RtI: OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

1
RtI OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

• Developed By Misha Graves

2
What Will I Learn?

• Goals of this Presentation
• To provide a basic overview of RtI as an
  alternative model of service delivery
• To provide perspective on the mechanisms fueling
  the RtI movement
• To give an overview of some of the key language
  in IDEIA 2004 and NCLB supporting a movement
  towards RtI

3
RTI Influential Factors

• Long-standing concern about the IQ-Achievement
  discrepancy model in identification of learning
  disabilities
• A concern that special education services have
  become a dumping-ground for struggling learners
  who do not have a true LD or other disability
• The recent abundance of research on reading,
  suggesting early identification and intervention
  programs could significantly reduce the number of
  students with reading problems
• (NJCLD, 2006)

4
LD Identification

• LD Summit Conference
• OSEP initiative
• 9 papers commissioned from leaders in the field
• Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
  Education
• A New Era Revitalizing Special Education for
  Children and Their Families (2002)
• Establishment of NRCLD
• OSEP initiative
• (Mellard, Byrd, Johnson, Tollefson, Boesche,
  2004)

5
Similar Initiatives

• Teacher Assistance Teams
• Regular Education Initiatives
• Pre-referral Interventions
• Problem-Solving Teams
• (NJCLD, 2006)

6
What is RtI?

• Response to Intervention (RtI) is the practice of
  providing high quality interventions matched to
  student need, monitoring progress frequently to
  make decisions about changes in instruction or
  goals and applying child response data to
  important educational decisions.
• (NASDSE, 2005)

7
In the Simplest Terms
Child Struggles
Child Receives Help
Contents Title
RtI Model
CD_School Days(Nfine)
8
Proponents of RtI

• U.S. Congress
• NASDSE
• NICHD
• National Reading Panel
• Research Panel on Minority Overrepresentation

9
RtI Foundational Principles
All Children can be taught
Data-driven Decision Making
Early Intervention
Differential Instruction
Progress Monitoring
Problem-Solving Method
Research-Based Instruction
Tiered Model
CD_youth(imageState)
10
RtI Foundational Principles

• All children can effectively be taught,
• Early intervention is key to success
• The use of differentiated instruction is
  essential to meet the needs of all students
• A problem-solving method should be used to make
  decisions within a multi-tiered model
• The use of research-based, scientifically
  validated interventions/instruction to the extent
  possible
• Monitor student progress to inform instruction
• Use data-driven decision making
• (NASDSE, 2005)

11
Essential Components of RtI

• Students receive high quality, research based
  instruction in general education setting
• School personnel conduct universal screening
• Continuous progress monitoring
• Implementation of specific research-based
  interventions and regular monitoring of
  intervention effectiveness and student progress
• Collaborative approach for the development,
  implementation, and monitoring of the
  intervention process
• Documentation of parental involvement throughout
  the process
• Systematic assessment of treatment fidelity
• (NRCLD, 2005)

12
RtI Models Variations

• Multiple Tiers of increasingly intense
  intervention
• Duration, frequency, and time of interventions
• Instruction delivered by school personnel other
  than the classroom teacher
• Categorical or non-categorical placement
  decisions
• Use of problem-solving or standard treatment
  protocol delivery methods
• (NRCLD, 2005)

13
Misconceptions About RtI

• The outcome and intent of RtI is identification
• RtI is limited to students with learning
  disabilities
• RtI is a 3-tiered model
• Tier 3 is special education
• RtI is only prereferral
• There are no research studies comparing RtI to
  traditional special education services
• (NASDE, 2006)

14
What are the Problems With the Traditional System

• Separation of general and special education
• Little emphasis on prevention and early
  intervention
• Undocumented benefits of special education
• Offers little information to inform instruction
• Lack of scientifically-based instruction/intervent
  ion
• Eligibility determination variable across and
  within states
• Minority overrepresentation
• (Brown-Chidsey Steege, 2005).

