Response to Intervention: Blistering Questions - Searing Answers EED Winter Education Conference...

Response to Intervention: Blistering Questions - Searing

Answers

EED Winter Education Conference

Informing Instruction: Improving Achievement

W. David Tilly III, Ph.D.Heartland Area Education Agency 11

January 18, 2007

Correspondence about this presentation should be directed to David Tilly, Heartland AEA 11, 6500 Corporate Dr., Johnston, IA 50131. Email is [email protected], (515) 321-9554.

Questions and Answers From many sources

NASP Listserve National Association of State Directors of Special Education Presentations Around the Country Misinformation Coming Out From Various Avenues Comments on Regulations Ongoing Conversations

Answers are based on best information at the time Some of the questions in the presentation aren’t in the

handout Areas

Assessment Due Process and Procedural Safeguards System Impacts

Assessment

Can We Just Do RtI and Forget the Problem Solving?

No Problem solving is the

decision making framework upon which each tier of RtI is built

The same thinking structures are used at each level of the model

Problem Solving

Relationship Between Heartland Problem Solving Model and 3-Tier Model

INTENSITY OF PROBLEM

Low High

Low

High

Am

ou

nt

of

Re

sou

rces

Ne

eded

A New Way to Look At the 3-Tier Model

IDM Guiding Questions

CORE 5. Is the core program sufficient? 6. If the core is not sufficient, why isnÕt core sufficient? 7. How will needs identified in core be addressed? 8. How will the sufficiency and effectiveness of the core

program be monitored over time? 9. Have improvements to the core been effective?

SUPPLEMENTAL

6. For which students is the core program sufficient and not sufficient, and why?

1. What specific supplemental instruction is needed?

2. How will specific supplemental instruction be delivered?

3. How will the effectiveness of supplemental instruction be monitored?

4. Which students need to move to a different level of instruction?

INTENSIVE 12. For which students is the core

or supplemental instruction sufficient and not sufficient? If not, why not?

13. What specific intensive instruction is needed?

14. How will specific intensive instruction be delivered?

15. How will the effectiveness of intensive instruction be monitored?

16. Which students need to move to a different level of instruction?

RtI Guiding Questions

1. Is the core program sufficient?2. If the core program is not sufficient, why isn’t it?3. How will needs identified in the core be addressed?4. How will the effectiveness and efficiency of the core be monitored over

time?5. Have improvements to the core been effective? 6. For which students is the core program sufficient or not sufficient and why?7. What specific supplemental and intensive instruction is needed?8. How will supplemental and intensive instruction be delivered?9. How will effectiveness of supplemental and intensive instruction be

monitored?10. Which students need to move to a different level of instruction?

TheseRepeat forSupplementalIntensive

Will comprehensive evaluations change as a result of RtI? If so, how?

Yes Remember, Full and Individual RtI changes in the nature of the comprehensive

evaluation away from testing for eligibility to an organization of data already collected on the student’s instructional progress for planning increasingly intense interventions. The regulations indicate that districts can choose RtI or a discrepancy model, but there is no point in a discrepancy model if RTI is in place. (NASDSE, 2006)

Illustration for Students with Disabilities (e.g., Melissa)

WISC-III Woodcock Johnson – R Stanford Diagnostic

Reading Test Motor Screen Bender Teacher Interview Speech Screening Health History Social History Educational History

Intervention Summary Review

Vision-Hearing Screening Parent and Teacher

Interviews CBM Normative

Comparisons Curriculum-Based

Evaluation Survey-Level Curriculum-Based

Evaluation Specific-Level Procedures

Our Old System Our New System

300.304 Evaluation Procedures

(4) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities;

Emphasis Added

Due Process and Procedural Safeguards

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (Uncompressed) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

At what point in the RtI process must parents be notified of their Due Process Rights?

Same as always: When someone reasonably asks the questions whether a student might have a disability

Criteria for suspecting disability

Both Intensity and Severity of problems

What protections are in the RtI system to protect parents’ and students’ rights?

Many Due process as a continuum Students doing fine get less than students who are

challenged All or Nothing - NOT Protections

Invitation early Consistent and effective communication about what’s

important The “Trigger” Progress monitoring data



Is it legal to collect individual student performance data without getting parental permission?

