• Share
  • Email
  • Embed
  • Like
  • Save
  • Private Content
Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.
 

Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.

on

  • 8,038 views

Sue Courey, Ph.D. San Francisco State University...

Sue Courey, Ph.D. San Francisco State University
Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model.
With the emergence of standards-based reform, the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and the reauthorization of IDEA 2004, Response to Intervention (RTI) has received growing attention for its ability to more rapidly address the needs of students who are not making adequate academic achievement. However, the term ìRTIî has caused some confusion as school districts and educators scramble to implement this promising innovation. RTI is sometimes referred to as a model of service delivery but it is actually a component in a novel way to allocate educational resources. This presentation will acquaint participants with a new model of service delivery (allocation of educational resources) to include defining RTI, progress monitoring, and the evolving roles of school personnel working with at-risk and special needs populations: general education teachers, special education teachers, and school psychologists.

Statistics

Views

Total Views
8,038
Views on SlideShare
7,997
Embed Views
41

Actions

Likes
4
Downloads
131
Comments
0

4 Embeds 41

http://www.slideshare.net 26
http://nuonline.neu.edu 13
http://amandaspohn.blogspot.com 1
https://blackboard.vcu.edu 1

Accessibility

Categories

Upload Details

Uploaded via as Microsoft PowerPoint

Usage Rights

© All Rights Reserved

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
  • Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Processing…
Post Comment
Edit your comment
  • Add logo

Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model. Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model. Presentation Transcript

