Response to Intervention: Tools for Improving

Achievement District-wide

Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas, Providence CollegeIna S. Woolman, Rhode Island Department of Education,

Office of Special Populations

October 2005

What is it?

Response to Intervention (RtI) is: a philosophy a system a shared responsibility a way to know if what we’re doing is

working

RtI: a philosophy

If a student isn’t performing as expected, we will change what WE’RE doing …

and keep doing so until we find what works.

RtI: a system Organizer: the Problem Solving

Approach Tools:

Benchmark Assessment Interventions Progress Monitoring

Support: the Expanding Circle

RtI: a shared responsibility This is about each and every …

student class school district

For district-wide success, it needs to be everybody’s business

RtI: a way to know if what we’re doing is working It’s really about a specific student’s

learning – has s/he Responded to Intervention? Have we learned what it takes … yet?

So, however you’re using “RtI” at the moment, keep the individual student’s performance in mind.

What’s been going on in RI? Focus on improving literacy instruction Legislated/regulated Personal Literacy

Plans (PLP) and Secondary Programs Learning Disabilities Interim Guidance

(rev’d 7/05:IDEA changes) RtI Pilot School Project (PLUS)

Some shifts in emphasis The primary goal of assessment is to inform interventions.

Assessment begins within general education and is an on-going systematic gathering of data.

We need to consider the learner, the instruction, the curriculum and the environment using a problem-solving approach.

More emphasis on designing and providing individual and/or small group targeted instruction.

More and earlier involvement and collaboration between general and special education professionals

Evaluating a student’s response to effective instruction and intervention over time is a better means of assessing whether or not a student is demonstrating a learning or other disability than a traditional one-time special education evaluation.

Some key concepts and practices

Foundation of effective general education

Progress monitoring assessment The Expanding Circle of Support The Problem Solving Approach

Foundation of effective general education

Special Education for ~10%

Effective, Evidence-BasedComprehensive

Curriculumfor at least 80% of

students

Expanded Classroom Support

for 5-10%

Progress Monitoring Assessment

Benchmark Assessments 3 times a year for all students

Progress Monitoring Assessments Weekly/Biweekly for all students

performing below grade-level receiving intervention

The Expanding Circle of Support

School-Based Problem Solving TeamEL Teacher

Special EducatorsSchool Psychologists-Diagnosticians

Special Education

StudentsTeachersParents

Reading SpecialistCounselor

Other Specialists

Define Problem

Implement Intervention

Develop a P

lanE

valu

ate

Inte

rven

tion

Instruction

Learner

Curriculum

Environment

The Problem Solving Approach

Questions…

Illustrative Examples …

Demonstrating: A problem solving approach An expanding Circle of Support Interventions and Progress

Monitoring Decision making based on students’

response to intervention

Two Case Studies Actual student cases, adapted For illustrative purposes ONLY How processes can work in a school Procedures and teaming evolved Your school’s support systems may

look a little different

Chris and David 2nd graders Struggle with reading and retaining

information Received supplemental reading

services in first grade four times a week, continue to receive reading support in 2nd grade

Timeline of events 2003-2004 school year

September Classroom Literacy Assessments - Screening Identified as needing a PLP, Parent Consultation

October – November Intervention 1 for Chris and David

November Teacher Support Team Meeting Intervention 1 continues for Chris and David; Intervention 2 for Chris

December Teacher Support Team Meeting Intervention 1 and 2 Continue

January Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring Building Problem Solving Team Meeting Intervention 3 for Chris and David, Intervention 4 for David

February Building Problem Solving Team meeting Evaluation Team invited, Special Education Procedural Safeguards Begin

March Referral and Evaluation Meetings with full expanded team

June Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring

September: Rigby results for all 2nd graders

Rigby-Sept

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

September Mean =15, SD =3 Chris David

Intervention 1: Chris and David In small group worked with

classroom teacher on short vowel words using Core Phonics and Making Words Lessons daily for twenty minutes.

Six weeks Results?

Response to Intervention 1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

Week1

Week3

Week5

Week7

ChrisDavid

Assessment: Number of CVC words/15(Core Phonics)

First Week of NovemberTeacher Support Team Meeting Who:

Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2 other Classroom Teachers, Principal

Discussed: Intervention One Progress PLP modifications as necessary

Plan: Intervention 1: Focused small group instruction on decoding

and spelling CVC words will continue for both, reading teacher will help.

