1. Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference April 24, 2009 Macquarie University, Sydney

2. Juniper Gardens Children’s Project Applied University Research in an Inner-City Community University of Kansas www.jgcp.ku.edu

3.  JGCP began in the mid- 1960s when residents of NE Kansas City, KS joined with KU Faculty to address concerns about child development in a low-income community

4.  Children have:  Improved their academic performance  Enhanced their social skills  Entered school being more ready to learn  Accelerated their learning of language  Families and caregivers have:  Become more actively involved in early intervention programs  Learned effective ways to support their children’s learning at home  Become more self-sufficient  Learned to manage their child’s behavior  Found support from other caregivers and staff  www.jgcp.ku.edu

5. Founding of Applied Behavior Analysis in Education and Special Education Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of American Children (Hart & Risley, 1995) ClassWide Peer Tutoring Impacts on Beginning Reading Achievement (What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_07 0907.pdf http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_07 0907.pdf Children with Autism can benefit from small group as well as one to one instruction

6. Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference April 24, 2009 Macquarie University, Sydney

7.  Introduce the RtI concept  Share some known outcomes for children in the elementary grades  Discuss how well features of RtI align with the principles/practices of early childhood  Illustrate how RtI is beginning to be applied to children younger than Kindergarten.  Introduce ways of get started in using RtI with preschool-aged children (see online at www.crtiec.org) www.crtiec.org

8.  The issues  Improving results for young children with and without disabilities  Waiting too long to prevent a delay from becoming a disability  Policies regarding receipt of early intervention and early childhood special education services  Accountability for results  Evidence-based practice  Compared to conventional practice, the RtI approach promises to improve results

9.  RTI is a process designed to:  Allow for earlier identification of students not making progress given the current level of service  Provide these students with an increased level of instructional intensity matched to their demonstrated response-to-intervention  Provide a data-based method for evaluating the effectiveness of the selected instructional approaches and changing/improving them

10. In the States, primarily from learning disabilities and the “discrepancy model” of documenting a gap between a student’s aptitude and achievement Required that a student experience a sustained period of failure to achieve before services could be referred and more intensive services could be delivered.

11. IEP Implementation IEP Goals Objectives Screen Comprehensive Assessment Referral Annual Update Is the child eligible for services? Is there a problem? yes no yes In this approach, children do not receive services typically until grades 2 and 3, after a period of failure to progress!

12. More Dynamic More Data-Driven More Responsive In this approach, children receive services sooner and more frequently when needed

13.  Reduction in the need for special education by improving and providing services earlier than in the past  Assessment that helps determine when something more is needed, and how it’s working  Children not meeting developmental goals  Support for intervention allocation decisions  Short-term response to intervention  Instruction that is more individualized, more responsive to a child’s needs, and that can be implemented without long delays  A coordinated system of care and education that finds children, and brings services to them at appropriate speed

14.  Improved academic outcomes  Improved behavior outcomes  Greenwood, C. R., Kratchowill, T., & Clements, M. (2008). School-wide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford.

15.  Programs establish and use the following core practices:  Universal screening and frequent progress monitoring assessments  A decision making approach that focuses on students’ progress or lack of progress (i.e., their response to intervention) as a basis for changing the intensity of children’s instructional experiences.  Evidence-based interventions provided in 3 or 4 levels of intensity as needed

16. Screening And Progress Monitoring Measures Curriculum- Based Assessment Monitor Identify/ Validate Need For Intervention Generate Intervention Strategies Implement Intervention Evaluate Intervention Effectiveness Monitor ©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

17. 1. Use of monitoring to determine if students are making progress or not 2. Use of multiple tiers of intervention 3. Problem-solving approach to determine most appropriate level of intervention for individual students 4. Reliance on evidence-based practices in all tiers

18.  Instruction is available that varies across tiers of intensity that are related to the nature and severity of students’ difficulties.