  • Response to Intervention: A Component in a Novel Educational Service Delivery Model San Francisco State University Sue Courey, Ph.D.
  • Today’s Purpose
    • To suggest a new way to allocate educational resources
    • To define Response to Intervention (RTI)
    • To describe progress monitoring
    • To outline the implementation of an effective RTI program
    • To present a real life example of students’ reading achievement with RTI
    • To discuss evolving roles of school personnel
  • Navigating Two Separate Educational Systems
    • General Education
    • Special Education
    • A Continuum of Services
      • IDEA 1997: Special education is not a place but a set of services
        • High Expectations and access to General Ed curriculum
        • Prereferral Interventions
        • Focus on teaching and learning, not paperwork
  • Educational Resources
  • Definition of RTI
    • “ Within the context of a multilayered prevention system, RTI integrates increasingly intensive instruction and, at each layer, employs assessment to identify students who are inadequately responsive [to sound instruction] and who therefore require intervention at the next, more intensive layer in the system” (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006).
  • Response to Intervention Overview
    • Response to Intervention is an emerging approach to allocating educational resources efficiently and matching them to students’ (all students) needs.
    • Commitment to utilize scientifically-based or evidenced-based instructional and behavioral strategies
    • Commitment to utilize data-based decision making to guide instruction and behavior monitoring (progress monitoring)
  • Allocating Educational Resources
    • Historical Categorical Program Funding (Title I, special education, English language learners, talented and gifted)
    • Tiered System where resources are allocated and matched to student needs (think more like a continuum rather than stacked tiers)
    • Least Restrictive Environment based on individualized student need (less false positives for special education)
  • Allocating Educational Resources
    • Screening for all children begins in the general education classroom where Sound Instructional and Behavioral Practices are already underway
    • Identify At-risk students using brief screening tools (e.g. CBM); OR identify students scoring below the 25th percentile on an achievement test or behavior rating scale
    • At-risk students are then assessed every week for 8 weeks to determine response to Sound Instructional and Behavioral classroom practices
  • What are scientifically-based Instructional and Behavioral Strategies?
    • Scientific research supporting their effectiveness (Randomized Control Trials)
    • Fidelity of Implementation documented
    • Respond to specific, individual needs
    • Monitor promising practices
  • Data-based Decision Making (Progress Monitoring)
    • Frequent data collection
    • Technically adequate measures
    • Interpretation of data at regular intervals
    • Changes to instruction based on data interpretation
  • Tiered Model of Service Delivery Source: NASDSE
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • General Education Best Practice:
      • School districts choose evidence-based curricula and instruction
      • Teachers are provided with relevant and rigorous professional development
      • Teachers implement the curricula and instruction, and their fidleity of implementation is documented
            • (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2005)
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students
    • Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness to classroom instruction each week
    • Identifying non-responders from at-risk group
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • Benchmark Screening: Initial screening at the beginning, middle, and end of the year to identify at-risk students
      • Best Practice:
        • All students are assessed using brief screening tools with diagnostic utility for predicting performance on reading and math state assessments, OR
        • Only assess students who performed below the 25th percetile on plast year’s state assessment or a more current achievement test
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • Monitoring at-risk students’ responsiveness to classroom instruction each week
      • Best Practice:
        • At-risk students are assessed every week for 8 weeks in the area of risk using brief monitoring tools
        • Adequate response is operationalized using:
          • Local normative estimates for weekely improvement, OR
          • National normative estimates for weekly improvement, OR
          • Criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • Identifying non-responders from at-risk group
      • Best Practice:
        • Choose estimate or criterion for adequate weekly improvement
        • Examine slopes of at-risk students to determine non-responders, students performing below the designated criterion for weekly improvement
        • Non-responders with written parental consent may access Tier 2 Services
  • Tier 2 General and Special Education
    • With parental permission:
    • Best Practices:
      • Non-responders participate in small group instruction (3:1) with student who have similar instructional strengths and weaknesses
      • Instruction occurs 3 times per week for 30 minutes persession
      • Instruction administered by certified teacher or aid who can accurately implement a scientifically validated, standard tutoring protocol
    (Fuchs, 2005)
  • Tier 2 General and Special Education
    • Tier 2: student response to the additional, more intense instruction or intervention is monitored each week
    • Identify students who are not responding to this more intense, scientifically-based instruction or intervention
    • Adequate response is determined by using normative estimates or criterion-referenced figures for weekly improvement
  • Progressing to Tier 3 General and Special Education
    • Non-responders receive individualized, comprehensive evaluation to address all eligibility determination, evaluation, and procedural safeguards specified in IDEA
