Getting Started With ‘Response to Intervention’: A Guide for Schools Jim Wright www.interventioncentral.org January 2006 

RTI Workshop Goals… As a result of this workshop, you will: Better understand the ‘Response to Intervention’ (RTI) model Know where to find resources on the Internet to start RTI in your school Understand the next steps that your school should take to implement RTI

Discussion: Read the quote below: “The quality of a school as a learning community can be measured by how effectively it addresses the needs of struggling students.” --Wright (2005) Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why? Source: Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp.1,6.

What is ‘Response to Intervention’ (RTI)? 'Response to Intervention' is an emerging approach to the diagnosis of Learning Disabilities that holds considerable promise. In the RTI model: A student with academic delays is given one or more research-validated interventions. The student's academic progress is monitored frequently to see if those interventions are sufficient to help the student to catch up with his or her peers. If the student fails to show significantly improved academic skills despite several well-designed and implemented interventions, this failure to 'respond to intervention' can be viewed as evidence of an underlying Learning Disability.

What are advantages of RTI? One advantage of RTI in the diagnosis of educational disabilities is that it allows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of struggling learners. Another advantage is that RTI maps those specific instructional strategies found to benefit a particular student. This information can be very helpful to both teachers and parents.

What previous approach to diagnosing Learning Disabilities does RTI replace? Prior to RTI, many states used a ‘Test-Score Discrepancy Model’ to identify Learning Disabilities. A student with significant academic delays would be administered a battery of tests, including an intelligence test and academic achievement test(s). If the student was found to have a substantial gap between a higher IQ score and lower achievement scores, a formula was used to determine if that gap was statistically significant and ‘severe’. If the student had a ‘severe discrepancy’ [gap] between IQ and achievement, he or she would be diagnosed with a Learning Disability.

Learning Disabilities: Test Discrepancy Model “Traditionally, disability is viewed as a deficit that resides within the individual, the severity of which might be influenced, but not created, by contextual variables.” (Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003)

Limitations to the ‘test-score discrepancy model’ (Gresham, 2001): Requires chronic school failure BEFORE remedial/special education supports can be given. 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. Different states (and even school districts within the same state) often used different formulas to diagnose LD, resulting in a lack of uniformity in identifying children for special education support.

Why is RTI now being adopted by schools? Congress passed the revised Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004. This Federal legislation provides the guidelines that schools must follow when identifying children for special education services. Based on the changes in IDEIA 2004, the US Department of Education (USDE) updated its regulations to state education departments. The new USDE regulations: Explicitly ALLOW states to use RTI to identify LD FORBID states from forcing schools to use a ‘discrepancy model’ to identify LD

§ 300.307 Specific learning disabilities. IDEIA 2004-05 Federal (US Dept of Education) Regulations: What do they say about LD diagnosis? § 300.307 Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability…. the criteria adopted by the State— (2) May not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in § 300.8; [‘Discrepancy’ Model] (3) Must permit the use of a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention…[‘RTI’ Model] NOTE: [bracketed comments added] Source: IDEA (2004, 2005). Proposed Regulations from US Department of Education (§ 300.307)

What does RTI look like when applied to an individual student? A widely accepted method for determining whether a student has a Learning Disability under RTI is the ‘dual discrepancy model’ (Fuchs, 2003). Discrepancy 1: The student is found to be performing academically at a level significantly below that of his or her typical peers (discrepancy in initial skills or performance). Discrepancy 2: Despite the implementation of one or more well-designed, well-implemented interventions tailored specifically for the student, he or she fails to ‘close the gap’ with classmates (discrepancy in rate of learning relative to peers).

Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level Discrepancy 1: Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Discrepancy 2: Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’) Target Student ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability (Fuchs 2003)

The steps of RTI for an individual case… Under RTI, if a student is found to be performing well below peers, the school will: Estimate the academic skill gap between the student and typically-performing peers Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic performance Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to improve the student's academic functioning Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the impact of the intervention If the student fails to respond to several well-implemented interventions, consider a referral to Special Education

Estimate the academic skill gap between the target student and typically-performing peers: 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)

In their current number form, these data are not easy to interpret. 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 0 20 40 60 80 100 120 140 160 Correctly Read Words-Book 4-1 Group Norms: Converted to Box-Plot LOCAL NORMS EXAMPLE: Twenty-three 4th-grade students were administered oral reading fluency Curriculum-Based Measurement passages at the 4th-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. Median (2nd Quartile)=71 1st Quartile=43 3rd Quartile=108 Billy=19 Low Value=31 Hi Value=131

Research Norms: Example Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Ranges By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Shapiro, 1996) Grade Correctly Read Words Per Min Reading Errors 1 40-60 Fewer than 5 2 3 70-100 Fewer than 7 4 5 6

Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: 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, for example, 3rd-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

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 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.

Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the impact of the intervention: Under RTI, interventions are monitored frequently (e.g., weekly) using valid and reliable measures that are sensitive to short-term gains in student performance: Measures for Basic Academic Skills: Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) probes are short, timed assessments that have been developed to measure phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, math computation, writing, and spelling skills (Shinn, 1989). Measures for Classroom Academic and General Behaviors: Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs): These customized teacher rating forms allow the instructor to evaluate the student’s behaviors each day (Chafouleas et al. 2005). Direct Observation: An external observer visits the classroom to observe the student’s rates of on-task and academically engaged behaviors. (Shapiro, 1996)

If the student fails to respond to a series of several well-implemented interventions, consider a referral to Special Education. In the RTI model, the student would be referred for a special education evaluation if: A series of research-based interventions have been attempted There is documentation that the interventions were carried out as designed (treatment/intervention integrity) Progress-monitoring data shows that the student failed to meet the goal set for his or her improvement (that is, the student shows a ‘discrepancy in rate of learning’ relative to grade-peers).

How can a school restructure to support RTI? The school can organize its intervention efforts into 3 levels, or Tiers, that represent a continuum of increasing intensity of support. (Kovaleski, 2003; Vaughn, 2003). Tier I is the lowest level of intervention and Tier III is the most intensive intervention level. Universal intervention: Available to all students Example: Additional classroom literacy instruction Tier I Individualized Intervention: Students who need additional support than peers are given individual intervention plans. Example: Supplemental peer tutoring in reading to increase reading fluency Tier II Intensive Intervention: Students whose intervention needs are greater than general education can meet may be referred for more intensive services. Example: Special Education Tier III

RTI: School-Wide Three-Tier Framework (Kovaleski, 2003; Vaughn, 2003) Tier I ‘School-Wide Screening & Group Intervention’ Tier II ‘Non-Responders’ to Tier I Are Identified & Given ‘Individually Tailored’ Interventions (e.g., peer tutoring/fluency) Tier III ‘Long-Term Programming for Students Who Fail to Respond to Tier II Interventions’ (e.g., Special Education)

Putting The RTI Model into Practice: 5 Recommended ‘Next Steps’ for Schools

What do schools have to do differently under the RTI model? To implement RTI effectively, schools must develop a specialized set of tools and competencies, including: A structured format for problem-solving. Knowledge of a range of scientifically based interventions that address common reasons for school failure. The ability to use various methods of assessment to monitor student progress in academic and behavioral areas.

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Adopt evidence-based intervention strategies. Academic interventions will have a higher chance of success if they are based on sound empirical research.

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Web resources for evidence-based intervention strategies Big Ideas in Beginning Reading (U of Oregon): reading.uoregon.edu What Works Clearinghouse (US Dept of Education): www.w-w-c.org Intervention Central: www.interventioncentral.org

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Train staff to collect frequent progress-monitoring data. Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) can be used to assess a student’s accuracy and speed in basic-skill areas such as reading fluency, math computation, writing, spelling, and pre-literacy skills. Teachers also can measure the behavior of struggling learners on a daily basis by using classroom Daily Behavior Report Cards: simple, convenient rating forms to track a child’s work completion, attention to task, compliance with teacher directions, and other behaviors that influence learning.