20. Tier 1: Evidence-based core curricula and instructional practices provided to all children Tier 2: More intensified instruction for children, for example, increased opportunities to practice skills in addition to Tier 1 curriculum Tier 3: More focused, individualized intervention for children

21. 1. Evidence-based practice 2. Time and Opportunities to Respond (OTR) 3. Group Size 4. Focus 5. Specificity of Instructional Design 6. Teacher Involvement 7. Progress Monitoring

22. 1. Evidence-based practice  Tier 1: Universal language/literacy curriculum (e.g., OWLS) and literacy rich classroom environment  Tier 2: Phonemic Awareness activities supporting Tier 1 Tier 2: Phonemic Awareness activities supporting Tier 1  Tier 3: Supplemental or alternative to the Tier 1 curriculum Tier 3: Supplemental or alternative to the Tier 1 curriculum 2. Time and Opportunities to Respond (OTR)  Tier 1: Full day, literacy rich classroom, and activities evoking responding to goals and objectives  Tier 2: 15-20 minutes of instruction supplemental to Tier 1  Tier 3: 20-30 minute sessions with scripted lessons 3. Group Size  Tier 1: Large and small groups  Tier 2: Small groups  Tier 3: Very small groups, One-on-one

23. 3. Focus  Tier 1: Curricular goals and objectives  Tier 2: Tier 1 Curricular goals and objectives  Tier 3: Restricted scope and skills sequence focused on prerequisite and priority skill learning 4. Specificity of Instructional Design  Tier 1: Low to moderate  Tier 2: Moderate to high targeting key skills in the Tier 1 curriculum  Tier 3: Highly specific 5. Teacher Involvement  Tier 1: Teacher-led and independent activities  Tier 2: Paraprofessional-supported activity centers  Tier 3: Teacher-led 6. Progress Monitoring  Tier 1: Quarterly  Tier 2: Monthly/Weekly  Tier 3: Weekly

24.  All students are screened on a regular basis  Progress monitoring is carried out more frequently on students in upper level tiers  Progress monitoring measures are quick and easy and designed for teachers to administer.  Progress monitoring measures help determine if students are responding to the intervention by tracking their level and rate of growth on targeted skills.  They are used for instructional planning—not diagnosis.  They are not tied to a specific curriculum.

25. Progress Monitoring Using the Early Communication Indicator 36 Mos Expectation Child’s Observed Trajectory Normative Trajectory

26. ©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

28.  Early education is already firmly behind the idea of prevention and finding children who need additional support as early as possible.  The “idea” of monitoring progress has been part of providing quality early intervention.  Individualizing instruction within the context of the general classroom is considered “recommended practice.”

29.  We are just beginning to have a set of progress monitoring measures with sound psychometric properties that can be used in RtI models.  We are just beginning to see these measures used within problem-solving models.  We are just beginning to see the development of tiered interventions with general education settings.

30.  What system is in place to implement the model?  Current RtI models assume coordinated teamwork between general education and special education to carry out screening, progress monitoring and to implement multiple tiers of intervention.  What evidence-based instructional practices are available?  Limited research-based interventions are available and limited implementation of evidence-based practice is currently being carried out—especially in Tier 1.  What personnel are available?  Current RtI models assume a highly level of expertise to carry out higher level tiers.

31.  What are you doing already with assessment? How will that fit with implementing a progress monitoring/RtI model? How does this fit with accountability related assessments?  Problem-Solving Model: How will special education work together with general education in doing this?  How would the infrastructure need to change to support implementing an RtI model in early childhood? (service delivery, professional development etc.)

32. Strategic planning Model demonstration sites Program evaluation

33.  Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC)  http://www.crtiec.org/ http://www.crtiec.org/  http://www.crtiec.org/RTI/rtiposition.shtml http://www.crtiec.org/RTI/rtiposition.shtml  RTI Action Network  http://www.rtinetwork.org/Parents-and-Families http://www.rtinetwork.org/Parents-and-Families

34.  Get support from program administrators  Consider organizational & contextual factors  Engage in long-range planning  Develop a plan for communicating with families

35.  Create core problem-solving team  Assess key dimensions of Tier 1 quality/make necessary improvements  Select assessment tools & tiered interventions  Provide intensive, ongoing professional development

37.  Judy Carta, Ph.D Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas 650 Minnesota Avenue 2 nd Floor Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 913-321-3143 carta@ku.edu www.crtiec.org  Charles Greenwood, Ph.D. Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas 650 Minnesota Avenue 2 nd Floor Kansas City, KS 66101 Phone: 913-321-3143 greenwood@ku.edu www.crtiec.org