1. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 RTI: Instructional Process and Evaluation Component Louis Danielson and Katie Tackett National Center on Response to Intervention 308 and 315

2. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Implications for Implementing RTI Louis Danielson

3. Building the Legacy 20043 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework – An evaluation cannot rely on a single procedure as the sole criteria for determining eligibility – the collection of data as one component of a variety of data gathering tools and assessments in completing a comprehensive evaluation – the collection of data for those children being evaluated for LD who are attending private schools

4. Building the Legacy 20044 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework – determination of the additional variety of assessment tools that will be considered in addition to RTI- if RTI is part of the criteria for determining LD eligibility- to complete a comprehensive evaluation to determine eligibility for special education

5. Building the Legacy 20045 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework – timeline of the RTI process when a student is in the process of evaluation for eligibility for special education – parent involvement in the RTI process – training and dissemination of information regarding the RTI process for both regular education and special education staff

6. Building the Legacy 20046 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework OSEP does not take a position on: – a specific number of tiers within an RTI model – the slope of progress or absolute level of achievement that determines movement between tiers – whether or not an RTI process includes special education as a component of the tier system

7. Building the Legacy 20047 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework This data-based documentation, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, is a component of RTI models; however, this regulatory requirement is mandated, whether or not a state chooses to implement an RTI model

8. Building the Legacy 20048 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework States will need to consider the requirement to provide parents with the data-based documentation described in 34 CFR §300.309(b)(2) as they develop their criteria for determining the existence of a learning disability

9. Building the Legacy 20049 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework At any time a public agency believes a child may be eligible for special education services, the agency must promptly request parental consent to determine if the child needs special education and related services

10. Building the Legacy 200410 U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs Implications for Implementing an RTI Framework  34 CFR §300.300 allows a parent to request an evaluation at any time  In developing criteria for determining the existence of a learning disability, a state agency may not develop criteria that would prevent a parent from requesting an evaluation at any time

11. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 So, Now What? Katie Tackett

12. So, Now What? How do we determine if a student is responding adequately? How can parents be kept informed? What does RTI and LD identification look like at the state level?

13. 13 How do we determine if a student is responding adequately? With RTI, primary prevention involves the general education program with adaptations and accommodations to address individual needs that can be addressed by the general education teachers. At-risk students also receive secondary prevention. In most models, secondary prevention occurs in the form of small-group tutoring. One key decision point is to determine which students respond to secondary prevention. The assumption is that: – Responders can thrive in general education after tutoring ends – Nonresponders require ongoing and more intensive intervention to support adequate learning.

14. 14 How do we determine if a student is responding adequately? Some students linger in secondary prevention. See U.S. Department’s 1/21/11 memo from Melody Musgrove – “An RTI process cannot be used to delay-deny an evaluation for eligibility under IDEA;” – Students with disabilities must be identified in a “timely manner.” – Long-term secondary prevention cannot be used as an alternative for providing services without an IEP to a student with a disability. It is inefficient for students to return to primary prevention only to then experience further difficulty and require subsequent intervention.

15. 15 How do we determine if a student is responding adequately? Different methods/measures for designating response produce different decisions about who returns to general education versus who moves to more intensive intervention. Some methods/measures provide a more valid basis than others for making these decisions.

16. How do we determine if a student is responding adequately? Three commonly used methods: Final (post-tutoring) status Slope of Improvement during Tutoring Combined Final Status and Slope

17. 17 Final Status Defined in terms of – Normalization (>25%ile; Torgesen, 90 SS) – Benchmark (criterion associated with future success on an positive outcome) Potential problem – Indexes final status but fails to reflect learning, such that – Students with inadequate final status may manifest better growth than others with adequate final status.

18. 18 Slope of Improvement during Tutoring Defined in terms of – Weekly rate of improvement based on progress monitoring (1 probe each week or 2 probes every 2 weeks); usually normative cut-point Potential problem – Indexes learning but fails to reflect final status, such that – Students with inadequate slope may manifest better final status than others with adequate slope.

