Eligibility Decisions Within a Response to Intervention Framework Presented by: Robert Pasternack,...

Eligibility Decisions Within a Response to Intervention

FrameworkPresented by:

Robert Pasternack, Ph.D., Senior Vice PresidentCambium Learning Group

Kim Gibbons, Ph.D., Executive DirectorSt.Croix River Education District

Disability 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008

Mental retardation 567,633 546,030 523,528 497,480 476,131

Hearing impairments 72,599 72,407 72,783 71,956 70,781

Speech or language 1,149,573 1,156,906 1,162,144 1,151,869 1,121,961

Visual impairments 26,058 26,022 26,481 26,369 25,816

Emotional disturbance 484,457 472,470 458,841 439,684 418,068

Orthopedic impairments 65,355 63,119 62,004 60,454 62,371

OHI 512,219 561,618 600,377 630,689 648,398

SLD 2,839,295 2,782,837 2,711,849 2,616,297 2,525,898

Deaf-blindness 1,702 1,588 1,406 1,380 1,745

Multiple disabilities 133,366 134,037 133,810 132,510 124,073

Autism 166,491 193,840 224,594 258,017 292,818

Traumatic brain injury 23,263 23,515 23,777 23,871 24,866

Developmental delay 74,368 79,082 83,990 88,629 96,923

Total 6,116,379 6,113,471 6,085,584 5,999,205 5,889,849

Number of students with disabilities in U.S. and outlying areas, age 6-21

Overview of Session

• Describe the research base supporting the use of an RtI framework.

• Describe critical elements of the RtI framework used at the St. Croix River Education District.

• Share data documenting success of framework• Describe how the framework is used to make

entitlement decisions through the use of a case study.

Title 1 Title 1 ServicesServices

16.5 Million16.5 Million

Special Special Education Education ServicesServices

6.6 6.6 MillionMillion

English English Language Language ServicesServices

3.9 3.9 MillionMillion

U.S. Public School Enrollment & Special Services

All Students49.5 Million

Reschly SLD Identification

Prevention of Special Education

• President’s Commission (2002) Values and Outcomes:

• Efficacy of special education is not universally documented—lowered expectations, reduced academic pressure

• Later educational opportunities typically are better if learning and behavior problems can be resolved in early grades

• Probable later career opportunities are better if students can complete general education programs

• Prevention and early intervention enhance positive outcomes and expand educational and career opportunities

• High-quality instruction/intervention is defined as instruction or intervention, matched to student need, that has been demonstrated through scientific research and practice to produce high learning rates for most students

• Learning rate and level of performance are the primary sources of information used in ongoing decision-making.

• Important educational decisions about intensity and likely duration of interventions are based on individual student response to instruction across multiple tiers of intervention.

Definition of Response to Intervention

NASDSE, 2005

Response to Instruction (RTI)

All

Some

Few

Most

Intensive

Students successful receiving intensive

research-based services

Response to Instruction (RTI)

Students successfully receiving scientifically-based

instruction

• We can effectively teach all children• Intervene early• Use a multi-tier model of service delivery• Use problem-solving method to make decisions within a multi-tier model

• Use research-based, scientifically validated interventions/ instruction to the extent available

• Monitor student progress to inform instruction• Use data to make decisions. A data-based decision regarding student intervention is central to RtI practices

• Use assessment for three different purposes:• screening applied to all children• diagnostics• Progress monitoring

Core RtI Principles

NASDSE, 2005

• This is a “process” that will take time

• RtI is more about general education than special education

• RtI is a component of problem-solving, not an independent process

• “Response”-data based

• “Intervention”-evidence-based

• Strong basis in statute and rule

Changes in Legal RequirementsIDEA (2004)

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local educational 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.


Response to Intervention (IDEA, 2004)

• ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—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 in paragraphs (2) and (3).

• Does response to intervention appear in the law?


