Presentation on theme: "Response to Intervention: Tools for Improving Achievement District-wide Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas, Providence College Ina S. Woolman, Rhode Island Department."— Presentation transcript:
Response to Intervention: Tools for Improving Achievement District-wide Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas, Providence College Ina S. Woolman, Rhode Island Department of Education, Office of Special Populations October 2005
What is it? Response to Intervention (RtI) is: a philosophy a system a shared responsibility a way to know if what were doing is working
RtI: a philosophy If a student isnt performing as expected, we will change what WERE doing … and keep doing so until we find what works.
RtI: a system Organizer: the Problem Solving Approach Tools: Benchmark Assessment Interventions Progress Monitoring Support: the Expanding Circle
RtI: a shared responsibility This is about each and every … student class school district For district-wide success, it needs to be everybodys business
RtI: a way to know if what were doing is working Its really about a specific students learning – has s/he Responded to Intervention? Have we learned what it takes … yet? So, however youre using RtI at the moment, keep the individual students performance in mind.
Whats been going on in RI? Focus on improving literacy instruction Legislated/regulated Personal Literacy Plans (PLP) and Secondary Programs Learning Disabilities Interim Guidance (revd 7/05:IDEA changes) RtI Pilot School Project (PLUS)
Some shifts in emphasis The primary goal of assessment is to inform interventions. Assessment begins within general education and is an on-going systematic gathering of data. We need to consider the learner, the instruction, the curriculum and the environment using a problem-solving approach. More emphasis on designing and providing individual and/or small group targeted instruction. More and earlier involvement and collaboration between general and special education professionals Evaluating a students response to effective instruction and intervention over time is a better means of assessing whether or not a student is demonstrating a learning or other disability than a traditional one-time special education evaluation.
Some key concepts and practices Foundation of effective general education Progress monitoring assessment The Expanding Circle of Support The Problem Solving Approach
Foundation of effective general education Effective, Evidence-Based Comprehensive Curriculum for at least 80% of students Expanded Classroom Support for 5-10%
Progress Monitoring Assessment Benchmark Assessments 3 times a year for all students Progress Monitoring Assessments Weekly/Biweekly for all students performing below grade-level receiving intervention
The Expanding Circle of Support School-Based Problem Solving Team EL Teacher Special Educators School Psychologists-Diagnosticians Special Education Students Teachers Parents Reading Specialist Counselor Other Specialists
Define Problem Implement Intervention Develop a Plan Evaluate Intervention Instruction Learner Curriculum Environment The Problem Solving Approach
Illustrative Examples … Demonstrating: A problem solving approach An expanding Circle of Support Interventions and Progress Monitoring Decision making based on students response to intervention
Two Case Studies Actual student cases, adapted For illustrative purposes ONLY How processes can work in a school Procedures and teaming evolved Your schools support systems may look a little different
Chris and David 2 nd graders Struggle with reading and retaining information Received supplemental reading services in first grade four times a week, continue to receive reading support in 2 nd grade
Timeline of events 2003-2004 school year September Classroom Literacy Assessments - Screening Identified as needing a PLP, Parent Consultation October – November Intervention 1 for Chris and David November Teacher Support Team Meeting Intervention 1 continues for Chris and David; Intervention 2 for Chris December Teacher Support Team Meeting Intervention 1 and 2 Continue January Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring Building Problem Solving Team Meeting Intervention 3 for Chris and David, Intervention 4 for David February Building Problem Solving Team meeting Evaluation Team invited, Special Education Procedural Safeguards Begin March Referral and Evaluation Meetings with full expanded team June Classroom Literacy Assessments – Progress Monitoring
September: Rigby results for all 2 nd graders September Mean =15, SD =3 ChrisDavid
Intervention 1: Chris and David In small group worked with classroom teacher on short vowel words using Core Phonics and Making Words Lessons daily for twenty minutes. Six weeks Results?