Intervention 2: To develop Chris’ auditory discrimination, he will also begin using a software program that was recommended by the Speech and Language Pathologist. It will be loaded on the classroom computer.

Check both boys hearing and vision. Classroom teacher continues to meet with parents to share

concerns and plan

0

3

6

9

12

15

Wk 8 Wk 9 Wk 10 Wk 11

Chris David

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Wk 1 Wk 2 Wk 3 Wk 4

Chris

Intervention 1 Continues(Core Phonics)

Intervention 2(software)

Response to Intervention Data for November

TST Meeting - December Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2

other Classroom Teachers, Principal Discussed:

Chris and David made progress during Interventions. Classroom teacher also reports improvement in class. Both boys passed hearing and vision screening.

Plan: Continue Intervention 1 with Classroom teacher and

Reading Specialist for both Continue Intervention 2 using the software with Chris

through mid-January

0

4

8

12

16

20

WK 12 Christmas WK 15

Chris David

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

WK 5 Christmas WK 8

Chris

Intervention 1 Continues(Core Phonics)

Intervention 2 cont.(software)

Response to Intervention Data for December and January

Grade-wide Data: JanuaryRigby

0

10

20

30

1 2

September and January

Rea

ding

Lev

el

Phonemic Awarness

0

20

40

60

80

100

1 2

September and January

Perc

ent C

orre

ct

Reading Fluency

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 2

September and January

Wo

rds P

er

Min

ute

Spelling

02468101214

1 2

September and January

Num

ber

of W

ords

Chris David Grade Mean

Building Problem Solving Team End of January Meeting:

Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Reading Teacher, Speech and Language Pathologist, 2 other Classroom Teachers, Principal and Parents

Discussed: Chris and David’s performance on the Interventions Chris and David’s performance on the grade-wide data Teacher’s concern regarding David’s slipping in class David’s parents do not report change in behavior at home

Plan: Begin Intervention 3 with both boys expanding on phonics

work to include fluency of text practice Begin Intervention 4 with David in which he works

everyday with the reading specialist one-on-one for fifteen minutes to review and practice decoding skills.

If no progress, expand circle to include evaluation team members

Building Problem Solving TeamFebruary Meeting

Who: Chris and David’s Teacher, Parents, Reading Teacher, Speech and Language Pathologist, Principal, Diagnostic Prescriptive Teacher, and School Psychologist

Discussed: Chris’ continued progress David’s lack of progress even with additional one-on-one

as well as withdrawal from class activities Need for special education evaluation?

Plan: Reading Teacher/Classroom Teacher to continue

Intervention 3: to work with Chris and David in a small group on phonics and fluency

Reading Teacher to continue Intervention 4 with David School Psychologist to observe David in class Team discusses both boys for necessity of Special

Education Evaluation

Should referrals be made?

Is progress no longer being made?OR …

Are the supports being provided more than what can be maintained on a temporary basis?

Does David need to be referred for special education evaluation? Yes, although there is still some slow progress,

it is only through extensive interventions **

Referral to Consider a Special Education Evaluation

**This is when the officialspecial education process begins.

No.

Does Chris need to be referred for special education evaluation?

… ?

ET Meeting: MarchConsidering David’s Referral

Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …

The Evaluation Team asks:The Evaluation Team asks:

Have interventions of appropriate type, Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? with fidelity? YesYes

Given David’s response to interventions, do Given David’s response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? we suspect that he might have a disability? YesYes

ET Meeting: MarchPlanning David’s Evaluation

““What questions remain before we can What questions remain before we can decide if there’s a disability, and what decide if there’s a disability, and what evidence do we need to answer those evidence do we need to answer those questions?”questions?”

David …

Rate of learning Have data

Gaps Need more information

Intensity of Instruction Have data

Exclusionary Factors Have data

David’s Response to Interventions 3 and 4

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WK1

WK2

WK3

WK4

WK5

WK6

02468

101214161820

WK1

WK2

WK3

WK4

WK5

Wk6

Intervention 3(Fluency and Phonics)

Word

s Per

Min

ute

Intervention 4(One-on-One Review and Practice)

CV

C a

nd C

CV

C w

ord

s

David’s Assessment Data:Collected by Building Problem Solving Team and Evaluation Team*

Classroom Grades and Work Samples

Bs and Cs First Quarter, Lower at Second Quarter – particularly in literacy where he received a C-Running Records

Level 11 94% accuracy, 40 WPM, 3/3 compLevel 12 78% accuracy, 38 WPM, 1/3 comp, difficulty decoding blends + vowel patterns

Writing SamplesShort sentences, with multiple spelling errors. Difficulty writing more than one sentence about a

topic. Needs prompting to stay on task.Math

Enjoys, accurately and quickly completes addition and subtraction drills, has good number sense, difficulty reading word problems.

