Heartland Area Education Agency

1
Heartland Area Education Agencys Evolution From
Four To Three Tiers Our Journey Our Results
Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December
4-5, 2003 Kansas City, Missouri The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a
collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt
University and the University of Kansas,
sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on
responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The
symposium was made possible by the support of the
U.S. Department of Education Office of Special
Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project
Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of
the authors and do not necessarily represent the
position of the U.S. Department of
Education. When citing materials presented
during the symposium, please use the following
Tilly, D. (2003, December). Heartland Area
Education Agencys evolution from four to three
tiers Our journey - our results. Paper presented
at the National Research Center on Learning
Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention
Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
Correspondence about this presentation should be
directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500
Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is
dtilly_at_aea11.k12.ia.us, [phone].
2
Most Important Points
!
!
!

• RTI is NOT simply a method to identify students
  with learning disabilities it is about
  improving results for students the fact that it
  can help systematically identify students with LD
  is incidental
• RTI can be done in practice
• It is good for kids

3
Overview of How Many Tiers?

1. Unproven Assumptions Ineffective Practice
2. Systems Structure Redesign
3. Import the Scientific Method
4. Scientifically-validated practice
5. Punch Line What Happens When You Do It Large
   Scale?

4
1. Assumptions

• Change in thinking is as critical as change in
  behavior
• Our historical system was predicated on a series
  of assumptions these pervade practice today
• Basing our service delivery system on them has
  not resulted in broad-based and consistently
  replicable positive student achievement results
  for students with disabilities
• Last purpose of IDEA-To assess and ensure the
  effectiveness of efforts to education children
  with disabilities

5
After nearly 30 years we know more about our tools

• Assumption 1 Existing and widely used
  educational assessment procedures are sufficient
  and valid for differentiating instruction for
  students.
• Many assessment devices used for differential
  diagnosis and programming are not reliable and
  valid enough for use with individuals (e.g.,
  Salvia and Ysseldyke, 1991 Witt, 1986).

6
After nearly 30 years we know more about how to
focus our assessment

• Assumption 2 Thorough understanding of the
  intrapersonal (within person) cause of
  educational problems is the most critical factor
  in determining appropriate treatment
• Learning problems results from a complex
  interaction between curriculum, instruction, the
  environment and learner characteristics (e.g.,
  Howell, 1993)

7
After nearly 30 years we know more about the type
of resource allocation it takes to improve results

• Assumption 3 Sufficient resources and
  meaningful strategies for providing
  differentiated instruction are available within
  schools.
• Changing learning trajectories for all students
  requires sustained, ongoing and focused efforts
  beyond what traditionally has been available in
  most of our schools. (Simmons, Kuykendall, King,
  Cornachione Kameenui, 2000)

8
After nearly 30 years we know that typological
thinking about mild learning problems is
problematic

• Assumption 4 Grouping students with others based
  on instructionally questionable underlying
  characteristics is an efficient and effective
  method for matching differentiated instruction to
  student needs
• Educational needs vary widely within and across
  categorical groupings of students (e.g.,
  Jenkins, Pious, Peterson, 1988 Marston, 1987).
  We must flexibly group students based on skills
  and things they need to learn.

Students with LD
Students with MR
Students with EBD
LD Reading Methods
MR Reading Methods
EBD Reading Methods
9
After more than 30 years we know that apriori
ATIs dont work

• Assumption 5 Matching treatments to underlying
  characteristics of students will result in
  maximally effective interventions.
• Aptitude-by-treatment interactions (ATIs) have
  not been proven (e.g., Arter Jenkins, 1979
  Cronbach, 1975 Good, et al., 1993 Teeter, 1987,
  1989 Ysseldyke Mirkin, 1982).

10
The Reality

• The effectiveness of any educational strategy for
  an individual can only be determined through its
  implementation.

11
We Need A New Logic

• Begin with the idea that the purpose of the
  system is student achievement
• Acknowledge that student needs exist on a
  continuum rather than in typological groupings
• Organize resources to make educational resources
  available in direct proportion to student need

12
Quote

• We have witnessed over the last 30 years numerous
  attempts at planned educational change. The
  benefits have not nearly equaled the costs, and
  all too often, the situation has seemed to
  worsen. We have, however, gained clearer and
  clearer insights over this period about the dos
  and donts of bringing about change.One of the
  most promising features of this new knowledge
  about change is that successful examples of
  innovation are based on what might be most
  accurately labeled organized common sense.
  (Fullan, 1991, p. xi-xii)
• Fullan, M. G. (1991). The new meaning of
  educational change. New York, NY Teachers
  College Press.

