Post on 25-Dec-2015
Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference
April 24, 2009Macquarie University, Sydney
Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
Applied University Research in an Inner-City Community
University of Kansaswww.jgcp.ku.edu
JGCP began in the mid-1960s when residents of NE Kansas City, KS joined with KU Faculty to address concerns about child development in a low-income community
Children have: Improved their academic performance Enhanced their social skills Entered school being more ready to learn Accelerated their learning of language
Families and caregivers have: Become more actively involved in early intervention
programs Learned effective ways to support their children’s
learning at home Become more self-sufficient Learned to manage their child’s behavior Found support from other caregivers and staff
www.jgcp.ku.edu
• Founding of Applied Behavior Analysis in Education and Special Education
• Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of American Children (Hart & Risley, 1995)
• ClassWide Peer Tutoring Impacts on Beginning Reading Achievement (What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_070907.pdf
• Children with Autism can benefit from small group as well as one to one instruction
Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference
April 24, 2009Macquarie University, Sydney
Introduce the RtI concept Share some known outcomes for children
in the elementary grades Discuss how well features of RtI align with
the principles/practices of early childhood Illustrate how RtI is beginning to be
applied to children younger than Kindergarten.
Introduce ways of get started in using RtI with preschool-aged children (see online at www.crtiec.org)
The issues Improving results for young children with and
without disabilities Waiting too long to prevent a delay from
becoming a disability Policies regarding receipt of early intervention
and early childhood special education services
Accountability for results Evidence-based practice
Compared to conventional practice, the RtI approach promises to improve results
RTI is a process designed to: Allow for earlier identification of students not
making progress given the current level of service
Provide these students with an increased level of instructional intensity matched to their demonstrated response-to-intervention
Provide a data-based method for evaluating the effectiveness of the selected instructional approaches and changing/improving them
• In the States, primarily from learning disabilities and the “discrepancy model” of documenting a gap between a student’s aptitude and achievement• Required that a student experience a
sustained period of failure to achieve before services could be referred and more intensive services could be delivered.
IEP Implementation
IEP Goals Objectives
ScreenComprehensive
AssessmentReferral
AnnualUpdate
Is the child eligible for services?
Is there a problem?
yes
no
no
yes
In this approach, children do not receive services typically until grades 2 and 3, after a period of failure to progress!
•More Dynamic
•More Data-Driven
•More Responsive
In this approach, children receive services sooner and more frequently when needed
Reduction in the need for special education by improving and providing services earlier than in the past
Assessment that helps determine when something more is needed, and how it’s working Children not meeting developmental goals Support for intervention allocation decisions Short-term response to intervention
Instruction that is more individualized, more responsive to a child’s needs, and that can be implemented without long delays
A coordinated system of care and education that finds children, and brings services to them at appropriate speed
Improved academic outcomes Improved behavior outcomes
Greenwood, C. R., Kratchowill, T., & Clements, M. (2008). School-wide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford.
Programs establish and use the following core practices: Universal screening and frequent
progress monitoring assessments A decision making approach that focuses
on students’ progress or lack of progress (i.e., their response to intervention) as a basis for changing the intensity of children’s instructional experiences.
Evidence-based interventions provided in 3 or 4 levels of intensity as needed
ScreeningAnd ProgressMonitoringMeasures
Curriculum-Based
Assessment
Monitor
Identify/Validate Need
For Intervention
Generate Intervention
Strategies
ImplementIntervention
EvaluateIntervention
Effectiveness
Monitor
©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
1. Use of monitoring to determine if students are making progress or not
2. Use of multiple tiers of intervention 3. Problem-solving approach to
determine most appropriate level of intervention for individual students
4. Reliance on evidence-based practices in all tiers
Instruction is available that varies across tiers of intensity that are related to the nature and severity of students’ difficulties.
