MainText1 · 2009-01-21 · EIS and RTI 6-62 Module 6 poor performance on a classwide, schoolwide,...

Module 6 6-61 EIS and RTI

Slide 23Introductory Slide to RTI

No clicks necessary.Slide self-presents.

Slide 23 provides the segueinto the next section of thismodule and the indepth explo-ration of Response to Interven-tion, RTI.

Before launching into theslides, however, we provide thefollowing background discussionof RTI both within IDEA and inpractice. Additional informationis given in the background textof upcoming slides as well. Thisdiscussion is provided as afoundation for information youmay impart to the audience asyou progress through the slides.At this point, in this openingslide, you wouldn’t need toshare all this! Wait until theappropriate slide comes up.

The Roots of RTI

Response to intervention—hereafter referred to as RTI—is anew component within IDEA

2004 and the final Part B regula-tions and represents a processthat schools may use to helpchildren who are struggling. Oneof its underlying premises is thepossibility that a child's strugglesmay be due to inadequacies ininstruction or in the curriculumeither in use at the moment or inthe child's past.

Optimal learning outcomesoccur when the curriculum andinstruction within the classroomare closely compatible withchildren's skills and abilities.When there is a poor fit, childoutcomes and learning suffer.Quality classroom instructionusually is a good fit for meetingthe needs of most children. Butfor other children, success is noteasy. The hypothesis is that, withRTI, these struggling children canbe identified early and providedappropriate instruction, thusincreasing the likelihood that

they can be successful andmaintain their class placement.

Describing RTI

The National Joint Commit-tee on Learning Disabilities(2005) sums up the core con-cepts of RTI in the followingway:

Core concepts of an RTIapproach are thesystematic (1) applicationof scientific, research-basedinterventions in generaleducation; (2)measurement of a child'sresponse to theseinterventions; and (3) useof the RTI data to informinstruction.

How these concepts play outin reality can readily be observedin almost any RTI implementa-tion. Typically, struggling chil-dren are identified through a

CLICK to advance to next slide.

EIS and RTI 6-62 Module 6

poor performance on aclasswide, schoolwide, ordistrictwide screening processintended to indicate whichchildren are at risk of academicor behavioral problems. A childmay also be identified throughother means, such as teacherobservation. The school maythen ensure that an RTI processis faithfully implemented andprovides the child with research-based interventions while thechild is still in the general educa-tion environment.

RTI typically has differentlevels of intensity. At the firstlevel, interventions focus moreon helping struggling children ina group. A certain amount oftime is alloted to see if the childresponds to the intervention—hence, the name RTI. Progress ismonitored closely. If the childdoes, indeed, respond to theresearch-based intervention,then this indicates that perhapshis or her difficulties haveresulted from less appropriate orinsufficiently targeted instruc-tion.

If, however, the child doesnot respond to the first level ofgroup-oriented interventions, heor she typically moves to thenext RTI level, which is moretargeted and intensive. Again,child progress is closely moni-tored. The time allotted to see ifthe child responds to interven-tions in this more intensive levelmay be longer than in the firstlevel—a marking period, forinstance, rather than six weeks—but the overall process is muchthe same. If the child showsadequate progress, then theintervention has been successfuland a “match” has been foundto what type of instructionworks with that child. It is quite

possible that, if the problem iscaught early enough and ad-dressed via appropriate instruc-tion, the child learns the skillsnecessary to continue in generaleducation without furtherintervention.

On the other hand, if thechild does not respond ad-equately to the intervention,then a third level becomes anoption for continued and yetmore intensive intervention. Thisthird level is typically moreindividualized as well.

Important Note: It is worth-while saying that, regardless ofRTI as an option for strugglingchildren or its potential use indiagnosing learning disabilities,at any point in its multileveledprocess a child may be referredfor evaluation under IDEA todetermine if he or she is a “childwith a disability” as IDEA 2004’sregulation defines that term at§300.8. Becoming involved inRTI does not mean that a childhas to complete a level, or alllevels, of an RTI approach beforehe or she may be evaluated foreligibility for special educationand related services. The IDEA2004’s regulation is very clearabout this. Similar to EIS,RTI may not beused as a meansof delaying orrefusing toconduct such anevaluation if theLEA suspectsthat the childhas a disabilityor if theparents requestthat the schoolsystem evaluatethe child.

RTI in General EducationClassrooms

The National Research Centeron Learning Disabilities,NRCLD, has been focusingclosely on RTI as an approachsince its funding began in 2003.Its work will be very useful tostakeholders wanting to knowmore about RTI, how RTI fitsinto the bigger picture of thegeneral education classroom,and what it means for childrengenerally and for those withlearning disabilities in particular.We’ve included in the box on thenext page the “Core Concepts ofRTI” according to NRCLD. Thesecore concepts illustrate theimportance of high-quality,research-based instruction ingeneral education.

What About RTI for Childrenwith Disabilities in SpecialEducation?

The use of an RTI processwith children who are strugglingin school naturally raises ques-tions regarding its use withchildren with disabilities who arereceiving special education andrelated services. When asked ifchildren with disabilities wouldbe eligible to receive servicesusing RTI strategies, the Depart-ment responded:

Response to intervention(RTI) strategies are toolsthat enable educators totarget instructionalinterventions to children’sareas of specific need assoon as those needsbecome apparent. There isnothing in IDEA thatprohibits children withdisabilities who arereceiving special educationand related services underIDEA from receivinginstruction using RTI


strategies unless the use ofsuch strategies isinconsistent with their...IEPs....(U.S. Department ofEducation, 2007, p. 2).

The Department does note anexception, however—a childwith a disability who is currentlyreceiving special education andrelated services “may not receive

Core Concepts of RTI

• Children receive high quality instruction in their generaleducation setting

• General education instruction is research-based

• General education instructors and staff assume an active rolein children's assessment in that curriculum

• School staff conduct universal screening of academics andbehavior

• Continuous progress monitoring of child performance occurs

• Continuous progress monitoring pinpoints children's specificdifficulties

• School staff implement specific, research-based interventionsto address the child's difficulties

• School staff use progress-monitoring data to determine inter-ventions’ effectiveness and to make any modifications asneeded

• Systematic assessment is completed of the fidelity or integritywith which instruction and interventions are implemented

Excerpted from National Research Center on Learning Disabilities(2006). Core concepts of RtI. Nashville, TN: Author. (Availableonline at: www.nrcld.org/research/rti/concepts.shtml)

RTI services that are funded withIDEA funds used for EIS pursu-ant to 34 CFR §300.226” (Id.).

Why this restriction? If theaudience considers the intentand scope of EIS, they should beable to guess the answer. As theDepartment explains, thisrestriction exists:

...because EIS is...”forstudents in kindergartenthrough grade 12 (with aparticular emphasis onstudents in kindergartenthrough grade three) whoare not currently identifiedas needing special

education or relatedservices, but who needadditional academic andbehavioral support tosucceed in a generaleducation environment.”(Id.)

The Intersection of RTIand LD

The role of RTI is to addressthe needs of children who arenot succeeding within thegeneral instructional approachby identifying and implementingother research-based interven-tions that will work with thosechildren. The probability existsthat some of those children willhave learning disabilities and willnot respond in the same way tothese interventions as childrenwithout LD. This is where theintersection of RTI and LDoccurs and why RTI is seen as apromising component in identi-fying LD.

How Does RTI Relate to LDDeterminations?

The information gleanedfrom a child’s performance whileimplementing a specific interven-tion can now be consideredimportant in distinguishingchildren with LD. IDEA’s regula-tions now specifically allow anLEA to include a child’s responseto scientific, research-basedintervention as part of determin-ing whether or not that child hasa specific learning disability(SLD). Not responding ormaking sufficient progress withinthat intervention is an indicationthat learning disabilities may lieat the root of the child's aca-demic difficulties.


Excerpted Remarksfrom the Analysis of Comments and Changes

to the Final Part B Regulations

The Act requires that LEAs be permitted to use a process thatdetermines if a child responds to research-based interventions.Further, there is an evidence base to support the use of RTI mod-els to identify children with SLD on a wide scale, including youngchildren and children from minority backgrounds. These includeseveral large-scale implementations in Iowa (the Heartland model;Tilly, 2002); the Minneapolis public schools (Marston, 2003);applications of the Screening to Enhance Equitable Placement(STEEP) model in Mississippi, Louisiana, and Arizona(VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Gilbertson, in press); and other ex-amples (NASDE, 2005). 1 While it is true that much of the researchon RTI models has been conducted in the area of reading, 80 to90 percent of children with SLD experience reading problems. Theimplementation of RTI in practice, however, has included otherdomains. RTI is only one component of the process to identifychildren in need of special education and related services. Deter-mining why a child has not responded to research-based interven-tions requires a comprehensive evaluation.

(71 Fed. Reg. 46647)

1 Tilly III, W. D. (2002). School psychology as a problem solving enterprise. InA. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.), Best Practices in School Psychology IV. WashingtonD.C.: National Association of School Psychologists; VanDerHeyden, A.M, Witt,J.C, & Gilbertson, D. (in press). Effect of a problem solving intervention on theaccurate identification of children. Journal of School Psychology; Marston, D.,Muyskens, P., Lau, M., & Canter, A. (2003). Problem-solving model for decisionmaking with high incidence disabilities: The Minneapolis experience. LearningDisabilities Research and Practice, 18, 187–200; Gresham, F., VanDerHeyden,A.M, & Witt, J.C. (in press). Response to intervention in the identification oflearning disabilities: Empirical support and future challenges. School PsychologyReview; National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005).Response to intervention: policy considerations and implementations. Alexan-dria VA: Author.

The Department provides aninteresting background discus-sion on RTI in its Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal Part B regulations; theseserve to further illuminate theconnection between RTI and LDdetermination. We’ve excerptedrelevant remarks in the box onthe right. (Note: The acronymSLD is used for specific learningdisabilities.)

The RTI language, while newto the statute and its implement-ing regulations, has been con-ceptually connected to thedetermination of LD in the past.IDEA ‘97 specifically included aprovision (maintained in IDEA2004) that, in evaluating childrento determine eligibility forspecial education, the child mustnot be determined to be a “childwith a disability” if the determin-ing factor is a lack of appropriateinstruction in reading or math[§300.306(b)]. The responsive-ness-to-intervention concept inIDEA 2004 is an elaboration orgreater specification on this basicconcept.

LD Determinations in thePast

To date, the “severe discrep-ancy” model has been theprevailing tool for determiningLD. This is because many chil-dren with LD manifest a “severediscrepancy” between intellectualability and academic achieve-ment. This approach has beenfaulted in several areas, includingthe lack of agreement on howsevere a discrepancy has to be inorder for an LD to be deter-mined. Another genuine concernhas been the amount of timeneeded to establish the “discrep-ancy “ between achievement andability. A child might literally fail

year after year before a disabilitydetermination would be made.

Still another criticism of LDidentification practices has beenthat children were diagnosedwith LD without assessing thebenefits of general educationinterventions that have proveneffective for youngsters present-ing similar behaviors of concern

(e.g., limited reading acquisi-tion). One could not be confi-dent that the achievement andbehavior problems that a childpresented were inherent to thechild or to shortcomings in theinstructional settings. This lack isat the very heart of what RTI isexpected to address.


Other Contributions of RTI

The RTI component focuseson developing a profile of achild's in-class performance overa designated time interval ratherthan just cognitive and achieve-ment measures that representone point in time performanceand are less tied to in-classperformance. So RTI is consid-ered as yielding more ecologicallyor socially accurate information.Additionally, information abouta child’s response should behelpful in designating the fea-tures of instruction, curriculum,goals, and placement consider-ations that are beneficial regard-less of the child's disabilitydetermination. When RTI isincorporated into the LD deter-mination process, instructionalstaff will likely emerge with aclearer framework for evaluatingthe child’s performance andsetting targets for successfuloutcomes.

