Reforming Pk-12 EducationThe Promise of RTI

Response to InterventionSummer Institute

June 14, 2010 University of Cincinnati

David P. Prasse, Ph.D

Loyola University Chicago

Focus/Overview

• National/State Implementation

• Teachers and Competencies

• RTI Overview• Documenting Need

– Historical View

Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs. He feels that there really is another way… If only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.

From Winnie-the-Pooh

We Don’t Have Time to Think

GROWTH IN RTI IMPLEMENTATION

• 2007 – 40% districts piloting or implementing• 2008 – 60% piloting or implementing• 2009 - 71% piloting or implementing

– (Spectrum K12 School Solutions, 2009)

• 100% of special ed faculty report including RTI in teacher preparation important

(Gallagher & Coleman, 2009)

NATIONAL AND SEA DEVELOPMENT

• Majority of SEA’s adopting RTI in special education eligibility & entitlement

• Understood as vehicle for LEA transformation

• Component of many Race to Top applications

• Option in I3 RFP (Absolute Priority 2)

When do you anticipate RTI will be fully implemented district wide

12% - Daily Use

17% - 09-10 School Year

32% - 10-11 School Year

30% - Don’t Know

Is Your District using RTI For

88% - Identification for early intervening services and supports.

60% - Identification of students for special education services.

51% - Identification specialized services and supports in addition to sped.

Using RTI as part of the process to Identify Students for SPED.

73% - Yes

27% - No

For Which Grades and Areas

Elementary – Reading (81%), Math (49%), Behavior (44%), None (16%)

Middle – Reading (39%), Math (26%), Behavior (25%), None (36%).

High School – Reading (19%), Math (14%), Behavior (18%), None (49%)

Significant Obstacles(rank ordered)

Insufficient Teacher TrainingLack of Intervention ResourcesLack of Resources – Instruction or progress

monitoring.Lack of support/direction from stateLack of resources

benchmarking/assessment/data managementLack of support from district leadership

PRACTIONER DATA:KNOWLEDGE & SKILL GAPS

• Survey of classroom teachers

• Looked at beliefs and teacher perceptions of RTI skills

• Analyzed data for beginning teachers only (first-year and one to four years)

• Response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”

(www.floridarti.usf.edu)

TEACHER BELIEFSAll Students Can Learn

Disagree40%

Agree60%

TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t

33

40

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

Percentage who agree with the

statement

First-year 1-4 years

Years of Experience

Students with high incidence disabilities (e.g. LD) are capable of achieving academic benmarks

TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’tUsing data to determine effectiveness of

interventions is better than using "teacher judgment"

Agree55%

Disagree45%

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS

25

66

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

Percentage of teachers

Substantial support Some level of support

Level of support needed to use data to make decisions about individuals and groups of students for core academic curriculum

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

33

76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentage of teachers

Substantial support Some level of support

Level of support needed to use data to make decisions about individuals and groups of students for school-wide discipline

plans

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

58

36

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage of teachers who

needed some level of support

First-year 1-4 years

Years of Experience

Using data to define the current level of academic performance for a target student

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

40

76

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

Percentage of teachers

Substantial support Some level of support

Level of support needed to use gap data to determine whether core instruction should be adjusted or supplemental instruction is needed

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

16

58

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

Percentage of teachers

Substantial support Some level of support

Level of support needed when it comes to selecting data to use for progress monitoring

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

30

43

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

Percentage of teachers

First-year 1-4 years

Years of Experience

Percentage of teachers who have skills to interpret graphed data

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

• For the 6 areas listed (3 academic and 3 behavioral), between 60% and 75% of beginning teachers reported needing some level of support for accessing resources to develop evidence-based academic and behavioral interventions at each tier.

PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t

• Less than half of beginning teachers reported being able to collect universal screening data (e.g., early literacy skills).

High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn’t shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick.

We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence

Why RtI?

• Moves the focus of attention to student progress not student labels

• Focus on achieving benchmarks, regardless of student needs

•Scarce available resources - efficiency

•Represents systemic transformation

•Responsive to best practice and national direction

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.

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

ACADEMIC SYSTEMS BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS

STUDENTS

The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the Needs of ALL Students Through Early and Scientifically Based Interventions Through Careful

Systems Planning

Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction• All students• Preventive, proactive 80% 80%

Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction • All settings, All students• Preventive, proactive

Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response

15%Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response

15%

Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• Intense, durable procedures

5%

Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• High intensity• Of longer duration

5%

Why a Pyramid?

Tier 3

Tier 1

Tier 2

An aerial view- emphasizing that all students need a strong foundation in core instruction and that all students are part of the same educational system.

RtI: Basic Premises

• Effective Core Instruction is the basis for this model.

• The model alone cannot “fix” core instruction but demands effective core (Tier I) instruction

• Cannot do “more” in existing time frame – work differently

• “Unit of analysis” is the school building– Role of the building principal is critical to success

Key Characteristics of RtI

• Universal screening of academics and behavior

• Multiple tiers (3) of increasingly intense interventions

• Use of evidenced-based interventions

• Continuous monitoring of student performance

• Evaluating student performance against benchmarks/outcome assessment

Key Assumptions

• Supplemental instruction is best delivered through “standard protocols” of intervention to groups of students with common needs

• Data drives decisions• Its all about the rate of student progress in

the amount of time remaining• Data collection WITHOUT intervention

integrity is useless• Staff, resources and time must match the

demand

Standard Practices• All intervention and eligibility decisions are based

on the assumption that the “core” instruction--academic and behavior--is effective.

