Transitioning from the Traditional LD Discrepancy Model to the RTI Model in Practice

1
Transitioning from the Traditional LD Discrepancy
Model to the RTI Model in Practice

• Amy Piper, Ed.S., NCSP
• School Psychologist
• CSE Chairperson
• Fredonia Central School District
• Fredonia, New York

2
Overview

• Implementation of Problem-Solving Model
• CBM and AIMSweb
• DIBELS
• IST
• RTI
• 3-Tiered Model

3
Where We Began

• Administrative approval and support
• Director of Special Education
• Elementary Principal
• DIBELS
• Began with one Kindergarten classroom

4
Next step

• Re-vamping Instructional Support Team
• Child Study Team
• Problem-Solving Method
• Inservicing, inservicing, inservicing

5
Instructional Support Team

• Plays a huge role in change process
• Team Members hand-selected with administration
• Constant de-briefing and reiteration of the
  process

6
Instructional Support Team

• IST
• The multi-disciplinary team that analyzes student
  data through the problem solving method and
  assists in developing research-based
  interventions for the classroom

7
IST

• Multi-disciplinary Team
• Include administrator, reg. ed. teacher, spec.
  ed. teacher, parent, school psychologist, and
  related service personnel (counselor, reading
  teacher, nurse, etc.)

8
IST

• Referral can come from any teacher that works
  with the student
• Concerns can range from academic to emotional to
  behavioral
• Referral can come from parent or administrator

9
IST

• Initial Referral form is completed by referring
  teacher and submitted to IST chair
• Teacher immediately notifies parent
• IST chair designates case liaison, notifies
  secretary to set up meeting and distributes
  paperwork

10
Initial Referral Form

• CHAUTAUQUA LAKE CENTRAL SCHOOL
• Instructional Support Team
• REFERRAL TO INSTRUCTIONAL SUPPORT TEAM
• STUDENT SEX DATE
• DOB GRADE
• TEACHER
• REASON FOR REFERRAL (Brief specific description
  of referral problem, include observable and
  measurable behaviors)
• 
  
• Current accommodations in place to address
  problem
• 
  
• Any needed screenings should be done before the
  IST meeting (with parental notification). Please
  turn in the Screening Request Form to Amy Piper.
• Parents should be contacted PRIOR to ANY
  Instructional Support Team referral
• by teacher
• Please Return to Amy Piper. Thank You.

11
ISTCase Liaison

• Each member of the Instructional Support Team
  takes role as case liaison
• This role rotates with each referral
• Case liaison meets with referring teacher and
  assists in completing IST meeting form, ensures
  parent contact, and provides support to that
  teacher throughout IST process

12
ISTInitial Meeting

• This occurs between the case-liaison and
  referring teacher in the time between when
  initial referral was submitted and IST meeting is
  held
• C.L. sets up meeting with referring teacher
  (during prep, before/after school, etc.)
• Meet for approximately 30 minutes

13
C.L.gt Referring Teacher

• Purpose for this meeting
• Ensure teacher has contacted parent(s)
• Discussion of
• Behavior/academic problems of student
• Students academic and social strengths and
  weaknesses
• 2-3 behaviors or academic areas teacher wishes
  the IST to help develop interventions for
• Explain interventions already implemented AND why
  they did or did not work
• Academic work and skill levels

14

• What Can the Student Do?
• (List at least 3 skills that the student displays
  to some degree of success)

• What would you like the student to do?
• (List one or more areas which the student needs
  to improve to be successful in schoolAREAS OF
  CONCERN)

15
Current Modifications and Strategies

• II. Target Behavior
• (Provide measurable and observable data of (List
  any curriculum or management modification/strategy
  you have used and how successful they are) )

16
DATA Present Levels of Performance

• Provide measurable and observable data of present
  functioning

17
C.L.gt Referring Teacher

• Assist teacher in completing heading and first
  FOUR boxes of IST meeting form
• Ensure teacher includes any relevant student data
  (attendance, medical issues, AIMSweb scores,
  ELA/Math scores, etc.)
• Review with teacher process of IST meeting

18
Instructional Support Team

• Follows problem-solving model
• Start with students strengths
• Then identify one or two weaknesses

19
IST

• Identify classroom interventions and
  accommodations that have been occurring in the
  classroom
• Include those that have worked and those that
  have not!

