Response to Intervention: Implications for General, Remedial and Special Education Joseph F' Kovales

1
Response to Intervention Implications for
General, Remedial and Special EducationJoseph
F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.Indiana University of
PAIndiana, PA 15705724/357-3785jkov_at_iup.eduwww
.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski
2
Acknowledgements

• Selected slides for this presentation were
  developed by the following
• David Prasse, Loyola University (Chicago) and
  Dick Hall (Eastern Lancaster County School
  District).
• Jeff Grimes and David Tilly, presented at the
  Innovations Conference, Charleston, SC,
  September, 2003.
• Joy MacKenzie, Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate
  Unit, East Petersburg, PA.
• Jason Pedersen, Jennifer Lillenstein, and Tracey
  Clemens, Cornwall-Lebanon School District,
  Lebanon, PA.

3
Goals of Todays Session

• Understand the response to intervention (RTI)
  format and its use in determining eligibility for
  special education.
• Reconceptualize support services within a
  three-tier model of service delivery.
• Understand a school-wide restructuring process
  based on student data.
• Fuse diverse programs for at-risk students.

4
Related goals

• Understand how RTI can help school administrators
  meet the challenge of NCLB and AYP.
• Imagine the principals role as being directly
  connected to student proficiencies.
• Conceptualize the three-tier format as a model of
  staff development.

5
IDEA 2004 CHANGES 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
• 614(b)(6)(B)

6
IDEA 2004 ChangesSpecific 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.

7
IDEA 2004 ChangesSpecific Learning Disabilities
(cont.)

• In determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability, a local educational agency
  may use a process which determines if a child
  responds to scientific, research-based
  intervention.

8
PA Regulations

• Academic assessment
• Behavioral assessment
• Intervention based on assessment
• Assessment of response to intervention
• Lack of instruction or limited English
  proficiency
• Ability of the regular education program to
  maintain the student
• Activities designed to gain the participation of
  parents

9
Influences on Current Practice

• IDEA 1997
• LD Summit August 2001
• Presidents Commission on Special Education
• Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 (underway)
• No Child Left Behind

10
Summary Problems with the Discrepancy Approach

• Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI
• Doesnt link with intervention
• False positives (high IQ average achievement)
• False negatives (the slow learner myth)

11

• The average intelligence test score of children
  in the juvenile justice system is 81.3
• The average intelligence test score of high
  school dropouts is 86.5.
• The average intelligence test score of girls who
  leave high school due to pregnancy is 80.2
• (Shaw, n.d.)

12
NCLB AND IDEIA 2004

• Scientifically based instruction, curriculum, and
  interventions.
• Identification of learning problems early.
• Ongoing monitoring to determine impact of
  curriculum and instruction.
• Design and implement remedial and individualized
  intervention for those who dont respond.
• Inclusion of students in single accountability
  system.
• Documentation of student outcomes through AYP.

13
Its not just about identification

• IDEIA and NCLB are companion laws.
• They are mutually referential.
• Together, they envision a seamless system of
  supports, based on the use of scientifically
  based instruction, in both general and regular
  education.
• The mission is the development of proficiency in
  basic skills (particularly reading) for all
  students.

14
What Is Response to Intervention?

• A comprehensive, multi-tiered intervention
  strategy to enable early identification and
  intervention for students at academic or
  behavioral risk.
• An alternative to the discrepancy model for the
  identification of students with learning
  disabilities.

15
RTI is the practice of

• (1) providing high-quality instruction and
  interventions matched to student needs and,
• (2) using learning rate over time and level of
  performance to
• (3) make important educational decisions. (p.5)

National Association of State Directors of
Special Education (2005) Response to
Intervention Policy Considerations and
Implementation, p. 5
16
Key Characteristics of RtI

• Universal Screening of academics and behavior
• Multiple tiers of increasingly intense
  interventions
• Differentiated curriculum-tiered intervention
  strategy
• Use of evidence-based interventions
• Continuous monitoring of student performance
• Benchmark/Outcome assessment

17
What is a School-Wide Model?

• A system-wide intervention model to enhance
  academic and social behaviors of all students
• Prevention
• Proactive instruction
• Data-based decision making
• Assessment driving instruction
• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

18
Building the Infra-structure for RTI

• Using RTI requires an infra-structure of
  assessment and intervention techniques.
• We do not recommend implementing RTI if the
  infra-structure is not in place.
• Therefore, initial efforts should be placed on
  building the infra-structure.

