1. RtI: Gap Guzzling
Building Level Teams

2. Fundamental Assumptions
There is a need for Special Education, but not as it
currently exists.
Education has not done well by students of diverse
backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and languages
Too much time has been spent admiring problems.
The best place to address diverse learning needs is in
the instructional process.

3. If you want to change and improve the climate
and outcomes of schooling –
both for students and teachers, there are features of the school
culture that have be to changed, and if they are
not changed, your well intentioned efforts will
be defeated.
Seymore Sarason
1996

5. School Improvement Activity
What are your current SI Goals?
What content is covered in the current professional development plan?
What problems or issues often come up at your school?

6. The last 30 years of American Public Education can be characterized by
remarkable sameness of approach and remarkable flatness of performance.
Joel Klein Chancellor, NYC
Schools

7. fragmentation what wears us down.”
Piecemealness
“It is not the pace of change that is the culprit, it is the piecemealness and
fragmentation what wears us down.”
Fallan, 2003

8. Essential Components of PS/RTI
An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery;
A problem-solving method; and
Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery

9. Response Components of RTI
Student problems must be identified accurately
Student responses that reflect those problems must be assessed in a relaible and valid manner

10. This is not about another new “initiative” This is about integrating what we know works!

11. Are We “Every Ed” Yet?:
A National Perspective • CASE National Survey – • 424 Districts – 14% West, 18% Northeast, 32% Midwest, 37% South • Conducted March 7-18, 2008 • Margin of Error +/- 4.6%, 95% Confidence Level

12. Findings 32% of districts expect full implementation by 2010.
• 47% of districts have a “defined RtI process”—53% do not
• 71% of districts report that implementation is led by general education or a joint general ed/special ed effort
• Only 29% of districts report that it is a special ed effort

13. Findings
• 71% of districts report that they are using RtI for ALL students. 29% report that they are using it primarily to identify students for specialized services. • Implementation is primarily with elementary levels (67%), with 27% implementing at middle schools and 16% at high schools • 67% report planning to implement at middle and 49% report planning to implement at high school level.

14. Findings
• 84% of districts report implementation for reading, 53% for math and 44% for behavior. • 96% of districts report that RtI has not been the focus of any legal proceedings.

15. Findings
• Impact on employment – 75% of districts report no change in staff FTE – 22% of districts report increase in staff FTE – 3% of districts report decrease in staff FTE • 52% of districts report Tier 3 services for both general and special education students. 48% report Tier 3 services primarily for special education students

16. Is It All About Reading? Yes!
52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs
70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases
94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts
46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading
Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority of special education “activities”

17. Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model
Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)
Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)
Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.
Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)
It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

18. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS
CURRENT SYSTEM – PROCESS ABOVE RESULTS
CURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL MODEL
DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIAL
INADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND RECOURSE
CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE

19. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT)
IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK VALIDITY
BETTER TEACHER PREPARATION NEEDED
RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE
FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

20. PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS
FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON PROCESS
EMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT FAILURE
CONSIDER CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AS GENERAL EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST

21. Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education
Perhaps something here about how the effectiveness of special education is determined, in great part, by the effectiveness of general education in any given building.
Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

22. Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model
Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)
Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)
Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.
Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)
It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

23. Status of Reauthorization- IDEA 2004
Title: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act”
Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004
Signed by President Bush in December.
IN EFFECT July 1, 2005
Regulations August, 2006

24. IDEA 2004 CHANGES: Eligibility Determinations
A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if determinant factor is:
Lack of scientifically-based instructional practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction.
Lack of instruction in math
Limited English Proficiency
David will update

25. IDEA 2004 Changes Specific Learning Disabilities
The LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.
David will update.

26. Regulations §300.307 Specific learning disabilities.
(a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with § , criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State--
(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10);
(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and
(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

27. Regulations
(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§ through
(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and
(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.

28. Regulations
§ Specific documentation for the eligibility determination.
(a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in § (a)(2), must contain a statement of--
(1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability;
(7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention-–
(i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and
(ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were notified about--
(A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided;
(B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning;

29. Federal LAW Gave YOU A Choice!
(6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES-
IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.
ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3).
NEW YORK STATE LAW: PHASE OUT OF DISCREPANCY MODEL BY 2012

30. What we know We know far more about the causes of learning
disability and reading problems
We know more about effective instruction
We know more about the limitations of our
current systems and have viable alternatives
It is not so much the issue any longer of “what
works?”
It is an issue of how we deploy it so that it can work.

