1. Response to Intervention (RtI): A Comprehensive, School-wide Approach
KVEC Regional RtI Workgroup
Wednesday, January 10th 2007

2. Topics: Definition and key components of of RtI
Why RtI: Key rationale and benefits from research, practice, and law
What RtI looks like: School-wide implementation of a comprehensive approach to RtI
Tiers of instruction and intervention
Data-based decision making
Flexible, needs-based services delivery
Assessing school-wide readiness and planning steps

3. Response to Intervention Definition (NASDSE, 2005)
“Response to Intervention (RtI) is the practice of providing high-quality instruction and interventions matched to student needs, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals and applying child response data to important educational decisions.”

4. Breaking Down the Components of RtI in the Definition:
“Response to”
Data-based decision making
Screening to identify and support early to prevent failure
“Intervention”
Core instruction, differentiated instruction, and intervention
Scientifically-based, research-based
Standards-based
Data on how “responds to intervention” of increasing intensity yields data on “in need of specialized instruction”

5. Some Key Ideas in This Definition:
Focus is on student and school-wide improvement and matching intensity of resources to student needs (based on data)
Focus is not on use of RtI solely for eligibility determination (RtI data emerge naturally from system of instruction, intervention, data-based decision making)
Requires a comprehensive, system-wide approach

6. Alignment of Comprehensive Approach to RtI with Research on Effective Schools:
Acknowledge student performance and seek solutions
System-wide approach to improving instruction
District vision focused on student learning and instructional improvement
Decisions based on data, not instincts, preferences
Use of effective approaches to professional development
Redefine leadership (ownership, building-based teams)
Commitment to sustaining improvement over the long term

7. Question: How do you spell RtI? Answer: A Y P

8. The Promise and Benefits of an Integrated Approach to RtI:
Improved results for students at all levels
Focus on early intervention (versus waiting to fail) – finding the optimal instruction/intervention to get good results
Services and supports are needs-based – a coherent, flexible system
Data-driven decisions
Important point – focus shifts from eligibility to providing effective instruction/intervention and on maximizing results; eligibility derives naturally from systematic efforts at instruction and progress monitoring
Parent-friendly – focus is on helping improve outcomes, communicating with data related to instruction and progress

9. Benefits Noted in “A Parent’s Guide to Response-to-Intervention”
“The RTI process has the potential to limit the amount of academic failure that any student experiences and to increase the accuracy of special education evaluations…Information and data gathered by an RTI process can lead to earlier identification of children who have true disabilities and are in need of special education.”
National Center for Learning Disabilities,

10. What is RTI: Key Foundations
Multi-tiered instruction and intervention of increasing or decreasing intensity, based on data on student needs
Data-based decision making and progress monitoring to inform instructional decisions at all tiers
Effective, research-based instruction/intervention at all tiers
Flexible, needs-based services, seamless system across general, remedial and special education
Use of systematic problem solving at all tiers for decisions
Use of web-based data-systems technology for decision-making efficiency

11. Decisions about tiers of support are data-based
Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academics and Behavior
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions
1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions
5-10% Targeted Interventions
5-10% Targeted Interventions
80-90% School-Wide Interventions
80-90% School-Wide Interventions
Cone represents a healthy school/building systems of instruction and support for students…
Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions
Decisions about tiers of support are data-based A B C D E F

12. RtI at Middle and High School
Use of tiered approach to intervention – academics and behavior
Use of student performance data for decisions
Critical component is starting with examining base (core/universal – meeting the needs of most?)
Changing core as needed, adding interventions and programs to target needs (some), intervene individually for intensive needs for few
Decisions about programs, interventions, needed to target, based on data on needs (e.g., double language arts/reading blocks)
Fluid/flexible movement in intervention services
Use of problem solving

13. Support for Comprehensive Approach to RtI in Law
No Child Left Behind (NCLB)
Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004)

14. Support in NCLB for a Comprehensive Approach to RtI
Focus is on student progress – accountability for annual yearly progress (AYP) for all students, including subgroups
Use of scientifically-based instruction, delivered by highly qualified teachers, aligned with state standards
Mandated intervention (think Tier 2)
How do you spell AYP? RtI
Assess and intervene early
Match intervention to needs
Improve progress of all

