Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
4/6/2012
1
Response to Intervention
A Model For
Speech/Language
Pathologists
Presented byAnn McCormick, MA, CCC-S
Low Incidence Collaborative PlannerSt. Croix River Education District
Holly Windram, PhD Janet Tilstra, PhDChief Education Officer Term Assistant ProfessorGrand Rapids Christian Schools The College of Saint Benedict
and Saint John's University
April 13, 2012
Ass
essm
ent
Instruction
Tier 1: All
Tier 2: Some
Tier 3:
Few
Agenda
RtI: A Model for SLPs
Part 1
Introduction
What is RtI and Why Should I CareOverview and Rationale
It Can Be Done! SLPs and RtI Working Together
Application Activity
Q&A
Preview: Part II begins at 3:30
Agenda
RtI: A Model for SLPs
Part 2Assessment
Instruction
Problem-Solving
Tips and Tools for SLP Survival within an RtI Framework
Today’s Learner Outcomes
(Both sessions)
1. RtI Framework 101
2. How RtI “looks and feels” within the field of
speech/language for assessment, instruction,
and problem-solving.
3. Specific roles for SLPs within RtI.
4. Two practical ideas for SLP engagement
within each of the three tiers of RtI.
Today’s Big Idea
Effective Instruction =
High Achievement
Fundamental Assumption #1
All students are all OURresponsibility
4/6/2012
2
Fundamental Assumption #2
ALL means EVERY
Fundamental Assumption #3
ALL students achieve with good
instruction that is well-matched
to their needs.
Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework
• Proactive, efficient resource
use
• Assessment of student
performance
• Data to make instructional
decisions
• Research-based,
differentiated instruction
• Teams & a problem-solving
process
Response to Intervention…
An instructional program A framework to implement effective practices
The old way of doing business with a new label (prereferralintervention)
Proactive and data-driven
Intended to encourage placement of students
Matching needs and resources
Possible to implement alone A collaborative effort
The same for every school Uniquely designed for each site
A special education, a general education, a Title 1, a Talented and Gifted initiative
An “Every” Education Initiative
Is Not Is
5-10% 5-10%
10-15% 10-15%
Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity•Of longer duration
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
75-85% 75-85%Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive
Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive
A Three-Tier ModelSchool-Wide Systems for Student Success
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Academic Systems Behavior Systems
RtI Model
Academics & Positive Behavior Support
Problem-Solving & Organization
75 – 85 %75 – 85 %
10 – 20 %10 – 20 %
5 - 10 %5 - 10 %
Tier 1: Universal
Tier 2: Strategic
Tier 3: Intensive
4/6/2012
3
It’s a Framework
It is a frameworkfor educating all learners
RtI is not a program, class, Tier 2 or Sped
A Process for Every Student
Efficient
Proactive
Early
Intervention
Match
Achievement
Focused
It’s in your
hands
“In an effective RtI system, special education is
neither the placement to be avoided at all
costs nor is it the catch-all for any student
who is difficult to teach. Rather it operates as
an integral part of the system.”Johnson, Smith, & Harris (2009)
All means gifted/talented, too
Learners that need to struggle!
Instruction well-matched to needs
Traditional Model
Special Education
General Education
Sea of Ineligibility
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Am
ount
of R
esou
rces
Nee
ded
To B
enef
it
New System of Problem SolvingSpecial Education
General Education
General Education
with Support
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Am
ount
of R
esou
rces
Nee
ded
To B
enef
it
4/6/2012
4
Bridging the GapCore + IntensiveCore + Intensive
CoreCore
WeeklyWeekly--MonthlyMonthly
Core + SupplementalCore + Supplemental
3x/year 3x/year
WeeklyWeekly
Am
ou
nt
of
Re
sou
rce
s N
ee
de
d T
o B
en
efi
t
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
RtI and the SLP
What does IDEA (2004) say?
• SLPs roles/responsibilities include
– Prevention services
– Collaboration, consultation, teaming
– Links to the general curriculum
– Use of scientifically-based interventions
What does ASHA (2010) say?
• Expansion/redefinition of work in the schools
• Responsibilities “to promote effective and efficient outcomes for students.”
