slide1 n.
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
Response to Intervention (RTI) Panel Discussion PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
Response to Intervention (RTI) Panel Discussion

Loading in 2 Seconds...

play fullscreen
1 / 37

Response to Intervention (RTI) Panel Discussion - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

  • Uploaded on

Response to Intervention (RTI) Panel Discussion . March 31, 2011. RTI Panel Discussion. Dean Robert Bangert-Drowns, moderator Panelists: Dr. Frank Vellutino, Educational Psychology & Methodology Dr. Peter Johnston, Reading Dr. Kevin Quinn, Special Education

I am the owner, or an agent authorized to act on behalf of the owner, of the copyrighted work described.
Download Presentation

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Response to Intervention (RTI) Panel Discussion' - asha

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation

Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript
rti panel discussion
RTI Panel Discussion
  • Dean Robert Bangert-Drowns, moderator
  • Panelists:
    • Dr. Frank Vellutino, Educational Psychology

& Methodology

    • Dr. Peter Johnston, Reading
    • Dr. Kevin Quinn, Special Education
    • Dr. Stacy Williams, School Psychology
    • Dr. Donna Scanlon, Reading
definition of response to intervention
Definition of Response to Intervention
  • RTI is a new approach to determining whether students should be classified as learning disabled. It involves:
    • Identifying those students who are not meeting grade level expectations in a targeted academic area (e.g. reading, math, etc.).
    • Providing remedial services that are intensified over several tiers of intervention (e.g. three-tier model).
    • Assessing and monitoring students’ gains in the targeted academic area to determine whether they have accelerated their progress sufficiently to meet grade level expectations.
  • The RTI approach to LD classification is an alternative to traditional psychometric approaches having the IQ-achievement discrepancy as the central defining criterion.


the psychometric approach
The Psychometric Approach
  • Definition by Exclusion
    • IQ-Achievement discrepancy.
    • Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage used as exclusionary criteria.
    • “Neuropsychological” tests of cognitive abilities presumed to underlie an academic skill.
  • Estimates of incidence of learning disability range from 10% to 20% using the above criteria.



Basic Assumptions of the Psychometric Approach

    • Learning disabilities are caused by neurodevelopmental disorders affecting academic learning in otherwise normal children.
    • Specific learning disabilities are different from general learning difficulties caused by low IQ, sensory, physical, or emotional deficits, or socioeconomic disadvantage.
    • These assumptions were codified by Public law 94-142 (EAHCA, 1975) which led to the widespread use of psychometric definitions of LD having the IQ-achievement discrepancy as the central defining criterion.


problems with the psychometric approach to ld classification
Problems with the Psychometric Approach to LD Classification

No control for pre-school experiences and instruction

Low diagnostic validity of most tests

Rely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancy

“Wait to fail” approach to classification

Too many children classified as “disabled learners” (10%-20%)

Low expectations for achievement

No direction for instruction

Little or no attention given to the nature and quality of instruction


how did rti emerge as a new approach to learning disability classification
How did RTI Emerge as a New Approach to Learning Disability Classification?

Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery: The Prototypical RTI Model

Over two decades of research undermining the use of the IQ-achievement discrepancy to define learning disabilities.

Well over a decade of intervention research documenting the utility of using an RTI approach to identifying learning disabilities in lieu of the IQ-achievement discrepancy.

IDEIA (2004) which allowed and encouraged the use of RTI approaches to LD classification in lieu of traditional psychometric and discrepancy-based approaches.

Widespread implementation of RTI approaches to LD classification in subsequent years.