19
The Multi-tier Process

• Ensures that scientifically validated
  interventions are used at a high degree of
  fidelity.
• Allows for the collection of valid, reliable, and
  functionally meaningful data that inform both
  identification and treatment decisions.

20
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered model.
Universal Screening Evidence-based core
program Data analysis teaming
TIER I
Supplemental programming in the regular
classroom (push in)
TIER II
TIER III
Specialized targeted intervention (pull-out
groups)
21
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered model.

• Movement through the
• tiers is managed by a
• building-wide IST
• monitoring the non-
• responders
• Identifying and providing
• supplemental materials
• Orchestrating tier 2 3
• supports
• Problem solving process
• for individuals

TIER I
TIER II
TIER III
22
Tier 1 Evidence-based Core Curriculum
23
The Context for NCLB and IDEA

• 5 of children learn to read effortlessly
• 20-30 learn relatively easily once exposed to
  reading instruction
• For 60 of children learning to read is a much
  more formidable task
• For at least 20-30 of children, reading is one
  of the most difficult tasks that they will have
  to master.
• For 5 of students even with explicit and
  systematic instruction, reading will continue to
  be a challenge.
• MacKenzie (2000), citing statistics from Lyon,
  Kammeenue, Simmons, et al.

24
MacKenzie (2000)
25
National Reading Panel

• http//www.nationalreadingpanel.org/default.htm

26
CONTINUUM OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION IN PHONICS OR
THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE
27
Evaluating Your Core Reading Curriculum

• http//www.fcrr.org/
• http//reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_guide.php
  
• http//oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/10
  6_High_Priority_Programs.pdf

28
Tier 1 Data Analysis Teaming

• Teams of like teachers working together to
• Access critical data on all students performance
  related to achievement of standards
• Analyze data and find which students have which
  gaps in attainments
• Set measurable goals to close the gap
• Brainstorm or create instructional strategies

29
Teachers Working Together

• Like teachers grade level or department level
• Use skills of collaborative consultation (e.g.,
  problem identification, brainstorming)
• Need a structure (time, place, etc.)

30
Accessing Critical Data

• Two forms of data group tests and district
  performance tests/tasks
• Need a process for gathering data
• Need someone to convert data into
  teacher-friendly summary documents
• Need to train teachers on how to read summary
  documents

31
DIBELS Website

• http//dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php

32
(No Transcript)
33
(No Transcript)
34
Teachers Analyze Data

• View skills critical to meeting standards
• Identify which students have attained skill
• Identify which are developing skill
• Identify which are deficient

35
Tier 1 Screening and Intervention Record Form
(SIRF)Adapted from Schmoker (1999)
36
Teachers Set Group Goals

• Create brief statements describing expected
  attainments of group
• Set a deadline or target date
• For example By January, 90 of students will
  demonstrate proficiency on (describe specific
  skill)

37
Teachers Brainstorm Strategies

• With goal in mind, teachers brainstorm specific
  ideas for teaching to the target skill
• Can use existing known strategies
• Many teams choose to create entirely new
  strategies
• Keep focused on research-based strategies

38
Teachers Implement Strategies

• All strategies are whole- or small-group
  interventions

39
Using the Consumer Reports rating system
Strategy is recommended based on criterion.
Strategy is recommended with reservations
based on criterion. Strategy is not recommended
based on criterion.
40
Sample Strategy Rating Sheet
41
Benefits of Tier 1

• Promotion of evidence-based instruction on a
  whole-class, whole-school level
• Systematic identification of non-responders (not
  just teacher referral)
• Eventual focusing of resources on fewer students
  at tiers 2 and 3

42
Kindergarten Tier 2 Students Progress (SL)
43
First Grade Tier 2 Students Progress (SL)
44
Kindergarten Data
45
Kindergarten Data
46
Quarterly Assessment Products What to Look For

• Brief (minutes per student)
• Quarterly
• Capable of giving useful printouts
• By individual students
• By specific benchmark skills
• Examples
• Testlynx? Voyager?
• http//www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/RTI20websites.ht
  m

47
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered model.
Universal Screening Evidence-based core
program Data analysis teaming
TIER I
Supplemental programming in the regular
classroom (push in)
TIER II
TIER III
Specialized targeted intervention (pull-out
groups)
48
Tier 2

• Use of standard protocol interventions
• Supplemental materials in general ed.
• Differentiated instruction in general ed.
• Specialists may push-in
• Cycle responders back to tier 1
• Identify non-responders for tier 3

49
A Standard Protocol Intervention

• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing change for
  large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving team.

