The Politics and Policy of Response to The Politics and Policy of Response to Intervention and RtI ImplementationIntervention and RtI Implementation

Pete B. Marcelo, Ph.D.Pete B. Marcelo, Ph.D.

Assistant Superintendent of Niles Assistant Superintendent of Niles Township High School District 219Township High School District 219

OverviewOverview

Define response to intervention (RtI)Define response to intervention (RtI) Review core components/principles of RtIReview core components/principles of RtI Discuss problems with the current special Discuss problems with the current special

education systemeducation system History and timing of: law, regulations, policy, History and timing of: law, regulations, policy,

politics, and research related to RtIpolitics, and research related to RtI Examine why now?Examine why now? Share some implications of RtI implementation at Share some implications of RtI implementation at

the local levelthe local level

Definition ofDefinition ofResponse to Intervention (RtI)Response to Intervention (RtI)

RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational to (3) make important educational decisions. decisions.

(NASDE and CASE, 2006)(NASDE and CASE, 2006)

Essential RtI ComponentsEssential RtI Components

• Multiple tiers of instructionMultiple tiers of instruction• Application of the problem-solving Application of the problem-solving

methodmethod• An integrated data collection system An integrated data collection system

used to make educational decisionsused to make educational decisions

A Tiered Approach to A Tiered Approach to InstructionInstruction

(Morrison, 200(Morrison, 2007)7)

Individualized Interventions

~ 5 – 10% Students

INTENSIVE

~ 10 – 15% of Students

STRATEGIC

~ 75 – 85% of Students

CORE

Special Education

Eligibility

Intensity of Needs

A Tiered Approach to:A Tiered Approach to:Core InterventionsCore Interventions

(Morrison, 2007)(Morrison, 2007)

““Options that are provided to students Options that are provided to students as a part of the general curriculum as a part of the general curriculum with specific intent”with specific intent”

A Tiered Approach to:A Tiered Approach to:Strategic InterventionsStrategic Interventions

(Morrison, 2007)(Morrison, 2007)

““Targeted Targeted interventions focus interventions focus on students who on students who need more need more assistance”assistance”

A Tiered Approach to:A Tiered Approach to:Intensive InterventionsIntensive Interventions

(Morrison, 2007)(Morrison, 2007)

““Intense and often Intense and often individualized individualized interventions are for interventions are for students with the students with the most extreme most extreme needs”needs”

Intervention FrameworkIntervention Framework((Morrison, 2007)Morrison, 2007)

• Intensive InterventionsIntensive Interventions• A fewA few

• Supplemental InterventionsSupplemental Interventions• SomeSome

• Core/Universal InterventionsCore/Universal Interventions• AllAll

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Students

Academic

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

(Morrison, 2007)(Morrison, 2007)• Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments,

grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, discipline grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, discipline referralsreferrals

• Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and classroom assessmentassessment data and classroom assessment

• Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal assessmentsassessment, other informal assessments

Problem Solving ProcessProblem Solving Process(Morrison, 2007)(Morrison, 2007)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)Problem Analysis

Validating ProblemIdent Variables that Contribute to

Problem Develop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

What is in the garbage can?What is in the garbage can?

Problems with current special Problems with current special education systemeducation system

Separation of special ed. Separation of special ed. students from general ed. students from general ed. students. students.

Special ed has not closed the Special ed has not closed the achievement gapachievement gap

Weak relationship between Weak relationship between eligibility data and eligibility data and instructional interventioninstructional intervention

““wait to fail” model not early wait to fail” model not early interventionintervention

Overrepresentation of Overrepresentation of minorities with ED, MRminorities with ED, MR

Special ed. not implementing Special ed. not implementing scientifically based scientifically based interventionsinterventions

300% increase of LD students 300% increase of LD students since 1975since 1975

Over half of referrals to Over half of referrals to special ed. for LDspecial ed. for LD

90% of LD referrals due to 90% of LD referrals due to reading problemsreading problems

Cost of special ed.Cost of special ed.

History and TimingHistory and Timing•1960’s LD Definition Debate1960’s LD Definition Debate

• 1970 Deno Cascade Model of Special 1970 Deno Cascade Model of Special EducationEducation

•1970’s Bergan’s Behavioral Intervention Model1970’s Bergan’s Behavioral Intervention Model

•1975 1975 PL 94-142PL 94-142

•1980’s Regular Education 1980’s Regular Education InitiativeInitiative

•1990’s Inclusion Movement1990’s Inclusion Movement

History and TimingHistory and Timing• 1997 Re-authorization of IDEA1997 Re-authorization of IDEA

Comment period National Joint Comment period National Joint Committee on Learning Disabilities Committee on Learning Disabilities letter to OSEP On LD identificationletter to OSEP On LD identification

•2000 OSEP LD Initiative2000 OSEP LD InitiativeCommissioned 9 white papers on LDCommissioned 9 white papers on LD

in response to NJCLD letterin response to NJCLD letter

•2000 National Reading Panel report 2000 National Reading Panel report Identifies 5 reading skills Identifies 5 reading skills

