Theresa m janczak ph d assistant professor exceptional education buffalo state college
Download
1 / 41

Response to Intervention: An Overview - PowerPoint PPT Presentation


  • 100 Views
  • Updated On :

Theresa M. Janczak, Ph.D. Assistant Professor Exceptional Education Buffalo State College. Theresa M. Janczak . Response to Intervention: An Overview. Objectives. Develop a better understanding surrounding the construct of RtI Discuss the impact of RtI relative to your role as an educator

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

PowerPoint Slideshow about 'Response to Intervention: An Overview' - prem


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
Theresa m janczak ph d assistant professor exceptional education buffalo state college l.jpg

Theresa M. Janczak, Ph.D.

Assistant Professor

Exceptional Education

Buffalo State College

Theresa M. Janczak

Response to Intervention: An Overview


Objectives l.jpg
Objectives

  • Develop a better understanding surrounding the construct of RtI

  • Discuss the impact of RtI relative to your role as an educator

  • Identify source materials related to RtI


Topics l.jpg
Topics

  • Definition of RtI

  • Rationale: Where did it come from and why do we need it?

  • Support for RtI in Federal Law

  • Essential Features

  • RtI as a Multi-tiered Prevention System

  • Progress Monitoring and CBM

  • Next Steps

  • Resources


Defining rti l.jpg
Defining RtI

RtI is the practice of providing high-quality instruction/interventionmatched to student needs

and

monitoring progress on a frequent basis by examining learning rate over time and level of performance

to

inform educational decisions.

NASDSE, 2005


Rationale why do we need rti l.jpg
Rationale: Why Do We Need RtI?

  • Dramatic increase in the number of students identified as LD = costly special education programs

  • Dissatisfaction with current method of identifying students with LD

  • Identification and services occur too late

    • 88% of poor readers in first grade will continue to poor readers in fourth grade (Juel, 1988)



Iq achievement discrepancy model l.jpg
IQ-ACHIEVEMENT DISCREPANCY MODEL

Is there a significant difference between a student’s score on an IQ test and scores on an achievement test?


Limitations to the test score discrepancy model gresham 2001 l.jpg
Limitations to the ‘test-score discrepancy model’ (Gresham, 2001):

  • Relies on a “WAIT to FAIL’ MODEL

  • 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.

  • Provides limited instructional utility

  • Lack of uniformity among states regarding discrepancy formulas


The prominent alternative defining ld in terms of severe low achievement l.jpg
The Prominent Alternative: Defining LD in Terms of Severe Low Achievement

RTI

  • LD as nonresponders to validated instruction.

  • ASSUMPTION: If a child does not respond to instruction that is effective for the vast majority of children, then there is something different about the child experiencing the nonresponse.

  • RtI eliminates poor instructional quality as a viable explanation for learning difficulty.


Slide10 l.jpg

Where Did It Come From? Low Achievement

  • President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)

    • Excessive paperwork limited instruction

    • 2 separate systems

    • Poor instruction may contribute to poor achievement

  • National Research Council (2002)

    • Advocated early screening and RtI models

  • LD Summit (2001)

    • IQ-Achievement discrepancy formulas inadequate

    • Need for alternative approaches

  • Reauthorization of IDEA 2004

    • Promotes early screening and intervention

    • Recommends a multi-tier intervention strategy

    • Better integration between general and special education

    • On-going, systematic progress monitoring


Idea 2004 the changes l.jpg
IDEA 2004…The Changes Low Achievement

IDEA 2004 includes two important innovations designed to promote change:

  • Explicitly allows states to use RtI to identify LD, and

  • Forbids states from forcing schools to use a discrepancy model to identify LD.

    • Until July 1, 2012


Idea 2004 the changes12 l.jpg
IDEA 2004 …The Changes Low Achievement

  • IDEA 2004 adds a new concept in eligibility that prohibits children from being found eligible for special education if they have not received instruction in reading that is scientifically research-based, including the five essential components of reading instruction identified by the Reading First Program.

    • Phonics

    • Reading fluency

    • Vocabulary development

    • Reading comprehension

    • Phonemic awareness


Idea 2004 the changes determining specific learning disabilities l.jpg
IDEA 2004 … The Changes: Low AchievementDetermining Specific Learning Disabilities

  • Ensure that underachievement of a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, …

  • Obtain data which demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

    Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)


Idea 2004 the changes determining specific learning disabilities14 l.jpg
IDEA 2004 … The Changes: Low AchievementDetermining Specific Learning Disabilities

  • Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress, during instruction, which is provided to the child’s parents.

