RtI : Gap Guzzling

1. RtI: Gap Guzzling Building Level Teams

2. Fundamental Assumptions There is a need for Special Education, but not as it currently exists. Education has not done well by students of diverse backgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and languages Too much time has been spent admiring problems. The best place to address diverse learning needs is in the instructional process.

3. If you want to change and improve the climate and outcomes of schooling – both for students and teachers, there are features of the school culture that have be to changed, and if they are not changed, your well intentioned efforts will be defeated. SeymoreSarason 1996

4. http://www.nsdc.org/connect/projects/resultsbased.cfm

5. School Improvement Activity What are your current SI Goals? What content is covered in the current professional development plan? What problems or issues often come up at your school?

6. The last 30 years of American Public Education can be characterized by remarkable sameness of approach and remarkable flatness of performance. Joel Klein Chancellor, NYC Schools

7. Piecemealness “It is not the pace of change that is the culprit, it is the piecemealnessand fragmentation what wears us down.” Fallan, 2003

8. Essential Components of PS/RTI An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery; A problem-solving method; and Multiple tiers of intervention service delivery

9. Response Components of RTI Student problems must be identified accurately Student responses that reflect those problems must be assessed in a relaible and valid manner

10. This is not about another new “initiative” This is about integrating what we know works!

11. Are We “Every Ed” Yet?: A National Perspective • CASE National Survey – www.k12spectrum.com • 424 Districts – 14% West, 18% Northeast, 32% Midwest, 37% South • Conducted March 7-18, 2008 • Margin of Error +/- 4.6%, 95% Confidence Level

12. Findings 32% of districts expect full implementation by 2010. • 47% of districts have a “defined RtI process”—53% do not • 71% of districts report that implementation is led by general education or a joint general ed/special ed effort • Only 29% of districts report that it is a special ed effort

13. Findings • 71% of districts report that they are using RtI for ALL students. 29% report that they are using it primarily to identify students for specialized services. • Implementation is primarily with elementary levels (67%), with 27% implementing at middle schools and 16% at high schools • 67% report planning to implement at middle and 49% report planning to implement at high school level.

14. Findings • 84% of districts report implementation for reading, 53% for math and 44% for behavior. • 96% of districts report that RtI has not been the focus of any legal proceedings.

15. Findings • Impact on employment – 75% of districts report no change in staff FTE – 22% of districts report increase in staff FTE – 3% of districts report decrease in staff FTE • 52% of districts report Tier 3 services for both general and special education students. 48% report Tier 3 services primarily for special education students

16. Is It All About Reading? Yes! 52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs 70% +/- of special education “activities” (e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases 94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts 46% of IDEA $$ go to improve reading Changes in LD Rules will affect the vast majority of special education “activities”

17. Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000) Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998) Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind. Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly) It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

18. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS CURRENT SYSTEM – PROCESS ABOVE RESULTS CURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL MODEL DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIAL INADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND RECOURSE CULTURE OF COMPLIANCE

19. PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT) IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK VALIDITY BETTER TEACHER PREPARATION NEEDED RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

20. PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON PROCESS EMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT FAILURE CONSIDER CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES AS GENERAL EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST

21. Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

22. Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000) Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998) Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind. Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly) It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

23. Status of Reauthorization- IDEA 2004 Title: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act” Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004 Signed by President Bush in December. IN EFFECT July 1, 2005 Regulations August, 2006

24. IDEA 2004 CHANGES: Eligibility Determinations • A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if determinant factor is: • Lack of scientifically-based instructional practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction. • Lack of instruction in math • Limited English Proficiency

25. IDEA 2004 ChangesSpecific Learning Disabilities The LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

26. Regulations §300.307 Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with §300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State-- (1) Must 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(c)(10); (2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and (3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

27. Regulations (b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§300.304 through 300.306-- (1) Data that 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 (2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

28. Regulations §300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination. (a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in §300.306(a)(2), must contain a statement of-- (1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability; (7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention-– (i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered data collected; and (ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were notified about-- (A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided; (B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning;

29. Federal LAW Gave YOU A Choice! (6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES- IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning. ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3). NEW YORK STATE LAW: PHASE OUT OF DISCREPANCY MODEL BY 2012

30. What we know • We know far more about the causes of learning disability and reading problems • We know more about effective instruction • We know more about the limitations of our current systems and have viable alternatives • It is not so much the issue any longer of “what works?” • It is an issue of how we deploy it so that it can work.