• August 2001 LD Summit August 2001 LD Summit Part of OSEP’s LD InitiativePart of OSEP’s LD Initiative

•Oct. 2001 President Busch’s Commission on Excellence in Special EducationOct. 2001 President Busch’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education

•Jan. 2002 NCLB signedJan. 2002 NCLB signed(standards, scientifically based instruction, (standards, scientifically based instruction,

assessment, accountability)assessment, accountability)

History and TimingHistory and Timing• June 6June 6thth 2002 House 2002 House

Hearing on LD and Hearing on LD and early interventionearly intervention

•July 2July 2ndnd 2002 “A new era: 2002 “A new era: re-vitalizing special education for re-vitalizing special education for

children and families”children and families”

•July 9July 9thth, 2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Ed. , 2002 President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Ed.

Report to Senate Health Education, Labor and PensionsReport to Senate Health Education, Labor and Pensions

•July 10July 10thth, 2002 President’s Commission Report to, 2002 President’s Commission Report to

House Committee on Education and the WorkforceHouse Committee on Education and the Workforce

•2002 OSEP funded National Center on Learning Disabilities2002 OSEP funded National Center on Learning Disabilities

•July 25th 2002 Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common GroundJuly 25th 2002 Specific Learning Disabilities: Finding Common Ground

History and TimingHistory and Timing

• April 29April 29thth 2003 House version of IDEA amendments released from 2003 House version of IDEA amendments released from Committee on Education and the WorkforceCommittee on Education and the Workforce

•November 3rd 2003 Senate version of IDEA release from November 3rd 2003 Senate version of IDEA release from Committee on Health Education, Labor and PensionsCommittee on Health Education, Labor and Pensions

•November 19November 19thth 2004 IDEA Amendments passed by Congress 2004 IDEA Amendments passed by Congress

•December 4December 4thth and 5 and 5thth National Research Center on Learning Disabilities National Research Center on Learning Disabilities

two day symposium on RtItwo day symposium on RtI

•Feb. 25th, 2003 Paige releases Feb. 25th, 2003 Paige releases President’s Principles President’s Principles

on IDEA re-authorizationon IDEA re-authorization

•Dec. 3Dec. 3rdrd 2004 IDEA re-authorization 2004 IDEA re-authorization signed by Bushsigned by Bush

History and TimingHistory and Timing•Dec. 29Dec. 29thth 2004 Solicitation of public comments on federal law 2004 Solicitation of public comments on federal law

and considerations for regulations and considerations for regulations

(7 public meetings Jan-Feb. 2005)(7 public meetings Jan-Feb. 2005)

•June 10June 10thth 2005 Dept. of Ed. Issues proposed regulations 2005 Dept. of Ed. Issues proposed regulations and invites public commentand invites public comment

•May 2006 NASDE and CASE white paper on RtIMay 2006 NASDE and CASE white paper on RtI

•Aug. 14Aug. 14thth 2006 federal regulations published 2006 federal regulations published

•June 28June 28thth 2007 23 Illinois Administrative Code Part 226 released 2007 23 Illinois Administrative Code Part 226 released

•July 9July 9thth 2007 NASDE/CASE develop district and state RtI 2007 NASDE/CASE develop district and state RtI planning and implementation toolsplanning and implementation tools

•OSEP awards grant to American Institute of Research to create OSEP awards grant to American Institute of Research to create National Center on RtINational Center on RtI

History and TimingHistory and Timing• Dec 6Dec 6thth and 7 and 7thth 2007 RtI Summit 2007 RtI Summit

•Jan 1Jan 1stst 2008 ISBE releases Illinois RtI 2008 ISBE releases Illinois RtI PlanPlan

Illinois State RegulationsIllinois State Regulations

No later than January 1, 2009, each district shall No later than January 1, 2009, each district shall develop a plan for the transition to the use of a develop a plan for the transition to the use of a process that determines how the child responds to process that determines how the child responds to scientific, research-based interventions as part of the scientific, research-based interventions as part of the evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. evaluation procedure described in 34 CFR 300.304. Each district’s plan shall identify the resources the Each district’s plan shall identify the resources the district will devote to this purpose and include an district will devote to this purpose and include an outline of the types of State-level assistance the outline of the types of State-level assistance the district expects to need, with particular reference to district expects to need, with particular reference to the professional development necessary for its the professional development necessary for its affected staff members to implement this process. affected staff members to implement this process. The transition plan developed pursuant to this The transition plan developed pursuant to this subsection (c) may be incorporated into a district’s subsection (c) may be incorporated into a district’s district improvement plan (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code district improvement plan (see 23 Ill. Adm. Code 1.85(b)) if one exists.1.85(b)) if one exists.

