1. Responsiveness-to-Intervention: What is It? George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS Center for Behavioral Education and Research University of Connecticut October 11,02008 www.pbis.org www.cber.org George.sugai@uconn.edu

2. www.pbis.org

3. PURPOSE Provide brief overview of features of Responsiveness- to-Intervention for EVERYONE in school

5. Outcomes

6. RtI Rationale

8. RtI Definition

9. RtI: Good “IDEiA” Policy Approach or framework 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

10. 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”

11. RtI Features

12. RtI Response to Intervention

13. RtI History & Logic

17. 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 Responsiveness to Intervention Academic SystemsBehavioral Systems Circa 1996

18. “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?

19. 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

21. Circa 1994

22. 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 ALL SOME FEW

23. 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

24. 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

25. All Some Few RTI Continuum of Support for ALL Dec 7, 2007

26. Questions to Ponder What is “scientifically/evidence-based” intervention/practice? How do we measure & ensure “fidelity of implementation?” How do we determine “non-responsiveness?” Can we affect “teacher practice?” Do we have motivation to increase efficiency of “systems” organization? ???

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

28. Avoiding False +/-

29. Messages RtI logic is good thing for all students, families, & schools Still some work to refine technology, practices, & systems Implications & complexities for practice, systems, & implementation

30. George.sugai@uconn.edu Robh@uoregon.edu www.pbis.org