The language in IDEA 2004 offers two frames for viewing RtI:

A. A measurement problem – a strategy for identifying children who have disabilities. (§ 300.307)

B. An instructional problem – a strategy for ensuring a child has appropriate instruction, thereby reducing the number of children who end up with disabilities. (§ 300.307)

rti as identification a measurement problem
RtI as Identification(a measurement problem)
  • Goal: accurately identify individuals with LD.
  • Measurement priority requires standardization (in timing, instruction, assessments).
  • Assessment does not have to be instructionally informative.
  • Assume that standardized instruction that is effective on average in one setting will be effective with each new child in any new setting.
  • If the standard instruction is not successful even when the intensity is increased, the child is identified as having a disability the instruction remains “scientific, research based.”
rti as prevention an instructional problem
RtI as Prevention (an instructional problem)
  • Goal: Prevent children becoming LD - state oriented.
  • Emphasizes optimizing instruction for the individual. The central concern is providing the means and context for improving teaching (and teacher expertise).
  • Assessment must be informative about qualities of learning and teaching, it must be formative.
  • Instruction is not appropriate (evidence based) unless the evidence says it’s effective for this child (with this teacher).
why choose prevention instructional
Why Choose Prevention (instructional)
  • Although there are differences in children’s facility with language processing competencies that make it harder for some children to acquire literacy, given appropriate instruction, children with the most limited competencies have almost all been taught to read on par with their peers.
  • And, in the process, their language processing competencies improve (Vellutino & Scanlon)
  • By shifting attention to the nature of instruction, 76% of the remaining 1.5% can be brought into the normal range in 26-30 weeks. (Phillips & Smith)
assessing teaching to increase student learning and reduce learning disabilities
Assessing /Teaching to Increase Student Learning and Reduce Learning Disabilities
  • Teaching requires close attention to the child’s literate interactions and engaging the child at critical points in ways that keep the child in control of processing and expand the child’s use of resources.
  • The method of documenting learning must focus the teacher’s attention on the child’s processing and provide a history for problem solving.
  • Particularly for children experiencing difficulty becoming literate, improving the child’s learning requires examining (through data) and improving the teacher-child interaction and shared meaning-making.
  • Literacy must minimally be addressed as a meaning-making problem-solving activity of personal significance. Johnston/Phillips & Smith

Tertiary Prevention:



Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior








Secondary Prevention:

Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior



Primary Prevention:


Wide Systems for

All Students,

Staff, & Settings


~80% of Students

responsiveness to intervention
Responsiveness to Intervention
  • Intensive, Individual Interventions
  • Individual Students
  • Assessment-based
  • High Intensity
  • Intensive, Individual Interventions
  • Individual Students
  • Assessment-based
  • Intense, durable procedures
  • Targeted Group Interventions
  • Some students (at-risk)
  • High efficiency
  • Rapid response
  • Targeted Group Interventions
  • Some students (at-risk)
  • High efficiency
  • Rapid response
  • Universal Interventions
  • All students
  • Preventive, proactive
  • Universal Interventions
  • All settings, all students
  • Preventive, proactive

Academic Systems

Behavioral Systems








Integrated Functions Across All Tiers of Support

Team approach

Universal Screening

Evidence-based practices

Behavior Support

Reading Support

Progress monitoring

Data-based decisions




Supporting Social Competence &

Academic Achievement






Staff Behavior





Student Behavior



  • Function-based support
  • Wraparound
  • Person-centered planning



  • Check in/out
  • Targeted social skills instruction
  • Peer-based supports
  • Social skills club
  • Teach SW expectations
  • Proactive SW discipline
  • Positive reinforcement
  • Effective instruction
  • Parent engagement

~80% of Students



Continuum of Support for ALL


Social Behavior



Soc skills

Soc Studies


Label behavior…not people

Dec 7, 2007

practices of behavior and reading supports
Practices of Behavior and Reading Supports

