2 Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as itcurrently exists.Education has not done well by students of diversebackgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and languagesToo much time has been spent admiring problems.The best place to address diverse learning needs is inthe 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 schoolculture that have be to changed, and if they arenot changed, your well intentioned efforts willbe defeated.Seymore Sarason1996
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, NYCSchools
7 fragmentation what wears us down.” Piecemealness“It is not the pace of change that is the culprit, it is the piecemealness andfragmentation 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; andMultiple tiers of intervention service delivery
9 Response Components of RTI Student problems must be identified accuratelyStudent 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 $$ go to LD Programs70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts46% of IDEA $$ go to improve readingChanges 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 RESULTSCURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL MODELDUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIALINADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND RECOURSECULTURE OF COMPLIANCE
19 PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT) IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK VALIDITYBETTER TEACHER PREPARATION NEEDEDRIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICEFOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.
20 PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON PROCESSEMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT FAILURECONSIDER 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 2004Signed by President Bush in December.IN EFFECT July 1, 2005Regulations 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 mathLimited English ProficiencyDavid 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 problemsWe know more about effective instructionWe know more about the limitations of ourcurrent systems and have viable alternativesIt is not so much the issue any longer of “whatworks?”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 labelTO:• Outcome focus– Problem Solving and Response to Intervention– Get help
33 Instruction: The absolute place to start! How effective is the instruction inyour 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 IIInterventions delivered to smaller groups either in general education classroom or outside of general education classroomInterventions 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 performanceEffective Tier II intervention-approximately 70% of students should have a positive response and will reach benchmark performanceA small percent will not respond to Tier II levels of instruction and will require the most intensive instruction (Tier III)
38 Tier IIIDeveloped based on student needs following a problem solving process that will use diagnostic assessment to inform intervention developmentProgress monitoring of intervention effectiveness is the same as Tier III as Tier IIDoes 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 individuallyMust be provided in addition to Tier I instruction.-does not supplant the core instructionShould be receiving the most instructional minutes.
40 Characteristics of Tier III Interventions Interventions focus more narrowly on defined skill areas.Most minutes of instructionSmallest number of children in the groupMost opportunities to respond and receive corrective feedbackMost practiceMost powerful motivational support
41 Implementing Response to Intervention Three Phases of ImplementationConsensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-inInfrastructure DevelopmentImplementation
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 skillsIdentify effectiveness of Universal Instruction (Tier I)Identify Needs for Tier IIIdentify at-risk students to receive Tier II or III interventionsProgress 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
46 Academic Variables Curriculum based measurement Using probes (brief assessments) to measure student performance.Dynamic- sensitive to changeIndicators- overall performance (health)Skill- specific observable and measurable behavior
47 Math Variables Digits correct per minute (add, subtract etc.) Numbers identified per minuteThese 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 wordsOral reading rate (WRCPM)Letter namingRate of breaking words down into soundsThese 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 IdeasEffective Secondary Classroom ManagementStudy and Organizational SkillsCurriculum Modification~80% of Students
52 Problem SolvingA 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 ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring BehaviorEvaluateResponse to Intervention (RtI)Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that Contribute to ProblemDevelop PlanImplement PlanImplement As IntendedProgress MonitorModify as Necessary
54 Problem SolvingCan be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levelsStudent- academic and/or behavior problemClassroom- discipline, returning homeworkBuilding- bullying, attendanceDistrict- over-/under-representationProblem- 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 needsMeasuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time to make important educational decisionsEducators 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 MeetNo Building AdministratorNo Designated Facilitator- Roles DefinedNo Standard Protocol for InterventionNot Sticking to the Prob. Solving StepsInsufficient Staff Development/ConsensusNot Using Researched Based ProgramsNot Gathering Data Prior to the MeetingDecisions Not Data BasedAssuming Special Education is an Intervention
