Linking Early Intervening Services and Responsiveness to Intervention with Specific Learning Disabilities Determination

1
Linking Early Intervening Services and
Responsiveness to Intervention with Specific
Learning Disabilities Determination

• Daryl Mellard
• National Research Center on
• Learning Disabilities (NRCLD)
• A collaboration of Vanderbilt University
• and the University of Kansas
• Funded by U.S. Department of Education
• Office of Special Education Programs
• Renée Bradley, Project Officer - Award No.
  H324U010004
• December 1, 2005

2
Presentation Topics

• Overview of NRCLD Activities
• Early Intervening Services (EIS) Defined
• Responsiveness to Intervention (RTI) Defined
• Implementation in local sites Praise and
  concerns
• Next steps Where to begin with EIS and RTI

3
NRCLD Project Staff

• Vanderbilt University
• Doug Fuchs, Co-Director Principal Investigator
• Dan Reschly, Co-Director Principal Investigator
• Lynn Fuchs, Principal Investigator
• Don Compton, Principal Investigator
• Joan Bryant, Project Coordinator

• University of Kansas
• Don Deshler, Co-Director Principal
  Investigator
• Daryl Mellard, Principal Investigator
• Sonja de Boer, Project Coordinator
• Julie Tollefson, Dissemination Coordinator
• Melinda McKnight, Research Assistant
• Barb Starrett, Research Assistant
• Evelyn Johnson, Consultant
• Sara Byrd, Consultant

4
Can NRCLD Help?

• Purposes of NRCLD
• To understand how alternative approaches to
  disability identification affect who is
  identified
• To investigate state and local identification
  policies and practices and specific learning
  disabilities (SLD) prevalence
• To provide technical assistance and conduct
  dissemination to enhance state and local practice
  in identification
• To identify sites that effectively use RTI as a
  method of prevention and a tool for
  identificationan activity conducted with the
  Regional Resource Centers

5
EIS and IDEA Reauthorization (P.L. 108-446)

• New language in IDEA
• A local educational agency (LEA) may not use
  more than 15 of the amount such agency receives
  under this part (Part B)
• to develop and implement coordinated, early
  intervening services
• for students in kindergarten through grade 12
  (with particular emphasis on students in
  kindergarten through grade 3) who do not meet the
  definition of a child with a disability
• but who need additional academic and behavioral
  support to succeed in a general education
  environment.
• 
  
  Sec. 613(f)(1)

6
EIS and IDEA Reauthorization (P.L. 108-446)

• EIS Activities
• The funds are intended to build school staff
  capacity for delivering scientifically-based
  academic and behavioral interventions including
  scientifically-based literacy instruction and,
  providing educational and behavioral
  evaluations, services, and supports, including
  scientifically-based literacy instruction.
• Sec.
  613(f)(2)
• 
  
  

7
EIS and IDEA Reauthorization (P.L. 108-446)

• EIS and Disproportionality
• The State, or the Secretary of the Interior, as
  the case may be, shall require any LEA
  identified under paragraph (1) to reserve the
  maximum amount of funds under section 613(f) to
  provide comprehensive coordinated EIS to serve
  children in the LEA, particularly children in
  those groups that were significantly
  over-identified
• 
  Sec. 618(d)(2)(B)

8
Five Programmatic Components of EIS

• Professional development
• Delivering scientifically-based instruction
  Monitoring progress
• Fidelity of implementation
• Evaluations/Screening of children

9
Professional Development

• Delivering EIS requires that staff have knowledge
  and the necessary skills for some new knowledge
  and skills.
• The result is that professional development must
  be planned in such a manner that as new staff
  enter an LEA, they can be successfully integrated
  into the current procedures and practices.
• Professional development must be continuing.

10
Screening of Children

• A requisite of early intervention (IDEA 2004 Part
  B vs C) is knowing for which students EIS is
  needed.
• LEAs will need to have accurate assessments of
  students progress and a decision rule on which
  to judge eligibility.
• Considerations
• Screening results will need to have sufficient
  detail to enable staff to identify academic
  areas needing intervention.
• Additional assessment that targets more specific
  skills than what is found on a class-wide
  screening measure will be helpful for those
  students judged eligible.

11
Monitoring Progress

• Once students begin to receive EIS, staff need an
  objective basis for judging the students
  progress in relation to their peers or a
  criterion for performance.
• Considerations
• Collect data weekly or biweekly
• Students progress data should drive the
  decision-making
• Specifying appropriate content for CBM
• Professional development for beliefs (personal
  theory) and understanding usage

12
Delivering Scientifically-Based Instruction

• The IDEA provision is very clear that EIS
  interventions must be those interventions that
  have demonstrated efficacy scientific-based
  instruction.
• These interventions are not the home-grown
  variety that combine elements from what staff
  members believe will work.
• For details, visit What Works Clearinghouse at
  www.w-w-c.org

13
Fidelity of Implementation

• The expectation is that the intervention is
  delivered with fidelity (integrity) that is, as
  intended, with accuracy and consistency.
• Ensuring that staff have received proper
  instruction about the intervention and have a
  means to verify that the intervention is used and
  receive corrective feedback.
• Considerations
• What measures to use?
• How often?
• By whom?
• How are the results used?