• Procedures exist for tier-based resource allocation• Procedures exist to support intervention integrity

and to document the “dosage” of intervention provided

• A cadre of interventions exist that the entire school is knowledgeable about

• A single problem-solving process exists and the implementation steps and skills are standardized.

How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol

Addl.Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

Embrace RtI as general education model with other initiatives

• RtI is a framework for student improvement, not another initiative

• Other initiatives, if focused on the same outcome, will fit this framework (PBIS, PLC)

• Consider how well school staff use data to make instructional decisions for student improvement

• Consider how well current services for struggling students are coordinated/integrated

What Are These Initiatives Telling Us?

• Focus on “Results” not Process• Intervene Early & Focus on Prevention• Insist on Greater Parental Involvement• Integrate General and Special Education

Services• Make only Data-Based Decisions• Interventions Must be Evidenced-Based• Be Accountable, Efficient, and Flexible

Interventions are NOT:

• Activities which are intended to put students into alternative settings where appropriate interventions can occur.

Or

• A different setting or location:– Special Education

– Title I

– Day Treatment

– Residential Programs

Quick Look Back

Control of the Educational AgendaBusiness and Politicians

Emergence of Special Education SystemExpansion and shrinkage

“If it’s a school day, during school hours, one-fifth of the total American population consists of public school students K

through 12. One in five Americans. And if you count teachers and administrators you are probably going to get pretty close to one-quarter of the population of the country at any given

time on a weekday sitting in a public school building.” (Lemann, 2001)

In 2006 nearly 90 percent of American children – 50.3 million students – were enrolled in public schools.

An additional 5 million enrolled in private schools.

There were 4.9 million teachers – 3.3 million K-12.

Education Costs

• 1995-1996 per pupil expenditures=$2,853

• 2004-2006 = $7,686

• Since 1965 federal government spent over $351 billion on education and,

• States have spent additional trillions.

Education Costs – cont’t

• 2005-2006 – Nation spent $922 billion, Kdg-grad.

• 2005-2006 spent $558 billion K-12.

• Expenditures = 7.4% gross domestic product

Quick Look Back1970’s we saw

• Rising unemployment

• Market share loss to Japan and Germany

• Swift changes in technologies

• Decline of U.S. workplace productivity

Corporate leaders and public officials pointed the finger at our

nation’s schools

Criticisms included

• Unprepared high school graduates

• Poor scores on national tests

• Violence in our schools

• High drop out rates in urban schools

• White flight from cities to suburbs

Business Roundtables - Presidential Commission – A Nation At Risk

• Increased high school graduation requirements

• Lengthened school year

• Added more tests

1989 President Bush – Governors Education forum- Goals 2000

• Six (later 8) national goals

• 1st math and science by 2000.

Three key assumptions

• Public school more efficient and effective – compete and parent choice

• Students perform better in workplace with rigorous academic subjects, especially math and science.

• Test scores measure what has been learned & predict future employees performance.

Resulted in

• High-stakes testing programs

• Reduction in social promotions

• Emergence of choice programs/charters, etc.

Over past two decades

• Reading and math scores stagnant.

• Criticisms of the schools and preparation programs increased

• Privatization/business orientation emerged

• Tax payer supported – political/legislative interest

The Emergence of Special Education

HISTORICAL CONTEXT

1960’S

• Segregation no Longer Permitted

• Disabled Students Denied Access to Public Schools

• Litigation Brought Against Public Schools Seeking Access for Disabled

• Public Schools Concede

• School House Doors Opened

1970’s

• States pass special education access legislation

• Congress follows suit in 1974-75

• 1975 Gerald Fords Signs PL 94-142

• Promise of Federal $$ accompanies legislation

• States implement federal law

Basic Tenets

• Affirmatively find and education students with disabilities

• Determine type of disability

• Required to meet eligibility criteria

• Extend and follow procedural due process requirements

IMPACT

• Found millions of students

• Capped #’s via limits on funding

• Equated category/label with program

• Once identified outcomes didn’t matter

• For 35+ years taught educational personnel to refer kids if they don’t learn

• Expanded number of categories

CONSEQUENCES

• Special Education students didn’t need to learn

• General Education students didn’t need to learn

• Parents, teachers, society, believed identification meant problem solved

• Created two school systems

Experiencing Substantive Educational

Reform Initiatives

• Comprehensive

• Enjoy broad political support

• Priority federal/presidential agenda

• Nothing like it in 35 plus years (ESEA)

CHALLENGES

• KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE• DON’T LOOK FOR SHORT CUTS• BE CAUTIOUS OF “TAKE IT TO SCALE.”• PATIENCE – OLDEST INTRACTIBLE

INSTITUION• BATTLE VESTED INTERSTS WITH DATA,

NOT OPINION• SUBSTANCE – NOT PROCESS

OPPORTUNITIES

• Embrace Accountability• Embrace Technology – Data Systems• Meet with a Politician• Insist on & Be Involved with State Rules and

Regulations• Ask the Different Question – Always,

Everywhere• Sliced Bread

“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.”

People see change as an event: “But we just changed last year.”