1. Dial-in: 1-888-447-7153 Passcode: 899594 RTI/Multi-Tiered Models of Intervention PLC Movement Between Tiers of Intervention & Implications for Special Education Referral Presenter: Dr. Rebecca Zumeta TA & D Coordinator National Center on Intensive Intervention & National Center on Response to Intervention Facilitators: Grace Zamora Duran, OSEP Elizabeth Jankowski, Signetwork

2. 2 Webinar Ground Rules Roll Call  Enter Name, State, and roll in chat pod Mute your phones:  To Mute or Un-Mute Press *6  Please do not put your phones on ‘Hold’ Q & A Process (audio/chat):  Ask questions in two ways – 1) via phone or 2) type in chat pod Archive Recording, PPT, & Materials: http://signetwork.org/event_calendar/events

3. Today’s Session  Challenges & considerations when planning, implementing, and differentiating secondary (a.k.a. Tier 2) and intensive (a.k.a. Tier 3) interventions  Using intervention data to inform special education referral: Referral policy possibilities  Discussion 3

4. Intervention Challenges & Considerations 4

5. Recommended Intervention Characteristics Secondary/ Tier 2  Standardized, evidence-based program (when available)  Small group (3-7 students, depending on age)  Progress monitoring at least monthly Intensive/ Tier 3  Individualized intervention, adapted based on data (with qualitative or quantitative changes to instruction or setting)  Small group (no more than 3 students)  Weekly progress monitoring 5

6. Consideration 1: Practitioners benefit from support in learning to evaluate & implement evidence-based practices  Provide clear, consistent language  Differentiate research versus evidence-based practices  Provide resources to help staff evaluate interventions and assessments (e.g., tools charts, products in various formats)  Consider issues of context and feasibility in addition to efficacy/effectiveness 6

7. Consideration 2: Explicitly address needs of students with disabilities in tiered systems  Inclusion of students with disabilities in tiered systems has been variable  Differentiation between secondary and intensive intervention supports is often poorly articulated  Role of progress monitoring is often inconsistent  Confusion about relationship between intensive intervention and special education  When should referral occur? 7

8. Consideration 3: Not all students respond to standardized, evidence-based interventions  Analysis of student response data from controlled studies suggests that approximately 3-5% of students do not respond to standard, evidence-based intervention programs (Fuchs et al., 2012; Wanzek & Vaughn, 2009; Conduct Prevention Problems Research Group, 2002).  Despite interventions being generally effective for students demonstrating academic difficulty  Categorization of ‘risk’ may be too broadly defined in these studies to generalize to students with the most intensive needs  Implications for students with disabilities and others with intensive intervention needs 8

9. Referral Policy Possibilities 9

10. Disability Identification To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to a lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation, what is described in 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306:  Data 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.  Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals reflect formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents. 10 (www.idea.ed.gov)

11. When Do We Refer to Special Education? 11 ~15% ~5% Tertiary Secondary Primary ~80% of students Example 1: After nonresponsiveness to two secondary interventions

12. When Do We Refer to Special Education? 12 ~15% ~5% Tertiary Secondary Primary ~80% of students Example 2: After nonresponsiveness to one secondary and one tertiary intervention

13. Recommendations  Collaboration between general and special education is essential  Create written guidance on the following: How do special education services “fit” in your model? What are the roles and responsibilities of special education staff? general education staff? When should students be referred for eligibility consideration, given your state/district’s policies and procedures? What is the role of fidelity when evaluating special education referrals? 13

14. Discussion Questions  Does your state provide guidance about referral procedures or use of RTI data in its LD eligibility requirements? If so, what are they?  What characterizes Tier 2/3 (secondary/intensive intervention) in your state, or in the district(s) where you work?  What processes do you observe or recommend for teams when they plan supports for students who are not responding to their secondary/Tier 2 program?  What data-based decision-making rules or processes do you observe or recommend?  What data are typically required for special education referrals to move to an evaluation? 14

15. Disclaimer This document was produced under U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special Education Programs Grant No. H326E070004 Grace Zamora Durán and Tina Diamond served as the OSEP project officers. The views expressed herein do not necessarily represent the positions or policies of the Department of Education. No official endorsement by the U.S. Department of Education of any product, commodity, service or enterprise mentioned in this publication is intended or should be inferred. This product is public domain. Authorization to reproduce it in whole or in part is granted. While permission to reprint this publication is not necessary, the citation should be: www.rti4success.org.www.rti4success.org 15