Response to Intervention 1 Assessment: Number of CVC words/15 (Core Phonics)
First Week of November Teacher Support Team Meeting Who: Chris and Davids Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2 other Classroom Teachers, Principal Discussed: Intervention One Progress PLP modifications as necessary Plan: Intervention 1: Focused small group instruction on decoding and spelling CVC words will continue for both, reading teacher will help. Intervention 2: To develop Chris auditory discrimination, he will also begin using a software program that was recommended by the Speech and Language Pathologist. It will be loaded on the classroom computer. Check both boys hearing and vision. Classroom teacher continues to meet with parents to share concerns and plan
Intervention 1 Continues (Core Phonics) Intervention 2 (software) Response to Intervention Data for November
TST Meeting - December Who: Chris and Davids Teacher, Reading Teacher, 2 other Classroom Teachers, Principal Discussed: Chris and David made progress during Interventions. Classroom teacher also reports improvement in class. Both boys passed hearing and vision screening. Plan: Continue Intervention 1 with Classroom teacher and Reading Specialist for both Continue Intervention 2 using the software with Chris through mid-January
Intervention 1 Continues (Core Phonics) Intervention 2 cont. (software) Response to Intervention Data for December and January
Grade-wide Data: January ChrisDavidGrade Mean
Building Problem Solving Team End of January Meeting: Who: Chris and Davids Teacher, Reading Teacher, Speech and Language Pathologist, 2 other Classroom Teachers, Principal and Parents Discussed: Chris and Davids performance on the Interventions Chris and Davids performance on the grade-wide data Teachers concern regarding Davids slipping in class Davids parents do not report change in behavior at home Plan: Begin Intervention 3 with both boys expanding on phonics work to include fluency of text practice Begin Intervention 4 with David in which he works everyday with the reading specialist one-on-one for fifteen minutes to review and practice decoding skills. If no progress, expand circle to include evaluation team members
Building Problem Solving Team February Meeting Who: Chris and Davids Teacher, Parents, Reading Teacher, Speech and Language Pathologist, Principal, Diagnostic Prescriptive Teacher, and School Psychologist Discussed: Chris continued progress Davids lack of progress even with additional one-on-one as well as withdrawal from class activities Need for special education evaluation? Plan: Reading Teacher/Classroom Teacher to continue Intervention 3: to work with Chris and David in a small group on phonics and fluency Reading Teacher to continue Intervention 4 with David School Psychologist to observe David in class Team discusses both boys for necessity of Special Education Evaluation
Should referrals be made? Is progress no longer being made? OR … Are the supports being provided more than what can be maintained on a temporary basis?
Does David need to be referred for special education evaluation? Yes, although there is still some slow progress, it is only through extensive interventions ** Referral to Consider a Special Education Evaluation **This is when the official special education process begins. No. Does Chris need to be referred for special education evaluation? … ?
ET Meeting: March Considering Davids Referral Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need … Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need … The Evaluation Team asks: The Evaluation Team asks: Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? Yes Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? Yes Given Davids response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? Yes Given Davids response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? Yes
ET Meeting: March Planning Davids Evaluation What questions remain before we can decide if theres a disability, and what evidence do we need to answer those questions? David … Rate of learningHave data GapsNeed more information Intensity of InstructionHave data Exclusionary FactorsHave data
Davids Response to Interventions 3 and 4 Intervention 3 (Fluency and Phonics) Words Per Minute Intervention 4 (One-on-One Review and Practice) CVC and CCVC words
Davids Assessment Data: Collected by Building Problem Solving Team and Evaluation Team* Classroom Grades and Work Samples Bs and Cs First Quarter, Lower at Second Quarter – particularly in literacy where he received a C- Running Records Level 11 94% accuracy, 40 WPM, 3/3 comp Level 12 78% accuracy, 38 WPM, 1/3 comp, difficulty decoding blends + vowel patterns Writing Samples Short sentences, with multiple spelling errors. Difficulty writing more than one sentence about a topic. Needs prompting to stay on task. Math Enjoys, accurately and quickly completes addition and subtraction drills, has good number sense, difficulty reading word problems. ObservationsWithdrawn, very limited interactions with peers, responds to teachers questions but does not initiate, completes independent work slowly and only with prompting from teacher Standardized Tests *Comprehensive Test of Phonological Processing- Low Average (83) Phonological Awareness: Average (96) Phonological Memory Poor (72) Rapid Access Low Average (82) *WIAT-II Written Language -Low Average (80) Spelling Poor (73) Written Expression Low Average (84) *Test of Word Reading Efficiency Poor (74)
