2 Az Rti Sb 1116.Ppt Fall 06 Tel 711


Published on

Published in: Health & Medicine, Education
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

2 Az Rti Sb 1116.Ppt Fall 06 Tel 711

  1. 1. Response to Intervention (RTI) From the Veil of Ignorance to a Blanket of Informed Decision-Making SB 1116
  2. 2. AZ’s Response to Intervention <ul><li>Information retrieved from </li></ul><ul><li>from the world-wide web </li></ul><ul><li>in 2006 via the research of </li></ul><ul><li>Frank M. Gresham, Ph.D. </li></ul><ul><li>Educational Psychology Program </li></ul><ul><li>University of California-Riverside </li></ul><ul><li>at </li></ul><ul><li>http://www.ccssponline.org/ppts/Gresham_Training_PowerPoint.ppt </li></ul><ul><li>2001 </li></ul>
  3. 3. LD IDENTIFICATION IS “WAIT-TO-FAIL” Developmental Odds of LD <ul><li>Age 6: 37,369 (out of 328,674 all disabilities) </li></ul><ul><li>Age 7: More than doubles (2.34 odds) </li></ul><ul><li>Age 8: Almost doubles again (1.84 odds) </li></ul><ul><li>Age 9: Goes up by 1.5 odds again </li></ul><ul><li>Age 10: Increase of 47,000 cases </li></ul><ul><li>Age 11: Increase of 20,000 cases </li></ul><ul><li>Age 12: Increase of 4,000 cases (peaks) </li></ul><ul><li>24 th Annual Report to Congress on the Implementation of IDEA (2002). </li></ul>
  4. 4. Calendar of Events    ::    Newsletters Subscription    ::    Privacy Policy    ::    Resource Center Copyright © 2006 Arizona Department of Education: Information Technology, All Rights Reserved <ul><li>AZ READS </li></ul><ul><li>Background </li></ul><ul><li>AZ READS Home      |       Background      |       State Board Policy      |       TimeLine      |       Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>                          </li></ul><ul><li>Background on AZ READS The Importance of Early Reading Assessments: A Prevention Model </li></ul><ul><li>The last decade has seen a dramatic shift in focus from conventional thoughts and practices in teaching children to read to a more careful awareness of the scientific research evidence about reading . As a result, we know more about how children learn to read, why some children have difficulty learning to read, and what instructional practices are most effective. Evidence-based findings supported by scientific research reached full public awareness with the publication of Preventing Reading Difficulties in Young Children, The Report of the National Reading Panel and the dissemination of what works in professional development and instructional practice (e.g. Every Child a Reader, Teaching Reading Is Rocket Science ). This converging body of research led to strong support for its implementation in our nation's classrooms through Title I Part B, Reading First in the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 . Central to evidence-based practice is the use of valid and reliable assessments that inform the ongoing instructional process by identifying at-risk students as early as possible in order to intervene immediately. By continuously monitoring student progress and adjusting instruction accordingly using evidence-based strategies, we can prevent reading difficulties from becoming reading problems and reverse the cycle of failure many of our students currently experience. </li></ul><ul><li>The resulting shift from a remediation model of reading instruction to a prevention model forms the foundation of AZ READS, Arizona's state reading initiative. A.R.S. §15-704, passed with broad-based support in spring 2001, is its cornerstone. It holds schools and districts accountable for implementing evidence-based programs, materials and instructional practices, using screening, diagnostic and progress monitoring assessments to drive instruction, and appropriates $1 million for the professional development of K-3 teachers of reading. </li></ul><ul><li>Subsections A and D of A.R.S. §15-704 require definition and specificity by the State Board of Education. An AZ READS Task Force was convened by the Arizona Department of Education on the State Board's behalf to examine these subsections and make recommendations regarding their implementation. </li></ul><ul><li>New Board Policy </li></ul><ul><li>State Board Policy </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Implementation </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline </li></ul><ul><li>Timeline </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>Contact Information </li></ul><ul><li>AZ READS Arizona Department of Education 1535 West Jefferson Street, Bin 5 Phoenix, Arizona 85007 Deputy Associate Superintendent, Kathryn Hrabluk Tel: (602) 364-2333 Fax: (602) 364-0902 </li></ul><ul><li>  </li></ul><ul><li>This page was last updated on Tuesday, October 17, 2006. </li></ul>
  5. 5. RTI: Defined <ul><li>RTI based on adequate or inadequate change in academic performance or behavior as a function of intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Eligibility determination based on how children respond to evidence-based interventions implemented with integrity . </li></ul><ul><li>RTI also used to select, change, or titrate interventions based on how well or poorly the child responds (not exclusively an eligibility process) </li></ul><ul><li>Origins of RTI traced to National Research Council (NRC report of 1982) </li></ul><ul><li>NRC report evaluated SPED classification on 3 criteria: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Quality of general education program </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Value of SPED in producing important outcomes for children </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Accuracy & meaningfulness of assessment process in identification of disability </li></ul></ul><ul><li>First 2 deal with quality of the instructional program </li></ul><ul><li>Last criterion deals with response to instruction </li></ul>
  6. 6. IDEIA 2004 Law Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004