15
Advantages of an RtI Model

• Emphasis on prevention and early intervention
• Provides assistance to struggling children in a
  timely fashion
• Use of a risk model as opposed to a deficit
  model
• Reduction of identification biases
• Helps to ensure that a childs poor performance
  is not do to poor instruction
• Assessments are directly linked to intervention
• Promotes multidisciplinary collaboration
• Emphasis is on exit as much as on entrance
• (Gresham, VanDerHeyden, Witt, 2005)

16
Federal Education Policies in Support of RtI

• No Child Left Behind Act of 2001
• Early Reading First Reading First Programs
• Individuals With Disabilities Education
  Improvement Act 2004 (IDEIA)

17
IDEIA 2004

• Formerly the P.L. 94-142 enacted in 1975
• Purpose To provide a Free and Appropriate Public
  Education to all children with disabilities
• Reauthorized in 1997 IDEA
• Redefined special education as a set of services,
  as opposed to a place
• Although IDEA 97 a number of significant changes
  to improve services and outcomes for students
  with disabilities, few changes actually occurred
• (NASDSE, 2005)

18
IDEIA 2004Early Intervening Services

• Enables local education agencies (LEAs) to use up
  to 15 percent of the amount received under Part B
  (with some restrictions) to provide early
  intervening services including
• Professional development to enable teachers and
  school staff to deliver scientifically based
  academic instruction and behavioral
  interventions.
• Scientifically based literacy instruction.
• Instruction on the use of adaptive and
  instructional software

19
IDEIA 2004Prevention and Research-Based
Practice

• The Findings and Purposes section Highlights
  the importance of
• High-quality pre-service preparation
• Early intervening services
• Scientific, research-based practice

20
IDEIA 2004Prevention and Research-based
Practice

• Personnel Qualifications
• Special educators must be Highly Qualified
• Meets ESEA requirements for all teachers
• Certified or licensed to teach in the State
• No waiver of certification or licensure on
  emergency, temporary or provisional basis
• At least a bachelors degree
• Highlights the importance of prevention in the
  form of highly qualified teachers

21
IDEIA 2004LD Eligibility Determination

• LEAs are not required to use the discrepancy
  definition in determining eligibility
• SEC. 614 (b)(6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES.
• (b)(6)(A) IN GENERAL.--Notwithstanding section
  607(b), when determining whether a child has a
  specific learning disability as defined in
  section 602, a local educational agency shall not
  be required to take into consideration whether a
  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.
• They may choose to use an RTI model
• (b)(6)(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.--In determining
  whether a child has a specific learning
  disability, a local educational agency may use a
  process that determines if the child responds to
  scientific, research-based intervention as a part
  of the evaluation procedures described in
  paragraphs (2) and (3).
• (Klotz Nealis, 2005)

22
IDEIA 2004Data-based Decision Making

• In the Evaluations, Parental Consent, and
  Reevaluations section, the Rule of Construction
  states
• The screening of a student by a teacher or
  specialist to determine appropriate instructional
  strategies for curriculum implementation shall
  not be considered to be an evaluation for
  eligibility for special education and related
  services.

23
No Child Left Behind Act

• Formerly the Elementary and Secondary Education
  Act (ESEA) first passed in 1965
• First US federal legislation to provide funding
  to public schools
• The most recent reauthorization in 2001 contains
  language much more specific than in previous
  versions
• (Brown-Chidsey Steege, 2005)

24
No Child Left Behind Act

• NCLB requires that states submit evidence of how
  they will instruct and assess student reading
  across the five domains identified by the NRP
• NCLB requires a three tier prevention model
  primary, secondary, tertiary
• NCLB highly emphasizes research-based practice
  and ongoing professional development for school
  staff

25
No Child Left Behind Act Early Reading First
Program

• Provides early childhood education providers the
  funds necessary to become preschool centers of
  educational excellence, providing children with
  the foundational skills necessary to become
  successful readers
• Funds can be used to
• Support efforts to enhance the early language,
  cognitive, and reading development skills through
  strategies and professional development based on
  scientific research
• Create high-quality language and print-rich
  environments in which to learn
• Engage in scientifically proven language and
  literacy activities that support the
  age-appropriate development of oral language,
  phonological awareness, print awareness and
  alphabet knowledge
• Use appropriate measures to identify
  preschool-age children who may be at risk for
  reading failure
• Integrate scientifically based instructional
  materials and programs into existing preschool
  program
• (United States Department of Education, 2005)

26
No Child Left Behind Act Reading First Program

• Specifies the exact components to be included in
  state reading programs
• Specifically, NCLB supports those programs that
  teach the 5 Big Ideas in reading those that have
  been shown through scientific research to be
  essential to early reading success

27
Linking IDEA and NCLB
CD_youth(imageState)
28
Special Education EligibilityLD Eligibility
Criteria

• Traditional
• Use of an IQ/Achievement Discrepancy model
• Consideration of exclusion factors
• Adapted from National Association of State
  Directors of Special Education (2005)

• RtI
• Use of multiple sources of data
• Significant difference in performance, compared
  to peers
• Significant difference in rate of learning,
  compared to peers
• Performance problem negatively impacts education,
  and there is a demonstrated need for special
  education
• Consideration of exclusion factors