Implementing 3 Tier models

• Tier 1: Enhanced Classroom instruction

• Tier 2: Typically small group pull out instruction, but can represent additional dose in the classroom

• Many approaches may work

• Progress monitoring essential in order to gauge level of intensity and adjust instructional emphasis

Basic Instructional Principles (Tiers I, II, and III)

• Instruction at the child’s skill level• Explicit, systematic, teacher directed,

skills based• Strong curriculum: scope and sequence defined; skill hierarchy

• Monitor progress, graph results in relation to goals

• Formative evaluation rules and instructional changes


Reading Instruction Must be Integrated KG- G12

• If a critical component is missing, students who at risk will not develop the component

• Success and failure in reading are opposite sides of the same coin- it’s the same theory, not two theories, one for success and another for failure

• Instruction is the key

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that Contribute

to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that Contribute

to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to Intervention

(RtI)

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Why Problem-Solving ?BIG IDEAS

• AYP and Disaggregated Data (NCLB) move focus of attention to student progress, not student labels

• Building principals and superintendents want to know if students are achieving benchmarks, regardless of the students “type”

• Accurate “placements” do not guarantee that students will be exposed to interventions that maximize their rate of progress

• Effective interventions result from good problem-solving, rather than good “testing”

• Progress monitoring is done best with “authentic” assessment that is sensitive to small changes in student academic and social behavior

Application of Tier II Principles

• Focus on academics and behavior (e.g., point system for engagement, attention, task persistence, and gains)

• Monitor progress 1 or 2 Xs per week

• Graph progress against goals (benchmarks toward passing high stakes tests)

• Use normative and other data to determine expected rate of progress


Tier II Academic Interventions (Vaughn et al., 2003 Exceptional Children)

• Goals: Move performance to benchmark trajectories and, If needed, consider more intensive interventions

• Example of Tier II academic intervention• Small group, N=4-5, pull out, similar needs

• 30 to 35 minutes per day in addition to classroom instruction

• Progress monitoring weekly or semi-weekly

• Individual time series analysis graph

• 10 to 20 weeks of instruction

• 5-component reading interventions, with emphasis on weak components


Standard Protocol Reading Models for Tier II

• http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/ U Texas,Vaughn

• http://www.fcrr.org/ Florida State Torgesen• Reading five domains taught each day• Direct instruction• Weekly progress monitoring• Individual graphs, progress against goals

referenced to benchmarks• Decisions determined by student response

• Fade Tier II and return to general education

• Consider Tier III based on insufficient response

http://www.fcrr.org/

http://www.kimgibbons.org/

Direct, Explicit, Systematic, Teacher-Directed

• Varies with student prior learning

• Explicit instruction (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson)

• provide clear instructions and modeling

• include multiple examples (& non-examples when appropriate)

• Systematic instruction (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson)

• break tasks into sequential, manageable steps

• progress from simple to more complex concepts and skills

• ensure students have prerequisite knowledge & skills


Direct, Explicit, SystematicTeacher-Directed Instruction, cont.

• Teach all elements of the task

• Break task into components—as far as needed

• How explicit? Explicit enough for the student to make good progress

• Teacher Models Skill, using multiple examples and non-examples

• Teacher and student perform task together

• Student performs task with feedback

• Student independently practices task to automaticity

• Integrate skills with prior skills and competencies


• Ample practice opportunities (Vaughn & LinanThompson)

• provide multiple opportunities for students to respond and demonstrate their learning

• provide sufficient guided and independent practice

• Immediate, specific feedback (Vaughn & Linan-Thompson)

• provide positive reinforcement and elaboration

• correct errors and provide clarification to prevent students from practicing misconceptions

Direct, Explicit, SystematicTeacher-Directed Instruction, cont.


Effective Features of Instruction

• Targeted and explicit step-by-step lessons

• Conspicuous strategies• Scaffolded support model• Active student engagement and participation

• Ample, multiple practice opportunities


• Frequent, immediate feedback with additional opportunities to respond – specific error corrections

• Continual and judicious review

• Focus on skills struggling readers lack; teach less more thoroughly

• Integrated assessment

• Strategic integration of the five essential components of reading

What’s Happening in the Brain?

Left Hemisphere Right Hemisphere

Child 2

w/ Reading Difficulties

Child 1

Normal Reader

The Big Ideas of Intervention

• Supplement — students receive intervention in addition to core reading instruction

• Intensify — achieved through more time on task, smaller group size, or both

• Differentiate — accomplished through choice of materials, entry points, deliberate instruction, and reteaching

• Accelerate - progress to make up losses

What Are Interventions?

• Targeted assistance based on progress monitoring

• Administered by teacher or specialist

• Provided additional instruction (individual or small group)

• Match materials to instructional level

• Modify modes of task presentation

• Modify instructional time

• Increase task structure

• Increase task relevant practice

J. McCookLRP ConferenceDecember 2005

• Mini-lesson on skills deficits

• Decrease group size

• Increase amount and type of cues and prompts

• Teach additional strategies

• Change curriculum

• Change types and method of corrective feedback

J. McCookLRP ConferenceDecember 2005

What Are Interventions?