What RTI is, and how itintersects in IDEA with LDdetermination, will be the mainfocus of the upcoming slides.

Using the Introductory Slide

Having brought the slide upand clearly indicated where thetraining is going now, you maywish to take a moment to revisitHandout B-7 and the questionsabout RTI that participantsgenerated and recorded there.Reiterate them, or ask partici-pants to recall what they can, asthe springboard to diving intothis topic.

References

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005,June). Responsiveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Austin,TX: Pro-Ed. (Available online at: www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497)

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2006).Core concepts of RTI. Nashville, TN: Author. (Available online at:www.nrcld.org/research/rti/concepts.shtml)


Slide loads withthis view.

(continued on next page)

Slide 24What is RTI?

Click 1:Picture changes,summary textappears.

View 1

Click 1


Slide 24 provides an intro-ductory summary of RTI inanswer to the question at thetop of the slide, “What is RTI?”

As the slide shows, and asdescribed in the background textof the last slide, RTI typicallyinvolves 3 levels of assistancethat increase in intensity.

1. Classwide interventions

2. Targeted, small-groupinterventions

3. Intensive interventions

There may be more levelsthan three in a local implementa-tion of RTI, or levels withinlevels, but the central elementswill be the same:

• Research-based interventionsare delivered for a specifiedperiod of time.

• Child progress is continuouslymonitored.

• Children move on to the nextlevel and a more targetedintervention if, at the end ofthe current intervention, theyhave not made adequateprogress.

Upcoming slides will providemore detail about what eachlevel in an RTI approach mightinvolve, so there’s no need to gointo that here.

The final regulations do notprovide a definition of RTI. Infact, the regulations don’t reallyeven mention it directly or call itby name. The closest the law orregulations come to using theterm RTI is to permit the use of“a process based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention” in making adetermination as to whether a

child has a learning disability ornot [§300.307(a)(2)].

As part of this slide’s intro-duction to RTI and a swiftsummary of its features, you maywish to share with the audiencesome of the background materialon RTI provided under Slide 23,including the core concepts asdescribed by the National JointCommittee on Learning Disabili-ties or those concepts identifiedby NRCLD as excerpted in thebox. It may be useful as well toplant the seed regarding RTI’semergence as a tool in diagnos-ing learning disabilities. The nextslide in this module will take upthat topic directly.

Click 2:The 3 typical levelsof interventionappear.

CLICK AGAIN to advance to next slide.

Click 2

Slide 24: Background and Discussion2 Clicks


Slide 25Specific Learning Disabilities


Click 1:“More about theCriteria” appears.

Click 2:Both bulletsload slowlyand automatically.

(discussion on next page)

View 1

Click 1

Click 2




Slide 25 folds in the issue ofspecific learning disabilities tothis training on RTI by looking atspecific aspects of the regulatoryLD provisions. These are drawnfrom §300.307, which appearsunder the broad heading of“Additional Procedures forIdentifying Children with Spe-cific Learning Disabilities.”

The introductory paragraphrepresents a longstanding re-quirement of IDEA’s regula-tions—that States must adoptcriteria for determining if a childhas a specific learning disability.It is within this context that thediscussion should begin, thenmove on to introduce the newprovisions for LD determinationthat the IDEA 2004 regulationsbring.

What, precisely, are thesenew provisions for LD determi-nation? As the slide indicates,the IDEA regulation now stipu-lates that the criteria adopted bythe State for determiningwhether a child has LD:

• must permit the use of aprocess based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention; and

• may permit the use of otheralternative research-basedprocedures for determiningwhether a child has a specificlearning disability.

You can see the preciselanguage of the regulations inthe box on the right—specifi-cally, items (2) and (3)—and onHandout B-10.

§300.307 Specific learning disabilities.

(a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309,criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learningdisability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteriaadopted by the State—

(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy betweenintellectual ability and achievement for determining whether achild has a specific learning disability, as defined in§300.8(c)(10);

(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’sresponse to scientific, research-based intervention; and

(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-basedprocedures for determining whether a child has a specific learn-ing disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

(b) Consistency with State criteria. A public agency must usethe State criteria adopted pursuant to paragraph (a) of thissection in determining whether a child has a specific learningdisability.

Although not identified onthe slide, you’ll also see that theIDEA regulation now statesoutright that the criteria adoptedby the State “mustnot require the useof severe discrep-ancy betweenintellectual abilityand achievement”(emphasis added),which is also a significant changein the law. In the prior regula-tions [at §300.541(a)(2) (1999)],a team could determine that achild had a specific learningdisability if, among other things,the team found that the childhad a “severe discrepancy be-tween achievement and intellec-tual ability” in one or morelisted areas (e.g., oral expression,basic reading skill). While a teammay still do so under the revised

New inIDEA 2004!

regulations if the State’s criteriaincludes that option, no longermay the State require the use ofthe severe discrepancy formula.

So IDEA 2004 opens thedoor to a new element in mak-ing determinations of specificlearning disabilities. While itdoes not specifically mentionRTI, it does require that Statespermit the use of a processbased on a child’s “response toscientific, research-based inter-vention.” Similarly, the State maypermit—note the word “may”instead of “must”—the use ofother alternative research-based



to the Final Regulations

New §300.307(a)(3)...recognizes that there are alternativemodels to identify children with SLD that are based on soundscientific research and gives States flexibility to use these mod-els. For example, a State could choose to identify childrenbased on absolute low achievement and consideration ofexclusionary factors as one criterion for eligibility. Other alter-natives might combine features of different models for identifi-cation. We believe the evaluation procedures in section614(b)(2) and (b)(3) of the Act give the Department theflexibility to allow States to use alternative, research basedprocedures for determining whether a child has an SLD and iseligible for special education and related services.

(71 Fed. Reg. 46648)

Excerpted Remarksfrom the Department’s Questions and Answers on

Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services1

Question F-4: When an RTI model is implemented, can anincremental process be used to train individual schools so thatover time the entire LEA is implementing the model or must allthe schools in the entire LEA be trained simultaneously?

