Workshop Goals…

1. Getting Started With ‘Response to Intervention’: A Guide for SchoolsJim Wrightwww.interventioncentral.orgJanuary 2006 

2. Workshop Goals… • In this workshop, we will: • Examine the RTI framework as a way to identify behavior disorders • Review ideas for working effectively with disruptive and ‘emotionally unpredictable’ students • Review selected behavioral assessment tools • Discuss ways to support teachers and schools to implement the RTI process

3. Discussion: Read the quote below: “The quality of a school as a learning community can be measured by how effectively it addresses the needs of struggling students.”--Wright (2005) Do you agree or disagree with this statement? Why? Source: Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp.1,6.

4. What is ‘Response to Intervention’ (RTI)? 'Response to Intervention' is an emerging approach to the diagnosis of Learning Disabilities that holds considerable promise. In the RTI model: • A student with academic delays is given one or more research-validated interventions. • The student's academic progress is monitored frequently to see if those interventions are sufficient to help the student to catch up with his or her peers. • If the student fails to show significantly improved academic skills despite several well-designed and implemented interventions, this failure to 'respond to intervention' can be viewed as evidence of an underlying Learning Disability.

5. What are advantages of RTI? • One advantage of RTI in the diagnosis of educational disabilities is that it allows schools to intervene early to meet the needs of struggling learners. • Another advantage is that RTI maps those specific instructional strategies found to benefit a particular student. This information can be very helpful to both teachers and parents.

6. What previous approach to diagnosing Learning Disabilities does RTI replace? Prior to RTI, many states used a ‘Test-Score Discrepancy Model’ to identify Learning Disabilities. • A student with significant academic delays would be administered an battery of tests, including an intelligence test and academic achievement test(s). • If the student was found to have a substantial gap between a higher IQ score and lower achievement scores, a formula was used to determine if that gap was statistically significant and ‘severe’. • If the student had a ‘severe discrepancy’ [gap] between IQ and achievement, he or she would be diagnosed with a Learning Disability.

7. Learning Disabilities: Test Discrepancy Model “Traditionally, disability is viewed as a deficit that resides within the individual, the severity of which might be influenced, but not created, by contextual variables.”(Vaughn & Fuchs, 2003)

8. Limitations to the ‘test-score discrepancy model’ (Gresham, 2001): • Requires chronic school failure BEFORE remedial/special education supports can be given. • Fails to consider that outside factors such as poor or inconsistent instruction may contribute to a child's learning delay. • A ‘severe discrepancy’ between test scores provides no useful information about WHY the student is doing poorly academically. • Different states (and even school districts within the same state) often used different formulas to diagnose LD, resulting in a lack of uniformity in identifying children for special education support.

9. Why is RTI now being adopted by schools? Congress passed the revised Individuals With Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004. • This Federal legislation provides the guidelines that schools must follow when identifying children for special education services. • Based on the changes in IDEIA 2004, the US Department of Education (USDE) updated its regulations to state education departments. The new USDE regulations: • Explicitly ALLOW states to use RTI to identify LD • FORBID states from forcing schools to use a ‘discrepancy model’ to identify LD

10. IDEIA 2004-05 Federal (US Dept of Education) Regulations: What do they say about LD diagnosis? § 300.307 Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability…. the criteria adopted by the State— (2) May not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in § 300.8; [‘Discrepancy’ Model] (3) Must permit the use of a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention…[‘RTI’ Model] NOTE: [bracketed comments added] Source: IDEA (2004, 2005). Proposed Regulations from US Department of Education (§ 300.307)

11. What does RTI look like when applied to an individual student? A widely accepted method for determining whether a student has a Learning Disability under RTI is the ‘dual discrepancy model’ (Fuchs, 2003). • Discrepancy 1: The student is found to be performing academically at a level significantly below that of his or her typical peers (discrepancy in initial skills or performance). • Discrepancy 2: Despite the implementation of one or more well-designed, well-implemented interventions tailored specifically for the student, he or she fails to ‘close the gap’ with classmates (discrepancy in rate of learning relative to peers).

