Response to Intervention RtI: 3 Tiered System

1
Response to Intervention (RtI) 3 Tiered System

• A Model to Meet Student Needs in the Minneapolis
  Public Schools
• Tom Hegranes, Exec. Director of Special
  Education Services
• Ann Casey, Director of Special Education
  Programs
• Doug Marston, Administrator of Research
  Evaluation, Special Education Services

2

• History of the Problem Solving Model in the
  Minneapolis Public Schools
• Data-based decision-making
• Progress monitoring with Curriculum-Based
  Measurement
• Hiawatha Project Collaborative Teaching

3
Data-Based Problem-Solving ModelDeno and Mirkin
(1977)
4

• Problem Solving Model/Response to Intervention
• Evaluate and describe student performance
• Develop and implement instructional approaches
  that address student need
• Monitor student progress and response to
  instructional modifications on a frequent basis
• Continue cycle of evaluating student growth until
  goals and expectations are met

5
(No Transcript)
6
Intervention and Effective Basic Skills
Instruction
Rather than making referral decisions that are
based on indirect and inferential test measures,
eligibility decision is based on student response
to instruction within a framework supported by

• direct observation of student behavior within the
  natural context

• a multi-disciplinary team consisting primarily of
  regular education teachers and related services
  personnel

• a data-based assessment and evaluation focus and

• a least restrictive environment perspective

7
MPS Problem-Solving Model
Building-wide Screening
Teacher/Parent Concerns
Academics
Stage 1 Classroom Intervention
Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or
Parent Expectation
Stage 2 Team Intervention
Student Remains Discrepant from School and/or
Parent Expectation
Stage 3 Special Ed. Evaluation
8
Problem Solving Model - Stage 1 Classroom
Intervention

• Baseline data

• Gather relevant information and consider
  exclusionary factors interview parent, interview
  student, interview other staff, record review

• Document classroom modifications and students
  progress for 4-6 weeks

9
(No Transcript)
10
(No Transcript)
11
(No Transcript)
12
Problem Solving Team Stage 2

• Establish a systematic, team driven process for
  providing research-based intervention strategies
  and ideas to regular education teachers

• Maintain the integrity of the agreed activities
  through monitoring and documentation

• Create a data driven decision-making process that
  evaluates the effectiveness of the suggested
  interventions

13
Problem Solving Model - Stage 2 Team Intervention

• Problem Solving Team general ed. teachers, title
  I teacher, counselor, social worker,
  psychologist, speech language pathologist, sp.
  ed. teacher, and building administrator

• Goals set by the Problem Solving Team and
  intervention selected

• Set up a following-up meeting, using 6 to 8 weeks
  as a guideline

• Document classroom interventions student
  progress

• Make decisions based on specific intervention
  results compared the students progress with
  specific, appropriate goals

14
(No Transcript)
15
(No Transcript)
16
OCR Voluntary Compliance Agreement
Screening Regular Education Interventions Teache
r Training Special Education Evaluations Problem
Solving Model
17
MPS OCR - Problem Solving Model
Q
18

• Current National Scene IDEA 2004 National
  Association of State Directors of Special
  Education (NASDSE), Innovations Conference

19
IDEA 2004

• The law states
• Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining
  whether a child has a specific learning
  disability as defined in section 602, a local
  education agency shall not be required to take
  into consideration whether a 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 (20 U.S.C.
  1414 (b) (6) (A)

20
IDEA 2004 cont

• In determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability, a local educational agency
  may use a process that determines if the child
  responds to scientific research-based
  intervention as a part of the evaluation
  procedures described paragraphs 2 and 3 (20
  U.S.C. 1313 (b)(6) (B)

21
Response to Intervention Policy Considerations
and Implementation

• Overview of the NASDSE
• document

22
Where to get the document

• www.nasdse.org/documents/RtI20Order20Form.pdf
• Authored by George Batsche, Judy Elliott, Janet
  Graden, Jeffrey Grimes, Joseph Kovaleski, David
  Prasse, Dan Reschly, Judy Schrag, Dave Tilly
• Cost is 15.00 for single copy

23
Table of Contents

• 1. Definition of RtI
• 2. RtI Foundations in Research and Policy
• 3. Support for RtI in Federal Law
• 4. Core Principles of RtI
• 5. Essential Components of RtI
• 6. Special Education Eligibility Determination in
  RtI
• RtI Policy Considerations
• RtI Professional Development

24
Origins of RtI

• Data based program modification (Deno Mirkin,
  1977)
• Formative evaluation rules (Fuchs, Deno,
  Mirkin, 1984)
• Problem solving process (Bergan Kratochwill,
  1990)
• Problems with LD prevalence across states
  (Reschly Hosp, 2004)
• National Reading Panel findings (2000)
• Concern of minority overrepresentation (Heller,
  Holtzman, Messick, 1982)
• National Summit on LD (2002) concluded there
  should be alternative ways to identify
  individuals with SLD

25
Core principles

• We can effectively teach each and every student
• Intervene early
• Use a multi-tier model of service delivery
• Use a problem-solving method to make decisions
  within a multi-tier model
• Use research-based validated interventions/instruc
  tion
• Monitor student progress to inform instruction
• Use data to make decisions
• Use assessment for 3 purposes screening,
  diagnostics, progress monitoring