What Interventions are Not…

• Preferential seating

• Shortened assignments

• Parent contacts

• Classroom observations

• Suspension

• Doing more of the same assignments

• RetentionsJ. McCookLRP ConferenceDecember 2005

• Small Groups

• Coherent and consistent instructional routine

• Targeted and explicit step-by-step lessons

• Intense and deliberate direct instruction

• Teacher Modeling

• Active Student engagement and participation

• Ample, multiple practice opportunities

• Frequent, immediate feedback with additional opportunities to respond- specific error corrections

• Continual and sufficient review

• Focus on skills struggling readers lack


Response to Intervention at the

St. Croix River Education District(SCRED)

Background

• St. Croix River Education District has six member districts.• Total population is approximately 14,000 students.• Special Education child count is 1100• SCRED was the first district to pilot Curriculum Based

Measures (CBM) in 1979 when they were being field-tested.• Long history of over 30 years of data-based decision making.

QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor

are needed to see this picture.

St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) members:

East Central

Hinckley-Finlayson

Pine City

Rush City

Chisago Lakes

Problem-Solving & Organization

Assessment Instruction

SCRED RtI Model: Academics & Positive Behavior Support

Tier 1: Universal

75-80%

Tier 2: Strategic

15-20%

Tier 3: Intensive

5-10%

A few tips from Jim Ysseldyke• We need to move from sifting and sorting to multi-tiered

serving.• We need to shift our focus from struggling students to making

sure all students struggle.• The best place to start correcting learning problems is in the

instructional process.• Keep our focus on assessment practices that matter!• Focus on Alterable Variables

If the water in the aquarium is dirty, don’t spend time diagnosing individual fish.

• Students don’t learn in a vacuum.

• They function in environments that include curriculum, specific instructional strategies, peers, and school organizations.

Credit to Amelia VonName Larsen for this quote.

The Water…

I

C

E

L

O

IInstruction

Standards-Driven Learning Units, High-Quality Lesson Plans (Acquisition, Extending/Refining, Acceleration, Differentiation, Review); Research-Based Instructional Practices (i.e., previewing, explicit instructional skill/strategy, modeling, scaffolding, graphic organizers, summarizing), Student Movement (Grouping strategies, levels of support (instructional time, content, level, intensity)…

CCurriculum

Standards-Based (Benchmarks), Scientifically validated programs, Prioritized Maps, Alignment, Relevance, Rigor, Connections/Integration, Resources/Materials…

EEnvironment

Resource Rich Environments (i.e., materials, word walls, student work displayed); Peers (Expectations, Reinforcement, Values, Support); Classroom (Rules, Distractions, Seating, Schedule, Physical Plant), Home/Family Support, Culture, Climate

LLearner

Skills, Strategies, Motivation, Health, Family, Social/Emotional, Development, Engagement, Executive Functioning, Efficacy…

OOrganization

Resource Allocation, Scheduling, Systems, Structure, Management, Planning, Job Embedded Professional Development, Continuum of Services, Movement of Students, Instructional Time, Procedures…

Water Domains

The question needs to change!• Shift the question we are asking from:

“What about the student is causing the performance discrepancy?” to

“What about the instruction, curriculum, & environment should be altered so that students will learn and be more successful?”

Guiding Questions for RtI Implementation

1. Is the core program sufficient?2. If the core program is not sufficient, why isn’t it?3. How will the needs identified in the core be addressed?4. How will the effectiveness and efficiency of the core be monitored over

time?5. Have improvement to the core been effective?6. For which students is the core program sufficient and not sufficient and

why?7. What specific supplemental and intensive instruction is needed?8. How will supplemental and intensive instruction be delivered?9. How will effectiveness of supplemental and intensive instruction be

monitored?10. Which students need to move to a different level of instruction?