CBM Reading Fluency Probes: Example Examiner Copy Student Copy

CBM Reading Fluency Monitoring Chart: Example

Daily Behavior Report Card: Example

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Web resources for progress-monitoring CBM Warehouse: www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml The Behavior Reporter (Behavior Report Card Generator): http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/ tbrc/tbrc.php

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Develop building-level intervention programs to address common academic concerns. When faced with large numbers of students with shared academic concerns (e.g., reading fluency), schools can create a building-level intervention program to meet this need. For example, older children could tutor younger students by using simple, research-based techniques to boost their tutees’ reading fluency (Wright & Cleary, 2006).

Kids as Reading Helpers: A Peer Tutor Training Manual

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Web resource for a building-level intervention program: peer-tutoring/reading fluency Kids as Reading Helpers Peer Tutoring Manual: www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/ interventions/rdngfluency/prtutor.shtml

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Establish a building intervention team. Made up of teachers and support staff, the intervention team can help referring teachers design feasible strategies for struggling students. Intervention teams also foster a sense of collegiality and mutual support among educators, promote the use of evidence-based interventions, and assist busy teachers in carrying out intervention plans.

School-Based Intervention Teams: QuickGuide

SBIT QuickGuide & Other Training Materials/Forms Available for Free Download

Sample Intervention Team Model: SBIT Consultative Steps Step 1: Assess Teacher Concerns Step 2: Inventory Student Strengths and Talents Step 3: Review Background/Baseline Data Step 4: Select Target Teacher Concerns Step 5: Set Academic or Behavioral Goals Step 6: Design an Intervention Plan Step 7: Select Method for Progress Monitoring Step 8: Plan How to Share Information with the Student’s Parent(s) Step 9: Review the Intervention and Monitoring Plans

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Web resources on building intervention teams School-Based Intervention Teams (Syracuse City Schools): http://www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/ interventions/sbit.shtml Screening to Enhance Educational Performance: STEEP (Joe Witt, Ph.D.): http://www.joewitt.org/steep.htm Instructional Consultation Teams (Sylvia Rosenfield, Ph.D.) http://www.icteams.umd.edu/

Implementing RTI: Next Steps Align Current Intervention & Assessment Efforts With 3-Tier Model. Many schools already have intervention & assessment initiatives in place. Mapping out those initiatives, standardizing their content, and tying them to the appropriate level of the 3-tier intervention framework can help schools to better coordinate intervention programming while avoiding duplication of services.

Tier I Inventory all universal programs in the school intended to prevent student academic or behavioral failure Inventory programs or supports (e.g., Intervention Team, cross-age peer tutoring, Math or Reading Remedial Lab) that can be individualized and matched to students with emerging academic or behavioral difficulties Tier II Inventory the most intensive programs (e.g., Special Education services, Wrap-Around Teams, Individual Counseling) reserved for students with severe and chronic academic or behavioral problems that have not responded to Tier I or Tier II supports Tier III

Participant Activity: Take the RTI Readiness Survey Form into pairs or small groups. Together, complete the RTI Readiness Survey. When finished, discuss your results and address these questions: What areas of strength did you identify? What areas did you identify that need work? What would be your group’s top three priorities in starting the RTI model in this school? RTI Readiness Survey available at: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/pdfdocs/survey_rti_wright.pdf

For a comprehensive directory of up-to-date RTI Resources available for free on the Internet, visit RTI_Wire at: http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php

References 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. Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186. 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 Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, P.L. 108-466 (2004, 2005). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Proposed Regulations). Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-11804.pdf

References 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. 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. 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.

END