29
Special Education EligibilityAssessment Methods

• Traditional
• Global measures
• Published achievement and ability tests

• RtI
• Measures of the specific skills directly related
  to success in the classroom
• Published or unpublished

30
Special Education EligibilityComparison
Standards

• Traditional
• Use of national norms
• Indirect, high inference

• RtI
• Use of regional, district, school or classroom
  standards
• Direct, low inference

31
Special Education EligibilityAssessment
Purposes

• Traditional
• Diagnosis of the problem
• Eligibility for services

• RTI
• Understand the problem
• Measure the rate of progress
• Determine the needed resources

32
Special Education EligibilityFrequency of
Assessment

• Traditional
• Tests are administered typically in one or two
  sittings

• RtI
• Academic and/or behavioral data is regularly
  collected over time

33
Special Education EligibilityAssessment Targets

• Traditional
• Measurement of hypothetical constructs that are
  not directly related to academic or behavioral
  problems
• Targeting intrinsic qualities

• RtI
• Specific skills are measured
• Targeting of skills and performances (what a
  person does)

34
Special Education EligibilityRelationship of
Assessment to Curriculum and Interventions

• Traditional
• Minimal relationship between assessment
  instruments and general curriculum
• Assessment results do not inform instruction
  and/or intervention planning

• RtI
• Direct Relationship between assessment
  instruments and general curriculum
• Assessment results inform instruction
• Instructional interventions directly linked to
  assessment findings

35
Special Education EligibilityParent Teacher
Involvement

• RtI
• Plays a pertinent role in eligibility decisions

• Traditional
• Typically does not play a direct role in
  eligibility decisions

36
Tiered Model of Service Delivery
Tier I 80

• All Students provided with research-based
  instructional/behavioral support

Tier II 15

• Some students receive supplemental interventions

Tier III 5

• Few students receive intensive, individualized
  interventions

37
Tiered Model of Service Delivery

• Tier I
• Research-based instructional program and
  behavioral supports provided to all students
• School personnel conduct universal screening of
  literacy skills, academics, and behavior
• Regular analysis of the data collected, used to
  guide instruction
• (Brown-Chidsey Steege, 2005)

38
Tiered Model of Service Delivery

• Tier II
• Students who show poor response in Tier I receive
  supplemental instruction
• Delivered in a problem-solving or standard
  treatment protocol process
• Student progress is monitored to determine
  intervention effectiveness
• Students who improve, and who are not in need of
  continued supports, are reintegrated into the
  traditional instructional program

39
Tiered Model of Service Delivery

• Tier III
• Intensive, longer-term instructional
  interventions
• Continued data collection to determine student
  progress
• If a students history warrants it, a
  multi-disciplinary team may assess the students
  potential need for special education services
• Special Education eligibility is determined based
  on the data gathered during the RtI process

40
Curriculum Based Measurement

• A method of monitoring student educational
  progress through brief assessment of targeted
  academic skills
• Probes are delivered under standardized
  conditions
• Probes are scored for speed, or fluency, and for
  accuracy and performance
• (Wright, 2006)

41
CBM Three Uses

• Screening of entire student population
• Diagnostics of ability in academic and behavioral
  domains
• Progress monitoring

42
CBM vs. Traditional Testing

• Drawbacks of Traditional Testing

Benefits of CBM

• Normed to a national average
• Not directly tied to local
• classroom curriculum
• Administered infrequently
• Insensitive to short-term
• academic gains

• Tied to local classroom curriculum
• Can be administered frequently, due
• to quick administration Your text
• in here
• Sensitive to short-term academic gains

CD_School life(MultiBits)/School Days(Nfine)
43
Model Programs MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Rationale For Change
• 1992 New special education eligibility criteria
• Result disproportionate placement of African
  American students, increase in assessment time
  (30-58)
• Increase in assessment activities, at the expense
  of consultation and direct services
• Staff and community members were unhappy
• (Marsten, Canter, Lau Muyskens, 2002)

44
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Movement to Change
• Proposed PSM to State Board of Education as a
  replacement to IQ-Achievement discrepancy Formula
• Proposed the use of a generic classification
  system, SNAP, in place of learning disability
  and mild mental impairment labels.
• Phased in across the district, starting with 5
  pilot programs in 1993
• By 2002, all 100 schools in the district had
  fully implemented the PSM

45
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Implementation
• commitment of the school leadership to the model
• systematic screening and assessment strategies
• a problem solving team that functions well
• staff development to build capacity of the
  problem solving team and school staff
• access to consultation from district and other
  resources