Answer: If the State or LEA requires the use of a process basedon the child’s response to scientific, research-based interven-tion, in identifying children with SLD, then all children sus-pected of having a SLD, in all schools in the LEA, would berequired to be involved in the process. However, researchindicates that implementation of any process, across anysystem, is most effective when accomplished systematically inan incremental manner over time. If the LEA chose to “scaleup” the implementation of the RTI model gradually over time,as would be reasonable, the LEA could not use RTI for pur-poses of identifying children with SLD until RTI was fullyimplemented in the LEA. Therefore, it is unwise for a State torequire the use of a process based on the child’s response toscientific, research-based intervention before it has successfullyscaled up implementation. (pp. 13-14)

1 U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washing-ton, DC: Author. Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

procedures in making an LDdetermination. This wordinggives States latitude in theresponse-to-intervention oralternative research-based proce-dures they might develop andimplement, as the Departmentpoints out in its Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal regulations. Relevant re-marks of the Department areexcerpted at the right, includinga Department response (2007) inits Questions and Answers onResponse to Intervention and EarlyIntervening Services that hasimplications for SEAs and LEAsthat require the use of an RTIprocess in identifying childrenwith SLD. While providing RTIwith legitimacy as a tool forStates to use in determining LD,the law clearly does not endorseor require any specific approachto, or model of, RTI.

It is not the purpose of thismodule to delve into the detailsof identifying specific learningdisabilities. That will occur in aseparate module called—sur-prise!— Identifying Children withSpecific Learning Disabilities,which is part of the EvaluatingChildren for Disability topicarea. You may wish to explicitlylimit the amount of discussion(or expectation of discussion)regarding identification of LD,pointing out the later moduleon the subject. What is salienthere is that IDEA 2004 nowincludes a child’s response toRTI-like approaches as a poten-tial source of valuable informa-tion when determining if a childhas a specific learning disability.The next slide sums this up, sothat the focus can move back toRTI and what it is.


Slide 26RTI and IDEA

Slide loads with thisview, summarizing.

Click 1:Bottom part of slideappears, with thefirst element indetermining LDvisible on the farleft.


View 1

Click 1


Click 2:2nd element inmaking an LDdeterminationappears in the centerbox, with relevantprovision circled.

Click 3:3rd element inmaking an LDdeterminationappears in the farright box.

Click 3

Click 2





The top part of Slide 26,which loads automatically,summarizes the significant newprovision of IDEA that permits achild’s response to interventionto be considered as part ofdetermining whether or not heor she has a specific learningdisability. How does this actuallywork in practice? The bottompart of the slide shows howIDEA’s criteria for determining anSLD is organized.

Section 300.309(a) statesthat “The group described in§300.306 may determine that achild has a specific learningdisability, as defined in§300.8(c)(10), if—“ and thencome three items, not surpris-ingly numbered as (1), (2), and(3). As the table below shows,

(a) The group described in §300.306 may determine that a child hasa specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10), if—

the item at (a)(2), however, hastwo parts, with an OR between[to be read as: (i) or (ii)], whichmeans that either one of thesetwo conditions is sufficient tofind that the child has met thecriteria at (a)(2). The part of(a)(2) that relates to RTI is thefirst one: (i)—or, to give its fulladdress, §300.309(a)(2)(i). Itreads:

(2)(i) The child does notmake sufficient progress tomeet age or State-approvedgrade-level standards inone or more of the areasidentified in paragraph(a)(1) of this section whenusing a process based onthe child’s response toscientific, research-basedintervention; or

(a)(1) (a)(2)(i) (a)(3)(a)(2)(ii)

(1) The child does not achieveadequately for the child’s age orto meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or moreof the following areas, whenprovided with learning experi-ences and instruction appropri-ate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards:

(i) Oral expression.(ii) Listening comprehension.(iii) Written expression.(iv) Basic reading skill.(v) Reading fluency skills.(vi) Reading comprehension.(vii) Mathematics calculation.(viii) Mathematics problem solving.

And this is how RTI weavesitself into the decision-makingprocess for determining SLD.Let’s take a look at IDEA’s provi-sions, match them to the organi-zation of the slide, and how thisworks will be clear.

As the chart shows, to makea determination of SLD, thegroup must find that the state-ment in the first column [(a)(1)]is true about the child, thestatement in the last column[(a)(3)] is also true about thechild, and that one of the twostatements in the middle column[(i) or (ii)] is also true about the

(2)(i) The childdoes not make sufficientprogress to meet age orState approved grade-level standards in one ormore of the areasidentified in paragraph(a)(1) of this sectionwhen using a processbased on the child’sresponse to scientific,research-based interven-tion...

(ii) The childexhibits a pattern ofstrengths and weaknessesin performance, achieve-ment, or both, relative toage, State-approved gradelevel standards, orintellectual development,that is determined by thegroup to be relevant tothe identification of aspecific learning disabil-ity, using appropriateassessments, consistentwith §§300.304 and300.305...

(3) The group determinesthat its findings underparagraphs (a)(1) and (2)of this section are notprimarily the result of—

(i) A visual, hearing, ormotor disability;

(ii) Mental retardation;(iii) Emotional

disturbance;(iv) Cultural factors;(v) Environmental or

economic disadvantage;or

(vi) Limited Englishproficiency.

Yes YesYes to One of These

OR


child. The slide shows this asthree check marks, correspond-ing to the three columns.

Thus, whether or not thechild makes sufficient progressunder an RTI approach is onlyone element of determiningwhether or not that child has anSLD. The child’s response to aresearch-based intervention canonly form part of the picture thegroup must examine in makingits determination. Given that,how a child responds to RTI cannever be the sole basis for adetermination of SLD.

The process by which a childis evaluated for and/or deter-mined to have a specific learningdisability is addressed in detail inthe separate module Identificationof Children with Specific LearningDisabilities. This slide is notintended to delve into SLDdetermination but, rather, toshow how IDEA’s provisionsintersect with RTI and the deter-mination of LD, adding a newelement to that process.

