Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Evidence-Based Practices to Maximize Student Progress...

Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention:

Evidence-Based Practices to Maximize Student Progress

Wobern, MANovember 18, 2005

Dr. George M. BatscheProfessor and Co-DirectorInstitute for School ReformSchool Psychology ProgramUniversity of South Florida

If we can really understand the problem, the answer will comeout of it, because the answer is not separate from the problem.

-Krishnamurti

Advanced Organizers

• This is a “process” that will take time

• RtI is more about general education than special education

• RtI is a component of problem-solving, not an independent process

• “Response”-data based• “Intervention”-evidence-

based• Strong basis in statute and

rule

Advanced Organizers

• “Response”-assessment– Administered frequently– Highly sensitive to changes– Aligned with intervention

focus/outcomes

• “Intervention”-evidence based– Aligned with local

demographics– Delivered with integrity– Continuous progress monitoring

• What are the implications for practice and training???

www.nasdse.org

Contextual Issues Affecting The Problem-Solving Process in

General and Special Education

• IDEA Re-Authorization– Focus on academic outcomes– General education as baseline metric– Labeling as a “last resort”– Increasing general education options– Pooling building-based resources– Flexible funding patterns– RtI Introduced as option for LD eligibility

• ESEA Legislation-No Child Left Behind• National Emphasis on Reading• Evidence-based Interventions

Why Problem-Solving ?BIG IDEAS

• AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to student progress, not student labels

• Building principals and superintendents want to know if students are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students “type”

• Accurate “placements” do not guarantee that students will be exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of progress

• Effective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather than good “testing”

• Progress monitoring is done best with “authentic” assessment that is sensitive to small changes in student academic and social behavior

Big Ideas (con’d)

• Interventions must be “evidence based” (IDEA/NCLB)

• Response to Intervention(RtI) is the best measure of problem “severity”

• Program eligibility (initial and continued) decisions are best made based on RtI

• Staff training and support (e.g., coaching) improve intervention skills

• “Tiered” implementation improves service efficiency

States Implementing PSM/RtI at the state, district, pilot levels

– Arkansas– California– Colorado– Florida– Illinois– Iowa– Kansas– Louisiana– Michigan– Minnesota– Missouri

– Montana– New Zealand– North Carolina– Ohio– Pennsylvania– Rhode Island– Singapore– South Carolina– Utah– Washington– Wisconsin– Wyoming

Status of Reauthorization

• Title: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act”

• Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004• Signed by President Bush in

December.• IN EFFECT July 1, 2005• Regulations in Fall

Individuals With Disabilities Education

Improvement Act

• In general._Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602(29), a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in …

Individuals with Disabilities Education

Improvement Act

• (B) Additional authority._In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention.

• Process refers to “Problem Solving Process”• Responds refers to “Response to Intervention”

(5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIBIGILITY DETERMINATION- In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if

the determinant factor for such determination is—

(A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction (as defined

in section 1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965);(B) lack of instruction in math; or

(C) limited English proficiency.

Proposed Regs• For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, • the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in • §§300.304 through 300.306, data that demonstrates that--

• (1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child was • provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in • regular education settings, consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D) and • (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction was delivered by • qualified personnel; and

• (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement • at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student • progress during instruction, was provided to the child's parents.

Proposed Regs

• (c) If the child has not made adequate progress after an appropriate

• period of time, during which the conditions in paragraphs (b)(1) and

• (2) of this section have been implemented, a referral for an

• evaluation to determine if the child needs special education and

• related services must be made.

Implications

• Poor/lack of instruction must be ruled out• Curricular access blocked by any of the

following must be addressed– Attendance– Health– Mobility

• Sufficient exposure to and focus on the curriculum must occur

• Frequent, repeated assessment must be conducted

So What Is Special Education-Really?

• Characteristics AND Need (IDEA 04)• Instructional and Related Services Necessary to

Profit from Education • Supplements General Education

– Note: Does not supplant-particularly LD– “Unified” system of Education

• Funds (really??) Instructional and Related Services When Those Reach a Certain Level of Intensity

• What is “Special?” Intensity and Focus

Is It All About Reading? Yes!