19. Combined Final Status and Slope Defined in terms of – Slope plus median of last 2 progress- monitoring scores – Cut points usually set normatively – Indexes learning and final status (if either meets cut-point, then response is adequate)

20. 20 How do we determine who is responding adequately? Method makes a difference. Assessment tool makes a difference. Need to select method and assessment tool deliberately to understand how accurate that tool/method is in identifying students who, in the long term, can be expected to – Fare well in general education versus – Fare poorly without more intensive intervention.

21. 21 NCRTI Center’s Progress Monitoring Tools Chart Learn What method various tools recommend for quantifying response Basis for the recommendation Technical Review Committee’s judgment about how sound that recommendation is

22. Rates of Improvement NCRTI’s Technical Review Committee on Progress Monitoring requires vendors to specify standards for minimal acceptable growth: – Is minimum acceptable growth (slope of improvement or average weekly increase in score by grade level) specified? Growth standards can be norm- referenced or criterion-referenced. 22

23. Example: CBM on Letter Sound Fluency (1) Project Year End Benchmark – 30 Slope of Improvement - 1.00 Technical Review Committee Rating: Convincing Rationale: – “Vendor provides rate of improvement. The data reported here are combined from across cohorts across the multiple studies reported and provided in the technical manual.”

24. 24

25. How do we determine who is responding adequately? In summary, research gives us three options. Adoption of one of these options depends on measures used, desired outcomes, etc. Clear decision-rules are needed.

26. How can parents be kept informed? To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in 34 CFR 300.304 through 300.306:  Data that 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  Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents. 26 ( www.idea.ed.gov )

27. Developing Family Resources Consider Multiple Formats – Published Document – Website – Brochure – Recorded Video Presentation Develop a Dissemination Plan Work with Parent Centers 27

28. Developing Family Resources Recommended Components Introduction What is RTI and its Essential Components Family Role Additional Resources 28

29. Family Resource - Introduction 29

30. Family Resource – What is RTI and its Essential Components 30

31. Family Resource – What is RTI and its Essential Components 31

32. Family Resource – Family Role 32

33. Additional Resources for Families National Center on RTI, www.rti4success.orgwww.rti4success.org Essential Components of RTI – A Closer Look at Response to Intervention, National Center on Response to Intervention The ABC’s of RTI Booklet: A Guide for Parents (PDF) A Parent Guide to Response to Intervention, National Center for Learning Disabilities Response to Intervention (RTI): A Primer for Parents, Mary Beth Klotz and Andrea Canter (2007) Alliance National Parent Center Network, www.parentcenternetwork.orgwww.parentcenternetwork.org 33

34. Things to Remember 34

35. How one state pulls it all together….

36. Overview of State’s SLD Policy Federal & State Definition State CriteriaEvidence 1.Imperfect ability to learn 2.Disorder in a basic psychological process 3.Not a result of other factors 1.Evidence of insufficient progress and achievement 2.Pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impacts learning 3.Student’s lack of achievement is not the primary result of other factors 1.Progress Monitoring Data, Achievement Tests 2.Assessment of psychological processing skills 3.Team consideration of other factors (examining evidence when other factors suspected)

37. SLD Process Flowchart Evidence of insufficient progress in response to effective, evidence based instruction Evidence of insufficient progress relating to effective evidence based intervention Evidence of low achievement in one or more of the suspected area(s). Evidence of a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in psychological processing skills that impact learning. Parental Involvement Evaluation Trigger & Exclusionary Factors

38. Policy Rollout and Training Information Dissemination: Webinars, Conferences, Newsletters (BREADTH) Year 1: Pilot Peer Review Training and Action Planning Year 2: Peer Review Increase training focus (DEPTH)

39. Shared Resources State Training Clearinghouse website – Exemplar files – Archived webinars – Forms – Trainings

40. NCRTI Webinar Series 1.Federal Policy – July 2011 – Part I – Regulatory Requirements – Part II – OSEP Policy Letters 2.Operationalizing Responsiveness – August 2011 3.State Perspectives – early Fall 2011 4.District Perspectives – late Fall 2011 40

41. 2011 OSEP Leadership Mega Conference Collaboration to Achieve Success from Cradle to Career 2.0 Questions?