1

Response to Intervention (RTI): An Introduction and Linkages with Ohio Initiatives

Ohio Department of EducationOffice for Exceptional Children

April 25, 2005Bill Bogdan and Rita Poth, SWO SERRC

Janet Graden and Ed Lentz, Univ. of Cincinnati

2

Topics: Why RTI

Foundations in law (NCLB, IDEIA 2004) Alignment with Ohio Standards Rationale for changes (Key reports,

conclusions) What is RTI

Multi-tiered scientific-based intervention and response to intervention for decisions

Alignment with Ohio SIG – integrated intervention and decision making across tiers

RTI and SLD

3

Topics (continued): Empirical Support for RTI Advantages of RTI Common Questions Challenges for Implementation Considerations for ODE/OEC

4

Why RTI: Key Foundations and Supports in Law

NCLB IDEIA 2004 Ohio Operating Standards

5

Why RTI: Support in Aspects of NCLB

No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Big idea – improvement of academic and behavioral

results for all students, through scientifically-based instruction, curriculum, and intervention

Identification and intervention of academic and behavior problems early, when they occur in the classroom

Design and implementation of remedial and individualized interventions for students not responding to scientifically-based instruction and intervention; on-going progress monitoring of student performance outcomes

Inclusion of all students within a single standards-based accountability system; documentation of student progress and outcomes through AYP

6

Why RTI: Support in IDEIA 2004

IDEIA 2004 Reauthorization Big idea – Students with disabilities (SWD) are

general education students first - content standards and assessments

Inclusion of children with disabilities in NCLB assessments (and sub-group reporting for AYP)

“Early intervening” (previously pre-referral intervention) strengthened and extended

Changes in assessment language (from tests and evaluation to assessment and measurement)

7

RTI and IDEIA- Specific RTI Language

Section 614 (5) Special Rule for Eligibility Determination:“In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinate factor for such determination is (A) lack of appropriate instruction in reading, including in the essential components of reading instruction (as defined in section 1208(3) of the ESEA of 1965)…”

8

RTI and IDEIA: Specific Language for SLD

Section 614(b)(6)“(A) IN GENERAL. Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.”

9

RTI and IDEIA: Specific Language for SLD (cont.) Section 614(b)(5)

“(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY. In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a LEA may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).”

10

IDEIA and RTI Specific language allowing RTI appears in

SLD section; however, Support for RTI approach is built in

throughout IDEIA and NCLB (e.g., consideration of scientifically-based reading instruction, intervention requirements based on response to scientifically-based reading instruction, direct assessment and progress monitoring)

11

Ohio Alignment and Support for RTI: Priorities of Office for Exceptional

Children (aligned with ODE priorities): Standards: Improve access to the general

curriculum; improve the participation and progress of CWD in the general curriculum

Capacity: Improve schools’ capacity to improve outcomes for all children; encourage others to consider CWD and at-risk learners as general education students first

Accountability: Increase the performance of CWD on state and district assessments

12

Ohio Support for RTI: Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools

3301-35-06 instruction includes intervention and

shall be: consistent with educational

research and proven practice appropriate to age, developmental

needs, learning styles, abilities, English proficiency

13

RTI Support: Operating Standards for Ohio’s Schools

3301-35-06 Intervention requirement and definition:

“Intervention means alternative or supplemental instruction designed to help students meet performance objectives.”

Districts are required to provide students with “sufficient time and opportunity” to achieve performance objectives

14

RTI Support: Ohio Standards for SWD Specific Evaluation Requirements:

33-51-06 (D): Evaluation Procedures

Requirement to review existing evaluation data, including data from previous interventions, including interventions required by rule 3301-35-06 of Admin. Code

15

RTI Support: Operating Standards for SWD Specific Evaluation Requirements:

3301-51-06 (A,2): “Each school district shall provide intervention to resolve concerns for the preschool or school-age child prior to conducting a full and individual evaluation.”

16

RTI Support: Ohio Standards for SWD Specific Evaluation Requirements:

3301-51-06 (A,3):

“Each district shall use data from interventions to determine eligibility for special education services, appropriate instructional practices, and access to the general curriculum.”

17

Why RTI: Reasons for Change Support for changes from various

national commissions and reports LD Summit (2002) President’s Commission (2002) National Research Center on LD

(2003) National Research Council Report on

Minority Over-Representation (2002)

18

Learning Disabilities Summit (2002) Endorsed a response to intervention

model as “the most promising method of alternative identification”

RTI “can both promote effective practices in schools and help to close the gap between identification and treatment.”

“Problem solving models have been shown to be effective in public school settings and research.”

