Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.

Response to Intervention: A

Component in a Novel Educational Service

Delivery Model

Response to Intervention: A

Component in a Novel Educational Service

Delivery Model

San Francisco State University Sue Courey, Ph.D.

San Francisco State University Sue Courey, Ph.D.

Today’s PurposeToday’s Purpose To suggest a new way to allocate educational

resources

To define Response to Intervention (RTI)

To describe progress monitoring

To outline the implementation of an effective RTI program

To present a real life example of students’ reading achievement with RTI

To discuss evolving roles of school personnel

To suggest a new way to allocate educational resources

To define Response to Intervention (RTI)

To describe progress monitoring

To outline the implementation of an effective RTI program

To present a real life example of students’ reading achievement with RTI

To discuss evolving roles of school personnel

Navigating Two Separate Educational

Systems

Navigating Two Separate Educational

Systems General Education

Special Education

A Continuum of Services IDEA 1997: Special education is not a place but a set

of services High Expectations and access to General Ed curriculum Prereferral Interventions Focus on teaching and learning, not paperwork

General Education

Special Education

A Continuum of Services IDEA 1997: Special education is not a place but a set

of services High Expectations and access to General Ed curriculum Prereferral Interventions Focus on teaching and learning, not paperwork

Educational ResourcesEducational Resources

General Education More Intense Services

Tier 1


Tier 2


Tier 3

= Services required to ensure a child's access in the general education curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate


Tier 1


Tier 2


Tier 3

= Services required to ensure a child's access in the general education curriculum to the maximum extent appropriate

Definition of RTIDefinition of RTI

“Within the context of a multilayered prevention system, RTI integrates increasingly intensive instruction and, at each layer, employs assessment to identify students who are inadequately responsive [to sound instruction] and who therefore require intervention at the next, more intensive layer in the system” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

“Within the context of a multilayered prevention system, RTI integrates increasingly intensive instruction and, at each layer, employs assessment to identify students who are inadequately responsive [to sound instruction] and who therefore require intervention at the next, more intensive layer in the system” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).

Response to Intervention Overview

Response to Intervention Overview

Response to Intervention is an emerging approach to allocating educational resources efficiently and matching them to students’ (all students) needs.

Commitment to utilize scientifically-based or evidenced-based instructional and behavioral strategies

Commitment to utilize data-based decision making to guide instruction and behavior monitoring (progress monitoring)

Response to Intervention is an emerging approach to allocating educational resources efficiently and matching them to students’ (all students) needs.

Commitment to utilize scientifically-based or evidenced-based instructional and behavioral strategies

Commitment to utilize data-based decision making to guide instruction and behavior monitoring (progress monitoring)

Allocating Educational Resources


Historical Categorical Program Funding (Title I, special education, English language learners, talented and gifted)

Tiered System where resources are allocated and matched to student needs (think more like a continuum rather than stacked tiers)

Least Restrictive Environment based on individualized student need (less false positives for special education)

Historical Categorical Program Funding (Title I, special education, English language learners, talented and gifted)

Tiered System where resources are allocated and matched to student needs (think more like a continuum rather than stacked tiers)

Least Restrictive Environment based on individualized student need (less false positives for special education)



Screening for all children begins in the general education classroom where Sound Instructional and Behavioral Practices are already underway

Identify At-risk students using brief screening tools (e.g. CBM); OR identify students scoring below the 25th percentile on an achievement test or behavior rating scale

At-risk students are then assessed every week for 8 weeks to determine response to Sound Instructional and Behavioral classroom practices

Screening for all children begins in the general education classroom where Sound Instructional and Behavioral Practices are already underway

Identify At-risk students using brief screening tools (e.g. CBM); OR identify students scoring below the 25th percentile on an achievement test or behavior rating scale

At-risk students are then assessed every week for 8 weeks to determine response to Sound Instructional and Behavioral classroom practices

What are scientifically-based Instructional and Behavioral Strategies?