Qualified yes Depends on why you’re

doing it General education

instruction and improvement

Special education entitlement decisions

Omnibus notice is important

IDEIA ‘04 Regulations

§ 300.302 Screening for instructional purposes is not evaluation. The screening of a student by a teacher or specialist to determine appropriate instructional strategies for curriculum implementation shall not be considered to be an evaluation for eligibility for special education and related services.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1414(a)(1)(E))

Given that we only have 60 days to complete a comprehensive evaluation, how can we do that and still maintain RtI integrity?

There are a few keys here1. Do not define the levels structurally (e.g., 1 =

general education, 2 = title 1, 3 = special education)

2. Do not require a SPED referral prior to general education interventions

3. Do not get permission for “testing” prior to implementing general education interventions

4. Remember the purpose of your actions

Can parents request a comprehensive evaluation in RtI systems?

Certainly, parents can request anything they want to request

They cannot, however, dictate what that comprehensive assessment will be

That is a professional decision guided by your state rules

Do not fight with parents over this!QuickTime™ and a

TIFF (Uncompressed) decompressorare needed to see this picture.

Doesn’t the Federal Law require that we give IQ tests to identify students with disabilities?

No The federal law does not require you to give

any specific kind of tests The requirements for assessments are very

broad



IMPORTANT POINT

There is tremendous flexibility within IDEA

One of Iowa’s greatest learnings as a state was that “we did it to ourselves”

That is, most of the restrictions we perceived as barriers to changing what we were doing – they were self imposed by our state’s interpretation of the Federal Law and Regulations

Federal Law and Regs are Prescriptive About Few Things in Assessment and Intervention §300.304

Non discriminatory on a racial or cultural basis

Administered in child's native language

Validated for specific purpose for which they are used

Administered by trained personnel in conformance with the instructions provided by their producer


No single procedure may be used for determining an appropriate education

Using technically sound instruments

The evaluation must be conducted by a multidisciplinary team

Include assessments to assess educational need - not just IQ

The child must be assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability


The evaluation is sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of the child special education and related services needs

Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information in determining the educational needs of the child are provided


A variety of assessment tools and strategies are used to gather relevant functional and developmental information about the child...

That may assist in determining the content of the child’s IEP, including information related to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum

However…..

Your state may require specific things Iowa’s learnings - we did it to ourselves How we interpret federal law at a state level

has profound impact on the things we do day to day in our schools

Evaluation type, frequency, and percentage of total assessments in Heartland AEA 111997-2002

•Assessment Type•Initial Evaluations •Re-Evaluations

•Functional Academic Assessment •8,513 (51%) •5,201 (47%)

•Communication •2,985 (18%) •851 (8%)

•Behavioral Assessment •2,037 (12%) •1,817 (16%)

•Health •808 (5%) •481 (4%)

•Social Functioning •688 (4%) •589 (5%)

•Hearing •542 (3%) •234 (2%)

•School Readiness •404 (2%) •215 (2%)

•Motor Functioning •333 (2%) •454 (4%)

•Vision •175 (<1%) •140 (1%)

•Educational History •111 (<1%) •149 (1%)

•Vocational •99 (<1%) •908 (8%)

•Intellect •15 (<1%) •7 (0%)

•Grand Total •16,710 •11,046

•Number of Students Assessed •8,189 •5,027

What Happened: Assessments

If we don’t use IQ tests in identification of disability, will families still have access to external agencies that need these data (e.g., SSI, Voc. Rehab)?

Generally yes It is important for the

educational system to be working with community, state and federal agencies to ensure access

What is your system’s responsibility to provide other systems with data?

Think how you can influence this process…



Cognitive processing is part of the SLD definition in the IDEIA statute, shouldn’t we be assessing cognitive processing as part of our LD comprehensive assessments?