• 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs• 70% +/- of special education “activities”

(e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases

• 94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts

• 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading• Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast

majority of special education “activities”

Problem Solving

• A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.”

People see change as an event: “But we just changed last year.”

Response to Intervention:

How Well Are We Doing?• A systematic and data-based method for

determining the degree to which a student has responded to intervention.

• Determined solely through analyzing data• Begins with using data to IDENTIFY the

problem• Services should intensify for a student as

the student response to intervention is below expectations.

• It IS NOT Problem-Solving

Response to Intervention:

How Well Are We Doing?• What do we do when a student has

been “placed” in special education but the student’s rate of progress has not changed significantly?

• This has significant implications for special education re-evaluations under the RtI model.

Problem Solving

• Can be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levels– Student-academic and/or behavior problem– Classroom- discipline, returning homework– Building- bullying, attendance– District- over-/under-representation– Problem- problem common to students in

building

Problem-Solving:What It Is and Is

Not• What it is….– A process designed to maximize student

achievement– A method focused on outcomes– A method to ensure accountability and intervention

evaluation– It is all about student progress, regardless of where

or who that student is

• What it is not…– A way to avoid special education placements– A less expensive way of schooling

What Are the Barriers?

• It’s a different way of doing business for some.• It requires an expanded set of skills.• Interventions are integrated, not done by team

members or special educators only• Requires frequent data collection and

analysis--different culture• Focus is on HOW and student is doing, not

WHERE the student is going

What Are the Benefits?

• Enhanced Student Performance• Accountability• Greater staff involvement• Greater parent involvement• Greater student involvement

Discrepancy/Child Study vs Problem Solving

• Focus on interventions (not test scores)

– Low and high ability students respond equally well to phonemic awareness and phonics interventions.

• Assessment linked to developing and monitoring the effectiveness of interventions (not to diagnoses or categories)

• Balance between needs/resources (not strictly to eligibility)

• Change process (not a “fix”)

• Student outcome-based, not placement-based (What students DO is important, not what students are CALLLED)

Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education

Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model

• Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 198, Moody, 2000)

• Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)

• Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.

• Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)

• It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked

• How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process?

• What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds?

• What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the implementation of PSM/RtI?

Field-Based Research:Focus and Questions Asked

• Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model?

• What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model compared to the discrepancy model?

How long does it take to implement fully the problem-solving/RtI process?

• Evidence from Iowa and Minnesota would suggest that it takes 4-6 years (or more) to complete full implementation. Full implementation includes policy and regulatory change, staff development, and development of building/district-based procedures.

Child-count percentages for students with high-incidence disabilities (1990-2001):

Minneapolis Public Schools

0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

School Year

Percent of District (N=50,000)

LD MMMI SNAP LD+MMMI+SNAP

Problem-solving model phase-in began in 1994

Adapted from Marston (2001).

What is the impact of PSM/RtI on students from diverse backgrounds?

• VanDerHeyden, et al. report that students responded positively to the method and that African-American students responded more quickly than other ethnic groups.

• Marston reported a 50%decrease in EMH placements over a 6-year period of time.

• Marston reported a drop over a 3-year period in the percent of African-American students placed in special education from 67% to 55%, considering 45% of the student population was comprised of African-American Students.



0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

School Year





Percentage of African-American students at each stage of referral process at 41 schools

44.33

64.4

69 68.9

45

5957.7

55.4

0

20

40

60

80

Student PopoulationReferred to Support TeamEvaluated for Sp. Ed. Placed in Sp. Ed.

Percentage

1997-98 2000-01

N=

9643

N=

9170

N=

348

N=

416

N=

200

N=

154

N=

184

N=

124

What evidence exists to evaluate the satisfaction of teachers and parents with the

implementation of PSM/RtI?

• Swerdlik, et al. conducted a longitudinal study of the impact of PSM/RtI in the FLEXible Service Delivery system in Illinois. Results indicate that both teacher and parent satisfaction with the PSM/RtI method was superior to that of the traditional test-staff-place model.