12. Avg Classroom Academic Performance Level Target Student Discrepancy 1: Skill Gap (Current Performance Level) Discrepancy 2: Gap in Rate of Learning (‘Slope of Improvement’) ‘Dual-Discrepancy’: RTI Model of Learning Disability(Fuchs 2003)

13. The steps of RTI for an individual case… Under RTI, if a student is found to be performing well below peers, the school will: • Estimate the academic skill gap between the student and typically-performing peers • Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic performance • Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to improve the student's academic functioning • Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the impact of the intervention • If the student fails to respond to several well-implemented interventions, consider a referral to Special Education

14. Estimate the academic skill gap between the target student and typically-performing peers: There are three general methods for estimating the ‘typical’ level of academic performance at a grade level: • Local Norms: A sample of students at a school are screened in an academic skill to create grade norms (Shinn, 1989) • Research Norms: Norms for ‘typical’ growth are derived from a research sample, published, and applied by schools to their own student populations (e.g., Shapiro, 1996) • Criterion-Referenced Benchmarks: A minimum level, or threshold, of competence is determined for an skill. The benchmark is usually defined as a level of proficiency needed for later school success (Fuchs, 2003)

15. Determine the likely reason(s) for the student’s depressed academic performance: There can be several possible underlying reasons why a student is doing poorly in an academic area. It is crucial to determine the reason(s) for poor performance in order to select an appropriate intervention: • Skill Deficit: The student lacks the necessary skills to perform the academic task. • ‘Fragile’ Skills: The student possesses the necessary skills but is not yet fluent and automatic in those skills. • Performance (Motivation) Deficit: The student has the necessary skills but lacks the motivation to complete the academic task.

16. Select a scientifically-based intervention likely to improve the student's academic functioning: Any intervention idea chosen for the student should be backed by scientific research (e.g., research articles in peer-reviewed professional journals) demonstrating that the intervention is effective in addressing the student’s underlying reason(s) for academic failure.

17. Monitor academic progress frequently to evaluate the impact of the intervention: Under RTI, interventions are monitored frequently (e.g., weekly) using valid and reliable measures that are sensitive to short-term gains in student performance: • Measures for Basic Academic Skills: Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) probes are short, timed assessments that have been developed to measure phonemic awareness, oral reading fluency, math computation, writing, and spelling skills (Shinn, 1989). • Measures for Classroom Academic and General Behaviors: • Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs): These customized teacher rating forms allow the instructor to evaluate the student’s behaviors each day (Chafouleas et al. 2005). • Direct Observation: An external observer visits the classroom to observe the student’s rates of on-task and academically engaged behaviors. (Shapiro, 1996)

18. If the student fails to respond to a series of several well-implemented interventions, consider a referral to Special Education. In the RTI model, the student would be referred for a special education evaluation if: • A series of research-based interventions have been attempted • There is documentation that the interventions were carried out as designed (treatment/intervention integrity) • Progress-monitoring data shows that the student failed to meet the goal set for his or her improvement (that is, the student shows a ‘discrepancy in rate of learning’ relative to grade-peers).

19. How can a school restructure to support RTI? The school can organize its intervention efforts into 3 levels, or Tiers, that represent a continuum of increasing intensity of support. (Kovaleski, 2003; Vaughn, 2003). Tier I is the lowest level of intervention and Tier III is the most intensive intervention level. Universal intervention: Available to all students Example: Additional classroom literacy instruction Tier I Individualized Intervention: Students who need additional support than peers are given individual intervention plans. Example: Supplemental peer tutoring in reading to increase reading fluency Tier II Intensive Intervention: Students whose intervention needs are greater than general education can meet may be referred for more intensive services. Example: Special Education Tier III

20. What Promise Does the RTI Framework Offer for Intervening With and Diagnosing Behaviorally Disordered/Emotionally Disabled Students? Gresham, F. M. (1992). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to intervention. School Psychology Review, 20, 23-37.

21. Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports: Three-Tiered Approach Source: www.pbis.org

22. Why Behaviorally Challenging May Not Mean Behaviorally Disordered… “The central issue is that the presence of unacceptable behavior does not itself necessarily constitute a form of psychopathology. That is not to say that unacceptable behaviors are not problematic for the child or significant others in the child’s environment. The overriding philosophy in this conceptualization of BD is based on the assumption that most problem behaviors are appropriate from the environment’s perspective. That is, these behaviors are simply following the ‘laws of learning’”(Gresham, 1992, p.34)

23. Definition of ‘Resistance to Intervention’ “The lack of change in target behaviors as a function of intervention. Given that the goal of all interventions is to produce a discrepancy between baseline and post-intervention levels of performance, the failure to produce such a discrepancy can be taken as partial evidence for a B[ehavioral] D[isorder] classification.” (Gresham, 1992, p.25)

24. What are limitations of previous approaches to diagnosing Behavioral/Emotional Disorders that RTI could replace? “Reviews of the literature indicate that assessment procedures used to identify this population [of Behaviorally Disordered students] are highly questionable in terms of reliability, validity, and treatment utility…” (Gresham, 1992, p.24)

25. Resistance to Intervention: Determining Factors Regarding Behavior and Intervention (Gresham, 1992) Characteristics of student’s behavior: • Severity • Chronicity • Generalization • Tolerance

26. Resistance to Intervention: Determining Factors Regarding Behavior and Intervention (Gresham, 1992) Characteristics of interventions used: • Strength • Acceptability • Integrity • Evaluation of Effectiveness

27. The challenge for behavioral consultants is that the main focus for behavior change is the TEACHER, not the STUDENT…

28. What Support Do Teachers Need to Implement Behavioral Interventions? As ‘front-line’ interventionists, teachers will need support in: • Data collection to verify the presence and severity of behavior concerns • Selection of empirically supported intervention strategies • Training to implement interventions • Monitoring of the ‘treatment integrity’ of interventions • Behavioral progress-monitoring • Decision rules for determining the effectiveness of the intervention

29. For a comprehensive directory of up-to-date RTI Resources available for free on the Internet, visit RTI_Wire at:http://www.jimwrightonline.com/php/rti/rti_wire.php

30. References • Chafouleas, S.M., McDougal, J.L., Riley-Tillman, T.C., Panahon, C.J., & Hilt, A.M. (2005).  What do Daily Behavior Report Cards (DBRCs) measure? An initial comparison of DBRCs with direct observation for off-task behavior.  Psychology in the Schools, 42(6), 669-676. • Fuchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness: Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18(3), 172-186. • Gresham, F. M. (1992). Conceptualizing behavior disorders in terms of resistance to intervention. School Psychology Review, 20, 23-37. • Gresham, F. (2001). Responsiveness to Intervention: An Alternative Approach to the Identification of Learning Disabilities. Retrieved January 9, 2006, from http://www.air.org/ldsummit/download/Gresham Final 08-10-01.doc • Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act, P.L. 108-466 (2004, 2005). 34 C.F.R. 300 (Proposed Regulations). Retrieved January 15, 2006, from http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/2422/01jan20051800/edocket.access.gpo.gov/2005/pdf/05-11804.pdf

31. References • Kovaleski, J. F. (2003). The three-tier model of identifying learning disabilities: Critical program features and system issues. Paper presented at the National Research Center on Learning Disabilities Responsiveness-to-Intervention Symposium, Kansas City, MO. • Shapiro, E. S. (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd ed.). New York: Guilford. • Shinn, M. R. (1989). Identifying and defining academic problems: CBM screening and eligibility procedures. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.), Curriculum based measurement: Assessing special children (pp.90-129). New York: The Guilford Press. • Wright, J. (2005, Summer). Five interventions that work. NAESP [National Association of Elementary School Principals] Leadership Compass, 2(4) pp.1,6. • Wright, J., & Cleary, K. S. (2006). Kids in the tutor seat: Building schools' capacity to help struggling readers through a cross-age peer-tutoring program. Psychology in the Schools, 43(1), 99-107.