Answer The Department does not believe that an assessment of psychological or cognitive

processing should be required in determining whether a child has an SLD. There is no current evidence that such assessments are necessary or sufficient for identifying SLD. Further, in many cases, these assessments have not been used to make appropriate intervention decisions. However, § 300.309(a)(2)(ii) permits, but does not require, consideration of a pattern of strengths or weaknesses, or both, relative to intellectual development, if the evaluation group considers that information relevant to an identification of SLD. In many cases, though, assessments of cognitive processes simply add to the testing burden and do not contribute to interventions. As summarized in the research consensus from the OSEP Learning Disability Summit (Bradley, Danielson, and Hallahan, 2002), ‘‘Although processing deficits have been linked to some SLD (e.g., phonological processing and reading), direct links with other processes have not been established. Currently, available methods for measuring many processing difficulties are inadequate. Therefore, systematically measuring processing difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible * * *. Processing deficits should be eliminated from the criteria for classification * * *.’’ (p. 797). Concerns about the absence of evidence for relations of cognitive discrepancy and SLD for identification go back to Bijou (1942; 4 see Kavale, 2002). Cronbach (1957) characterized the search for aptitude by treatment interactions as a ‘‘hall of mirrors,’’ a situation that has not improved over the past few years as different approaches to assessment of cognitive processes have emerged (Fletcher et al., 2005; Reschly & Tilly, 1999)

ReferencesBradley, R., Danielson, L., & Hallahan, D.P. (Eds.). (2002). Identification of learning

disabilities: Research to practice. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.Bijou, S.W. (1942). The psychometric pattern approach as an aid to clinical assessment

—a review. American Journal of Mental Deficiency, 46, 354–362.Kavale, K. (2002). Discrepancy models in the identification of learning disabilities. In R.

Bradley, L. Danielson, & D.P. Hallahan (Eds.). Identification of learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 370–371). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Cronbach, L.J. (1957). The two disciplines of scientific psychology. American Psychologist, 12, 671–684.

Fletcher, J.M., Denton, C., & Francis, D.J. (2005). Validity of alternative approaches for the identification of LD: Operationalizing unexpected underachievement. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 545–552;

Reschly, D.J., & Tilly, W.D. (1999). Reform trends and system design alternatives. In D.J. Reschly, W.D. Tilly, III, and J.P. Grimes (Eds.). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

A Few Key Clarifications From the USDE Question: Many commenters requested more detail and specific

guidelines on RTI models, such as information on who initiates the RTI process and who should be involved in the process; how one ensures there is a strong leader for the RTI process; the skills needed to implement RTI models; the role of the general education teacher; how to determine that a child is not responsive to instruction, particularly a child with cultural and linguistic differences; the number of different types of interventions to be tried; the responsibility for monitoring progress; the measurement of treatment integrity; and ways to document progress.



Answer There are many RTI models and the regulations are

written to accommodate the many different models that are currently in use. The Department does not mandate or endorse any particular model. Rather, the regulations provide States with the flexibility to adopt criteria that best meet local needs. Language that is more specific or prescriptive would not be appropriate. For example, while we recognize that rate of learning is often a key variable in assessing a child’s response to intervention, it would not be appropriate for the regulations to set a standard for responsiveness or improvement in the rate of learning. As we discussed earlier in this section, we do not believe these regulations will result in significant increases in the number of children identified with SLD.



Is the intent of RtI identification of LD kids? No The goal of RtI is to deliver

evidence-based interventions and the second is to use students’ response to those interventions as a basis for determining instructional needs and intensity (NASDSE, 2006)

Data from RtI practices can be used for a variety of purposes, including as ONE COMPONENT of the data that may be collected for special education identification



Entitlement for Special Education

Educational Progress

Discrepancy InstructionalNeeds

Assessment and Progress DataFrom Problem Solving Process

Group and Individual Interventions

Convergence of Data from aVariety of Sources

System Impacts

What are the major phases of RtI Implementation?

Consensus Building Infrastructure Building Implementation



In a 3-tier model, you said that tier 3 is not “just” special education, can you explain?

Significant problems if we do this Tier 3 is the most intense level of intervention - not special

education. A student who does not respond to these intense interventions MAY qualify for special education: either the intensity or type of intervention required to improve

student performance either exceeds the resources in general education or

are not available in general education settings There are students with intensive learning needs that will not

qualify for SPED ELL Not exposed to SBRR C and I Talented and gifted

Isn’t RtI just another way of doing prereferral intervention?

RtI is more than prereferal services It is a comprehensive service delivery system that

requires significant changes in how a school serves all students.

