Reschly RTI 2

What To Do With Egbert?? 1st Grade, falling behind in reading Slow progress compared to peers Likely to miss benchmarks related to passing 3rd

Grade reading test Distractible, inattentive, disruptive Sound Familiar WHAT HAPPENS NEXT? Driven by Federal

Legislation Consider NCLB and IDEIA

Reschly RTI 3

Egbert in the Traditional System Refer Egbert

Preferral “intervention” (check a box) Comprehensive Evaluation-Battery of Tests,

“common battery”? Assessment largely outside of the natural context Dubious generalizations from test behavior to

classroom Eligibility assessment unrelated to intervention Team decision-making SLD diagnoses often inaccurate

Reschly RTI 4NO PROBLEM

PROBLEM SOLVING CHART

Does the damn thingwork?

Don’t mess with it! You Idiot! Did you mess with it?

Does anyone

else know?

Will you catch hell?

Hide it!

You poor slob! Ignore it

Can you blame somebody else?

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

No

No

No

No

No

Reschly RTI 5

What Is Response to Intervention (RTI)?

High quality instruction and behavior interventions

Matched to student need, With frequent progress monitoring and formative

evaluation, Applied to individual educational decisions Implementation requires: Allocating (aligning)

resources to deliver effective interventions that produce improved child outcomes

Reschly RTI 6

RESPONSE TO InterventionPOLICY CONSIDERATIONSAND IMPLEMENTATION

Order at:www.nasdse.org

Cost: $15 with discounts for large orders

Reschly RTI 7

Why RTI?

Dissatisfaction with ach. results 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 Disjointed programs across general,

remedial and special ed.-compromised outcomes and wasted resources

Reschly RTI 8

NAEP 4th Grade Reading by Race, Ethnicity in 2003

61 57 53

26 31

27 29 31

35 32

12 14 16

39 37

0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%

100%

Black Latino Native White Asian

Prof/ Adv

Basic

Below Basic

Source: USDOE, NCES, National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)

Reschly RTI 9

U.S. Ranks 14th in High School Graduation Rates (2001)

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Den

mar

k

Japa

n

Pol

and

Ger

man

y

Fin

lan

d

Sw

itzer

land

Cze

ch R

epu

blic

Fra

nce

Hun

gar

y1

Bel

giu

m

Italy

1

Ire

land

Slo

vaki

a

Uni

ted

Sta

tes

Sw

ede

n

Icel

and

Source: Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD), Education at a Glance: OECD Indicators 2003 Edition, data available at http://www.oecd.org/

Reschly RTI 10

Reschly RTI 11

Special Education Placement Effects: High Incidence Disabilities

Treatment/Intervention aEffect Size

EMR/Special Classes (IQ 60-75) -.14

Special Classes (IQ 75-90) -.34

Resource for SLD and E/BD +.29

Traditional Placement Practices Have Weak Relationships to Outcomes

Special Education as a Solution?

Note: Effect size is expressed in SD units, analogous to a z-score

Reschly RTI 12

Old Assumptions re: High Incidence Disabilities (SLD, MMR,

E/BD) Disabilities Inherent in Individual?-BUT,

Context and prevention are crucial Identify and Treat Underlying Causes-BUT,

Failure of process training Prescribe Methods that Capitalize on

Strengths and Avoid Weaknesses-BUT, Failure of Aptitude by Treatment Interaction in Research and Practice

Reschly RTI 13

Old Assumptions, cont.

Unique Treatment Methods and Teacher Training by Disability But, Same methods work for virtually all High Incidence I SWD, LD, ED, EMR

IQ Essential to Accurate Classification-BUT Same kids found with problem solving processes and measures

Identifying Disability and Sp Ed Placement Solves Problem

Dubious Effects of Special Education

Reschly RTI 14

Meaningfulness of the Special

Education Categories Category Prevalence Range Low v. High MR: 0.4% (NJ) to 3.0% (WV) 7Xs ED: 0.1% (AR) to 2.0% (MN) 20Xs LD: 2.7% (KY) to 9.3% (RI) 3Xs Sp/L: 0.8% (HI) to 3.8% (WV) 5Xs OHI: 0.1% (MS) to 2.1% (RI) 21Xs All: 9.7% (CO) to 17.9% (RI) 1.8Xs