  7. 7. IDEA REAUTHORIZATION 2004, NCLB of 2001 <ul><li>SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES: </li></ul><ul><li>(A) GENERAL: Notwithstanding section 602 of this Act or any other provision of law, when determining if a child has a specific learning disability as defined under this Act, the LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, reading recognition . . . </li></ul><ul><li>(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY: In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a LEA may use of process which determines if a child responds to a scientific, research based intervention. </li></ul>
  8. 8. Key Concepts in RTI: Treatment Validity of Assessment <ul><li>Treatment validity: Degree to which assessment information contributes to beneficial outcomes for individuals. </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Incremental validity </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Utility and cost benefit </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidential & Consequential Bases for Use & Interpretation (Messick, 1995) </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Traditional assessment practices do not inform instruction </li></ul><ul><li>Traditional assessment practices do not inform behavioral interventions </li></ul><ul><li>Treatment validity criterion requires: </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Identification of relevant areas of concern (academic or behavioral) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Informs treatment planning </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Useful in evaluating treatment outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Concept of RTI Depends Largely on Treatment Validity Criterion </li></ul>
  9. 9. Advantages of RTI <ul><li>Early identification of learning/behavior problems (leads to more effective interventions)—Avoids “wait to fail” </li></ul><ul><li>Conceptualizes learning/behavior problems from risk rather than deficit model </li></ul><ul><li>Can lead to reduction of identification biases (overrepresentation issues) </li></ul><ul><li>Strong focus on student outcomes </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Measures & domains based on relationships to child outcomes </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Documents relationships to positive child outcomes (not predictions of failure) </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Emphasizes direct measurement of achievement, behavior, & the instructional environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Focuses on measurable and changeable aspects of instructional environment </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Identifies “instructional causalities” </li></ul></ul>
  10. 10. TRADITIONAL VS. [DATA DECISION MAKING] MODELS FOR LD IDENTIFICATION <ul><li>Focuses on within-child ability-achievement discrepancies </li></ul><ul><li>Causes </li></ul><ul><li>presumed to be largely due to internal/organismic variables </li></ul><ul><li>Unexpected underachievement (relative to ability) </li></ul><ul><li>IQ-Achievement discrepancy is marker for presence of LD </li></ul><ul><li>Assumes better classification leads to better treatment </li></ul><ul><li>Presumes stability of ability over time </li></ul><ul><li>Presumes presence of mythical aptitude X treatment interactions (ATIs) </li></ul><ul><li>Focuses on outcomes, specifically response to intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Causes presumed to be largely due to external/contextual variables </li></ul><ul><li>Unexpected underachievement (relative to good instruction) </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to respond to empirically validated instruction is marker for LD (ruling out other causes) </li></ul><ul><li>Presumes change in achievement over time relative to intervention </li></ul>
  11. 11. PARADIGM SHIFT IN [PreK-3 READING ASSESSMENT] PRACTICES <ul><li>Shift from assessment-only oriented practice (refer-test-place model) </li></ul><ul><li>To, assessment-intervention-evaluation oriented practice (RTI) </li></ul><ul><li>Assessment shifts from static (one shot) assessment </li></ul><ul><li>To, continuous progress monitoring of response to intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Students can and should be deemed eligible for LD services based on an inadequate response to an evidence-based intervention implemented with integrity </li></ul><ul><li>Paradigm shift is a move away from admiring the problem to doing something about the problem </li></ul>
  12. 12. RESPONSIVENESS TO INTERVENTION <ul><li>Change in behavior or performance as a function of intervention </li></ul><ul><li>Reflects discrepancy between pre-and post-intervention levels of performance </li></ul><ul><li>Goal of all interventions is to produce a discrepancy between baseline & post-intervention performance </li></ul><ul><li>Failure to produce such a discrepancy within a reasonable period of time using an evidence-based intervention implemented with integrity can and should be used to evidence for presence of LD </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Discrepancy </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Reasonable period of time </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence-based intervention </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Integrity </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Gresham, F.M. (2002). Response to intervention: An alternative approach to the identification of learning disabilities. In R. Bradley, L.Danielson, & D. Hallahan (Eds.), Learning disabilities: Research to practice (pp. 467-519). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum. </li></ul>
  14. 14. RTI MODELS <ul><li>Problem Solving Approaches [Informed Data Decision Making Models </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem identification </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Problem analysis </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan implementation </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>Plan evaluation </li></ul></ul><ul><li>Standard Protocol Approaches </li></ul><ul><ul><li>Evidence-based treatment protocols </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>National Reading Panel Recommendations </li></ul></ul><ul><ul><li>NICHD funded research </li></ul></ul>
