1. Theresa M. Janczak, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Exceptional Education Buffalo State College Theresa M. Janczak

2.  Develop a better understanding surrounding the construct of RtI  Discuss the impact of RtI relative to your role as an educator  Identify source materials related to RtI

3.  Definition of RtI  Rationale: Where did it come from and why do we need it?  Support for RtI in Federal Law  Essential Features  RtI as a Multi-tiered Prevention System  Progress Monitoring and CBM  Next Steps  Resources

4.  A prevention and intervention model designed:  to provide students with early support when they first show signs of struggling  to provide information regarding special education eligibility by assessing student response to intervention

5. RtI is the practice of providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and monitoring progress on a frequent basis by examining learning rate over time and level of performance to inform educational decisions. NASDSE, 2005

6.  Dramatic increase in the number of students identified as LD = costly special education programs  Dissatisfaction with current method of identifying students with LD  Identification and services occur too late  88% of poor readers in first grade will continue to poor readers in fourth grade (Juel, 1988)

7. 7

8. Is there a significant difference between a student’s score on an IQ test and scores on an achievement test?

9.  Relies on a “WAIT to FAIL’ MODEL  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.  Provides limited instructional utility  Lack of uniformity among states regarding discrepancy formulas

10. RTI  LD as nonresponders to validated instruction.  ASSUMPTION: If a child does not respond to instruction that is effective for the vast majority of children, then there is something different about the child experiencing the nonresponse.  RtI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viable explanation for learning difficulty.

11. President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) Excessive paperwork limited instruction 2 separate systems Poor instruction may contribute to poor achievement National Research Council (2002) Advocated early screening and RtI models LD Summit (2001) IQ-Achievement discrepancy formulas inadequate Need for alternative approaches Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 Promotes early screening and intervention Recommends a multi-tier intervention strategy Better integration between general and special education On-going, systematic progress monitoring Where Did It Come From?

12. IDEA 2004 includes two important innovations designed to promote change:  Explicitly allows states to use RtI to identify LD, and  Forbids states from forcing schools to use a discrepancy model to identify LD. ▪ Until July 1, 2012

13.  IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found eligible for special education if they have not received instruction in reading that is scientifically research-based, including the five essential components of reading instruction identified by the Reading First Program.  Phonics  Reading fluency  Vocabulary development  Reading comprehension  Phonemic awareness

14.  Ensure that underachievement of a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, …  Obtain data which demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

15. Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress, during instruction, which is provided to the child’s parents. Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)

16. Authorizes the use of RtI in the State's criteria to determine learning disabilities (LD) and requires, effective July 1, 2012, that all school districts have an RtI program in place as part of the process to determine if a student in grades K-4 is a student with a learning disability in the area of reading. “Effective on or after July 1, 2012, a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria to determine that a student in kindergarten through grade four has a learning disability in the area of reading.” [8 NYCRR section 200.4(j)]

17. … a focus on intervention rather than on what is wrong with the child … a focus on the solution rather than the problem … a focus on addressing the needs of all students having difficulty, not just those with labels … a focus on positive outcomes for all students … a focus on all educators being responsible for all children … better integration of programs and services for all children

18. Special Ed. Reading Recovery General Education Title I Special Education Remedial Reading

19. General Education Special Education Intervention General Education Special Education

20. High quality, research-based instruction and intervention Interventions with increasing intensity Measurement universal screening for all 3 times per year systematic and frequent progress monitoring to determine response by examining: level of performance rate of performance Data-based decision-making Multi-tiered Model

21. Tier 3 Tier 2 Tier I

22. 22 Tier 2 inexpensive diuretics frequent monitoring Tier 3 annual check –up HBP screening indicates risk monitor over next 6-8 weeks to verify or disconfirm risk Tier 1 experimentation w/more expensive medications e.g. ACE inhibitors, beta blockers) on-going monitoring Tier 1 annual check-up screened for high-blood pressure monitor over the next 6-8 weeks to verify or disprove initial results

23. 23 TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched-based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPONSIVE AT RISK TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPONSIVE TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status

24. TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched- based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. AT RISK TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status 1. Screen all students to identify suspected at-risk students. 2. Monitor progress of students suspected to be at risk to (dis)confirm risk. 3. Provide second preventative tutoring to at- risk students, while progress is monitored to assess response.

