RTI Goes to Pre-K Virginia Buysse Ellen Peisner-Feinberg Virginia Buysse Ellen Peisner-Feinberg An Early Intervening System Called Recognition and Response

In collaboration with: National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC) With funding from: Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation In collaboration with: National Center for Learning Disabilities (NCLD) National Association for the Education of Young Children (NAEYC) Communications Consortium Media Center (CCMC) With funding from: Emily Hall Tremaine Foundation

Objectives 1. Describe a conceptual framework for Recognition and Response (R&R) 2. Consider the origins of R&R in RTI and existing tiered approaches in early childhood 3. Identify key considerations for implementing & evaluating R&R in early childhood

Defining Features of RTI A core curriculum & effective instruction for all children Targeted interventions for some students who meet screening criteria Integrated system for universal screening and progress monitoring linked to instructional planning

Broad Support for RTI Widespread local implementation in public schools Additional authority under IDEA National leadership Evidence of the efficacy of targeted interventions within an RTI framework for school-age children (Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006) RTI offers a promising approach for improving program quality & instruction in pre-k

Growing Support for RTI in Early Childhood Special issue on early childhood tiered models in School Psychology Review (2006), Vol. 35, No. 4 Topics in Early Childhood Special Education (Winter, 2007), Vol. 27, No. 4 DEC brief position statement on RTI in early childhood (2007; DEC Communicator Vol. 1 [3]) Capitol Hill Briefing & RTI national summit presentations New National Center to be established in 2008 on RTI in early childhood funded by US DOE (IES)

Existing Tiered Models in Early Childhood Building Blocks (Sandall & Schwartz, 2002) Positive Behavioral Supports (PBS; Barnett et al., 2006) Intervention Hierarchy (Brown, Odom, & Conroy, 2001) Teaching Pyramid (Hemmeter, Ostrosky, & Fox, 2006)

Conceptual Framework for R&R System

Recognition: Screening & Progress Monitoring

Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring Universal screening within first 2 months (NAEYC, 2005) and on a set schedule after that (fall, winter, spring) Tier 1: Do most children (~70-80%) meet screening criteria? Tier 2: Some children (~15-25%) may need targeted interventions, along with progress monitoring

Universal Screening & Progress Monitoring Tier 3: A few children (~5%) will need more individualized interventions & get more frequent progress monitoring Children with identified disabilities are not required to go through RTI process; RTI should not delay referral of children with suspected disabilities (CEC, 2007)

Screening & Progress Monitoring Tools Purpose is for instructional planning, not for diagnostic evaluation Designed to be used repeatedly Quick, easy to administer Correlated with long-term educational goals; not tied to a particular curriculum Information on both level & rate of growth

Examples of Screening & Progress Monitoring Measures in Early Childhood Individual Growth & Development Indicators (IGDIs) Letter naming, picture naming, alliteration, rhyming Get It! Got It! Go! (

Examples of Screening & Progress Monitoring Measures in Early Childhood Math CBM (VanDerHeyden et al., 2007)  Counting objects, number selection, number naming, counting, & visual discrimination  Note: To be published in 2008

Response: Research-Based Curricula, Intentional Teaching, & Interventions

What are the responses within each tier? Tier 1: Core curriculum and intentional teaching for all children  Core curriculum is research-based & comprehensive across all domains  May also include content-specific curricula (e.g., early literacy or math)  Intentional teaching of key content areas, including planning and evaluating instruction

What are the responses within each tier? Tier 2: Explicit small group interventions augmented with embedded interventions  Explicit : structured, teacher-directed, content-specific interventions  Embedded : occur within daily activities, build on children’s strengths & interests, complement explicit interventions

What are the responses within each tier? Tier 3: Intensive & individualized interventions  Research-based methods for scaffolding-- prompting, modeling, giving a directive & waiting for a response  Within the context of explicit approaches under Tier 2  Continue use of embedded interventions

Effectiveness Ratings for Early Childhood Interventions

An Example of a Tier 2 Intervention Read It Again! (Justice, McGinty, Beckman, & Kilday, 2006) Language & literacy supplement for pre-k programs: Guidelines for implementing lessons (before, during, & after reading) Repeated use of storybooks, picture cards, & other literacy materials Repetition of key concepts Appropriate for small groups

An Example of a Tier 2 Intervention Four domains of learning: vocabulary, narrative, phonological awareness, & print/alphabet knowledge Consists of 60 lessons, each addressing multiple domains (20 min/lesson) Preliminary research evidence of efficacy in pre-k (Justice et al., 2007)

Collaborative Problem-Solving Process

Steps in Problem-Solving May involve teachers, parents, & specialists Establish desired outcomes Interpret assessment results Implement interventions Evaluate & adjust

Next Steps: A Pilot Study of R&R Piloting R&R in two states in pre-k classes Intervention package: Implementation based on the R&R manual An existing assessment system and language & literacy intervention Problem-solving component

Next Steps: A Pilot Study of R&R Professional development to ensure acquisition of knowledge & skills Linked to manualized R&R framework and curriculum & assessment materials Full-day institutes Individualized consultation support Community of practice meetings

Next Steps: A Pilot Study of R&R Research questions: Can teachers implement the R&R system with fidelity? Do teachers find the R&R system acceptable and useful? Is there evidence that R&R is beneficial in promoting the development of children with learning difficulties?

Future Considerations How should R&R be adapted for diverse learners (e.g., ELLs, children with disabilities)? How can R&R be implemented across multiple domains of development & learning? Need more evidence-based pre-k interventions linked to assessments for use in R&R What infrastructure could best support R&R?