What Accounts for the Differences??; Also differences between LEAs within states

2002-2003, age 6-17, school enrollment, Table AA-13, www.IDEAdata.org

Reschly RTI 15

Progression of Research, Policy, and Legal Requirements

Scientific research with practice demonstrations leading to

Multiple policy analyses in presented in prestigious reports leading to

Multiple layers of Federal legal requirements leading to

Changes in state rules leading to Scaling up efforts in states

Reschly RTI 16

Foundations for Policy Changes: What Does Work? ABA, DI, CBM

Treatment Effect 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

Kavale (2005), Learning Disabilities, 13, 127-138.

Reschly RTI 17

Policy and Legal Influences NICHD LD Studies Snow, C. E., Burns, M. S. & Griffin, P. (Eds.) (1998). Preventing

reading difficulties in young children. Washington DC: National Academy Press.

Teaching children to read: An evidence-based assessment of the scientific research literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction http://www.nichd.nih.gov/publications/nrp/smallbook.pdf

National Academy of Sciences/National Research Council Panel Report http://www.nap.edu/catalog/10128.html

LD Summit Researchers Recommendations (Bradley et al., 2002) Presidents Commission on Excellence in Special Education (2002)

report, http://www.ed.gov/inits/commissionsboards/whspecialeducation/reports.html

Reschly RTI 18

Disproportionality Legal Requirements

§300.173 Overidentification and disproportionality

States must collect data on to determine if significant disproportionality by race exists re:

Identification of students with disabilities by category

Placement options used, i.e., LRE profile Incidence and kind of disciplinary actions including

suspensions and expulsions

Reschly RTI 19

Disproportionality Legal Requirements §300.173 Overidentification and disproportionality

continued If significant disproportionality exists, the state must

Review and, if appropriate, revise the policies, procedures, and practices used in identification or placement

Allocate 15% of IDEA funds to EIS, especially focusing on children significantly overidentified

Require the LEA to publicly report on the revision of policies, practices, and procedures described under paragraph (b)(1) of this section.

Reschly RTI 20

NRC Overrepresentation Panel: Digression: Disproportionality

What were the real issues? Was IQ the issue? Did an IQ test ban resolve disproportionality

or improve outcomes Reschly (1980) Right problem-Wrong

Solution

Reschly RTI 21

Centrality of Outcomes in Disproportionality

Judge Peckham commenting on the 1979 Trial Opinion ban on IQ tests,

“… clearly limited to the use of IQ tests in the assessment and placement of African-American students in dead end programs such as MMR.” (Crawford and Larry P., 1992, p. 15).

Reschly RTI 22

Centrality of Outcomes in Disproportionality, cont.

“ Despite the Defendants’ attempts to characterize the court’s 1979 order as a referendum on the discriminatory nature of IQ testing, this court’s review of the decision reveals that the decision was largely concerned with the harm to African-American children resulting from improper placement in dead-end educational programs.” (Crawford and Larry P., 1992, p.23).”

Reschly RTI 23

Overrepresentation PanelNRC Recommendations

Universal early screening for academic and behavioral problems (Ktg-Grade2)

Early identification-interventions Multi-tiered academic and behavioral

interventions RtI for eligibility-eliminate IQ for LD Eligibility: non-categorical for high incidence

disabilities OR change current classification criteria for LD

Reschly RTI 24

Overall Conclusion

“ There is substantial evidence with regard to both behavior and achievement that early identification and intervention is more effective than later identification and intervention.” Executive Summary, p. 5

Efficacy of special education with reading problems after grade 3?

Reschly RTI 25

Overrepresentation PanelNRC Recommendations cont.

…. no IQ test would be required, and the results of an IQ test would not be a primary criterion on which eligibility rests. Because of the irreducible importance of context in the recognition and nurturance of achievement, the committee regards the effort to assess students’ decontextualized potential or ability as inappropriate and scientifically invalid. (p. 313).

