ULTIMATE PURPOSE of RTI

Not to determine whether a student qualifies for special

education, but rather to enhance

the success of students with a

variety of academic and behavioral

needs.

Core PrinciplesWe believe that…• ALL children can learn and achieve high

standards as a result of effective teaching.

• All students must have access to a rigorous,

standards-based curriculum and research-based instruction.

• Intervening at the earliest indication of need is necessary for student success

(Pre K-12). • A comprehensive system of tiered

interventions is essential for addressing the full range of student needs.

Core Principles• Student results are improved when ongoing

academic and behavioral performance data are used to inform instructional decisions.

• Collaboration among educators, families and community members is the foundation to effective problem-solving and instructional decision-making.

• Ongoing and meaningful involvement of families increases student success.

• All members of the school community must continue to gain knowledge and develop expertise in order to build capacity and sustainability.

• Effective leadership at all levels is crucial for the implementation of RtI.

Professional Learning Communities Student Learning Academic and Affective

CURRICULUM

What is it we wantall students to know and

be able to do?

Written, Taught & TestedCurriculum Aligned toColorado Standards

UNWRAPPING STANDARDSPOWER STANDARDS

Standards-BasedIEP

ASSESSMENT

How will we know ifthey have learned it?

Assessment OF LearningAssessment FOR Learning

Benchmark AssessmentProgress Monitoring

Curriculum Based Measure

Data-DrivenDialogue

Data ToolsAlpine

AIMSweb

INTERVENTION

How will we respondif they don’t learnor already know?

Research-BasedInterventions

RESPONSE to INTERVENTION

Problem SolvingTeams

ILP

ALP & IEP

INSTRUCTION

How do we teach soall students learn?

Research-BasedInstructional Practices

DIFFERENTIATION

MULTI-SENSORYReading

SW Math Initiative

Classroom InstructionThat Works

COLORADO MODEL CONTENT STANDARDSCOLORADO MODEL CONTENT STANDARDS

RtI Defined

Response to Intervention is anapproach that promotes a well-integrated system connecting general, compensatory, gifted, and special education in providing high quality, standards-based instruction & intervention that is matched to students’ academic, social-emotional, and behavioral needs.

A continuum of evidence-based, tiered interventions with increasing levels of intensity and duration is central to RtI.

Collaborative educational decisions are based on data derived from frequent monitoring of student performance and rate of learning.

The overarching purpose of RtI implementation

is to improve educational outcomes for all

The overarching purpose of RtI implementation

is to improve educational outcomes for all

students.

Traditional vs. Problem-Traditional vs. Problem-SolvingSolving

Focus on problems within child

Focus on outcomes

Causes presumed to be largely due to internal variables

Causes presumed to be largely due to external variables

Unexpected under-achievement (relative to ability)

Unexpected under-achievement (relative to good instruction)

IQ-Achievement discrepancy

Failure to respond to empirically validated instruction or interventions

Assumes better classification leads to better treatment

Decisions about students based on PM data

Curriculum Across the TiersUniversal Tier (Tier 1)• Provide foundation of curriculum and school

organization that has a high probability (80 – 90% of students responding) of bringing students to a high level of achievement in all areas of development/content

• Choose curricula that has evidence of producing optimal levels of achievement (evidence-based curriculum)

Targeted Tier (Tier 2)• Supplemental curriculum aligned with Core

Curriculum and designed to meet the specific needs of the targeted group

Intensive Tier (Tier 3)• Focused curriculum designed to meet the specific

needs of the targeted group and/or individual• Consideration of replacement Core curriculum

Instruction Across the TiersUniversal Tier• Instructional strategies that are proven effective by research• Instruction that is systematic and explicit • Differentiated instruction

Targeted• Involves homogeneous small group or individual instruction• Explicit and systematic instruction targeting specific

skill/content• Research-based instruction to such student factors as age,

giftedness, cultural environment, level of English language acquisition, mobility, etc.

