Response to Intervention Moving Beyond the Six Data Points Andrea Ogonosky, Ph.D., LSSP, NCSP Licensed Psychologist (832)

Agenda Technical Adequacy of Process District Expectations Multiple Sources of Data Staff Knowledge Leadership

Important Points for Success 1.Foundations 1.Laws 2.Process 2.Format 1.District support: Data collection 2.District support: Resources –Ease of Implementation 3.Fidelity 1.Staff Understanding 2.Staff Development 3

From NCLB: “…holding schools, local education agencies, and States accountable for improving the academic achievement of all students…” and “…promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring the access of all children to effective, scientifically-based instructional strategies…” [PL §1001(4) and (9)] From IDEA: “…to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with disabilities including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent possible.” [20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(E)]

RtI Foundations for Success 1.Multiple Tiers of Instruction and Assessment 2.Using Data: Balanced Assessments 3.Technology 4.Highly Qualified Staff

Response to Intervention Is an organizational system with increasing layers of intensity. Not a categorical system for labeling students. Is designed for smooth movement Not a service or place. Increased intensity of instruction -matches student need -determined by data. Not a referral system for special education eligibility.

RtI: Problem Solving Assessment 80% 15% 5% Interventions Universal Screening Progress Monitoring Diagnostics Progress Monitoring Diagnostics Grade Level Instruction/ Support Student Instructional Level Supplemental Interventions 90 min per week additional Student Instructional Level Supplemental Interventions 120 min per week additional

“I was so excited about RtI -I went about enthusiastically building a technically sound guidance document. As I began to work with staff on implementation [from the cultural perspective of shifting the way we think about problem solving] I realized suddenly that to me, RtI had become…. One swirling VORTEX OF TERROR!” ---Dr. Quentin Woods, Pine Tree ISD The Reality of Striving for the Goal of Change… RtI

From the Student Perspective The Goal is to create… Academic Learning, Mastery, and Achievement Independent Learner

Let’s start at the beginnng…. RtI Is not simply implementing a different type of problem solving. It also involves giving up certain beliefs in favor of others. Systems will need to change…. 10

Tier 1: Core Instruction /Universal Interventions ACADEMIC Quality core instruction and strategies Differentiated Instruction Embedded Interventions Universal Screening: Academic Continuous progress monitoring of grade level success

“The highest predictor of academic achievement is the proficiency of teachers in effective instructional practice.” Donna Walker Tileston Why Culture Counts

Effective Instruction and Intervention Strategies (Tier 1) Instructional Delivery: Frame the lesson Work in the “Power Zone” Use frequent small group, purposeful talk about learning Recognize and Reinforce Write critically

Relevant Practice Use data to determine flexible grouping Build on student “knowns” Use learning style information to differentiate student content-product- process

Interventions Are NOT Accommodations Adaptations Interagency referrals Referral to Special education Assessments, evaluations, screenings Classroom observations Advice or consultations Assisting with instructional methods and materials Places

The Importance of Vocabulary “At the secondary level, much of the reading that students do is in the content areas; thus, the research on reading measures at the secondary level is closely tied to the research on content-area learning” (Espin & Tindal, 1995, p. 226).

Activity How are you defining Tier 1 instruction and strategies? Is there consistency with this definition throughout your district?

It is vitally important that there is an understanding that there is continued discussion and consultation between the teacher, the team, and the interventionist(s).

Tier 2: Targeted Interventions ACADEMIC Strategic and supplemental Standard protocol / evidence-based Small group (5:1) Rubric for decision making: decision rules, aim-line/goals, guidelines for increasing /decreasing support or changing intervention. Focused continuous progress monitoring that increases with intensity of instruction and intervention.

Tier 3: Intensive Interventions ACADEMIC Increased strategic and supplemental Group size decreased (3:1) Rubric for decision making: decision rules, aim-line goals, guidelines for increasing /decreasing support or changing intervention. Focused continuous progress monitoring that increases with intensity of instruction and intervention. Pattern of inadequate responses may lead to refer for Section 504 or Special Education.

