Rueter

1
General and Special Educators Knowledge and
Implementation of Response to Intervention

• TCEC
• June 2008
• Irving, Texas

2
Theories and Themes in Identification Models of
Students with Learning Disabilities

• RTI
• Problem solvingOutcome based model
• Individual scientific based intervention
  according to students strengths and weaknesses
• 3 tier model with eligibility at end of Tier 3 if
  student is non-responsive
• Based on underachievement in classroom to begin 3
  tier process for eligibility/intervention
• Assessment of same abilities at different time
  points

3
Theories and Themes in Identification Models of
Students with Learning Disabilities

• RTI
• Discrepancies are conceptualized as within
  student
• Over-reliance on local norms/criteria
• Curriculum based measurements (CBM) (e.g.,
  progress monitoring strategies

4
Theories and Themes in Identification Models of
Students with Learning Disabilities

• Integrated Model
• RTI viewed as pre-referral model (Tier 1 and 2
  general education)
• Norm-reference testing (cognitive and
  achievement) before eligibility at Tier 3 for
  those students who are non-responsive during
  Tiers 1 and 2
• Controls for reliance on local norms/criteria
• Standard protocol approach to scientific based
  intervention

5
Theories and Themes in Identification Models of
Students with Learning Disabilities

• Integrated Model
• SLD is viewed as unexpected achievement in the
  absence of RTI
• Discrepancy is a matter of not learning to
  expectation
• Discrepancies are conceptualized as within
  student
• CBM (e.g. progress monitoring strategies)

6
Purpose of Study

• Investigate general and special educators
  knowledge of RTI
• Examine general and special educators
  implementation of RTI processes and procedures
• Identify knowledge and application of existing
  pre-referral models utilized by general educators
• Determine the use and frequency of progress
  monitoring strategies by general and special
  educators.

7
Setting

• Suburban school district in Northwest Tarrant
  County in Fort Worth, Texas
• 5 schools and Department of Special Services
• High School
• Texas Youth Commission (TYC) facility
• Middle School
• Two Elementary Schools
• Department of Special Services Evaluation Staff

8
Sampling

• Sample of convenience
• Administrator at each campus chose random general
  and special educators to participate in study
• Evaluation staff from the special services
  department were chosen in descending order from a
  pre-established list until twenty names were
  chosen

9
Participants

• 100 surveys were distributed
• 55 surveys were returned (N55)

10
Educators Population DemographicsTable 1
(Gender and Ethnicity)

• Variable Frequency Percent
• Female 45 81.8
• Male 10 18.2
• White 54 98.2
• Hispanic 1 1.8
• Asian 0 0
• African American 0 0
• Native American 0 0

11
Educators Population DemographicsTable 1 (Age
and Position)

• Variable Frequency Percent
• 20-40 27 49.1
• 41-45 8 14.5
• 46 20 36.4
• Gen. Ed. Teach 24 43.6
• Admin. 8 14.5
• Other 23 41.8

12
Educators Population DemographicsTable 1
(Campus Level Years of Experience)

• Variable Frequency Percent
• Elementary 21 38.2
• Middle 18 32.7
• All grades 16 29.1
• 0-3 21 38.2
• 3.25 34 61.8

13
Distribution of Instrument

• Surveys were divided equally among secondary and
  elementary campuses, and special services
  department
• High school (N15)
• TYC (N5)
• Middle School (N20)
• Elementary Schools (N40)
• Special Education Evaluation Staff (N20)

14
Data Collection

• Data collection occurred during January 8, 2007
  through January 30, 2007
• Surveys were returned via self-addressed stamped
  envelopes

15
Data Analysis

• Descriptive Statistics
• Analysis of Variance (ANOVA)

16
Independent Variables

• Gender
• Age
• Position
• Campus Level
• Years of Experience

17
Dependent Variables (Survey items 8 -13)

• 8 I understand Response To Intervention (RTI) as
  a process in the identification of students with
  learning disabilities as specified by the
  reauthorization of the Individuals with
  Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) of 2004.
• 9 I understand how to use timed curriculum based
  measurements to assess reading fluency, math
  fluency, and writing fluency.
• 10 I use Progress Monitoring strategies in my
  classroom(s) and/or building(s).

18
Dependent Variables (Survey items 8 -13)

• 11 I rate my involvement on a pre-referral team
  as important.
• 12 The in-service training that I attended on RTI
  has benefited me.
• 13 I rate my knowledge of scientific-based
  interventions as adequate.

19
Limitations

• Descriptive research -- Not experimental design
• Unable to generalize to greater population
• Response rate may not represent the sample that
  was originally selected
• Individuals who responded may be better informed,
  feel more strongly about the topic, or be more
  concerned than those who did not respond

20
Delimitations

• Limited to educators in suburban public school
  district in Northwest Tarrant County in Fort
  Worth, Texas
• Sample disproportionate with regards to gender,
  age, ethnicity, and current position

21
ResultsQuestion 9

• I understand how to use timed curriculum-based
  measurements (CBM) to assess reading fluency,
  math fluency, and writing fluency?
• Female respondents reported that they understood
  the use of CBM in assessing reading, math, and
  writing fluency as compared to the male
  respondents

22
ResultsQuestion 9

• I understand how to use timed curriculum-based
  measurements (CBM) to assess reading fluency,
  math fluency, and writing fluency?
• Respondents with 3.25 years experience reported
  more understanding in the use of CBM in the
  assessment of reading, math, and writing fluency
  as compared to those respondents with
• 0-3 years of experience.

23
ResultsQuestion 11

• I rate my involvement on a pre-referral team as
  important.
• Respondents with 0-3 years of experiences rated
  that their involvement on pre-referral teams as
  important as compared to respondents with 3.25
  years of experience

24
ResultsQuestion 12

• The in-service training that I attended on RTI
  has benefited me?
• Respondents aged 46 years old reported that the
  in-service training on RTI was beneficial as
  compared to those respondents aged 20-40 and
  41-45 years old.

25
Video Clip
26
Presented by

• Jessica A. Rueter
• Doctoral Candidate
• Texas Womans University
• http//www.twu.edu/cope/te/
• Contact Information
• jrueter_at_sbcglobal.net
• jrueter_at_nisdtx.org