2. Reforming Pk-12 Education The Promise of RTI Response to Intervention Summer Institute June 14, 2010 University of Cincinnati David P. Prasse, Ph.D Loyola University Chicago

3. Focus/Overview National/State Implementation Teachers and Competencies RTI Overview Documenting Need – Historical View

4. Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs. He feels that there really is another way… If only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it. From Winnie-the-Pooh We Don’t Have Time to Think

5. GROWTH IN RTI IMPLEMENTATION 2007 – 40% districts piloting or implementing 2008 – 60% piloting or implementing 2009 - 71% piloting or implementing –(Spectrum K12 School Solutions, 2009) 100% of special ed faculty report including RTI in teacher preparation important (Gallagher & Coleman, 2009)

6. NATIONAL AND SEA DEVELOPMENT Majority of SEA’s adopting RTI in special education eligibility & entitlement Understood as vehicle for LEA transformation Component of many Race to Top applications Option in I3 RFP (Absolute Priority 2)

7. When do you anticipate RTI will be fully implemented district wide  12% - Daily Use  17% - 09-10 School Year  32% - 10-11 School Year  30% - Don’t Know

8. Is Your District using RTI For  88% - Identification for early intervening services and supports.  60% - Identification of students for special education services.  51% - Identification specialized services and supports in addition to sped.

9. Using RTI as part of the process to Identify Students for SPED.  73% - Yes  27% - No

10. For Which Grades and Areas  Elementary – Reading (81%), Math (49%), Behavior (44%), None (16%)  Middle – Reading (39%), Math (26%), Behavior (25%), None (36%).  High School – Reading (19%), Math (14%), Behavior (18%), None (49%)

11. Significant Obstacles (rank ordered)  Insufficient Teacher Training  Lack of Intervention Resources  Lack of Resources – Instruction or progress monitoring.  Lack of support/direction from state  Lack of resources benchmarking/assessment/data management  Lack of support from district leadership

12. PRACTIONER DATA: KNOWLEDGE & SKILL GAPS Survey of classroom teachers Looked at beliefs and teacher perceptions of RTI skills Analyzed data for beginning teachers only (first-year and one to four years) Response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree” (www.floridarti.usf.edu)www.floridarti.usf.edu

13. TEACHER BELIEFS

14. TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t

16. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS

17. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

22. For the 6 areas listed (3 academic and 3 behavioral), between 60% and 75% of beginning teachers reported needing some level of support for accessing resources to develop evidence-based academic and behavioral interventions at each tier.

23. PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t Less than half of beginning teachers reported being able to collect universal screening data (e.g., early literacy skills).

24. High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn’t shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick. We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence

25. Why RtI? Moves the focus of attention to student progress not student labels Focus on achieving benchmarks, regardless of student needs Scarce available resources - efficiency Represents systemic transformation Responsive to best practice and national direction

26. Response to Intervention RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

27. ACADEMIC SYSTEMSBEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS STUDENTS The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the Needs of ALL Students Through Early and Scientifically Based Interventions Through Careful Systems Planning Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction All students Preventive, proactive 80% Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction All settings, All students Preventive, proactive Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response 15% Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions Some students (at-risk) High efficiency Rapid response 15% Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment - based Intense, durable procedures 5% Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions Individual Students Assessment - based High intensity Of longer duration 5%

28. Why a Pyramid? Tier 3 Tier 1 Tier 2 An aerial view- emphasizing that all students need a strong foundation in core instruction and that all students are part of the same educational system.

29. RtI: Basic Premises Effective Core Instruction is the basis for this model. The model alone cannot “fix” core instruction but demands effective core (Tier I) instruction Cannot do “more” in existing time frame – work differently “Unit of analysis” is the school building –Role of the building principal is critical to success

31. Key Characteristics of RtI Universal screening of academics and behavior Multiple tiers (3) of increasingly intense interventions Use of evidenced-based interventions Continuous monitoring of student performance Evaluating student performance against benchmarks/outcome assessment

32. Key Assumptions Supplemental instruction is best delivered through “standard protocols” of intervention to groups of students with common needs Data drives decisions Its all about the rate of student progress in the amount of time remaining Data collection WITHOUT intervention integrity is useless Staff, resources and time must match the demand

33. Standard Practices All intervention and eligibility decisions are based on the assumption that the “core” instruction-- academic and behavior--is effective. Procedures exist for tier-based resource allocation Procedures exist to support intervention integrity and to document the “dosage” of intervention provided A cadre of interventions exist that the entire school is knowledgeable about A single problem-solving process exists and the implementation steps and skills are standardized.