Sharon Kurns, Heartland AEA #11

Establishing a Measurement System

• Core feature of RTI is identifying a measurement system– Screen large numbers of students– Identify students in need of additional

intervention– Monitor students of concern more frequently

• Monthly• Weekly

____________________________________

valid

reliable

simple

quick

inexpensive

easily understood

can be given often

sensitive to growth over short periods of time

Characteristics of An Effective Measurement System

Pre-K K F1 WS1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9-12 I GDI Letter Naming Fluency Letter Sound Fluency Nonsense Word Fluency Test of Early Numeracy Oral Reading Fluency Math Fact Fluency Math Application Fluency NWEA MAP

Screening Measures used at SCRED

The Aimsweb program is used to manage data

Correlations with High-Stakes Tests

• Letter sound fluency (Fall of K) to Oral Reading Fluency (Spring Gr.1) is .64**

• Oral Reading Fluency to MCA-II ranges from .50** (grade 8) to .79**

• Math Applications to MCA-II ranges from .51** to .79**

• MAP Reading to MCA-II ranges from .72** - .78**

• MAP Math to MCA-II ranges from .73**- .86**

Development of Target Scores

• Logistical regression procedures used to predict performance on MCA-II

• Tier 1 and Tier 2 Targets Developed

Oral Reading Fluency Words Read Correct Per

Target Scores Predicting Performance on MCA

Revised 8/07

Grade Tier Winter Spring

1 2 2

1 2 0 9

1 3 2 0

2 2 4 2 7

1 0 1 9

3 2 4 0 5

1 5 4 7

4 2 9 9 8

1 3 8 1

5 2 9 3 0

1 5 2 6

6 2 4 2 2

1 1 2 2

7 2 4 7 5

1 1 0

8 2 9 4

Saint Croix River Education D strict

Measures of Academic Progress - Reading RIT Scale


Revised 8/07

Grade Tier

1 7 2

2 2 4 9

1 2 4

3 2 8 2

1 6 3

4 2 2 1

1 5 1

5 2 3 0

1 4 8

6 2 1 6

1 8 2

7 2 7 2

1 3 6

8 2 2 7

Math Application Fluency Problems Correct in 10


Revised 8/09

Grade Tier Winter Spring

1 6 1 5

2 2 2 6 0

1 9 5 0

3 2 4 0 5

1 0 5 8

4 2 7 9 4

1 0 4 6

5 2 6 9 1

1 7 0 3

6 2 4 6 8

1 2 3 5

7 2 7 8 0

1 5 6 7

8 2 0 1 2

Measures of Academic Progress - Math RIT Scale


Revised 8/07

Grade Tier

1 6 9

2 2 4 9

1 0 3

3 2 9 5

1 6 7

4 2 8 0

1 7 5

5 2 9 7

1 2 0

6 2 3 1

1 1 8

7 2 2 9

1 7 3

8 2 7 4

Percent of Students at each Tier Level 2007-2008

60% 65% 53%

47%

54%

48% 49%

23%21%

20%

25%

23%

22%29%

28%26%28%24%

30%

10% 13%

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

2F 2S 3F 3S 4F 4S 5F 5S 6F 6S 7F 7S 8F 8S

Grade and Season

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

Tier IIITier II Tier I

* Based on 07-08 SCRED Targets

Progress Monitoring Measures used at SCRED

• All GOMs are used through Grade 12 for students who are below target.

Lesson Learned Regarding Measurement

• Measurement System Needs to:– Benchmark progress for ALL students three times per year.– Progress monitor at-risk students frequently.– Inform instruction!– Ideally be the same system across all three tiers of

instruction• Training on how to collect data is not enough.• User friendly data reports are essential!• Use data both at the individual student level and at

the system level to judge progress!

Problem-Solving & Organization

Assessment Instruction

SCRED RtI Model: Academics & Positive Behavior Support

Tier 1: Universal

75-80%

Tier 2: Strategic

15-20%

Tier 3: Intensive

5-10%

Instruction

• In an RTI model, it is imperative to have a high-quality, research-based curriculum in place that meets the needs of most students (~80%)

• You don’t want to have large numbers of students referred for problem solving (or special education) due to an inadequate curriculum!

• Emphasis on a 3-Tier Model

If All You Have is a Hammer,

Everything Starts to Look Like a Nail

If All a Teacher Has for Support for Students with Academic and/or Behavioral Needs

is Special Ed

Every Student with Academic and/or Behavioral Needs Will Look Like a.......

Bridging the GapCore + IntensiveCore + Intensive

CoreCore

Weekly-MonthlyWeekly-Monthly

Core + SupplementalCore + Supplemental

3x/year 3x/year

WeeklyWeekly

Am

ou

nt

of

Res

ou

rces

Nee

ded

To

B

enef

it

Severity of Educational Need or Problem

Successful Multi-Tier Models Have:

• A continuum of services and/or programs across the tiers that are scientifically based

• Methods of evaluating and monitoring progress across the tiers, ideally those that are considered scientifically based

• Efficient, COMMON methods of communicating student performance for all disciplines.