—Space for Notes—



Slide 27Level 1: Screening and Interventions

Slide loadswith thisview.

Click 1:The picture disappearson Click 1, and Bullet1 appears.

Clicks 2, 3, and 4:Bullets 2, 3, and 4appear one by one.

View 1

Clicks 1-4


Click 5:The box at thebottom appears,“Is child progresssufficient?” and thepossible answersand actions.



Slide 27 returns to themechanics of RTI as a process foraddressing the needs of strug-gling children and zooms in totake a closer look at the firstlevel: Screening and Interven-tions.

Screening

Screening begins the processand is intended to identifychildren who are at risk ofacademic or behavioral difficul-ties and failure. Screening is notgenerally limited to RTI ap-proaches; we are all familiar withthe routine screenings thatschools conduct for a variety ofreasons, including the onementioned here. What’s impor-tant in RTI, however, is thediligence with which the school

system includes progress moni-toring as a component of in-struction and decision making.Speece (2006), writing for theNational Center on ChildProgress Monitoring (an OSEP-funded project), summarizes therole of progress monitoringwithin RTI as follows:

Progress monitoring is amethod of keeping track ofchildren’s academicdevelopment. Progressmonitoring requiresfrequent data collection(i.e., weekly) withtechnically adequatemeasures, interpretation ofthe data at regularintervals, and changes toinstruction based on theinterpretation of childprogress....The approach

requires a different way ofthinking about children’slearning but is a powerfulmethod of judgingresponsiveness.(p. 3)

The National Center onChild Progress Monitoringmakes available a great deal ofuseful information aboutprogress monitoring and RTI onits Web site, at:www.studentprogress.org

Level 1 Intervention

As the slide indicates, at-riskchildren who have been identi-fied through the screening

Click 5


process receive research-basedinstruction, sometimes in smallgroups, sometimes as part of aclasswide intervention. Modelsof RTI vary, as has been repeat-edly said, so the delivery ofresearch-based instruction mightbe part of a whole-class ap-proach or some other arrange-ment. The point here is that theschool addresses the evidence it’scollected that specific childrenare having difficulties—and doessomething about it, usingmethods and techniques foundthrough research to be effectivein helping children learn.

This description is necessarilygeneral, because the range ofskills in which children may behaving difficulties is large. In theearly grades, RTI approachestend to focus on reading andmath and the early building ofthese critical school skills.

Progress Monitoring

RTI is very dependent uponcontinual monitoring ofprogress, which serves multiplepurposes but is especially criticalfor (a) identifying where thereare skill deficits or where difficul-ties are occurring; and (b) track-ing how children are respondingto the instructional interven-tions.

Length of Time for Level 1

As the National Center onLearning Disabilities states in itsParent’s Guide to Response-to-Intervention: “The length of timefor this step can vary, but itgenerally should not exceedeight weeks” (Cortiella, 2006, p.3). That is sufficient time toprovide whatever research-basedinterventions the school systemhas chosen as appropriate forchildren’s needs and to monitortheir responsiveness to theinstruction.

References

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent’s guide to response-to-intervention. NewYork: National Center on Learning Disabilities. (Available online at:www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent_center/rti_final.pdf)

Speece, D. (2006). How progress monitoring assists decision making in aresponse-to-instruction framework. Washington, DC: National Center onChild Progress Monitoring. (Available online at:www.studentprogress.org/library/decisionmaking.pdf)

At the end of the allottedtime, a decision must be made asto what to do next. As thebottom of the slide indicates,the decision revolves around theadequacy of student progress. Ifthe child has made sufficientprogress, then he or she willlikely return to more generalinstruction. However, lackingsufficient progress, the childwould move to the second levelof interventions (covered in thenext slide), which are moreintensive and targeted.


Slide 28Level 2: Targeted Interventions


Click 1:The picture disap-pears on Click 1, andBullet 1 appears.

With Clicks 2, 3, and4, Bullets 2, 3, and 4appear one by one.


View 1

Clicks 1-4


Click 5:The box at thebottom appears,“Is child progressadequate?” and thepossible answersand actions.



Slide 28 takes a look at Level 2, where more targeted interventionsare provided to children who have not made adequate progress inLevel 1 intervention. The design of this slide is the same as the previ-ous one; the notable differences are in the description of Level 2. Thelength of time in this secondary level of intervention is generally a bitlonger than in Level 1, and the level of intensity of the interventionsis greater. They may also be more closely targeted to the areas in whichthe child is having difficulty.

Click 5



Slide 29Level 3: Intensive Interventions


Click 1:The picturedisappears, andBullet 1 appears.

Click 2:With Click 2,Bullet 2 appears.

View 1

Clicks 1-2


Click 3:The box at the bottomappears and the likelyactions.



Slide 29 finishes this look atthe different levels of instructionin many RTI approaches. Again,the slide operates as the last twoslides did, although there arefewer bullets in the top section(only two). This also typicallymarks a turning point in thedecision-making process. If thechild has not responded to theintensive and more individual-ized research-based instructionin this level, then he or she islikely to be referred for a full andindividual evaluation underIDEA. The data gathered on thechild's response to interventionsin Levels 1, 2, and 3 become partof the information availableduring the evaluation processand afterwards, when a determi-nation must be made as to

disability and the child’s possibleeligibility for special educationand related services. Consideringthe amount of data typicallycollected in an RTI approach,thanks to its reliance uponprogress monitoring all along theway, the information that willnow be available should be veryhelpful to the team of individu-als involved in evaluating thechild and determining his or hereligibility for special educationservices.

Click 3


Slide 30Parent Participation (Slide 1 of 2)

Slide loads withthis view. Thequestions“When? How?”refer to the issueof parent partici-pation.

Another questionappears, referring to§300.311(a)(7)(ii).



View 1

Click 1


Slide 30: Background and Discussion1 Click

Slide 30 addresses a topicthat has probably come up inthis training session—parentinvolvement. What is theparent’s role in RTI, what doesthe law require regarding theirnotification and consent, andhow does RTI affect parents’right to request their child beevaluated under IDEA?

