Response to Intervention

1
Response to Intervention
2
(No Transcript)
3
New IDEA

• SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES
• IN GENERAL --Notwithstanding section 607 of this
  Act, or any other provision of law, when
  determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability as defined under this Act,
  the LEA shall not be required to take into
  consideration whether the 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. In
  determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability, a LEA may use a process
  which determines if a child responds to
  scientific, research based intervention.

4
(No Transcript)
5
Reading

• 88 probability of being a poor reader in fourth
  grade if you were a poor reader in first grade
  (Juel 1988)
• 75 of students identified with reading problems
  in the third grade are still disabled in 9th
  grade (Shaywitz,et.,al,1996)
• Catching up is a low probability after third
  grade.
• The bottom 20 of students will require a very
  different kind of effort.
• Need to catch student early before reading
  trajectory is established.
• Wayne Callender (Boise State University and Idaho
  Department of Education)

6
Overview of Problem-Solving (RTI)

• Problem Solving or RTI Which is it?

7
Problem-Solving Focus

• Focus on helping students who are struggling
  (dont worry if they qualify)
• Time spent on applying direct interventions- not
  testing
• Early intervention focus
• Catch students in window

8
Problem-Solving Principles

• Strength-Based Model improves results for all
  students.
• Integration of all resources and shared expertise
  responds more completely to the needs of
  students.
• Empowered parents who participate fully in
  decision making and intervention
  implementationimproved education results

9

10
Best Practices for Problem- Solving

• Problem Solving Teams
• Shared Resources
• Parental Involvement
• Functional Assessment
• Outcome Oriented Intervention
• Ongoing Progress Monitoring
• Systematic Data-Based Decision Making

11
School System Changes

• Research Suggests 90 minutes of uninterrupted
  reading time. More for students who need to
  catch up.
• Need time for more collaboration between
  specialists and teachers.
• How will differentiated groups occur? Levels
  within classroom, same grades and across grades.

12
School System Changes

• More Collaboration
• Curriculum Adoption
• Instructional Strategies (Research Based)
• Levels of Instructional Support
• Sharing Resources (Flexibility between Title,
  Special Education, general education)
• Scheduling Changes
• Parental Involvement
• Data-Based Decision Making

13
One Perspective on History of Our Resource
Deployment System

• Our education system has grown up through a
  process of Disjointed Incrementalism (Reynolds,
  1988)

Gifted
SPED
The current Education Systems Programmatic Evolut
ion
Migrant
Title 1
At Risk
ELL
14
Big Idea

• Big Idea Fundamentally reengineer resource
  deployment system

SourceW. David Tilly III, Ph.D. Coordinator of
Assessment ServicesHeartland AEA 11 6500
Corporate Dr. Johnston, IA 50131 [phone]
15
Ideas

• All great ideas are dangerous.
• Randall Jarrell

16
Effective School Systems

17
(No Transcript)
18
IDEAL Process and Forms
19
IDEAL Problem Solving Model

• Identify the Problem
• Define the Problem
• Explore the Intervention Options
• Act on the Intervention Plan
• Look, Analyze, Evaluate Results

20
ICEL RIOT

• Review ICEL RIOT and Request for Problem Solving
  forms (Wayne Callender and Gerald Nunn, Idaho
  Department of Education)
• Discuss Preplanning and Post Assessment Forms
• Discussion

21
Intervention Plan

• Forms from Gary Nunn and Wayne Callender, Idaho
  Department of Education
• Review I-Plan form
• Discuss I-Plan forms and example content
• Discussion

22
Progress Monitoring
23
Web-Based Management of Your CBM and DIBELS Data

• Automatic graphing and interpretation of progress
  toward annual IEP.
• Automatic display of Survey-Level Assessment data
  for use in writing criterion for success.
• Wizard translates annual IEP goals into expected
  rates of progress (Aim Lines).
• Calculates and documents actual rates of progress
  (Trend Lines) toward annual goals.
• Decision rules document when progress is
  satisfactory or point out when IEPs need to be
  revised.
• Provides for description of instructional program
  and IEP revisions.
• Generates and prints professional reports for
  periodic and annual reviews.

24
Implementation Experiences
25
Feasibility

• The concept is interesting and well-formed, but
  in order to earn better than a C the idea must
  be feasible.
• Author unknown

26
Implementation Experiences

• Kodiak, Alaska
• 2800 students, 4 Elementary schools, One Middle
  School, High-School, 7 k-12 schools.
• 14 of students in special education.
• Began introduction and training in 2002.
• Currently Piloting at 4 elementary Schools and
  introducing at Secondary level.
• Experiencing decreases in number of students
  eligible for special education at elementary
  level.