Teacher Satisfaction at HeartlandQuestion 1: The problem solving process supports teachers in improving the performance of students whose academic skills and behaviors are of concern. This includes the Building Assistance Team or other intervention supports.

•Gen Ed •Teachers

•n=390•Principal

•n=31

•Sp Ed •Teachers

•n=89

•Agree •87.3% •96.8% •92.13%

Question 2: Problem solving process leading to educational interventions is equally applicable for helping students in general and special education.

•Gen Ed •Teachers

•n=390•Principal

•n=31

•Sp Ed •Teachers

•n=89

•Agree •81.0% •96.7% •92.14%

Source: Heartland AEA 11 Consumer Satisfaction Survey 2000-2001

Is there evidence that the rate of placement in LD programs will accelerate with PSM compared to the discrepancy model?

• Marston (2001) reports a 40% decrease in special education placements for LD programs.

• VanDerHeyden, et al., report a significant reduction in the rate of placement in LD programs

• Heartland Early Literacy Project (HELP) reported significant decreases in initial special education placements in grades K (41%), 1 (34%), 2 (25%) and 3 (19%) across a 5 year initial implementation period.



0.00

1.00

2.00

3.00

4.00

5.00

6.00

7.00

8.00

1990 1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

School Year





What happens when we compare the accuracy of assessment methods used with the PSM/RtI model

compared to the discrepancy model?

• VanDerHeyden, et al. reported that RtI methods (local comparisons and multiple measurement) were superior to teacher referral for problem accuracy.

• VanDerHeyden, et al. reported identification of students for eligibility for LD programs was accurate when compared to traditional ability/achievement discrepancy methods.

Research and PSM/RtI

RtI and Traditional Discrepancy Comparison

Amanda VanDerHeyden (2005)

QUALIFY

Yes No Pending Total

Poor RtI-Refer 15 2 4 21

Good RtI-Do Not Refer 9 15 1 25

Total 24 17 5 46

Essential Components

• Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery—such as a three-tier model

• Problem-solving method• An integrated data collection/assessment

system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery

RtI:The Conceptual

Model• Integrate with Core Instructional Programs and Activities in

the District– Reading First, Early Intervention, Positive Behavior

Support

• 3-4 Tiered Model of Service Delivery and Decision-Making– “Universal”--What all students get– “Supplemental”--additional focus and intensity– “Intensive”--modifying instructional strategies– “Extraordinary”-- highly specialized methods

• Problem-Solving– Can occur at any level– Increases in intensity across levels

Integrating Problem-Solving into the Tiered

Delivery System• High probability hypotheses that

address poor performance must be built into the tiers.

• Standard interventions that address these hypothesis must be available in all general education settings

• Progress monitoring methods must be incorporated into general education

Tiers or Levels• Tier One- Examining “Universal” Interventions• Questions:

– How is this student doing compared to other students? GAP analysis

– What percent of other students are achieving district benchmarks? Effectiveness of instruction

• Hypotheses– Ho: Has this student been exposed to an effective learning

environment?– Ho: Has this student had access to an effective learning

environment?

Tiers or Levels• Tier One- Examining “Universal”

Interventions• Assessment:

– AYP Data– State-wide assessments– District-wide assessments– Attendance data– Health data

• Interventions:– Improve quality of instruction to all

students– Improve attendance

Tier 1: Example A

• 82% of Caucasian Students are achieving AYP in reading

• 20% of African American Students are achieving AYP in reading

• African American student is referred for “LD” for a “reading problem”

• Question: Is this student in an “effective instructional environment?”

Tier 1: Example B

• 85% of students in a 4th grade are achieving AYP

• Referred student has been in the school for 4 years and is 2 years below benchmark expectation

• Referred student has been absent an average of 55 days in the past 2 years.

• Question: Has this student been exposed to “effective instruction?”