When thought of as a prereferral system, it remains the province of special education and the desired integration of general education and special education services around the goal of enhanced outcomes for all students will not be achieved

Prereferral implies “referral” Can be perceived by the system as “the new way to

get kids in SPED”

Doesn’t implementing RtI move us toward a noncategorical special education system?

No The issues of RtI and Noncategorical are

separate issues You can have one and not the other



Possible Systems

RtI

Not RtI

Categorical Noncategorical

Yes Yes

Probably Not

Given newRegs, it is unclearWhat “not Rti”Is and if that’spossible.

Let’s take a look…

To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309 (a) The group described in § 300.306 may determine that a child

has a specific learning disability, as defined in § 300.8(c)(10), if— (1) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to

meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards (i) Oral expression. (ii) Listening comprehension. (iii) Written expression. (iv) Basic reading skill. (v) Reading fluency skills. (vi) Reading comprehension. (vii) Mathematics calculation. (viii) Mathematics problem solving.

With

in P

erso

n St

uff

To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

(2)(i) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention;

or (ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a specific learning disability, using appropriate assessments, consistent with §§ 300.304 and 300.305;

With

in o

r Bet

ween

Pers

on S

tuff

To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309

(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ 300.304 through 300.306— (1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral

process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, 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, which was provided to the child’s parents.

RtI St

uff

To Diagnose LD, We Must 300.309 (c) The public agency must promptly request parental consent

to evaluate the child to determine if the child needs special education and related services, and must adhere to the timeframes described in §§ 300.301 and 300.303, unless extended by mutual written agreement of the child’s parents and a group of qualified professionals, as described in § 300.306(a)(1)— (1) If, prior to a referral, a child has not made adequate progress

after an appropriate period of time when provided instruction, as described in paragraphs (b)(1) and (b)(2) of this section; and

(2) Whenever a child is referred for an evaluation.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e–3; 1401(30); 1414(b)(6))

RtI St

uff

Since RtI is new, shouldn’t we be moving slowly? After all, the old system wasn’t all that bad.

According to at multiple consensus reports, the old system WAS that bad Wait to fail Delaying effective treatment Use of less than research-

based strategies Progress not monitored

systematically Many, many children

remain nonreaders

Which is better, a problem solving system or a standard treatment protocol? Which should we implement?

This question is a red herring

The answer is: Both Putting them in

competition misses the point.

How Does it Fit Together? Group-Level Diagnostic Std. Treatment Protocol

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

Fall Winter Spring

UniversalScreening

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly ITBS/ITED

GroupDiagnostic

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

How Does it Fit Together? Uniform Standard Treatment Protocol

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

2x weekly

All Students at a grade level

Fall Winter Spring

UniversalScreening

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly ITBS/ITED

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

2-4 times/month

None

Small Group, all less than proficient students get the same, balanced, research-validated instruction

Where can I go to get more information on individual skills assessment related to instructional programming?

A really good sources is Ken Howell’s work Howell, K & Nolet, V. (1999). Curriculum-Based Evaluation

- Teaching and Decision Making. Pacific Grove, CA: Brooks-Cole.

NASP has a LOT of resources: Shinn, M. R., Walker, H. M., & Stoner, G. (Eds.)

(2002). Interventions for academic and behavior problems II: Preventive and remedial approaches. Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Isn’t the research base on RtI limited to beginning reading?

No We know most about reading The research is catching up with math We have a lot of information on RtI in social-emotional-

behavioral areas It is called Positive Behavior Supports A substantial body of research exists to demonstrate

the impact of an RtI model on the current system (e.g., referral rates, risk indices) as well as student variables (e.g., achievement). Fewer studies exist on the long-term outcomes for students from both “models.”



Are there any experimental studies comparing RtI to the historical system?

No, and there probably won’t be any The question is not of great interest Outcomes of the historical system are known Outcomes from many RtI implementations

are known The important question is one of scaling

which is a different research question than one invoked when we ask whether practices like RtI are effective or implementable

If we implement RtI, won’t we lose school psychologist positions? Can’t teachers do all that stuff?