  • Source: IDEA (2006). Regulations from US Department of Education (300.309)


Part 200 regs l.jpg
Part 200 Low AchievementRegs.

Authorizes the use of RtI in the State's criteria to determine learning disabilities (LD) and requires, effective July 1, 2012, that all school districts have an RtI program in place as part of the process to determine if a student in grades K-4 is a student with a learning disability in the area of reading. “Effective on or after July 1, 2012, a school district shall not use the severe discrepancy criteria to determine that a student in kindergarten through grade four has a learning disability in the area of reading.”

[8 NYCRR section 200.4(j)]


Response to intervention is l.jpg
Response to Intervention is : Low Achievement

…a focus on intervention rather than on what is wrong with the child

… a focus on the solution rather than the problem

… a focus on addressing the needs of all students having difficulty, not just those with labels

… a focus on positive outcomes for all students

… a focus on all educators being responsible for all children

…better integration of programs and services for all children


Current system l.jpg
CURRENT SYSTEM Low Achievement

Reading Recovery

Special Education

Special Ed.

Title I

Remedial Reading

General Education


Under an rti system l.jpg
Under an RtI System Low Achievement

Special Education

General Education

Special Education

Intervention

General

Education


Critical features of rti l.jpg
Critical Features of RtI Low Achievement

  • High quality, research-based instruction and intervention

  • Interventions with increasing intensity

  • Measurement

    • universal screening for all 3 times per year

    • systematic and frequent progress monitoring to determine response by examining:

      • level of performance

      • rate of performance

  • Data-based decision-making

  • Multi-tiered Model


  • Rti model l.jpg
    RtI Low AchievementModel


    Health care analogy l.jpg

    Tier 3 Low Achievement

    Health Care Analogy

    • Tier 2

    • inexpensive diuretics

    • frequent monitoring

    • experimentation w/more expensive medications e.g. ACE inhibitors, beta blockers)

    • on-going monitoring

    • Tier 1

    • annual check-up

    • screened for high-blood pressure

    • monitor over the next 6-8 weeks to verify or disprove initial results

    Tier 1

    • annual check –up

    • HBP screening indicates risk

    • monitor over next 6-8 weeks to verify or disconfirm risk


    Three tiers of rti l.jpg

    TIER 1: Primary Prevention Low Achievement

    - General education setting

    - Research-based instruction

    - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk

    - PM to (dis)confirm risk status

    AT RISK

    TIER 2: Secondary Prevention

    - Validated or researched-based tutoring

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPONSIVE

    TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention

    - Special education

    - PM to set IEP goals

    - PM to formulate individualized programs

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPONSIVE

    Three Tiers of RTI


    Typical rti procedure l.jpg

    TIER 1: Primary Prevention Low Achievement

    - General education setting

    - Research-based instruction

    - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk

    - PM to (dis)confirm risk status

    AT RISK

    TIER 2: Secondary Prevention

    - Validated or researched-based tutoring

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPON.

    TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention

    - Special education

    - PM to set IEP goals

    - PM to formulate individualized programs

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPON.

    TYPICAL RtI PROCEDURE

    • Screen all students to identify suspected at-risk students.

    • Monitor progress of students suspected to be at risk to (dis)confirm risk.

    • Provide second preventative tutoring to at-risk students, while progress is monitored to assess response.


    Typical rti procedure24 l.jpg

    TIER 1: Primary Prevention Low Achievement

    - General education setting

    - Research-based instruction

    - Screening to identify students suspected to be at risk

    - PM to (dis)confirm risk status

    AT RISK

    TIER 2: Secondary Prevention

    - Validated or researched-based tutoring

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPON.

    TIER 3: Tertiary Prevention

    - Special education

    - PM to set IEP goals

    - PM to formulate individualized programs

    - PM to assess responsiveness

    RESPONSIVE

    UNRESPON.

    TYPICAL RtI PROCEDURE

    • Move students who prove unresponsive to secondary preventative tutoring to tertiary prevention. They receive comprehensive evaluation to answer questions and to determine disability.

    • Monitor progress in tertiary prevention to set IEP goals, formulate effective programs, and determine exit decisions.



    Universal screening math26 l.jpg
    Universal Screening: Math Low Achievement


    Who s benefitting from intervention l.jpg
    Who’s Benefitting From Intervention? Low Achievement

    NONRESPONDER

    RESPONDER

    A student who makes minimal or no gains after being taught with high quality, validated interventions.

    A student who makes expected gains and makes progress when evidence-based instruction is provided in the general education classroom.