Integrated Behavior and Reading Supports

Behavior Supports

Reading Supports

Independent Behavior and Academic Supports

meeting the rti challenge

Meeting The RTI Challenge

Dr. Stacy Williams

meeting the rti challenge1
Meeting The RTI Challenge
  • open to change—change in how students are identified for intervention; how interventions are selected, designed, and implemented; how student performance is measured and evaluated; how evaluations are conducted; and how decisions are made;
  • open to professional development—training (as needed) in evidence-based intervention approaches, progress monitoring methods, evaluation of instructional and program outcomes, and contextually based assessment procedures, and the implications for both pre-service and in-service training;
  • willing to adapt a more systemic approach to serving schools, including a workload that reflects less traditional service delivery (i.e., SLPs, SPs, etc) and more consultation and collaboration in general education classrooms;
pd for teachers of students with learning disabilities
PD for Teachers of Students with Learning Disabilities
  • understand and apply pedagogy related to cognition, learning theory, language development, behavior management and applied behavioral analysis,
  • possess a substantial base of knowledge about criteria for identifying scientific research-based methodology, instructional programs/methodology available for use with students with Learning Disabilities and individualization of instruction,
  • be proficient in providing direct skill instruction in reading, writing, spelling, math, listening and learning strategies,
  • be able to adjust instruction and learning supports based on student progress, observation and clinical judgment,
general educators
General Educators

Professional Development

Differentiating instruction for a diverse classroom,

Ongoing curriculum-based data collection and analysis,

Evidence-based intervention strategies for both academics and behaviors,

Progress monitoring processes and procedures,

Problem-solving methods to facilitate data-based instructional decision-making, and

Professional collaboration skills.

  • The general education teacher has a crucial role in ensuring that the RtI process is implemented with integrity.
    • Collection of data
    • Implementation of interventions
    • Tier 1 Instruction
the role of instruction in preventing and remediating reading difficulties

The Role of Instruction in Preventing and Remediating Reading Difficulties

Dr. Donna Scanlon

prevention the best part of the most promising practice of the logical focus of rti
Prevention – the best part of… the most promising practice of…the logical focus of… RtI
priorities for planning implementing instruction in an rti context
Priorities for Planning/Implementing Instruction in an RTI context

Knowledgeable teachers

  • Studies demonstrate that children’s learning is more dependent on what teachers do than on the programs they use.
    • Bond & Dykstra, 1967
    • Duffy & Hoffman, 1999
    • Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004
    • Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Vellutino, Schatschneider, & Sweeney, 2008
    • Tivnan & Hemphill, 2005
priorities for planning implementing instruction in an rti context1
Priorities for Planning/Implementing Instruction in an RTI context
  • Ensure that instruction across the tiers is:
    • Responsive
    • Coherent
    • Collaborative
    • Comprehensive

Experience in


Experience with

Books & Print


& Language

Word Identification

and Word Learning




Strategic Word Learning

Comprehension& Knowledge


Print Concepts

Phonological Awareness

Letter Names

Letter Sounds

The Alphabet Principle &

Alphabetic Code

Larger Orthographic


Motivation & Engagement

priorities for planning implementing instruction in an rti context2
Priorities for Planning/Implementing Instruction in an RTI context
  • Begin as early as potential difficulties are apparent and before the children have come to identify themselves as less able.
    • Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney (2005) found that small group intervention in kindergarten:
      • Reduced the number of children who qualified for more intensive forms of intervention in first grade
      • Substantially reduced the proportion of at risk children who continued to experience serious reading difficulties at the end of first grade.
areas of concern in rti implementation practices not supported by research
Areas of Concern in RTI Implementation & Practices not Supported by Research
  • Frequent progress monitoring of isolated skills
    • No evidence that it contributes to improved outcomes for children
  • Implementation of distinct programs at different tiers of instruction
    • Apt to confuse the children
  • Too much emphasis on fidelity of implementation
    • May result in lack of teacher responsiveness and failure to match instruction to the students’ current abilities.
  • Too much emphasis on isolated skills
    • May limit the amount of reading children do
    • May confuse children about the purposes of reading
  • Too much emphasis on fluency
    • May lead some children to be inattentive to meaning-making.