Response to Intervention Overview Kathy McNamara, Ph.D. Cleveland State University Consultant, PSI

Why RTI? Unacceptably high rates of placement in special education, especially in SLD programs, and for minority students (despite inadequate evidence of effectiveness) Unequivocal support for early intervention, but no systematic and valid identification/delivery system Accountability: Need to improve outcomes for all students Failure of “pre-referral intervention teams” (assumed need for intensive/individualized intervention; poor quality and integrity of interventions)

Benefits of Special Education Placement: Average Effect Sizes for Special Education Diagnosis Resulting in Special Class (vs. Regular Class) Placement Kavale, K., & Forness, S. (1999). Effectiveness of special education. In C. Reynolds & T. Gutkin (Eds.), Handbook of school psychology (pp. 984-1024). NY: Wiley Special Education Mean No. of Diagnostic Category Effect Size Effect Sizes Mild Mental Retardation -.14 249 (IQ: 50 – 75) Slow Learner -.34 38 (IQ: 75 – 90) Specific Learning Disability & Emotional Disturbance .29 35

What the law has to say about RTI … Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 - LEA “may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures” (P.L. No. 108-446, par 614[b][6][A]; par 614 [b][2 & 3]) … Up to 15% of Part B funds can be used for “early intervening services … (for those needing) additional academic and behavioral support” … Schools are required to use “scientifically-based reading instruction” … Schools are required to evaluate how well students respond to intervention … Decisions must be “data based.”

Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative (MiBLSi) Monitor students’ reading and behavior performance Make decisions based on data Improve reading success Improve behavioral success

What Is RTI? A system of assessment and intervention Used primarily in regular education settings by regular education teachers To track academic (or behavioral) performance of the group To identify under-performing students To provide intervention (at an appropriate level of intensity) to solve problems To monitor effectiveness of interventions by evaluating student progress NOT A new set of procedures for determining Special Education eligibility (SLD)

Response to Intervention Tier Three: Individualized Intensive Intervention (may include Special Education services) Response to Intervention Three-Tiered Model ~5% Tier Two: Standard Protocol, Standard Practice, or Problem-Solving Intervention Target: At-risk students ~15% Tier One: Schoolwide Classwide Universal Instruction Target: All students ~80% of Students

Response to Intervention Universal Instruction and Screening (“Benchmark Testing”) Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring Response to Intervention Intensive, Individualized Intervention and Progress Monitoring *Images reprinted from the IRIS Center (OSEP grant H325F01003) and the TN State Improvement Grant (OSEP grant H323A030007).

Two Principal Components of RTI Evidence-based instruction and intervention for academic and social behavior problems Systematic assessment, administered routinely Benchmark testing/norming – entire class Strategic monitoring (optional) Progress monitoring – students receiving intervention

Systematic assessment, administered routinely: Benchmark testing/norming (3x/yr: Tier 1) Goal: 90% of class at or above benchmark Strategic monitoring (1x/mo: Tier 1) Goal: Adequate rate of progress (progress will eventually lead to attainment of grade-level standard) Progress monitoring (2x/mo – Tier 2); (1x/wk – Tier 2; Tier 3) Goal: Adequate rate of progress & adequate level of performance (progress has been at an adequate rate, resulting in attainment of grade-level standard or individual goal)

General Outcome/Skills-Based Measurement Graph Shinn, 2003 Progress toward long-term goal is measured periodically; measures are always equivalent in terms of content and difficulty (e.g., Reading: # words read correctly per minute in grade-level passage; Math: # digits correct per minute in sample of computation problems drawn from across entire year’s curriculum)

Subskill Mastery Measurement Graph Shinn, 2003 Progress toward short-term goal is measured; only the subskill in which instruction is currently occurring is assessed, so not useful for measuring progress toward long-term goals; best for use by teachers for instructional guidance.

RTI Assessment Tools Curriculum-Based Measurement (Intervention Central probes and instructions) (www.interventioncentral.org) Passage Reading, Maze, Math Computation, Spelling, Writing AIMSWeb (www.aimsweb.com) Passage Reading, Maze, Early Literacy, Spelling, Early Numeracy SWIS (School-Wide Information System) (www.swis.org) Behavior Measures (Office Disciplinary Referrals) DIBELS (University of Oregon scoring/reporting) (http://dibels.uoregon.edu) Initial Sound Fluency, Phonemic Segmentation Fluency, Nonsense Word Fluency, Oral Reading Fluency, Word Use Fluency, Retell Fluency DIBS Dynamic (sensitive to small changes in performance) Indicators (not diagnostic or comprehensive assessment – just good predictors of skill in overall domain) Basic Skills (Reading, Math, Writing)

Assessment at Tier One Universal Screening Is entire class performing (and making progress) at expected levels/rates? Is class average (median score) at or above benchmark? (or) Are 90% of scores at or above benchmark? Is there an adequate upward trend in scores over time? Is any student performing below expected level/peer average? For “moderately” inadequate scorers (10th – 25th %ile), use strategic monitoring for 6 – 10 weeks To evaluate progress, observe “slope of trend line” to ensure adequate rate of growth For scorers below 10th %ile, proceed to Tier 2 To identify students at risk for failure (by comparing their scores to benchmarks, peers, etc.)

Assessment at Tier Two: Progress Monitoring Measured 2x per month or 1x per week Only students receiving Tier 2 interventions Judgment re: effectiveness of intervention based on at least 7 -10 data points Is student responsive to intervention? Evaluated on basis of both level of performance (i.e., score, or “end level”, and its relationship to benchmarks and peer norms) and Rate of growth (slope of trend line)

2 changes in program/intervention Progress Monitoring Graph at year-end, with 2 changes in program/intervention

Tier Three Progress Monitoring Measured 1x per week or 2x per week Judgment re: effectiveness of intervention based on at least 7 -10 data points Is student responsive to intervention? Evaluated on basis of both level of performance (i.e., score, or “end level”, and its relationship to benchmarks and peer norms) and Rate of growth (slope of trend line)

Dual Discrepancy Criterion An alternative to the “IQ/Achievement Discrepancy Model” for SLD identification 1) Is student’s level of performance still below expected levels, despite appropriate, intensive, individualized intervention? 2) Is student’s rate of growth (weekly improvement rate, or slope) slower than expected, despite appropriate, intensive, individualized intervention?

Eligibility for SLD Classification (Special Education) Failure to achieve ... Instruction/Intervention Assessment Data Tier One Assessment: Student’s scores compared to benchmarks and peer norms; Strategic monitoring scores showing inadequate rate of growth Tier Two Assessment: Student’s progress monitoring scores showing dual discrepancy Tier Three Assessment: Progress monitoring scores showing dual discrepancy or diminishing discrepancy with specialized instruction; Identify appropriate goal, using student’s instructional level (for dual discrepancy) Despite appropriate, research-based instruction in regular education ... supplemental, targeted intervention ... and intensive, individualized intervention that required intensive and specialized resources ...