• Supplemental to Tier I instruction -- increasing time and intensity

Intensive• Explicit, intense instruction designed to unique learner

needs• Delivered to individuals or very small groups • Narrowed instructional focus and increased time

Three Tiered Model of School Supports:Anclote Elementary-Pasco County

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

1-5%

Tier 3: Comprehensive and Intensive InterventionsIndividual Students or Small Group (2-3)Reading: Scholastic Program,

Reading,Mastery, ALL, Soar to Success, Leap Track, Fundations

1-5%

Tier 3: Intensive InterventionsIndividual CounselingFBA/BIPTeach, Reinforce, and Prevent (TRP)Assessment-basedIntense, durable procedures

5-10%Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsStudents that don’t respond to the core curriculumReading: Soar to Success, Leap Frog, CRISS strategies, CCC Lab Math: Extended DayWriting: Small Group, CRISS strategies, and “Just Write Narrative” by K. Robinson

5-10%

Tier 2: Targeted Group InterventionsSome students (at-risk)Small Group CounselingParent Training (Behavior & Academic)Bullying Prevention ProgramFBA/BIP Classroom Management Techniques, Professional Development Small Group Parent Training ,Data

80-90%Tier 1: Core CurriculumAll studentsReading: Houghton MifflinMath: HarcourtWriting: Six Traits Of WritingLearning Focus Strategies

80-90% Tier 1: Universal InterventionsAll settings, all studentsCommittee, Preventive, proactive strategiesSchool Wide Rules/ Expectations Positive Reinforcement System (Tickets & 200 Club) School Wide Consequence System School Wide Social Skills Program, Data (Discipline, Surveys, etc.) Professional Development (behavior)Classroom Management Techniques,Parent Training

Students

How Does it Fit Together?How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Standard Treatment

ProtocolProtocol

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

Step 1

BEST PRACTICES of Tier I

• Core Instruction• Assessment/Progress Monitoring • Data discussions• What should the overall process look

like during Tier I?

Core Instruction During Tier I• Scientifically based core instructional

programs and practices• Based on state/district standards and

benchmarks• Intervention occurs within the

general design of the classroom (flooding, flexible grouping)

• Instructional changes are made based on classroom and school-wide assessment

Data Discussions in Tier I•Professional Learning Communities•Data-dialogue meetings•Grade or Content-level meetings•Meeting should be efficient, organized

and scheduled regularly•Discuss

• Whole group, flexible group changes, class changes at secondary

• Curricular gaps based on review of class benchmarks or other data

Assessment in Tier I

•Progress monitoring is conducted primarily using school-wide screenings three times per year•Classroom assessments •Benchmarks •Quarterly and Unit Assessments•Common Assessments

The Overall Process of Tier I

•Teachers evaluate school-wide assessment data to inform instructional placement decisions•Monitor all students •Differentiate instruction, groupings,

accommodations•Complete documentation for students

needing targeted interventions

BEST PRACTICES of Tier II:and how to Distinguish from Tier I

• Problem Solving Process• Data dialogue• Assessment/Progress Monitoring• Design of Instruction/Intervention• What should the overall process

look like at this tier?

Data Dialogue in Tier II:

•Consultation between consultant and teacher to define and analyze a measurable problem prior to problem-solving team meeting.•Focus on data that is specific to problem identified.•Problem-solving team meeting led with facilitator which is timed, sequential and efficient.•Identify achievement gap and rate of progress toward expectations

Assessment in Tier II:

•Progress is monitored more often (weekly, bi-monthly)

•Progress is monitored repeatedly for a period of time using consistent CBM tool

•Trends in performance are used to gauge effectiveness of supports and interventions

•Ineffective intervention plans are changed in a timely manner

•Intervention plans are modified based on emerging needs

Design of Instruction/Intervention in Tier II: How to distinguish from

Tier I•Instruction supplements, not supplants, core instruction•Focus on non-responders to Tier I•Short-term intervention •Homogeneous, same ability small group (3-5 students) instruction•Standard Protocol Interventions

Interventions: Tier 1 => Tier 2

□Smaller group size□Increased time□Increased intensity □Increased duration □Increased power of intervention

selected□More systematic, direct instruction,

etc.