50
Direct Instruction Techniques

• Explicitly teach the students what you want them
  to learn
• Teach to mastery and use error correction
• Keep pace of instruction brisk
• Engage students via choral response and random
  selection of individuals

51
Three approaches to Phonics Instruction
52
Standard Protocols for Early Literacy

• Phonological Awareness Training for Reading
  (PATR)
• Early Reading Intervention (Scott Foresman)
• REWARDS (Sopris West)

53
Phonological Awareness Training for Reading (PATR)

• Author Torgesen Bryant
• Publisher Pro-Ed
• Can use as supplement for whole group
• Or as standard protocol
• PA training takes 20 hours to get to proficiency
• 15 minute sessions

54
Early Reading Intervention(ERI)

• Publisher Scott-Foresman
• Reusable materials
• Phonological awareness phonics
• K-2
• Research 97 success rate
• Local results (CLSD) 70
• 1,500
• 30 minutes/lesson
• Enough lessons for one year on a daily basis
• Small group (3-5 students)

55
Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Literacy Strategies
(K-PALS)

• Author Mathes, Clancy-Menchetti, Torgesen
• Publisher Sopris West
• 3x/wk.
• 10-15 min.

56
Standard Protocol Websites

• http//www.fcrr.org/
• http//reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_guide.php
  
• http//oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/10
  6_High_Priority_Programs.pdf

57
Tier 3

• Use of standard protocols
• Supplemental instructional materials
• Small intensive groups outside the general ed.
  classroom
• Managed by remedial educators
• 10-20 week interventions
• Cycle responders back to tier 2

58
Special-education-like Instruction(McMaster et
al., 2003)

• immediate corrective feedback
• mastery of content before moving to next lesson
• more time on activities that were especially
  difficult
• more opportunities to respond
• fewer transitions
• setting goals and self-monitoring progress
• special relationship with tutor

59
How much achievement is gained per time spent per
child?
Scientifically-validated
Small Group Instruction (14)
11 Instruction
60
Types of Interventions by Tier
61
Teaming During RTI
62
(No Transcript)
63
Graph of IST data
64
Troubleshooting Interventions

• Integrity of current interventions
• How much time was the intervention delivered?
• Was the group an appropriate (1-3 or 1-6)

65
Results of Tier 3

• Identify which students have good or poor
  response to instruction (RTI)
• Sort students who need further help
• Decide which students are helped in general
  education
• Decide which students need evaluation for special
  education

66
Tier 2 Ongoing Support
67
Tier 2/3 Flexible Service Delivery

• No further data collection needed for most
  remedial programs (e.g., Title 1, Reading
  Recovery)
• MDE decides if further evaluation is needed for
  special education eligibility
• At this stage, specialists are added to the
  ongoing implementation of the remediation

68
System Change for Flexible Services

• Consensus on evidence-based practice (a house
  divided)
• Administrative leadership and involvement
• Revision of paperwork and job descriptions

69
Critical Features of Flex

• Cross training of staff
• Non-categorical deployment of staff
• Remediation based on students needs
• Transitory services

70
Cross Training

• Identification of critical knowledge and
  strategies
• Training of all flex staff in ALL of the
  procedures

71
Non-categorical Deployment

• Eliminate wide variety of job titles (at least
  conceptually)
• Specialists are fungible -- anyone can take
  anothers place or role

72
Need-based Services

• Data are now used to sort students into
  appropriate levels and types of service
• Level how much time during school day
• Type what type of strategies are needed
• Use of double-grid system of planning
• Data profiles of students receiving different
  types of services created