The next slide deals with theparents’ right to request anevaluation of their child underIDEA at any time, as well as whatthe law requires if the child hasnot made adequate progressafter spending an appropriateamount of time in an RTI ap-proach. Here, let’s look at parentnotification and involvementwhen the child is actually in-volved in the RTI approach.

Informing ParentsAlong the Way

There areseveral issuesassociated withparent involve-ment in RTI andthe question ofwhen they should be madeaware that the public agency hasinvolved their child in an RTIapproach to see how well he orshe responds. Among these isthat parents should expect to beinformed when their child is notmaking expected academic orbehavioral progress, the veryreasons that a public agencymight involve a child in an RTIapproach. The use of RTI ac-knowledges that whateveracademic or behavioral difficul-ties the child has had to thispoint may be attributable toinappropriate instruction or a

mismatch between instructionand the child's needs and skills.The sticky issue is that RTI istypically used before a child isevaluated under IDEA, beforethe public agency is even pro-posing to evaluate the child, somany of IDEA’s provisions forparent notification have not yetcome into play.

What’s clear from practice inthe field—and, indeed, from thelongtime underpinnings ofIDEA—is that informing parentsalong the way is important,valuable, and good policy. Inpractice, parents are generallyinformed when the child isunsuccessful in Level 1 andmoves on to Level 2 (Cortiella,2006; National Joint Committeeon Learning Disabilities, 2005).The National Association ofSchool Psychologists (NASP)provides parents with the com-ments we’ve excerpted in the boxon the next page.

As you might expect, manypeople and organizations ex-pressed concern about parentinvolvement in RTI during thepublic comment period follow-ing publication of IDEA’s regula-tions in draft (proposed) form.As a result of their suggestionsand recommendations, theDepartment added anotherprovision to the Part B regula-tions that has relevance to thisdiscussion.

We will also add a new§300.311(a)(7)(ii) toensure that the parents ofa child suspected of havingan SLD who hasparticipated in a processthat evaluates the child’s

response to scientific,research-basedintervention, are notifiedabout the State’s policiesregarding collection ofchild performance dataand the general educationservices that will beprovided; strategies toincrease their child’s rate oflearning; and their right torequest an evaluation atany time. (71 Fed. Reg. at46658)

Thus, as a part of the newprovisions regarding RTI, theIDEA regulations include specificprovisions designed to ensurethat parents are informed andaware of both what is going on(e.g., the general educationservices that will be provided,the strategies to be used toincrease their child’s rate oflearning) and what other op-tions they have (e.g., the right torequest an evaluation of theirchild under IDEA at any time).

The Regulation at§300.311(a)(7)(ii)

The provisions at §300.311are entitled: Specific documen-tation for the eligibility deter-mination. Refer participants topage 3 of Handout C-7, wherethese provisions appear (thehandouts for Theme C, Evalua-tion, are provided in thattheme’s section). The provisionsrequire that “if the child hasparticipated in a process thatassesses the child’s response toscientific, research-based inter-vention,” the documentation of


How Can Parents Be Involved in the RTI Process?

The hallmarks of effective home-school collaboration includeopen communication and involvement of parents in all stagesof the learning process. Being informed about your school’s RTIprocess is the first step to becoming an active partner. Both theNational Center for Learning Disabilities and the National JointCommittee on Learning Disabilities advise parents to ask thefollowing questions:

• Does our school use an RTI process? (Be aware that yourchild’s school may call their procedures a “problem solvingprocess,” or may have a unique title for their procedures, e.g.,Instructional Support Team, and not use the specific RTIterminology.)

• Are there written materials for parents explaining the RTIprocess? How can parents be involved in the various phasesof the RTI process?

• What interventions are being used, and are these scientificallybased as supported by research?

• What length of time is recommended for an interventionbefore determining if the child is making adequate progress?

• How do school personnel check to be sure that the interven-tions were carried out as planned?

• What techniques are being used to monitor progress and theeffectiveness of the interventions? Does the school provideparents with regular progress monitoring reports?

• At what point in the RTI process are parents informed of theirdue process rights under IDEA 2004, including the right torequest an evaluation for special education eligibility?

• When is informed parental consent obtained and when dothe special education evaluation timelines officially com-mence under the district’s RTI plan?

Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): Aprimer for parents. Washington, DC: National Association ofSchool Psychologists. (Available online at: http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=RTI_Primer)

the determination of eligibilitymust contain a statement of thedocumentation—and here comes(a)(7)(ii)—that the parents werenotified about:

(A) The State’s policiesregarding the amount andnature of childperformance data thatwould be collected and thegeneral education servicesthat would be provided;

(B) Strategies for increasingthe child’s rate of learning;and

(C) The parents’ right torequest an evaluation.[§300.311(a)(7)(ii)]

So this answers severalquestions, including what theparents must be told about theRTI process (at a minimum) andwhen they must be told. TheDepartment (2007) also shedslight on this issue in its Questionsand Answers on Response to Inter-vention and Early InterveningServices. We’ve excerpted theDepartment’s relevant commentson the next page.

Practice in the field indicatesthat a child's lack of progress inRTI’s Level 1 (where research-based instruction is delivered inthe regular classroom) typicallyresults in a movement to Level 2interventions for that child.These latter interventions typi-cally are more intensive, with theinstructional intervention deliv-ered to small groups of children,not the entire class. It is at thispoint that parents are generallyinformed, perhaps meeting withschool staff to discuss theirchild’s lack of progress and—asstated above—hear what theschool has in mind. This wouldinclude:


• What type of performancedata will be collected, andhow much;

• What general educationservices are planned; and

• What strategies the school willuse to increase the child’s rateof learning.

Parents would also beinformed that they have the rightto request that their child beevaluated under IDEA—a fulland individual evaluation. This isthe subject of the next slide. Ifthey do request such an evalua-tion, the public agency mustpromptly ask for their writtenconsent and conduct the evalua-tion in keeping with IDEA’stimeframe requirements.