Davids ET Meeting RESPONSE TO INTERVENTION Findings: RATE: Limited Progress, Some Inconsistency GAPS: Single Word and Text Reading Fluency Spelling Phonological Memory INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: One-on-one and on- going review and feedback is necessary to make progress, encouragement needed for participation LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION PLAN: Intensive literacy instruction WITH special educator using a multisensory approach and on-going review and practice Use of daily feedback and data monitoring to help motivate David to practice and improve, as well as monitor progress Small group session with counselor to improve self-confidence IF THE TRADITIONAL PROCESS HAD BEEN USED … … WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATER Findings? ABILITY: Average ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI approach]: Poor Reading Fluency Poor Spelling Low Average Written Expression Average Math SEVERE DISCREPANCY: Between Ability and Achievement in the area of reading fluency and spelling. *LD AND ELIGIBLE FOR SPECIAL EDUCATION* … and NOW we begin to PLAN: Intervention Strategy, and Special Education
What about Chris? The supports developed are working But … for contrast … what if he HAD been referred?
ET Meeting: March Considering Chris Referral Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need … Bearing in mind the areas of Rate of Learning, Gaps, and Intensity of Instructional Need … The Evaluation Team asks: The Evaluation Team asks: Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? Yes Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? Yes Given Chris response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? No … look at his data … Given Chris response to interventions, do we suspect that he might have a disability? No … look at his data …
Chris Response to Intervention 3 Words per Minute Reading Fluency
Chris performance on 4 class-wide progress monitoring assessment measures in September, January and March of 2 nd grade Chris2 nd grade mean
The plan for Chris … Chris Successful Response to the Intervention Process RATE: Progress demonstrated in 4 out of 5 areas assessed. GAP: Weakness in spelling, but not lower than 90- 95% of peers. INSTRUCTIONAL INTENSITY: Chris is responding to small group intervention Plan Continue Intervention in Fall with focus on spelling as well as reading comprehension and fluency Monitor and adjust as needed
What if the traditional process had been used with Chris? … WOULD HAVE BEGUN MUCH LATER WISC-IV Full Scale 84 WIAT-II Reading 78 Written Language 80 Math 89 Oral Language 87 ACHIEVEMENT [lower than with RtI approach]: Poor Reading Fluency, Spelling, Written Expression and Low Average Math … WHAT WOULD YOUR TEAM HAVE DECIDED? Either way – planning to support Chris would have started late in the year Findings? ABILITY: Low Average
Conclusions: Problem Solving and Intervention began early on Successful intervention identified through the process Chris reading improved, David made slower and more inconsistent progress in reading At this time Chris needs can be met in general education with small group instruction in classroom and with reading specialist At this time David needs were found to be significantly greater than his peers and the instructional intensity that is necessary for him to make progress is best delivered by both special and general education System in place to monitor both boys future progress and needs
June Mean =21, SD=3September Mean =15, SD =3
Using RTI to determine disability…
Special Education Decision Making Prerequisites to determining that a student has a learning disability Student must have been provided with learning experiences appropriate for the childs age and ability levels and thus the determining factor for the eligibility determination is not lack of instruction in reading or math. Rhode Island Regulations Governing the Education of Children with Disabilities, 2000
Curriculum, Instruction and Environment Evidence is gathered to record results of successive interventions and to inform new participants in the Expanding Circle of Support Assessments to monitor progress Documentation of differentiated strategies and fidelity of successive interventions Environmental conditions that support or hinder the students learning
Expand the Circle of Support to Consider Special Education? In spite of successive research based interventions, is the student no longer making progress toward Grade Level Expectations? or Is the students progress dependent on a level of support that cannot be maintained over time in general education? IF YES…SPECIAL EDUCATION PROCESS BEGINS
Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral The team of parents and qualified school personnel answers three questions: 1. Have interventions of appropriate type, progression and intensity been implemented with fidelity? No Consult on additional interventions Yes Question 2
Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral 2. Given students response to interventions, do we suspect that the student might have a disability? No Consult and continue supports within general education Yes Question 3
Evaluation Team Consideration of Referral 3. Are there questions remaining before we can decide if theres a disability, and what evidence do we need to answer those questions? rate of learning? gaps? intensity of instructional need? If yes … conduct relevant comprehensive evaluation
IDEA, 2004 Learning Disabilities The new IDEA allows the use of a process that determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based interventions in determining learning disabilities … Rhode Island guidance expects teams to use this process. The new IDEA prohibits teams from being required to consider a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability … Rhode Island guidance does not include the concept or practice of considering a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement
New Direction: To determine a learning disability using Response to Intervention model Questions from the interim guidance document 1. Does the evidence from a variety of sources of converging data indicate that the students needs are greater than 90% to 95% of age appropriate peers? RATE Is the student's learning rate slower, even with high quality interventions? AND GAP Is the student's performance significantly lower? and/or Within a students own performance is there a marked gap in different areas?
Additionally… 2. After careful review, can we rule out any other possible primary causes for this students distinct needs? Exclusionary conditions Other considerations If the answer to the first two questions is Yes, the team needs to answer the third question: 3. Does the student require special education and related services in order to meet his/her needs? That is … Is the instructional intensity needed for the student to make progress greater than 90%-95% of the student's age appropriate peers? If the answer to all three questions is Yes, the team may determine that the student has a learning disability and requires special education supports and services.
PLUS Schools Pilot: Planning Learning with Unified Supports An ongoing project since February 2004 at: Garden City School, Cranston Old County Road School, Smithfield Sowams School, Barrington State Street School, Westerly Preparing to share their learning …
The shifts that we are making in Rhode Island Considering the learner, the instruction, the curriculum and the environment using a problem-solving model Gathering data systematically on an on-going basis Designing and providing responsive individual and/or small group intervention in the area of need Using assessments to inform interventions Evaluating a students response to effective instruction and intervention over time To support these changes we are: Designing effective building-level intervention teams Collaborating more and earlier Changing roles of specialists
What weve learned Key Components A Professional Learning Community Progress Monitoring Assessment Team Implementation within the Problem Solving Process Interventions Changing Roles and Maintaining Sufficient Staff Support
Key: a professional learning community Shared purpose, collaboration, evidence- based decision-making The problem-solving approach is used at school and district as well as individual and classroom levels Job-embedded learning Awareness of varied levels of acceptance of the changes –tailored supports (CBAM)
Key: progress monitoring assessment Wide understanding of the variety of assessment types and their roles for benchmarking, progress monitoring and evaluation Curriculum-based measurement (CBM) plays a significant role in RTI decisions Assessments are used to make more informed instructional decisions National Center on Student Progress Monitoring – www.studentprogress.org www.studentprogress.org
Key: team implementation within the problem-solving process Buildings may have one or more teams Functions and membership of support team(s) vary as appropriate: During the process Depending on purpose Depending on student characteristics and need Support may begin in grade-level meetings or other collegial gatherings
Key: interventions Interventions are part of all instruction, not just literacy Staff have a large repertoire of interventions - classroom differentiation, standard protocol, small group, individualized Interventions vary – in format, teacher/provider, group size, intensity All interventions are monitored and adjusted based on data Intervention Central www.interventioncentral.org What Works Clearing House- www.whatworks.ed.gov
Key: changing roles and main- taining sufficient staff support Collaborative approach to sharing responsibility and providing supports Specialists support interventions for non- identified students More direct observation and support – less testing Documentation, public awareness and support of the combined efforts required to support this process
Questions Dr. Laura Boynton Hauerwas, Providence College firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com Ina S. Woolman, RI Dept. of Education, Office of Special Populations firstname.lastname@example.org email@example.com