73
Transitory Service

• Students may not need a given service for the
  entire year
• Program may be reorganized from month to month
  and from year to year
• Program organization follows needs of students,
  not a model

74

Flexible Service Delivery Model
Time
Period
A
B
C
D
910-955
1
PT
LA 2/3
Flex
Flex
1000-1045
2
PT
LA 2/3
LA 4/5
Flex
1050-1135
3
PT
Flex
LA 4/5
M2
1140-1225
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
Lunch
1230-110
Flex
PT
Flex
Flex
LA2B
110-155
4
PT
M 3/4
M 4/5
LA2A
200-245
5
PT
LA 4
LA 1B
LA1A
250-320
Activity
Prep
Prep
Prep
Prep
320 until ?
Parent Meetings
Flex IST, DIBELS, TARGETED INTERVENTION,
ASSESSMENT DATA Additional Support Members such
as Reading Specialists, ESL, Guidance, Learning
Facilitator, Speech and Language, etc. will also
work on data collection and collaboration.
75
Roles and FunctionsNewark Valley (NY) School
District
76
Entitlement for Special Education
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
(Grimes Tilly, 2003)
77
Step 1 Appraising the students rate of learning

• Evaluating the students response to
  scientifically based instruction.
• What was the students progress during the
  intervention?

78
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Progress

• Educational Progress - previous interventions
  have not sufficiently improve a students rate of
  learning and additional resources are needed to
  enhance student learning or the interventions
  that have sufficiently improved the students
  learning are too demanding to be implemented
  without special education resources (Grimes
  Tilly, 2003)

79
Assessing Progress (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

80
Description Lack of instruction is not
evident. This student has responded poorly to
the intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of five days, the teacher
implemented the strategy as designed for the
duration of the intervention period. In spite of
this assistance, the student's rate of learning
throughout the period has been slow. This
response-to-instruction pattern indicates that
the student's lack of progress is more likely the
result of learning difficulties than a lack of
effective instruction. Specially designed
instruction is likely needed for this student to
acquire and retain new information.
81
Description Student responds well to effective
instruction. This student responded well to the
intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of six days, the teacher
implemented the strategy as designed for the
duration of the intervention period. With this
assistance, the student's rate of learning
throughout the period was steady and in a
positive direction. This response-to-instruction
pattern indicates that the student's difficulties
are more likely the result of a lack of effective
instruction than a disability. This student does
not display a high degree of need for special
education because he can demonstrate acquisition
and retention with adapted instruction in the
regular classroom.
82
Description Response to instruction cannot be
determined. This student has responded poorly
during the intervention strategy. However, in
spite of support, the intervention was not
implemented as planned throughout the
intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be
determined whether the student's lack of progress
are more likely the result of learning
difficulties or a lack of effective instruction.
Another period of support is needed to assist the
teacher to implement the strategy as designed in
order to make a conclusion about this issue.
83
Step 2 Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency

• Is the student discrepant from realistic
  expectations for his or her grade and age level?

84
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Discrepancy

• Discrepancy - given equal or enhanced
  opportunities, the students current level of
  performance is significantly lower than typical
  peers or identified standards (Grimes Tilly,
  2003)

85
Discrepancy (Grimes Tilly, 2003)
Above the range of expected performance
Standard of expected performance
Within the range of expected performance
Below the range of expected performance

• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

86
Verifying Academic Deficiency Using CBM

• Development of local norms
• Determining discrepancy from local norms
• 2.0 X criterion

87
2.0X calculation

• Divide norm group mean by students score
• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency
• Example 100 wpm / 50 wpm 2.0X

88
Cornwall-Lebanon SD ElementaryOral Reading
Fluency Norms
89
Is there a role for norm-referenced tests of
academic achievement?

• Group testing
• Individual testing

90
3 Purposes of Assessment Data

• To enable student performance
• To enable student performance
• To enable student performance
• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

91
The Burden of Proof

• Assess student on measures of cognitive
  processing.
• Develop strategies that link from results to
  unique interventions.
• Implement the intervention.
• Precisely evaluate the effectiveness of the
  intervention vs. another evidence based
  intervention.

