Response

to

Intervention

Paula R. UlloaED656 Advanced Techniques

For the Learning DisabledJulie Fee, July 9, 2008

Response to Intervention (RtI)

• Began in the 1960s• Has been used as a progress-

monitoring tool for students with and without disabilities

• This decade RtI has been explored as a primary way to identify students with special needs

• Continuous research

Why are we here?

• Define RtI• RtI Process• How RtI impacts

general & special education

• Federal, State, Local positions on RtI

• Implications

Response to Intervention (RtI)

• “…systematic application of data-based decision making to enhance outcomes for ALL students.” (Vaughn, 2009)

• “…multi-tiered system of intervention, data collection system that informs decision making, and ongoing progress monitoring…” (Vaughn, 2009)

• “…number of tiers, what data are collected, and the measures are what determine if a child is “responding” to an intervention…” (Vaughn, 2009)

4Response to Intervention

(RtI)Four Key Elements to RtI:

• High-quality, research-based instruction matched to student needs (GE)

• Monitoring student learning over a period of time to determine their level and rate of performance for constant decision-making

• Provide interventions of increasing intensity

• Make important educational decisions based on data

(Vaughn, 2009)

Response to Intervention (RtI)

Video

Response to Intervention (RtI)

There are 3 primary types of RtI approaches:

Standard Treatment: Curriculum (research)-based measurements with intervention plans for remediation (Bender, 2007)

Problem-Solving Response: Interpreted data (not research-based) establishes goals for personal performance (Bender, 2007)

Pre-referral: Steps prior Special Education (Baker, PEC 2006 & NCLD)

** SEA/LEA use the RtI method as it applies to their district **

RtI: Standard TreatmentProtocol:• Screening & baseline: indicates concern• Tier 1 data indicates little to no response• Observation notes of scientifically-based

curriculum • Tier 2 data indicates little to no response• Observation data of research-based

intervention• Summary report

Tier IV: Special education: Long-term and intensive service individualized for student needs

Tier III: Problem Solving: Targeted individualized interventions (modification to the standard protocol) in general education/Special Education

Tier II: Standard Protocol Treatments: Small group intervention (3-5) in general education/Special Education

Tier I: General Education: All students

Tier 1 (& 2)High Quality core instruction for all

in the general education classroom

Tier 2 or 3Supplemental

Instruction

Tier 3 or 4Intensive Instruction

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

Classifying Reading Programs:

What is the purpose of the program?

1. Core

2. Supplemental

3. Intervention

Core

Reading ProgramMeeting the needs for most

Supplemental

Reading ProgramSupporting the Core

Core

Supplemental

Intervention

Intervention

Reading Program Meeting the needs for each

(Vaughn et al. 2001)

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

RtI: Problem Solving• Based on individual student data• Flexibility• Team approach• Five part process (variable)

– Define the problem– Analyze the problem– Develop a plan– Implement a plan– Evaluate the plan

(Vaughn, 2009)

?

RtI: Pre-referral

• Support teams: – Occurs early– teacher consultation:

Specialists, Sped, SLT, Psy.,

– Child Study Teams (CST)

– Informal educational/behavioral evaluations or screenings Source:

www.ncld.com

RtI

Video

RtI Positions• Federal position:

– IDEA ’04– National Association of State Directors

of Special Education (NASDE) 2005

• State position:– Determines use & develops tier system

• Local position:– Determines use & develops tier system

I dentifying Students with Learning Disabilities Prior to I DEA 2004 & with RtI Prior to I DEA 2004 RtI

No universal academic screening All students are screened

Little progress monitoring

Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks-multiple data points are collected

over an extended period of time across difference tiers of intervention

“Wait to fail” model-students not provided with interventions until they have qualified for special

education

Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling; there is an increased focus on

proactive responses to students difficulties

Focus on within-child problems or deficits Ecological focus. Systems approach to problem solving, focused on instruction and interventions varied on time,

intensity, and focus Clear eligibility criteria (i.e. a child either did or did not qualify for special education services)

Categorical approach-targeted, intensive interventions typically not provided unless a

student was found eligible for special education.

