RtI in Illinois

1. RtI in Illinois Disability Rights Consortium at Equip for Equality Chicago, Illinois September 28, 2011

2. Presenters • Rodney D. Estvan M.Ed.Education Policy Analyst Access Living of Chicago & • Antoinette P. Taylor Exceptional Needs Consultant Illinois State Board of Education approved Professional Development Provider www.atexcepetional.com

3. § 300.307 Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with § 300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in § 300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State— (1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10); (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10).

4. In the 1970 version of IDEA the federal regulations required that students in order to be identified as having a severe learning disability had to show a severe discrepancy between measured achievement and intellectual ability. As Professor Weber and others have pointed out the regulations did not define what a severe discrepancy was and left it up to the states to decide.

5. As early as 1981, we can see debates among psychologists raging over what exactly a severe discrepancy was. There were four basic methods of quantifying severe academic discrepancy - 1/ N grade level deviation, expectancy formula, standard-score comparisons, and regression analysis. Quantifying a Severe Discrepancy: A Critical Analysis Thomas E. Cone and Lonny R. Wilson Learning Disability QuarterlyVol. 4, No. 4, Severe Learning Disabilities (Autumn, 1981), pp. 359-371

6. By 1989 there were studies showing that if a school simply picked the lowest achieving students in a school that were referred for evaluation in a school year and declared them simply to have a learning disability that random process would have yielded about the same percentage of correct decisions, as would two different discrepancy methods. Defining severe discrepancy in the diagnosis of learning disabilities: A comparison of methods Harvey F. Clarizio, and S.E. PhillpsJournal of School PsychologyVolume 27, Issue 4, Winter 1989, Pages 383-391

7. In 2003 several leading experts on Learning Disabilities came to the conclusion that it was necessary to eliminate IQ-achievement discrepancy as an LD marker, and to have a serious public discussion about alternative identification methods. The most popular of the alternatives was responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI), of which there were two basic versions: the “problem-solving” model and the “standard-protocol” approach. But these experts called for more research on RtI before implementation. Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, Evidence, and Implications for the Learning Disabilities Construct Douglas Fuchs, Devery Mock, Paul L. Morgan, Caresa L. Young Learning Disabilities Research & Practice Volume 18, Issue 3,pages 157–171, August 2003

8. Illinois RtI 23 IAC 226.130(b): Provided that the requirements of this subsection (b) are met, 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. When a district implements the use of a process of this type, the district shall not use any child’s participation in the process as the basis for denying a parent’s request for an evaluation.

9. By January 1, 2008, ISBE was required to develop a plan for implementing RtI that is to be developed in consultation with stakeholder groups, including ISAC which ISBE did • The plan was supposed include estimated costs and resources needed to provide TA to districts, as well as a method for identifying those districts that require assistance for resources. These components were largely missing from the plan and in the last session of the IL General Assembly all funding for RtI training statewide was cut from the budget.

10. 23 IAC 226.130(d): Districts may continue to use a “severe discrepancy” model when determining whether a specific learning disability exists, but beginning with the 2010-2011 school year, all school district were required to first use an RtI process.

11. Illinois Special Education Eligibility and Entitlement Procedures and Criteria within a Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework • The purpose of this guidance document is to provide Illinois districts and schools with a framework for using RtI to determine a student’s eligibility for and entitlement to special education services. While the 2010-2011 requirement for the use of RtI is specific to the identification of SLD, the purpose of this document is also to lay the foundation for the optional use of RtI as part of the evaluation procedures to determine special education eligibility for all students suspected of having a disability other than SLD.

12. RTI Theory

13. Research-Based Scientifically-based Research “… means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs.” (No Child Left Behind Act of 2001)

14. Where should RtI take place? • Primary including Kindergarten • Middle School • High School AND Whole school involvement is needed in order to implement RtI successfully.

15. RtI Tiers Academic Systems Behavioral Systems • Tier 3 (1-5%) • Tier 2 (5-10%) • Tier 1 (80-90%)

16. RtI Tiers RtI Tier 1 (80 - 90%) School Core/Center This is Universal. It is what every student who comes in the building gets regardless of ability, disability or advanced ability. The majority of your students should be successful here.

17. RtI Tier 1 Academic Systems Behavioral Systems Continuum of School-Wide Instructional and Positive Behavioral Support For ALL students, it is: Preventive and Proactive Adapted from Reaching All Students: RtI & SWPBS (Eber & Sugai. 2009).

18. RtI (What it isn’t) • RtI is not a Special Education Initiative • RtI is not a vehicle to move children into Special Education • RtI is not a replacement for referral/evaluation/assessment • RtI is not the responsibility of Clinicians and Case Managers • RtI is not something we do to students • RtI is not a way to keep children from receiving services under IDEA or Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act • RtI is not a program, curriculum, strategy or intervention

19. Council for Exceptional Children October 2008 Shall not delay the referral of a child who is suspected of having a disability for a comprehensive evaluation.

20. Council for Exceptional Children Shall include provisions for referral for a comprehensive evaluation in any tier, which includes measures of cognitive ability to determine if a child has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services and due process protections

21. Council for Exceptional Children Data from responsiveness to instruction in tiers one and two shall not be a substitute for a comprehensive evaluation.

22. Council for Exceptional Children • RtI data does not provide sufficient data to rule out or identify a disability!!!!!

23. Council for Exceptional Children Shall include provisions for referral for a comprehensive evaluation in any tier, which includes measures of cognitive ability to determine if a child has a disability and is eligible for special education and related services and due process protections

24. FederalAlignment with No Child Left Behind • Must permit the use of a process based on the student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention • Must document how the student responds to scientific, research-based interventions • Must document that the student does not achieve adequately or make sufficient progress in state-approved grade-level standards

25. Positive Behavior Interventionsand Supports - PBIS

26. Illinois PIBS Network

27. Early Results from two school districts and the state as a whole

28. SPRINGFIELD SD 186

29. Naperville (CUSD 203)

30. Change in disabling conditions statewide

31. Neither RtI nor severe discrepancy will survive the revolution of molecular diagnostics • The Human Genome Project, the international effort to map the entire human genetic code, will lead to the identification of genetic variants that may vastly expand our understanding of disabilities. • Research suggests that most genes associated with common learning disabilities--language impairment, reading disability, and mathematics disability--are generalists in 3 ways. First, genes that affect common learning disabilities are largely the same genes responsible for normal variation in learning abilities. Second, genes that affect any aspect of a learning disability affect other aspects of the disability. Third, genes that affect one learning disability are also likely to affect other learning disabilities.

32. Genetics and LD Generalist Genes and Learning Disabilities. Plomin, Robert; Kovas, Yulia Psychological Bulletin, Vol 131(4), Jul 2005, 592-617. doi: 10.1037/0033-2909.131.4.592 Genetics advances and learning disability WALTER J. MUIR British Journal of Psychiatry 2000, 176:12-18.

33. Resources • www.rti4success.org • http://www.isbe.net/RtI_plan/default.htm • http://www.isbe.net/spec-ed/html/rti_speced.htm • www.pbis.org/default.aspx