    • Written parental consent
    • Evaluation team designs an evaluation to to rule out mental retardation using a brief intellectual assessment and possibly an adaptive behavior measure
    • Evaluation examines emotional disturbance, visual disabilities, and alternate diagnoses
  • Tier 3 Special Education
    • Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
    • Assessment based
    • Individualized interventions
    • Intense, durable procedures
  • RTI Academic Case Study
    • Reading
    • Measure
    • Instruction in Tier 1
    • Instruction in Tier 2
    • Sample Responders and Non-responders
  • Reading Fluency in Grade 3
    • Measure: AIMSWEB R-CBM
    • Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is a reliable and valid measurement system for evaluating basic skills growth.
    • Oral Reading Fluency
  • Tier 1 General Education
    • All students are administered 3 one minute oral reading fluency probes at the beginning of the school year
    • The students’ median or middle score is documented
    • Students scoring below the designated norm are identified as at-risk for reading failure
    • Teachers measure students at-risk once each week on a different form of R-CBM
  • Tier 2 Norms for Determining Adequate Response
    • There are three general methods for estimating the ‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level:
    • Local Norms : A sample of students at a school is screened in an academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989)
    • Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996)
    • Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks : A minimum level, or threshold, of competence is determined for a skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)
  • Example: Norms for Reading Fluency
    • Reading Fluency is often measured to monitor response to reading instruction because it is a good predictor of reading achievement
    • Reading fluency can be measured easily and efficiently
  • Baylor Elementary School : Grade Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min : Sample Size: 23 Students Group Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min: Book 4-1: Raw Data 31 34 34 39 41 43 52 55 59 61 68 71 74 75 85 89 102 108 112 115 118 118 131
    • LOCAL NORMS EXAMPLE: Twenty-three 4 th -grade students were administered oral reading fluency Curriculum-Based Measurement passages at the 4 th -grade level in their school.
    • In their current number form, these data are not easy to interpret.
    • So the school converts them into a visual display—a box-plot —to show the distribution of scores and to convert the scores to percentile form.
    • When Billy, a struggling reader, is screened in CBM reading fluency, he shows a SIGNIFICANT skill gap when compare to his grade peers.
    Low Value=31 Hi Value=131 Median (2 nd Quartile)=71 3 rd Quartile=108 1 st Quartile=43 Billy=19 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Correctly Read Words-Book 4-1 Group Norms: Converted to Box-Plot
  • Research Norms: Example Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations Fewer than 7 70-100 6 Fewer than 7 70-100 5 Fewer than 7 70-100 4 Fewer than 7 70-100 3 Fewer than 5 40-60 2 Fewer than 5 40-60 1 Reading Errors Correctly Read Words Per Min Grade Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Ranges By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Shapiro, 1996)
  • Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks to Determine Risk: Example
    • The benchmark represents a level of proficiency needed for later school success . A good example of a commonly used set of benchmarks for reading are those that were developed for use with the DIBELS [Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills].
    • Using the DIBELS benchmarks, 3 rd -grade students are at ‘low risk’ for reading problems if they reach these reading-fluency goals:
      • Start of School Year: 77 Correctly Read Words Per Min
      • Middle of School Year: 92 Correctly Read Words Per Min
      • End of School Year: 110 Correctly Read Words Per Min
  • Sample Reading Fluency Data AIMSWEB Fluency Data
  • R-CBM Probe Teacher’s Copy Standard Reading Assessment Passage Examiner Copy: Pre-numbered so they can be scored quickly and immediately. AIMSWEB R-CBM Probe
  • Reading CBM Fluency Probe Student Example Source: AIMSweb
  • R-CBM Student Examples All Students Receive Benchmark Probe Grade 3
    • Norma
      • 60 words read correctly/10 errors
    • Mark
      • 135 words read correctly/ 0 errors
    • Irene
      • 20 words read correctly/ 0 errors
    • Brandon
      • 40 words read correctly/ 4 errors
    Sample of some students’ scores:
  • R-CBM Student Examples All Students Receive Benchmark Probe Grade 3
    • Norma
      • 60 words read correctly/10 errors
    • Mark
      • 135 words read correctly/ 0 errors
    • Irene
      • 20 words read correctly/ 0 errors
    • Brandon
      • 40 words read correctly/ 4 errors
  • Tier 1 Instruction in General Education
    • Every teacher uses a validated reading curriculum (i.e., Open Court)
    • Lead teacher observes each teacher’s implementation of reading curriculum quarterly to document fidelity
    • Norma, Brandon and Irene are monitored each week for 8 weeks in Tier 1 General Education Classroom
  • Irene, Brandon and Norma’s Response to Tier 1 Instruction Learning Rates and Levels of Performance
    • After 8 weeks of progress monitoring:
      • Norma’s R-CBM slope (weekly increase) was 1.8
        • Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive response
        • Responding adequately to classroom instruction
      • Brandon’s R-CBM slope was .04
        • Below 1.0 criterion for positive response
        • Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services
        • 8 week trial with progress monitoring
      • Irene’s R-CBM slope was .02
        • Below 1.0 criterion for positive response
        • Written parental consent to access Tier 2 services
        • 8 week trial with progress monitoring
  • Tier 2 Instruction in General Education
    • For students at-risk who did not respond to Tier 1 instruction
    • Research-based tutoring protocol that includes 30 minutes of instruction, 3 times each week in groups of 1-3 students
