1. Response to Intervention – A Good IDEIA Assessment Driving Instruction Dr. David Lillenstein, NCSP Director of Psychological Services (717) 531-2277 x5436 dlillenstein@hershey.k12.pa.us

2. Ch. 14 - State Law PA has required school districts to conduct screening §14.122. Screening (a) Each school district shall establish a system of screening… (b) Each school district shall implement a comprehensive screening process. School districts may implement instructional support according to Department guidelines or an alternative screening process. School districts which elect not to use instructional support for screening shall develop and implement a comprehensive screening process …

3. The Screening Process Shall Include: (1) For students with academic concerns, an assessment of the student's functioning in the curriculum including curriculum-based or performance–based assessment (2) For students with behavioral concerns, a systematic observation of the student's behavior in the classroom or area in which the student is displaying difficulty. (3) An intervention based on the results of the assessments under paragraph (1) or (2). (4) An assessment of the student's response to the intervention. (5) A determination as to whether the student's assessed difficulties are due to a lack of instruction or limited English proficiency. (6) A determination as to whether the student's needs exceed the functional ability of the regular education program to maintain the student at an appropriate instructional level.

4. IDEIA 2004 – Federal Law Each SD must establish and implement a comprehensive system of screening to accomplish the following: Identify and provide initial screening prior to referral Provide peer support for teachers and other school personnel to assist in working with students in the general education curriculum Conduct hearing and vision screening Identify students who may need to be referred for eligibility evaluation

5. The Screening Process Shall Include: Curriculum-based or performance based assessments Observation Intervention Student response to intervention Determination whether difficulties are due to lack of instruction or Limited English Proficiency Determination whether student’s needs exceed functional ability of regular education program Activities to gain parent involvement

6. IDEIA - Early Intervening Services Local Education Agencies may carry out activities that include: Professional development for teachers and other school staff to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic instruction and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction and, where appropriate, instruction in the use of adaptive and instructional software Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction Early intervening services can not be used to delay the referral process for evaluation for special education IDEA 2004 {(613(f)(2)(A)(B)}

7. IDEIA and NCLB The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) aligns closely to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), helping to ensure equity, accountability and excellence in education for children with disabilities.

8. NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research” The No Child Left Behind Act defines the term 'scientifically based research‘: (A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and (B) includes research that: Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn

9. NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research” Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators Is evaluated using experimental or quasi- experimental designs …

10. NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research” Ensures experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review.

11. Reading First: Scientifically Based Research Scientifically based reading research is research that applies rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties. This includes research that: 1. Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment; 2. Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

12. Reading First: Scientifically Based Research 3. Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and 4. Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review.

13. IDEIA + NCLB + Ch. 14 = 3 Tier Intervention Model Prevention Model Each Tier provides more intensive and supportive intervention Layers of intervention in response to student needs Tier 1 Tier 2 Tier 3 100% Regular Classroom 15% Double Dip <5% IEP

14. Tier 1 – The Regular Classroom Data Analysis/Data Review (Pods) Teachers and support staff working together to… Access critical data on all students’ performance related to achievement of benchmarks and standards Analyze data and identify which students have which gaps in skills Set measurable group goals to close the gaps Brainstorm or create instructional strategies Share evidenced based instructional activities and materials – class-wide pod-wide grade-wide school wide Make the classroom the 1 st line of intervention

15. Tier 1 - Data Analysis - Pods View skills critical to meeting benchmarks and standards Identify which students have attained skills (benchmark) Identify which are developing skills (strategic) Identify which are deficient (intensive) Look at Skills and Students

16. Tier 1 – Benefits of a Strong Tier 1 Promotes scientifically-validated instruction on a whole-class, whole-school level Promotes team-based collaborative problem solving and shared data-based decision making Systematic data-based identification of non- responders Eventual focusing of limited and costly resources on fewer students at Tiers 2 and 3

17. Tier 2 – Supplemental Intervention “Double Dipping” – “Special Education like” – small group, immediate corrective feedback, more time on difficult tasks, teaching to mastery, fewer transitions, increased opportunities to respond, goal setting, increased progress monitoring… Works best with a strong Tier 1 Intended for learners who fail to respond at Tier 1… but done in combination with Tier 1 Interventions become more individually tailored through team problem-solving process (Intervention Team Meetings) Intervention Specialists supplement Tier 1 Flexible groups – change over time based on progress and need