Tiered model of service delivery with interventions

provided to all students who demonstrate a need for support, regardless of whether they have a disability

label. Multi-disciplinary team mostly made up of special

education professionals; individual students typically referred by classroom teachers with

academic and/or behavioral concerns.

Problem solving (for intervention) teams include general and special educators; teams consider progress

monitoring data and all students who are not reaching benchmarks.

Reliance on assessments, particularly

standardized tests.

Collaborative educational decisions based on ongoing school, classroom, and individual student data;

adjustments to instruction/ intervention based on data. Assessment data collected during a limited

number of sessions. Multiple data points collected over time and in direct

relationship to the intervention provided. “Comprehensive evaluation” consisting mainly of

formal assessments conducted by individual members of the multi-disciplinary team, often the same battery of tests administered to all

referred children.

“Full and individualized evaluation” relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RTI process; evaluation includes a student’s response to specific

validated interventions and other data gathered through observations, teacher and parent checklist, and

diagnostic assessments. LD constructs of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement as compared to a

measure of the child’s ability (i.e. IQ vs. achievement discrepancy)

LD constructs of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students

(“true peers”), even struggling ones.

RtI Assumptions• There is effective instruction occurring in the GEC

• RtI respects learner characteristics & styles

• In the absence of high quality instruction RTI is not possible

• Small group settings become universal

• Leaders in the school, state, and local levels are ill-prepared to start RTI

• Inadequate training to personnel

• Understanding high quality instruction in early reading vs. less developed understanding in other academic areas

• RTI is perceived as a Special Education plan

• Local and state policies may conflict with the RTI movement

• School Psy affected

RtI Issues

Do you see any assumptions & issues related to GPSS?

RtI: Implications

• GET must provide effective education

• Collaborative team efforts• Paper work (data)• Small class sizes• More schools• Supplies & equipment accountability• Personnel requirements (training, professional

development)

• Can it be done effectively, for its purpose, on Guam?

The bottom line in a nutshell…

• NCLB, IDEA, NCLD, etc. support RtI, yet do not mandate it’s methodology

• SEA/LEA are still in charge of their education• RtI is for ALL students• RtI can be used as a Special Education Process• RtI can be used in ANY district• RtI is a process for General & Special

education

• What needs to be done to implement this program, District-wide, on Guam? (no superintendent jokes)

References Baker, Scott K., Ph.D., Eugenia Coronado Pacific Institutes for

Research, University of Oregon, 23rd Pacific EducationConference, July 11-14, 2006, Koror, Palau

Bender, W. & Shores, C. Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide to Every Teacher. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press

Vaughn, S. & Bos C. Teaching Students with Learning & Behavior Problems. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Press

National Center for Learning Disabilities: http://www.ncld.org National Center on Response to Intervention:

http://www.rti4success.org US Department of Education: http://idea.ed.gov Wrightslaw: http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.htm

Tier IV: Special education: Long-term and intensive service individualized for student needs

Tier III: Problem Solving: Targeted individualized interventions (modification to the standard protocol) in general education/Special Education

Tier II: Standard Protocol Treatments: Small group intervention (3-5) in general education/Special Education

Tier I: General Education: All students

Tier 1 (& 2)High Quality core instruction for all

in the general education classroom

Tier 2 or 3Supplemental

Instruction

Tier 3 or 4Intensive Instruction

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

Classifying Reading Programs:

What is the purpose of the program?

1. Core

2. Supplemental

3. Intervention

Core

Reading ProgramMeeting the needs for most

Supplemental

Reading ProgramSupporting the Core

Core

Supplemental

Intervention

Intervention

Reading Program Meeting the needs for each

(Vaughn et al. 2001)

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

TIER 1: CLASS INSTRUCTION FOR READING

Focus

Program

Interventionist

Setting

Grouping

Time

Assessment

For all students

Scientific-based reading instruction and curriculum emphasizing the five critical elements of beginning reading

General education teacher

General education classroom

Multiple grouping formats (large, moderate, small) to meet student needs (initial instruction, review, etc)

90 minutes per day or more (as specified by the program)

Benchmark assessment at beginning, middle, and end of the academic year

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

Name

Oral Reading Fluency

Instructional RecommendationScore Percentile Status

John 1 2 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Lee 1 2 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Thomas 6 4 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Sheila 19 14 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Aaron 21 16 At Risk Intensive - Needs Substantial Intervention

Timothy 27 22 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Tiffany 28 23 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Jose 31 25 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Austin 38 36 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Kayla 40 38 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Ashley 41 39 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Mitchell 42 40 Some Risk Strategic - Additional Intervention

Greg 44 43 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Darek 47 46 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Jerry 48 47 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Jesus 64 59 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Melissa 68 63 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Justin 88 80 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Maria 89 82 Low Risk Benchmark - At Grade Level

Tier I Screening in General Education

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

Which 2nd graders are in

need of intensive instructional

support?