How the Tiers Work• Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral• Greater the tier, greater support and “severity”• Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention• Continue until student strengthens response significantly• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)• Determine the relationship between sustained growth

and sustained support.

Progress Monitoring

□Measurable data collected weekly or every other week for Tier 2

□Tied to what observable and countable data you expect to change due to the selected interventions

□Baseline – the number of behaviors per time period you see at the start

□Target – goal – what you want to see□Data point – enter the count each time you

progress monitor the behavior

BEST PRACTICES of Tier III:

• Problem Solving Process (consider need for Problem Analysis in SJBOCES)

• Data dialogue• Assessment/Progress Monitoring• Design of Instruction/Intervention• What should the overall

process look like at this tier?

Problem-Solving Process in Tier III:

• Identify why interventions have been unsuccessful

• Develop and improve existing interventions or generate new interventions that are more intensive

Data Dialogue in Tier III:

• Identical to Tier II, happens in problem-solving team meetings with same process (or Problem Analysis meeting as needed)

• Consultants continue to dialogue with classroom teacher, parent, etc. between meetings to support intervention plan

Progress Monitoring in Tier III:More often• Progress monitoring may need to happen every week; however, depending on the grade level and/or skill less often may be sufficient (every other week) • Modifications are made to individualized instruction in response to the data collected

Design of Instruction in Tier III:

and how to Distinguish from Tier II• The intervention may stay the same

but will increase in• Intensity (more time per session)• Frequency (additional sessions

during day or week)• Duration (implement intervention

over longer period of time in weeks)• The focus of the intervention may

change as well

Overall Process of Tier III:• Supplemental – continue to educate

student in core curriculum and with the interventions that have been implemented if successful

• Interventions and progress monitoring intensify

• If the goal is to gain academic and behavior skills the lack of progress and inability to close the Gap with intensive interventions may indicate a disability issue

Learning DisabilitiesLearning Disabilities

□ Recent studies have shown that when students with severe reading problems are given early, intensive instruction, nearly 95% can reach the national average in reading ability!

All laws not created equal…All laws not created equal…□ There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition

for LD.

□ Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array of methods used to determine intelligence.

□ James Ysseldyke, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled under one definition or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993)

□ Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from "environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."

□ Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially poorly researched, if at all.

□ Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of students who were eligible for services.

Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

All laws not created equal…All laws not created equal…

□ There are 50 state definitions in addition to the federal definition for LD.

□ Attempts to assess for LD involved a vast array of methods used to determine intelligence.

□ James Yssseldyke, a researcher at the University of Minnesota, concluded that 80 percent of all school children in the United States could qualify as learning-disabled under one definition or another. (Shapiro et. al., 1993)

□ Eligibility rules often appeared class-based. Though unintentional, they sadly discriminated against low SES groups whose learning problems originated from "environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage."

□ Though Federal regulations from 1970’s mandated use of the Discrepancy Mode, it was essentially poorly researched, if at all.

□ Used as a method to create a criteria for eligibility for LD and cap the number of students who were eligible for services.

Shapiro, J. P., Loeb P., Bowermaster, D. (1993, December 13). Separate and unequal. U.S. News & World Report, 47.

“According to the Children's Defense Fund, middle-class children starting first grade have been exposed to 1,000 to 1,700 hours of one-

on-one reading, while their low-income counterparts have been exposed to only 25

hours. It's little wonder that so many of these kids get referred to special ed.”

(Washington Monthly, June 1999)

Identifying Key Concerns with Identifying Key Concerns with Previous IDEA LawPrevious IDEA Law

□ For years, researchers have advocated for a change to the “discrepancy model” (a.k.a. “wait to fail model.”)