15. Support in IDEA 2004 for Comprehensive Approach to RtI
Big idea – Children with Disabilities (CWD) are general education students first – accountability for improved results in general education content standards and assessments
School-wide, preventive focus - Pre-referral intervention (early intervening) strengthened and extended (allowance of up to 15% of SE funds)
Mandated remedial and individual interventions for children not responding to scientifically-based instruction
Support for flexibility in services and use of resources to improve outcomes

16. IDEA 2004 Requirement for Consideration of Instruction: Supports School-Wide Focus
Determination of Eligibility ( ) – all CWD, not just SLD
(b) A child must not be determined to be a CWD under this part (1) if the determinant factor for that determination is (i) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA); (ii) lack of appropriate instruction in math; or (iii) Limited English Proficiency)

17. IDEA 2004 re: Discrepancy Criteria
When determining whether a child has a SLD as defined in section 602, a LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in (8 areas cited)

18. IDEA 2004 re: RtI
In determining whether a child has a SLD (Specific Learning Disability), a LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures…

19. IDEA 2004 re: SLD
Determining the existence of a SLD. (a) The group described in may determine that a child has a SLD, as defined in 300.8(c)(10), if-

20. SLD Determination (300.309 cont.)
(1) The child does not achieve adequately for the child’s age or to meet State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the following areas, when provided with learning experiences and instruction appropriate for the child’s age or State-approved grade-level standards: (lists 8 areas).

21. SLD Determination (300.309 cont.)
(2)(i) The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or State-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas identified in paragraph (a)(1) of this section when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; or

22. SLD Determination ( )
(ii) The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement, or both, relative to age, State-approved grade-level standards, or intellectual development, that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments, consistent with and

23. SLD Determination (300.309 cont.)
(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a SLD is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in through

24. SLD Determination ( )
Note: 1 & 2 that follow refer to all SLD determination, not imbedded under RtI
(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

25. SLD Determination ( )
(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

26. Why Discrepancy Models Should Be Abandoned (from Commentary to Proposed Federal Regulations)
“The IQ discrepancy criterion is potentially harmful to students as it results in delaying intervention until the student’s achievement is sufficiently low that the discrepancy is achieved. For most students, identification as having an SLD occurs at an age when the academic problems are difficult to remediate (citing Torgeson)

27. Why Discrepancy Models Should be Abandoned (from Preamble, cont.)
“…the “wait to fail” model does not lead to “closing the achievement gap” for most students placed in special education.” (citing Donovan & Cross)

28. Questions and Answers on Response to Intervention (RTI): A System-Wide Approach and Opportunity for School Psychologists
Janet L. Graden, PhD
University of Cincinnati
Ohio School Psychologists Association
Spring Conference
May 4, 2006

29. Why RTI: Some Important Research Findings Related to Reading and the “Wait to Fail” Problem
Discrepancy formula doesn’t identify as eligible until Grades 3-4
If delay intervention to age 9, 75% continue to have significant reading difficulty through high school, even with intensive intervention
2 hrs. of intensive daily instruction required in Gr. 4 to make same gains as 30 min. of instruction in Kindergarten

30. Importance of Early Identification and Intervention for Reading Problems:
94% of SLD students identified for reading and language arts
Research shows 90-95% respond (close gap) with scientifically-based reading instruction and intervention, delivered by highly qualified teachers (prevent the downward spiral)

31. Why RTI: Potential Advantages of Integrated, Tiered Approach
Positive outcomes have been demonstrated in growing body of research and practice, across many settings (Ohio, Iowa, Michigan, Minnesota)
Prevention and early intervention – significant Tier 1 gains, improved outcomes
Matching intensity of intervention to severity of need - efficiency
Integration and alignment of general, remedial, and special education decisions, resources, services
Reduction of identification biases (emerging research)
Improved parent communication, reduced due process complaints

32. Research Findings from Implementation of System-wide RtI:
Most students (90-95%) meet standards with research-based instruction and intervention
Few (2-6%) require most intensive, individualized intervention
Proportional representation for minority subgroup of students needing intensive support (lack of disproportionality)
(Burns & colleagues, Marston, Witt & colleagues)

33. Changes in Practices – Before Referral and Evaluation
Previous Practices
Wait for referral (often wait to fail)
Pre-referral
Intervention responsibility on teacher
Anecdotal progress reports
Wait to fail – had to be deficit to be eligible
RtI Practices
Teams review universal screening data and automatically intervene with 20-30%
Interventions are standard, designed by team and delivered flexibly by building personnel
Progress monitoring data reviewed by team to make decisions

