1 / 81

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Implementation of Response to Intervention

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Implementation of Response to Intervention. Daniel J. Reschly dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu 615-708-7910 Council for Learning Disabilities Dallas, TX October 3, 2009. Vanderbilt Is NOT A Football Power. 25 Consecutive Losing Seasons?? But 7-6 in

raquel
Télécharger la présentation

Overcoming Barriers to Effective Implementation of Response to Intervention

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. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. Overcoming Barriers to Effective Implementation of Response to Intervention Daniel J. Reschly dan.reschly@vanderbilt.edu 615-708-7910 Council for Learning Disabilities Dallas, TX October 3, 2009 Reschly RTI

  2. Vanderbilt Is NOT A Football Power 25 Consecutive Losing Seasons?? But 7-6 in 2008 Vandy is #1 in Special Education Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 2

  3. Barriers to Effective RTI • Conceptual---purposes, organization of tiers • Data Collection and Use • Educator preparation • Fidelity of treatment • Interventions for academics, behavior, and emotional regulation • Educator and community commitments to improve results • Resources Reschly RTI

  4. Conceptual Barriers: What Is Response to Intervention (RTI)? • System Change that features: • Scientifically-based instruction/interventions matched to student needs + good fidelity • Formative evaluation including frequent progress monitoring in relation to benchmarks, with decision rules applied • Decisions driven by student RTI, including gen’l ed instruction/intervention, remedial services/individual interventions, sp ed eligibility, placement, annual review and exit • Purpose: Improve results Reschly RTI

  5. RTI Model Differences • Restricted vs Comprehensive System Wide • LD Identification Only • Do Tiers I and II, then traditional evaluation • Or Use RTI in eligibility determination and in the design, implementation, and evaluation of IEPs • Academic only or Academic and Behavior • False dichotomies: Standard Protocol vs Problem Solving vs Recognition of Both • Choices determined by nature of problem • Use of both in many situations Reschly RTI

  6. Misconceptions about RTI • RTI is a process, NOT an intervention • RTI is new; Actual origins • RTI applies only to • Identification of SLD • Behavior • General education or ______________________ • RTI restricted to problem solving or • RTI restricted to standard protocol • RTI only at elementary level Reschly RTI

  7. RTI Models • Standard Protocol • Generally effective interventions delivered to small group of students at Tier II • Reading interventions (Vaughn et al, 2003) Groups of 3-5 • Behavior interventions for disruptive students • Problem Solving • 4 stage process, multiple objectives at each stage • High levels of success if implemented with good fidelity • Applicable to individuals, classrooms, and systems Reschly RTI

  8. Standard Protocol Reading Models for Tier II • http://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/ U Texas, Vaughn • http://www.fcrr.org/ Florida State Torgesen • Reading five domains taught each day • Direct instruction • Weekly progress monitoring • Individual graphs, progress against goals referenced to benchmarks • Decisions determined by student response • Fade Tier II and return to general education • Consider Tier III based on insufficient response Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 8

  9. Problem Solving Interventions • Reschly, D. J., & Wood-Garnett, S. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Response to Intervention at Middle and High Schools. Washington DC: :Learning Point Associates, National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality. http://www.tqsource.org/publications/September2009Brief.pdf • Criteria for teacher preparation in problem solving Reschly RTI

  10. PROBLEM SOLVING CHART Does the *%$# thing work? Yes No Don’t mess with it! Did you mess with it? You Idiot! Yes No No Hide it! Yes Will you catch hell? Does anyone else know? No Yes You poor slob! Ignore it Can you blame somebody else? No Yes 10 NO PROBLEM Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 10

  11. RESPONSE TO Intervention POLICY CONSIDERATIONS AND IMPLEMENTATION Order at: www.nasdse.org Cost: $15 with discounts for large orders Reschly RTI

  12. RTI IS A Fad? • Strong national commitments to improving results • Achievement results, international comparisons • Large disparities by group • Expensive programs with undocumented benefits, General Ed. Title I and Sp Ed • Poor overall outcomes re: benchmark tests, graduate rates, early adult outcomes • Overrepresentation in sp ed • Poor connections between child evaluations, eligibility decisions, and results Reschly RTI

  13. Figure 1. NAEP (2007) Reading Results for Five Groups 4th Grade 64 49 54 51 24 23 NCES Reading 2007, Table A-9, pp. 54-55 Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 13