20
IST

• Target the top 1-2 teacher concerns in easily
  observable, measurable terms
• For behavioral concerns
• Dimensions of problem
• Frequency, duration and intensity
• For academic concerns
• Presence of underlying academic skill deficits
• Mismatch between student skills and instruction

21
Develop Hypotheses

• (Team generates hypotheses about why the problem
  exists (instruction, environment, home/community,
  child characteristics).
• The hypothesis will drive the intervention.

22
IST

• Hypothesize assumed causes for the problem
• Thank about skill/knowledge deficits
• Instruction Factors that may be causing the
  problems
• Is there missing prior knowledge?

23
Hypothesizing

• Evaluate to see if the assumptions are correct
• Use tests, observations, and/or interviews to
  confirm hypothesis
• Align goal with assumed causes

24
IST

• Brainstorm interventions
• Let the ideas fly!
• Try not to critique ideasbut build on them!
• Be creative, but remember to focus on
  research-based interventions

25
Brainstorm Possible Strategies

• (The intervention must be a teaching strategy,
  not a person or a place.)
• Supplemental activities recommended by the team
  (in addition to primary intervention)
• Vision Screening
  Observation
• Hearing Screening
  Speech/Language
  Screening
• OT Screening
  ADD Screening
• Parent Consent for Record Release
  Other
• Counseling

26
ISTBrainstorming Interventions

• Research dictates that the Domains of Influence
  in Learning are
• 1stInstruction
• How we teach what is being taught.
• LOOK AT THIS FIRST WHEN DEVELOPING INTERVENTIONS!

27
ISTBrainstorming Interventions

• 2ndCurriculum
• What is being taught
• Look at this next.how can we modify what is
  being taught..

28
ISTBrainstorming Interventions

• 3rdEnvironment
• Context where learning is to occur.
• Look at this nexthow can we change the
  environment.

29
ISTBrainstorming Interventions

• Last, but not least.
• Learner
• Characteristics intrinsic to the individual in
  relation to the concern
• ALWAYS Go to Learner LastLook at Instruction
  FIRST!

30
Research-based Interventions

• What is an Intervention?
• A new strategy or modification of instruction or
  behavior management designed to help a student
  (or group of students) improve performance
  relative to a specific goal

31
Deep thoughtsby Amy ?

• The central question is not
• What about the learner is causing the
  performance discrepancy?

32

• It IS
• What about the interaction of the curriculum,
  instruction, learner, and learning environment
  should be altered so that the child will learn?
• Ken Howell

33
Research-Based Interventions

• Some ideas
• Florida Center for Reading Research
• www.fcrr.org
• Oregon Reading First Center
• Oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu
• Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts
• www.texasreading.org
• Intervention Central
• www.interventioncentral.org

34
Research-Based Interventions

• National Technical Assistance Center on Positive
  Behavioral Interventions and Supports (PBIS)
• www.pbis.org
• Safe and Civil Schools
• www.safeandcivilschools.com
• What Works Clearing House
• www.whatworks.ed.gov

35
IST

• After brainstorming ideas, case liaison reviews
  the list, and teacher/parent chooses 1-2
  interventions to try in the classroom
• The intervention is not a person or a place, but
  a classroom strategy
• Directly addresses the identified concern
• Judged by teacher to be acceptable, sensible, and
  achievable
• Appears likely to achieve the desired goal
• Is realistic, given the resources committed
• Can be expected to achieve the state goal

36
IST

• Spell out the particulars of the intervention as
  a series of specific steps so that the teacher
  can do so efficiently and correctly
• Note important information about the intervention
• When and where it will take place
• Whether any specialized materials or training are
  required to implement it
• Who is going to actually carry it out

37
Choose Specific Intervention

• (Team clarifies the Intervention and develops a
  specific action plan)
• Intervention consists of
• Intervention to be implemented by
• Goal Statement
• (What do we expect and when do we expect it?)

38
IST

• Goal Setting
• Set observable, measurable, and realistic goals
• Determine how goal will be monitored

39

• Intervention to begin on _______________________
  ______________
• Intervention to occur ________________ times per
  _________________
• Progress Monitored by _______________ every
  __________________
• Review Date_____________________________
• Person to Inform Student of plan_________________
  ________

40
IST

• Does the monitoring information really measure
  the teachers referral concern?
• Who will collect the monitoring information?
• How frequently should data be collected?
• How reliable or trustworthy is the information we
  are collecting?
• Who is available to monitor this student with
• Curriculum Based Measurement (AIMSweb)?
• Direct Observation?