34. Change in Practices: During Evaluation
Previous Practices
Most information collected after referral
Testing had most influence on eligibility decision
Little focus on exclusionary criteria
Proving deficits, waiting to fail
RtI Practices
Most information already gathered when comprehensive evaluation begins
RtI data have most influence on eligibility decision
Exclusionary criteria are fully analyzed
Diagnostic and other assessment used as needed to fill in missing information needed for intervention planning

35. Changes in Practices: After Evaluation and for the IEP
Previous Practices
Frequently, more evaluation was needed to establish goals and services
If not eligible, frustration of educators, parents, and lack of student support and progress
No clear link between assessment and IEP, as required by IDEA
RtI Practices
IEP team has extensive information on student response to instruction by time eligibility is established
Clear, on-going link between assessment and IEP – same data methods used to progress monitor on IEP goals

36. Comprehensive, School-wide Approach to RtI
Use of a tiered model
Data-based decision making at all tiers
Scientifically-based instruction and intervention
Needs-based (based on data on response to instruction/intervention) flexible services delivery and eligibility

37. Decisions about tiers of support are data-based
Ohio Integrated Systems Model for Academics and Behavior
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions
1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions
5-10% Targeted Interventions
5-10% Targeted Interventions
80-90% School-Wide Interventions
80-90% School-Wide Interventions
Cone represents a healthy school/building systems of instruction and support for students…
Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions
Decisions about tiers of support are data-based A B C D E F

38. Key Features of an Effective Integrated Model
Academic
& Behavior Supports Across
3-tiers
Administrative Leadership
Collaborative Strategic Planning
(CPS)
Culturally Responsive Practices
These key features are the base of the 3-Tiered Cone
To meet the needs of all students academically and behaviorally, it is important that we utilize these key features of the integrated model.
Data-Based Decision Making
Scientifically-Based Research

39. Tier 1: Universal Instruction and Screening for All Students
Purpose: Maximize learning for all students and minimize the number of students in need of intervention
What:
Universal core scientifically-based general education curriculum and effective, differentiated instruction for all students (addresses learning needs for most students – allowing 80-90% to meet performance indicators) (reading core instruction of 90 min./day recommended)
Use of data (e.g., state testing data, DIBELS, CBM) to
Evaluate and improve instruction
Universally screen all students to identify those in need of intervention (Fall, Winter, and Spring universal screening)

40. Tier 1 (cont.)
School-wide planning/problem-solving team (including parent representation) is used for continuous improvement planning, including:
Evaluating effectiveness of core curriculum and instruction/behavior (effective for 80% of students?, if not, strengthen core)
Monitoring progress of AYP subgroups
Determining flexible use of school resources to meet student needs, based on data
Planning and implementation of high quality professional development to meet student needs, based on data
Assuring parent participation at all levels

41. NCLB Definition of Scientifically-Based Reading Research (SBRR, ESEA, Sec 1208(6)
(A) applies rigorous, systematic, and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties, and

42. SBRR (cont.) (b) includes research that –
(i) employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experimental intervention;
(ii) involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusion drawn;

43. SBRR (cont.)
(iii) relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations, and
(iv) has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through comprehensive, rigorous, objective, and scientific review

44. Tier 2: Supplemental, Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring (Some Students)
Purpose: Identify students not making sufficient progress with core instruction and provide supplemental, more intensive instruction and research-based intervention to close the gap (increase the rate of progress to meet standards)
Tier 2 is still general education instruction and intervention (may be provided by classroom teachers, remedial teachers, or special education teachers)
More frequent progress monitoring (typically 1x/wk) for data-based decision making

45. Tier 2 (cont.):
Supplemental interventions typically are standard research-based interventions, on top of core instruction, automatically in place based on data
Data-based problem-solving teams (e.g., grade level team with resource personnel) review student progress data frequently (e.g., monthly) to make instructional decisions (differentiate modify as needed, increase or decrease intensity, consider movement to individualized problem solving – Tier 3)

46. Tier 2 (cont.)
Parent involvement in decisions for their child with the child’s teacher - best practices, not a legal requirement, as are still general education interventions (note: typically do not “suspect a disability” until after implement more intensive, research-based individualized interventions and progress monitoring take place)

47. Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Intervention and Progress Monitoring (Few Students)
Purpose: provide intensive sustained support for students in need (based on initial assessment in Tier 1 screening or progress in Tier 2)
Interventions based on individualized problem solving; still supplemental to core Tier 1 and 2 and general curriculum; research-based interventions and/or based on research-based principles and delivered by highly skilled and trained interventionists
Interventions and support (resources) are still general education, targeted to few who need it (1-5% at any time, from research)

48. Tier 3 (cont.)
More frequent/intensive progress monitoring for data-based decision making (same data as Tier 1 & 2, collected at least 1-2x/week)
Sufficient time and opportunity for intervention (research-based suggestions are for Tier 2 interventions of several weeks to be able to see and evaluate progress; some recommend minimum of 20 weeks for Tier 2 reading (Torgesen) and 5-9 targeted and individualized interventions (Witt and colleagues)

49. Tier 3 (cont.)
Problem-solving team is individualized to student, includes parent, teacher, typically resource person, possibly administrator
Tier 3 does not automatically mean suspecting a disability or special education
When data suggest that a disability is suspected, initiate procedures, timeline for eligibility determination, considering “response to intervention” data
level – gap in performance from standards
slope – rate of growth and whether “closing the gap”
intensity of efforts required for progress – in need of specialized instruction

50. Rethinking What Eligibility Means within RTI Approach:
Focus on demonstrated needs, services required to make progress
Relies on data that naturally emerge from decision making and instruction across tiers
Different from long-standing categorical approach to disability determination

51. Key Aspects of Eligibility Determination Using RtI
Tier 1
Use of scientifically-based core instruction delivered by HQT
Adequate time and opportunity to progress
Universal screening data established need
Tier 2
Use of scientifically-based targeted intervention based on need, delivered by HQT
Adequate opportunity to progress
Progress monitoring data (1-2x/wk) establish need for more intensive, individualized intervention
Clear decision rules
Tier 3
Use of individualized intervention based on research and use of problem solving
Progress monitoring data (1-2x/wk) to evaluate progress

52. RtI and Comprehensive Evaluation
Comprehensive evaluation is required; federal regulations are non-prescriptive, allow for flexibility and team decisions
No requirement for testing in Federal Regulations
Data from RtI contribute to comprehensive evaluation and meet many federal requirements
Need for specialized instruction, not due to lack of research-based instruction, requirement to review all existing data
Data also typically include observation, classroom performance assessments, interview data, performance on state grade-level assessments (required)

53. Getting Started: Building Capacity for School-Wide Implementation:
Use of collaborative planning team representing key groups (classroom teachers, parents, support personnel) and including administrator – a necessary component for ownership and successful implementation!
Recognize that a school-wide change process typically takes 3-5 years for full implementation of all components, although some good student results often are seen in one year
Using research on effective implementation

54. Managing Complex Change
VISION+
COLLAB+
SKILLS+
INCENTIVES+
RESOURCES+
ACTION PLAN+
= CHANGE
COLLAB+
SKILLS+
INCENTIVES+
RESOURCES+
ACTION PLAN+
= CONFUSION
VISION+
SKILLS+
INCENTIVES+
RESOURCES+
ACTION PLAN+
= SABOTAGE
VISION+
COLLAB+
INCENTIVES+
RESOURCES+
ACTION PLAN+
= ANXIETY
VISION+
COLLAB+
SKILLS+
RESOURCES+
ACTION PLAN+
= RESISTANCE
Talking Points:
To effectively manage a systems change or whole school change effort attention to 6 component of change is critical.
Successfully managing complex change requires teams to have a clear vision that has been articulated into a statement of mission that guides the work ahead.
As presenters click through the animation on this slide, they may want to:
Ask each team member to think of a time when a change that included yourself and others was necessary (it could be a personal change or a professional change, no one is asked to share what they are thinking of unless they want to.) Then have them think about the extent to which the vision (the clear picture of how things would look in the future) was specified.
Was there a clear vision? Were you able to move forward effectively?
Did those who were involved work collaboratively together?
Did those involved in the change have the skills to make the new way of doing things work?
Was there encouragement or other incentives?
Was there enough time, money, people to do the necessary work?
Was there a specific written plan that said who, would do what, and when?
VISION+
COLLAB+
SKILLS+
INCENTIVES+
ACTION PLAN+
= FRUSTRATION
VISION+
COLLAB+
SKILLS+
INCENTIVES+
RESOURCES+
= TREADMILL
Adapted from Knoster, T.(1991) Presentation at TASH Conference, Washington, D.C. (Adapted from Knoster Enterprise Group, Ltd.)