    • Tutors are paraprofessionals with formal training who are observed once each week by the teacher and provided corrective feedback
    • Teacher and tutor meet weekly to discuss CBM graphs and to problem solve about non-responders
  • Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic performance:
    • There can be several possible underlying reasons why a student is doing poorly in an academic area. It is crucial to determine the reason(s) for poor performance in order to select an appropriate intervention:
    • Skill Deficit: The student lacks the necessary skills to perform the academic task.
    • ‘ Fragile’ Skills: The student possesses the necessary skills but is not yet fluent and automatic in those skills.
    • Performance (Motivation) Deficit: The student has the necessary skills but lacks the motivation to complete the academic task.
  • Select a scientifically-based intervention for small group instuction likely to improve the student's academic functioning:
    • Any intervention idea chosen for the student should be backed by scientific research (e.g., research articles in peer-reviewed professional journals) demonstrating that the intervention is effective in addressing the student’s underlying reason(s) for academic failure.
  • Brandon and Irene’s Response to Tier 2 Instruction
    • At the end of the 8 week trial
      • Brandon’s R-CBM slope increased to 1.7
        • Exceeds 1.0 criterion for positive response
        • Brandon does not require special education
      • Irene’s R-CBM slope was .06
        • Below 1.0 criterion for positive response
        • Referral for comprehensive evaluation
        • Written parental consent
  • Irene’s Comprehensive Evaluation
    • Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence ruled out mental retardation
    • Teacher report and rating scales ruled out an emotional/behavioral disorder
    • All evidence reviewed to determine LD classification
    • Tier 3 Eligible for Special Education Services
  • Tier 3 Special Education
    • Individualized Education Plans (IEPs)
    • Assessment based goals and objectives
    • Individualized interventions
    • Intense, durable procedures
  • Response to Intervention: Implementation
    • Training for all school staff involved in instruction
    • Kindergarten screening for readiness
    • Identification of evidence-based/scientifically based curriculum, instructional practices and interventions
    • Frequent data collection (quantitative and qualitative)
    • Problem solving teams
    • Define adequate progress
    • Treatment fidelity
    • At Tiers 2 and 3, designing of supplementary diagnostic instructional trials to meet the needs of students
    • COLLABORATION between general education teachers, special education teachers, school psychologists, speech language clinicians, etc….
  • Response to Intervention: Evolving Roles at Tier 1
    • General Education Teacher
    • Special Education Teacher
    • School Psychologist
    • Problem Solving Teaam
  • Response to Intervention: Evolving Roles at Tier 2
    • General Education Teacher
    • Special Education Teacher
    • School Psychologist
    • Problem Solving Teaam
  • Response to Intervention: Evolving Roles at Tier 3
    • General Education Teacher
    • Special Education Teacher
    • School Psychologist
    • Problem Solving Team
  • References and Resources
    • AIMSweb Progress Monitoring: www.aimsweb.com
    • Center for Educational Networking. (2006). NASDE expalins response to intervention. Focus on Results. www.cenmi.org/Products.asap.
    • Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Panahon, C.J., & Hilt, A.M. (2005).  What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior.  Psychology in the Schools , 42(6), 669-676 .
    • Cohen, I. L., Schmidt-Lackner, S., Romanczyk, R., & Sudhalter, V. (2003). The PDD Behavior Inventory: A rating scale for assessing Response to Intervention in children with pervasive developmental disorder. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 33(1), 31-45.
    • Dibels: dibels.uoregon.edu/
    • Fuchs, L. & Fuchs, D. (2006). A framework for building capacity for Responsiveness to Intervention. School Psychology Review, 35(4), 621-626.
    • Fuchs, D. & Fuchs, L. (2005). Responsiveness-to-Intervention; A blueprint for practitioners, policymakers, and parents. Teaching Exceptional Children, 38(1) , 57-61.
    • Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186.
  • References and Resources
    • Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: an Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc
    • Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.
    • Lane, K. L., Wehby, J., Robertson, E. J., & Rogers, L. A. (2007). How do different types of high school students respond to schoolwide positive behavior support programs? Characteristics and responsiveness of teacher-identified students. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 15(1), 3-20.
    • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring: www.studentprogress.org
    • Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford.
    • Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.90-129). New York: The Guilford Press.
    • Tilly, D. III (2006). Response to intervention: An Overview What is it? Why do it? Is it worth it? The Special Edge, 19(2).
  • References and Resources
    • RTI Wire: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php
    • The IRIS Center : iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/
    • Wlaker, B., Cheney, D., Stage, S., & Blum, C. (2005). Schoolwide screening and positive behavior supports: Identifying and supporting students at risk for school failure. Journal of Positive Behavior Interventions, 7(4), 194-204.
    • Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work . NAESP [National Association of Elementary School Principals] Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp. 1,6.
    • Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools' capacity to help struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools , 43 (1), 99-107.
  • References
    • Contact Speakers for Grant References:
    • Sue Courey [email_address]
    • Ellen Cook ellencook@berkeley.edu