Theresa M. Janczak, Ph.D.

Assistant ProfessorExceptional EducationBuffalo State College

Theresa M. Janczak

Develop a better understanding surrounding the construct of RtI

Discuss the impact of RtI relative to your role as an educator

Identify source materials related to RtI

Definition of RtIRationale: Where did it come from

and why do we need it? Support for RtI in Federal LawEssential FeaturesRtI as a Multi-tiered Prevention

SystemProgress Monitoring and CBMNext StepsResources

RtI is the practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student

needs

and

monitoring progress on a frequent basis by examining learning rate over time and level of performance

to

inform educational decisions.

NASDSE, 2005

Dramatic increase in the number of students identified as LD = costly special education programs

Dissatisfaction with current method of identifying students with LD

Identification and services occur too late 88% of poor readers in first grade will

continue to poor readers in fourth grade (Juel, 1988)

7

Is there a significant difference between a student’s score on an IQ test and scores on an achievement test?

Relies on a “WAIT to FAIL’ MODEL

Fails to consider that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a child's learning delay.

A ‘severe discrepancy’ between test scores provides no useful information about WHY the student is doing poorly academically.

Provides limited instructional utility

Lack of uniformity among states regarding discrepancy formulas

RTI LD as nonresponders to validated instruction.

ASSUMPTION: If a child does not respond to instruction that is effective for the vast majority of children, then there is something different about the child experiencing the nonresponse.

RtI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viable explanation for learning difficulty.

•President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)• Excessive paperwork limited instruction• 2 separate systems• Poor instruction may contribute to poor achievement

• National Research Council (2002)•Advocated early screening and RtI models

• LD Summit (2001)• IQ-Achievement discrepancy formulas inadequate• Need for alternative approaches

• Reauthorization of IDEA 2004• Promotes early screening and intervention• Recommends a multi-tier intervention strategy • Better integration between general and special education• On-going, systematic progress monitoring

Where Did It Come From?

IDEA 2004 includes two important innovations designed to promote change:

Explicitly allows states to use RtI to identify LD, and

Forbids states from forcing schools to use a discrepancy model to identify LD.▪ Until July 1, 2012

IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found eligible for special education if they have not received instruction in reading that is scientifically research-based, including the five essential components of reading instruction identified by the Reading First Program. Phonics Reading fluency Vocabulary development Reading comprehension Phonemic awareness

Ensure that underachievement of a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, …

Obtain data which 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

Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

• Data-based documentation of repeated

assessments of achievement at reasonable

intervals, reflecting formal assessment of

student progress, during instruction, which is

provided to the child’s parents.

Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

Authorizes the use of RtI in the State's criteria to determine learning disabilities (LD) and requires, effective July 1, 2012, that all school districts have an RtI program in place as part of the process to determine if a student in grades K-4 is a student with a learning disability in the area of reading. “Effective on or after July 1, 2012, a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria to determine that a student in kindergarten through grade four has a learning disability in the area of reading.” [8 NYCRR section 200.4(j)]

…a focus on intervention rather than on what is wrong with the child

… a focus on the solution rather than the problem

… a focus on addressing the needs of all students having difficulty, not just those with labels

… a focus on positive outcomes for all students

… a focus on all educators being responsible for all children

…better integration of programs and services for all children

Special Ed.Reading Recovery

General Education

Title I

Special Education

Remedial Reading

General Education

Special Education

Intervention

General Education

Special Education

High quality, research-based instruction and intervention

Interventions with increasing intensity

Measurement universal screening for all 3 times per yearsystematic and frequent progress monitoring to determine

response by examining: level of performance rate of performance

Data-based decision-making

Multi-tiered Model

22

Tier 2• inexpensive

diuretics

•frequent monitoring

Tier 3

• annual check –up• HBP screening indicates risk• monitor over next 6-8 weeks to verify or disconfirm

risk

Tier 1

• experimentation w/more expensive medications e.g. ACE inhibitors, beta blockers)

• on-going monitoring

Tier 1• annual check-up

• screened for high-blood pressure

• monitor over the next 6-8 weeks to verify or disprove initial results

23

TIER 2: Secondary Prevention- Validated or researched-based tutoring- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPONSIVE

AT RISK

TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention- Special education- PM to set IEP goals- PM to formulate individualized programs- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPONSIVE

TIER 1: Primary Prevention- General education setting- Research-based instruction- Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk- PM to (dis)confirm risk status

TIER 2: Secondary Prevention

- Validated or researched-based tutoring- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPON.

