RTI: Applications to Middle and High School Settings

1
RTI Applications to Middle and High School
Settings

• Laguna Cliffs Institute
• Sopris West Educational Services
• Dr. George M. Batsche
• Co-Director, Institute for School Reform
• Florida Problem-Solving/RtI Statewide Project
• University of South Florida
• Tampa, Florida

2
Problem Solving

• A process that uses the skills of professionals
  from different disciplines to develop and
  evaluate intervention plans that improve
  significantly the school performance of
  individual and/of groups of students

3
Problem Solving Process
4
Response to InterventionHow Well Are We Doing?

• A systematic and data-based method for
  determining the degree to which a student has
  responded to intervention.
• Determined solely through analyzing data
• Begins with using data to IDENTIFY the problem
• Services should intensify for a student as the
  student response to intervention is below
  expectations.
• It IS NOT Problem-Solving

5
Response to InterventionHow Well Are We Doing?

• What do we do when a student has been placed in
  special education but the students rate of
  progress has not changed significantly?
• This has significant implications for special
  education re-evaluations under the RtI model.

6
What RTI Is and Is Not

• Is
• RtI is an overall integrated system of service
  delivery.
• Is Not
• RtI is not just an eligibility systema way of
  reducing the numbers of students placed into
  special education.

7
What RTI Is and Is Not

• Is
• RtI is effective for students who are at risk for
  school failure as well as students in other
  disability categories.
• Is Not
• RtI is not limited to students with learning
  disabilities.

8
What RTI Is and Is Not

• Is
• RtI is The use of RtI is an excellent opportunity
  to more effectively align IDEA and NCLB
  principles and practices.
• Is Not
• RtI is not just an special education approach.

9
Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI

• Consensus
• Belief is shared
• Vision is agreed upon
• Implementation requirements understood
• Infrastructure Development
• Training
• Tier I and II intervention systems
• E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
• Technology support
• Decision-making criteria established
• Implementation

10
The Process of Systems Change

• Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the
  need and trusting in the support) is reached no
  support will exist to establish the
  Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the
  Infrastructure is in place Implementation will
  not take place.
• A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without
  Consensus and Infrastructure
• Leadership must come both from the Principal and
  from the educators in the building.

11
Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI

• Consensus
• Belief is shared
• Vision is agreed upon
• Implementation requirements understood
• Infrastructure Development
• Training
• Tier I and II intervention systems
• E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan
• Technology support
• Decision-making criteria established
• Implementation

12
Building Consensus

• Beliefs
• Understanding the Need
• Skills and/or Support

13
Essential Beliefs

• Student performance is influenced most by the
  quality of the interventions we deliver and how
  well we deliver them- not preconceived notions
  about child characteristics
• Decisions are best made with data
• Our expectations for student performance should
  be dependent on a students response to
  intervention, not on the basis of a score that
  predicts what they are capable of doing.

14
Essential Components

• Multiple tiers of intervention service
  deliverysuch as a three-tier model
• Problem-solving method
• An integrated data collection/assessment
  system to inform decisions at
  each tier of service delivery

15
Issues with RtI in Middle and High School Settings

• Time Remaining for Intervention Implementation
• Intensity of the problem(s)
• Skill vs Content Focus
• Assessment Relevance and Availability
• Intervention Support
• Intervention Priorities
• Student Involvement

16
Issues with RtI in Middle and High School Settings

• Time Remaining for Intervention Implementation
• Rate of response needed is often unrealistic
• Catch Up concept may not be relevant
• Intensity of the problem(s)
• Students have greater discrepancies or GAPs
• Skill vs Content Focus
• Learning to Read or Acquiring Content?

17
Issues with RtI in Middle and High School Settings

• Assessment Relevance and Availability
• Typical progress monitoring measures not
  available
• Intervention Support
• Schedule issues
• Intervention Priorities
• Related to graduation requirements?
• Student Involvement
• Problem Solving
• Data Tracking

18
Process Differences

• The process remains the same
• The essential components remain the same
• The differences lie in
• Content
• Implementation logistics
• Assessment differences

19
(No Transcript)
20
Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

• PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• Identify replacement behavior
• Data- current level of performance
• Data- benchmark level(s)
• Data- peer performance
• Data- GAP analysis
• PROBLEM ANALYSIS
• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)
• Develop predictions/assessment
• INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT
• Develop interventions in those areas for
  which data are available and hypotheses
  verified
• Proximal/Distal
• Implementation support
• Intervention Fidelity/Integrity
• Response to Intervention (RtI)
• Frequently collected data
• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

21
Criteria for Evaluating Response to Intervention

• Is the gap between desired/current rate or gap
  between slopes of current and benchmark
  converging? If yes, this is a POSITIVE RtI
• Is the gap closing but not converging (e.g.,
  parallel)? If yes, this is a QUESTIONABLE RtI
• If the rate/slope remains unchanged OR if there
  is improvement but shows no evidence of closing
  the gap, then this is a POOR RtI

22
Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From?