14
SLD Determination and IDEA 2004 (P.L. 108-446)

• New language in the law
• 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.
• Sec. 614(b)6B
• In the special education research literature, the
  process mentioned in this language is generally
  considered as referring to responsiveness to
  intervention (RTI).
• 
  

15
Why RTI?

• RTI can be one component of SLD determination
• Provides appropriate learning experiences for all
  students
• Uses school-wide progress monitoring to assess
  entire class progress and individual student
  progress
• Promotes early identification of students at risk
  for academic failure
• Involves multiple performance measures rather
  than measurement at a single point in time

16
Research Identifies Critical Elements of RTI

• Two goals prevent future academic problems and
  assist in identifying students with SLD
• Implementation of a scientifically-based,
  differentiated curriculum with different
  instructional methods
• Two or more tiers of increasingly intense
  scientific, research-based interventions
• Intensity addressed through duration, frequency
  and time of interventions, group size, and
  instructor skill level
• Individual problem solving model or standardized
  intervention protocol for intervention tiers
• Explicit decision rules for assessing learners
  progress (e.g., level and/or rate)

17
What Does RTI Implementation Look Like?

• Students receive high-quality, research-based
  instruction by qualified staff in their general
  education setting (Tier 1)
• General education instructors and staff assume
  an active role in students assessment in that
  curriculum
• School staff conduct universal screening of
  (a) academics, and (b) behavior (gt 1/yr)
• School staff implement specific, research-based
  interventions to address the students
  difficulties (Tier 2)

18
What Does RTI Implementation Look Like?
(continued)

• School staff conducts continuous progress
  monitoring of student performance (e.g., weekly
  or biweekly) for Tier 2 and 3 interventions, less
  frequently in general education
• School staff use progress monitoring data and
  explicit decision rules to determine
  interventions effectiveness and needed
  modifications
• Systematic assessment is made of the fidelity or
  integrity with which instruction and
  interventions are implemented
• Referral for comprehensive evaluation FAPE due
  process protections

19
Tier 2 for instructional intensity

• Small Groups (11, 13, 15, 110)
• 10-12 wks, 3-4x per wk, 30-60 min per session
• Scripted, specific intervention
• Point system for motivation
• Immediate corrective feedback
• Mastery of content before moving on
• More time on difficult activities
• More opportunities to respond
• Fewer transitions
• Setting goals and self monitoring

20
EIS / RTI Identification Process
RTI Tier 1 80 of students
EIS 80 Decision Rule
EIS 20 Decision Rule
Adapted from Tigard-Tualatin School District,
OR Sadler Zinn (2005)
RTI Tier 2 15 of students
RTI Tier 3 5 of students
EIS Revise/ Individualize Instruction Rule
21
Effective Behavior Instructional Support (EBIS)
Structure Example
Tigard-Tualatin School District, OR Sadler Zinn
(2005)
22
Current Status RTI site selection process

• Began spring, 2002
• Recruited/self-selected through collaborative
  activity with six regional resource centers
• Focus on k-5 grades reading skills historical
  data
• Initial pool of 41 school nominations
• Blind review of applications paper-only
• 19 sites targeted for closer study
• Staff of 14 sites attended two-day session
  (building level administrators)

23
RTI Features of Focus

1. School-wide screening (measures, frequency, cut
   score)
2. Tiered levels of reading intervention
3. Progress monitoring/tiers (measures, frequency)
4. Delineation of cut scores for responsiveness
5. Use of student data in decision-making
6. Substantiated learner outcomes (school wide)

24
Site common characteristics

1. Multiple year investment
2. Were not there yet.
3. Student-level problem-solving framework
4. Not standard intervention protocols in Tier 2
5. Parental notification procedures and engagement

25
RTI Core Feature Tier 1 in reading

• Programs implemented a recognized reading program
  as a basal series
• Open Court series used most frequently
• Supplemented the core curriculum
• Target specific skills (e.g., phonemic awareness)
• External staff (e.g., para-professionals,
  volunteers)

26
Troubling Concerns

1. Confusion of distinguishing screening and
   progress monitoring
2. Lack of scientific basis in Tier 2 intervention
   (e.g., more of the same)
3. Limited rule based decision-making (e.g.,
   flexible cut scores)
4. Frequency of progress monitoring data collection
5. (Consistent) data informs decisions but other
   factors have stronger influence
6. Performance level dominates not slope (rate)
7. Lack of fidelity measures in the individual or
   small group interventions

27
Enabling features with greatest consistency (rank
ordered)

1. Commitment to the view of using student level
   data
2. Administrative leadership
3. Professional development
4. Strong Tier 1 reading intervention
5. Reading screening measures

28
EIS and RTI Coordination with SLD

• What should be considered when designing an
  EIS/RTI system?
• Focus Positive behavior support and academics
• Procedures for parental involvement
• School-wide screening (measures, frequency, cut
  score)
• Tiered levels of intervention
• Progress monitoring/tiers (measures, frequency)
• Delineation of cut scores for responsiveness
• Use of student data in decision-making
• Substantiated learner outcomes (school wide)

29
Thank you!
SEA Staffs Mark your calendar for April 19 -
21 National Conference on EIS, RTI, SLD
Determination Goal Helping SEAs with
Implementation Kansas City, MO
Check our website www.NRCLD.org
30
Symposium on RTI (December 2003)

• Symposium papers, PowerPoint presentations, and
  video highlights are available on our website
  www.NRCLD.org
• How should screening for secondary intervention
  occur?
• How should secondary intervention be formulated?
• What are the feasibility and consequences of RTI?
• How should unresponsiveness to secondary
  intervention be operationalized in an RTI
  approach to learning disabilities (LD)
  identification?
• How many tiers are needed within RTI to achieve
  acceptable prevention outcomes and patterns of LD
  identification?
• What are alternative models to LD identification
  other than RTI?