41
IST

• Follow-up
• Typically takes place 1-2 months after initial
  meeting
• Ensure that interventions took place and whether
  or not they were effective
• Refine, improve, or create new interventions

42
Chautauqua Lake Central SchoolInstructional
Support Team Follow-up Form

• Students Name________________Date______________
  __
• Follow-up Meeting _____Teacher_________ Case
  Liaison___________
• GOAL (from previous meeting)_____________________
  _____________
• 1. Was the Intervention implemented as planned?
• If no, explain
• Was the goal reached?
• Are there any other accommodations that may be
  needed for this student to be successful in your
  class?
• Are there any new concerns not previously
  discussed?
• ISTs recommendations
• New Goal_______________________ Next Follow-up
  Meeting________
• Referring Teachers Signature_____________________
  ______ Date____________
• Piper 2007

43
FAQ about IST

• What is an Intervention?
• New strategy or modification
• Of instruction or behavior management
• Evidence-based Strategies
• Proven effective in similar situations through
  well-designed research
• Based on valid information about current
  performance and desired performance

44
FAQ about IST

• How is the Effectiveness of an Intervention
  Measured?
• Information is gathered throughout
  implementation of the intervention
• Is it working or not?
• Curriculum-Based Measurement
• Chart progress through test scores, grades,
  tallies of completed assignments, etc.
• Classroom observation

45
FAQ about IST

• How is the Effectiveness of an Intervention
  Measured?
• Effectiveness is judged by comparing the results
  of these measures with the students baseline and
  with the goal of the intervention

46
Positive Response to Intervention
47
FAQ about IST

• Are Students Later Referred to Special Education?
• One possible outcome is CSE
• Goal of IST is for students to stay within
  General Education classrooms

48
IST? RTI ? IDEIA

• Importance of Instructional Support Team
• Response to Intervention Model
• New Special Education Law (IDEIA)

data
Goal setting
interventions
parents
Spec.Ed
IST
research
Reg Ed.
identification
49
Committee on Special Education

• Role of School Psychologist
• No longer gate keeper
• Team decisions for eligibility
• Allowed for more use of classroom data
• Empowered special education and regular education
  teachers

50
DIBELS

• Began with one teacher
• Slowly introduced to entire kindergarten
• Used Excel to graph and chart

51
Hurrah for AIMSweb!!

• Sales pitch to Superintendent and Director of
  Curriculum
• Incorporated R-CBM and DIBELS initially
• Efficient
• Easy
• Provided data needed for IST and CSE referrals

52
AIMSWeb

• Board presentation
• Parent inservice
• Parent letter

53
Progress Monitoring

• Incorporated AIMSweb progress monitoring system
• IST
• IEPs
• Remedial Reading
• AIS

54
Pre-Kindergarten Screening

• Allows for early intervention
• Parent inservice
• Training on necessary pre-reading and pre-math
  skills, as well as social skills

55
Three-Tiered Model

• Tier One
• Problem-solving strategies directed by the
  teacher within the general education classroom

56
Three-Tiered Model

• Tier Two
• Included problem-solving efforts at a team level
  in which a team of various school personnel
  collaborate to develop an intervention plan that
  is still within the general education curriculum
  
• (IST)

57
Three-Tiered Model

• Third Tier
• Referral to a special education team for
  additional problem-solving, and, potentially, a
  special education assessment
• (504 or CSE assessment)

58
(No Transcript)
59
The Path(s) is Clear
60
RTI Official Permission for Needs-Based Service
Delivery
61
AIMSweb and CBM Provide a Range of Evidence-Based
LINKED Assessment Practices
62
Case Examples

• Student 1
• 2nd grade male
• New to the district
• Student 2
• 1st grade female
• Adopted

63
The IST Referral

• Student 1
• Referred for concerns with below average reading
  and difficulty following classroom routines
• Fall benchmark 10 WRC/10 Errors
• Average for 2nd Grade in Fall 27-79 WRC

64
Student 1 Benchmark Score
65
The IST Referral

• Student 2
• Referred for below average reading, problematic
  early literacy skills, and attention/focusing
  concerns
• Winter benchmark 5 WRC
• Early Literacy NWF LNF Deficient, PSF
  Emerging
• Sight Words 53/110 at most recent assessment

66
Student 2 Benchmark
67
The Interventions

• Student 1
• Sight word flashcards and review of phonics
  sounds at home
• Focus on oral reading skills, re-reading text and
  sight words in remedial reading
• Goal 25 WRC at 1-month follow-up
• Progress monitored by remedial reading teacher
  using 2nd grade R-CBM