27
How it started in Kodiak

• Started with discussions of non-categorical
  models with School Psychologists.
• Discussion continued in Special Services
  Strategic Planning meetings.
• Introducing Problem-Solving model to all staff
  became part of the Special Services Strategic
  Plan.
• DIBELS in place at most sites.
• Differentiated Instruction occurring at some
  sites.
• Standards based report cards being discussed
  district- wide.
• Kodiak Reading Initiative in initial stages (Read
  Well and reading coaches at most sites).

28
Introduction of model

• Principals need to have introduction first (1/2
  day). (Building level instructional leadership is
  key to success)
• Need to know and understand model and the entire
  possibilities of systemic change.
• Need to be able and willing to commit resources
  and shift resources.
• Need to support philosophy of shared resources
  and flexible roles.
• Need to be able to provide opportunities for
  multiple days of training.
• After introducing, need commitment for
  introduction to staff.
• Experience in Kodiak- all principals were eager
  to start.

29
Introduction to Staff

• Introduced model to staff for one full day
  (Representatives from school).
• Invited Disability Advocates and State Special
  Education Director and Specialists as well as
  parents. Western Regional Resource Center
  representatives attended as well.
• Introduction included broad overview and some
  limited review of forms.
• Staff very interested and wanted to start
  immediately (for different reasons).
• Most difficult piece to implementation- slow it
  down.

30
Commitment to Pilot

• After introduction asked each building
  administrator if they wanted to commit to
  piloting the model.
• All administrators were interested.(limit to one
  building?)
• After commitment thanked all building staff for
  commitment and set up a training schedule.

31
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Provided introduction to Problem-Solving model-
  general overview for all building staff (full
  day)
• Key concepts
• Sharing resources
• Data-based decisions
• Research based practices
• System wide impact
• Scheduling and leveling students

32
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Before going to next level of training, asked for
  commitment and affirmed commitment.

33
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Training in the Process and Forms for problem
  solving team (full day).
• Reviewed ICEL RIOT and I-Plan
• Practiced with example students
• Who is on team, when to meet, how long
• How to evaluate ICEL concepts
• Intro to progress monitoring

34
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Training on DIBELS (full day). Some sites
  already had training.
• Key Concepts
• Dynamic (progress monitoring)
• Indicators(represent target skills)
• Basic Skills(measure skills that represent big
  ideas in reading)
• Phonemic Awareness, Alphabetic Principal,
  Accuracy and Fluency with Connected Text,
  Vocabulary Development, Comprehension.

35
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Training in Curriculum Based Measurement and
  Progress Monitoring for problem solving teams
  (full day)
• Key concepts
• CBMs in Reading, Writing, and Math
• Graphing, charting, decision points.

36
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Research Based Interventions for problem solving
  team (Full Day)
• Key Concepts
• Research based curriculum- selecting core,
  supplemental and intensive for entire building
• Research based instruction- discussion of direct
  instruction etc.
• Discussion of how to level classrooms, grade
  levels, across grade levels.

37
Training Schedule for Pilot Sites

• Training on Systems Change for administrators
  (1/2 day) and ½ day for School Psychologists on
  in-depth Functional Assessments.
• Ongoing assessment of implementation at each
  site.

38
Current Experiences in Whitefish School District

• Developed Special Services Strategic Plan.
• Plan includes staff development in
• CBM (DIBELS).
• Problem-Solving (RTI) to all staff.
• Exploring opportunities to meet during school
  hours.
• Use of technology to reduce paperwork and help
  make data-based decisions.

39
Current Experiences

• Introduced Problem-Solving Model to
  administrators on 1-28 (Wayne Calender)
• Training on CBMs and Progress Monitoring on
  2-15.
• Introduction to problem-solving (RTI) to k-12
  building teams on 2-16.

40
Current Experiences

• Whitefish Problem-Solving team observed
  successful program in Idaho on April 18th.
• 2 days of training in August
• -Developed Teams and roles of each professional
  on the team
• Started with our first student on 9-7-05.

41
(No Transcript)
42
Websites for RTI Implementation
Idaho Training Clearinghouse http//www.idahotc
.com/rbm/rbmoverview.htm Heartland Area Education
Agency 11 http//www.aea11.k12.ia.us/ NASP
Center Problem Solving http//www.naspcenter.o
rg/principals/nassp_probsolve.html The National
Research Center on Learning Disabilities
http//www.nrcld.org
43
Websites for Curriculum Review

• Florida Center for Reading Research
• www.fcrr.org
• Oregon Reading First Center reading.uoregon.edu
• Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts
  www.texasreading.org
• Texas Reading Initiative
• www.tea.state.tx.us

44
Websites for Data Collection

• AIMSweb-Charting the Path to Literacy
• www.edformation.com
• Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy
  Skills www.dibels.uoregon.edu

45
Thanks

• Discussion and Questions.