18. Tier 2 – Response to Intervention Scientific Method Problem ID Hypothesis Study Analysis Interpretation

19. Response to Intervention – Problem Solving Model Problem Solving Model – Line of Inquiry 1. What is the Problem? Operationally defined, multiple team members 2. Why does the problem exist? Muti-method, multi-informant assessment, skill vs. performance deficit, Dx data, observable and measurable terms 3. What should be done to address the problem? Intervention plan, goal setting, identify intervention and who will deliver 4. Did the intervention work? What’s next? Review Progress Monitoring data, trends, changes

20. Tier 2 – Continued Length of time ? – 15 weeks (Vaughan & Fuchs, 2003) 20+ weeks (Reschly, 2005; Vaughan, 2003) 30+ weeks (Vaughan, 2003) 2 years – (NASP, 2002; President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002) Particularly when Tier 1 program is weak or poorly delivered – (curriculum/instructional casualties) Rights without Labels – special-education like services and interventions, avoids wait to fail as services are delivered immediately upon identification of need

21. Data Collection Replace Norm-referenced tests Not sensitive to change over time Do not inform instruction Measure individual differences, not growth Cannot be administered frequently CBM – Curriculum-Based Measurement Reliable and valid Sensitive to change Directly related to instruction Allow for goal setting Allow for prediction Can be administered frequently Measure individual differences and growth

22. 3 Purposes of Assessment Data 1. To enable student performance 2. To enable student performance 3. To enable student performance (Grimes & Tilley, 2003)

23. Results of Tier 2 Identify which students have good or poor response to intervention (RTI) Sort students who need additional assistance Decide which students are helped in general education Decide which students need to be provided special education

24. Tier 3 – Special Education Long-term interventions – IEP – for students who fail to respond adequately to Tier 1 & 2 The MDT determines if additional data are required for eligibility determination – no further data collection in most cases The Intervention is the Evaluation Or… The Evaluation is the Intervention

25. Current Discrepancy Model - Problems Wait to Fail needs are known in K or 1 st grade but discrepancy often not present until 3 rd or 4 th grade By 8 it’s too late… LD is a catch-all label “a sociological sponge to wipe up the spills of general education” (Reid Lyon – cited in Gresham, 2001) LD is arbitrarily and inconsistently defined in policy and practice Tends to not identify students needing intensive instruction found in special ed. – no discrepancy! “For Tx, the use of discrepancy models forces identification to an older age when interventions are demonstrably less effective (Fletcher et al., 1998)

26. Current Discrepancy Model – IQ Tests & Problems No direct link to instruction or intervention!! Discrepancy includes measurement error Decisions to intervene focus on amount of discrepancy, not on student skills or need IQ tests do not differentiate well between LD, MR, and low achieving students There is actually much overlap among groups (Gresham et al., 1996) Few differences between low achieving and LD (Algozzine, 1995) IQ does not help differentiate the needs of students who need help (Vellutino at al., 2000) IQ tests discriminate Minorities may be under-represented in LD, but over in MR

27. Response to Intervention – RTI Advantages Focus is on attainment of learning standards…on improving educational outcomes and learning abilities! (student learning is the focus) Regular classroom is 1 st line of intervention Merges special education and regular education Promotes data-based decisions Lack of progress change in intervention Not just for special education or for determining eligibility Reduced paperwork load

28. RTI Advantages - Continued Considers cause of learning deficits outside of the learner Identification process is embedded in the intervention process – removes “wait to fail” Frequent and regularly scheduled assessment drives instruction

29. Response to Intervention – In Practice Iowa Model (Tilley) RTI reduced special education numbers by 39% in K, 32% in 1 st grade, 21% in 2 nd grade, and 19% in 3 rd grade Minneapolis Model Non-categorical – not LD – Students Needing Alternative Programming 10 years of data - “Flood gates did not open” - 7.13% LD at start, 6.91% 5 years later, and 7.12% after 10 years of RTI Minnesota St. Croix River Education District 9 years of RTI – 4.4% LD at start, 2.5% after 9 yrs of RTI University of Pittsburgh Model (O’Connor, 2003) 92% of students who were provided Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions did not require special education vs. 85% from the control group who did not receive Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention University of Texas Model (Vaughan, 2003) 94% of students who did not respond to Tier 1 were able to return to Tier 1 after 30+ weeks of Tier 2 intervention

30. Conclusion… “If you do more of what you’ve always done, you’ll get more of what you’ve always got…” - Confucious, 1977