Response to intervention

2,549 views

Published on

Published in: Education
0 Comments
2 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Views
Total views
2,549
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
4
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
26
Comments
0
Likes
2
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide
  • Pamela
  • Paula
  • Paula
  • Susan 80% in primary instruction, Students can move back and forth between levels.
  • Susan
  • susan
  • Susan
  • Pamlea
  • susan
  • Pamela
  • Pamela
  • Susan
  • Response to intervention

    1. 1. Response to Intervention Susan Fuller and Pamela Tcharkovski TECP 70 November 12, 2013
    2. 2. Abstract The following presentation discusses Response to Intervention (RTI) with an emphasis on the primary level of instruction. Tier one provides universal screening and effective instruction to insure that students who are at risk are recognized early. There are many ways to differentiate instruction in the classroom to improve student performance. There are advantages and disadvantages of the RTI framework. We believe if the framework is implemented with fidelity it will skew the achievement bell curve in a positive direction.
    3. 3. What is the background and history? • 1970’s and 80’s Deno and Mirkin found that short frequent assessments helped manage special education students’ needs. • Benjamin Bloom’s (1980) “ Mastery Learning” experiments used formative assessments as a basis to modify curriculum and instruction. • 1991 The initials “RTI” may have been first used by Gresham in the sense of “ Resistance to Intervention” but with the positive results it went to “Response to Intervention”. • 1994 The three tier structure for organizing response to students originated with researchers like Sugai and Horner seeking ways to deal with behavioral problems.
    4. 4. • 1998 Black and Wiliams meta-analysis documented how using assessment results to set goals and determine interventions improves performance. • 2001 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education Report (Hughes 2011) stated concern about “instructional casualties” • 2003 Dual discrepancy model developed by Fuchs measured both the level of achievement and the rate of student growth. • 2004 IDEIA allowed states to use RTI as a factor in determining eligibility for Special Education.
    5. 5. Tertiary Secondary Primary
    6. 6. RTI • Framework • School wide • Designed to accommodate all learners • Requires research based instruction • Uses data collection over time. RTI • A curriculum • Just a special education program • Require students to “wait to fail” • Make placement decisions based on “snapshots” of student performance.
    7. 7. Primary Core curriculum is research-based Culturally and linguistically responsive to students Universal screening to determine students’ current level of performance Differentiated learning activities Accommodations Problem solving to address behavior issues
    8. 8. • Differentiated instruction – – – – – – Flexible Grouping Visual Aides Clear Behavioral Objectives Buddy Reading/ Peer Tutoring Learning Centers Technology (smart boards, audio books, ipad) – Preferential seating – Individual attention from teacher
    9. 9. Specific Learning Disability (Current view) • RTI uses on going assessment rather than a snapshot to make placement decisions. • Change from discrepancy model • Universal screenings • Regular progress monitoring • “At Risk” students are identified early • Supports for meeting the needs of at risk students are already in place in tier one. • The thoroughness of the process ensures correct identification.
    10. 10. Advantages • Improved education for all students • Students receive interventions that are not too much or too little for their needs. • Can identify specific instructional needs for specific learners. • Students do not have to qualify for special education to receive more and better instruction • Feedback teachers can use to improve their own instruction. • Feedback administrators can use to assess teachers. • Provides feedback for students and parents. • Potential to cut expense of services because of fewer referrals.
    11. 11. Disadvantages • Increased burden on classroom teachers extra support is needed for implementation • May be poorly executed • Potential to inadvertently delay special needs referrals. • Teachers, principals and district officials must believe in the instructional framework • Cost of professional development needed to implement RTI is high • Time consuming • Roti requires that decisions about placement are made based on data taken over a period of time.
    12. 12. Jenna • 8th grader struggling with math • School uses Accelerated math and STAR math • STAR math showed Jenna was in the “on watch” category • Math teacher monitored biweekly and Jenna continued to struggle • Math teacher brought Jenna to 8th grade team meeting. • Math teacher suspected computational fluency challenges • Math flash student progress report confirmed fluency issues with subtraction • Tier two intervention to address fluency was provided .
    13. 13. Billy • Billy is a first grader • He knows 80 of the first 100 sight words • He has extensive background knowledge to apply to reading and a large vocabulary • His math assessment is nearly perfect • He entered first grade at Rigby reading level 8 the end of year goal is level 10. • He received OT services in Kindergarten • His teacher reports that he chooses to work and play alone when possible • He lies down in the middle of group time and continues to pay attention. • He doesn’t always complete his work on time
    14. 14. References Barnett, D. C. (2007). Achieving Science-Based Practice Through Response to Intervention: What It Might Look Like in Preschools. Journal Of Educational & Psychological Consultation, 17(1), 31-54. Callinan, S., Cunningham, E., & Theiler, S. (2013). Revisiting Discrepancy Theory in Learning Disabilities: What Went Wrong and Why We Should Go Back. Australian Journal Of Guidance And Counselling, 23(1), 1-17. Harlacher, J. K. (2010). The "I" in RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 42(6), 30-38. Hughes, C. A., & Dexter, D. D. (2011). Response to Intervention: A Research-Based Summary. Theory Into Practice, 50(1), 4-11. doi:10.1080/00405841.2011.534909 Noll, B. (2013). Seven ways to kill RTI: even good interventions can go bad if they're not planned and supported well. Heed some warning signs about Response to Intervention. (R I. P. R T. I.). Phi Delta Kappan, (6), 55. National Center on Response to Intervention. National Center on Response to Intervention, (2010).Essential components of rti-a closer look at response to intervention. Retrieved from National Center on Response to Intervention website: http://www.rti4success.org National Resource Center on Learning Disabilities. U.S. Office of Special Education Programs, (2007).Responsiveness to intervention in the sld determination process. Retrieved from National Research Center on Learning Disabilities website: www.nrcld.org Pittsford Sutherland High School. (n.d.). Response to intervention (rti)-tier 1 strategies. Retrieved from http://www.pittsfordschools.org/sutherland.cfm?subpage=40414 Renaissance Learning. (2009). Making rti work:a practical guide to using data for a successful "response to intervention" program. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Renaissance Learning. Searle, M. (2010). What is rti and why should we care?.ASCD, Retrieved from http://www.ascd.org/publications/books/109097/chapters/What-Is-RTI-and-Why-Should-...

    ×