  14. 4th Grade Mathematics (2007) By Group % 14 Reschly RTI Group

  15. 8th Grade NAEP Results (2007) by Group Pe rcent 15 Reschly RTI Group

  16. Reschly RTI

  17. Special Education Sea Change • 1975-1997 Procedural Compliance • 1990s Evaluations of Title I and special education • 1997-Outcomes, Improvement; Enhanced in 2004 • Expectations that current results will improve • OSEP compliance monitoring of states focused on 20 outcome indicators • Increased emphasis on performance in the general education curriculum, especially for SLD • Increased emphasis on inclusion Reschly RTI Reschly IDEA and RTI 17

  18. Some things do not make sense Reschly RTI

  19. Progression of Research, Policy, and Legal Requirements • RESEARCH: Scientific research with practice demonstrations leading to • POLICY: Multiple policy analyses in presented in prestigious reports leading to • FEDERAL LAW: Multiple layers of Federal legal requirements leading to • STATE LAW: Changes in state rules leading to • SCALING UP: Scaling up efforts in states Reschly RTI

  20. What Does NOT Work(Forness et al, 1997; Kavale 2005, 2007) • Perceptual motor training • Matching instruction to presumed cognitive strengths • Training cognitive weaknesses (e.g., working memory) to improve achievement • Special classes for students with high incidence disabilities (exceptions?) • Unstructured instruction with learners who have limited prior knowledge Reschly RTI 20

  21. What Works?? RTI Research Foundations TreatmentEffect Size • Applied Behavior Analysis. + 1.00 • CBM+Graphing+Formative Evaluation + reinforcement + 1.00 • Explicit Instruction and Problem Solving + .70 to 1.50 • Comprehension Strategies +1.00 • Math Interventions +.60 to 1.10 • Writing Interventions +.50 to .85 • Matching instruction to learning style +/- 0.00 Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 21

  22. Revolution in Federal Policy (ESEA and IDEA) • “Scientifically-based” instruction in ESEA (NCLB) • Frequent assessment, progress monitoring, formative evaluation and well integrated multiple tiers of intervention • Prevention in IDEA and EIS-district discretion • Prerequisites to referral and eligibility evaluation • Progress monitoring in general education for SLD • Appropriate instruction in reading and math, including 5 content areas in reading • LEP cannot be a determinate factor Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 22 Reschly RTI 22

  23. Reschly RTI

  24. Conceptual Barrier: Poorly Defined Tiers • Pushing RTI down from special education • Inverted pyramid, more at Tier 3 than Tiers 1 & 2 • Poor buyin from general education Reschly RTI

  25. Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision • Tier I: General Education: All students; Effective instruction, 80-85% at benchmarks; PREVENTION • Tier II: Standard Protocol and Problem Solving:(10 to 20 weeks)Small group and individualized interventions: EARLY IDENTIFICATION-TREATMENT • Decision Making: Continue Program, Modifications, Comprehensive Evaluation?? • Tier III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction in General and/or Special education • Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation Reschly RTI

  26. Multi-Tiered Behavior Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision • Level I: General Education : School wide positive discipline, effective classroom organization and management, teacher assistance teams PREVENTION • Level II: Individualized Problem Solving re: Behavior: Targeted, intense individual interventions in general education EI-ET • Decision Making? Continue Program, Modifications, Comprehensive Evaluation • Level III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction in General or Special education • Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation Reschly RTI

  27. Figure 2. Multi-tiered System with Tiers Varying in Intervention Intensity and Measurement Precision More intense, longer term Interventions of > one year Tier III Sp Ed and other options Progression to higher and lower tiers determined by children’s RTI Sp Ed Eligibility Determination for Some 10% to 12% Decisions: Continue, Modify, Go to More Intense, Small group and individual inter- ventions-Problem solving and standard protocol reading/math Tier II: More Intense Academic and Behavioral Interventions (10-20 weeks) 10% to 15% of students Tier I: Academics and Behavior in General Education Effective core instruction in basic academic skills School-wide positive supports and effective classroom management All students Reschly RTI

  28. Barrier: Poor or Incomplete Data • Data driven • Right data, reflects gap between actual and desired performance • Sensitive to growth, small increments • Valid and reliable Reschly RTI

  29. Tier I: Assessment: Academics • Universal Screening in Behavior and Academics • Academics: Screen all students, begin in kindergarten; 3 times per year with appropriate early literacy and math measures • More intense instruction and monitoring within classroom for students below trajectories toward passing state benchmark tests and increase assessment to 2 Xs per month • Consider use of paraprofessionals (Pat Vadasy at U of WA) in screening and delivery of interventions Reschly RTI Reschly RTI 29