    How do we know who s responding vs nonresponding l.jpg
    How Do We Know Who’s Responding vs. Low AchievementNonresponding?

    MONITOR STUDENT’S PROGRESS

    USING CURRICULUM BASED MEASUREMENTS (CBM)


    Slide29 l.jpg
    CBM Low Achievement

    • A method of monitoring student progress

    • Basic skills assessment:

      • Reading

      • Mathematics

      • Spelling

      • Written expression

    • Timed and brief “probes”

    • Standardized administration

    • CBM probes – 1 to 5 minutes

    • Probes scored for:

      • Speed or fluency

      • Accuracy of performance


    Three purposes of cbm l.jpg
    Three Purposes of CBM Low Achievement

    • Screening

    • Progress Monitoring

    • Instructional Diagnosis


    Advantages of cbm l.jpg
    Advantages of CBM Low Achievement

    • Quick and easy to administer

    • Curriculum overlap

    • Sensitive to change over short period of time

    • Backed by 25 years of empirical research supporting its use


    Curriculum based measurement measures l.jpg

    Pre-Reading Measures Low Achievement

    Phoneme Segmentation

    Letter Sound Fluency

    Letter Name Fluency

    Nonsense Word Fluency

    Reading Measures

    Oral Reading Fluency

    Maze Fluency

    Curriculum – Based Measurement: Measures

    Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32.

    http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html


    Curriculum based measurement measures33 l.jpg

    Mathematics Measures Low Achievement

    Computation

    Concepts and Applications

    Spelling Measure

    Written Expression Measure

    Curriculum – Based Measurement: Measures

    Adapted from: Fuchs, L., & Fuchs, D. (2003). Curriculum - Based Measurement: A Best Practice Guide. NASP Communiqué, 32.

    http://www.nasponline.org/publications/cq322cbminsert.html


    What we look for in cbm l.jpg
    What We Look For in CBM Low Achievement

    INCREASING SCORES:

    Student is becoming a better reader.

    FLAT SCORES:

    Student is not profiting from instruction and requires a change in the instructional program.


    Who s benefitting from instruction l.jpg
    Who’s Benefitting from Instruction? Low Achievement

    Reading 2

    Sarah Smith

    Words Read Correctly

    Sep

    Nov

    Dec

    Jan

    Feb

    Mar

    Apr

    May


    What are some examples of cbms for math and reading l.jpg
    What are some examples of CBMs for math and reading? Low Achievement

    Monitoring Basic Skills Progress (Pro-Ed Online, 2006);

    DIBELS (2006);

    Intervention CBM probes (Interventioncentral.org) FREE

    AIMSweb (2006)


    Internet resources for cbm reading l.jpg
    Internet Resources for CBM Reading Low Achievement

    • Intervention Central—CBM Warehouse

      www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/cbmwarehouse.shtml

    • National Center on Student Progress Monitoring

      www.studentprogress.org

    • Official DIBELS Homepage

      www.dibels.uoregon.edu

    • Research Institute on Progress Monitoring

      progressmonitoring.org


    What s different l.jpg

    New System Low Achievement

    What’s Different?

    Old System

    No universal screening

    Little progress monitoring

    “WAIT to FAIL” model

    Focus on within-in child problems or deficits

    Clear eligibility criteria

    All students are screened

    Progress monitoring assesses whether students are reaching benchmarks

    Students are provided with interventions at the first sign they are struggling

    Ecological focus

    Tiered model of delivery


    What s different39 l.jpg

    New System Low Achievement

    What’s Different?

    Old System

    Multidisciplinary team made up mainly of special education personnel

    Reliance on assessment, particularly standardized tests

    Assessment data collected during a limited # of sessions

    Problem solving or intervention team; include general and special educators

    Collaborative educational decisions based on ongoing school, classroom, and individual student data

    Multiple data points collected over time and in direct relationship to the intervention provided


    What s different40 l.jpg

    New System Low Achievement

    What’s Different?

    Old System

    Comprehensive evaluation consisting of mainly formal assessment

    LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” as compared to a measure of the child’s ability (IQ-achievement discrepancy)

    Full and individualized evaluation relies heavily on existing data collected throughout the RtI process

    LD construct of “unexpected underachievement” indicated by low achievement and insufficient response to validated interventions that work with most students, even struggling ones.


    Caution l.jpg
    Caution Low Achievement

    • The devil is in the details. The success of Response to Interventionwill depend on whether it is appropriately implemented by highly-trained professionals - and this is likely to be a problem.

      http://www.wrightslaw.com/info/rti.index.htm


    ad