What are scientifically-based Instructional and Behavioral Strategies?

Scientific research supporting their effectiveness (Randomized Control Trials)

Fidelity of Implementation documented

Respond to specific, individual needs

Monitor promising practices

Scientific research supporting their effectiveness (Randomized Control Trials)

Fidelity of Implementation documented

Respond to specific, individual needs

Monitor promising practices

Data-based Decision Making

(Progress Monitoring)

Data-based Decision Making

(Progress Monitoring) Frequent data collection Technically adequate measures Interpretation of data at regular

intervals Changes to instruction based on

data interpretation

Frequent data collection Technically adequate measures Interpretation of data at regular

intervals Changes to instruction based on

data interpretation

Tiered Model of Service Delivery

Tiered Model of Service Delivery

Source: NASDSE

Tier 1 General EducationTier 1 General Education

General Education Best Practice:

School districts choose evidence-based curricula and instruction

Teachers are provided with relevant and rigorous professional development

Teachers implement the curricula and instruction, and their fidleity of implementation is documented

(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005)

General Education Best Practice:

School districts choose evidence-based curricula and instruction

Teachers are provided with relevant and rigorous professional development

Teachers implement the curricula and instruction, and their fidleity of implementation is documented

(Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005)

Tier 1 General EducationTier 1 General Education Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at

the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students

Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness to classroom instruction each week

Identifying non-responders from at-risk group

Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students

Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness to classroom instruction each week


Tier 1 General EducationTier 1 General Education Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at

the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students Best Practice:

All students are assessed using brief screening tools with diagnostic utility for predicting performance on reading and math state assessments, OR

Only assess students who performed below the 25th percetile on plast year’s state assessment or a more current achievement test

Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students Best Practice:

All students are assessed using brief screening tools with diagnostic utility for predicting performance on reading and math state assessments, OR

Only assess students who performed below the 25th percetile on plast year’s state assessment or a more current achievement test

Tier 1 General EducationTier 1 General Education Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness

to classroom instruction each week Best Practice:

At-risk students are assessed every week for 8 weeks in the area of risk using brief monitoring tools

Adequate response is operationalized using: Local normative estimates for weekely improvement,

OR National normative estimates for weekly improvement,

OR Criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement

Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness to classroom instruction each week Best Practice:

At-risk students are assessed every week for 8 weeks in the area of risk using brief monitoring tools

Adequate response is operationalized using: Local normative estimates for weekely improvement,

OR National normative estimates for weekly improvement,

OR Criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement



Best Practice: Choose estimate or criterion for adequate weekly

improvement Examine slopes of at-risk students to determine non-

responders, students performing below the designated criterion for weekly improvement

Non-responders with written parental consent may access Tier 2 Services


Best Practice: Choose estimate or criterion for adequate weekly

improvement Examine slopes of at-risk students to determine non-

responders, students performing below the designated criterion for weekly improvement

Non-responders with written parental consent may access Tier 2 Services

Tier 2 General and Special EducationTier 2 General and Special Education

With parental permission: Best Practices:

Non-responders participate in small group instruction (3:1) with student who have similar instructional strengths and weaknesses

Instruction occurs 3 times per week for 30 minutes persession

Instruction administered by certified teacher or aid who can accurately implement a scientifically validated, standard tutoring protocol

With parental permission: Best Practices:

Non-responders participate in small group instruction (3:1) with student who have similar instructional strengths and weaknesses

Instruction occurs 3 times per week for 30 minutes persession

Instruction administered by certified teacher or aid who can accurately implement a scientifically validated, standard tutoring protocol

(Fuchs, 2005)

Tier 2 General and Special EducationTier 2 General and Special Education

Tier 2: student response to the additional, more intense instruction or intervention is monitored each week

Identify students who are not responding to this more intense, scientifically-based instruction or intervention