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/InstructionFrameworks 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 IdeasEffective Secondary Classroom ManagementStudy and Organizational SkillsCurriculum 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 programSmall group (3-5 students), pull out, similar needsMore intense instruction and monitoringFocus on reading areas of need10-20 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 ReadingTier ITier 2Tier 3Time90120180Curricular Focus5 areasLess than 52 or lessCurricular BreadthCore+SupplementalIntensiveCore+SupplementalCoreFrequency of Progress Monitoring3X Yearly or greaterMonthly or greaterWeekly
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 InterventionsFlorida Center for Reading Research:Oregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.eduTexas Center for Reading and Language Arts:Fcrr reports
68 FRAMEWORK for READING INTERVENTIONS Phontis and PhenellMichael HeggertyINTENSIVE PHONICSCLASSROOM-WIDE FLUENCYRIGBYSIMS80% REGULAR ED. MUST MEET OR EXCEED- OTHERWISE FIX THIS FIRSTTIER I.K PALSEAROBICSGREAT LEAPSSRA- corrective readingRead NaturallyPALS--GR 2-6MY BREAKFAST READING PROGRAMPass KeyLexiaReading Plus70% BenchmarkingStudents identified throughdata. PS team matchesstudents toappropriateintervention- teacher, aide.TIER II.At-risk students-Supplemental interventionsK PALSM. HEGGERTY PROGRAM/SRA DI PROGRAMS-READING MASTERY, HORIZONS, CORRECTIVE READINGEAROBBICSGREAT LEAPS /SLANTREWARDS6 MIN. SOLUTIONSREPEATED PHRASESREPEATED READINGSREAD 180TIER III.Highly at-risk studentsIntensive interventionsMore intensiveindividual support-
74 What will we do when students don’t learn? Established RTI TeamEach grade level structured time for supplemental and intensive instructionDetermined personnel to provide instructionTeachers from all areas supporting content teachersSelected 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 weeksWe need to use our data to determine the effectiveness of our instructionWe 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 dataDemonstrates progress over timeReview the data to determine the effectiveness of instructionAre 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 closingCan extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long rangeQuestionable ResponseRate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still wideningGap stops widening but closure does not occurPoor ResponseGap continues to widen with no change in rate.Batsche, G.M. (2007)
78 Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions Positive, Questionable, Poor ResponseIntervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)PositiveContinue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least).Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional independence.QuestionableIncrease 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.PoorReturn to problem solving for new interventionBatsche, G.M. (2007)
79 Questionable or Poor Response to Intervention Instructional Program Change Re-teach certain skillsRe-group: Move into a smaller groupIncrease instructional timeChange instructional strategy
80 Decision Rules: Criteria for Special Education Eligibility Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performanceThe Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmarkStudent is not a functionally independent learnerBatsche, G.M. (2007)
81 Decision Making - Graphs Consider changing/intensifying interventions if 3 data points are below the aimline or goal lineUse at least 6 data points when making placement decisionsIf possible, review multiple types of data and integrate (Triangulate your Data)
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 dataDetermine growth rate for low risk studentsDIBELS norms, AimsWeb norms, national norms, local normsEstablish a goal that reduces the discrepancy between actual performance level and desired performance levelCurrent 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 weekLow 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 TeamData CoachProblem-solving ProcessDecision Rules Regarding RtIData Sources and Decision-MakingTier 1 FocusStandard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2Intervention Support and FidelityTechnology SupportTechnical Assistance
91 Sustaining the Infrastructure Sustaining requires DocumentationProcedures ManualDecision RulesForms that reflect and GUIDE the proceduresNested in District Policy and ProceduresReflected 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 ISATTeacher Recommendation- FormDIBELS/AIMSWEB BenchmarkingProgress Monitoring Graphs
94 Monthly Problem/ Solving Team Meetings Same team as Data Day Team½ day approx. 1X monthly (4-6 Weeks)Individual problem solving w/ parentTier III students and teacher referral studentsTeacher 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)CalculatorNormsGrowth rates for low-risk studentsGrowth 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 IIICalculatorNormsGrowth rates for low risk studentsBenchmark scores for all students (sorted from lowest to highestTeacher 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
100 “I suggest that diverse learners face on a daily The Tyranny of Time“I suggest that diverse learners face on a dailybasis the tyranny of time, in which the educationalclock is ticking while they remain at risk of fallingfurther 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 TillyDr. Mark ShinnMs. Judy HackettDr. Judy ElliotInternational Reading AssociationDr. G. BatscheDr. Joseph TorgesenDr. Sally ShaywitzFlorida Center for Reading ResearchMs. Melissa WardWe 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?NOYESDon’t Mess With It!Did You MessWith It?YESYOU IDIOT!NOAnyone ElseKnows?Will it Blow UpIn Your Hands?YESYou’re SCREWED!YESCan You BlameSomeone Else?NONONOHide ItLook The Other WayYesNO PROBLEM!
103 Contact InformationMeg Thurman, Director of Special Ed.orMichele Jacobs, Principal