92
Step 3 Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction

• Deviations in materials
• Deviations in planning
• Deviations in personnel

93
Conditions for Special Education Entitlement
Instructional Needs

• Instructional Needs - instructional needs have
  been identified that are beyond what can be
  provided in general education. This is evident
  when curriculum, instruction or environmental
  conditions need to be very different for the
  student as compared to the needs of other
  students in the general education environment.
  (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

94
Intervention Intensity

• Qualities of time, effort, or resources that make
  intervention support in typical environments
  difficult as intensity increases

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
95
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Intervention management and planning
• Adults monitoring of activities
• Teacher prompting
• Communication with stakeholders (e.g., parents)
• Progress-monitoring activities (e.g., assessment,
  graphing)
• Consultation and meetings between professionals

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
96
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Activities embedded in typical classroom routines
• Modification of typical routines
• Modification of tasks or assessments
• Increased levels of assistance to students during
  class work
• Increased one-to-one interaction (e.g. additional
  practice within activities, different feedback
  system)
• Provision of contingencies (social or otherwise)
  for expected behaviors

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
97
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Intervention episodes
• Tutoring
• Social skill groups
• Counseling
• Additional remedial instruction (group or
  individual)
• Completely new instructional formats
• Provision of contingencies related to these
  efforts

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
98
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Materials and other tangible resources
• Additional practice materials
• Published remedial or new curricular packages

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
99
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Change agents
• Peers
• Adult volunteers
• Paraprofessionals
• Certificated educators

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
100
Intensity of the Need for Special Support

• Extraordinary effort, time, or resources to be
  sustained
• Extensively or throughout the school day
• Re-planning and special resources

Hardman, McDonnell, Welch (1997)
101
Rule Outs Screen for

• Mental Retardation
• IQ
• Adaptive Behavior
• Emotional Disturbance
• Sensory Impairments

102
Decision Making
Yes

• Is the students rate of progress given equal
  opportunity significantly less than the rate of
  typical peers or an expected rate of skill
  acquisition or are the interventions that
  sufficiently improved the students rate of
  learning too demanding to be implemented with
  integrity without special education resources?
• Does the students performance remain
  significantly different than that of peers or
  identified standard?
• Does the student continue to need curriculum and
  instruction that is significantly different than
  what is provided in the general education
  classroom?

Yes
Yes

• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

103
Entitlement Decision
A. Educational Progress
B. Discrepancy
C. Instructional Needs
Entitlement Decision

• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

104
Action Planning Tier 1

• Do you need to add a Tier 1 function to your
  Student Support Team effort? What do you need to
  do to make time available for team meetings to
  address this function? How will you train
  teachers in basics of collaborative
  problem-solving?
• What data do you have available that should be
  used in this process? Who in your organization
  will be in charge of entering district data into
  the data summary that we provided?

105
Action Planning Tier 1

• How will you go about obtaining or developing
  periodic performance assessments?
• What is your timeline for developing these
  assessments? When do you plan to implement these
  assessments?
• Who will be in charge of the data and reporting?
  How will training of teachers in understanding
  summary formats be conducted? Who? When?

106
Action Planning Tier 2

• How will you go about identifying a set of
  evidence-based instructional practices that can
  be converted to standard protocol interventions?
• Who in your school can be deployed to conduct
  standard protocol interventions?

107
Action Planning Tier 2

• Does IST work for you now? Do you really have
  data driven problem solving team like ISTs or
  just a prereferral team or TATs?
• What steps do you need to put in place to upgrade
  this stage of the process to attain criterion
  level (all steps of the flowchart)? What training
  does your staff need to implement IST at
  criterion level?

108
Action Planning Tier 3

• What steps can you take to build a school-based
  literacy team to respond flexibly and directly to
  students academic needs?
• How will this change your existing remedial
  program?
• What training do your school psychologists need
  in using the three-tier model in their
  consideration of students eligibility for
  special education?

109
The Big Picture

• How will you know if this restructured delivery
  model is working?
• How do we know if Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions
  are effective?
• How will you know if Tier 3 services are
  effective in general and for various subgroups?
• Can we use the data to fine tune decision-making
  regarding students and services?

110
School Psychologists Our Skill Set as RTI Leaders

• Collaboration/consultation
• Data analysis
• Program evaluation
• Assessment understanding (including CBM, etc.)