1. By: Victoria Smith

2. Special Education Statistics  2006-2007 6.7 million children and youth received special education services About 9 percent of all children and youth ages 3–21.

3. Vocabulary  Response to Intervention  Learning Disability  Progress Monitoring  Adaptations  Instructional Support Team  Instructional Assessment Process

4. Response to Intervention  The practice of providing high quality instruction and interventions.  Before identifying a student with a learning disability.

5. Response to Intervention  Designed to assure that the regular education continuum of services is used effectively for all students prior to referral for special education services.  Serves as an initial screening

6. Learning Disability AAffects the way a person or child learns

7. Response to Intervention Four Steps Data collection and analysis involving student performance data and assessments Identification of target areas and interventions Developing framework or plans to be implemented within the targeted areas Implementation of plans, progress monitoring and evaluation

8. Benefits of Four Step Process  Substantial increase in the number of students succeeding in school.  Significant decrease in the number of students needing special education services.

9. Progress Monitoring  Scientifically based practice  Used to assess students’ academic performance  Evaluate the effectiveness of instruction  Implemented with individual students or an entire class.

12. Adaptations  Changing format not content  Types of adaptations  Performance adaptations

13. Instructional Support Team  Bridge between special and regular education  Helps the regular classroom teacher  Facilitate the best use of support services

14. Instructional Assessment Process  Indentifies gaps between curricular demands and the student skill level.  Determine appropriate curriculum and instructional levels.  Provides data about the effectiveness of the strategies used.

15. Problems in Traditional System  Deliberate separation of special education from general education  Lack of documentation (teaching methods)  Eligibility determination procedures  Prevention and early identification  Lack of matching instruction to strengths  Overrepresentation of minority students (ESL)

16. Progress Monitoring  Do the progress monitoring, data collection and several intervention strategies make a difference during the identification process?

17. Progress Monitoring  Huge difference.  Allows teachers to know what works best.  Find appropriate teaching methods.  Decrease the number of students being identified.

18. RTI  Do the Right to Intervention methods improve or hinder the identification process of students with disabilities?

19. RTI  All students benefit  Instruction is closely matched to the students needs and abilities

20. References  Batsche, G., Elliot, J., Graden, J. (2005). Response to Intervention. Policy Considerations and Implementation,5-13.  Feir, R. (1992, March).Refining Pennsylvania’s funding mechanism and program rules for special education. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Education Finance Association, New Orleans, LA.  Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L.,(2003) Responsiveness-to- intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 157-171.  Gickling E. and V. Thomspon. (1985). A personal view of curriculum-based assessment. Exceptional Children, 52: 205-218.  Gresham, F.M. (1985). Strategies for enhancing the social outcomes of mainstreaming: A necessary ingredient for success. In The consequences of mainstreaming handicapped children (pp.193-218).  Huck, R., R. Myers, and J. Wilson (1989). ADAPT: A developmental activity program for teachers. (2nd ed.) Pittsburgh: Alleghany Intermediate Unit.  Reynolds, M.C., M.C. Wang, and H.J. Walberg (1987). The necessary construction of special and regular education. Exceptional Children, 53:391-398.  Rosenfield, S.A, & Gravois, T.A. (1996). Instructional consultation teams: Collaborating for change. New York: Gilford.  Stellar, A. (1988). Effective schools research: Practice and promise. Bloomington, IN: Phi Delta Kappa.