– Prevention
– Assessment in collaboration with others
– Evidence-based decision-making for intervention
– Continuum of service delivery models in the LRE (“…services to other students as appropriate.”)
– Data-based decision-making: students/programs
Conclusion (ASHA, 2010)
• “…reflection on and a possible
realignment of existing roles and
responsibilities to make maximum
use of the Speech-Language
Pathologist’s expertise…”
SLP Knowledge
/Skill Sets for RtI
• Language Development
• Form, content & use
• Oral to literate language continuum
• Speech sound development
• Phonemic awareness & development
• Data analysis & decision-
making
• Leadership & teaming
4/6/2012
5
Realignment at SCRED – a work in progress!
• RtI framework in place
• Driven by SLP’s needs/concerns/interests
– Two separate systems/”missing” students with language concerns?
– New district wanted to “do it the right way”
• Interest in GOMs (goal-writing, data collection)
• Knew the SLPs plates were already full
– How to add flexibility to their schedules?
Time/Flexibility
• Workload Approach (ASHA)
• Service Delivery Models
– Pull-out
– Classroom-Based
– Self-contained speech class
– Community-Based
– Consultative-Indirect
– Flexible
3:1 Model
• Importance of being in the classroom
• Training on the 3:1 Model
– Traditional pull-out services for three consecutive
weeks
– Followed by Collaboration/”Push-in” week
– Services per month on IEPs
Outcomes
• Increased understanding of curriculum and
student expectations
• Parents appreciate link to broader school
context
• Teachers more aware of students’ goals and
how to address needs in classroom
• More school staff aware of how to provide
support for skill generalization
• More students screened/referred because of
increased presence to teachers
• ESLPs able to see impact of disability in
authentic situations
• Improved services re: tasks that don’t easily fit
into a strict schedule
• Able to collect IEP data in meaningful contexts
as well as peer comparisons
Funding
• Up to 15% of IDEA funds may be spent on EIS
• Incidental Benefit
The IDEA allows for some service and aids to
benefit non-disabled (Title 1(B)(613)(a)(4)(A))
4/6/2012
6
SCRED Speech-Language Screening
Checklist
– Authentic assessment (Wayne Secord)
– Included with referral info collected by Problem-
Solving Teams (PSTs)
– If concerns identified, passed to SLP
– Currently no cut scores
– SLP attendance at RtI PST meetings on as-needed
basis
Quest for S-L GOMs
• General Outcome Measures– Limited for speech/language
• Work with Janet Tilstra, PhD – Elementary age targeted
– Narratives: Academic success/social language
– Project opportunity re: potential use of narrative measure as GOM (Poster Session tonight!)
– Narrative intervention training for staff in the fall
Agenda
RtI: A Model for SLPs
Part 2Assessment
Instruction
Problem-Solving
Tips for SLP Survival within an RtI Framework
5-10% 5-10%
10-15% 10-15%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Intensive, Individual Interventions
Targeted Group Interventions
Targeted Group Interventions
75-85% 75-85%Universal Interventions
Universal Interventions
A Three-Tier ModelSchool-Wide Systems for Student Success
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Academic Systems Behavior Systems
Problem-Solving & Organization
RtI Model
Academics & Positive Behavior Support
75 – 85 %75 – 85 %
10 – 20 %10 – 20 %
5 - 10 %5 - 10 %
Tier 1: Universal
Tier 2: Strategic
Tier 3: Intensive
New System of Problem SolvingSpecial Education
General Education
General Education
with Support
Severity of Educational Need or Problem
Am
ount
of R
esou
rces
Nee
ded
To B
enef
it
4/6/2012
7
Response to Intervention (RtI) Framework
• Proactive, efficient resource use
• ASSESSMENT OF STUDENT PERFORMANCE
• DATA TO MAKE INSTRUCTIONAL DECISIONS
• Research-based, differentiated instruction
• Teams & a problem-solving process
75 – 85 %75 – 85 %
10 – 20 %10 – 20 %
5 - 10 %5 - 10 %
Problem-Solving & Organization
Tier 1
Tier 2
Tier 3
Purpose of Assessment
• Screening
• Diagnosis
• Treatment planning
Common Assessment Tools …
• Standardized, norm-referenced tests
• Criterion-referenced sub skill measurement
• Functional outcomes
• Progress-monitoring measures
1. Norm-referenced tests
Can I give the PPVT-III to document
vocabulary growth?Characteristics
• Measures broad content
• Measure gross changes in performance ‘rank’
• Stable - not intended for frequent administration
• Items not always authentic tasks
Children with LI
stable standard scores over 4 years time
(Tomblin, Zhang, Buckwalter, & O’Brien, 2003)
2. Subskill
Measurement(Traditional
Behavior
Objectives)
Speech with correct production of
consonants K/G
Sounds
Elicited
Independent
Words
Initial
Medial
Final
Sentences
Repeated
Reading
Spontaneous
Subskill Measurement
Characteristics
• Developmental sequence
• Data-based
• Progress can be difficult to communicate
• Emphasis on tallying
• Subjectivity in writing/interpretation
4/6/2012
8
3. Functional Outcome Measures
(ASHA NOMS 1998 project)
• Document change in functional
communication over time
• ASHA - 7 point rating scale completed by SLP
Spoken Language Judgment Scale (Minneapolis Public Schools)
1Language well below peers in easy & high demand, complex tasks/ situations.