68
The Interventions

• Student 2
• Headsprout program during remedial reading
  pull-out 3x 30min.
• Direct instruction and practice using high
  frequency sight words 2x 30min. sets of 10 at a
  time
• Practice of same sight words at home using
  multi-sensory approach
• Goal Improve sight words at a rate of 10 every 2
  weeks
• Progress monitored by classroom and reading
  teachers using sight word assessments
• AD/HD screening

69
Follow-up 1

• Student 1
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Goal reached fluency at 26 WRC at follow-up
• Recommendations continue intervention
  programming with new goal of 35 WRC in another
  month

70
Follow-up 1

• Student 2
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Goal of sight word improvement not reached, but
  some gains made. Reading fluency remains very
  low with little gain.
• Recommendations Switch to more intensive early
  literacy/remedial reading instruction (Sound
  Partners) from Headsprout 3x 30min. Change 2x
  sight word practice to 1x sight words, 1x
  re-reading intervention. Conduct Survey Level
  Assessment (SLA) of reading and early literacy
  skills.

71
Follow-up 2

• Student 1
• Interventions implemented as planned, with less
  focus on sight words and more emphasis placed on
  reading practice at home
• Goal reached (42 WRC), on track to reach average
  range for 2nd grade in Spring
• Recommendations Continue to monitor reading
  progress, AD/HD screening to investigate
  attention/focusing concerns

72
The Response to InterventionStudent 1
73
Follow-up 2

• Student 2
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Very little progress since last meeting (11 WRC
  per SLA)
• Results of CBM/Early literacy/CBE-based
  survey-level assessment showed developed simple
  skills LNF/LSF, emerging advanced skills
  (PSF/NWF), and very low reading fluency, along
  with error patterns consistent with short-term
  memory and attention difficulties.
• Recommendations Based on the students failure
  to respond to the intensive interventions and
  serious concerns with her ability to focus in
  school and retain information, a referral was
  made to the CSE and permission for a full psych.
  evaluation was obtained.

74
The Response to InterventionStudent 2
75
At the present time

• Student 1 continued to improve his reading
  fluency and reached the average range for 2nd
  graders in Spring.

76
At the present time

• The evaluation for Student 2 was completed.
  While her scores demonstrate a clear lack of
  response to the interventions put in place by the
  IST, the full evaluation and eventual
  recommendations took into account other factors,
  especially the attention and memory difficulties
  present. She was classified as a student with an
  Other Health Impairment.

77
Response to Intervention

• Highlights RTI findings as part of a complete
  psycho-educational evaluation.

78
(No Transcript)
79
Case Example

• High School Student
• 9th grade female
• Referred by parent to CSE in 5th grade and did
  not qualify based on IQ-discrepancy model
• Concerns in Math achievement

80
The IST Referral

• Referred by Math 1-A Teacher for concerns with
  below average math skills and difficulty passing
  classroom tests
• Parent contacted by teacher then by IST
  coordinator
• Parent agreed to RTI method through the
  problem-solving team

81
Student 1 Baseline Data

10/25/06 30 test grade average in Math
82
The Interventions

• Student 1
• Description Mrs. Rizzo (math teacher) will give
  the student specific notes to include on notecard
  for tests.
• The student will work with Mrs. Rizzo 2x/week
  during study lab for Math AIS.
• She will also stay after school 2x/week to review
  math concepts covered in class.
• The student will re-read math questions and
  box/highlight important details (on both
  assignments and tests).

83
Follow-up 1

• Student 1
• An initial goal of improving the students math
  test grades by the November IST meeting was set.
• At the one-month follow-up meeting (11/22/06),
  the students math test scores had shown great
  improvement (80), but only one test had been
  given between meeting dates.

84
Follow-up 2

• Student 1
• The students test scores in Living Environment
  (Mrs. Jantzi) had dropped to 67. The team
  determined that she needed to stay one day/week
  with Mrs. Jantzi after school and work with Mrs.
  Jantzi every other day in study lab.
• Student to continue working with math teacher
  during Math AIS reviewing daily math content(40
  minutes/day)

85
The Response to Intervention

• Response At follow-up (12/19/06) the students
  math scores dropped (34) and her Living
  Environment test average dropped (62) despite
  intensive intervention. The student is attending
  Math AIS every other day (40 minutes).