19

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002) Recommendations: Focus on improving outcomes for

children with disabilities (CWD) Focus on CWD as general education

student first (curriculum, assessments) Needs-based, non-categorical, flexible

systems Early intervention and response-to-

intervention across tiers as model for serving all students

20

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (2003) Ability/achievement discrepancy requirement

Based on best guess at time Controversial even at that time (1970s) Consensus conclusion that does not work

Problems with ability/achievement discrepancy Lack of validity (does not establish group of

students with unique needs – regardless of discrepancy groups respond to same kind of intervention with same results)

Problems with reliability (decision reliability) Most important – delays treatment; “wait to fail”

21

“Wait to Fail” Problem Discrepancy formula doesn’t identify

as eligible until Grades 3-4 Data from National Institute of Health

(1999) If students are not reading at grade level

by Gr. 3, odds of reading at g.l. are 1 in 17

2 hrs. of intensive daily instruction required in Gr. 4 to make same gains as 30 min. of instruction in Kindergarten

22

Other Reasons for Change from Reports: CWD drop out rates (2x peers) and

rate of enrollment in higher education (1/2x peers)

Over- and under-representation of ethnic minorities (National Research Council, 200X)

300% growth in SLD identification since 1976

23

Other Reasons (cont.) 80% of SLD identified for reading 50% of identified SLD do not meet

state criteria Lack of demonstrated relationship

between discrepant/non-discrepant LD students and effectiveness of reading strategies (respond equally to effective instruction)

24

Key Ideas from National Reports and Recommendations (reflected in NCLB and IDEIA):

Early intervening and prevention (not waiting to fail)

Intervention and response to intervention data at all levels (multi-tiered approach to prevention and intervention; school-wide to individual)

Direct assessment, link to standards and instructional needs in general education curriculum and progress assessment

Scientifically-based intervention and assessment

25

What is RTI: Key Foundations Multi-tiered intervention of

increasing or decreasing intensity, based on need

Data-based decision making and progress monitoring at all tiers

Effective, research-based intervention at all tiers

Flexible services Ohio SIG includes these foundations

26

An Integrated Systems Approach…Intervention Based Services and Positive Behavior Supports

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide Interventions

5-10% Targeted Interventions5-10% Targeted Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

1-5% Intensive Individualized Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

80-90% School-Wide Interventions

Decisions about tiers of support are data-based

A B

CDE

F

27

Tier 1: Universal Intervention and Screening Universal core research-based

curriculum/approach for all students; linked to general education standards (effective reading curriculum; school-wide Positive Behavior Support)

Universal screening and use of data (Curriculum-Based Measurement, DIBELS for academic) to make decisions about those not progressing and in need of intervention

28

Tier 2: Targeted Intervention and Progress Monitoring

Targeted, more intensive research-based intervention for those students not making sufficient progress; program or scripted/manualized approach; still linked to standards and including Tier 1

More frequent progress monitoring for data-based decision making (same data base as for Tier 1)

29

Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Intervention and Progress Monitoring

Interventions based on individualized problem solving; still linked to Tier 1 and 2 and general curriculum; research-based interventions

More frequent progress monitoring for data-based decision making (same data at Tier 1 & 2); depending on progress at this level may lead to consideration of eligibility determination

30

RTI Comprehensive Evaluation Core RTI core is the analysis of achievement

and behavior, using direct measures in natural settings: Precise measurement and analysis of skill

levels Precise analysis of alterable conditions for

intervention Application of powerful instructional design

and behavior change methods Assessment of rate of learning, progress

monitoring with formative evaluation Decisions based on data from intervention

outcomes

31

RTI and Identification for SLD Documented difference between student’s

performance and like-aged peers using local/state/national norms in relevant domains on direct performance measures

Insufficient response to research-based instruction and interventions of increasing intensity and measurement precision

Documented adverse impact on education performance

32

RTI and SLD Identification (cont.) Documented need for specially designed

instruction and/or related services in order for child to obtain an appropriate education

Application of exclusionary criteria including MR (CD), ED, speech/language

Exit criteria defined in terms of targets for improved performance

National Academy of Sciences Panel, Donovan & Cross, 2002

33

What RTI Looks Like in Practice Versus Typical Past PracticeScreen all students, deliver research-based core curriculum (Tier 1)

Wait for referrals (often wait to fail)

For students not progressing in Tier 1, provide research-based intervention (Tier 2), with frequent progress monitoring

Provide brainstormed interventions following teacher referral; many students not achieving are not referred or identified early

For students not progressing in Tier 2, start problem solving for individualized research-based interventions (Tier 3), more frequent monitoring

Often, referral to Intervention Assistance Team (too often seen as hurdle, another step, no problem solving, research-based intervention or progress monitoring)

Consideration of eligibility (considering RTI data, progress, need for specialized instruction)

Testing (frustration if not eligible; if eligible, no clear link to instruction and IEP from tests used)

34

Empirical Support for RTI What Does Work:

Early intervening for academics improves student outcomes - prevents academic failure and subsequent behavior problems