Tier 1: Example C

• 90% of 3rd grade students are achieving AYP

• Referred student has been in this school since Kgn, has excellent attendance, no significant health history and has received a variety of interventions in reading

• Referred student performance is 50% of peers in reading and at grade level in math

• Question: Has this student been exposed to an “effective learning environment?”

Tiers or Levels• Tier Two- Examining “Supplemental” Interventions

• Hypotheses:– Ho: Student requires additional time for direct instruction– Ho: Focus of the curriculum must narrow

• Assessment:– DIBELS, CBM, district assessments

• Interventions:– Increase AET (90-120-180)

e.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan– Narrow focus to fewer, barrier skills– District Supplemental Curriculum

Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions

• Available in general education settings• Opportunity to increase exposure

(academic engaged time) to curriculum• Opportunity to narrow focus of the

curriculum• Sufficient time for interventions to have

an effect (10-30 weeks)• Often are “standardized” supplemental

curriculum protocols

Tier 2: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?

• Good Response– Gap is closing– Can extrapolate point at which target student will

“come in range” of peers--even if this is long range

• Questionable Response– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably,

but gap is still widening– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur

• Poor Response– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Tiers or Levels• Tier Three: Examining “Intensive”

Interventions

• Hypotheses: Focus on child-specific issues

• Assessment:– DIBELS, CBE, Diagnostic Assessments

• Interventions:– Address verified hypotheses

Characteristics of Tier 3 Interventions

• Developed from individualized student problem-solving

• Assumption is that more of the “problem” lies within the student

• Goal is to find successful interventions first• Based on “intensity” of the interventions

required for student success, determination is made about eligibility for special education.

• Should comprise 4-5% of student population• Criteria for “Good” RtI is same as Tier 2

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual StudentsAssessment-basedHigh IntensityOf longer duration

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive, Individual InterventionsIndividual StudentsAssessment-basedIntense, durable procedures

5-10%Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)High efficiencyRapid response

5-10%Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)High efficiencyRapid response

80-90%Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll studentsPreventive, proactive

80-90% Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll settings, all studentsPreventive, proactive

Three Tiered Model of School Supports

Students

Example of Tier Level Interventions

Time

Curricular Focus

Curricular Breadth

Frequency of Progress Monitoring

Tier I

90

5 areas

Core

Yearly or greater

Tier 2

120

Less than 5

Core+

Supplemental

Monthly or

greater

Tier 3

180

2 or less

Core+

Supplemental+

Intensive

Weekly

Reading

What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and Districts?

• Early intervention Use Kgn DIBELS and similar assessments for this purpose

• Access to and Use of Data Student data is the most accurate means of referring students for assistance and making judgments about intervention effectiveness

• Accurate Tier 1 Decisions Special education cannot “cure” large-scale pedagogical problems one student at a time

What is Necessary for RtI to Work for Students and Districts?

• Evidence-Based and Available Tier 2 Interventions Good example is K-3 Academic Support Plan

• Identifying SUCCESSFUL Tier 3 interventions PRIOR to making an eligibility determination

• Staff Professional Development• Technology Support for Data Management and

Access to Evidence-Based Tier 2 and 3 Interventions

Do We REALLY Want To Do This?

• It Depends• If we are interested in as many

students AS POSSIBLE achieving benchmarks AND AYP--it’s the best thing we have

• If we are looking to solve pedagogical management problems for diverse populations, then probably not.

How Long Will It Take to Implement this Effectively?

• 3-6 years• Take it one step (e.g., skill) at a time.• Start with young students (Kgn/DIBELS)• Consider Tier 1 issues• Create Tier 2 options with existing staff and

resources• Develop a 5 year PDP for staff• Ease their job with social support and

technology• Use networks-avoid “reinventing” the wheel.

How Do We Increase Resources?

