Secondary Interventions in a Three Tier Model: Program Features and System Issues

1. Secondary Interventions in a Three Tier Model: Program Features and System Issues Joseph F. KovaleskiIndiana University of Pennsylvania Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium December 4-5, 2003 • Kansas City, Missouri The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, a collaborative project of staff at Vanderbilt University and the University of Kansas, sponsored this two-day symposium focusing on responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) issues. The symposium was made possible by the support of the U.S. Department of Education Office of Special Education Programs. Renee Bradley, Project Officer. Opinions expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent the position of the U.S. Department of Education. When citing materials presented during the symposium, please use the following: “Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.”

2. Seeds of the Three Tier Model • Original Definition of LD • IDEA ’97: Lack of Instruction • Pioneering models: SBPS, IST, ICT, etc. • NCLB Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

3. DEFINITION OF LEARNING DISABILITIES (excerpts from IDEA) • §300.541 Criteria for determining the existence of a specific learning disability. A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if- (1) The child does not achieve commensurate with his or her age and ability levels in one or more of the areas listed in paragraph (a)(2) of this section, if provided with learning experiences appropriate for the child's age and ability levels; • § 300.543 A team may determine that a child has a specific learning disability if… (6) Whether there is a severe discrepancy between achievement and ability that is not correctable without special education and related services; Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

4. (5) SPECIAL RULE FOR ELIGIBILITY DETERMINATION In making a determination of eligibility under paragraph (4)(A), a child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if the determinant factor for such determination is lack of instruction in reading or math or limited English proficiency. [IDEA §614(b)(5)] Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

5. What the Senate intended: • Students may be identified as LD because they were not taught the “core skill of reading” effectively. • Not taught = lack of instruction (LOI) • LOI will decrease over-identification and focus schools’ efforts on instruction in the primary grades. Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

6. Pennsylvania’s Screening Requirements • Academic assessment • Behavioral assessment • Intervention based on assessment • Assessment of response to intervention • Lack of instruction or limited English proficiency • Ability of the regular education program to maintain the student • Activities designed to gain the participation of parents Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

7. Getting Clarity on the Tiers Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

8. Tier 1: School-wide Screening and Intervention • Conduct data analysis teaming of like teachers and specialists • Access critical data on all students’ performance related to achievement of standards • Analyze data and find which students have which gaps in attainments Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

9. Tier 1: School-wide Screening and Intervention cont’d • Set measurable goals for the group to close the gap • Brainstorm or create instructional strategies • Deliver interventions to whole groups • Monitor performance (quarterly) Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

12. Benefits of Tier 1 • Promotion of evidence-based instruction on a whole-class, whole-school level • Systematic identification of non-responders (not just teacher referral) • Eventual focusing of resources on fewer students at tiers 2 and 3 Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

13. Focus on individual non-responders Begin with interventions to adapt general education instruction Ongoing support is consultative Focus on groups of non-responders (15-20%) Ongoing push-in support Ongoing pull-out support Tier 2: Problem-solving teams Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

14. Problem Solving for Individual Students: Key Features • “a core group of teachers working together to ‘get the job done’ (Kamp & Greenwood) • Curriculum-based assessment • Establishing the intervention • Graphing and evaluating data • Routinizing the intervention Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

15. Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

16. Tier 2: Ongoing Support Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

17. Tier 2: Organizational Changes(Kamp & Greenwood) • special and general educators pooling resources • creative/flexible scheduling to allocate sufficient time to small group instruction • creative uses of personnel resources i.e., many people teaching reading groups Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

18. Critical Features of Flexible Service Delivery • Cross training of staff • Non-categorical deployment of staff • Remediation based on students’ needs • Transitory services • Services without labels Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

19. Cross Training • Identification of critical knowledge and strategies • Training of all “flex staff” in ALL of the procedures Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

20. Non-categorical Deployment • Eliminate wide variety of job titles (at least conceptually) • Specialists are fungible -- anyone can take another’s place or role Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

21. Need-based Services • Data are now used to sort students into appropriate levels and types of service • Level = how much time during school day • Type = what type of strategies are needed Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

22. Transitory Service • Students may not need a given service for entire years • Program may be reorganized from month to month and from year to year • Program organization follows needs of students, not a “model” Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

23. Services without Labels • No “diagnostic” activities • Informed parental consent, but no IEP • Guaranteed progress monitoring and reporting to parents • “Special-education-like” instruction Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

24. “Special-education-like Instruction”(McMaster et al., 2003) • immediate corrective feedback • mastery of content before moving to next lesson • more time on activities that were especially difficult • more opportunities to respond • fewer transitions • setting goals and self-monitoring progress • special relationship with tutor Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.

25. System Change for Flexible Services • Consensus on evidence-based practice (“a house divided”) • Administrative leadership and involvement • Revision of paperwork and job descriptions (Allison, 2002) Kovaleski, J. F. (2003, December). Secondary interventions in a three tier model: Program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO.