Response to Intervention Getting Started With ‘Response to Intervention’: A Guide for Schools Jim Wright

Response to Intervention 2 Response to Intervention: An Introduction Understanding the RTI model Surveying your school or district’s ‘RTI Readiness’ Today we will work toward the 6 goals of: Creating a plan to enlist support from your school stakeholders for RTI Inventorying RTI resources available at your school Assembling an RTI Steering Group to oversee the RTI project Defining your expectations for what a teacher-initiated ‘Tier I’ intervention should look like

Response to Intervention 3 For a comprehensive directory of up-to-date RTI Resources available for free on the Internet, visit RTI_Wire at: php/rti/rti_wire.php

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

Response to Intervention 5 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.

Response to Intervention 6 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.

Response to Intervention 7 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 an 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.

Response to Intervention 8 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)

Response to Intervention 9 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.

Response to Intervention 10 Why is RTI now being adopted by schools? Congress passed the revised Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 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

Response to Intervention 11 IDEIA Federal (US Dept of Education) Regulations: What do they say about LD diagnosis? In 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA 2004), including landmark language in that law to encourage schools to break free of their reliance on the discredited IQ-Achievement Discrepancy method for identifying Learning Disabilities. The U.S. Department of Education then developed regulations based on IDEIA 2004 to guide state practices. These regulations (34 C.F.R. 300 & 301, 2006) direct that states cannot “require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability” [Discrepancy Model] Furthermore, states “must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention” (34 C.F.R. 300 & 301, 2006; p ). [RTI Model]

Response to Intervention 12 The federal regulations also require that schools “ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction” (34 C.F.R. 300 & 301, 2006; p ) by: –demonstrating that “the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel” and; –collecting “data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction.” IDEIA Federal (US Dept of Education) Regulations: What do they say about LD diagnosis? (Cont.)

Response to Intervention 13 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).

Response to Intervention 14 Target Student Discrepancy 1: Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability (Fuchs 2003) Discrepancy 2: Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’)

Response to Intervention 15 The steps of RTI for an individual case… Under RTI, if a student is found to be performing well below peers, the school will: 1.Estimate the academic skill gap between the student and typically-performing peers 2.Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic performance 3.Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to improve the student's academic functioning 4.Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the impact of the intervention 5.If the student fails to respond to several well-implemented interventions, consider a referral to Special Education

Response to Intervention 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 are 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 an skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)

Response to Intervention 17 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 LOCAL NORMS EXAMPLE: Twenty-three 4 th -grade students were administered oral reading fluency Curriculum-Based Measurement passages at the 4 th -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.

Response to Intervention 18 Baylor Elementary School : Grade Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min : Sample Size: 23 Students Low Value=31 Hi Value=131 Median (2 nd Quartile)=713 rd Quartile=1081 st Quartile=43 Billy=19 Group Norms: Correctly Read Words Per Min: Book 4-1: Raw Data Correctly Read Words-Book 4-1 Group Norms: Converted to Box-Plot

Response to Intervention 19 Research Norms: Example Estimates of ‘Typical’ [‘Instructional’] Reading Fluency Level Ranges By Grade Based on a Research Sample (from Shapiro, 1996) GradeCorrectly Read Words Per MinReading Errors Fewer than Fewer than Fewer than Fewer than Fewer than Fewer than 7 Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations

Response to Intervention 20 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, 3 rd -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

Response to Intervention 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.

Response to Intervention 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.

Response to Intervention 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)

Response to Intervention 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).

Response to Intervention 25 Tier I Tier II Tier III 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 Individualized Intervention: Students who need additional support than peers are given individual intervention plans. Example: Supplemental peer tutoring in reading to increase reading fluency Intensive Intervention: Students whose intervention needs are greater than general education can meet may be referred for more intensive services. Example: Special Education

Response to Intervention 26 Tier I Interventions Tier I interventions are universal—available to all students. Teachers often deliver these interventions in the classroom (e.g., providing additional drill and practice in reading fluency for students with limited decoding skills). Tier I interventions are those strategies that instructors are likely to put into place at the first sign that a student is struggling. Tier I interventions attempt to answer the question: Are routine classroom instructional modifications sufficient to help the student to achieve academic success?

Response to Intervention 27 Tier II Interventions Tier II interventions are individualized, tailored to the unique needs of struggling learners. They are reserved for students with significant skill gaps who have failed to respond successfully to Tier I strategies. Tier II interventions attempt to answer the question: Can an individualized intervention plan carried out in a general-education setting bring the student up to the academic level of his or her peers?

Response to Intervention 28 Tier II Interventions There are two different vehicles that schools can use to deliver Tier II interventions: Problem-solving (Classroom-Based Intervention). Individualized research-based interventions match the profile of a particular student’s strengths and limitations. The classroom teacher often has a large role in carrying out these interventions. A plus of the problem-solving approach is that the intervention can be customized to the student’s needs. However, developing intervention plans for individual students can be time-consuming. Standard-Protocol (Standalone Intervention). Group intervention programs based on scientifically valid instructional practices (‘standard protocol’) are created to address frequent student referral concerns. These services are provided outside of the classroom. A middle school, for example, may set up a structured math-tutoring program staffed by adult volunteer tutors to provide assistance to students with limited math skills. Students referred for a Tier II math intervention would be placed in this tutoring program. An advantage of the standard-protocol approach is that it is efficient and consistent: large numbers of students can be put into these group interventions to receive a highly standardized intervention. However, standard group intervention protocols often cannot be individualized easily to accommodate a specific student’s unique needs.

Response to Intervention 29 Tier III Interventions Tier III interventions are the most intensive academic supports available in a school and are generally reserved for students with chronic and severe academic delays or behavioral problems. In many schools, Tier III interventions are available only through special education. Tier III supports try to answer the question, What ongoing supports does this student require and in what settings to achieve the greatest success possible?

Response to Intervention 30 RTI: School-Wide Three-Tier Framework (Kovaleski, 2003; Vaughn, 2003) Tier III ‘Long-Term Programming for Students Who Fail to Respond to Tier II Interventions’ (e.g., Special Education) Tier I 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)

Response to Intervention Tier I: Universal 100% Tier II: Individualized 10-15% Tier III: Intensive 5-10% Levels of Intervention: Tier I, II, & III

Response to Intervention 32 END