Tier 1 is Delivery of a Scientifically Based Core Program with...

• Fidelity• Intensity• Passion• Reasonable Accommodations

If Done Well, We Expect to Meet the Needs of Most...Some Will Need

More

Tier 2 is “MORE”

• (More) Time• (More) Explicit Teacher-Led Instruction• (More) Scaffolded Instruction• (More) Opportunities to Respond with

Corrective Feedback• (More) Language Support, Especially

Vocabulary• (More) Intensive Motivational Strategies• (More) Frequent Progress Monitoring

Tier 3 is “MOST”• (Most) Time• (Most) Explicit Teacher-Led Instruction• (Most) Scaffolded Instruction• (Most) Opportunities to Respond with

Corrective Feedback• (Most) Language Support, Especially

Vocabulary• (Most) Intensive Motivational Strategies• (Most) Frequent Progress Monitoring

Select Set of Standard Interventions Matched to Student Need

• Reading– Reading Mastery– Corrective Reading– Journey’s (Voyager)– Read Naturally– Headsprout– Fluency Protocols

• Math– Vmath (Voyager)– Odyssey– Study Island– Tools for Success

SCRED Examples

• Behavior– Check and Connect– Social Skill groups

Lesson Learned: A Multi-Tiered Service Delivery Model is Critical

• Efficient use of resources• Teaming• Instructional Time can be Problematic

Problem Solving Process and School-Wide Organization

• Once a measurement system and research-based curriculum are in place, schools must have a problem solving system to meet the needs of unique learners.

• Problem Solving Teams must have a process to use to develop interventions for at-risk students.

• Buildings must be organized to support problem solving

Five building-level supporting structures promote Problem Solving and optimal student achievement:

• Continuous Measurement• Grade-level Team Meetings• Flexible Grouping• Grade-level Scheduling• Concentrated Resources

____________________________________

Organization: Supporting Structures

Fall Winter Spring

IntensiveIntensiveIntensiveIntensive IntensiveIntensive

StrategicStrategic

BenchmarkBenchmark BenchmarkBenchmark BenchmarkBenchmark

StrategicStrategic StrategicStrategic

Target:

Total ____ Enrollment:

Grade:

Goal:

Fall Winter Spring

Bobby 21-67

Woody 1

6-63

Edward 15-58

Truman 24-57

James 1

0-53

Intensive <26

17 students25%

Intensive <26

17 students25%

Intensive10 students

15%

Intensive10 students

15%

IntensiveIntensive

StrategicStrategic

Isis 3

0-86

Johanna 35-8

5

A.S. M

arie 31-7

6

Peggy D 33-7

3

Benchmark45 students05-06 66%04-05 61%03-04 56%




Benchmark05-06 04-05 68%03-04 54%

Benchmark05-06 04-05 68%03-04 54%

Strategic <43, >=26

6 students9%

Strategic <43, >=26

6 students9%

Strategic10 students

15%

Strategic10 students

15%

Target: 43 72 90

Total 68 67 Enrollment:

2nd grade

42

Peggy N 43-71Tom T 65-70

Goal 70%

2

10

Current 3rd Graders Class of 2017

Student Grade

MAP Math Fall 06-07 2007 RIT Score

MAP Math Spring 06-07 2007 RIT Score

MAP Math Fall 07-08 2008 RIT Score

MAP Math Spring 07-08 2008 RIT Score G

en

der

Eth

nic

ity

Gifted

/Tale

nted

Lim

ited

En

glish

Proficie

ncy

Sp

ecia

l Ed

ucatio

n

student 1 3 199 204 205 M White student 2 3 199 217 211 F White student 3 3 198 206 204 M White student 4 3 197 208 207 F White student 5 3 196 215 210 M White student 6 3 196 198 209 F White student 7 3 196 213 214 M White student 8 3 191 207 204 M White student 9 3 191 200 196 F White student 10 3 190 192 194 F White student 11 3 189 206 203 F White student 12 3 187 184 191 M White student 13 3 186 197 213 M White student 14 3 186 204 200 F White student 15 3 186 203 202 F White student 16 3 185 199 212 F White student 17 3 185 197 200 F White student 18 3 185 195 199 F White Ystudent 19 3 185 202 206 F White student 20 3 184 198 202 M White student 21 3 184 187 191 M White Ystudent 22 3 183 206 207 F White student 23 3 183 196 199 F White student 24 3 183 195 200 M White student 25 3 183 198 200 F White student 26 3 179 196 196 F White student 27 3 179 192 189 F White student 28 3 178 192 188 F Hispanic student 29 3 178 195 199 M White student 30 3 177 198 201 F White student 31 3 177 200 203 M White Ystudent 32 3 177 203 208 F White student 33 3 175 187 195 F White student 34 3 174 187 196 F White student 35 3 172 197 192 F White student 36 3 172 193 166 M White student 37 3 171 189 193 F White student 38 3 171 199 190 M White student 39 3 171 192 163 M White student 40 3 171 185 186 F White student 41 3 170 198 197 M White student 42 3 169 190 188 F White student 43 3 167 188 193 M White student 44 3 167 188 178 F White student 45 3 167 196 197 M White student 46 3 165 180 188 M White student 47 3 163 192 194 M White student 48 3 163 191 163 F White student 49 3 162 188 186 F White student 50 3 161 194 186 F White student 51 3 161 168 179 F White student 52 3 160 179 178 M White student 53 3 159 176 173 F White student 54 3 159 197 191 F White student 55 3 158 184 183 M White Ystudent 56 3 157 178 183 F White student 57 3 155 171 170 F White student 58 3 193 F White student 59 3 197 191 M White student 60 3 182 M White student 61 3 188 F White

2nd Grade 3rd Grade

Sample Summary of Effectiveness Chart

Developed by Dr. Barb Scierka, SCRED

Summary of Effectiveness Data

Goals % StudentsFall Gr.2

% StudentsSpring Gr.2

% StudentsFall Gr.3

% StudentsSpring Gr.3

80% Tier 1 56% 74% 69%

15% Tier 2 25% 19% 20%

5% Tier 3 19% 7% 11%

% Maintained Fall- Spring Gr.2

94%(95% is goal)

Schools Use CBM in Universal Screening Instead of Referral Driven Practices

< 25thTier 2 Candidates

<10thIndividual Problem Solving and/or Tier 3 Candidates

Steps of Problem-Solving1. Problem

IdentificationWhat is the discrepancy between

what is expected and what is occurring?

2. Problem Analysis

Why is the problem occurring?

3. Plan Development

What is the goal?What is the intervention plan to address this goal?

How will progress be monitored?

4. PlanImplementation

How will implementation integrity be ensured?

5. Plan Evaluation

Is the intervention plan effective?

Problem Identification

• Identified problems are specifically defined in observable measurable terms

• Technically adequate measurement systems are used to describe the behavior that is occurring and the behavior that is expected

• Team prioritizes and considers one problem at a time

Problem Analysis

• Efforts are made to assess why the problem is occurring

• Teams focus on those possible causes to the behavior that can be affected through school resources–Curriculum, Instruction,

Environment

Plan Development

• Observable measurable goals are written for each problem to be addressed–Often end of year grade level goals

• Interventions are research supported• Progress monitoring data is collected and

graphed for every goal

Plan Implementation

• Intervention plans are explicitly documented• Intervention integrity is assured through

direct observation– Intervention is delivered as planned

• Document level to which student participated in intervention – Attendance, time, active engagement

Plan Evaluation

• Student progress is evaluated based on data• Records maintained on cases completed

– Success rate, grade level or problem type most often referred

• Ongoing team Functioning is considered– Efficiency of team meetings, quality of

communication

Effectiveness of RtI at the St. Croix River Education District

Percent of Students SCRED-wide Meeting Spring Benchmark Targets GOM Reading

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100K

Nov

(LS

F)

KW

(LS

F)

KS

(LS

F)

1F (

NW

F)

1 W

in (

NW

F) 1W 1S 2F 2W 2S 3F 3W 3S 4F 4W 4S 5F 5W 5S 6F 6W 6S 7F 7W 7S 8F 8W 8S

Grade and Season

Per

cent

of S

tude

nts

2008-09 SCRED

2007-08 SCRED

2006-07 SCRED

2005-06 SCRED

2004-05 SCRED

2003-04 SCRED

2002-03 SCRED

2001-02 SCRED

2000-01 SCRED

1999-00 SCRED

1998-99 SCRED

1997-98 SCRED

1996-97 SCRED

ALL-SCRED - Historical 10th percentile scores (ORF)