13
2. System Structure Redesign
14

• From a policy perspective, what school sites
  appear to need is a way of acquiring or shifting
  resources and teaching technology in response to
  students whom teachers perceive as difficult to
  teach without the burden of labeling such
  students handicapped (Gerber, 1984 cited
  yesterday)

15
Unintended Consequence of How We Structured Our
Early System (1975-1990)
16
The Needed Solution


17
Heartland AEAs Problem Solving Approach
Special Education System
18
If you teach the same curriculum, to all
students, at the same time, at the same rate,
using the same materials, with the same
instructional methods, with the same expectations
for performance and grade on a curve you have
fertile ground for growing special education.
Gary Germann, 2003
19
3. Import the Scientific Method To Ensure High
Liklihood Interventions
20
The Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem (Screening and Diagnostic
Assessments)
What is the problem and why is it happening?
Develop a Plan (Goal Setting and Planning)
Evaluate (Progress Monitoring Assessment)
What are we going to do?
Did our plan work?
Implement Plan (Treatment Integrity)
Carry out the intervention
21
The Purpose of Using Scientific Method is to
Maximize Likelihood of Positive Outcome

• Dan Reschly reminded us that one of the biggest
  problems weve had defining LD has been
  identifying universal, generalizable and
  consistent characteristics shared by all persons
  with LD Partially because of this, ATI couldnt
  help us maximize positive outcomes
• Larry Gloeckler encouraged us to reflect on how
  are we going to scale this up?, especially
  across the diversity of school systems across the
  country

22
To Maximize Probability of Positive Results

• Identify characteristics of the service delivery
  system that are universal, generalizable and
  consistent across implementations
• Assessments are functional and direct
• Implement data-based decision making in practice
  (and differentiate your decisions, prob id, prob
  analysis, progress monitoring, program
  evaluation)
• Monitor progress using authentic, sensitive
  measures
• Determine success by performance gains
• Use research-validated practices as a foundation
  for instruction and whenever possible in the
  system

23
4. Use Scientifically Validated Practices

• When outcomes are the arbiter, more things dont
  work than do
• It makes you really humble
• It forces you to keep looking for better things
  and consume research
• Student performance data are unforgiving

24
Unintended Results for a 4-Tiered System

• Not very efficient, especially with minor
  problems
• General education (core instructional) problems
  could not be dealt with effectively in this
  framework
• Getting kids in often still was the purpose,
  rather than working toward better results for
  kids

25
Our Transition
Core Instruction
26
Our Transition
Strategic Instruction/ Intervention
27
Our Transition
Intensive Instruction
28
A Few Important Advantages To Doing This

• RTI/PS essentially is a system structure designed
  for the efficient importation of
  research-validated practice
• Universal Screening - Systematic
• RTI/PS criterion of excellence is student
  performance results
• RTI/PS do(es) not rely on unproven assumptions
  for operation
• The model(s) as designed are self-correcting and
  recursive
• The model(s) allow for documenting the
  effectiveness of what were doing

29
5. Problem Solving and the School-Wide Model in
Practice
Heartland Early Literacy Project(HELP)
Helping Children Read ...Helping Teachers Teach
30
Participants

• Heartland serves about 24 of students in Iowa
• Started with 36 school buildings
• Now have 121 buildings
• Initial focus was K-1 early literacy instruction

31
Key Features of HELP

• DIBELS
• Student interventions based on response to
  instruction
• Benchmark
• Strategic
• Intensive
• Ongoing Monitoring
• Instructional changes based on data
• Literacy Team
• Administrative support

Process was adapted from Kameenui and Simmons
(2000)
32
How are we doing?
33
(No Transcript)
34
Project-Level Data (121 Schools) Cross-year box
plots nonsense word fluency Kindergarten
Heartland Students
35
Project-Level Data (121 Schools) Cross-year oral
reading fluency gains for first-grade Heartland
students
36
Translated Into Effect Sizes
Table 1. z-Score Growth For Phonemic Segmentation
Fluency, End of Kindergarten, Heartland Early
Literacy Program 1999-2002.
Yr1-Yr2 z-Score Yr 1- Yr 3 z-Scores
Mean Z Score 0.71 1.08
Median Z Score 0.70 1.25
Number of Scores 85 36
Low Z Score -3.76 -0.77
High Z Score 3.93 3.29
37
(No Transcript)
38
Translated Into Effect Sizes
Table 2. z-Score Growth For Oral Reading Fluency
(end of grade 1), Heartland Early Literacy
Program 2002-2003.
Yr1-Yr2 z-Score Yr 1- Yr 3 z-scores
Mean z Score 0.26 0.39
Median z Score 0.32 0.36
Number of Scores 86 32
Low z Score -2.15 -0.68
High z Score 2.49 2.47
39
(No Transcript)
40
What Happened In the Larger System?
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
(No Transcript)
44
(No Transcript)
45
This Will Be a Lot of Work


Work to Date
Work Remaining
46
Most Important Points
!
!
!

• RTI is NOT simply a method to identify students
  with learning disabilities it is about
  improving results for students the fact that it
  can help systematically identify students with LD
  is incidental
• This can be done in practice
• It is good for kids