Response to Intervention (RTI): Considerations for Identification and Instructional Reform

1
Response to Intervention (RTI) Considerations
for Identification and Instructional Reform

• Joseph F. Kovaleski
• Indiana University of PA
• David Prasse
• Loyola University Chicago

2
Reasons for Change

• Current system process above results
• Current system wait to fail model
• Dual system- general and special
• Culture of compliance
• Identification methods lack validity
• Rigorous research and evidence-based practice
• Focus on compliance and bureaucratic imperatives
  not academic achievement.

3
Consensus Reports on Rethinking Learning
Disabilities

• OSEP Learning Disabilities Summit (2001)
• Fordham Foundation/ Progressive Policy Institute
  Rethinking Special Education (2001)
• National Research Council Minority Over-
  Representation in Special Ed (2002)
• Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special
  Ed (2002)

4

• the IQ-achievement discrepancy does not
  reliably distinguish between disabled and
  non-disabled readers children who were found to
  be difficult and easy to remediate and it
  does not predict response to remediation. Vell
  utino et al. (2000), p. 235

5
Senate Report re IDEIA

• The committee believes that the IQ-achievement
  discrepancy formula, which considers whether a
  child has a severe discrepancy between
  achievement and intellectual ability, should not
  be a requirement for determining eligibility
  under the IDEA. There is no evidence that the
  IQ-achievement discrepancy formula can be applied
  in a consistent and educationally meaningful
  (i.e., reliable and valid) manner.

6

• In addition, this approach has been found to be
  particularly problematic for students living in
  poverty or culturally and linguistically
  different backgrounds, who may be erroneously
  viewed as having intrinsic intellectual
  limitations when their difficulties on such tests
  really reflect lack of experience or educational
  opportunity.

7
IDEIA 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.

8
IDEIA 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.

9
Senate Report re IDEIA

• The bill allows local educational agencies to
  make an eligibility determination through a
  process based upon a child's response to
  scientific, research-based intervention. The
  (Presidents) Commission recommended that the
  identification process be simplified and that
  assessments that reflect learning and behavior in
  the classroom be encouraged, with less reliance
  on the assessments of IQ and achievement .

10
Is this a radical change?

• The ability-achievement discrepancy may still be
  used if the LEA chooses.
• Or not, if the LEA elects to use RTI.
• Low achievement, exclusion provisions, and
  assessment of lack of instruction are already
  part of IDEIA.

11
IDEIA 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

12
Should Cognitive Processes be Included?

• There is no substantial body of evidence that
  attempts to assess cognitive processing improve
  LD identification, control prevalence, translate
  into more effective instruction, or improve
  prediction of the outcomes of interventions.
• At best, these measures should be optional, not
  required, components of a comprehensive
  evaluation.
• Any psychological process is meaningful only if
  it has direct functional correlates to classroom
  learning (e.g., phonological awareness).

13
The construct of LD is changing.

• Under RTI approaches, the discrepancy is relative
  to the expectation that all children can learn
  (cf. NCLB), not just students with average IQs.
• RTI identifies which students do not respond to
  instructional procedures under which most
  students do succeed.

14
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 special
  education.
• The mission is the development of proficiency in
  basic skills (particularly reading) for all
  students.

15
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.

16
House Report re IDEIA

• a child cannot be determined to be a child
  with a disability solely because the child did
  not receive scientifically based instruction in
  reading. With the combination of programs
  authorized under the Elementary and Secondary
  Education Act (NCLB), particularly Reading First
  and Early Reading First, and the prereferral
  services concept the Committee hopes that local
  educational agencies will improve their reading
  and literacy instruction to enable all children
  to read at grade level by the third grade.

17

• The Committee believes that these changes will
  help reduce the number of children being
  inappropriately referred to, and identified
  under, special education and should encourage
  schools to improve their programs on these
  subjects in early grades.

18
Treatment Validity

• The selection of any assessment instrument or
  procedure is solely dependent on its ability to
  provide specific information about scientifically
  validated instructional strategies that have a
  high probability of producing meaningful change
  in the students academic or social-emotional
  skills.
• Measures must relate to child outcomes.

19
What is a Comprehensive Evaluation Using RTI?

• Direct measurement of achievement, behavior and
  the instructional environment in relevant domains
  as the core foci of a comprehensive evaluation
  for LD.
• Focus is on achievement, behavior, and
  instructional environment.

20
Comprehensive evaluation using RTI includes

• Use of a variety of techniques driven by the
  referral question,
• Multiple sources of information, procedures, and
  settings,
• Multidimensional assessment based on students
  needs,
• Not limited to a single methodology.

21
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)

22
Discrepancy Deviation from Established Benchmarks

• Assessment of performance compared to
  national/state/local benchmarks
• State and district group tests, and
• National benchmark tests (e.g., DIBELS), and
• CBM results compared to local norms, and maybe
• Norm-referenced tests of achievement (if they
  meet the treatment validity criterion, and
  provide additional needed information)
• Note that Shinns 2.0X format is not a
  calculation of grade levels.

23
Rate of Progress

• Assessment of the students performance on
  critical academic skills under verifiable
  conditions of scientifically validated
  instruction.
• Rate of progress is deficient compared to peers,
  and is insufficient to attain state/local
  benchmarks within a reasonable time period.
• Note Rates of progress in response to highly
  effective interventions has been empirically
  established (Deno, et al., 2001).

24
Evaluating the Need for Specially Designed
Instruction

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

25
Rule-outs are still included

• Hearing and vision problems
• Mental retardation
• Emotional problems
• Cultural and language issues

26
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).

27
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.

28
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
29
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.

30
Our Position

• The practice of school psychology should be
  guided by its effects on student outcomes
• not by
• Tradition
• Guild issues
• Unsupported Theory
• Constructs (e.g., LD)

31

• We do not argue that the particular procedures
  that we describe must be mandated practice for
  all school psychologists.
• However, we also resist the idea that others
  vision of the practice of school psychology
  should be mandated for all.

32

• We understand the plurality of opinions on these
  issues.
• We challenge our colleagues to be guided by the
  same basic criterion that we set for ourselves
  student outcomes.