31. RtI: Whachamacallit
• Problem Solving Model-TAT/SAT • School Improvement/Safe & Civil School – Review, Revise, Adopt, Implement • Action Research • Gap Analysis • Circle of Inquiry • Audit • Baldridge – Plan, Do, Study, Act

32. • Eligibility focus Paradigm Shift FROM: – Diagnose and Place
– Get label
TO:
• Outcome focus
– Problem Solving and Response to Intervention
– Get help

33. Instruction: The absolute place to start!
How effective is the instruction in
your classroom, building, district?

34. Tier I Universal instruction to all students
Is the core curriculum effective (80% or 90% of students making benchmarks)?
Which students are at-risk for failure?
Does any over-representation of particular student groups exist in those students identified at risk?

35. Decisions Made Related to Tier I
Level of effectiveness and levels of over-representation (or disproportionality)
If evidence for either exists, modifications must be made to the core instructional programs.
If core instruction is both effective and equitable, then tier 2 (supplemental) interventions are provided to those students identified as “at-risk”

36. Tier II
Interventions delivered to smaller groups either in general education classroom or outside of general education classroom
Interventions must be provided in addition to core instruction.
Academic Engaged Time (AET) predicts achievement better than any other variable

37. Tier II Focus on particular skill areas that need strengthening
Progress monitoring of students performance is conducted frequently with same measures used to assess Tier I performance
Effective Tier II intervention-approximately 70% of students should have a positive response and will reach benchmark performance
A small percent will not respond to Tier II levels of instruction and will require the most intensive instruction (Tier III)

38. Tier III
Developed based on student needs following a problem solving process that will use diagnostic assessment to inform intervention development
Progress monitoring of intervention effectiveness is the same as Tier III as Tier II
Does not mean more of what is not working at Tier II unless you are seeing positive gains

39. Characteristics of Tier III Interventions
Delivered in very small groups or to students individually
Must be provided in addition to Tier I instruction.-does not supplant the core instruction
Should be receiving the most instructional minutes.

40. Characteristics of Tier III Interventions
Interventions focus more narrowly on defined skill areas.
Most minutes of instruction
Smallest number of children in the group
Most opportunities to respond and receive corrective feedback
Most practice
Most powerful motivational support

41. Implementing Response to Intervention
Three Phases of Implementation
Consensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-in
Infrastructure Development
Implementation

42. Steps in Implementing School Wide Assessment to Assist in Improving Outcomes for All Students?
Establish benchmarks (performance standards) at various points in time for various skills
Identify effectiveness of Universal Instruction (Tier I)
Identify Needs for Tier II
Identify at-risk students to receive Tier II or III interventions
Progress monitoring (Tiers I, II and III)

43. Establish Benchmarks (Performance Standards) at Various Points in Time for Various Skills
Benchmark= average performance or level of performance that predicts success (e.g., ISAT or behavior standard)
Occur at least three times per year (fall, winter, and spring)
Assessment method should be time efficient to administer and score

44. School Wide Assessment Strategies

45. Behavior Variable Office discipline referrals Tardiness Attendance
Homework Completion levels/rates
Teacher implemented procedures
Others?
Upload to database monthly

46. Academic Variables Curriculum based measurement
Using probes (brief assessments) to measure student performance.
Dynamic- sensitive to change
Indicators- overall performance (health)
Skill- specific observable and measurable behavior

47. Math Variables Digits correct per minute (add, subtract etc.)
Numbers identified per minute
These are indicators! Not achievement measures!

48. Spelling Variables Letter sequences correct per minute B-o-y-
These are indicators not achievement measures.

49. Writing Variables Correct word sequences
These are indicators not achievement measures.

50. Reading Variables Initial sounds correct
Rate of decoding pseudowords words
Oral reading rate (WRCPM)
Letter naming
Rate of breaking words down into sounds
These are indicators not achievement measures!

51. The High School Solution: Building Continuously Improving Tier 1
General Education Instruction
~5%
~15%
Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas)
Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas
Effective Secondary Classroom Management
Study and Organizational Skills
Curriculum Modification
~80% of Students

52. Problem Solving
A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

53. Problem Solving Process
Define the Problem
Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior
Evaluate
Response to Intervention (RtI)
Problem Analysis
Validating Problem
Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem
Develop Plan
Implement Plan
Implement As Intended
Progress Monitor
Modify as Necessary

54. Problem Solving
Can be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levels
Student- academic and/or behavior problem
Classroom- discipline, returning homework
Building- bullying, attendance
District- over-/under-representation
Problem- problem common to students in building

55. What is ‘Response to Intervention (RtI)’
What is ‘Response to Intervention (RtI)’? (Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005)
Identifying and providing high quality instruction and research-based interventions matched to students needs
Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time to make important educational decisions
Educators use ongoing student performance data to determine if an intervention is working. If it is not, it is time to do something different.

