Introduction to RTI and the OrRTI Project

1. Introduction to RTI and the OrRTI Project David Putnam, Jr., Ph.D. OrRTI Spring Conference Bend, Oregon May 21, 2014

2. Harmonic Convergence and Golden Opportunity RTI/MTSS

3. But we are Failing Far Too Many Students • NAEP • OAKS • DIBELS, EasyCBM, AIMSweb • College & Career Readiness • CCSS

4. BIG IDEAS • Overview of RTI and OrRTI • Essential features • Myths and facts • Benefits and outcomes • Implementation considerations

5. Oregon RTI Project Growth

6. Cadre 1: 2005-2006 Pendleton Tigard-Tualatin Sheridan Ontario Roseburg % of Oregon Student Population

7. Cadre 2: 2006-2007 North Clackamas Ione Hood River Pilot Rock Canby Crow-Applegate-Lorane Bethel Lowell Nyssa % of Oregon Student Population

8. Cadre 3: 2007-2008 Astoria Sherwood Nestucca Valley Scio Baker Grants Pass % of Oregon Student Population

9. Cadre 4: 2008-2009 Hermiston Seaside Fern Ridge Central Curry % of Oregon Student Population

10. Cadre 5: 2009-2010 Knappa Cascade Springfield Crook County Bend-LaPine North Bend % of Oregon Student Population

11. Cadre 6: 2010-2011 Parkrose* Gresham-Barlow* Estacada Lebanon Sweet Home Sisters Bandon Glendale Central Point % of Oregon Student Population

12. Cadre 7: 2011-2012 Cadre 7: 2011-2012 St. Helens David Douglas Junction City Yoncalla North Lake Paisley Klamath County Lake County % of Oregon Student Population

13. Cadre 8: 2012-2013 Cadre 8: 2012-2013 Clatskanie* Morrow Forest Grove North Powder North Marion Mitchell McKenzie* John Day Reedsport Butte Falls % of Oregon Student Population

14. Cadre 9: 2013-2014 Rainer Gladstone Mapleton Harney County Coquille Sutherlin Port Orford Brookings-Harbour % of Oregon Student Population* *Projected

15. Cadre 9.2: 2013-2014 Clatskanie Milton-Freewater North Wasco Jewell TTSD BEND Ontario Creswell Eagle Point Roseburg Plush Adel Three Rivers Klamath Falls City % of Oregon Student Population* *Projected

16. Essential Features

17. RTI Essential Components Data-Based Decision Making with Decision Rules Training Coaching Fidelity Standards of Practice SLD Decision Making Progress Monitoring Interventions Screening Core Professional Learning & Support Leadership Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making Culture

18. RTI Essential Components Data-Based Decision Making with Decision Rules Training Coaching Fidelity Standards of Practice SLD Decision Making Progress Monitoring Interventions Screening Core Professional Learning & Support Leadership Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making Culture

19. RTI Essential Components Data-Based Decision Making with Decision Rules Training Coaching Fidelity Standards of Practice SLD Decision Making Progress Monitoring Interventions Screening Core Professional Learning & Support Leadership Teaming/Data-Based Decision Making Culture

20. ASSESSMENT DATA-BASED DECISION MAKING INSTRUCTION SPED referral? Individual Problem Solving Team 6-8 weeks Individual Problem Solving Team Formal Diagnostic As needed Tier 3 Individualized Intervention Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Tier 2/3 Supplemental Intervention Progress Monitoring Weekly-Monthly Intervention Review Team 6-8 weeks Research-Based Core Curriculum w/ Strong Instruction Schoolwide Screening reviewed 3 times/year Universal Screening 3 times/year

21. Myths& Facts

27. In The Past Title Reading or Other Reading Support General Education Special Education Some “Fell’” Through Some “Fell’” Through

28. Full Continuum of Support Title Reading & Reading Support, Gifted Ed. General Education Special Education, Gifted Ed. I I I I I I I I Interventions I all along the continuum! =

31. It’s about core instruction

32. “RTI kids” ALL your students

33. “RTI kids” ALL your students

34. “RTI Time” Every minute of every day

35. “RTI Room” Your entire school

40. RTI for SLD is legally, procedurally, and ethically the right thing to do • IDEA 2004: All states MUST permit the use of RTI • Primary features of RTI required for ALL SLD evaluations regardless of method • Federal Register and OARS explicit that cognitive evaluation is NOT REQUIRED • Few challenges to RTI have reached the courts and the majority of decisions have been deferential to districts

41. Myth: RTI will lead to legal trouble, especially with Child Find LORE: The response to intervention (RTI) approach for identifying students with specific learning disabilities will generate a spate of losing litigation concerning child find under the IDEA. (Betesh, Brown, Thompson, &Zirkel, 2012)

42. Despite “dire predictions” few child find issues with RTI itself LAW: …thus far no published court decision has specifically concerned RTI and child find, and the few pertinent hearing officer decisions have been deferential to school districts (e.g., Cobb County School District, 2012; Joshua Independent School District, 2010). (Betesh, Brown, Thompson, & Zirkel, 2012)

43. IDEA Complaints in Oregon (2012-2013)

44. Benefits and Outcomes

45. OrRTI vs. Non OrRTI District Comparison

46. 5 year change in % of students (K-5) at or above benchmark by school 11 schools 47 schools, 81%

47. 5 year change in % of students (K-5) well below benchmark/intensive by school 41 schools, 71% 17 schools

48. Districts Implementing RTI Effectively

49. The Importance of Effective Core Instruction (Cadre 1)

50. Cadre 1: Core Implementation School has 90-minute (or less) reading block* (interventions occur WITHIN the core) *60 minute block for ½ day kindergarten +1.7% *K – NWF; 1st-5th – grade ORF