Excerpted Remarksfrom the Department’s Questions and Answers on

Response to Intervention and Early Intervening Services1

Question C-5: When implementing an evaluation process basedon a child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention,the regulations require that a “public agency must promptlyrequest parental consent to evaluate a child (34 CFR§300.309(c))” if the “child has not made adequate progress afteran appropriate period of time (34 CFR §300.309(c)(1)).” Pleasedefine “promptly” and “adequate” in this context.

Answer: The Federal regulations under 34 CFR §300.309(c)require that if a child has not made adequate progress after anappropriate period of time, a referral for an evaluation must bemade. However, the regulations do not specify a timeline forusing RTI or define “adequate progress.” As required in 34 CFR§300.301(c), an initial evaluation must be conducted within 60days of receiving consent for an evaluation (or if the Stateestablishes a timeframe within which the evaluation must becompleted, within that timeframe). Models based on RTI typi-cally evaluate a child’s response to instruction prior to the onsetof the 60-day period, and generally do not require as long a timeto complete an evaluation because of the amount of data al-ready collected on the child’s achievement, including observa-tion data. A State may choose to establish a specific timeline thatwould require an LEA to seek parental consent for an evaluationif a student has not made progress that the district deemedadequate.

We do not believe it is necessary to define the phrase“promptly” because the meaning will vary depending on thespecific circumstances in each case. There may be legitimatereasons for varying timeframes for seeking parental consent toconduct an evaluation. However, the child find requirements in34 CFR §300.111 and section 612(a)(3)(A) of the Act require thatall children with disabilities in the State who are in need ofspecial education and related services be identified, located, andevaluated. Therefore, it generally would not be acceptable for anLEA to wait several months to conduct an evaluation or to seekparental consent for an initial evaluation if the public agencysuspects the child to be a child with a disability. If it is deter-mined through the monitoring efforts of the Department or aState that there is a pattern or practice within a particular State orLEA of not conducting evaluations and making eligibility deter-minations in a timely manner, this could raise questions as towhether the State or LEA is in compliance with the Act.

1 U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washing-ton, DC: Author. (Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C

References for this section areprovided on the next page.


References

Cortiella, C. (2006). A parent’s guide to response-to-intervention. New York:National Center on Learning Disabilities. (Available online at: www.ncld.org/images/stories/downloads/parent_center/rti_final.pdf)

Klotz, M.B., & Canter, A. (2006). Response to intervention (RTI): A primer forparents. Washington, DC: National Association of School Psychologists.(Available online at: http://bsnpta.org/geeklog/public_html//article.php?story=RTI_Primer)

National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities. (2005, June). Respon-siveness to intervention and learning disabilities. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed. (Availableonline at: www.ncld.org/index.php?option=content&task=view&id=497)

U.S. Department of Education. (2007, January). Questions and answers onresponse to intervention (RTI) and early intervening services (EIS). Washington, DC:Author. (Available online at: http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C


Slide 31Parent Participation (Slide 2 of 2)



Click 1:The middle part ofthe slide loads,tracking the “if-then”and ending at Bullet 1of what the publicagency must do.

View 1

Click 1


Click 2:Bullet 2 loads.



As the slide summarizes:Parents may request that their childbe evaluated under IDEA at anytime.

Using an RTI approach to seehow a child responds to re-search-based interventionsbefore evaluating that childunder IDEA is one option schoolsystems may choose. As has beenexplained, RTI acknowledges thepossibility that a child's difficul-ties may result from inappropri-ate or insufficient instruction todate. However, RTI may not beused to delay or deny a child’sevaluation. And parents mayalways request one.

The second part of the slideis derived directly from pertinentregulatory provisions that we’vecited verbatim in the box on the

next page. These touch again onthe possibility that under-achievement in a child suspectedof having LD may be “due tolack of appropriate instruction inreading or math” [§300.309(b)].This possibility must be consid-ered as part of determining theexistence of such a disability.This is more than a judgmentcall, however. The considerationmust be data-driven, as (b)(1)and (b)(2) make clear.

What is crucial to point outabout these provisions is thatthey apply regardless of whetherthe LEA is using an RTI approachto identification or some otherprocess that is permitted underState criteria. And, as you can seein §300.309(b)(2), IDEA requiresthat parents be informed aboutthe child's progress during

instruction, as measured byrepeated assessments at reason-able intervals.

In the event that the childhas not made adequate progress,as the slide states and as de-scribed in §300.309(c)(1)—andhere comes the slide’s conclu-sion—then the public agencymust:

• promptly request parentconsent to evaluate the child;and

Click 2


• adhere to the timelines estab-lished within IDEA (unlessextended through the mutualwritten agreement IDEAdescribes).

What are the Regulations’Timelines for Evaluation?

The timelines for evaluationunder IDEA are covered in detailin the Initial Evaluation andReevaluation module. Asdescribed there:

The initial evaluation—

(1)(i) Must be conductedwithin 60 days of receivingparental consent for theevaluation; or

(ii) If the State establishesa timeframe within whichthe evaluation must beconducted, within thattimeframe...[§300.301(c)(1)]

Under prior law, publicagencies were required to con-duct initial evaluations within a“reasonable period of time” afterreceiving parentalconsent, so thespecification of a60-day timeframein IDEA 2004represents asignificant changethat should beidentified as such to your audi-ence. Do note, however, anytimeframe established by theState for this initial evaluationtakes precedence over IDEA’snew 60-day period, regardless ofwhether that timeframe is longeror shorter than IDEA’s.

Putting this informationtogether with the slide and theregulations’ provisions in thebox above, then, the public

IDEA 2004’s Regulations at §300.309(b) and (c):Two Elements in Determining the Existence

of a Specific Learning Disability

(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child sus-pected of having a specific learning disability is not due tolack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the groupmust consider, as part of the evaluation described in§§300.304 through 300.306—

(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of,the referral process, the child was provided appropriateinstruction in regular education settings, delivered by quali-fied personnel; and

(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessmentsof achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formalassessment of child progress during instruction, which wasprovided to the child’s parents.

