RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

rti reasons practices systems considerations l.
Download
Skip this Video
Loading SlideShow in 5 Seconds..
RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations PowerPoint Presentation
Download Presentation
RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations

play fullscreen
1 / 44
RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations
143 Views
Download Presentation
waite
Download Presentation

RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - E N D - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Presentation Transcript

  1. RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, & Considerations George Sugai OSEP Center on PBIS University of Connecticut December 6, 2007 www.pbis.org www.cber.org George.sugai@uconn.edu

  2. My “Task”

  3. STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT Good Teaching Social Behavior Support Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

  4. RtI: Good “IDEiA” Policy Approach for redesigning & establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable for all students, families & educators • NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention • NOT limited to special education • NOT new

  5. RtI

  6. Where’d “triangle” come from….a PBIS perspective?

  7. “Triangle” ?’s • Why triangle? • Why not pyramid or octagon? • Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers? • What’s it got to do w/ education? • Where’d those %’s come from?

  8. Circa 1994

  9. Tertiary (FEW) Reduce complications, intensity, severity of current cases Secondary (SOME) Reduce current cases of problem behavior Primary (ALL) Reduce new cases of problem behavior Public Health & Disease PreventionKutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994

  10. Tertiary Prevention: Specialized Individualized Systems for Students with High-Risk Behavior CONTINUUM OF SCHOOL-WIDE INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR SUPPORT ~5% Secondary Prevention: Specialized Group Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior ~15% Primary Prevention: School-/Classroom- Wide Systems for All Students, Staff, & Settings ~80% of Students

  11. 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 Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success Academic Systems Behavioral Systems 1-5% 1-5% 5-10% 5-10% 80-90% 80-90% Circa 1996

  12. RtI Application Examples

  13. Responsiveness to InterventionAcademic+ Social Behavior

  14. RTI A Continuum of Support for All Few Some All Dec 6, 2007

  15. Mean Proportion of Students 3% 8% 89% 10% 16% 74% 11% 18% 71% ODR rates vary by level K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

  16. A few kids get many ODRs 32% 43% 25% 48% 37% 15% 45% 40% 15% K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

  17. Has triangle been useful?

  18. 05% 20% 11% 22% 84% 58% SWPBS schools are more preventive

  19. 04% 14% 08% 17% 88% 69% SWPBS schools are more preventive

  20. CONTINUUM of SWPBS • Tertiary Prevention • Function-based support Audit Identify existing efforts by tier Specify outcome for each effort Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes Establish decision rules (RtI) ~5% ~15% • Secondary Prevention • Check in/out • Primary Prevention • SWPBS ~80% of Students

  21. RtI Systems & Considerations?

  22. Quotable Fixsen • “Policy is • allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs” • Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action” • “Training does not predict action” • “Manualized treatments have created overly rigid & rapid applications”

  23. “Train & Hope”

  24. Possible RtI OutcomesGresham, 2005

  25. Avoiding False +/-

  26. Still not so simple: EBD?Gresham 2005

  27. Implications & Complexities(E.g., Gresham, Grimes, Kratochwill, Tilly, etc.) • Psychometric features of measures? • Standardized measurement procedures? • Documented “cut” criteria for determining responsiveness? • Interventions efficacy, effectiveness, & relevance? • Cultural, familial, language, etc. considerations? • Students with disabilities? • Professional development? • Applications across grades/schools & curriculum areas? • Treatment integrity & accountability? • Functioning of general v. special education? • K-12 applications

  28. Simple Systems Elements Supporting Social Competence & Academic Achievement OUTCOMES Supporting Decision Making Supporting Staff Behavior DATA SYSTEMS PRACTICES Supporting Student Behavior

  29. Local Demonstration w/ Fidelity Need, Agreements, Adoption, & Outcomes 1. IMPLEMENTATION PHASES 2. Sustained Capacity, Elaboration, & Replication 4. Systems Adoption, Scaling, & Continuous Regeneration 3.

  30. SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION Continuous Self-Assessment Relevance Priority Efficacy Fidelity Valued Outcomes Effective Practices Practice Implementation Local Implementation Capacity

  31. Future: Document… • Technical adequacy of RtI components (measurement, decision rules, etc.) • Full implementation across range of contexts • Impact & relationship of academic & social behavior interaction • Systems, resources, competence needed to maintain effects, support high fidelity of implementation, expand applications, & sustain implementation of practices

  32. Messages • RtI logic is “good thing” for all students, families, & schools • Still some work to refine technology, practices, & systems • Consider implications & complexities for practice & systems implementation

  33. Keynote “Homework” • Work as team • Think/work systemically • Develop fluency w/ “Big Ideas” • Work smarter w/ existing resources • Conduct self-audit

  34. George.sugai@uconn.edu www.pbis.org www.scalingcenter.org