  15. 15. Responsiveness to Intervention Model [Levels of Instruction]     Degree of Unresponsiveness to Intervention LOW HIGH HIGH Intensity of Treatment Level I Universal Interventions Level II Selected Interventions Level III Intensive Interventions Level IV Special Education IEP Determined
  16. 16. SKILLS BASE OF HIGHLY QUALIFIED EDUCATIONAL PRACTIONERS [PreK-3] <ul><li>Knowledge and skills in progress monitoring, particularly curriculum-based assessment (CBM) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills in early identification of reading difficulties using brief diagnostic assessments (e.g., Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills or DIBELS) -add preK instruments </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills in evidence-based academic instruction, particularly in reading (e.g., phonological core, decoding, fluency, empirically-supported reading instruction) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills in conducting systematic observation-based assessments (frequency, duration, intensity) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills in conducting functional behavioral assessments (FBA) </li></ul><ul><li>Knowledge and skills in designing, implementing, and evaluating behavioral interventions for problem behaviors and social skills </li></ul>
  17. 17. What are the PreK-3 Education Issues? What’s the problem? <ul><li>The IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model is used to over identify students for special education services. </li></ul><ul><li>A significant number of students are currently pulled for instruction and not mainstreamed in a fully non-restrictive learning environment. </li></ul><ul><li>Diagnosis using the “Wait to Fail” model does not result in early prevention & intervention. </li></ul>
  18. 18. AZ’s RTI A Rawls & Locke Perspective <ul><li>Presented </li></ul><ul><li>by </li></ul><ul><li>Senator Tovar </li></ul><ul><li>SB 1116 </li></ul>
  19. 19. Universal Declaration of Human Rights <ul><li>On December 10, 1948 the General Assembly of the United Nations adopted and proclaimed the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. Following this historic act the Assembly called upon a its Member countries to publicize the text of the Declaration and &quot;to cause it to be disseminated, displayed, read and expounded principally in schools and other educational institutions, without distinction based on the political status of countries or territories.” </li></ul>
  20. 20. PREAMBLE Declaration of Human Rights <ul><li>Whereas, the peoples of the United Nations have in the Charter reaffirmed their faith in fundamental human rights, in the dignity and worth of the human person and in the equal rights of men and women and have determined to promote social progress and better standards of life in larger freedom, </li></ul><ul><li>Whereas, Member States have pledged themselves to achieve, in co-operation with the United Nations, the promotion of universal respect for and observance of human rights and fundamental freedoms, </li></ul>
  21. 21. Article 26. <ul><li>(1) Everyone has the right to education. Education shall be free, at least in the elementary and fundamental stages Elementary education shall be compulsory Technical and professional education shall be made generally available and higher education shall be equally accessible to all on the basis of merit. </li></ul><ul><li>(2) Education shall be directed to the full development of the human personality and to the strengthening of respect for human rights and fundamental freedoms. It shall promote understanding, tolerance and friendship among all nations, racial or religion us groups, and shall further the activities of the United Nations for the maintenance of peace. </li></ul>
  22. 22. Cosmopolitan Rawlsianism An Application of the Contemporary Social Contract <ul><li>“ Justice is the FIRST VIRTUE of social institutions.” </li></ul><ul><li>A Theory of Justice </li></ul><ul><li>Rawls, 1970 </li></ul>
  23. 23. THE RAWLSIAN FACTS: <ul><li>Rawls is a social contractarian . </li></ul><ul><li>Rawls subscribes to anti-sentimentalism. </li></ul><ul><li>Rawls invokes pro-Kantian rationalism resulting in high moral understandings of universal principles of justice & rights. </li></ul><ul><li>Morally, Rawls appealed to the moral development theories of Piaget & Kohlberg . </li></ul><ul><li>Rawl is BEST known for his contemporary contributions to cosmopolitan liberalism -i.e., a global, social community ( ). </li></ul>
  24. 24. Recap: What are the PreK-3 Education Issues? <ul><li>The IQ Achievement Discrepancy Model is used to over identify students for special education services. </li></ul><ul><li>A significant number of students are </li></ul><ul><li>pulled for instruction and not mainstreamed in a fully non-restrictive learning environment. </li></ul><ul><li>Diagnosis using the “Wait to Fail” model does not result in quick and early intervention. </li></ul>
  25. 25. Direct Application of Rawlian Pragmatic Principles to RTI Model <ul><li>Original Position –”Rational agents/ideal spectator/human calculators” unkowning of social economic status, race, ethnicity, nationalism act on BEHALF of their trustees (unknowing of their trustees (i.e., children in an RTI model –the ed. situation/issue at hand). </li></ul><ul><li>Under the Veil of Ignorance ( unknowing of the PreK-3 childs’ SES, national status, race, ethnicity, or reading ability), common stakeholders & multiple perspectives engage in a universal egalitarian act of public justification . </li></ul>
  26. 26. Interactive Table Exercise <ul><li>Puzzle Pieces for each table to socially construct the components of RTI and link the philosophical ideas. </li></ul>