2Language sometimes similar to peers in easy tasks/ situations. Well below peers in high demand tasks.
3Language like peers in easy tasks/ situations. Well below peers in high demand tasks.
4Language sometimes similar to peers in high demand tasks, but student still struggles w/ complex language.
5Language similar to peers in high and low demand situations or tasks.
Characteristics
• Document global change over time
• Quantitative measure of change (5 or7 point scale)
• Somewhat subjective
• Levels overlap
• Sensitive to discrete changes?
Functional Outcome Measures 4. General Outcome Measures (GOMs)
• Like a thermometer…
• Quantitative and brief
• Repeated equivalent measures
– Apples to apples comparison
• Alerts practitioners to the problem
• Measures improvement
• Does not describe all symptoms of an illness
Examples of GOMs in education
Oral Reading Fluency(CBM, Deno, 1985; Dibels, Good & Kaminski, 1996)
• Number of words read correctly per min.
Math Calculation (Fuchs & Fuchs)
• Number of facts completed correctly in one min.
IGDIS Picture Naming (University of MN, CEED Website)
• Number of pictures named correctly in 1 min.
What Student is
succeeding with
intervention C?
How do you
know?
4/6/2012
9
General Outcome Measures
Characteristics
• Quantitative and brief
• Technical information
• Relate to broader skills
• Sensitive to growth
• Progress is easy to communicate
• Can be used for screening
• Technical features must be solid
• Caution – don’t want to oversimplify complex constructs
• Few GOMs in speech/language
Assessment Priorities for SLPs
Using an RTI Model
1. Fine tune ongoing data collection methods
– Demonstrate change in something important
– Are realistic to use
– Inform intervention planning
– Can be communicated easily with stakeholders
2. Development of GOMs
– Clinician/Researcher partnerships
Problem: SLPs have limited GOMs
Often need to document progress
through ongoing clinical data collection
In what ways are you currently documenting
progress in speech/language intervention?