□ Misidentification of LD = greater # of students in special education services (300% + since 1975)

□ “Sympathy” eligibility

□ Eligibility as a “back-up plan” for limited reg. ed. services

Effectiveness of Instructional Effectiveness of Instructional Approaches (Deno, 2005Approaches (Deno, 2005)

Intervention Effect Size

Special Ed Placement -.14 to .29

Modality Matched Instruction (Auditory)

+.03

Modality Matched Instruction (Visual)

+.04

CBA, Graphing & Formative Eval.

+.70

CBA, Graphing, Formative Eval., systematic use of Reinforcement

+1.00

Changing the way we ID…SLD!Changing the way we ID…SLD!New flexibility with IDEIA:

“In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, an LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether a child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability.”• Law now provides districts/LEAs the option to eliminate IQ-

discrepancy requirements• Embraces model of prevention—not failure• Students with disabilities are considered general education

students first with interventions beginning in the general education classroom.

• Mandates that students cannot be identified as LD if they have not had appropriate instruction in reading, meaning research-based, scientific interventions.

IMPLICATIONS:• General ed. must assume active responsibility for delivery

of high-quality instruction, interventions, and prompt ID of at-risk students collaboratively.

• Special Ed must partner with gen. ed. to provide those interventions early on.

‘Old’ SLD Eligibility Process

□Referral made□Rule-outs (not due to vision, hearing,

motor, lack of instruction, cultural differences, language differences, etc.)

□IQ – Achievement Discrepancy□Establish Existence of Processing

Deficit□Need for specialized programming

Criteria for Identification for Specific Learning Disability (must be used as of

8/15/09)

To receive special education or related services for a Specific Learning Disability in the academic area(s) of: Basic Reading, Reading Fluency, Reading Comprehension, Math Calculation, Math Reasoning, Written Expression, Oral Expression, and/or Listening Comprehension, a student must meet all of the SJBOCES adopted eligibility criteria below based upon state and federal Response to Intervention (RtI) regulations. Each section must be verified and the box checked.

SLD Criteria (cont.)

1. Significant underachievement will be observed in the student’s level of academic functioning compared to grade-level expectations on appropriate curriculum based measurement (CBM) assessments. Dual Discrepancy must be denoted by having a significant difference in both the student’s CBM scores AND growth (slope) measured against those of grade level students. □ This will be demonstrated by skills in the bottom 10%ile

compared with grade-level peers on both national norms and local school norms (when available) on a Survey Level Assessment in the appropriate academic measure(s) using AIMSweb CBM; and

□ The slope or Rate of Improvement (ROI) on AIMSweb should be less than the expected rate of improvement for a student at the 50%ile in the grade in which the student is being progress monitored.

SLD Criteria (cont.)

2. The student will also show scores at or below the 10th%ile on at least one additional district level assessment that measures Colorado State Standards, such as the Grade, Gates, Bear, NWEA, etc.

3. Standards-based achievement results are both below the average range and support the Dual Discrepancy in the area(s) of concern. Relevant scores on CSAP (when available) must be in the bottom four twelfths (a Proficiency Score of Unsatisfactory or the bottom third/Low end of Partially Proficient range).

SLD Criteria (cont.)

4. The student has been provided an evidence-based core curriculum in general education as well as at least two appropriate evidence-based interventions implemented in the area of concern which were provided with sufficient duration, intensity and fidelity by qualified personnel. At least one intervention was done in Tier 2 and at least one in Tier 3; the Tier 3 intervention was conducted by or with involvement from the Special Education teacher. At least 6 to 8 weekly data points must have been collected on each intervention conducted.

SLD Criteria (cont.)

5. Learning difficulties are not the result of lack of appropriate instruction in reading, lack of appropriate instruction in math, limited English proficiency, visual, hearing, or motor disability, mental retardation, emotional disturbance, cultural factors, or environmental or economic disadvantage.

6. Student demonstrates a need for intense and frequent specialized instruction.