1

Good Morning!

Christopher Kaufman, Ph.D.(207) 878-1777

e-mail: info@kaufmanpsychological.orgweb: kaufmanpsychological.org

Effective Professional Development to Support

RTI Implementation

Christopher Kaufman, Ph.D.Licensed Psychologist

The RTI professional development challenge:

Winning hearts and minds . .

That is, convincing stressed/skeptical teachers and school-based clinicians that RTI is doable, credible, worth the effort, and will make a real difference in the lives of kids.

Recommended RTI In-Service Syllabus (Part 1)

1. Introduction to RTI (rationale, what it is/does, how it helps, etc.)

2. Teaching to Individual Differences (helping staff and students grasp the rationale behind differentiated assessment and instruction)

3. Tier I (evidence-based core instruction, universal screenings/general outcome measures/progress monitoring, and Tier I Interventions)

(Adapted from the trainings of Pat Quinn)

Recommended RTI In-Service Syllabus (Part 2)

4. Tier II (small group interventions and progress monitoring)

5. Tier III (eligibility decisions using RTI and when/how to mix-in traditional special education evaluation methods)

6. Putting it All Together (using RTI as a problem-solving method to achieve a range of student-specific and building-wide goals)(Adapted from the trainings of Pat Quinn)

Why Implement

RTI?1. The purpose of taking an RTI approach to service

delivery in schools is to improve instruction and educational outcomes for ALL students.

2. Response to Intervention is about providing high quality instruction to students and using reliable and valid data to make decisions about whether instruction is meeting students’ needs.

RTI: It’s ultimately about problem-solving . .

Critical Components of RTI A. High quality, scientific, research-

based instruction and behavioral support in general education

B. Multiple tiers that increase intensity and/or frequency of scientific research-based interventions based on individual student needs

C. Continuous progress monitoring w/ research-based measures sensitive to short-term student progress

• Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM; e.g., AIMSweb, Easy CBM, DIBELS)

• Behavior Data (e.g., SWIS, AIMSweb)

Universal benchmarking

Small group progress

monitoring

Sped eligibility and

progress monitoring

Batsche, G. M., Elliott, J., Graden, J., Grimes, J., Kovaleski, J. F., Prasse, D., et al. (2005). Response to intervention: Policy considerations and implementation. Alexandria, VA: National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc

on RTI . .

• It’s about preventing failure• It’s about identifying misalignments between

instruction and kids’ learning needs• It’s about using consistent, valid assessment to

review kids’ progress and gauge the efficacy of core and remedial instruction

• It’s about the more efficient use of specialized assessment and targeted interventions

Research on Systematic RTI

• Research shows reductions in SLD child counts after RTI methods implemented (Marston, et al 2003, O’Connor, 2003).

• Tilly (2003) reported significant reduction in primary grade special ed referrals when RTI used for early intervention programming.

• An integrated approach with teams providing both academic and behavior support through the same systems may lead to better academic and behavioral outcomes for more students (McIntosh et al., 2006; O’Shaughnessy et al., 2003)

• Studies show that not all students will be successful with RTI/PBIS alone; those who still struggle will need to receive special education services.

Tier I

• Evidence-Based Core Literacy and Math Instruction

• Universal Screening

• Classroom-based interventions

Universal Screening (using CBM/GOM’s)

• Identification of who is likely to respond to the general curricula (~80%)

• Identification of that who may be at risk for failure to respond to the general curricula (~15%)

• Identification of those who would likely require immediate intervention in order to access the general curricula (~5%)

Curriculum-Based Measurement

Defined: CBM refers to the systematic measurement of students’ academic achievement, using brief, highly content valid (‘curriculum-based’) measures administered at regular intervals (e.g., 3x per year) as a benchmarking process or more frequently (i.e., weekly) to gauge rates of response to specific interventions.

General Outcome Measures

• Testing strategies for academic skill assessment

• Simple assessments that are highly predictive of reading, writing, and math success

• Efficient standardized administration and and scoring

Commercially Produced CBM’s

• AIMSweb (published by Pearson – who else?)

• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (Dibels)

• Easy CBM

AIMSweb is a benchmark and progress monitoring system based on direct, frequent and continuous student assessment. The results are reported to students, parents, teachers and administrators via a web-based data management and reporting system to determine response to intervention.

Benchmark and Progress Monitoring

• Intra-individual Improvement:– Response to intervention is measured on discrete skills

that allow for evaluation of skill acquisition over time, the response to different intervention strategies can be empirically tested.

• Inter-individual Comparison:– Response to intervention can be compared to a local

norm group to evaluate magnitude or severity of problem

The current state of affairs in many districts

• No systematic CBM’s• The Rigby Benchmark System• NWEA (great, but not a GOM)• A diverse range of assessment procedures

are used across elementary schools, but many are self-developed and lack any norming structure or data management system

1. Benchmark – Assess all students three times per year for universal screening (early identification), general education progress monitoring, and AYP accountability.

2. Strategic Monitor – Monitor at-risk students monthly and evaluate the effectiveness of instructional changes.

3. Progress Monitor – Write individualized annual goals and monitor more frequently for those who need intensive instructional services.

Tier II

• Small group interventions with

progress monitoring• PD emphases should be given to ensuring that

all staff members know the Tier II interventions that exist in a given building (Reading Recovery, Title One Reading, Title One Math, etc.)

• Clear protocols for intervention selection, implementation, and progress monitoring should be developed.

Tier III

• Consideration of special education eligibility• PD emphasis: Providing explicit instruction

(with lots of guided practice) in using RTI data to inform sped eligibility decisions

• Staff members should also be given practice in making eligibility decisions using existing RTI data versus deferring decisions until additional evaluation (‘testing’) data is obtained.

Pat Quinn – ‘The RTI Guy’

Classroom teacher

RTI Specialist and In-Service Specialist

Has a video series that covers the entire RTI process – soup to nuts.

thertisite.learningtodayonline.com