Adequate response is determined by using normative estimates or criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement

Tier 2: student response to the additional, more intense instruction or intervention is monitored each week

Identify students who are not responding to this more intense, scientifically-based instruction or intervention

Adequate response is determined by using normative estimates or criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement

Progressing to Tier 3 General and Special

Education

Progressing to Tier 3 General and Special

Education Non-responders receive individualized,

comprehensive evaluation to address all eligibility determination, evaluation, and procedural safeguards specified in IDEA

Written parental consent

Evaluation team designs an evaluation to to rule out mental retardation using a brief intellectual assessment and possibly an adaptive behavior measure

Evaluation examines emotional disturbance, visual disabilities, and alternate diagnoses

Non-responders receive individualized, comprehensive evaluation to address all eligibility determination, evaluation, and procedural safeguards specified in IDEA

Written parental consent

Evaluation team designs an evaluation to to rule out mental retardation using a brief intellectual assessment and possibly an adaptive behavior measure

Evaluation examines emotional disturbance, visual disabilities, and alternate diagnoses

Tier 3 Special EducationTier 3 Special Education

Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)

Assessment based

Individualized interventions

Intense, durable procedures


Assessment based



RTI Academic Case StudyRTI Academic Case Study

Reading Measure Instruction in Tier 1 Instruction in Tier 2 Sample Responders and

Non-responders

Reading Measure Instruction in Tier 1 Instruction in Tier 2 Sample Responders and

Non-responders

Reading Fluency in Grade 3

Reading Fluency in Grade 3

Measure: AIMSWEB R-CBM

Curriculum-Based Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is a Measurement (CBM) is a reliable and valid reliable and valid measurement system for measurement system for evaluating basic skills growth.evaluating basic skills growth.

Oral Reading FluencyOral Reading Fluency

Measure: AIMSWEB R-CBM

Curriculum-Based Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is a Measurement (CBM) is a reliable and valid reliable and valid measurement system for measurement system for evaluating basic skills growth.evaluating basic skills growth.

Oral Reading FluencyOral Reading Fluency


All students are administered 3 one minute oral reading fluency probes at the beginning of the school year

The students’ median or middle score is documented

Students scoring below the designated norm are identified as at-risk for reading failure

Teachers measure students at-risk once each week on a different form of R-CBM

All students are administered 3 one minute oral reading fluency probes at the beginning of the school year

The students’ median or middle score is documented

Students scoring below the designated norm are identified as at-risk for reading failure

Teachers measure students at-risk once each week on a different form of R-CBM

Tier 2 Norms for Determining Adequate

Response

Tier 2 Norms for Determining Adequate

ResponseThere are three general methods for estimating the

‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level: Local Norms: A sample of students at a school is

screened in an academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989)

Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996)

Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: A minimum level, or threshold, of competence is determined for a skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)

There are three general methods for estimating the ‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level:

Local Norms: A sample of students at a school is screened in an academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989)

Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996)

Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: A minimum level, or threshold, of competence is determined for a skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)

Example: Norms for Reading Fluency

Example: Norms for Reading Fluency

Reading Fluency is often measured to monitor response to reading instruction because it is a good predictor of reading achievement

Reading fluency can be measured easily and efficiently

Reading Fluency is often measured to monitor response to reading instruction because it is a good predictor of reading achievement

Reading fluency can be measured easily and efficiently

Baylor Elementary School : Grade Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min : Sample Size: 23 Students

Low Value=31 Hi Value=131

Median (2nd Quartile)=71

3rd Quartile=1081st Quartile=43

Billy=19

Group Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min: Book 4-1: Raw Data31 34 34 39 41 43 52 55 59 61 68 71 74 75 85 89 102 108 112 115 118 118 131

0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160Correctly Read Words-Book 4-1

Group Norms: Converted to Box-PlotLOCAL NORMS EXAMPLE: Twenty-three 4th-grade students were administered oral reading fluency Curriculum-Based Measurement passages at the 4th-grade level in their school.

