talk