  30. Effective Formative Evaluation Measures: Academics and Behavior • Direct measures of skills • Natural settings • Efficient re: costs and time required • Sensitive to small increments of growth in relevant skills • Results can be graphed in relation to goals • Reliable in terms of stability • Valid re: relationship to broad indicators of competence • Example: CBM oral reading fluency and reading comprehension Reschly RTI

  31. Purposes of Universal Screening • Assess success of instructional program • Percent of students at or above benchmarks • If necessary, examine curriculum, instruction, or both • Identify students below benchmarks • Interventions within general education classroom • Assess progress and consider need for more intensive interventions at Tier II Reschly RTI

  32. Reading Benchmarks (DIBELS) Reschly RTI

  33. Benchmarks Vary By State: Minneapolis Data and State of MN High Stakes Test Reschly RTI

  34. KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: Winter KTG 25 sounds correct/min. Results for class are not satisfactory Must improve curriculum, instruction or both Water Line On all class-wide graphs look at level and progress New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction RESCHLY RTI

  35. KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: Winter KTG 25 sounds correct/min. Results for class are satisfactory. Can Use results to assess individual student risk Water Line Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction RESCHLY RTI

  36. Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: 35 correct Results for class are not satisfactory. Must improve curriculum, instruction or both Water Line New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction RESCHLY RTI

  37. Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr. Benchmark: May 35 per minute Water Line Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction Results for class are satisfactory. Can Use results to assess individual student risk RESCHLY RTI

  38. Second Grade Oral Reading Fluency Benchmarks: Early 2nd=42 WCM; Winter=71 WCM End of 2nd=90 to 95 ?? Students needing greater Gen’l Ed monitoring and Interventions RESCHLY RTI

  39. Individual Progress Monitoring • Essential at Tier II in an RTI System • Frequency? At least weekly, perhaps bi-weekly • Formative Evaluation • Graph with goals • Progress in relation to goals • Decision Rules to guide changes in instruction or to raise goal. 2 or 3 data points above or below goal leads to changes RESCHLY RTI

  40. Time Series Analysis Graphs • Useful to visually represent progress • Facilitates making intervention changes • Simple, but powerful tool • Rarely used despite 40 years of research confirming positive effects of CBM and formative evaluation decision rules • See graphs that follow: Egbert is in February of Grade 1 • He has some interfering behaviors including moderate levels of disruptive behavior • Main problem is low reading based on universal screening measures in September and January RESCHLY RTI

  41. Egbert’s Time Series Analysis Graphs • Egbert is in February of Grade 1 • Main problem is low reading based on universal screening measure in January • He has some interfering behaviors including mild levels of disruptive behavior and inattention in the classroom • Decision to place in general education Tier II small group reading intervention • 30 to 40 minutes daily, group of 3-5 students • Weekly progress monitoring with an individual graph using Oral Reading Fluency Reschly RTI RESCHLY RTI

  42. Graph Current Status February Grade 1 Words Correct Per Minute Benchmark=24 Egbert=11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  43. Determine Goal: Class=1.5 wd growth per week; Egbert Goal: 2 wd growth per week Bchm=54 Words Correct Per Minute Benchmark Line Bchm=24 Egbert goal line Egbert=11 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  44. Monitor Egbert’s Progress Relative to Goal Words Correct Per Minute Bchm=54 Benchmark Line Bchm=24 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Egbert Results Weeks RESCHLY RTI Egbert Results

  45. Formative Evaluation: Change Intervention Change Intervention Words Correct Per Minute Bchm=54 Benchmark Bchm24 Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Egbert results Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  46. Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress Change Intervention Words Correct Per Minute Bchm=54 Benchmark Bnch=24 Egbert Results Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  47. Raise Goal to 2.5 WCM Growth Change Intervention Change Goal New Goal Line Words Correct Per Minute Bchm=54 Benchmark Bnch=24 Egbert results Egbert goal line 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  48. Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress Change Intervention Fade Tier II Words Correct Per Minute Bchm=54 Benchmark Bchmrk=24 Egbert results 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20 Weeks RESCHLY RTI

  49. Decisions After 20 Weeks of Intervention • Fade the intervention and discontinue if gains persist • Student continues full-time in general education classroom • OR • Continue the intervention for a few more weeks. IF student is close to benchmark and making good progress • OR • Consider long term more intensive intervention (see next slide) RESCHLY RTI

  50. Decisions Re: Egbert • Fade Tier II academic intervention • Reduce number of weekly sessions • Monitor progress to ensure continued progress • Do NOT consider more intensive interventions Reschly RTI

More Related