In their current number form, these data are not easy to interpret.

So the school converts them into a visual display—a box-plot —to show the distribution of scores and to convert the scores to percentile form.

When Billy, a struggling reader, is screened in CBM reading fluency, he shows a SIGNIFICANT skill gap when compare to his grade peers.

Research Norms: ExampleResearch Norms: Example

Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Ranges By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Ranges By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Shapiro, 1996)Shapiro, 1996)

GradeGrade Correctly Read Words Per MinCorrectly Read Words Per Min Reading ErrorsReading Errors

11 40-6040-60 Fewer than 5Fewer than 5






Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations

Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks to Determine

Risk: Example

Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks to Determine

Risk: ExampleThe benchmark represents a level of proficiency needed for later school success. A good example of a commonly used set of benchmarks for reading are those that were developed for use with the DIBELS [Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills].Using the DIBELS benchmarks, 3rd-grade students are at ‘low risk’ for reading problems if they reach these reading-fluency goals:

Start of School Year: 77 Correctly Read Words Per Min Middle of School Year: 92 Correctly Read Words Per Min End of School Year: 110 Correctly Read Words Per Min

The benchmark represents a level of proficiency needed for later school success. A good example of a commonly used set of benchmarks for reading are those that were developed for use with the DIBELS [Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills].Using the DIBELS benchmarks, 3rd-grade students are at ‘low risk’ for reading problems if they reach these reading-fluency goals:

Start of School Year: 77 Correctly Read Words Per Min Middle of School Year: 92 Correctly Read Words Per Min End of School Year: 110 Correctly Read Words Per Min

Sample Reading Fluency Data

Sample Reading Fluency Data

AIMSWEB Fluency Data

R-CBM Probe Teacher’s CopyR-CBM Probe Teacher’s Copy

Standard Reading Standard Reading Assessment Assessment Passage Examiner Passage Examiner Copy:Copy:

Pre-numbered so they Pre-numbered so they can be scored quickly can be scored quickly and immediately.and immediately.

AIMSWEB R-CBM Probe

Reading CBM Fluency ProbeStudent ExampleReading CBM Fluency ProbeStudent Example QuickTime™ and a

H.263 decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Source: AIMSweb

R-CBM Student ExamplesAll Students Receive

Benchmark Probe Grade 3



Norma 60 words read correctly/10 errors

Mark 135 words read correctly/ 0 errors

Irene 20 words read correctly/ 0 errors

Brandon 40 words read correctly/ 4 errors





Sample of some students’ scores:

Tier 1 Instruction in General EducationTier 1 Instruction in General Education

Every teacher uses a validated reading curriculum (i.e., Open Court)

Lead teacher observes each teacher’s implementation of reading curriculum quarterly to document fidelity

Norma, Brandon and Irene are monitored each week for 8 weeks in Tier 1 General Education Classroom

Every teacher uses a validated reading curriculum (i.e., Open Court)

Lead teacher observes each teacher’s implementation of reading curriculum quarterly to document fidelity

Norma, Brandon and Irene are monitored each week for 8 weeks in Tier 1 General Education Classroom

Irene, Brandon and Norma’s Response to Tier 1 InstructionLearning Rates and Levels of

Performance

Irene, Brandon and Norma’s Response to Tier 1 InstructionLearning Rates and Levels of

Performance After 8 weeks of progress monitoring:

Norma’s R-CBM slope (weekly increase) was 1.8 Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive response Responding adequately to classroom instruction

Brandon’s R-CBM slope was .04 Below 1.0 criterion for positive response Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services 8 week trial with progress monitoring

Irene’s R-CBM slope was .02 Below 1.0 criterion for positive response Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services 8 week trial with progress monitoring

After 8 weeks of progress monitoring: Norma’s R-CBM slope (weekly increase) was 1.8

Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive response Responding adequately to classroom instruction

Brandon’s R-CBM slope was .04 Below 1.0 criterion for positive response Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services 8 week trial with progress monitoring

Irene’s R-CBM slope was .02 Below 1.0 criterion for positive response Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services 8 week trial with progress monitoring

Tier 2 Instruction in General EducationTier 2 Instruction in General Education

For students at-risk who did not respond to Tier 1 instruction

Research-based tutoring protocol that includes 30 minutes of instruction, 3 times each week in groups of 1-3 students

Tutors are paraprofessionals with formal training who are observed once each week by the teacher and provided corrective feedback

Teacher and tutor meet weekly to discuss CBM graphs and to problem solve about non-responders

For students at-risk who did not respond to Tier 1 instruction

Research-based tutoring protocol that includes 30 minutes of instruction, 3 times each week in groups of 1-3 students

Tutors are paraprofessionals with formal training who are observed once each week by the teacher and provided corrective feedback

Teacher and tutor meet weekly to discuss CBM graphs and to problem solve about non-responders

Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic

performance:

Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic

performance:There can be several possible underlying

reasons why a student is doing poorly in an academic area. It is crucial to determine the reason(s) for poor performance in order to select an appropriate intervention:

Skill Deficit: The student lacks the necessary skills to perform the academic task.

‘Fragile’ Skills: The student possesses the necessary skills but is not yet fluent and automatic in those skills.

Performance (Motivation) Deficit: The student has the necessary skills but lacks the motivation to complete the academic task.

There can be several possible underlying reasons why a student is doing poorly in an academic area. It is crucial to determine the reason(s) for poor performance in order to select an appropriate intervention:

Skill Deficit: The student lacks the necessary skills to perform the academic task.

‘Fragile’ Skills: The student possesses the necessary skills but is not yet fluent and automatic in those skills.

Performance (Motivation) Deficit: The student has the necessary skills but lacks the motivation to complete the academic task.

Select a scientifically-based intervention for small group

instuction likely to improve the student's academic functioning:

Select a scientifically-based intervention for small group

instuction likely to improve the student's academic functioning:

Any intervention idea chosen for the student should be backed by scientific research (e.g., research articles in peer-reviewed professional journals) demonstrating that the intervention is effective in addressing the student’s underlying reason(s) for academic failure.

Any intervention idea chosen for the student should be backed by scientific research (e.g., research articles in peer-reviewed professional journals) demonstrating that the intervention is effective in addressing the student’s underlying reason(s) for academic failure.

Brandon and Irene’s Response to Tier 2

Instruction

Brandon and Irene’s Response to Tier 2

Instruction At the end of the 8 week trial

Brandon’s R-CBM slope increased to 1.7Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive

responseBrandon does not require special

education Irene’s R-CBM slope was .06

Below 1.0 criterion for positive responseReferral for comprehensive evaluationWritten parental consent

At the end of the 8 week trial Brandon’s R-CBM slope increased to

1.7Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive

responseBrandon does not require special

education Irene’s R-CBM slope was .06

Below 1.0 criterion for positive responseReferral for comprehensive evaluationWritten parental consent

Irene’s Comprehensive Evaluation

Irene’s Comprehensive Evaluation

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ruled out mental retardation

Teacher report and rating scales ruled out an emotional/behavioral disorder

All evidence reviewed to determine LD classification

Tier 3 Eligible for Special Education Services

Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ruled out mental retardation

Teacher report and rating scales ruled out an emotional/behavioral disorder

All evidence reviewed to determine LD classification

Tier 3 Eligible for Special Education Services

Tier 3 Special EducationTier 3 Special Education


Assessment based goals and objectives




Assessment based goals and objectives



Response to Intervention:Implementation

Response to Intervention:Implementation

Training for all school staff involved in instruction Kindergarten screening for readiness Identification of evidence-based/scientifically based

curriculum, instructional practices and interventions Frequent data collection (quantitative and qualitative) Problem solving teams Define adequate progress Treatment fidelity At Tiers 2 and 3, designing of supplementary diagnostic

instructional trials to meet the needs of students COLLABORATION between general education teachers,

special education teachers, school psychologists, speech language clinicians, etc….