• Tier 1 Universal Screening, accountability
  assessments, grades, classroom assessments,
  referral patterns, discipline referrals
• Tier 2 Universal Screening - Group Level
  Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress
  monitoring, large-scale assessment data and
  classroom assessment
• Tier 3 Universal Screenings, Individual
  Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress
  monitoring, formative assessment, other informal
  assessments

23
Universals

• 85 of referrals or requests for assistance
  are for 5-7 reasons
• Cannot read/comprehend fluently
• Noncompliance
• Does not complete work
• Written Language
• Motivation
• Poor Study Skills
• Attendance
• Mental Health Issues

24
Therefore.

• Building teams can predict, with 85 accuracy,
  next years referral types
• Annual referrals (or referrals to office, teacher
  surveys) area primary source of data to predict
  building needs
• Teachers refer students for whom they believe
  they do not have the skills or resources to meet
  student needs
• CPD should focus on these building issues to
  enhance capacity

25
Planning AheadPredicting Who Will Be Referred

• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years
• Identifies problems teachers feel they do not
  have the skills/support to handle
• Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the
  staff, the resources currently in place and the
  history of what constitutes a referral in that
  building
• Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years
• Identifies focus of Professional Development
  Activities AND potential Tier II and III
  interventions
• Present data to staff. Reinforces Need concept

26
Data-Driven InfrastructureIdentifying Needed
Interventions

• Assess current Supplemental Interventions
• Identify all students receiving supplemental
  interventions
• For those interventions, identify
• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction,
  etc)
• Duration (minutes/week)
• Provider
• Aggregate
• Identifies instructional support types in
  building
• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention
  needs

27
Problem-Solving

• Problem-solving for Tiers 1,2 and 3 follows the
  same steps
• The data sources are different
• The focus of the intervention is different
• BUT, the process is the SAME

28
Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

• PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION
• Identify replacement behavior
• Data- current level of performance
• Data- benchmark level(s)
• Data- peer performance
• Data- GAP analysis

29
Problem-Solving Tier 1

• Data sources
• Building behavior referral data
• Yearly assessments
• Progress monitoring data
• Common Assessments
• Electronic grade-book data

30
Example- Work Completion

• Current Level of Performance
• Completing 40 of assignments
• Benchmark
• 85
• Peer Performance
• 75
• GAP Analysis 85/40 2X difference
  SIGNIFICANT GAP
• Is this student different from peers?

31
Example- Behavior

• Current Level of Performance
• Complies 35 of time
• Benchmark (set by teacher)
• 75
• Peer Performance
• 40
• GAP Analysis 40/35 1.1X difference NO
  SIGNIFICANT GAP
• Is behavior program effective? No, peers have
  significant gap from benchmark as well.

32
Analyze Discipline Referrals

• Gender
• Grade Level
• Type
• Frequency
• Race
• SES
• ELL
• Time
• Schedule

33
Common Assessments

• States have developed subject area standards as
  well as skill-based standards (e.g., reading)
• Statewide assessments measure skills related to
  standards
• Syllabi should reflect content consistent with
  the standards.

34
Common Assessments

• Weekly test are common in high school and
  reflect content in the syllabi.
• Every 3rd week, the assessments are common to a
  given subject area.
• Assessments are scored and data are aggregated.

35
Common Assessments Decision Making

• Overall student performance is evaluated for
  accuracy.
• Performance is tied to content progression with
  syllabus
• Individual or disaggregated group data are
  analyzed

36
Intervention Decision?

• Is the student significantly below benchmark
  performance?
• 2X GAP
• Is the peer group significantly below benchmark
  performance?
• Same Criteria
• Is the target student and the peer group
  discrepant?
• DECISION?

37
(No Transcript)
38
Analyze Data

• Tier 1 Type of RtI
• Postive, Questionable, Poor?
• Intervention Decision?
• Keep As Is?
• Modify Existing?
• Change Completely?

39
Outline Implementing An RtI System

• Tier 2 Decision Making Dx Assmt Option
• Identify less than proficient students
• Administer additional brief assessments to
  examine performance profiles
• Group students with like performance profiles for
  supplemental instruction
• Provide supplemental instruction based on skill
  needs
• Monitor progress
• Review student progress monitoring data at
  scheduled intervals
• How successful are students in response to Tier 2
  Interventions?
• 70 is a good criterion
• Modify supplemental instruction as necessary
• Move students across tiers as data warrant

40
Tier 2 Decision-MakingSmall Group

• 11 Students
• High Risk Study Skills
• Additional Direct Instruction
• Assess performance in terms of test accuracy and
  homework completion

41
Tier 2 Decision-MakingIntegrated Curriculum

• Eliminate remedial classes
• Identify the strategies that remedial teachers
  use with high school students
• Teach those strategies to all general education
  classroom teachers
• Use remedial staff for intervention support and
  special problem-solving
• Example strategies that all gen ed teachers
  would use to address the problem of a student who
  could not read fluently

42
A Smart System Structure
Enter a School-Wide Systems for Student Success

• Intensive, Individual Interventions
• Individual Students
• Assessment-based
• Intense, durable procedures

5-10
5-10
10-15
10-15
43
Group Activity

• Identify the most frequent referral types in your
  school
• What types of interventions should be available
  routinely to address these high frequency
  concerns?