Measuring change
• Baseline
• Treatment
• Revised treatment
The graph The graph The graph The graph
tells tells tells tells
a story a story a story a story
Wendy’s Speech
Fluency Level
% S
tutt
ere
d
Syll
ab
les
% S
tutt
ere
d
Syll
ab
les
% S
tutt
ere
d
Syll
ab
les
•Moving
beyond
Pre-Post
testing
•Examining
Trendlines
Goal writing
for communicating progress
1. Select developmentally appropriate goals
– Communication Milestones (Linguisystems,2008)
– http://www.linguisystems.com/pdf/Milestonesguide.p
df
– Language texts/research
– State or District grade level standards
2. Write targets to have discrete, observable
behaviors
3. Clearly communicate change or lack of progress
4/6/2012
10
Write Goals As Periodic Probes
with Discrete Measures
• Standardized elicitation/observation
• Define what counts as an occurrence
• Set sample size
– 5 minutes
– 50 utterances
– 10 random vocabulary words
– Duration of participation
– Decreased response time
Separate teaching and testing
Teaching = Increasing
child’s response to
peers during snack
time
Testing = Frequency of
child’s response to
peers during first 10
minutes of snack
time
Number of Response to Peers
During 1st 10 minutes of Snack
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 3 5 7 9 11 13 Week 38
Probes non-targeted Items
or generalization of strategy
Teaching =
Strategies
for word
retrieval
Testing =
Productive
words in 5
min sample
Probe & measure multiple goals –
Different Onset of Treatment Spontaneous Initiations in 20 min
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
Week 1 Week 2 Week 3 Week 4 Week 5 Week 6
Greeting
Question
Comment
Greeting Questions CommentsBaseline
Intervention vs control targets
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
Time 1 Time 2 Time 3 Time 4 Time 5 Time 6 Time 7 Time 8 Time 9
Goal Control
Goal 1 is targetedBaseline
4/6/2012
11
Social Initiations in 10 Min Sample
with Decreasing Prompting Levels
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
Imitation Direct Indirect Gesture Spontaneous
Greet Classmates Make Tangible Request
Assessment Priorities for SLPs
Using an RTI Model
1. Ongoing data collection methods that:
– Demonstrate change in something important
– Are realistic to use
– Inform intervention planning
– Can be communicated easily with stakeholders
2. Development of GOMs
– Clinician/Researcher partnerships
Process for Developing GOMs
(Fuchs, 2004)
1. Technical features of the scores
– Interrater reliability
– Validity
– Alternate form reliability
2. Do scores reflect growth in a short amount of
time?
3. Usefulness of measures for measuring
changes due to intervention.
One Example – Clinician/Researcher Partners
Test of Narrative Retell (TNR) & SCRED SLPs
• TNR = part of the Narrative Language
Measures (Petersen & Spencer, 2010)
• Free protocols and 25 stories at each level on
website (preschool and school age)
• http://www.languagedynamicsgroup.com
Partnership with SCRED SLPs
to Pilot TNR1. 2008-09 Petersen & Spencer developed potential measures
2. 2010 SCRED SLPs piloted initial TNR measures
3. 2010 SLPs gave feedback– Open-ended scoring system too time consuming
– Stories too simple?
4. 2011 Major revisions from authors of TNR– Closed scoring for 25 stories
– Piloting of 9 revised (longer) stories
2011-2012 Currently
4. Data collection on typically developing 2nd graders + piloting on caseload children
5. Looking at TNR technical features & more feedback from SLPs
4/6/2012
12
Validity with
Test of Narrative Language** p<0.01; *p<0.05
TNL
Oral Narration
TNR Median Original Level 2
(n=20)
0.63**
TNR Median Revised Level 3
(n=21)
0.75**
Validity –
Does TNR distinguish between students
with stronger and weaker language levels?
Face Validity - likeability
• Smile charts
– original and revised all stories rated 3 or 4
How much did you like these stories?
I REALLY
DON’T LIKE
THEM!
I SORT OF
DON’T LIKE
THEM
I LIKE THEM
A LITTLE
I REALLY LIKE
THEM!
1 2 3 4
Interrater reliability - findings
• SLPs with expert coder -
– Average = 0.87 (0.78-0.98)
– Median = 0.86
• Student coders with student coder
(Novices: Novice)
– Average = 0.93
– Median = 0.92
Reasonable cutoff for screening?
REVISED TNR
-1.5 SD = Score of 11
4/6/2012
13
Next step - Sensitive to Growth?
• Scores on measure change with
intervention
• Reflects subtle changes
• Information still emerging
Where we would like to be…Test of Narrative Retell (Peterson, Spencer, 2010)
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 3 5 7 26
Narrative
Language
Intervention
Week of Rating
Sco
re o
n T
NR
How Does Assessment Fit Into
an RTI Model?
1. Screening
– What children are not showing sufficient
speech/language performance at tier 1?
2. Progress
– Tiers 1, 2, or 3 - Is this student making sufficient
progress?
a. Effective classroom intervention?
b. Benefitting from curricular changes? Extra support?
Intensive intervention?