• Tier 1: Evidence-based core curricula and instructional practices provided to all children
• Tier 2: More intensified instruction for children, for example, increased opportunities to practice skills in addition to Tier 1 curriculum
• Tier 3: More focused, individualized intervention for children
1. Evidence-based practice2. Time and Opportunities to Respond
(OTR)3. Group Size4. Focus5. Specificity of Instructional Design6. Teacher Involvement7. Progress Monitoring
1. Evidence-based practice Tier 1: Universal language/literacy curriculum (e.g.,
OWLS) and literacy rich classroom environment Tier 2: Phonemic Awareness activities supporting Tier 1 Tier 3: Supplemental or alternative to the Tier 1
curriculum2. Time and Opportunities to Respond (OTR)
Tier 1: Full day, literacy rich classroom, and activities evoking responding to goals and objectives
Tier 2: 15-20 minutes of instruction supplemental to Tier 1
Tier 3: 20-30 minute sessions with scripted lessons3. Group Size
Tier 1: Large and small groups Tier 2: Small groups Tier 3: Very small groups, One-on-one
3. Focus Tier 1: Curricular goals and objectives Tier 2: Tier 1 Curricular goals and objectives Tier 3: Restricted scope and skills sequence focused on
prerequisite and priority skill learning4. Specificity of Instructional Design
Tier 1: Low to moderate Tier 2: Moderate to high targeting key skills in the Tier 1
curriculum Tier 3: Highly specific
5. Teacher Involvement Tier 1: Teacher-led and independent activities Tier 2: Paraprofessional-supported activity centers Tier 3: Teacher-led
6. Progress Monitoring Tier 1: Quarterly Tier 2: Monthly/Weekly Tier 3: Weekly
All students are screened on a regular basis
Progress monitoring is carried out more frequently on students in upper level tiers Progress monitoring measures are quick and
easy and designed for teachers to administer. Progress monitoring measures help determine
if students are responding to the intervention by tracking their level and rate of growth on targeted skills.
They are used for instructional planning—not diagnosis.
They are not tied to a specific curriculum.
36 Mos Expectation
Child’s Observed Trajectory
Normative Trajectory
©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project
Early education is already firmly behind the idea of prevention and finding children who need additional support as early as possible.
The “idea” of monitoring progress has been part of providing quality early intervention.
Individualizing instruction within the context of the general classroom is considered “recommended practice.”
We are just beginning to have a set of progress monitoring measures with sound psychometric properties that can be used in RtI models.
We are just beginning to see these measures used within problem-solving models.
We are just beginning to see the development of tiered interventions with general education settings.
What system is in place to implement the model?
Current RtI models assume coordinated teamwork between general education and special education to carry out screening, progress monitoring and to implement multiple tiers of intervention.
What evidence-based instructional practices are available? Limited research-based interventions are available and
limited implementation of evidence-based practice is currently being carried out—especially in Tier 1.
What personnel are available? Current RtI models assume a highly level of expertise to
carry out higher level tiers.
What are you doing already with assessment? How will that fit with implementing a progress monitoring/RtI model? How does this fit with accountability related assessments?
Problem-Solving Model: How will special education work together with general education in doing this?
How would the infrastructure need to change to support implementing an RtI model in early childhood? (service delivery, professional development etc.)
• Strategic planning• Model demonstration sites
• Program evaluation
Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC) http://www.crtiec.org/ http://www.crtiec.org/RTI/
rtiposition.shtml RTI Action Network
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Parents-and-Families
Get support from program administrators
Consider organizational & contextual factors
Engage in long-range planningDevelop a plan for
communicating with families
Create core problem-solving teamAssess key dimensions of Tier 1
quality/make necessary improvements
Select assessment tools & tiered interventions
Provide intensive, ongoing professional development
Judy Carta, Ph.DJuniper Gardens Children’s Project
University of Kansas650 Minnesota Avenue2nd FloorKansas City, KS 66101Phone: 913-321-3143carta@ku.eduwww.crtiec.org
Charles Greenwood, Ph.D.
Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas
650 Minnesota Avenue2nd FloorKansas City, KS 66101Phone: 913-321-3143greenwood@ku.edu www.crtiec.org