44
Data-Based Determination of Expectations

• Data- Current Level of Performance
• Data- Benchmark Level
• Date- of Weeks to Benchmark
• Calculate-
• Difference between current and benchmark level
• Divide by Weeks
• Result Rate per week of growth required
• REALISTIC? Compare to Peer Group Rate

45
Data-Based Determination of Expectations

• Benchmark Level 80 work complete
• Current Level 40 work complete
• Difference 40
• Time to Benchmark 10 Weeks
• Rate of Growth Required
• 40/10 4 improvement per week
• REALISTIC? Probably since it encompasses only
  10 per week. Dependent on intervention support.

46
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction (students
  with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol intervention
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects Evidence-Based Strategy
• Implemented by available instructional personnel
• Implemented for 10 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

47
Intervention Implementation

• Find additional time
• Ensure that supplemental and intensive
  interventions are integrated with core
  instruction/behavior plan
• Intervention support available
• Frequent meetings with teacher(s)
• Data review
• Review intervention steps

48
Intervention Implementation

• Identify number of intervention support personnel
  available
• Identify the number of students needing
  supplemental and intensive support
• See if the ratios make sense!
• Example
• 600 students, 300 making benchmarks
• 30 teachers, 6 support personnel
• 30 teachers for 300 students
• 6 support staff for 300 students
• DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

49
Intervention Development and Support

• Intervention Development
• Proximal (Immediate)
• Increase Supervision
• Lower Difficulty Level
• Distal (Longer Term)
• Teach skills
• Shape Behavior
• Empirically Supported

50
Intervention Development and Support

• Intervention Support (G. Noell, 2006)
• Initial Week Teacher Meeting
• 2 or more times
• Subsequent-weekly (6-8 week minimum)
• Agenda for Meetings
• Review Data
• Review Intervention Steps
• Problem Solve Barriers

51
(No Transcript)
52
Tiers or Levels

• Tier Three Examining Intensive Interventions
• Hypotheses Focus on student-specific issues
• Assessment
• DIBELS, CBE, Diagnostic Assessments
• Interventions
• Address verified hypotheses

53
Characteristics of Tier 3 Interventions

• Developed from individualized student
  problem-solving
• Assumption is that more of the problem lies
  within the student
• Goal is to find successful interventions first
• Based on intensity of the interventions
  required for student success, determination is
  made about eligibility for special education.
• Should comprise 4-5 of student population
• Criteria for Good RtI is same as Tier 2
• Progress monitoring should use data from general
  education classroom setting

54
II
55
HOW DO WE DOCUMENT THIS?
56
Problem-Solving Process
57
Criteria for Special Education Eligibility

• I Establish NEED
• Significant gap exists between student and
  benchmark/peer performance.
• The Response to Intervention is insufficient to
  predict attaining benchmark
• Student is not a functionally independent
  learner
• II Student Possesses CHARACTERISTICS
• Complete comprehensive evaluation

58
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• Problem Identification
• Oral Expression
• Listening Comprehension
• Written Expression
• Basic Reading Skill
• Reading Fluency Skills
• Reading Comprehension
• Mathematics Calculation
• Mathematics Problem-Solving

59
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• Relevant behavior noted during the observation
  and relationship of Bx to academic functioning
• Data from required observation

60
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• The child does not achieve adequately for the
  childs age or to meet state-approved grade-level
  standards
• GAP Analysis from Tier 1
• AND

61
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• The child does not make sufficient progress to
  meet age or to meet state-approved standards when
  using a process based on the child response to
  scientific, research-based intervention
• RtI Data from Tiers 2 and 3
• OR

62
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and
  weaknesses in performance, achievement or both ,
  relative to age, state-approved grade level
  standards or intellectual development that is
  determined by the group to be relevant to the
  identification of a SLD, using appropriate
  assessments
• Differential Academic Performance Levels
• NOTE Requirement for a severe discrepancy
  between ability and achievement was removed.

63
IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation

• The findings are not primarily the result of
• Sensory or Motor Disability
• Mental Retardation
• Assess Adaptive Behavior First
• Emotional Disturbance
• Data from observation
• Observation and performance data
• Cultural Factors
• AYP Data for Race (NCLB)
• Comparative AYP for Culture (Local Norms)
• Environmental or Economic Disadvantage
• AYP Data for Low SES
• Limited English Proficiency
• AYP Data for LEP