Instruction/Intervention
• Service Delivery – Research/current practice
• SLP Roles in RtI
• Instruction/Intervention by Tiers
• Standard Treatment Protocols
SLP Practices
• Challenges: “high amount of paperwork” and “lack of time for planning, collaboration, and meeting with teachers.”
• 6% of service time was spent in RtI
• 71% of service provider time spent in traditional pull-out services.
ASHA Schools Survey (2010)
4/6/2012
14
• Cirrin et al (2010)– Results: “Some evidence suggests that classroom-based direct
services are at least as effective as pullout intervention for some intervention goals……Lacking adequate research-based evidence, clinicians must rely on reason-based proactice and their own data until more data become available…(p.233)”
• Brandel & Loeb (2011)– Results: Most IEP students receive group intervention for 30
minutes, 1-2 x per week, although school-based SLPs believe they individualize treatment based on student needs.
Are we individualizing services for IEP students,
as required by IDEA?
What about the “at-risk” students in “the sea of
ineligibility?”
How do we find the time/flexibility
for increased involvement with regular
education and prevention-related
activities?
Workload Approach (ASHA)
• Identify roles/responsibilities
• Organize re: “activity clusters”– Direct services to students, Ind services that support
ed programs, Ind activities that support students in LRE/gen ed curriculum, Compliance
• Flexible schedules
• Engage in evidence-based service delivery
• Conduct workload analysis/
problem-solving process
• Develop advocacy plan
SLP Roles in RtI Instruction/Intervention
• High quality
• Scientifically research-based
• Linked to the English and Language Arts (Common Core) Standards
• Data-based decision-making
• Intensity of intervention is increased based on student needs, as reflected in progress monitoring data
• Use your language lens re: curriculum and instruction!
4/6/2012
15
Tier 1
• Support students in the Core Curriculum
• Teacher education/collaboration
• Professional Development
• Family education
• Model facilitative strategies
• Language connections to the curriculum
• Expanded student screenings
• Consider language demands in classroom
Tier 2
• Students performing below grade-level expectations (at-risk)
– Targeted small-group instruction
– Speech Improvement Class/Articulation Lab
– Serving on Problem-Solving Team
– Monitor student progress
– Pre-teach or re-teach concepts from curriculum
Tier 3
• Intensive, individualized intervention needed
– Additional time in Articulation Lab
– IEP services through special education referral &
evaluation
– Collaboration
Elementary & RtI
Tier 2 Intervention
• “Speech Improvement Class” (slpath.com)
– 17- 20 hours (ASHA NOMS) to remediate a single sound vs
students on IEPs for 3 yrs (average); 76% completed
Speech Improvement Class in 17 or less hours
– Mild errors; non-stimulable
– Stations
– High number of responses
– Extra practice
– Also commercially-available program – Articulation Lab
“It is AWESOME! Even for my regular
speech kids. The program hits those
150+ speech sounds a session and one
of my students has a record of something like 800
word repetitions in a session.
“I have about 5 artic referrals I just got and I plan to put them through the lab first if appropriate before getting all bogged down in an IEP.”
Stephanie
High School and RtI
Coming soon to SCRED!
4/6/2012
16
Standard Treatment Protocol
• A standard set of empirically supported
instructional approaches are implemented to
prevent and remediate academic problems.
• Often built into the master schedule
• Clear criteria for entrance and exit
• Fidelity of implementation documented
What if the student
is not making progress?
• Are you confident in your measure?
• Dosage – is treatment intense enough?
• Intervention methods
– Change motivators/reinforcers
– Change prompt level – more or less support
– Change context of the task – generalize behavior or move to simpler context
– Modify elicitation procedure
– Switch to a uniquely different instructional approach
• E.g. Phonological approach vs. articulation
St. Croix River Education District
S-L Screening Checklist (handout)
Student ______________ Date __________ Completed by ________________
Teacher: Please check the boxes that describe the student, based on age expectations/ comparison with peers. Please complete the section above the dotted line.
Does the student have difficulty expressing thoughts/ideas? Yes No
If yes, please check all that apply below.