The use of technology makes ongoing data collection, data consumption, and data-based decision making a more plausible proposition, and it can keep these important aspects of RtI from monopolizing teacher time

Lessons Learned: RtI & Technology Online learning Summer trainings After‐school trainings Credit Recovery Grade level team meetings (easy access to data bases) Coaching: Using the expertise within to support teachers

Leadership

Critical Component s

Ensure fidelity by having meaningful conversations with staff about outcome data. Create a culture of common values and work together to achieve common goals. Provide clear staff expectations Creatively allocate limited resources to ensure personnel have access to necessary supports.

Essential Tasks for Leadership Team

Campus Culture

Question “If an educator keeps using the same strategies over and over and the student keeps failing, who Who really is the slow learner?” Michael Rettig Professor, Emeritus James Madison University

Resiliency: Over 40% of teachers do not make it to their 5 th year of teaching- many leave by year 3. Encouragement of Innovation: PD to support advances in technology. Teachers reinforced and encouraged for “thinking outside the box”. Quality of Student teacher relationships

The most important aspect of a strong RtI process is the richness of the conversations that occur because of the layers of multiple occurring data sources.

It is essential to implement both Professional Learning Communities (PLC) and Response to Intervention (RTI) because these complementary processes are considered research-based best practices to improve student learning.

Connections What exactly do we expect all students to learn? How will we know if they’ve learned it? How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? How will we respond when some students have already learned? Core program Standards Alignment Documents

Connections What exactly do we expect all students to learn? How will we know if they’ve learned it? How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? How will we respond when some students have already learned? Progress monitoring Universal screener Diagnostic assessments Formative Assessments

Connections What exactly do we expect all students to learn? How will we know if they’ve learned it? How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? How will we respond when some students have already learned? Differentiated Strategies Interventions Decision rules Protocol

Connections What exactly do we expect all students to learn? How will we know if they’ve learned it? How will we respond when some students don’t learn it? How will we respond when some students have already learned? District Expectations Decision rules Protocol

PLC Essential Characteristics Focus on learning and collaborative culture Focus on results (data driven) Action experimentation (is your system able to respond) Collective inquiry RTI Fundamental Elements Collective responsibility and teaming Universal screening and progress monitoring Systematic interventions and decision protocols Research based core program and interventions

Underscoring a Problem “Most teachers just do not possess the skills to collect data, draw meaningful conclusions, focus instruction, and appropriately follow up to assess results. That is not the set of skills we were hired to do.”

Balancing Assessments -- Assessment systems -- Multiple measures -- Varied types -- Varied purposes -- Varied data sets -- Balanced with needs 38

Multiple Data Sources Criterion Referenced Assessment Formative Summative Screen Progress Monitor Norm Referenced Assessment Diagnostic Comparative Progress Monitor Curriculum Based Measurement Rate of Improvement Universal Screen Progress Monitor

Legal Issues

Two Requirements (Zirkel, 2014) “If student participates in RTI, include documentation of instructional strategies and the student-centered data…. Consider as part of the evaluation… data based documentation of repeated assessment of achievement at reasonable intervals reflection formal assessment of student progress during the instruction, which was provided to the parents” ( (b)(2)).

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Legally binding in 9 western states in the Ninth Circuit It is generalizable and potentially influential in rest of the country CM entered Kindergarten US (SORT) and DIEBVELS administered 3 times by reading Specialist- K-3. CM scores fell below cut score and began reading interventions throughout Kindergarten.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Grade 1: Continued reading interventions. October: parents requested SPED testing. School held two RtI meetings in November and February to discuss parental concerns. District provided SORT and DIEBELS data, but not progress monitoring data. Feb. 20 th districted completed FIE in a timely manner using discrepancy scores to determine SLD.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 The eligibility form noted the RtI data but did not include or attach summary of the RtI data. April 18 th IEP meeting met and determined eligibility for SLD. IEPs written included specialized reading and writing instructions for 45 minutes, 4 times per week. End of grade 1: below grade for reading; writing improved to grade level.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Grade 2 continued same services on IEP. Parents received private evaluation and CM diagnosed with CAPD: recommendations specified environmental modifications, direct interventions and compensatory strategies. Parents provided information to the IEP team IEPs at annual were again “identical” to previous ones, despite declining US and diagnostic data scores on SORT and DIEBELS

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 End of grade 2 failed state assessment and again below average on report card for reading and writing. Grade 3 beginning of year: IEP team met at parents’ request to discuss concerns and disagreement with the CAPD evaluation and needs for revisions to the IEP. Did not revise IEP, proposed reevaluation. Parents declined to give consent.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Parents withdrew CM and placed him in a private school that offered such services. They also filed for due process. After 11 sessions, the hearing officer decided the IEP was appropriate and denied the requested reimbursement for the private services. They filed an appeal for judicial review.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 In Feb. 2012, the federal district ruled in favor of the district: procedural regulations were followed. Also ruled the district did not deny the parents’ opportunity for meaningful participation in light of the correspondence, various meetings, and extensive exchange of information, including some derivative of the RtI data. Parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, decision at the Ninth Circuit- reversed the IEP ruling. Two claims by parents: 1.Majority disagreed with this claim. The district did not commit a procedural violation by not including the specific RtI data in the evaluation since it used multiple sources of data within the variety of assessment tools in the FIE.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, District violated informed parental consent by not providing parents with the opportunity to examine the child’s records when asking for consent because it did not provide RtI data when parents were giving consent. 3.District violated provision of providing parents with “the documentation of determination of eligibility” by failing to provide the RtI data when considering eligibility.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Agreed with parents on this claim. The district violated IDEA by failing to ensure that the RtI data was documented and carefully considered by the entire IEP team and failing to furnish the parents with the RtI data- thereby making the parents unable to give informed consent for both the initial evaluation and the special education services CM received. Based on 3 general IDEA criteria:

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014 Based on these three points the Ninth Circuit determined that the district prevented the parents from meaningful participation in the IEP process. Issue in this case was FAPE.

Align Data Sources Universal Screening Progress Monitoring Diagnostic Assessments Outcome Assessments Does the data tell a clear and concise story of the student’s learning? If there is inconsistency team must investigate why Review integrity of instruction Align to student needs Student variables

Example of Using Multiple Sources of Data for Problem Solving ….

Question Do your teams spend more time talking about individual kids or do they spend time more time on the needs of ALL kids?

Team Philosophy The 1 st intervention is always effective classroom instruction and classroom management which yield high rates of academic engagement. The team always uses the model of problem solving-consultation- instruction/intervention approach.

Problem Identification Review existing information Determine student’s functional level Identify initial concerns Analyze multiple data sources Operationally define the problem

Existing Data Review Determine the Student’s Current Classroom Status: Academic Progress and Work Samples Teacher Describes and quantifies concerns Review of Records Parent Contact(s) Medical Information Classroom Observations (ICEL)

Determine Student Functional Levels Identify assets and weaknesses Identify Critical Life Events, Milestones, Circumstances (Positive and Negative) Identify medical and/or physiological sources of concern Identify academic variables such as “speed of acquisition” or retention of information Identify issues of attendance, transitions, motivation, access to instruction

60 Review - assessment information, curriculum, discipline referrals, cumulative & health files, etc. Interview – teacher, parent, student, specialist, etc. Observation – instruction, student, curriculum use, environment, etc. Test/Assess – research on curriculum, instructional effectiveness, screening, diagnostic and outcome measures, etc. ICEL/RIOT:

61  Instruction – Does the teacher use data to make instructional decisions?; Does the teacher provide differentiation to assist at-risk learners?  Curriculum - Is the curriculum research-based and completed with fidelity?  Environment – What factors in the environment impact the student’s learning?  Learner - What are the learners strengths and weaknesses?; What kind of learner is he/she? ICEL/RIOT (continued):

Supplemental Supports Do your students show movement in the Tiers? How long is too long? Do you have students who are referred and then DNQ? What happens next? Do you have teams that are reluctant to move kids out of Tiers because they are successful?

Monitor Fidelity Intervention Well Checks Observe in Tiers 1 and 2/3 Consult with Teacher Review data weekly in PLC/ Planning meetings Check data collection Talk to parent

Purpose is to develop instruction and intervention Never use documentation (or lack of) for delaying a special education evaluation when there is strong evidence of a suspected disability. Keep it simple... use naturally occurring data to drive RtI problem solving Focus documentation on converging multiple sources of data. Consistency is key. Have a rubric for teams to follow RtI Documentation...

Tips for Moving Forward 1.Make sure the system of intervention is fluid. 2.Systems of intervention work better when they are supporting teams rather than individual teachers. 3.Realize that no support system will compensate for inadequate teaching. 4.Ensure a common understanding of “system of interventions.”