Direct assessment of student performance, on-going progress monitoring (informs instruction, linked to content standards)

Scientifically-based instruction and intervention

Applied behavior analysis Curriculum-based

measurement+graphing+formative evaluation (Fuchs & Fuchs, Gresham, 2001; Kellam et al., 1998)

35

Empirical Support for RTI What Has Not Worked:

Diagnosis and placement does not connect to effective instruction…assessing for cognitive deficits does not link to ways to remediate deficits and improve student outcomes

No differences in effective instruction and intervention for low achieving students with or without IQ/achievement discrepancies (effective instruction is effective instruction)

(Fletcher et al., 1994; Reschly & Ysseldyke; 2002; Tilly et al., 1999)

36

Advantages of RTI From research and practice, across many

settings (Ohio, Iowa, Illinois, South Carolina…) Prevention and early intervention for

problems Matching intensity of intervention to severity

of need Integration of general education and special

education services Reduction of identification biases, over- and

under-representation issues (seen as strong approach by OCR)

Strong focus on student outcomes

37

Implications of Changes: Anticipating Some Common Comments and Questions

More students will qualify and there will be inconsistencies across schools, districts, and states National/state data show existing

inconsistency In states and districts implementing approach,

has been no increase in students identified Services based on comprehensive, systematic

data on intervention need

38

Common Questions/Comments: Intervention takes too much time; the

intervention process delays identification Problems are identified and intervened with

early Progress monitoring is frequent to assure

child is progressing, or decision to move to more intensive level

Identification of need for more intensive intervention is data-based; link to identification and IEP is natural progression

39

Common Questions/Concerns: Due process complaints will increase

In states/districts/schools that have implemented tiered intervention model, due process complaints have not increased (decreases documented state-wide in Iowa)

With early, frequent parent involvement and focus on research-based interventions, frequent progress monitoring, and data-based decisions, high level of parent satisfaction has been seen

40

Common Questions/Comments: We won’t need school psychologists

(or we will need more of them) Evidence from state-wide

implementation (Iowa) and from several regional examples (OH, IL, SC) shows that there is no reduction in school psychologists, and depending on existing use and services, often do hire more (more valued for comprehensive role)

41

Common Questions/Comments: Need to assess “psychological processing”

for SLD Federal definition does not use language

“psychological processing” LD Panel (OSEP, 2002) consensus statement

that “systematically measuring processing difficulties and their link to treatment is not yet feasible.”

Recent research on neurobiology – physiological changes follow effective instruction and learning

42

Common Questions/Comments:

Need to assess “ability” for SLD No federal requirement for test of ability;

language is “assessment” Methods for exclusionary consideration

(ruling out mental retardation) – consideration of adaptive behavior

Consideration of sources of evidence for “ability” in broad sense

43

Research Conclusions on IQ Use in Eligibility Determination: “IQ tests given to young children are

comparatively not good predictors of later reading difficulties. Furthermore, IQ is not a strong indicator of how well a young child will respond to intervention programs for reading. Therefore, I do not recommend IQ tests as essential for early identification of boys and girls at risk for reading difficulty.” (Shaywitz, 2003, p. 147).

IQ test performance does not predict performance on state accountability assessments (McGrew & Evans, 2004)

44

Federal Definition: Specific learning disability means

a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or do mathematical calculations…

45

Federal Definition (cont.) …including conditions such as perceptual

disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia…The term does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage.”

46

Approaching SLD Eligibility from an RTI Perspective: What’s Needed for Successful Implementation

Effective use and documentation of Problem solving Implementation of scientifically-based

instruction and intervention at multiple tiers

Data-based decision making at all tiers Flexible, needs-based services delivery

47

Challenges in Implementation Need for building capacity –

supporting school-wide and systems change

Planning for professional development needs within RTI model

Role changes Services delivery needs (services

based on needs, data, flexibility) Research to practice gap

48

Considerations and Next Steps for ODE: Supporting LEAs in implementation of

RTI Existing partners, models, resources (SIG,

SERRCs, experiences of SW Ohio partners) Existing NCLB initiatives and supports

(general education linkages) Partnerships with other states and within

Ohio; NASDSE resources Areas for learning (resources, visitations

with existing models)

49

Resources and References:

President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (July, 2002) (www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/)

LD National Summit Panel (2002) (www.air.org/ldsummit/)

National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (www.nrcld.org)

50

Resources and References: National Academy of

Sciences/National Research Council Report on Minority Students in Special and Gifted Education (2002) Donovan, M.S. & Cross, C.T. (Eds.) (www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html)

51

Resources and References: McGrew, K. & Evans, J. (2004).

Expectations for students with cognitive disabilities: Is the cup half empty or half full. NCEO Synthesis Report 55.

Shaywitz, S. (2003). Overcoming dyslexia. NY: Knopf.