Talks in short, choppy sentences
Has trouble using complete sentences when talking
Uses poor grammar
Has difficulty “finding” words
Has trouble answering questions
Has trouble asking questions
Has difficulty ordering a sequence of events or telling a story
Has trouble having a conversation
Has trouble staying on topic
Has trouble getting to the point
Problem-Solving
1. Organization
2. Process
School-wide Organization School-wide Organization
1. Who are your teams?
2. How does information flow across all tiers/teams?
3. What is your process for decision-making?
4/6/2012
17
Teams
SAT; PLCs; Grade Level Teams
Problem-Solving Team
(Standard Treatment Protocol)
SST/SE Team
Building Level Team:
Administrator
Problem-Solving Team:
General Education
Gen Ed Teacher(s)
Administrator
RtI “Expert”
Student Support Services: Counselor, School
Psych, Social Worker , etc.
Others . . .
Referral to the Problem Solving Team
• Gen Ed Teachers complete the Request for Assistance Form, and sends to PST.
• Gen Ed Teacher notifies parents of concern and referral to the team.
Problem Solving Team
EXAMPLE
General Ed
Teacher
School
PsychologistCounselorMath Specialist
Administrator
School-wide Organization
1. Who are your teams?
2. How does information flow across all tiers/teams?
3. What is your process for decision-making?
4/6/2012
18
Problem-Solving: Process
A 5 step decision-making process to determine
what to teach across each tier based on
screening and progress monitoring data
Problem-Solving Model
1. Problem
IdentificationWhat is the discrepancy between
what is expected and what is occurring?
2. Problem
AnalysisWhy is the problem occurring?
3. Plan
DevelopmentWhat is the goal?
What is the intervention plan to address this goal?
How will progress be monitored?
4. Plan
ImplementationHow will implementation integrity be ensured?
5. Plan
EvaluationIs the intervention plan effective?
Step 1:
Problem Identification
Question: What is the discrepancy between what is expected and what is occurring?
1. List problem behaviors and prioritize
2. Collect baseline data on the primary area of concern (target student and peer comparison):
� Record Review
� Interview
� Observation
� Testing
3. State discrepancy between target student performance and
expected/peer performance.
Step 2:
Problem Analysis
Question: Why is the problem occurring?
1. Collect additional RIOT data to
� Differentiate between a skill and performance problem (e.g., can’t do v. won’t do).
� Determine situations in which the problem behavior is most likely and least likely to occur.
� Generate hypotheses for why a problem is occurring.
2. Narrow down to the most validated and alterable hypothesis.
Step 3:
Plan Development
Question: What is the goal?
• Write the goal: A measurable statement of expected outcomes.
Question: What is the intervention plan to address the goal?
• Define plan logistics: What strategies will be used, who is responsible, and when/where the intervention will be implemented.
Question: How will progress be monitored?
• Define monitoring logistics: measurement tool, how often, and who is responsible.
• Define decision-making rule for plan evaluation.
4/6/2012
19
Step 4:
Plan Implementation
Question: How will implementation integrity be
ensured?
• Provide support to those implementing the
interventions
• Observe intervention in action
• Make adjustments to intervention plan if needed.
• Collect and graph data on intervention goal.
Step 5:
Plan Evaluation
Question: Is the intervention plan effective?
• Use data to determine student progress
• Evaluate intervention acceptability
• Determine as a team what to do next.
YES NO YES NO
Today’s meeting started on time. � � The agenda for today was clearly communicated including goals and tasks.
� �
All members were present and actively participated.
� � Facilitator or Note taker reports that paperwork is complete and up to date.
� �
We got through our entire agenda. � � Most of our meeting was spent developing specific solutions for students.
� �
Homeroom teachers/primary interveners were present.
� � Communication with teachers and parents regarding decisions was planned.
� �
SUB-TOTALS:
Problem Solving Team Effective Behaviors Monitoring Form (excerpt)
Windram, Bollman, & Johnson (2011) – See Handout
STEP HIGH QUALITY INDICATOR
New Referral Concrete plans made to collect needed information for
problem ID (who, what, when)
Problem Identification A discrepancy statement has been made using objective and
empirical data
Converging evidence in support of discrepancy statement was
identified
Problem Analysis Discussion of how problem is affected by all domains (ICEL)
as appropriate
Evidence that team collected data from multiple sources
(RIOT) – no obvious missing
Discussions related to multiple alterable hypotheses across
RIOT/ICEL is observed.
