Understanding & Implementing Problem- Solving Response to Intervention: It ’ s a Journey, Not a Sprint SASED Spring Institute Naperville, IL February 29, 2008 Dr. George M. Batsche Professor and Co-Director Institute for School Reform University of South Florida

Resources –RtI Primer and Research Bibliography –Interventions –Integrity Monitoring Tools (Tier 1/2)

The Vision 95% of students at “proficient” level Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning A “unified” system of educational services –One “ED” Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling

Response to Intervention RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions. (Batsche, et al., 2005) Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI Consensus –Belief is shared –Vision is agreed upon –Implementation requirements understood Infrastructure Development –Problem-Solving Process –Data System –Policies/Procedures –Training –Tier I and II intervention systems E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan –Technology support –Decision-making criteria established Implementation

The Process of Systems Change Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the need and trusting in the support) is reached no support will exist to establish the Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the Infrastructure is in place Implementation will not take place. A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without Consensus and Infrastructure Leadership must come both from the Principal and from the educators in the building.

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative? Priority of superintendent and school board –District Leadership Team –Strategic Plan Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for disaggregated groups –Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative? Principal Led –Regular data analysis –Data Days –Team focuses in improving impact of core instruction Prevention and Early Intervention –Screening and early intervention with Kindergarten students

Problem Solving Process Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Evaluate Response to Intervention (RtI) Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Problem Analysis Validating Problem Ident Variables that Contribute to Problem Develop Plan Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Define the Problem Defining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary Implement Plan Implement As Intended Progress Monitor Modify as Necessary

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process 1.PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION Identify replacement behavior Data- current level of performance Data- benchmark level(s) Data- peer performance Data- GAP analysis 2.PROBLEM ANALYSIS Develop hypotheses( brainstorming) Develop predictions/assessment 3.INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified Proximal/Distal Implementation support 4.Response to Intervention (RtI) Frequently collected data Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

Intervention Framework Intensive Interventions –A few Supplemental Interventions –Some Core/Universal Interventions –All 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Students AcademicBehavior

How Does it Fit Together? Standard Treatment Protocol Addl. Diagnostic Assessment Instruction Results Monitoring Individual Diagnostic Individualized Intensive weekly All Students at a grade level ODRs Monthly Bx Screening Bench- Mark Assessment Annual Testing Behavior Academics None Continue With Core Instruction Grades Classroom Assessments Yearly Assessments Standard Protocol Small Group Differen- tiated By Skill 2 times/month Step 1 Step 2Step 3Step 4 Supplemental 1-5% 5-10% 80-90% Core Intensive

Consensus Development: Data Are you happy with your data? Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes –Disaggregated –AYP

Tier 1 Data Example

Reading Instruction - Tier I Grade Level

Referral Analysis 42% Noncompliance 30% Off- Task/Inattention 12% Physical/Verbal Aggression 6% Relational Aggression 10% Bullying

Building-Level Behavior Data % Building %Referred Male 50% 80% White 72% 54% Hispanic 12% 20% African American 15% 24% Other 1% 2% Low SES 25% 50%

Infrastructure: Critical Issues Policies and Procedures –The Model –Steps in the Model –Decision Rules –Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention Development Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration Data Collection and Interpretation Intervention Development Intervention Integrity and Documentation

Infrastructure: Policies and Procedures Clearly delineate the components of the model –Triangle –4-Step Model Identify steps/skills required for each component Decision Rules

Response to Intervention Rules Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention? Positive Response –Gap is closing –Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long range Questionable Response –Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening –Gap stops widening but closure does not occur Poor Response –Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions Positive, Questionable, Poor Response Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines) –Positive Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at least). Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional independence. –Questionable Increase 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. –Poor Return to problem solving for new intervention

Intervention Development Tiers 1 and 2 Critical Components Evidence-based

Data Infrastructure: Using Existing Data to Predict Intervention Needs Previous referral history predicts future referral history How do we interpret teacher referrals? Previous intervention history predicts future intervention history How do we use this information to establish an infrastructure for change?

Data-Driven Infrastructure: Establishing a Building Baseline Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years –Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the skills/support to handle –Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the resources currently in place and the “history” of what constitutes a referral in that building –Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years –Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND potential Tier II and III interventions –Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept

Data-Driven Infrastructure: Establishing a Building Baseline Assess current “Supplemental Interventions” –Identify all students receiving supplemental interventions –For those interventions, identify Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc) Duration (minutes/week) Provider –Aggregate Identifies instructional support types in building This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs

How the Tiers Work Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support- academic or behavioral Greater the tier, greater support and “severity” Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention Continue until student strengthens response significantly Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level) Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained support.

Integrating the Tiers Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three levels Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1 Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2 Is there a single “intervention” plan made up of different Tier services?