• TIME in and FOCUS of the curriculum• Focused Reading Interventions

– K-3 Academic Support Plan– Middle School Rigorous Reading Requirements– Intensive Accelerated Classroom

• Reading First• Early Intervention

– DIBELS Screening

• Positive Behavior Support• After School Programs• Parent Involvement• Professional Development for Teachers

Early Intervention

• School Readiness Uniform Screening System (SRUSS)– ESI-K– DIBELS

• Clearly Defined Developmental Standards for 3-5

• All Kindergarten Students screened with DIBELS in first 21 days of school

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform

Screening System ResultsESI-K: Students with Valid Scores

(N=175,806)

83%

12% 5%

Ready NowGetting ReadyNot Ready Yet

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening

System ResultsDIBELS Letter Naming Fluency: Students with Valid

Scores(N=175,023)

48%

15%

17%

20%Above AverageLow RiskModerate RiskHigh Risk

2004 - 05 Florida School Readiness Uniform Screening System

Results2004 DIBELS Initial Sounds Fluency: Students with

Valid Scores(N=174,913)

39%

19%

20%

22%Above AverageLow RiskModerate RiskHigh Risk

RtI Format in Kindergarten

• Identify 40% at moderate/high risk• Re-assess 1 month later

– Did levels of risk change?• Re-assess 1 month later (November)

– Did levels of risk change?• Identify moderate/high risk students• Increase AET• Re-assess 1 month later• Increase focus and intensity• Continue progress monitoring• Moderate/high risk at end of year

– Use information to plan first grade intervention process– AIP development– Methods for significantly increased time and focus

Beliefs Essential to Collaborative Problem-

Solving• Every student is everybody’s responsibility

• Common belief about where building wants to educate its students

• Common commitment to building-based discipline and prosocial behavior program

• Common commitment to problem-solving process

Essential Beliefs

• Common commitment to program evaluation and on-going staff training

• Common commitment to parent education and involvement

• Student progress assessed based upon student growth, not deviation from specified norm in specified time

Team-Based Problem Solving:

At-Risk/Resiliency Factors

• Staff support/“buy-in”• Link skill expectation to level of PS process• Consistent use of steps in problem-solving process• Use of replacement behaviors• Setting expectations• Support for interventions• Evaluation• Parent involvement

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

1. Identify replacement behavior2. Determine expectation level3. Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)4. Develop predictions/assessment5. Develop interventions in those areas for which

data are available and hypotheses verified6. Collect data for hypotheses not verified7. Follow-up schedule and data sharing

Functional Behavior Assessment:

Integration with the PSM

• Step 1: Clear Description of the problem behavior (PSM: Replacement Behaviors)

• Step 2: Identification of events, times and situations that predict when the behavior will and will not occur. (PSM: Hypotheses and Predictions)

• Step 3: Identification of the consequences that maintain the problem behaviors (function behavior serves). (PSM: Hypotheses)

• Step 4: Development of hypotheses• Step 5: Direct Observation data that support hypotheses.

(PSM: RIOTS)• (O’Neil, 1997)

Research on Integrity of Problem Solving(Flugum and Reschly)

• Use of Behavioral Definition– 41% of Teachers/45% of Related Services

• Use of Direct Measure/Baseline– 38% of Teachers/27% of Related Services

• Use of Step-by-Step Intervention Plan– 53% of Teachers/44% of Related Services

• Graphing Results– 7% of Teachers/2% of Related Services

• Compare Results to Baseline– 14% of Teachers/11% of Related Services

Personnel Critical to Successful

Implementation• District-Level Leaders• Building Leaders• Facilitator• Teachers/Student Services• Parents• Students

Where all think alike, no one thinks very much.-Walter Lippman

High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn’t shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick. We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never

done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence

Role of District Leaders

• Give “permission” for model• Provide a vision for outcome-based service

delivery• Reinforce effective practices• Expect accountability• Provide tangible support for effort

– Training– Coaching– Technology– Policies

Role of the Principal

• Sets vision for problem-solving process• Supports development of expectations• Responsible for allocation of resources• Facilitates priority setting• Ensures follow-up• Supports program evaluation• Monitors staff support/climate

Role of the Facilitator

• Ensures pre-meeting preparation• Reviews steps in process and desired

outcomes• Facilitates movement through steps• Facilitates consensus building• Sets follow-up schedule/communication• Creates evaluation criteria/protocol• Ensures parent involvement

