Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference

April 24, 2009Macquarie University, Sydney

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

Applied University Research in an Inner-City Community

University of Kansaswww.jgcp.ku.edu

JGCP began in the mid-1960s when residents of NE Kansas City, KS joined with KU Faculty to address concerns about child development in a low-income community

Children have: Improved their academic performance Enhanced their social skills Entered school being more ready to learn Accelerated their learning of language

Families and caregivers have: Become more actively involved in early intervention

programs Learned effective ways to support their children’s

learning at home Become more self-sufficient Learned to manage their child’s behavior Found support from other caregivers and staff

www.jgcp.ku.edu

• Founding of Applied Behavior Analysis in Education and Special Education

• Meaningful Differences in the Everyday Experiences of American Children (Hart & Risley, 1995)

• ClassWide Peer Tutoring Impacts on Beginning Reading Achievement (What Works Clearinghouse http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/WWC_CWPT_070907.pdf

• Children with Autism can benefit from small group as well as one to one instruction

Charles Greenwood and Judith Carta Evidence-based Practice in Early Childhood Conference

April 24, 2009Macquarie University, Sydney

Introduce the RtI concept Share some known outcomes for children

in the elementary grades Discuss how well features of RtI align with

the principles/practices of early childhood Illustrate how RtI is beginning to be

applied to children younger than Kindergarten.

Introduce ways of get started in using RtI with preschool-aged children (see online at www.crtiec.org)

The issues Improving results for young children with and

without disabilities Waiting too long to prevent a delay from

becoming a disability Policies regarding receipt of early intervention

and early childhood special education services

Accountability for results Evidence-based practice

Compared to conventional practice, the RtI approach promises to improve results

RTI is a process designed to: Allow for earlier identification of students not

making progress given the current level of service

Provide these students with an increased level of instructional intensity matched to their demonstrated response-to-intervention

Provide a data-based method for evaluating the effectiveness of the selected instructional approaches and changing/improving them

• In the States, primarily from learning disabilities and the “discrepancy model” of documenting a gap between a student’s aptitude and achievement• Required that a student experience a

sustained period of failure to achieve before services could be referred and more intensive services could be delivered.

IEP Implementation

IEP Goals Objectives

ScreenComprehensive

AssessmentReferral

AnnualUpdate

Is the child eligible for services?

Is there a problem?

yes

no

no

yes

In this approach, children do not receive services typically until grades 2 and 3, after a period of failure to progress!

•More Dynamic

•More Data-Driven

•More Responsive

In this approach, children receive services sooner and more frequently when needed

Reduction in the need for special education by improving and providing services earlier than in the past

Assessment that helps determine when something more is needed, and how it’s working Children not meeting developmental goals Support for intervention allocation decisions Short-term response to intervention

Instruction that is more individualized, more responsive to a child’s needs, and that can be implemented without long delays

A coordinated system of care and education that finds children, and brings services to them at appropriate speed

Improved academic outcomes Improved behavior outcomes

Greenwood, C. R., Kratchowill, T., & Clements, M. (2008). School-wide prevention models: Lessons learned in elementary schools. New York: Guilford.

Programs establish and use the following core practices: Universal screening and frequent

progress monitoring assessments A decision making approach that focuses

on students’ progress or lack of progress (i.e., their response to intervention) as a basis for changing the intensity of children’s instructional experiences.

Evidence-based interventions provided in 3 or 4 levels of intensity as needed

ScreeningAnd ProgressMonitoringMeasures

Curriculum-Based

Assessment

Monitor

Identify/Validate Need

For Intervention

Generate Intervention

Strategies

ImplementIntervention

EvaluateIntervention

Effectiveness

Monitor

©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

1. Use of monitoring to determine if students are making progress or not

2. Use of multiple tiers of intervention 3. Problem-solving approach to

determine most appropriate level of intervention for individual students

4. Reliance on evidence-based practices in all tiers

Instruction is available that varies across tiers of intensity that are related to the nature and severity of students’ difficulties.