Observations Withdrawn, very limited interactions with peers, responds to teacher’s questions but does not initiate, completes independent work slowly and only with prompting from teacher

Standardized Tests

*Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Low Average (83)Phonological Awareness: Average (96)Phonological Memory Poor (72)Rapid Access Low Average (82)

*WIAT-II Written Language -Low Average (80) Spelling Poor (73)Written Expression Low Average (84)

*Test of Word Reading Efficiency Poor (74)

David’s ET MeetingRESPONSE TO INTERVENTION

Findings:

RATE: Limited Progress, Some Inconsistency

GAPS: Single Word and Text Reading Fluency Spelling

Phonological Memory

INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: One-on-one and on-going review and feedback is necessary to make progress, encouragement needed for participation

LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION

PLAN: Intensive literacy instruction WITH special

educator using a multisensory approach and on-going review and practice

Use of daily feedback and data monitoring to help motivate David to practice and improve, as well as monitor progress

Small group session with counselor to improve self-confidence

IF THE TRADITIONAL PROCESSHAD BEEN USED …

… WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATER

Findings? ABILITY: Average

ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI approach]: Poor Reading Fluency Poor Spelling

Low Average Written ExpressionAverage Math

SEVERE DISCREPANCY: Between Ability and

Achievement in the area of reading fluency and spelling.

*LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION*

… and NOW we begin to PLAN: Intervention Strategy, and Special Education

What about Chris?

The supports developed are working

But … for contrast … what if he HAD been referred?

ET Meeting: MarchConsidering Chris’ Referral

Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need …

The Evaluation Team asks:The Evaluation Team asks:

Have interventions of appropriate type, Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? with fidelity? YesYes

Given Chris’ response to interventions, do Given Chris’ response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? we suspect that he might have a disability? No … look at his data …No … look at his data …

Chris’ Response to Intervention 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

WK 1 WK 2 WK 3 WK 4 WK 5 WK 6

Word

s per

Min

ute

Reading Fluency

Rigby

0

5

10

15

20

25

1 2

Rea

ding

Lev

el

Dolch List

180

185

190

195

200

205

210

215

220

1 2

Spelling

024681012141618

1 2 3

Phonemic Awareness

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 2 3

Chris’ performance on 4 class-wide progress monitoring assessment measures in September, January and March of 2nd grade

Chris 2nd grade mean

The plan for Chris …Chris’ Successful

Response to the Intervention Process

RATE: Progress demonstrated in 4 out of 5 areas assessed.

GAP: Weakness in spelling, but not lower than 90-95% of peers.

INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: Chris is responding to small group intervention

Plan Continue Intervention in Fall with focus on spelling as

well as reading comprehension and fluency Monitor and adjust as needed

What if the traditional process had been used with Chris?

… WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATERWISC-IV Full Scale 84

WIAT-II Reading 78 Written Language 80 Math 89 Oral Language 87

ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI approach]: Poor Reading Fluency, Spelling, Written Expression and Low Average Math

… WHAT WOULD YOUR TEAM HAVE DECIDED?

Either way – planning to support Chris would have started late in the year

Findings? ABILITY: Low Average

Conclusions: Problem Solving and Intervention began early on Successful intervention identified through the process Chris’ reading improved, David made slower and more

inconsistent progress in reading At this time Chris’ needs can be met in general

education with small group instruction in classroom and with reading specialist

At this time David needs were found to be significantly greater than his peers and the instructional intensity that is necessary for him to make progress is best delivered by both special and general education

System in place to monitor both boys’ future progress and needs

2nd Grade Rigby

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21 23 25 27 29 31 33 35 37 39 41 43 45 47 49 51 53 55 57 59

Rigby-Sept

Rigby-June

June Mean =21, SD=3September Mean =15, SD =3

Questions…

Using RTI to determine disability…

Special Education Decision Making

Prerequisites to determining that a student has a learning disability

Student must have been “provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child’s age and ability levels” and thus the determining factor for the eligibility determination is not “lack of instruction in reading or math.”