55. Research on Effective Implementation of Scientifically-Based Practices
Takes 2-4 years of planning, work, on-going problem solving during implementation
Information and training alone does not lead to change in practices (true across disciplines)
Need for on-site practice, coaching, support (research shows have to practice new skill times to become automatic)

56. Stages of Implementation
Exploration (getting information, thinking about it)
Installation (planning, getting ready, getting components in place, examining data, resource and policy decisions)
Initial implementation (getting started, supporting on-site practices)
Full implementation (school-wide adoption, alignment, support)
Sustainability (on-going support and adaptation, on-going professional development)

57. Administrator/Building-level Team: Support Roles and Activities for RtI Implementation
Vision/mission – highlight student outcome focus, school improvement focus
Problem solving and planning on use of logical, flexible use of resources based on data
Commitment to research-based practices to improve child outcomes
Provide time and support for implementation
Ensure use of sustained, meaningful, high quality professional development
Evaluate student outcome data and implementation data – supportive climate for use of data

58. Educator Roles in RtI
In schools with comprehensive models, results show that there are not reductions in staff, they are used differently, e.g.,
School psychologists: data-based decision making, data systems and technology, research-based programs and intervention, supporting implementation, progress monitoring, individualized interventions
Reading teachers: provide Tier 2 and 3 interventions, based on data on needs, coaching
Intervention Specialists: provide Tier 2 and 3 interventions, progress monitoring
Speech and Language Pathologists: Assisting with planning Tier 1 core approaches and delivering Tier 2 and 3 interventions

59. Typical Implementation Activities by Year:
Year 1: Planning, reviewing data and instructional practices and use of resources, setting up structure, communicating about benefits, building skills through professional development (PD)
Year 2: Implementation begins (school-wide or within grade/s), use of universal screening data, targeted interventions, continued planning and PD
Year 3: Data-based decision making, evaluating outcomes, making adjustments, continued planning

60. Assessing District and School Readiness for a Comprehensive Approach to RtI
Instruction/Intervention
Use of scientifically-based reading curriculum
Use of school-wide positive behavior support
Scientifically-based instruction and intervention across tiers, in general, remedial, and special education
Other initiatives that support concepts (e.g. Reading First, other)?

61. Assessing Readiness (cont.)
Services Delivery
Needs-based, flexible use of resources
Decisions (entry, exit) are based on student performance data (same data as for other educational decisions), not just on professional judgment or normative tests not linked to curriculum
Staff skills and current capacity

62. Assessing Readiness (cont.)
Assessment/Data-Based Decision Making
Use of reliable assessment systems for academic decisions across tiers, screening, targeting interventions, progress monitoring (e.g., CBM, DIBELS)
Use of reliable assessment for behavior decisions across tiers (e.g., SWIS)
Use of technology (web-based systems to allow for ease of use of data for decisions)

63. Closing Points Remember
it is about continuous improvement to maximize student outcomes, not about a different way to sort students
school change takes time, commitment, support, collaboration
the efforts are worth it – research from effective implementation sites shows significant student improvements

64. Resources and References: Reports
President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (July, 2002)
LD National Summit Panel (2002)
National Center on Learning Disabilities

65. Resources and References: Reports
National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report (2002)
RtI Policy Implementation Paper for State Departments and other resources (myths, implementation tools)

66. Resources: Research-Based Instruction and Intervention
US DOE What Works Website:
Reading
Targeted Interventions

67. Resources for Tiered Model:
Assessment:
CBM:
DIBELS:
Positive Behavior Support:

68. References for RtI:
Burns, Appleton, & Stehower (2005). Meta-analytic review of RtI. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment, 23,
Burns & Senesac (2005). Comparison of a dual discrepancy criteria to assess response to intervention. Journal of School Psychology, 43,
Burns et al. (in press) Handbook for RtI (includes Ohio chapter)
Denton, Vaughn, & Fletcher (2003). Bringing research-based practice in reading intervention to scale. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice, 18,
Torgesen

69. References for RtI:
McMaster, Fuchs, Fuchs, & Compton. (2005). Responding to no-responders. Exceptional Children, 71,
School Psychology Review (2006) Special Issue on Implementation of Tiered Models
Speece, Case, & Molloy. (2003). Response to general education instruction as a first gate to learning disabilities identification. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18,
Torgesen (2004). Preventing early reading failure (