1. RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Connecticut December 6, 2007 www.pbis.org www.cber.org George.sugai@uconn.edu

2. My “Task”

3. Good TeachingSocial Behavior Support STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

5. RtI: Good “IDEiA” Policy Approach for redesigning & establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable for all students, families & educators NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention NOT limited to special education NOT new

7. RtI

9. Where’d “triangle” come from….a PBIS perspective?

10. “Triangle” ?’s Why triangle? Why not pyramid or octagon? Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers? What’s it got to do w/ education? Where’d those %’s come from?

11. Circa 1994

12. Public Health & Disease Prevention Kutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994 Tertiary (FEW) –Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current cases Secondary (SOME) –Reduce current cases of problem behavior Primary (ALL) –Reduce new cases of problem behavior

14. Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT

15. 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based High Intensity Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment-based Intense, durable procedures Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response Universal Interventions All students Preventive, proactive Universal Interventions All settings, all students Preventive, proactive Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems Circa 1996

16. RtI Application Examples EARLY READING/LITERACYSOCIAL BEHAVIOR TEAM General educator, special educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc. General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc. UNIVERSAL SCREENING Curriculum based measurementSSBD, record review, gating PROGRESS MONITORING Curriculum based measurement ODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS 5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting, group contingency management, function-based support, self- management DECISION MAKING RULES Core, strategic, intensivePrimary, secondary, tertiary tiers

17. Responsiveness to Intervention Academic + Social Behavior

18. All Some Few RTI A Continuum of Support for All Dec 6, 2007

19. 3% 8% 89% 10% 16% 74% 11% 18% 71% K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104) Mean Proportion of Students ODR rates vary by level

20. K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104) 32% 43% 25% 48% 37% 15% 45% 40% 15% A few kids get many ODRs

21. Has triangle been useful?

22. 84% 58% 11% 22% 05% 20% SWPBS schools are more preventive

23. 88%69% 08% 17% 04% 14% SWPBS schools are more preventive

24. ~80% of Students ~15% ~5% CONTINUUM of SWPBS Tertiary Prevention Function-based support Secondary Prevention Check in/out Primary Prevention SWPBS Audit 1.Identify existing efforts by tier 2.Specify outcome for each effort 3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness 4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes 5.Establish decision rules (RtI)

31. RtI Systems & Considerations?

32. Quotable Fixsen “Policy is –allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs” –Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action” “Training does not predict action” –“Manualized treatments have created overly rigid & rapid applications”

33. “Train & Hope”

34. Possible RtI Outcomes Gresham, 2005 ResponderNon-Responder High Risk False + Adequate response True + Inadequate response No Risk True – Adequate response False – Inadequate response

35. Avoiding False +/-

36. Still not so simple: EBD? Gresham 2005

37. Implications & Complexities (E.g., Gresham, Grimes, Kratochwill, Tilly, etc.) Psychometric features of measures? Standardized measurement procedures? Documented “cut” criteria for determining responsiveness? Interventions efficacy, effectiveness, & relevance? Cultural, familial, language, etc. considerations? Students with disabilities? Professional development? Applications across grades/schools & curriculum areas? Treatment integrity & accountability? Functioning of general v. special education? K-12 applications

38. SYSTEMS PRACTICES DATA Supporting Staff Behavior Supporting Student Behavior OUTCOMES Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement Supporting Decision Making Simple Systems Elements

39. IMPLEMENTATION PHASES Need, Agreements, Adoption, & Outcomes Local Demonstration w/ Fidelity Sustained Capacity, Elaboration, & Replication 4. Systems Adoption, Scaling, & Continuous Regeneration 2. 3. 1.

40. Valued Outcomes Continuous Self-Assessment Practice Implementation Effective Practices Relevance Priority Efficacy Fidelity SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION

41. Future: Document… Technical adequacy of RtI components (measurement, decision rules, etc.) Full implementation across range of contexts Impact & relationship of academic & social behavior interaction Systems, resources, competence needed to maintain effects, support high fidelity of implementation, expand applications, & sustain implementation of practices

42. Messages RtI logic is “good thing” for all students, families, & schools Still some work to refine technology, practices, & systems Consider implications & complexities for practice & systems implementation

43. Keynote “Homework” 1.Work as team 2.Think/work systemically 3.Develop fluency w/ “Big Ideas” 4.Work smarter w/ existing resources 5.Conduct self-audit

44. George.sugai@uconn.edu www.pbis.org www.scalingcenter.org