1 Implementing RTI in Tigard- Tualatin School District OSEP Leadership Conference March 30, 2005 Carol Sadler, Ph.D

2 Implementation  Effective Behavior Support  READING  Effective Behavior and Instructional Support/RTI  9 + Years  6+ Years  4+ Years

3 T-TSD Demographics  15 schools,11,900 students  9 elementary + 1 elementary charter school  3 middle schools  2 high schools + a middle/high alternative program  Special programs participation:  1,100 (9%) Special Education Students  1,600 (13%) English Language Learners  1,300 (11%) Talented & Gifted Students  Title 1 in 5 of 9 elementary schools

4

5 Typical team structure EBIS TEAM Meets weekly Plans and implements school-wide reading/academic Monitors all students in small group and individual interventions Makes referrals to special education GRADE LEVEL TEAMS Meet monthly Plan and implement small group reading/academic interventions EBS TEAM Meets Twice Monthly Plans and implements school-wide and small group behavior supports

6 Daisy participates in the general curriculum EBIS Team reviews screening data and places Daisy in group intervention Daisy isn’t doing well Daisy improves Daisy improves EBIS Team designs individual intervention Resumes general program Daisy doesn’t improve Daisy doesn’t improve Special Education referral is initiated Daisy may recycle Intervention is intense and LD is suspected Improvement is good and other factors are suspected as cause

7 What are the changes? BEFORE EVALUATION Pre-referral interventions for individual children were encouraged Teams find and intervene with the lowest 20% of students Intervention decisions tended to be unilateral Interventions are designed by teams Progress was reported anecdotally Interventions are evaluated objectively by teams THE OLD WAYTHE NEW WAY

8 What are the changes? DURING EVALUATION THE OLD WAYTHE NEW WAY Most information about a student was gained AFTER referral Most information is in place by the time the evaluation begins “ Testing” had the most influence on eligibility decisions “Response to interventions” has the most influence on eligibility decisions Little data was gathered on “exclusionary” criteria “Exclusionary” criteria are fully analyzed Testing is used to confirm information and fill in missing information

9 What are the changes? AFTER EVALUATION THE OLD WAYTHE NEW WAY Frequently, more testing needed to be done to establish goals, service level, or methodology. The IEP team has extensive information about the student’s response to instructional variables by the time eligibility is established.

10 Characteristics of T-TSD Model  Evaluations must operate within the legal framework of IDEA  False positives and negatives should be minimized  Referral bias should be eliminated (gender, cultural)  The model should be flexible enough to incorporate technological advancements  The model should be educationally relevant

11 The eligibility report  Establishes whether the student has very low skills.  Addresses each of the exclusionary factors.  Establishes whether the student’s difficulties are remediable with general education interventions or progress shows a pattern of “resistance” to instruction.  Describes other factors such as cognition, fine motor, perceptual motor, communication, social, emotional, perception, or memory problems.  Addresses the physical factors that may play a role in the determination of the presence of a learning disability.  Makes a summary statement that clearly states the reason for the decision whether the student does or does not have a learning disability.

12 Findings  Case Study  Accomplishments Integrated, collaborative teams, district and schools Generic service delivery Identify ALL students and provide interventions Reducing “instructionally disabled” Whole child approach Research-based programs and practices  Trends in Identification Rates, earlier