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

140

160

Grade and Season

Wo

rds

Rea

d C

orr

ect

2008-09

2007-08

2006-07

2005-06

2004-05

2003-04

2002-03

2001-02

2000-01

1999-00

1998-99

1997-98

1996-97

Percentage of Students Receiving Special Education Services - St. Croix River Education District (SCRED) vs. Region and MN State Totals

0%

2%

4%

6%

8%

10%

12%

14%

16%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

SCREDRegion 7STATE

SCRED 10.21 10.3% 11.0% 10.8% 10.0% 10.2% 10.3% 10.1% 10.7% 10.4% 10.4% 10.0% 9.4% 9.0% 9%

Region 7 10.12 10.7% 10.8% 11.0% 10.9% 11.3% 11.5% 12.0% 12.8% 12.4% 12.4% 12.5% 12.9% 13.3% 13%

STATE 10.64 10.9% 11.3% 11.5% 11.6% 11.8% 12.0% 12.3% 13.0% 12.8% 12.8% 12.9% 13.3% 13.4%

94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Percentage of Students Receiving Services for Specific Learning Disability - St. Croix Education District (SCRED) vs. Region and MN State Totals

0.0%

0.5%

1.0%

1.5%

2.0%

2.5%

3.0%

3.5%

4.0%

4.5%

5.0%

Per

cen

t o

f S

tud

ents

SCREDRegion 7STATE

SCRED 4.22% 4.35% 4.11% 3.91% 3.70% 3.71% 3.84% 3.39% 3.22% 2.76% 2.54% 2.41% 1.99% 2.10% 2.40%

Region 7 3.66% 3.95% 3.97% 4.02% 3.91% 3.93% 3.96% 3.99% 3.83% 3.71% 3.51% 3.34% 3.22% 3.09% 3.02%

STATE 4.02% 4.11% 4.23% 4.24% 4.21% 4.16% 4.13% 4.12% 4.21% 4.02% 3.80% 3.68% 3.54% 3.41%

94-95 95-96 96-97 97-98 98-99 99-00 00-01 01-02 02-03 03-04 04-05 05-06 06-07 07-08 08-09

Eligibility

History

MN has had criteria requiring severe IQ/ACH discrepancy, information processing deficits, and severe low achievement.

SCRED abandoned MN criteria after IDEA 2004 was passed saying that states can’t mandate the use of a SD model.

Workgroup was established in 2002 to develop our eligibility criteria.

“Millionaire Questions Addressed by Workgroup

• What are the steps of our eligibility model?• Are we going to us the problem solving model, standard treatment protocol,

or both?• How is “generally effective” instruction by the classroom teacher defined?• How we will define dually discrepant (level and slope)? What are the

decision-making cut points?• What is the reference group for demarcating responsiveness? National, state,

or local norms?• How long should students remain in an intervention phase?• What is the criteria for exiting students from special education?• When should due process be initiated?• What data should be collected to determine the effect of using a different

criteria?

SCRED SLD Guideline is available for download at www.scred.k12.mn.us

SCRED Criteria1. Level of achievement is significantly discrepant from local

expectations: 7th percentile guideline initially established 5th percentile after state rules developed

2. Rate of progress (slope) is significantly discrepant from target expectations.

Slope is below a 95% confidence interval around the target slope

3. Verification that the problem solving process was followed with integrity.

4. Verification that the student demonstrates educational needs that require special education services to be appropriately met.

5. Information Processing (state criteria)

MN 3525.1341 Specific Learning Disability

• Districts can choose between severe discrepancy model or RtI approach.

• RtI Approach:– Rate of Progress (slope)

• Minimum of 12 data points (MN Rule 3525.1341 (2) (D).

– Level of Achievement• 5th percentile (MN Rule 3525.1341(2)(D)(4))

• Valid and reliable achievement measures• Compared to state or national norms• Local comparison may also be used

MN Rules 3525.1341 Specific Learning Disability

In addition:- Underachievement- Information Processing- Exclusionary Factors

Case Study: Billy 8th grade

Problem IdentificationRecord ReviewInterview teacher, parent, and studentObservationTesting

Discrepancy Statement: Billy is reading 52 words correct per minute with 2 errors on eighth grade level reading passages. The target for 8th grade students in the spring is 170 WCPM.