Role of Participants

• Review Request for Assistance forms prior to meeting

• Complete individual problem-solving• Attitude of consensus building• Understand data• Research interventions for problem area

Role of Parent

• Review Request for Assistance form prior to meeting

• Complete individual problem solving

• Prioritize concerns• Attitude of consensus building

Student Involvement

• Increases motivation of student• Reduces teacher load• Teaches self-responsibility

Impact on Leaders:A Change in Focus

• Student progress, not labels are most important• All students compared to general education

expectations• All students affect AYP• A student’s response to intervention is the most

important data• Academic Engaged Time is the currency of

problem-solving• Training and coaching must be focused on PSM• Increase the use of technology • Interventions must be evidence-based

Staff Support

• Risk-free or risky environment?• Expectations may be most

important factor• “Alternative” not “Less”

What is a “Team”?Facilitator’s Vision

• Agreement through CONSENSUS• We agree to “try and see”• No one person is an expert-a show maker or a

show stopper• People stay focused on common goal-Development

of Effective Intervetions• Interpersonal conflicts do not affect outcome• This is about “the student”• We are seeking an significant improvement-not a

cure• Resources must be managed well• Primary resource is “time”

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

1. Identify replacement behavior2. Determine expectation level3. Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)4. Develop predictions/assessment5. Develop interventions in those areas for which data are

available and hypotheses verified6. Collect data for hypotheses not verified7. Follow-up schedule and data sharing

The Case of Carlos

• Carlos is a 9 year old, 3rd grade student. He was retained in 3rd grade after achieving a Level 1 in reading on the FCAT. Carlos is bilingual, is the oldest of 6 children,and reads Spanish at the same level as English (beginning 2nd grade level). His fluency rate is 40 wpm and that of his peers is 80 wpm. His parents speak only Spanish. His teacher states that in the past 2 months, Carlos does not participate, completes little or no written work and has significant absences. His teacher wants Carlos to participate in verbal activities (reading, group instruction), improve his reading fluency and to complete 70% of his written assignments.

What Would We Want to Know/Do First?

Hint: Tier 1/Tier 2

• Determine if the student was in an “effective” learning environment.

• Determine if there had been interrupted access to the curriculum (e.g., absences)

• Increase time and focus in weak areas.• Monitor progress frequently and track rate of

improvement.

Facilitating the Process:

Pre-Meeting• Review teacher request materials• Ensure duplication and dissemination of

materials-1week prior to meeting date• Review upcoming process with teacher-

answer questions• Review data sources with teacher• Select invitees• Prepare for meeting

Facilitating the Meeting

• Introductions• Review Steps in the Process• Re-State Vision/Purpose of Meeting• Problem Identification• Problem Analysis• Plan Development• Plan Implementation• Plan Evaluation• Follow-up

Replacement Behaviors

• State specifically what you want the student to do

• Example: Be able to sound out the vowel sounds in CVCC words

• Example: Remain on-task for 7 minutes • Example: Use words instead of fists when

teased

Priority Setting

• Prioritize multiple replacement behaviors

• Criterion for prioritization-academic/behavioral/social stability

• Consensus

Setting Expectations-

4 Steps• Current Level of Functioning• Desired Level of Functioning• First Intermediate Step• Consensus

Expectations Example

• Third Grade 3.0• Working at Mid-First Grade Level 1.5• 1.5 years behind• Rate of Progress• .5/year• Intervention Doubles Progress• 1.0/year• In three years (6th grade), student will be at…..• 4.5• How far behind? • 1.5!!!• Who’s HAPPY with this one?

Problem Analysis

• Why is problem occurring? PBS link.• Facilitate Problem Analysis

– Skill vs performance– Hypotheses: Curriculum/Teacher/Peers/Classroom

Env/Home-Community– Which ones supported by data?– Prioritize

Note: Specific Hypotheses Important-must lead to interventions. Reinforce data link

The best way to get a good idea is to get a lot of ideas.-Linus Pauling

Hypotheses• Reasons why student is not able to do

DESIRED behavior• Categories: child, peers, teacher, curriculum,

school env, home env• Example: Carlos is not able to attend to task

for 7 minutes because he lacks the private speech for self control.