Training for all school staff involved in instruction Kindergarten screening for readiness Identification of evidence-based/scientifically based

curriculum, instructional practices and interventions Frequent data collection (quantitative and qualitative) Problem solving teams Define adequate progress Treatment fidelity At Tiers 2 and 3, designing of supplementary diagnostic

instructional trials to meet the needs of students COLLABORATION between general education teachers,

special education teachers, school psychologists, speech language clinicians, etc….

Response to Intervention:Evolving Roles at Tier 1


General Education Teacher

Special Education Teacher

School Psychologist

Problem Solving Teaam



School Psychologist






School Psychologist




School Psychologist






School Psychologist

Problem Solving Team



School Psychologist

Problem Solving Team

References and ResourcesReferences and ResourcesAIMSweb Progress Monitoring: www.aimsweb.com

Center for Educational Networking. (2006). NASDE expalins response to intervention. Focus on Results. www.cenmi.org/Products.asap.

Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Panahon, C.J., & Hilt, A.M. (2005). What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 669-676.

Cohen, I. L., Schmidt-Lackner, S., Romanczyk, R., & Sudhalter, V. (2003). The PDD Behavior Inventory: A rating scale for assessing Response to Intervention in children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(1), 31-45.

Dibels: dibels.uoregon.edu/

Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 621-626.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2005). Responsiveness-to-Intervention; A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-61.

Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.

AIMSweb Progress Monitoring: www.aimsweb.com

Center for Educational Networking. (2006). NASDE expalins response to intervention. Focus on Results. www.cenmi.org/Products.asap.

Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Panahon, C.J., & Hilt, A.M. (2005). What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior. Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 669-676.

Cohen, I. L., Schmidt-Lackner, S., Romanczyk, R., & Sudhalter, V. (2003). The PDD Behavior Inventory: A rating scale for assessing Response to Intervention in children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(1), 31-45.

Dibels: dibels.uoregon.edu/

Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 621-626.

Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2005). Responsiveness-to-Intervention; A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1), 57-61.

Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.

http://www.aimsweb.com/

http://www.aimsweb.com/

References and ResourcesReferences and ResourcesGresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to

the Identification of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc

Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J., Robertson, E. J., & Rogers, L. A. (2007). How do different types of high school students respond to schoolwide positive behavior support programs? Characteristics and responsiveness of teacher-identified students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 3-20.

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org

Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.90-129). New York: The Guilford Press.

Tilly, D. III (2006). Response to intervention: An Overview What is it? Why do it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2).

Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc

Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

Lane, K. L., Wehby, J., Robertson, E. J., & Rogers, L. A. (2007). How do different types of high school students respond to schoolwide positive behavior support programs? Characteristics and responsiveness of teacher-identified students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 3-20.

National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org

Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.

Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.90-129). New York: The Guilford Press.

Tilly, D. III (2006). Response to intervention: An Overview What is it? Why do it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2).

References and ResourcesReferences and ResourcesRTI Wire: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php

The IRIS Center: iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

Wlaker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 194-204.

Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP [National Association of Elementary School Principals] Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp. 1,6.

Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools' capacity to help struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 99-107.

RTI Wire: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php

The IRIS Center: iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/

Wlaker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 194-204.

Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP [National Association of Elementary School Principals] Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp. 1,6.

Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools' capacity to help struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 99-107.

ReferencesReferencesContact Speakers for

Grant References:

Sue Courey [email protected]

Ellen Cook [email protected]

Contact Speakers for Grant References:

Sue Courey [email protected]

Ellen Cook [email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

mailto:[email protected]

Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.

Education

Transcript of Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.