Response to Intervention Establishing RTI Guidelines to Diagnose Learning Disabilities: What Schools Should Know Jim Wright

Response to Intervention 2 LD Eligibility: Random Concerns About Special Education Team (SET) Decision-Making The SET still relies almost entirely on the test-score discrepancy formula in determining LD and does not give adequate weight to RTI information presented. The SET fails to find a disability, citing a lack of evidence that the student failed to respond to instructional interventions. However, the SET does not specify what RTI evidence it is looking for or the format in which that evidence should be presented. The SET is inconsistent. On one day, it gives substantial weight to RTI information to make an LD eligibility decision. On the next day, the SET focuses primarily on test score discrepancies and ‘processing deficits’.

Response to Intervention 3 What previous approach to diagnosing Learning Disabilities does RTI replace? Prior to RTI, many states used a ‘Test-Score Discrepancy Model’ to identify Learning Disabilities. A student with significant academic delays would be administered an battery of tests, including an intelligence test and academic achievement test(s). If the student was found to have a substantial gap between a higher IQ score and lower achievement scores, a formula was used to determine if that gap was statistically significant and ‘severe’. If the student had a ‘severe discrepancy’ [gap] between IQ and achievement, he or she would be diagnosed with a Learning Disability.

Response to Intervention 4 Limitations to the ‘test-score discrepancy model’ (Gresham, 2001) : Requires chronic school failure BEFORE remedial/special education supports can be given. Fails to consider that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a child's learning delay. A ‘severe discrepancy’ between test scores provides no useful information about WHY the student is doing poorly academically. Different states (and even school districts within the same state) often used different formulas to diagnose LD, resulting in a lack of uniformity in identifying children for special education support.

Response to Intervention 5 Target Student Discrepancy 1: Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability (Fuchs 2003) Discrepancy 2: Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’)

Response to Intervention 6

Response to Intervention 7 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Building the Foundation Ensure Tier 1 (Classroom) Capacity to Carry Out Quality Interventions. The classroom teacher is the ‘first responder’ available to address emerging student academic concerns. Therefore, general-education teachers should have the capacity to define student academic concerns in specific terms, independently choose and carry out appropriate evidence-based Tier 1 (classroom) interventions, and document student response to those interventions.

Response to Intervention 8 Tier 1 (Classroom) Interventions: Building Your School’s Capacity  Identify Specific Grade- or Schoolwide Academic & Behavioral Referral Concerns.  Inventory Tier 1 Interventions Already in Use.  Create a Standard Menu of Evidence-Based Tier 1 Intervention Ideas for Teachers.  Establish Tier 1 Coaching and Support Resources.  Provide Classroom (Tier 1) Problem-Solving Support to Teachers.  Set Up a System to Locate Additional Evidence-Based Tier 1 Intervention Ideas.  Create Formal Guidelines for Teachers to Document Tier 1 Strategies.  Develop Decision Rules for Referring Students from Tier 1 to Higher Levels of Intervention.

Response to Intervention 9 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Building the Foundation Collect Benchmarking/Universal Screening Data on Key Reading and Math (and Perhaps Other) Academic Skills for Each Grade Level. Benchmarking data is collected on all students at least three times per year (fall, winter, spring). Measures selected for benchmarking should track student fluency and accuracy in basic academic skills that are key to success at each grade level.

Response to Intervention 10 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Building the Foundation Hold ‘Data Meetings’ With Each Grade Level. After each benchmarking period (fall, winter, spring), the school organizes data meetings by grade level. The building administrator, classroom teachers, and perhaps other staff (e.g., reading specialist, school psychologist) meet to: –review student benchmark data. –discuss how classroom (Tier 1) instruction should be changed to accommodate the student needs revealed in the benchmarking data. –select students for Tier 2 (supplemental group) instruction/intervention.

Response to Intervention 11 Tier 2: Supplemental (Group-Based) Interventions Tier 2 interventions are typically delivered in small-group format. About 15% of students in the typical school will require Tier 2/supplemental intervention support. Group size for Tier 2 interventions is limited to 4-6 students. Students placed in Tier 2 interventions should have a shared profile of intervention need. The reading progress of students in Tier 2 interventions are monitored at least 1-2 times per month. Source: Burns, M. K., & Gibbons, K. A. (2008). Implementing response-to-intervention in elementary and secondary schools. Routledge: New York.

Response to Intervention 12

Response to Intervention 13 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Establish the Minimum Number of Intervention Trials Required Prior to a Special Education Referral. Your district should require a sufficient number of intervention trials to definitively rule out instructional variables as possible reasons for student academic delays. Many districts require that at least three Tier 2 (small-group supplemental) and/or Tier 3 (intensive, highly individualized) intervention trials be attempted before moving forward with a special education evaluation.

