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.
Reschly SLD Identification
Response to Intervention (IDEA, 2004)
• ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—In deter- mining 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?
Reschly SLD Identification
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
Reschly SLD Identification
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
Reschly SLD Identification
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
Reschly SLD Identification
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
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
Reschly SLD Identification
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
Reschly SLD Identification
• 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.
Reschly SLD Identification
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
Effective Features of Instruction
• 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
Effective Features of Instruction
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
Target Scores Predicting Performance on MCA
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
Target Scores Predicting Performance on MCA
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
Target Scores Predicting Performance on MCA
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%
Benchmark45 students05-06 66%04-05 61%03-04 56%
Benchmark47 students05-06 70%04-05 69%03-04 61%
Benchmark47 students05-06 70%04-05 69%03-04 61%
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
Top Related