Response to Intervention – A Good IDEIA

Assessment

Driving

Instruction

Dr. David Lillenstein, NCSPDirector of Psychological Services (717) 531-2277 x5436dlillenstein@hershey.k12.pa.us

Ch. 14 - State Law

PA has required school districts to conduct screening

§14.122. Screening

(a) Each school district shall establish a system of screening… (b) Each school district shall implement a comprehensive screening

process. School districts may implement instructional support according to Department guidelines or an alternative screening process. School districts which elect not to use instructional support for screening shall develop and implement a comprehensive screening process …

The Screening Process Shall Include:

(1) For students with academic concerns, an assessment of the student's functioning in the curriculum including curriculum-based or performance–based assessment

(2) For students with behavioral concerns, a systematic observation of the student's behavior in the classroom or area in which the student is displaying difficulty.

(3) An intervention based on the results of the assessments under paragraph (1) or (2).

(4) An assessment of the student's response to the intervention. (5) A determination as to whether the student's assessed difficulties

are due to a lack of instruction or limited English proficiency. (6) A determination as to whether the student's needs exceed the

functional ability of the regular education program to maintain the student at an appropriate instructional level.

IDEIA 2004 – Federal Law

Each SD must establish and implement a comprehensive system of screening to accomplish the following:

Identify and provide initial screening prior to referral

Provide peer support for teachers and other school personnel to assist in working with students in the general education curriculum

Conduct hearing and vision screening

Identify students who may need to be referred for eligibility evaluation

The Screening Process Shall Include:

Curriculum-based or performance based assessments

ObservationInterventionStudent response to interventionDetermination whether difficulties are due to lack

of instruction or Limited English ProficiencyDetermination whether student’s needs exceed

functional ability of regular education programActivities to gain parent involvement

IDEIA - Early Intervening Services

Local Education Agencies may carry out activities that include:

Professional development for teachers and other school staff to enable them to deliver scientifically based academic instruction and behavioral interventions, including scientifically based literacy instruction and, where appropriate, instruction in the use of adaptive and instructional software

Providing educational and behavioral evaluations, services and supports, including scientifically based literacy instruction

Early intervening services can not be used to delay the referral process for evaluation for special education

IDEA 2004 {(613(f)(2)(A)(B)}

IDEIA and NCLB

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEIA) aligns closely to the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), helping to ensure equity, accountability and excellence in education for children with disabilities.

NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research”

The No Child Left Behind Act defines the term 'scientifically based research‘:

(A) means research that involves the application of rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain reliable and valid knowledge relevant to education activities and programs; and

(B) includes research that: Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on

observation or experiment

Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn

NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research”

Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide reliable and valid data across evaluators and observers, across multiple measurements and observations, and across studies by the same or different investigators

Is evaluated using experimental or quasi-experimental designs…

NCLB – “Scientifically Based Research”

Ensures experimental studies are presented in sufficient detail and clarity to allow for replication or, at a minimum, offer the opportunity to build systematically on their findings

Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review.

Reading First: Scientifically Based Research

Scientifically based reading research is research that applies rigorous, systematic and objective procedures to obtain valid knowledge relevant to reading development, reading instruction, and reading difficulties. This includes research that:

1. Employs systematic, empirical methods that draw on observation or experiment;

2. Involves rigorous data analyses that are adequate to test the stated hypotheses and justify the general conclusions drawn;

Reading First: Scientifically Based Research

3. Relies on measurements or observational methods that provide valid data across evaluators and observers and across multiple measurements and observations; and

4. Has been accepted by a peer-reviewed journal or approved by a panel of independent experts through a comparably rigorous, objective and scientific review.

IDEIA + NCLB + Ch. 14 = 3 Tier Intervention Model

Prevention Model

Each Tier provides more intensive and supportive intervention

Layers of intervention in response to student needs

Tier 1

Tier 2

Tier 3

100% Regular Classroom

15% Double Dip

<5% IEP

Tier 1 – The Regular Classroom

Data Analysis/Data Review (Pods) Teachers and support staff working together to…

Access critical data on all students’ performance related to achievement of benchmarks and standards

Analyze data and identify which students have which gaps in skills

Set measurable group goals to close the gaps Brainstorm or create instructional strategies Share evidenced based instructional activities and

materials –

class-wide pod-wide grade-wide school wide Make the classroom the 1st line of intervention

Tier 1 - Data Analysis - Pods

View skills critical to meeting benchmarks and standards

Identify which students have attained skills (benchmark)

Identify which are developing skills (strategic) Identify which are deficient (intensive)

Look at Skills and Students

Tier 1 – Benefits of a Strong Tier 1

Promotes scientifically-validated instruction on a whole-class, whole-school level

Promotes team-based collaborative problem solving and shared data-based decision making

Systematic data-based identification of non-responders

Eventual focusing of limited and costly resources on fewer students at Tiers 2 and 3

Tier 2 – Supplemental Intervention

“Double Dipping” – “Special Education like” – small group, immediate corrective feedback, more time on difficult

tasks, teaching to mastery, fewer transitions, increased opportunities to respond, goal setting, increased progress monitoring…