• Tier 1: Evidence-based core curricula and instructional practices provided to all children

• Tier 2: More intensified instruction for children, for example, increased opportunities to practice skills in addition to Tier 1 curriculum

• Tier 3: More focused, individualized intervention for children

1. Evidence-based practice2. Time and Opportunities to Respond

(OTR)3. Group Size4. Focus5. Specificity of Instructional Design6. Teacher Involvement7. Progress Monitoring

1. Evidence-based practice Tier 1: Universal language/literacy curriculum (e.g.,

OWLS) and literacy rich classroom environment Tier 2: Phonemic Awareness activities supporting Tier 1 Tier 3: Supplemental or alternative to the Tier 1

curriculum2. Time and Opportunities to Respond (OTR)

Tier 1: Full day, literacy rich classroom, and activities evoking responding to goals and objectives

Tier 2: 15-20 minutes of instruction supplemental to Tier 1

Tier 3: 20-30 minute sessions with scripted lessons3. Group Size

Tier 1: Large and small groups Tier 2: Small groups Tier 3: Very small groups, One-on-one

3. Focus Tier 1: Curricular goals and objectives Tier 2: Tier 1 Curricular goals and objectives Tier 3: Restricted scope and skills sequence focused on

prerequisite and priority skill learning4. Specificity of Instructional Design

Tier 1: Low to moderate Tier 2: Moderate to high targeting key skills in the Tier 1

curriculum Tier 3: Highly specific

5. Teacher Involvement Tier 1: Teacher-led and independent activities Tier 2: Paraprofessional-supported activity centers Tier 3: Teacher-led

6. Progress Monitoring Tier 1: Quarterly Tier 2: Monthly/Weekly Tier 3: Weekly

All students are screened on a regular basis

Progress monitoring is carried out more frequently on students in upper level tiers Progress monitoring measures are quick and

easy and designed for teachers to administer. Progress monitoring measures help determine

if students are responding to the intervention by tracking their level and rate of growth on targeted skills.

They are used for instructional planning—not diagnosis.

They are not tied to a specific curriculum.

36 Mos Expectation

Child’s Observed Trajectory

Normative Trajectory

©2003 Juniper Gardens Children’s Project

Early education is already firmly behind the idea of prevention and finding children who need additional support as early as possible.

The “idea” of monitoring progress has been part of providing quality early intervention.

Individualizing instruction within the context of the general classroom is considered “recommended practice.”

We are just beginning to have a set of progress monitoring measures with sound psychometric properties that can be used in RtI models.

We are just beginning to see these measures used within problem-solving models.

We are just beginning to see the development of tiered interventions with general education settings.

What system is in place to implement the model?

Current RtI models assume coordinated teamwork between general education and special education to carry out screening, progress monitoring and to implement multiple tiers of intervention.

What evidence-based instructional practices are available? Limited research-based interventions are available and

limited implementation of evidence-based practice is currently being carried out—especially in Tier 1.

What personnel are available? Current RtI models assume a highly level of expertise to

carry out higher level tiers.

What are you doing already with assessment? How will that fit with implementing a progress monitoring/RtI model? How does this fit with accountability related assessments?

Problem-Solving Model: How will special education work together with general education in doing this?

How would the infrastructure need to change to support implementing an RtI model in early childhood? (service delivery, professional development etc.)

• Strategic planning• Model demonstration sites

• Program evaluation

Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood (CRTIEC) http://www.crtiec.org/ http://www.crtiec.org/RTI/

rtiposition.shtml RTI Action Network

http://www.rtinetwork.org/Parents-and-Families

Get support from program administrators

Consider organizational & contextual factors

Engage in long-range planningDevelop a plan for

communicating with families

Create core problem-solving teamAssess key dimensions of Tier 1

quality/make necessary improvements

Select assessment tools & tiered interventions

Provide intensive, ongoing professional development

Judy Carta, Ph.DJuniper Gardens Children’s Project

University of Kansas650 Minnesota Avenue2nd FloorKansas City, KS 66101Phone: 913-321-3143carta@ku.eduwww.crtiec.org

Charles Greenwood, Ph.D.

Juniper Gardens Children’s Project University of Kansas

650 Minnesota Avenue2nd FloorKansas City, KS 66101Phone: 913-321-3143greenwood@ku.edu www.crtiec.org