It’s a 5-8 year
journey with
bumpy roads
and scenic
vistas
RtI: What we’ve learned
RtI: What we’ve learned
Embrace multiple “right” ways to do this
RtI: What We’ve Learned
Expect tough questions.
Expect some unhappiness.
4/6/2012
20
RtI Needs Assessmenthttp://www.scred.k12.mn.us/School/Index.cfm/go:site.Page/Page:240/index.html
Six Areas:
1. Parent Involvement
2. School Culture and Climate
3. Measurement and Assessment
4. Curriculum and Instruction
5. Collaborative Teams
6. Problem-Solving Process
RtI Needs Assessment
www.scred.k12.mn.us
Not in Place Limited Practice Partially Implemented
Well Established
Don’t K now
1. All educators have attended an overview presentation of the RtI framework
that included information on implications for curriculum & instruction,
assessment practices, and school-wide organization and problem solving.
1. All educators understand how the RtI framework is represented in their
building (including implications for curriculum, assessment, & organization).
1. All educators understand that RtI is a building-wide framework designed to
benefit ALL students, not solely or primarily related to special education.
1. Building and/or district leadership demonstrate active commitment to and
support of the RtI framework.
1. Educators feel shared responsibility and play meaningful roles in ongoing
activities to sustain the RtI framework.
1. Research-based practices are understood and accepted by educators and
are consistently incorporated within classroom instruction.
School Culture and Climate (excerpt)
References
• American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2003). Implementation
guide: a workload analysis approach for establishing speech-language
caseoad standards in the schools.
Available from www.asha.org.
• American Speech-Language Hearing Association. (2010). Roles and
responsibilities of speech-language pathologists in schools [Position
statement and professional issues statement). Available from
www.asha.org/policy.
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010). 2010 Schools
Survey report: SLP caseload characteristics. Available from
www.asha.org/research/memberdata/SchoolsSurvey.htm.
• American Speech-Language-Hearing Association. (2010).2010 Schools
Survey report: SLPworkforce/work conditions. Available from
www.asha.org/research.
• Brandel,J. & Loeb, D.F. (2012, January 17). Service Delivery in Schools: A National Survey: A survey finds that 30-minute speech-language sessions once or twice a week remain the norm. The ASHA Leader.
• Cirrin, F., Schooling, T., Nelson, N., Diehl, S., Flynn, P., Staskowski, M., Torrey, T., & Adamczyk, D. (2010). Evidence-based systematic review: effects of different service delivery models on communication outcomes for elementary school-age children. Language, Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 4, 233-264.
• Deno, S. L. (1985). Curriculum-based measurement: The emerging alternative. Exceptional Children, 52, 219-232.
• Fuchs, L. S. (2004). The past, present, and future of curriculum based measurement research. School Psychology Review, 33(2), 188–192.
• Gillam, R. B., & Pearson, N. (2004). Test of Narrative Language. Austin, TX: Pro-Ed.
• Individual Growth and Development Indicators, Center for Early Education and Development, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis.
• Language Dynamics Group www.languagedynamicsgroup.com
• Lanza, J.R., & Flahive, L.K.(2008). Linguisystems Guide to Communication Milestones. East Moline, IL: Linguisystems.
• Olswang, L. & Bain, B. (1994). Data collection: monitoring children’s treatment progress. American Journal of Speech-Language Pathology, 3 (3), 55-66.
• Peterson, D.B. Gillam, S.L., & Gillam, R.R. (2008). Emerging procedures in narrative assessment: The index of narrative complexity. Topics in Language Disorders, Special issue: Narrative Abilities: New Research and Clinical Implications. 28, 115-130.
• Petersen, D.B., & Spencer, T.D. (November, 2010). The narrative language measure: A curriculum based measure for language. Poster presented at the American Speech-Language-Hearing Association annual conference, Philadelphia, PA.
• Retherford, K.S. (2000). Guide to Analysis of Language Transcripts, 3rd
Edition. Super Duper Publications.
• Ukrainetz, T.A. (2006). The implications of RTI and EBP for SLPs: Commentary on L. M. Justice. Language Speech and Hearing Services in Schools, 37, 298-303.