56. Ten Things We Have Done Wrong! 1st Year (or 2)… Woes
Insufficient Time to Plan or Meet
No Building Administrator
No Designated Facilitator- Roles Defined
No Standard Protocol for Intervention
Not Sticking to the Prob. Solving Steps
Insufficient Staff Development/Consensus
Not Using Researched Based Programs
Not Gathering Data Prior to the Meeting
Decisions Not Data Based
Assuming Special Education is an Intervention

57. BANG HEAD HERE

58. WHAT IS A 3-TIERED MODEL OF INTERVENTIONS? Standard Protocol

59. Frameworks for thinking and planning
Use Researched-based, Scientifically Validated 3 Tiers of Intervention/Instruction
Frameworks for thinking and planning

60. The High School Solution: Building Continuously Improving
Tier 1 General Education Instruction
~5%
~15%
Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas)
Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas
Effective Secondary Classroom Management
Study and Organizational Skills
Curriculum Modification
~80% of Students

61. Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts)
TIER 1: Universal Interventions- Core reading instruction that ALL students receive ( minutes daily)
The focus at this level is on providing a strong classroom-level comprehensive core reading program (CCRP).

62. Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts)
TIER 2: Target Interventions - 30 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not score at benchmark on screening assessment receive.
In addition to core reading program
Small group (3-5 students), pull out, similar needs
More intense instruction and monitoring
Focus on reading areas of need
10-20 weeks of intervention

63. Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language Arts)
TIER 3: Intensive Interventions - 60 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not make adequate progress in Tier 2 Instruction receive (in addition to core reading instruction)
Students receive longer term, intensive instructional interventions designed to increase their rate of progress.
Consideration for special education services might occur at this level.

64. Example of 3-Tier Level Interventions
Reading
Tier I
Tier 2
Tier 3
Time 90
120
180
Curricular Focus
5 areas
Less than 5
2 or less
Curricular Breadth
Core +
Supplemental
Intensive
Core +
Supplemental
Core
Frequency of Progress Monitoring
3X Yearly or greater
Monthly or greater
Weekly

65. Key Skills Sets for Secondary Support (http://www.ku-crl.org/)
Some are more familiar with the U of K stuff than others. I’d definitely leave this in and cover it as you do.

66. Levels of Problem-Solving
~5%
Example Tier 2 and 3:
Targeted / Group
~15%
~80% of Students

67. How do we know what to use
How do we know what to use? Websites for Scientifically Based Reading Interventions
Florida Center for Reading Research:
Oregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.edu
Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts:
Fcrr reports

68. FRAMEWORK for READING INTERVENTIONS
Phontis and Phenell
Michael Heggerty
INTENSIVE PHONICS
CLASSROOM-WIDE FLUENCY
RIGBY
SIMS
80% REGULAR ED. MUST MEET OR EXCEED- OTHERWISE FIX THIS FIRST
TIER I.
K PALS
EAROBICS
GREAT LEAPS
SRA- corrective reading
Read Naturally
PALS--GR 2-6
MY BREAKFAST READING PROGRAM
Pass Key
Lexia
Reading Plus
70% Benchmarking
Students identified through
data. PS team matches
students to
appropriate
intervention- teacher, aide.
TIER II.
At-risk students-
Supplemental interventions
K PALS
M. HEGGERTY PROGRAM/
SRA DI PROGRAMS-
READING MASTERY, HORIZONS, CORRECTIVE READING
EAROBBICS
GREAT LEAPS /SLANT
REWARDS
6 MIN. SOLUTIONS
REPEATED PHRASES
REPEATED READINGS
READ 180
TIER III.
Highly at-risk students
Intensive interventions
More intensive
individual support-

70. Administrator Resources
Finance
Resources
Facilities

71. Title II A Teacher Quality Title II D Technology
Finance
Title I
Title II A Teacher Quality
Title II D Technology
Title V Innovative Programs
Reading Improvement Block Grant

72. Resources
Grants
Personnel

73. Facilities
Every Available Space

74. What will we do when students don’t learn?
Established RTI Team
Each grade level structured time for supplemental and intensive instruction
Determined personnel to provide instruction
Teachers from all areas supporting content teachers
Selected set of “standard treatments”
Developed “exit” criteria

75. Monitor Student Performance
For Tiered groups, we need to monitor progress probably weekly or once every couple weeks
We need to use our data to determine the effectiveness of our instruction
We need to change instructional programs that are not working

76. Monitor Student Performance
For tiered groups, progress should be monitored frequently (weekly or bi-weekly)
Graph the data
Demonstrates progress over time
Review the data to determine the effectiveness of instruction
Are my students learning and applying what I am teaching?
Are my students ready to move forward in the curriculum?
Is the intervention strong enough (meeting goal)?
Change instructional programs that are not working

77. Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?
Gap is closing
Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long range
Questionable Response
Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening
Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
Poor Response
Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.
Batsche, G.M. (2007)

78. Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions
Positive, Questionable, Poor Response
Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)
Positive
Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least).
Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional independence.
Questionable
Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.
Poor
Return to problem solving for new intervention
Batsche, G.M. (2007)

79. Questionable or Poor Response to Intervention Instructional Program Change
Re-teach certain skills
Re-group: Move into a smaller group
Increase instructional time
Change instructional strategy

80. Decision Rules: Criteria for Special Education Eligibility
Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance
The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark
Student is not a functionally independent learner
Batsche, G.M. (2007)

81. Decision Making - Graphs
Consider changing/intensifying interventions if 3 data points are below the aimline or goal line
Use at least 6 data points when making placement decisions
If possible, review multiple types of data and integrate (Triangulate your Data)

82. Progress Monitoring: Closing the Gap

83. Progress Monitoring: Gap Widening

84. Progress Monitoring Gap Remains the Same

85. On-task Behavior Graph

86. Behavior Occurrences Graph

87. Using Data to Develop Goals
What is the student’s current performance level?
What is the student’s growth rate?
Weekly average rate of improvement.
(Ending score(s) less beginning score(s) / number of weeks of data
Determine growth rate for low risk students
DIBELS norms, AimsWeb norms, national norms, local norms
Establish a goal that reduces the discrepancy between actual performance level and desired performance level
Current level of performance + (desired weekly rate of improvement X # of weeks until goal).

88. Determining Student’s Rate of Growth - Example
Student’s Weekly Growth Rate: Ending score less beginning score divided by # of weeks. (30-16)/16 = .875 words per week
Low Risk Students’ Weekly Growth Rate: (68-44)/16 = 1.5 words per week

89. Data Days…In God we trust…everyone else bring data

90. Components of the Infrastructure
Building-based Leadership Team
Data Coach
Problem-solving Process
Decision Rules Regarding RtI
Data Sources and Decision-Making
Tier 1 Focus
Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2
Intervention Support and Fidelity
Technology Support
Technical Assistance

91. Sustaining the Infrastructure
Sustaining requires Documentation
Procedures Manual
Decision Rules
Forms that reflect and GUIDE the procedures
Nested in District Policy and Procedures
Reflected in professional educator evaluation criteria

92. DATA DAY- What is it? ½ Day 3X a year- handout
Standard Protocol – Entrance/Exit Criteria
(3 points of data)
Reading Level and/or ISAT
Teacher Recommendation- Form
DIBELS/AIMSWEB Benchmarking
Progress Monitoring Graphs

93. Effective Problem Solving Teams

94. Monthly Problem/ Solving Team Meetings
Same team as Data Day Team
½ day approx. 1X monthly (4-6 Weeks)
Individual problem solving w/ parent
Tier III students and teacher referral students
Teacher Referral Binder (K-6 & 7-8)
Teacher Interview Prior to Individual Child PST Meeting

95. Individual Problem Solving: Team Meetings
Data Coach brings to meetings:
Progress monitoring graph(s)
Calculator
Norms
Growth rates for low-risk students
Growth rate for student(s)

96. Grade Level Data Meetings
Data coach brings to meetings:
Progress monitoring graphs for each student in tier II or tier III
Calculator
Norms
Growth rates for low risk students
Benchmark scores for all students (sorted from lowest to highest
Teacher recommendations

97. Evaluation- Rule of Thumb
How do we know it’s working?
IF 80% of student population are meeting or exceeding on ISAT and local assessments….
THEN as a rule of thumb 70% of intervention students are making benchmark

98. Evaluate RTI Evaluation Self Studies and Surveys

99. Websites to Note

100. “I suggest that diverse learners face on a daily
The Tyranny of Time
“I suggest that diverse learners face on a daily
basis the tyranny of time, in which the educational
clock is ticking while they remain at risk of falling
further and further behind in their schooling.
Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time:
Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46,

101. ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS: Dr. Barb Curl Dr. G. Batsche Dr. Sharon Vaughn
Dr. David Tilly
Dr. Mark Shinn
Ms. Judy Hackett
Dr. Judy Elliot
International Reading Association
Dr. G. Batsche
Dr. Joseph Torgesen
Dr. Sally Shaywitz
Florida Center for Reading Research
Ms. Melissa Ward
We would like to thank the following institutions and/or individuals for their wisdom and select slides for this presentation.

102. Flowchart For Problem Resolution
Is It Working? NO
YES
Don’t Mess With It!
Did You Mess
With It?
YES
YOU IDIOT! NO
Anyone Else
Knows?
Will it Blow Up
In Your Hands?
YES
You’re SCREWED!
YES
Can You Blame
Someone Else? NO NO NO
Hide It
Look The Other Way
Yes
NO PROBLEM!

103. Contact Information
Meg Thurman, Director of Special Ed. or
Michele Jacobs, Principal