Common ElementsCommon Elements

• High quality instruction / behavior supportsHigh quality instruction / behavior supports• AccountabilityAccountability• Scientific, research-based interventions / curriculumScientific, research-based interventions / curriculum• Prevention / early interventionPrevention / early intervention• Merging of building resourcesMerging of building resources• Parent involvementParent involvement• Student progress monitoringStudent progress monitoring• Collaborative team-based decisions based on dataCollaborative team-based decisions based on data• A “unified” system of educational services – ONE “ED”A “unified” system of educational services – ONE “ED”

Components of the Components of the InfrastructureInfrastructure

• Building-based Leadership TeamBuilding-based Leadership Team• Data CoachData Coach• Problem-solving ProcessProblem-solving Process• Decision Rules Regarding RtIDecision Rules Regarding RtI• Data Sources and Decision-MakingData Sources and Decision-Making• Tier 1 FocusTier 1 Focus• Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2Standard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2• Intervention Support and FidelityIntervention Support and Fidelity• Technology SupportTechnology Support• Technical AssistanceTechnical Assistance

Is It All About Reading? Yes!Is It All About Reading? Yes!

• 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs• 70% +/- of special education “activities: 70% +/- of special education “activities:

(e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD casesto LD cases

• 94% of students in LD because of reading / 94% of students in LD because of reading / language artslanguage arts

• 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading• Changes in LD Rules will effect the vast Changes in LD Rules will effect the vast

majority of special education “activities” majority of special education “activities”

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?Response to Intervention?

• Positive ResponsePositive Response• Gap is closingGap is closing• Can extrapolate point at which target student Can extrapolate point at which target student

will “come in range” of peers--even if this is will “come in range” of peers--even if this is long rangelong range

• Questionable ResponseQuestionable Response• Rate at which gap is widening slows Rate at which gap is widening slows

considerably, but gap is still wideningconsiderably, but gap is still widening• Gap stops widening but closure does not occurGap stops widening but closure does not occur

• Poor ResponsePoor Response• Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention DecisionsIntervention Decisions

• Positive, Questionable, Poor ResponsePositive, Questionable, Poor Response• Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)

• PositivePositive• Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at

least).least).• Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired

functional independence.functional independence.• QuestionableQuestionable

• Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

• PoorPoor• Return to problem solving for new interventionReturn to problem solving for new intervention

Critical Components of Critical Components of Intervention SupportIntervention Support

• Support for Intervention IntegritySupport for Intervention Integrity

• Documentation of Intervention Documentation of Intervention ImplementationImplementation

• Intervention and Eligibility decisions and Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical model without these two critical componentscomponents

Tier 3 – Intensive, Individualized, Interventions

• Individual students• Assessment-based• High intensity• Of longer duration

Tier 2 – Targeted Group Interventions

• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response

Tier 1 – Core Instructional Interventions

• All students• Prevention proactive

The Vision: To provide effective instruction/interventions to meet the needs of ALL students through early and scientifically-based interventions through careful systems planning

~ 5%

~ 10%

~ 80%

N = ~32 students (1%)

W = ~78 student (3%)

N = ~472 students (22%)

W = ~723 students (28%)

N = ~1470 students (67%)

W = ~1598 students (62%)

Challenges in Implementing Challenges in Implementing RTIRTI

• Building teachers’ knowledge and expertise in Building teachers’ knowledge and expertise in the five components of SBRIthe five components of SBRI

• Establishing the critical relationship between of Establishing the critical relationship between of assessing students and delivering data-driven, assessing students and delivering data-driven, tailor-made interventions to at-risk studentstailor-made interventions to at-risk students

• Promoting an inquiry-based approach to Promoting an inquiry-based approach to interventionintervention

• Being a collaborative team memberBeing a collaborative team member• Being a lifelong learnerBeing a lifelong learner• Recognizing the opportunities that change Recognizing the opportunities that change

bringsbrings

Impact on Leaders:Impact on Leaders:A Change in FocusA Change in Focus

• Student progress, not labels are most importantStudent progress, not labels are most important• All students compared to general education All students compared to general education

expectationsexpectations• All students affect AYPAll students affect AYP• A student’s response to intervention is the most A student’s response to intervention is the most

important dataimportant data• Academic Engaged Time is the currency of Academic Engaged Time is the currency of

problem-solvingproblem-solving• Training and coaching must be focused on PSMTraining and coaching must be focused on PSM• Increase the use of technology Increase the use of technology • Interventions must be evidence-basedInterventions must be evidence-based

Year 1 GoalsYear 1 Goals

Begin with small steps:Begin with small steps:Goals – Self Study ProcessGoals – Self Study Process1.1. Building of Data SystemBuilding of Data System2.2. Building of Intervention SystemsBuilding of Intervention Systems3.3. Leadership and Staff DevelopmentLeadership and Staff Development4.4. Building of Problem Solving Teams and Building of Problem Solving Teams and

efficient functioningefficient functioningYear 2-3: Do the same – more and better – Year 2-3: Do the same – more and better –

while ‘institutionalizing’ everyone’s while ‘institutionalizing’ everyone’s thinking and practices.thinking and practices.

Tool: Problem-Solving Self Study Instruments