86
Case Examples

• Student 1
• 2nd grade male
• New to the district
• Student 2
• 1st grade female
• Adopted

87
The IST Referral

• Student 1
• Referred for concerns with below average reading
  and difficulty following classroom routines
• Fall benchmark 10 WRC/10 Errors
• Average for 2nd Grade in Fall 27-79 WRC

88
Student 1 Benchmark Score
89
The IST Referral

• Student 2
• Referred for below average reading, problematic
  early literacy skills, and attention/focusing
  concerns
• Winter benchmark 5 WRC
• Early Literacy NWF LNF Deficient, PSF
  Emerging
• Sight Words 53/110 at most recent assessment

90
Student 2 Benchmark
91
The Interventions

• Student 1
• Sight word flashcards and review of phonics
  sounds at home
• Focus on oral reading skills, re-reading text and
  sight words in remedial reading
• Goal 25 WRC at 1-month follow-up
• Progress monitored by remedial reading teacher
  using 2nd grade R-CBM

92
The Interventions

• Student 2
• Headsprout program during remedial reading
  pull-out 3x 30min.
• Direct instruction and practice using high
  frequency sight words 2x 30min. sets of 10 at a
  time
• Practice of same sight words at home using
  multi-sensory approach
• Goal Improve sight words at a rate of 10 every 2
  weeks
• Progress monitored by classroom and reading
  teachers using sight word assessments
• AD/HD screening

93
Follow-up 1

• Student 1
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Goal reached fluency at 26 WRC at follow-up
• Recommendations continue intervention
  programming with new goal of 35 WRC in another
  month

94
Follow-up 1

• Student 2
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Goal of sight word improvement not reached, but
  some gains made. Reading fluency remains very
  low with little gain.
• Recommendations Switch to more intensive early
  literacy/remedial reading instruction (Sound
  Partners) from Headsprout 3x 30min. Change 2x
  sight word practice to 1x sight words, 1x
  re-reading intervention. Conduct Survey Level
  Assessment (SLA) of reading and early literacy
  skills.

95
Follow-up 2

• Student 1
• Interventions implemented as planned, with less
  focus on sight words and more emphasis placed on
  reading practice at home
• Goal reached (42 WRC), on track to reach average
  range for 2nd grade in Spring
• Recommendations Continue to monitor reading
  progress, AD/HD screening to investigate
  attention/focusing concerns

96
The Response to InterventionStudent 1
97
Follow-up 2

• Student 2
• Interventions implemented as planned
• Very little progress since last meeting (11 WRC
  per SLA)
• Results of CBM/Early literacy/CBE-based
  survey-level assessment showed developed simple
  skills LNF/LSF, emerging advanced skills
  (PSF/NWF), and very low reading fluency, along
  with error patterns consistent with short-term
  memory and attention difficulties.
• Recommendations Based on the students failure
  to respond to the intensive interventions and
  serious concerns with her ability to focus in
  school and retain information, a referral was
  made to the CSE and permission for a full psych.
  evaluation was obtained.

98
The Response to InterventionStudent 2
99
At the present time

• Student 1 continued to improve his reading
  fluency and reached the average range for 2nd
  graders in Spring.

100
At the present time

• The evaluation for Student 2 was completed.
  While her scores demonstrate a clear lack of
  response to the interventions put in place by the
  IST, the full evaluation and eventual
  recommendations took into account other factors,
  especially the attention and memory difficulties
  present. She was classified as a student with an
  Other Health Impairment.

101
Response to Intervention

• Highlights RTI findings as part of a complete
  psycho-educational evaluation.

102
(No Transcript)
103
Case Example

• High School Student
• 9th grade female
• Referred by parent to CSE in 5th grade and did
  not qualify based on IQ-discrepancy model
• Concerns in Math achievement

104
The IST Referral

• Referred by Math 1-A Teacher for concerns with
  below average math skills and difficulty passing
  classroom tests
• Parent contacted by teacher then by IST
  coordinator
• Parent agreed to RTI method through the
  problem-solving team

105
Student 1 Baseline Data

10/25/06 30 test grade average in Math
106
The Interventions

• Student 1
• Description Mrs. Rizzo (math teacher) will give
  the student specific notes to include on notecard
  for tests.
• The student will work with Mrs. Rizzo 2x/week
  during study lab for Math AIS.
• She will also stay after school 2x/week to review
  math concepts covered in class.
• The student will re-read math questions and
  box/highlight important details (on both
  assignments and tests).

107
Follow-up 1

• Student 1
• An initial goal of improving the students math
  test grades by the November IST meeting was set.
• At the one-month follow-up meeting (11/22/06),
  the students math test scores had shown great
  improvement (80), but only one test had been
  given between meeting dates.