46
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Support for PSM Model
• Independent Evaluation Reschly Starkweather
  (1997)
• Sample 128 PSM-identified children, and 56
  special education students identified through
  traditional system
• Findings
• Pre-referral interventions under PSM superior
• PSM students were identified earlier (2 years
  younger than traditional counterparts)
• PSM students spent less time in special education
  settings than traditional students
• More referral concerns were listed for
  traditional model students

47
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Support for PSM
• Invited Review Team Deno,Grimes, Reschly,
  Schrag (2001)
• Identified Strengths of PSM Model
• PSM offers an effective alternative for students
  of color
• PSM consistent with IDEA 2004 provisions,
  shifting emphasis in assessment using
  standardized tests, to measures that are more
  closely tied to a childs curriculum and
  instruction
• PSM provides instructionally relevant information

48
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Support for PSM
• District Data
• Disproportion placement of students of color less
  of an issue in MPS after implementation of the
  PSM, in comparison to other districts
• High parent satisfaction with the abandonment of
  labels, and with their childs special education
  services

49
Model Program MPS Problem-Solving Model

• Challenges Experienced
• Establishing a functional, collaborative team
  prior to implementation
• Providing ample support to classroom teachers in
  documenting individualized, data-driven
  interventions and progress monitoring
• Developing and maintaining consistent team
  procedures in the midst of high staff-turnover

50
Unresolved Issues

• Lack of validated treatment protocols for
  academic areas other than reading
• How is determination of non-responsiveness
  made?
• How long will students remain in each tier?
• How will due process operate in an RtI model?
• Where and by whom are interventions for each tier
  provided?
• How successful are transitions back to the
  classroom?
• What does RtI look like in the middle and high
  school years?
• (Gresham, VanDerHeyden, Witt, 2005)

51
Final Thought
52
The End !
53
References

• Brown-Chidsey, R., Steege, M. W. (2005).
  Response to intervention Principles and
  strategies for effective practice. New York
  Guilford Press.
• Gresham, F. M., VanDerHeyden, A., Witt, J. C.
  (2005). Response to intervention in the
  identification of learning disabilities
  Empirical support and future challenges.
• Klotz, M. B., Nealis, L. (2005). The new IDEA
  A summary of significant reforms. Retrieved May
  6, 2006 from the National Association of School
  Psychologists Web site http//www.nasponline.org/
  advocacy/IDEAfinalsummary.pdf
• National Association of State Directors of
  Special Education (2006). Myths about response to
  intervention implementation. Retrieved on May 30,
  2006 from http//www.nasdse.org/documents/Myths20
  about20RtI.pdf
• National Association of State Directors of
  Special Education (2005). Response to
  Intervention Policy Considerations and
  Implementation.
• National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities
  (2005). Response to intervention and learning
  disabilities. Retrieved on May 30, 2006 from
  http//www.nasponline.org/advocacy/RTI20Final20A
  ugust202005.pdf
• Marsten, D., Canter, A., Lau, M., Muyskens, P.
  (2002, June) Problem solving Implementation and
  evaluation in Minneapolis schools. NASP
  Communiqué, 30(2). Retrieved June 2, 2006 from,
  http//www.nasponline.org/publications/cq308minnea
  polis.html.
• Mellard, D. F., Byrd, S. E., Johnson, E.,
  Tollefson, J. M., Boesche, L. (2004).
  Foundations and research on identifying model
  Responsiveness to intervention sites. Learning
  Disability Quarterly, 27, 243-256.

54
References

• United States Department of Education. (2005). No
  child left behind act Early reading first and
  reading first programs. Retrieved June 13, 2006
  from http//www.ed.gov/nclb/methods/reading/readin
  gfirst.pdf
• Wright, J. (2006). Getting started with response
  to intervention A guide for schools. Retrieved
  June 2, 2006 from http//www.jimwrightonline.com/p
  hp/rti/rti_wire.php

55
Supplemental Slides
56
How Will School Psychologists Role Change in an
RtI System?

• Less time devoted to assessment
• More time devoted to direct intervention and
  problem-solving consultation
• Evidence of increase in school psychologist
  positions in schools currently operating under an
  RtI model
• (Marston, Canter, Lau, Muyskens, 2002)

57
What is the Role of General Education Teachers
Within an RtI Model?

• RtI is a general education initiative
• General educators will be more involved in RtI
  than all specialists
• General educators will play an active role in
  student assessment
• General educators will play an active role in
  intervention planning and implementation