AT RISK

TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention

- Special education- PM to set IEP goals- PM to formulate individualized programs- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPON.

TIER 1: Primary Prevention

- General education setting- Research-based instruction- Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk- PM to (dis)confirm risk status

1. Screen all students to identify suspected at-risk students.

2. Monitor progress of students suspected to be at risk to (dis)confirm risk.

3. Provide second preventative tutoring to at-risk students, while progress is monitored to assess response.

TIER 2: Secondary Prevention

- Validated or researched-based tutoring- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPON.

AT RISK

TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention

- Special education- PM to set IEP goals- PM to formulate individualized programs- PM to assess responsiveness

RESPONSIVE

UNRESPON.

TIER 1: Primary Prevention

- General education setting- Research-based instruction- Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk- PM to (dis)confirm risk status

4. Move students who prove unresponsive to secondary preventative tutoring to tertiary prevention. They receive comprehensive evaluation to answer questions and to determine disability.

5. Monitor progress in tertiary prevention to set IEP goals, formulate effective programs, and determine exit decisions.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Dig

its

Co

rrec

t in

on

e m

inu

te

3rd Grade Math Addition and Subtraction 0-18

26

3rd Grade Addition and Subtraction 0-18

010203040506070

John Sue

Steve

Sherry

Bridge

tM

ike

Laris

a

Carle

yTom

EliasTyle

rEva

nZane

Kadon

Jasm

ine

Nicole

Gina

Carde

nas

Tiffan

yKris

Sherm

anAar

onSky

e

Gra

ham

Roxan

n

Dig

its

Co

rrec

t in

On

e M

inu

te

27

A student who makes expected gains and makes progress when evidence-

based instruction is provided in the general education

classroom.

A student who makes minimal or no gains

after being taught with high quality, validated

interventions.

RESPONDER NONRESPONDER

MONITOR STUDENT’S PROGRESS

USING CURRICULUM

BASED MEASUREMENTS

(CBM)

A method of monitoring student progress Basic skills assessment:

Reading Mathematics Spelling Written expression

Timed and brief “probes” Standardized administration CBM probes – 1 to 5 minutes Probes scored for:

Speed or fluency Accuracy of performance

Screening

Progress Monitoring

Instructional Diagnosis

Quick and easy to administer

Curriculum overlap

Sensitive to change over short period of time

Backed by 25 years of empirical research supporting its use

Pre-Reading Measures Phoneme

Segmentation Letter Sound

Fluency Letter Name

Fluency Nonsense Word

Fluency

Reading Measures Oral Reading

Fluency Maze Fluency

Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32.

http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

Mathematics Measures Computation Concepts and

Applications

Spelling Measure

Written Expression Measure

Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32.

http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

35

INCREASING SCORES:

Student is becoming a better reader.

FLAT SCORES:

Student is not profiting from instruction and requires a change

in the instructional program.

36

Wo

rds

Re

ad C

orr

ect

ly

Sarah SmithReading 2

Sep Nov Dec Jan Feb Mar Apr May

Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (Pro-Ed Online, 2006);

DIBELS (2006); Intervention CBM probes

(Interventioncentral.org) FREEAIMSweb (2006)

37

38

Intervention Central—CBM Warehousewww.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/

interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml National Center on Student Progress

Monitoringwww.studentprogress.org Official DIBELS Homepagewww.dibels.uoregon.edu Research Institute on Progress

Monitoringprogressmonitoring.org

OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM

No universal screening

Little progress monitoring

“WAIT to FAIL” model

Focus on within-in child problems or deficits

Clear eligibility criteria

All students are screened

Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks

Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling

Ecological focus

Tiered model of delivery

OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM

Multidisciplinary team made up mainly of special education personnel

Reliance on assessment, particularly standardized tests

Assessment data collected during a limited # of sessions

Problem solving or intervention team; include general and special educators

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

Multiple data points collected over time and in direct relationship to the intervention provided

OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM

Comprehensive evaluation consisting of mainly formal assessment

LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” as compared to a measure of the child’s ability (IQ-achievement discrepancy)

Full and individualized evaluation relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RtI process

LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students, even struggling ones.

42

The devil is in the details. The success of Response to Intervention will depend on whether it is appropriately implemented by highly-trained professionals - and this is likely to be a problem.

http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.htm