26
Eligibility Determination

• Level difference
• Rate of learning difference
• Documented adverse impact
• Exclusion factors still apply

27
Setting eligibility criteria

• Validity and reliability of procedures continues
  to be very important - however, treatment
  validity takes on added importance
• Multiple measures continue to be used and a
  multidisciplinary team makes the determination
  just as in the traditional model

28
Historical RtI

• Ability achievement discrepancy
• National norms used
• Tests administered in 1 or 2 sittings
• Presumed hypothetical constructs assessed
• Little relationship between measures and
  interventions

• Significant difference in performance compared to
  peers, low rate of progress
• Regional, or local norms used more
• Data collected over time
• Very specific skills measured
• Direct relationship between measures and
  intervention

29
Policy options

• SEA does not provide leadership - delegating
  decision to LEA
• SEA support at various levels
• Support multi-tier system within NCLB for
  general, remedial, special ed
• Support RtI for eligibility for LD and possibly
  other high incidence disabilities
• Support RtI decision making within Special Ed.

30
Innovations Conference

• Group of people who have been meeting annually
  over the years who are committed to an RtI Model
• Sept. 05 approximately 120 met in Lansing, MI to
  review the NASDE document and draw plans for next
  steps for their states
• In April, a small group of Innovation
  participants met and crafted draft blueprints for
  how to implement RtI at the
• State level
• District level
• Building level
• Sept. 06- Innovations Conference in Long Beach,
  CA

31

Response To Intervention
IDEIA
NCLB
RtI is the intersection of the two federal laws
governing our work
32

3 Tiered Model a Framework

• Staff students will benefit from a
• seamless system of instruction and support
• for the areas of academic achievement
• social-emotional development.
• A 3 tiered model of support provides a framework
  for the development and acceleration of all
  students
• Following are some depictions of
• 3 tiered models

33
Response to Intervention
Tier 3 Intensive Instruction
Tier 3
Positive Behavior
Tier 2
Tier 2 Targeted Instruction
Tier 1
Math
Tier 1 Universal Instruction
Reading
34
Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success
1-5
1-5
5-10
5-10
80-90
80-90
35
An aerial view of student support all
students receive Tier 1 some have additional
Tier 2 a few have Tier 3
36
Academics Positive Behavior 1 model

• This model has been successfully applied to both
  academic and behavior skills (but few districts
  have integrated both)
• Provides teachers w/clear guidelines and
  procedures for implementation regarding
• Universal instruction in academic and
  social-emotional development for all students
• Targeted instruction and support in any of these
  areas for some students to meet or exceed
  established benchmarks
• Intensive instruction and support for the few
  students who need highly specialized instruction
  that cant be sustained by general ed. teacher

37
Current Initiatives that use an RtI framework

• Positive Behavioral Interventions Supports
  (PBIS)
• Reading First

38
RtI Two Models

• Standard Protocol
• Problem-solving

39
MPS an example of the Problem Solving

• How data are used in PSM in Minneapolis Public
  Schools

40
160
140
120
General
Education
100
Title I
80
Words Read Correctly
60
Special
Education
40
20
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Grade Level
41
(No Transcript)
42
From Deno and Marston (2006). Curriculum-Based
Measurement of Oral-Reading Growth An Approach
to Measuring Fluency? In S. Jay Samuels and Alan
E. Farstrup (Eds.), What Research Has to Say
About Fluency Instruction, International Reading
Association.
43
(No Transcript)
44
Problem Solving Model Outcomes

• Identification Rates

• Quality of Interventions

• Academic Outcomes

• Parent Satisfaction

45
Identification Rates

• Identification of students with academic needs
  has remained stable over 12 years despite change
  in at-risk population and implementation of the
  alternative model in 1994

• One conclusion from an independent study of PSM
  was that students identified under PSM were
  similar to those identified using traditional
  methods (Reschly and Starkweather 1997)

46
12 Year History of High Incidence Disabilities in
Minneapolis
From Marston, Muyskens, Lau, Canter (2003).
Problem solving model for decision-making with
high-incidence disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research Practice, 18, 187-200.
47
Academic Outcomes

• Typically, students show different levels and
  slopes of performance on CBM across the PSM stages

• Students identified using PSM have achievement
  levels similar to traditional LD students

48
From Marston, Muyskens, Lau, Canter (2003).
Problem solving model for decision-making with
high-incidence disabilities. Learning
Disabilities Research Practice, 18, 187-200.
49
(No Transcript)
50

• Things We Would Do in Future Improve
  Implementation
• Collaboration
• Timelines
• Data Collection
• Fidelity of Treatment
• Individual vs. small group intervention

51
Ideas for Successful Implementation

• Encourage participation by key stakeholders
  during planning and implementation.
• Strong administrative support in staff
  development, instructional integrity, and data
  collection.
• In-depth staff development with mentoring,
  modeling, and coaching.
• Follow-up trainings at beginning of year.
• Manual outlining procedures and materials
  necessary.
• Build PSM/RTI into school schedule and SIP
  process.

From Lau, Sieler, Muyskens, Canter, VanKeuren,
Marston. (2006). Perspectives on the use of the
Problem-Solving Model from the viewpoint of
school psychologist, administrator, and teacher.
Psychology in the Schools, 43 (1), 117-127.