Response to Intervention – A Good IDEIA Assessment Driving Instruction David Lillenstein, Ed.D., NCSP Director of Psychological Services Cindy Goldsworthy Director of Curriculum & Instruction

Ch State Law PA has required school districts to conduct screening § 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 …

The Ch. 14 Screening Process: (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.

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

The IDEIA 2004 Screening Process: 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

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)}

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.

Response to Intervention - Definition RTI is the practice of … Providing high quality instruction and intervention matched to student need Monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about change in instruction or goals Applying child response data to important educational decisions (NASDSE, 2005)

Why Response to Intervention? Brings together Regular, Remedial, and Special Education Documents effective education Aligns identification procedures with effective instruction AYP – RTI fits with NCLB – It is about maximizing results! Provides self correcting mechanisms for schools to take control of their outcomes, driven by student results

General Education Special Education Sea of Ineligibility The Historical Disconnect …

Core RTI Principles All students can learn Early intervention Multi-tier models of instruction and intervention Use of problem-solving models Use of scientifically-validated instruction and assessment Progress monitoring to inform instruction Data-based decision making Assessment drives instruction – Screening, diagnostic, progress monitoring

Common RTI practices Scientifically-based curricula & practices Explicit Matched to student need Designed to produce high rates of learning 3-tier models of instruction and intervention Progress monitoring and formative evaluation Continuous, ongoing Data-based analysis and diagnosis Considers growth over time in comparison to baseline Compared to expected level of performance (self & peers) Functional behavioral & academic assessment Standard treatment protocols

Data Collection in RTI Replace Norm-referenced tests Not sensitive to change over time Do not inform instruction Measure individual differences, not growth Cannot be administered frequently or quickly 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 and quickly Measure individual differences and growth

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

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

Tier 1 – The Regular Classroom Pods (teams) in DTSD 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

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

Tier 1 – Benefits of a Strong Tier 1 Promotes scientifically-validated instruction on a whole-class, whole-grade, whole-school level Promotes team-based collaborative problem solving and shared data-based decision making Systematic data-based identification of responders and non-responders Most critical component if prevention and early intervention efforts are to be successful Eventual focusing of limited and costly resources on fewer students at Tiers 2 and 3

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

Tier 2 - Goals Identify which students have good or poor response to intervention (RTI) Sort students who need additional assistance Decide which students are helped in regular and remedial education Decide which students need to be provided special education

Tier 3 – Special Education Long-term interventions – IEP – for students who fail to respond adequately to Tiers 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

Historical 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…window is closing… 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)

Historical 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

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 regular, remedial, and special education Promotes data-based decisions Lack of progress change in intervention Not just for special education or for determining eligibility Reduced paperwork load

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 Program and curriculum evaluation. Learner Curriculum Instruction The Environment

Response to Intervention – In Practice Iowa Model (Tilly) 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” % 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

Questions ???