The data are to the contrary Aware of no large-scale RtI implementations

nationally where school psychologists have been dramatically cut

Heartland case in point Over 10 years ago, 35 psychologists Now circa 62 in line psychologist positions More in specialty roles

It is up to us



It is up to us… We don’t want to do this..



What knowledge will be necessary to build in the system to do RtI?

Knowledge and skills influence educator efficacy. Levels of efficacy serve as good predictors of levels of practice implementation. PD plan must ensure solid understanding of RtI, including: difference between the deficit and risk models of student

performance and the assessment methods germane to each model (assessment for identification and instructionally relevant assessment);

difference between the intensity of a problem (gap between actual and desired performance) and the severity of a problem (determined by response to intervention);

What knowledge will be necessary to build in the system to do RtI?

relationship between the problem-solving model and RtI; range of interventions at Tiers 1, 2 and 3; central role that assessment of instructional quality plays in

RtI; need for a wide range of empirically validated instructional

practices in both general and special education programs; impact of using RtI on placement outcomes, funding

patterns and job security; essential role that progress monitoring measures play in

RtI; and importance of determining appropriate interventions based

on student data.QuickTime™ and a


What skills will be necessary to build in the system to do RtI?

Skills represent the practice component of knowledge and are derived from the breadth of the knowledge base. Skills that are not taught in the context of the knowledge base will not be sustained. Skills necessary to implement RtI include: assessing instructional quality with relevant assessment practices

(e.g., CBM, CBE, DIBELS); judging instruction quality (class performance) and individual student

levels of risk (response) through interpretation of assessment data; making accurate decisions regarding improving instruction quality,

selecting high-quality supplemental interventions and developing instructional accommodations;

making reliable student eligibility decisions; collaborating and communicating; and using technology to manage, display and disseminate assessment

data.

What happens to the placement rate of students in LD programs when the RtI approach is used instead of the discrepancy formula?

In many cases, it goes down Vail, AZ Heartland AEA 11, IA documented reductions in special education placement rates

during the first years of RtI implementation, particularly for grades K-3.

These reductions in placements occur concurrently with basic skill improvement within the same population.

fewer children are being placed in special education because more children are (1) being identified earlier via objective universal screenings; (2) are receiving intensive, scientifically validated instructional

interventions early in their education; and (3) as a result, are more successful at acquiring basic skills.

Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Kindergarten Across 36

School Buildings 1996-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02. 02-03 03-04

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

PE

D P

lace

men

ts

Prior to HELP

Mean

HELP Implementation

Mean

41% Decrease in Kindergarten New SPED

Placements

Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placments: First Grade Across 36

Schools 1996-2004

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-'02 02-'03 03-'04

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELP

Mean

HELP Implementation

Mean

34% Reduction in First-Grade New Special Education

Placements

Effect of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Second Grade for 36

Schools 1996-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELP

Mean

HELP Implementation

Mean

25% Reduction in New Second-Grade SPED Placements

Effects of Heartland Early Literacy Project on New Special Education Placements: Third-Grade for 36 Schools 1996-2004

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02. 02-03 03-04

School Year

Nu

mb

er o

f N

ew S

pec

ial E

du

cati

on

Pla

cem

ents

Prior to HELP

Mean

HELP Implementation

Mean

19% Reduction in Third-Grade New SPED Placements

Will the patterns of strengths and Weaknesses/RtI option currently permitted in IDEA 2004 result in differential placement rates across school districts?

Yes, there will be a difference in placement rates depending on the option chosen by an LEA. The discrepancy option has a documented history, which is largely responsible for the advocacy to change the federal law and regulations.

Variations in placement rates isnot a new phenomenon. QuickTime™ and a


What is the relationship between RtI and adequate yearly progress (AYP)?

There is a direct and positive relationship between RtI and AYP.

RtI aligns student needs with appropriate instruction. Assessing a student’s performance and adjusting

instruction based on response increases the likelihood of positive outcome

AYP is a measure of academic proficiency. Improved proficiency is reflected in the school’s and

the LEA’s AYP measures.

Question: How do you spell AYP?

Response to Intervention: Blistering Questions - Searing Answers EED Winter Education Conference...

Documents

Transcript of Response to Intervention: Blistering Questions - Searing Answers EED Winter Education Conference...