Reactions to RTI Presentations: What We Have

1
Reactions to RTI Presentations What We Have
What We Need

• Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.
• Indiana University of PA
• jkov_at_iup.edu
• www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/

2
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.

Kovaleski Prasse (2005)
3
Three Tier Model of Teaming
Tier 1 Grade level teaming based on data
Tier 2
Standard Protocol Interventions
Problem-solving Team
Tier 3 Special Education
4
The Three-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.

Kovaleski Prasse (2005)
5
RTI What We Have

• Tier 1
• An increasing number of empirically validated
  foundational curricula
• Valid and reliable group screening methods
• http//reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_guide.php
  

6
RTI What We Have

• Tier 2
• An increasing number of scientifically validated
  standard protocols
• Many years of experience and data from problem
  solving models
• Approaches that emphasize both high potency and
  customized interventions

7
Standard Protocol Websites

• http//www.fcrr.org/
• http//oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downloads/10
  6_High_Priority_Programs.pdf

8
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.

9
RTI What We Have

• Tier 3
• Valid and reliable markers for deficiency and
  rate of progress

10
Psychometric Integrity of RTI Components

• Basic premise identification is more reliable
  when based on multiple measures gathered over
  time than on a single assessment.
• CBM has been extensive support in terms of
  validity and reliability for measurements of both
  deficiency and rate of progress (e.g., Good
  Jefferson, 1998 Deno et al., 2001).

11
RTI What We Need

• Tier 1
• Active support for teachers to implement highly
  effective foundational curricula through
• Data analysis teams

12
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

13
RTI What We Need

• Tier 2
• Scaling up of standard protocols
• Demonstrations of how problem solving works
• Tier 3
• More demonstrations of using data to drive
  decision-making

14
Contributions of Todays Panel toward Areas of
Need
15
Bossard et al.

• Data driving decision making
• Planful phase-in of program
• Development of seamless system of supports
• Rigorous program evaluation

16
Hills Ardoin

• The presumptions of the reading community put to
  empirical test.
• Running records were uncritically championed for
  over 15 years, with wide implementation.
• Further delineation of utility of CBM in an RTI
  model.

17
Jones Wickstrom

• Reliance on scripts to increase program fidelity.
• Goal setting based on research (1 CWPM/wk.)
• Determination of progress indexed to benchmarks
• Note importance of withdrawal design to
  determine need for special education