• Example: Carlos is not able to attend to task for 7 minutes because his independent level is below the needed instructional level for the task.

Hypotheses

• Child– These are internal to child– Cognitive skills, social skills, academic

skills, beliefs, attitudes, values, developmental issues

Hypotheses

• Peers– Peer pressure– Peer reinforcement/punishment– Peer beliefs, values– Bullying

Hypotheses

• Teacher– Supervision– Teaching style– Discipline style– Beliefs about child, family, etc.– Movement– Teacher Bx: fatigue, etc.

Hypotheses

• Curriculum– Too easy– Too difficult– Irrelevant– Format issues: cloze, matching,

writing, fill in the blank, etc.

Hypotheses

• School/Classroom Environment– Seating– Noise– Movement– Rules– Schedule, or lack of one

Hypotheses

• Family/Home– Beliefs about school, levels of support– Values regarding behavior, goals– Parenting style– Family stress– Marital stress– Etc.

Assessment:How Do We Confirm

Hypothesis?

• Review• Interview• Observe-progress monitoring• Test-progress monitoring• Self- monitoring, rating

Integrated Data SystemNine Characteristics:• Directly assess the specific skills within state

and local academic standards.• Assess marker variables that lead to the ultimate

instructional target.• Are sensitive to small increments of growth over

time.• Can be administered efficiently over short

periods.

Integrated Data System

• May be administered repeatedly.• Can readily be summarized in teacher-

friendly formats/displays.• Can be used to make comparisons across

students.• Can be used to monitor an IEP over time.• Have direct relevance to the development of

instructional strategies related to need.

Intervention “Reality Show”

• We cannot do something different the same way

• Time is a necessary pre-requisite• “Behavioral Regularity”• Use existing strategies, strengths,

resources• Seek out “group” interventions• Intervention “drift”--try to avoid it!

Resources for Interventions

• TIME must be considered first– 330 minutes/day– 1650 minutes/week– This is your bank account to spend – Supplement, do not supplant– Fixed bank account --something has to give– Academic Engaged Time (AET)-predicts achievement better than

ANY other factor

• IMMEDIATE RELIEF (PROXIMAL) for pressing/crisis needs– Increase supervision– Lower difficulty level of the task

Resources Con’d• CORE interventions first

– Increase focus– Increase intensity– More rehearsal

• SUPPLEMENTAL interventions next– Use of technology-computer assisted– Different method of instruction– Modifying core

• INTENSIVE interventions– Combination of time, focus, method– Direct tutoring, social skills training, anger control training

• EXTRAORDINARY interventions– Unique that will require special setting or equipment

Allocation of Resources

• Cannot do something different the same way

• Student- or problem-based problem solving

• Academic engaged time criterion• All or some of the available

resources

Outcome: Academic

Performance• Define “Academic”• Interventions assessed in terms of impact on

academic performance• Best Predictor is Academic Engaged Time (AET)• Consensus point between Student Services and

General Education is AET• Evidence-based interventions that increase AET

Important Questions

• How is referral problem related to academic performance?

• Is academic engaged time an issue?• How will proposed intervention relate to academic

engaged time?• Do teachers, administrators, and parents

understand the relationship between the intervention and academic performance?

• Do teachers, administrators, and parents understand that the interventions are not directly related to academic performance?

Primary Threats to Success

• Staff belief about where students should be educated• Poorly skilled facilitator• Focus on “problem” rather than replacement behavior• Poorly defined or unrealistic expectations• Cookbook approach to interventions• Lack of intervention implementation support• Lack of progress monitoring support systems• Lack of feedback on progress to teacher, student, and

parent• Lack of leadership support

Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Evidence-Based Practices to Maximize Student Progress...

Documents

Transcript of Problem-Solving and Response to Intervention: Evidence-Based Practices to Maximize Student Progress...