Which 2nd graders need

strategic instructional

support?

Tier I Screening in General Education

• Students in Third Grade with Office ReferralsWhich 3rd

graders are in

most need of

behavioral

support?

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

TIER 2: SUPPLEMENTAL INSTRUCTION

Focus

Program

Setting

Grouping

Time

Assessment

For students identified with marked reading difficulties, and who have not responded to Tier I efforts

Personnel determined by the school (e.g., a classroom teacher, a specialized reading teacher, an external interventionist)

Appropriate setting designated by the school;may be within or outside of the classroom

Homogeneous small group instruction (1:3, 1:4, 1:5, 1:8, etc)

Minimum of 30 minutes per day in small group in additionto the specified core reading instruction

Progress monitoring more often (e.g., weekly, 2xmonth, etc.) on target skill(s) to ensure adequate progress and learning

Specialized, research-based reading program(s) emphasizing the five critical elements of beginning reading

Interventionist

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

Program

Focus

Interventionist

Setting

Grouping

Time

Assessment

For students with marked difficulties in reading or reading disabilities and who have not responded adequately to Tier I and Tier II efforts

Appropriate setting designated by the school

Homogeneous small group instruction (1:1 to 1:3)Minimum of two 30-minute sessions per day in small group in addition to the core reading instruction

Sustained, intensive, scientifically based reading program(s) emphasizing the critical elements of reading for students with reading difficulties/disabilities

Personnel determined by the school (e.g., a classroom teacher, a specialized reading teacher, an external interventionist)

TIER 3: INTENSIVE INTERVENTION

Progress monitoring more often (e.g., weekly, 2xmonth, etc.) on target skills to ensure adequate progress and learning

(Baker, PEC Palau, 2006)

I dentifying Students with Learning Disabilities Prior to I DEA 2004 & with RtI Prior to I DEA 2004 RtI

No universal academic screening All students are screened

Little progress monitoring

Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks-multiple data points are collected

over an extended period of time across difference tiers of intervention

“Wait to fail” model-students not provided with interventions until they have qualified for special

education

Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling; there is an increased focus on

proactive responses to students difficulties

Focus on within-child problems or deficits Ecological focus. Systems approach to problem solving, focused on instruction and interventions varied on time,

intensity, and focus Clear eligibility criteria (i.e. a child either did or did not qualify for special education services)

Categorical approach-targeted, intensive interventions typically not provided unless a

student was found eligible for special education.

Tiered model of service delivery with interventions

provided to all students who demonstrate a need for support, regardless of whether they have a disability

label. Multi-disciplinary team mostly made up of special

education professionals; individual students typically referred by classroom teachers with

academic and/or behavioral concerns.

Problem solving (for intervention) teams include general and special educators; teams consider progress

monitoring data and all students who are not reaching benchmarks.

Reliance on assessments, particularly

standardized tests.

Collaborative educational decisions based on ongoing school, classroom, and individual student data;

adjustments to instruction/ intervention based on data. Assessment data collected during a limited

number of sessions. Multiple data points collected over time and in direct

relationship to the intervention provided. “Comprehensive evaluation” consisting mainly of

formal assessments conducted by individual members of the multi-disciplinary team, often the same battery of tests administered to all

referred children.

“Full and individualized evaluation” relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RTI process; evaluation includes a student’s response to specific

validated interventions and other data gathered through observations, teacher and parent checklist, and

diagnostic assessments. LD constructs of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement as compared to a

measure of the child’s ability (i.e. IQ vs. achievement discrepancy)

LD constructs of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students

(“true peers”), even struggling ones.