(c) The public agency must promptly request parentalconsent to evaluate the child to determine if the child needsspecial education and related services, and must adhere tothe timeframes described in §§300.301 and 300.303, unlessextended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parentsand a group of qualified professionals, as described in§300.306(a)(1)—

(1) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made adequateprogress after an appropriate period of time when providedinstruction, as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) ofthis section; and

(2) Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation.

§300.309(b) and (c)

agency must adhere to estab-lished timeframes in seeing thatthe child’s evaluation is con-ducted. That is, unless thosetimelines are “extended bymutual written agreement of thechild’s parents and a group ofqualified professionals, asdescribed in §300.306(a)(1)”[§300.309(c)].

New inIDEA 2004!


Slide 32RTI in Practice

Slide loads topbullet and thebottom disclaimer.

Click 1:The 2nd bullet loadsfully, including thesub-bullets.


Click 1

View 1


Click 2:Bullet 3 loads.



Slide 32 begins the wind-down of training by looking atRTI in practice. Emphasized onthis slide are the followingpoints:

• There are many RTI models inuse. The U.S. Department ofEducation does not mandate,recommend, or endorse any onespecific model.

• In RTI, progress monitoring iscritical to:

— Pinpoint child's area(s) ofdifficulty

— Keep close track of child'sprogress.

• Staff use formal guidelines todecide which children are not

making adequate progress orresponding to the interven-tion.

The first two points shouldhave been made clear during thetraining proper, so mentioningthem now can serve as a re-minder. The third, however, hasonly been alluded to and is thefield’s answer and recommenda-tion to those interested indeveloping or implementing RTI.Intrinsic to RTI is the question,“Has the child made sufficientprogress?”

Answering that question“yes” versus “no” leads in twodistinct directions—one, back toregular instruction, and theother, on to a more intensivelevel of intervention or to com-

prehensive evaluation underIDEA 2004. So—what isadequate progress, significantprogress? How much progress isenough? Are there guidelines formaking these decisions? Formalguidelines? Written down.Understood by practitioners.Implemented. Monitored tomake sure they are consistentlyapplied. Documented.

Obviously, a great deal couldbe said about the benefits ofimplementing RTI with formalguidelines that spell out whereperformance cutoffs will be forchildren—and more.

Click 2


Slide 33IDEA and RTI

Slide loads with thisview, Bullets 1 and 2showing.

Click 1, 2, and 3:Each click brings upa different bullet.



Clicks 1-3

View 1


Slide 33...Almost done...Thetop half of the slide loads withthese two bulleted items:

• IDEA 2004’s regulations donot define RTI.

• Regulations are written toaccommodate different mod-els of RTI.

Both of these items mayalready be apparent to somewho are reading between thelines of what IDEA 2004 doesstate about RTI, but it is worth-while to explicitly draw audienceattention to these two points.

The bottom half of the slideputs RTI within the broadercontext of IDEA-required evalua-tion. One disadvantage offocusing narrowly upon a givenprovision of IDEA is that the bigpicture and other requirementsof law fall out of focus. Here, tobring that bigger picture backinto view, are three points toemphasize:

• RTI does not replace a com-prehensive evaluation.

• Evaluation teams must use avariety of tools and strategies,even if RTI is used.

• Results of RTI may be one partof information reviewed.

RTI is not intended toreplace comprehensive evalua-tion in IDEA, as the Departmentdiscusses in the Analysis ofComments and Changes to thefinal Part B regulations (seeexcerpted remarks in the box onthe right). It’s meant to intervenein a research-based and hope-fully effective way to address

difficulties children are having,either academically or behavior-ally. It rests on the possibilitythat prior instruction, notdisability, might be at the root ofthe problem. It’s meant for allchildren, even as it may also beused as part of making LDdeterminations. IDEA 2004requires that evaluation teamsgather a wide range of informa-tion about a child suspected ofhaving a disability, any disability.This evaluation must involve avariety of tools and strategies, asexplored in Introduction to Evalua-tion. The part that RTI results canplay in diagnosing a specificlearning disability has beensummarized in this training, so


that participants see the connec-tions between this approach andthe identification of LD. Thedetails of IDEA 2004’s regula-tions for identifying LD will bethoroughly examined in theirown right, in the module onIdentification of Children withSpecific Learning Disabilities. Makeit clear to your audience thatthere is more involved than thesummary presented here.


to the Final Regulations

An RTI process does not replace the need for a compre-hensive evaluation. A public agency must use a variety of datagathering tools and strategies even if an RTI process is used.The results of an RTI process may be one component of theinformation reviewed as part of the evaluation proceduresrequired under §§300.304 and 300.305. As required in§300.304(b)...an evaluation must include a variety of assess-ment tools and strategies and cannot rely on any singleprocedure as the sole criterion for determining eligibility forspecial education and related services.

It is up to each State to develop criteria to determine whethera child has a disability, including whether a particular childhas an SLD. In developing their criteria, States may wish toconsider how the criteria will be implemented with a child forwhom systematic data on the child’s response to appropriateinstruction is not available. ...However, under §300.306(b), apublic agency may not identify any public or private schoolchild as a child with a disability if the determinant factor islack of appropriate instruction in reading or math.)

(71 Fed. Reg. 46648)


Slide 34Round-Up!

Use this slide for a review andrecap of your own devising, oropen the floor up for a questionand answer period. Dependingon how much time you haveavailable for this training session,you can have participants workin small groups on an EIS or RTIobjective; make a quick list ofwhat information they’vegleaned from this session; oronce again revising the opening

activity and run through theinitial list of “I-need-to-know”questions they generated, mak-ing the participants answer themthemselves, correcting misinfor-mation as necessary. Emphasizethe local or personal applicationof the information presentedhere.

Slide loads fully. Noclicks are necessaryexcept to END the slideshow.

CLICK to END the slide show.

MainText1 · 2009-01-21 · EIS and RTI 6-62 Module 6 poor performance on a classwide, schoolwide,...

Documents

Transcript of MainText1 · 2009-01-21 · EIS and RTI 6-62 Module 6 poor performance on a classwide, schoolwide,...