Response to Intervention 14 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Determine the Minimum Timespan for Each Tier 2 or Tier 3 Intervention Trial. An intervention trial should last long enough to show definitively whether it was effective. One expert recommendation (Burns & Gibbons, 2008) is that each academic intervention trial should last at least 8 instructional weeks to allow enough time for the school to collect sufficient data to generate a reliable trend line.

Response to Intervention 15 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Level of Student Academic Delay That Will Qualify as a Significant Skill Discrepancy. Not all students with academic delays require special education services; those with more modest deficits may benefit from general- education supplemental interventions alone. Your district should develop guidelines for determining whether a student’s academic skills should be judge as significantly delayed when compared to those of peers: –If using local Curriculum-Based Measurement norms, set an appropriate ‘cutpoint’ score (e.g., at the 10th percentile). Any student performing below that cutpoint would be identified as having a significant gap in skills. –If using reliable national or research norms (e.g., reading fluency norms from Hasbrouck & Tindal, 2004), set an appropriate ‘cutpoint’ score (e.g., at the 10th percentile). Any student performing below that cutpoint would be identified as having a significant gap in skills.

Response to Intervention 16 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning. The question of whether a student has made adequate progress when on intervention is complex. While each student case must be considered on its own merits, however, your district can bring consistency to the process of judging the efficacy of interventions by discussing the following factors…

Response to Intervention 17 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning (Cont.). – Define ‘grade level performance’. The goal of academic intervention is to bring student skills to grade level. However, your district may want to specify what is meant by ‘grade level’ performance. Local CBM norms or reliable national or research norms can be helpful here. The district can set a cutpoint that sets a minimum threshold for ‘typical student performance’ (e.g., 25th percentile or above on local or research norms). Students whose performance is above the cutpoint would fall within the ‘reachable, teachable range’ and could be adequately instructed by the classroom teacher.

Response to Intervention 18 `Estimate the academic skill gap between the target student and typically-performing peers : There are three general methods for estimating the ‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level: Local Norms: A sample of students at a school are screened in an academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989) Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996) Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: A minimum level, or threshold, of competence is determined for an skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)

Response to Intervention 19 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning (Cont.). – Set ambitious but realistic goals for student improvement. When an intervention plan is put into place, the school should predict a rate of student academic improvement that is ambitious but realistic. During a typical intervention series, a student usually works toward intermediate goals for improvement, and an intermediate goal is reset at a higher level each time that the student attains it. The school should be able to supply a rationale for how it set goals for rate of student improvement. When available, research guidelines (e.g., in oral reading fluency) can be used. Or the school may use local norms to compute improvement goals.

Response to Intervention 20 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning (Cont.). – Decide on a reasonable time horizon to ‘catch’ the student up with his or her peers. Interventions for students with serious academic delays cannot be successfully completed overnight. It is equally true, though, that interventions cannot stretch on without end if the student fails to make adequate progress. Your district should decide on a reasonable span of time in which a student on intervention should be expected to close the gap and reach grade level performance (e.g., 12 months). Failure to close that gap within the expected timespan may be partial evidence that the student requires special education support.

Response to Intervention 21 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning (Cont.). – View student progress-monitoring data in relation to peer norms. When viewed in isolation, student progress- monitoring data tells only part of the story. Even if students shows modest progress, they may still be falling farther and farther behind their peers in the academic skill of concern. Your district should evaluate student progress relative to peers. If the skill gap between the student and their peers (as determined through repeated school-wide benchmarking) continues to widen, despite the school’s most intensive intervention efforts, this may be partial evidence that the student requires special education support.

Response to Intervention 22 Using RTI to Determine Special Education Eligibility: Creating Decision Rules Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning (Cont.). – Set uniform expectations for how progress-monitoring data are presented at special education eligibility meetings. Your district should adopt guidelines for schools in collecting and presenting student progress-monitoring information at special education eligibility meetings. For example, it is recommended that curriculum-based measurement or similar data be presented as time-series charts. These charts should include trend lines to summarize visually the student’s rate of academic growth, as well as a ‘goal line’ indicating the intermediate or final performance goal toward which the student is working.

Response to Intervention 23 Confidence in Eligibility Decision Ensure Tier 1 (Classroom) Capacity to Carry Out Quality Interventions. Collect Benchmarking/Universal Screening Data for Each Grade Level. Hold Data Meetings to Make Tier 2 Group Placements for Each Grade Level. Establish the Minimum Number of Intervention Trials Required Prior to a Special Education Referral. Determine the Minimum Timespan for Each Tier 2 or Tier 3 Intervention Trial. Define the Level of Student Academic Delay That Will Qualify as a Significant Skill Discrepancy. Define the Rate of Student Progress That Will Qualify as a Significant Discrepancy in Rate of Learning.

Response to Intervention 24 As a group, review recommendations for creating special education decision rules for LD eligibility. What are concerns or questions that your team has as you move forward? How will your RTI Team communicate with special education to develop your own decision rules? Small-Group Activity: Special Education Decision Rules