25. TIER 2: Secondary Prevention - Validated or researched- based tutoring - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. AT RISK TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention - Special education - PM to set IEP goals - PM to formulate individualized programs - PM to assess responsiveness RESPONSIVE UNRESPON. TIER 1: Primary Prevention - General education setting - Research-based instruction - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk - PM to (dis)confirm risk status 4. Move students who prove unresponsive to secondary preventative tutoring to tertiary prevention. They receive comprehensive evaluation to answer questions and to determine disability. 5. Monitor progress in tertiary prevention to set IEP goals, formulate effective programs, and determine exit decisions.

26. 26

27. 27

28. A student who makes expected gains and makes progress when evidence- based instruction is provided in the general education classroom. A student who makes minimal or no gains after being taught with high quality, validated interventions. RESPONDER NONRESPONDER

29. MONITOR STUDENT’S PROGRESS USING CURRICULUM BASED MEASUREMENTS (CBM)

30.  A method of monitoring student progress  Basic skills assessment:  Reading  Mathematics  Spelling  Written expression  Timed and brief “probes”  Standardized administration  CBM probes – 1 to 5 minutes  Probes scored for:  Speed or fluency  Accuracy of performance

31.  Screening  Progress Monitoring  Instructional Diagnosis

32.  Quick and easy to administer  Curriculum overlap  Sensitive to change over short period of time  Backed by 25 years of empirical research supporting its use

33.  Pre-Reading Measures  Phoneme Segmentation  Letter Sound Fluency  Letter Name Fluency  Nonsense Word Fluency  Reading Measures  Oral Reading Fluency  Maze Fluency Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32. http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

34.  Mathematics Measures  Computation  Concepts and Applications  Spelling Measure  Written Expression Measure Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32. http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html

35. 35 INCREASING SCORES: S tudent is becoming a better reader. FLAT SCORES: S tudent is not profiting from instruction and requires a change in the instructional program.

36. 36 Words Read Correctly Sarah Smith Reading 2 SepNovDecJanFebMarAprMay

37.  Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (Pro-Ed Online, 2006);  DIBELS (2006);  Intervention CBM probes (Interventioncentral.org) FREE  AIMSweb (2006) 37

38. 38  Intervention Central—CBM Warehouse www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventio ns/cbmwarehouse.shtml  National Center on Student Progress Monitoring www.studentprogress.org  Official DIBELS Homepage www.dibels.uoregon.edu  Research Institute on Progress Monitoring progressmonitoring.org

39. OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM  No universal screening  Little progress monitoring  “WAIT to FAIL” model  Focus on within-in child problems or deficits  Clear eligibility criteria  All students are screened  Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks  Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling  Ecological focus  Tiered model of delivery

40. OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM  Multidisciplinary team made up mainly of special education personnel  Reliance on assessment, particularly standardized tests  Assessment data collected during a limited # of sessions  Problem solving or intervention team; include general and special educators  Collaborative educational decisions based on ongoing school, classroom, and individual student data  Multiple data points collected over time and in direct relationship to the intervention provided

41. OLD SYSTEM NEW SYSTEM  Comprehensive evaluation consisting of mainly formal assessment  LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” as compared to a measure of the child’s ability (IQ- achievement discrepancy)  Full and individualized evaluation relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RtI process  LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students, even struggling ones.

42. 42  The devil is in the details. The success of Response to Intervention will depend on whether it is appropriately implemented by highly-trained professionals - and this is likely to be a problem. Response to Intervention http://www.wrightslaw.com/in fo/rti.index.htm