108
Follow-up 2

• Student 1
• The students test scores in Living Environment
  (Mrs. Jantzi) had dropped to 67. The team
  determined that she needed to stay one day/week
  with Mrs. Jantzi after school and work with Mrs.
  Jantzi every other day in study lab.
• Student to continue working with math teacher
  during Math AIS reviewing daily math content(40
  minutes/day)

109
The Response to Intervention

• Response At follow-up (12/19/06) the students
  math scores dropped (34) and her Living
  Environment test average dropped (62) despite
  intensive intervention. The student is attending
  Math AIS every other day (40 minutes).

110
Follow-up Meeting 3

• Third Follow-up meeting (1/12/07) The students
  test scores in math improved to 61, but she was
  still failing. Her Living Environment test scores
  also remained low.
• The team determined that she needs a separate
  location for tests, math AIS in a 11 setting,
  and to re-take algebra next semester.

111
Interpretation

• After approximately four months of individualized
  interventions using research-based programs and
  techniques, the student's math skills have
  remained well below average for students at her
  grade level.
• Her math teacher, who implemented most of the
  intervention components, noted that one on one
  attention seemed to help the student the most, as
  it afforded the most specific help, whereas less
  closely monitored activities were less effective.

112
Referral to CSE

• Mrs. Rizzo, the students first semester math
  teacher, referred her to the Instructional
  Support Team in 10/06 due to concerns about her
  progress in math. The team met several times
  throughout the semester, with the student and her
  parents, to determine appropriate research-based
  interventions and to evaluate the progress the
  student was making in her classes. The referral
  to CSE was made in January 07 (three and a half
  months later).

113
Referral to CSE

• Discrepancy Analysis
• 1.Educational Need (Discrepancy from Other
  Students)
• And
• 2.Lack of Significant Improvement with Standard
  Intervention General Education Program

114
Discrepancy Analysis

• Educational Need The students math grade is a
  57, despite numerous research-based
  interventions, and one on one instruction. Her
  test scores in math (61) and science (67) are
  well below the average of her peers.

115
Discrepancy Analysis

• 2.Lack of Significant Improvement with Standard
  Intervention General Education Program

116
Discrepancy Analysis

• Response to General Education Curriculum
• The students achievement in her Algebra class
  indicates that she is not responding to GE
  curriculum. She continues to demonstrate a great
  amount of difficulty with math, as seen with her
  classroom performance.

117
CSE evaluation

• Parents consented to CSE evaluation and
  psycho-educational testing was conducted
• Math skills on WIAT-II in low average range (both
  numerical operations and math reasoning)
• Cognitive ability on WISC-IV was in the average
  range.
• Observation in math class indicated frequent need
  for clarification of topic and individual
  assistance

118
At the present time

• This High School Student was classified as a
  student with a learning disability in math and
  given CT services in math.
• The use of a calculator, extended time, and
  separate location for test modifications were
  added to her IEP.
• Highlights RTI findings as part of a complete
  psycho-educational evaluation.

119
Future Steps

• Improve re-evaluations to incorporate RTI into
  current special education model
• Improve current IEP goals, monitor them better,
  and change them as needed
• Communication!
• Continue to have daily conversations with
  administration and staff about at-risk students,
  intervention needs, professional development

120
Summary

• Start with administrative support
• One teacher at a time
• Incorporate CBM and Early Literacy and Numeracy
  Measures
• IST has to incorporate problem-solving method
• RTI follows along naturally

121
Summary

• Systematic, universal screening
• Start with ReadingCurriculum Based Measurement
  or DIBELS
• Focus should be on high-quality classroom
  instruction and ongoing progress monitoring

122
In Summary.

• There is no question that current attempts to
  broadly expand RTI models are uneven and not
  uniformly effective. But that is a problem with
  adult learning, not with the research on how
  children learn. The issues involve large-scale
  implementation, not more research on how to do
  response to intervention models or whether they
  are effective.
• - D. Carnine, Testimony Before Congress, March
  2003

123
In summary

• Clearly, all the best intentions and new designs
  for improving the identification process and
  delivery of scientifically-based interventions
  will fall short if the professional educators,
  administrators, and related and support personnel
  responsible for implementing these designs do not
  have the knowledge, skills, will or resources to
  implement and sustain them.
• D. Carnine, Testimony Before Congress, March
  2003

124
Where to Get More Information

• www.aimsweb.org
• www.uoregon.edu
• www.interventioncentral.org
• www.whatworksclearinghouse.org
• www.fcrr.org
• www.nationalreadingpanel.org
• http//www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/