34. How Does it Fit Together? Standard Treatment Protocol Addl. Assessment Instruction Results Monitoring Individual Diagnostic Individualized Intensive weekly All Students at a grade level ODRs Monthly Bx Screening Bench- Mark Assessment Annual Testing Behavior Academics None Continue With Core Instruction Grades Classroom Assessments Yearly Assessments Standard Protocol Small Group Differen- tiated By Skill 2 times/month Step 1 Step 2Step 3Step 4 Supplemental 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Core Intensive

35. Embrace RtI as general education model with other initiatives RtI is a framework for student improvement, not another initiative Other initiatives, if focused on the same outcome, will fit this framework ( PBIS, PLC) Consider how well school staff use data to make instructional decisions for student improvement Consider how well current services for struggling students are coordinated/integrated

36. What Are These Initiatives Telling Us? Focus on “Results” not Process Intervene Early & Focus on Prevention Insist on Greater Parental Involvement Integrate General and Special Education Services Make only Data-Based Decisions Interventions Must be Evidenced-Based Be Accountable, Efficient, and Flexible

37. Interventions are NOT: Activities which are intended to put students into alternative settings where appropriate interventions can occur. Or A different setting or location: –Special Education –Title I –Day Treatment –Residential Programs

38. Quick Look Back  Control of the Educational Agenda Business and Politicians  Emergence of Special Education System Expansion and shrinkage

39. “ If it’s a school day, during school hours, one-fifth of the total American population consists of public school students K through 12. One in five Americans. And if you count teachers and administrators you are probably going to get pretty close to one-quarter of the population of the country at any given time on a weekday sitting in a public school building.” (Lemann, 2001)

40.  In 2006 nearly 90 percent of American children – 50.3 million students – were enrolled in public schools.  An additional 5 million enrolled in private schools.  There were 4.9 million teachers – 3.3 million K-12.

41. Education Costs 1995-1996 per pupil expenditures =$2,853 2004-2006 = $7,686 Since 1965 federal government spent over $351 billion on education and, States have spent additional trillions.

42. Education Costs – cont’t 2005-2006 – Nation spent $922 billion, Kdg-grad. 2005-2006 spent $558 billion K-12. Expenditures = 7.4% gross domestic product

43. Quick Look Back 1970’s we saw Rising unemployment Market share loss to Japan and Germany Swift changes in technologies Decline of U.S. workplace productivity

44. Corporate leaders and public officials pointed the finger at our nation’s schools

45. Criticisms included Unprepared high school graduates Poor scores on national tests Violence in our schools High drop out rates in urban schools White flight from cities to suburbs

46. Business Roundtables - Presidential Commission – A Nation At Risk Increased high school graduation requirements Lengthened school year Added more tests

47. 1989 President Bush – Governors Education forum- Goals 2000 Six (later 8) national goals 1st math and science by 2000.

48. Three key assumptions Public school more efficient and effective – compete and parent choice Students perform better in workplace with rigorous academic subjects, especially math and science. Test scores measure what has been learned & predict future employees performance.

49. Resulted in High-stakes testing programs Reduction in social promotions Emergence of choice programs/charters, etc.

50. Over past two decades Reading and math scores stagnant. Criticisms of the schools and preparation programs increased Privatization/business orientation emerged Tax payer supported – political/legislative interest

51. The Emergence of Special Education HISTORICAL CONTEXT

52. 1960’S Segregation no Longer Permitted Disabled Students Denied Access to Public Schools Litigation Brought Against Public Schools Seeking Access for Disabled Public Schools Concede School House Doors Opened

53. 1970’s States pass special education access legislation Congress follows suit in 1974-75 1975 Gerald Fords Signs PL 94-142 Promise of Federal $$ accompanies legislation States implement federal law

54. Basic Tenets Affirmatively find and education students with disabilities Determine type of disability Required to meet eligibility criteria Extend and follow procedural due process requirements

55. IMPACT Found millions of students Capped #’s via limits on funding Equated category/label with program Once identified outcomes didn’t matter For 35+ years taught educational personnel to refer kids if they don’t learn Expanded number of categories

56. CONSEQUENCES Special Education students didn’t need to learn General Education students didn’t need to learn Parents, teachers, society, believed identification meant problem solved Created two school systems

57. Experiencing Substantive Educational Reform Initiatives Comprehensive Enjoy broad political support Priority federal/presidential agenda Nothing like it in 35 plus years (ESEA)

58. CHALLENGES KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE DON’T LOOK FOR SHORT CUTS BE CAUTIOUS OF “TAKE IT TO SCALE.” PATIENCE – OLDEST INTRACTIBLE INSTITUION BATTLE VESTED INTERSTS WITH DATA, NOT OPINION SUBSTANCE – NOT PROCESS

59. OPPORTUNITIES Embrace Accountability Embrace Technology – Data Systems Meet with a Politician Insist on & Be Involved with State Rules and Regulations Ask the Different Question – Always, Everywhere Sliced Bread

60. “Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.” People see change as an event: “But we just changed last year.”