Integrating the Tiers 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level –Tier 3 Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, some fluency) –Tier 2 Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1 –Tier 1 Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding Use core materials for content Progress monitor both instructional level and grade placement level skills

Cascade of Interventions Entire staff understands “triangle” and the available interventions at each Tier. Supplemental and intensive interventions are in addition to core instruction. A student intervention plan is a single document that is integrated across the tiers. Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1 are improved Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for effectiveness determination for all Tiers

Intervention Development Criteria for “Appropriate” and “Effective” Interventions: –Evidence-based Type of Problem Population Setting Levels of Support Focused on most important needs Group interventions have priority Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus, materials, performance criteria

Interventions: Tier 2 First resource is TIME (AET) –HOW much more time is needed? Second resource is curriculum –WHAT does the student need? Third resource is personnel –WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

Tier 2: Getting TIME “Free” time--does not require additional personnel –Staggering instruction –Differentiating instruction –Cross grade instruction –Skill-based instruction Standard Protocol Grouping Reduced range of “standard” curriculum After-School Home-Based

Tier 2: Curriculum Standard protocol approach Focus on essential skills Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of core instruction Linked directly to core instruction materials and benchmarks Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks

Tier 2: Personnel EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource Re-conceptualize who does what Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified WHERE matters less and less REMEMBER, student performance matters more than labels, locations and staff needs. A school cannot deliver intensive services to more than 7% of the population

Evidence-Based Nationally Evidenced –Select to increase probability of success Locally Validated –Local outcome data used to evaluate degree to which interventions “worked” –Local outcome data trumps national “evidence.”

Intervention Support and Documentation Intervention Integrity Intervention Support Intervention Documentation

Intervention Integrity Enhanced through two practices –Intervention Support System –Intervention lmplementation Documentation

Intervention Support Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff All intervention plans should have intervention support Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

Critical Components of Intervention Support Support for Intervention Integrity Documentation of Intervention Implementation Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components

Intervention Support Pre-meeting –Review data –Review steps to intervention –Determine logistics First 2 weeks –2-3 meetings/week –Review data –Review steps to intervention –Revise, if necessary

Intervention Support Second Two Weeks –Meet twice each week Following weeks –Meet at least weekly –Review data –Review steps –Discuss Revisions Approaching benchmark –Review data –Schedule for intervention fading –Review data

Basic Issues in Eligibility Determination Student must have the CHARACTERISTICS of the disability Student must demonstrate a NEED for the program » (IDEIA, 2004)

Criteria for Special Education Eligibility Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark Student is not a functionally independent learner Complete comprehensive evaluation

Elsie Second grade student End of School Year Regular Education Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF – not great, not terrible

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction Step 1: Screening ORF = 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box) Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 12 th percentile + or - Elsie’s teacher reports that she struggles with multisyllabic words and that she makes many decoding errors when she reads Is this student at risk? NoYes Move to Tier 2: Strategic Interventions This Student is at Risk, General Education Not Working Elsie Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction Supplemental, small group instruction will be provided to Elsie She will participate in two different supplemental groups, one focused on Decoding (Phonics for Reading; Archer) and one focused on fluency building (Read Naturally; Imholt) She will participate in small group instruction 3x per week, 30 minutes each – and she will also continue with her core instruction Supplemental instruction implemented by certified teachers in her school (2 different teachers) Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level:90 WCPM Current Level:47 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap):34 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: –34/41=.83 WCPM for Elsie –NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What would happen if we moved the target to the middle of the “some risk box?”

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level:100 WCPM Current Level:47 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap):53 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: –53/41= 1.29 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = about 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

Questionable RtI

Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision The intervention appeared to be working. What the teachers thought was needed was increased time in supplemental instruction. They worked together and found a way to give Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on phonics and fluency, 5x per week.

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level:100 WCPM Current Level:56 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap):44 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 27 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: –44/27= 1.62 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

Good RtI

By the Spring of Third Grade Elsie’s reading accuracy had improved significantly. Her average % correct hovers around 95 percent. She still struggles with multisyllabic words Normatively, at periodic and annual review time, she is now performing at about the 19 th percentile compared to peers from Heartland AEA. She is catching up! Elsie is not a student with a disability

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction Step 1: Screening ORF = on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of box) Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 19th percentile + or - Is this student at risk? Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction for another benchmark period, if progress continues, move to tier 1 NoYes Maintain Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Elsie Continue Monitoring or Move Back to Tier 1

Steven Second grade student Beginning of school year Regular Education Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction –Step 1: Screening ORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk = 44 wcpm Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5 areas Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working Is this student at risk? NoYes Move to Tier 2: Strategic Interventions Rita Steven Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & Instruction Supplemental, small group instruction in Rita’s group (3-4 students with similar skill levels) Standard protocol implementation 3x per week, 30 minutes each Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy) Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnel Implemented for 8 weeks Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

Aimline= 1.50 words/week Trendline = 0.55 words/week Poor RtI

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention & Instruction –Step 2: Is student responsive to intervention? ORF = 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpm Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas Student NOT on target to attain benchmark Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2? NoYes Move to Tier 3: Intensive Interventions Steven Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions & Instruction Supplemental, 1:3, pull-out instruction Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted Instruction Specific decoding and analysis strategies Emphasis on comprehension strategies 5x per week, 30 minutes each Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnel Implemented for 8 weeks Progress monitoring once every week

Aimline= 1.50 words/week Trendline = words/week

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention & Instruction –Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3? ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpm Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5 words/week Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas Student on target to attain benchmark Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention? Move student back to Strategic intervention NoYes Move to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination Steven Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2

Tier 3 Decisions GAP? Rate?? Independent Functioning? –Fade Intervention to Supplemental Level –Evaluate Rate

Bart Second grade student Beginning of school year Regular Education Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Aimline= 1.50 words/week Trendline = 0.95 words/week