Case Study

Problem AnalysisData from a variety of sources (RIOT) and domains

(ICEL) were collected to consider multiple hypotheses for the cause of the discrepancy.

Case Study

Converging data support the chosen hypothesis:Billy is reading 52 words correct per minute with 2

errors on eighth grade level reading passages while same grade peers are expected to read 170 WCPM because Billy needs more practice to increase his reading fluency.

Case Study

Plan Development1. Goal: By May 2005, Billy will read 113 words correct

per minute with 0 errors from Grade 8 R-CBM passages. The rate of improvement should be 1.2 words correct per week.

2. Instructional Plan: Billy will participate in the Six Minute Solution reading intervention being implemented by Mr. Teacher in addition to his current reading program.

Case Study

2. Materials Needed: Aimsweb Grade 7 Reading passages, timer, colored pencils, graph

3. Measurement System: R-CBM collected weekly by a resource room paraprofessional on Tuesdays.- Grade 8 reading passages for progress monitoring.

Case Study

Plan Implementation– The school psychologist observed Mr. Teacher implement

the Six Minute Solution. A script was used for training the teacher, and this same script was used during the observation.

– The observation indicated that the intervention was implemented correctly.

– Data were collected and graphed as stated in the plan.

Case Study

Plan Evaluation– The intervention was implemented with fidelity.– Pre-intervention discrepancy stayed the same.– Team went through problem-solving steps again.

Case Study

1. Problem IdentificationDiscrepancy Statement: Billy is reading 58 words correct per minute with 2 errors on eighth grade level reading passages. The target for Grade 8 is 170 WCPM with an expected growth rate of 1.2 words per week.

2. Problem AnalysisRIOT/ICEL

Hypothesis: Billy is reading 58 words correct per minute with 2 errors on eighth grade level reading passages while same grade peers are expected to read is 170 WCPM because Billy needs more instructional time to increase his reading fluency.

Case Study

3. Plan DevelopmentSmall group reading using Corrective Reading,

Level B Curriculum with reading teacher daily for 50 minutes in addition to core reading class.

Case Study: Entitlement Decision

Student’s slope is -.4 words per week– Bottom of confidence interval for Grade 8

is .28.Student’s level is 52.

– 5th percentile score is 112 based on district local norms.

Case Study

• Case Review Protocol indicates problem solving process was used with fidelity.

• Team verified information processing concerns.• Team addressed exclusionary factors • Team Verified high degree of instructional need that

must be addressed through SE services.• Team concludes student is eligible for special

education services.

Lesson Learned: Intervention Integrity is a Hot Issue that Should Not be Ignored!

• Critical to evaluate whether intervention was implemented as designed.

• Supportive vs.. Evaluative• Who conducts integrity checks?

Lesson Learned: Documentation of Process is Critical

• Must have a clearly defined process• Forms and guidelines to guide process• Start out with “tight reigns”

– SCRED oversight of referrals– Problems with documentation

Lesson Learned: Ongoing Training and Support is Critical!

• Problem Solving Team Training• RtI User’s Forum• Expert “troubleshooter”• Grade Level Teams

– Use of data to make decisions– Interventions

Lesson Learned: Teach Patience and Flexibility

• RtI implementation is a work in progress– Modify and adjust as necessary– Work together to implement the process and address

questions– Answer questions from field but obtain input (RtI user

forum, FAQ)– Emphasize that you might be working in the grey zone at

times, but the process works for kids!

Lesson Learned: Expect Questions and Occasional Conflict

• Top Questions:– What is the role of the special education

teacher in the RtI process?– Who verifies the integrity of interventions?– How do we determine when an

intervention is rigorous enough?– What are scientific, research-based

interventions• Developed a FAQ sheet.

Additional Resources

• Burns, M. & Gibbons, K. (2008) Implementing Response to Intervention in Primary and Secondary Schools: Procedures to Assure Scientific-Based Practices. Routledge: NY. (Amazon.com)

Problem Solving Training

• RtI Summer Institute• June 21-23 2010 in Bloomington,MN• www.kimgibbons.org to download flyer

Questions?

Kim Gibbons–[email protected]–320-358-1214

SCRED Website (for forms, etc.)www.scred.k12.mn.us

Eligibility Decisions Within a Response to Intervention Framework Presented by: Robert Pasternack,...

Documents

Transcript of Eligibility Decisions Within a Response to Intervention Framework Presented by: Robert Pasternack,...