Works best with a strong Tier 1 Intended for learners who fail to respond at Tier 1… but done in

combination with Tier 1 Interventions become more individually tailored through team

problem-solving process (Intervention Team Meetings) Intervention Specialists supplement Tier 1 Flexible groups – change over time based on progress and need

Tier 2 – Response to Intervention

Scientific Method

Problem ID Hypothesis Study Analysis Interpretation

Response to Intervention – Problem Solving Model

Problem Solving Model –

Line of Inquiry

1. What is the Problem? Operationally defined, multiple team members

2. Why does the problem exist? Muti-method, multi-informant assessment, skill vs.

performance deficit, Dx data, observable and measurable terms

3. What should be done to address the problem? Intervention plan, goal setting, identify intervention and

who will deliver

4. Did the intervention work? What’s next? Review Progress Monitoring data, trends, changes

Tier 2 – Continued

Length of time ? – 15 weeks (Vaughan & Fuchs, 2003) 20+ weeks (Reschly, 2005; Vaughan, 2003) 30+ weeks (Vaughan, 2003) 2 years – (NASP, 2002; President’s Commission on

Excellence in Special Education, 2002) Particularly when Tier 1 program is weak or poorly

delivered – (curriculum/instructional casualties) Rights without Labels – special-education like services

and interventions, avoids wait to fail as services are delivered immediately upon identification of need

Data Collection

Replace Norm-referenced tests Not sensitive to change over time Do not inform instruction Measure individual differences, not growth Cannot be administered frequently

CBM – Curriculum-Based Measurement Reliable and valid Sensitive to change Directly related to instruction Allow for goal setting Allow for prediction Can be administered frequently Measure individual differences and growth

3 Purposes of Assessment Data

1. To enable student performance

2. To enable student performance

3. To enable student performance

(Grimes & Tilley, 2003)

Results of Tier 2

Identify which students have good or poor response to intervention (RTI)

Sort students who need additional assistance Decide which students are helped in general

education Decide which students need to be provided

special education

Tier 3 – Special Education

Long-term interventions – IEP – for students who fail to respond adequately to Tier 1 & 2

The MDT determines if additional data are required for eligibility determination – no further data collection in most cases

The Intervention is the Evaluation

Or…

The Evaluation is the Intervention

Current Discrepancy Model - Problems

Wait to Fail needs are known in K or 1st grade but discrepancy often not

present until 3rd or 4th grade By 8 it’s too late…

LD is a catch-all label “a sociological sponge to wipe up the spills of general education”

(Reid Lyon – cited in Gresham, 2001)

LD is arbitrarily and inconsistently defined in policy and practice

Tends to not identify students needing intensive instruction found in special ed. – no discrepancy!

“For Tx, the use of discrepancy models forces identification to an older age when interventions are demonstrably less effective (Fletcher et al., 1998)

Current Discrepancy Model – IQ Tests & Problems

No direct link to instruction or intervention!! Discrepancy includes measurement error Decisions to intervene focus on amount of discrepancy,

not on student skills or need IQ tests do not differentiate well between LD, MR, and

low achieving students There is actually much overlap among groups (Gresham et al.,

1996) Few differences between low achieving and LD (Algozzine, 1995) IQ does not help differentiate the needs of students who need help

(Vellutino at al., 2000)

IQ tests discriminate Minorities may be under-represented in LD, but over in MR

Response to Intervention – RTI Advantages

Focus is on attainment of learning standards…on improving educational outcomes and learning abilities! (student learning is the focus)

Regular classroom is 1st line of intervention Merges special education and regular education Promotes data-based decisions Lack of progress change in intervention Not just for special education or for determining eligibility Reduced paperwork load

RTI Advantages - Continued

Considers cause of learning deficits outside of the learner

Identification process is embedded in the intervention process – removes “wait to fail”

Frequent and regularly scheduled assessment drives instruction

Response to Intervention – In Practice

Iowa Model (Tilley) RTI reduced special education numbers by 39% in K, 32% in 1st grade,

21% in 2nd grade, and 19% in 3rd grade Minneapolis Model

Non-categorical – not LD – Students Needing Alternative Programming 10 years of data - “Flood gates did not open” - 7.13% LD at start, 6.91% 5

years later, and 7.12% after 10 years of RTI Minnesota St. Croix River Education District

9 years of RTI – 4.4% LD at start, 2.5% after 9 yrs of RTI University of Pittsburgh Model (O’Connor, 2003)

92% of students who were provided Tier 1 and Tier 2 interventions did not require special education vs. 85% from the control group who did not receive Tier 1 and Tier 2 intervention

University of Texas Model (Vaughan, 2003) 94% of students who did not respond to Tier 1 were able to return

to Tier 1 after 30+ weeks of Tier 2 intervention

Conclusion…

“If you do more of what you’ve always done, you’ll get more of what you’ve always got…”

- Confucious, 1977