31. RtI: Whachamacallit • Problem Solving Model-TAT/SAT • School Improvement/Safe & Civil School – Review, Revise, Adopt, Implement • Action Research • Gap Analysis • Circle of Inquiry • Audit • Baldridge – Plan, Do, Study, Act

32. Paradigm Shift FROM: • Eligibility focus – Diagnose and Place – Get label TO: • Outcome focus – Problem Solving and Response to Intervention – Get help

33. Instruction:The absolute place to start! How effective is the instruction in your classroom, building, district?

34. Tier I Universal instruction to all students Is the core curriculum effective (80% or 90% of students making benchmarks)? Which students are at-risk for failure? Does any over-representation of particular student groups exist in those students identified at risk?

35. Decisions Made Related to Tier I Level of effectiveness and levels of over-representation (or disproportionality) If evidence for either exists, modifications must be made to the core instructional programs. If core instruction is both effective and equitable, then tier 2 (supplemental) interventions are provided to those students identified as “at-risk”

36. Tier II Interventions delivered to smaller groups either in general education classroom or outside of general education classroom Interventions must be provided in addition to core instruction. Academic Engaged Time (AET) predicts achievement better than any other variable

37. Tier II Focus on particular skill areas that need strengthening Progress monitoring of students performance is conducted frequently with same measures used to assess Tier I performance Effective Tier II intervention-approximately 70% of students should have a positive response and will reach benchmark performance A small percent will not respond to Tier II levels of instruction and will require the most intensive instruction (Tier III)

38. Tier III Developed based on student needs following a problem solving process that will use diagnostic assessment to inform intervention development Progress monitoring of intervention effectiveness is the same as Tier III as Tier II Does not mean more of what is not working at Tier II unless you are seeing positive gains

39. Characteristics of Tier III Interventions Delivered in very small groups or to students individually Must be provided in addition to Tier I instruction.-does not supplant the core instruction Should be receiving the most instructional minutes.

40. Characteristics of Tier III Interventions Interventions focus more narrowly on defined skill areas. Most minutes of instruction Smallest number of children in the group Most opportunities to respond and receive corrective feedback Most practice Most powerful motivational support

41. Implementing Response to Intervention • Three Phases of Implementation • Consensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-in • Infrastructure Development • Implementation

42. Steps in Implementing School Wide Assessment to Assist in Improving Outcomes for All Students? Establish benchmarks (performance standards) at various points in time for various skills Identify effectiveness of Universal Instruction (Tier I) Identify Needs for Tier II Identify at-risk students to receive Tier II or III interventions Progress monitoring (Tiers I, II and III)

43. Establish Benchmarks (Performance Standards) at Various Points in Time for Various Skills Benchmark= average performance or level of performance that predicts success (e.g., ISAT or behavior standard) Occur at least three times per year (fall, winter, and spring) Assessment method should be time efficient to administer and score

44. School Wide Assessment Strategies

45. Behavior Variable • Office discipline referrals • Tardiness • Attendance • Homework Completion levels/rates • Teacher implemented procedures • Others? • Upload to database monthly

46. Academic VariablesCurriculum based measurement Using probes (brief assessments) to measure student performance. Dynamic- sensitive to change Indicators- overall performance (health) Skill- specific observable and measurable behavior

47. Math Variables Digits correct per minute (add, subtract etc.) Numbers identified per minute These are indicators! Not achievement measures!

48. Spelling Variables Letter sequences correct per minute B-o-y- These are indicators not achievement measures.

49. Writing Variables Correct word sequences These are indicators not achievement measures.

50. Reading Variables Initial sounds correct Rate of decoding pseudowords words Oral reading rate (WRCPM) Letter naming Rate of breaking words down into sounds These are indicators not achievement measures!