Rhode Island Regulations Governing theEducation of Children with Disabilities, 2000

Curriculum, Instruction and EnvironmentEvidence is gathered to record results of

successive interventions and to inform new participants in the Expanding Circle of Support

Assessments to monitor progress Documentation of differentiated

strategies and fidelity of successive interventions

Environmental conditions that support or hinder the student’s learning

Expand the Circle of Support toConsider Special Education?

In spite of successive research based interventions, is the student no longer making progress toward Grade Level Expectations?

or Is the student’s progress dependent on a

level of support that cannot be maintained over time in general education?

IF YES…SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCESS BEGINS

Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral

The team of parents and qualified school personnel answers three questions:

1. Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity?

No → Consult on additional interventionsYes → Question 2

Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral2. Given student’s response to

interventions, do we suspect that the student might have a disability?

No → Consult and continue supports within general education

Yes → Question 3

Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral3. Are there questions remaining before we

can decide if there’s a disability, and what evidence do we need to answer those questions?

• rate of learning?• gaps?• intensity of instructional need?

If yes … conduct relevant comprehensive evaluation

IDEA, 2004 Learning Disabilities

The new IDEA allows the use of “a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions” in determining learning disabilities

… Rhode Island guidance expects teams to use this process.

The new IDEA prohibits teams from being required to consider a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability

… Rhode Island guidance does not include the concept

or practice of considering a severe discrepancy

between ability and achievement

New Direction:To determine a learning disability using Response to Intervention model

Questions from the interim guidance document

1. Does the evidence from a variety of sources of converging data indicate that the student’s needs are greater than 90% to 95% of age appropriate peers?

RATE Is the student's learning rate slower, even with high quality interventions?

AND

GAP

Is the student's performance significantly lower? and/or

Within a student’s own performance is there a marked gap in different areas?

Additionally…2. After careful review, can we rule out any other possible primary

causes for this student’s distinct needs?

Exclusionary conditions Other considerations

If the answer to the first two questions is “Yes,” the team needs to answer the third question:

3. Does the student require special education and related services in order to meet his/her needs? That is …

Is the instructional intensity needed for the student to make progress greater than 90%-95% of the student's age appropriate peers?

If the answer to all three questions is “Yes,” the team may determine that the student has a learning disability and requires special education supports and services.

Questions…

PLUS Schools Pilot: Planning Learning with Unified Supports

An ongoing project since February 2004 at:

Garden City School, Cranston Old County Road School, Smithfield Sowams School, Barrington State Street School, Westerly

Preparing to share their learning …

The shifts that we are making in Rhode Island

Considering the learner, the instruction, the curriculum and the environment using a problem-solving model

Gathering data systematically on an on-going basis Designing and providing responsive individual and/or small

group intervention in the area of need Using assessments to inform interventions Evaluating a student’s response to effective instruction and

intervention over time

To support these changes we are:

Designing effective building-level intervention teams Collaborating more and earlier Changing roles of specialists

What we’ve learnedKey Components

A Professional Learning Community Progress Monitoring Assessment Team Implementation within the Problem

Solving Process Interventions Changing Roles and Maintaining Sufficient

Staff Support

Key: a professional learning community Shared purpose, collaboration, evidence-

based decision-making The problem-solving approach is used at

school and district as well as individual and classroom levels

Job-embedded learning Awareness of varied levels of acceptance

of the changes –tailored supports (CBAM)

Key: progress monitoring assessment Wide understanding of the variety of assessment

types and their roles for benchmarking, progress monitoring and evaluation

Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) plays a significant role in RTI decisions

Assessments are used to make more informed instructional decisions

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

Key: team implementation within the problem-solving process

Buildings may have one or more “teams” Functions and membership of support

team(s) vary as appropriate: During the process Depending on purpose Depending on student characteristics and

need Support may begin in grade-level meetings or

other collegial gatherings

Key: interventions

Interventions are part of all instruction, not just literacy Staff have a large repertoire of interventions -

classroom differentiation, standard protocol, small group, individualized

Interventions vary – in format, teacher/provider, group size, intensity

All interventions are monitored and adjusted based on data

Intervention Central • www.interventioncentral.org

What Works Clearing House-• www.whatworks.ed.gov

Key: changing roles and main- taining sufficient staff support

Collaborative approach to sharing responsibility and providing supports

Specialists support interventions for non-identified students

More direct observation and support – less testing

Documentation, public awareness and support of the combined efforts required to support this process

Questions Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas,

Providence College lhauerwa@providence.edu

Ina S. Woolman, RI Dept. of Education, Office of Special Populations ina.woolman@ride.ri.gov