Reschly RTI 26

Commonalties in Policy Recommendations

Accountability-Improved results for all students and better results are possible!! (Gloeckler)

Integration of general, remedial, and sp ed through multiple tiers of intervention

Scientifically-based interventions with problem solving Progress monitoring with formative evaluation Decisions at all levels driven by child response to

intervention Abandon IQ-Achievement discrepancy in LD

Identification

Reschly RTI 27

Why Abandon IQ-Achievement Discrepancy??

Unreliable (especially stability of discrepancy scores)

Invalid (IQ discrepant poor readers do NOT respond better than IQ non-discrepant poor readers to reading instruction)

Causes Harm (Wait to Fail)

Reschly RTI 28

Progression of Federal General and Special Education Legislation

1960-70s To 2000s

Assistance Results

[__________________________________________]

ESEA EHA NCLB/

Rdg 1st IDEA 2004

Procedures Outcomes

Number Served Improvement

Reschly RTI 29

Major Legal Themes (NCLB, IDEA)

Scientifically-based instruction More frequent assessment, progress

monitoring, formative evaluation Well integrated multiple tiers of Intervention Decisions driven by child responses to

instruction-intervention in general, remedial, and special education

Alignment of resources to enhance positive outcomes

Reschly RTI 30

Changes in Legal RequirementsIDEA (2004)

‘‘(A) IN GENERAL.—Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, a local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether a 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.

Reschly RTI 31

Response to Intervention (IDEA, 2004) ‘‘(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY.—In deter-

mining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures described in paragraphs (2) and (3).

Does response to intervention appear in the law?

Reschly RTI 32

Final Regulation NEW AND SIGNIFICANT: (b must consider, as part of the evaluation described data that

demonstrates that— (1) Prior to, or as a part of the referral process, the child

was provided appropriate high-quality, research-based instruction in regular education settings, consistent with section 1111(b)(8)(D) and (E) of the ESEA, including that the instruction was 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, was provided to the child's parents.

Reschly RTI 33

Prevention-Early Intervention

LEA can use 15% of federal IDEA funds to support prevention and early identification-treatment

Purpose: minimize over-identification and unnecessary sp ed referrals

Provide academic and behavioral supports; and professional development re: early literacy and behavior

MUST use the 15% if LEA has “significant disproportionality

Reschly RTI 34

Multi-Tiered Academic Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision

Academics (Empirically validated instruction) Tier I: General Education: All students Tier II: Standard Protocol and Problem Solving:

(about 10 to 20 weeks) Small group and individualized interventions with eligibility determination if response is insufficient

Tier III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction Special education or Other Options (One year or more): More intense services brought to the students

Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation

Reschly RTI 35

Multi-Tiered Behavior Interventions of Increasing Intensity and Measurement Precision

Behavior-Empirically validated Level I: General Education : School wide positive

discipline and effective classroom organization and management

Level II: Standard Protocol Treatments and Problem Solving: (10 to 20 weeks) Targeted individual interventions in general education and eligibility determination if necessary.

Level III: More Intensive, Sustained Instruction Special education or Other Options (One year or more): More intense services brought to the students

Key Mechanism: Formative Evaluation

Reschly RTI 36

Formative Evaluation Frequent assessment of progress Referenced to goals based on benchmarks

toward passing state tests Decision rules regarding modification of

goals or instructional programs All decisions about student needs and

instructional intensity are based on child RTI

Reschly RTI 37

Characteristics of Effective Formative Evaluation Measures

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 38

Tier I: General Education, Universal Stage, Primary Prevention

Academics and Behavior Scientifically-based Explicit instruction Systematic intervention Inter-related, reciprocal relationships, mutually

supported Discuss separately here, but acknowledge the

essential inter-relationship of academics and behavior

Reschly RTI 39

Tier I: Academic Interventions

Scientifically-based instruction in reading Curricula-content-Big ideas, e.g., reading

Phonemic Awareness Alphabetic principles Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension

Study of IHEs pre-service preparation in rdg 14 of 72 taught all 5 components and many taught

none, see http://www.nctq.org/nctq/

40

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

3-D Column 1

15% 11% 7% 11%13%

43%

IHEs and SBRR Five Components

SampleN=72

5 Components1. Phonemic2. Alphabetic3. Fluency4. Vocabulary5. Compre-

hension

Sourcehttp://www.nctq.org/nctq

N=11 N=8N=5

N=8 N=9

N=31

Components 5 4 3 2 1 0

Reschly RTI 41

Tier I: Academic Interventions Teaching Methodology Explicit Instruction

Modeling, guided practice, practice to automaticity, integration with other skills

I do it; We do it; You do it with feedback, You do it independently, You do it automatically

Frequent responding with feedback Brisk pace

Systematic Instruction Sequential, Hierarchical Include all reading components each day

Reschly RTI 42

Tier I: Assessment: Academics Routine Assessment of Progress

Screen all students, begin in kindergarten; 3 times per year with appropriate early literacy measures

More intense instruction and monitoring within classroom for students below trajectories toward passing state benchmark tests

Grouping, instructional materials, time, paraprofessionals

Increase assessment to 2 Xs per month

Reschly RTI 43

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 4 7 10 13 16 Scale

FallJanuary

KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: Winter KTG25 sounds correct/min.

New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction

Reschly RTI 44

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

FallJanuary

KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: Winter KTG25 sounds correct/min.

Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction

Reschly RTI 45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 4 7 10 13 16 Scale

JanuaryMay

Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: 35 correct

New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction

Reschly RTI 46

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

FallJanuary

Phoneme Seg. Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: May 35 per minute

Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction

Reschly RTI 47

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 4 7 10 13 16 Scale

JanuaryMay

Nonsense Word Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: 25 correct per minute

New KTG Teacher and Traditional Instruction

Reschly RTI 48

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19 21

FallJanuary

Nonsense Word Fluency: Jan to May 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: 25 correct per minute

Experienced Teacher Direct Instruction

Reschly RTI 49

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

FallJanuary

KTG: Initial Sound Fluency Fall to January 05-06 Yr.

Benchmark: Winter KTG25 sounds correct/min.

Students needing greater Gen’l Ed monitoring and Interventions

Reschly RTI 50

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

F W

1st Gr. Nonsense Word

Fluency

Benchmark: Winter First Grade50 Words Per Minute

??

Reschly RTI 51

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

1 3 5 7 9 11 13 15 17 19

F

W

Second Grade Oral Reading FluencyBenchmark: End of 1st=42 WCM

Winter=71 WCM End of 2nd=100 WCM

??

Reschly RTI 52

Behavioral Assessment and CBM Measures

Focused on determination of change Formative evaluation critical Tied to effective practices and better

outcomes Applications in general, remedial, and special

education Identification of disabilities-integrates

identification with treatment

Reschly RTI 53

Why Behavior Assessment (including CBM)

Determine current levels in academics and behavior; degree of need

Monitor progress, assess change Foundation for formative evaluation-

improving interventions Determine success of interventions Decisions based in child response to

interventions

Reschly RTI 54

Foundations of CBM Deno & Mirkin (1977) Breakthrough Brief samples of behavior

Use of oral reading fluency samples Production per unit of time Fluency and accuracy combined Words read correct per minute

Math-digits correct Spelling-letters correct

Reschly RTI 55

Prior Barriers to CBM Use Cumbersome for practitioners, developing own

passages Conceptual issues: Passages from curriculum or

generic passages? Teachers’ concerns about comprehension: Word

calling?? Inertia; satisfaction with current practices IDEA: assessment of change not required

Reschly RTI 56

Reading CBM

Combines fluency (speed) and accuracy Broad range of competencies including

Letter naming (Ktg) Sound identification (Ktg) Nonsense words or real word identification (Ktg

to first grade) Oral reading fluency (mid first to high school Comprehension (maze, other methods)

Reschly RTI 57

Importance of Standardized CBM Procedures

Standardized meaning uniformity in administration, scoring, interpretation

Prerequisite to use of data in Determining risk status within classroom or

school Measuring change for individuals or groups Predicting later performance

Reschly RTI 58

Oral Reading Fluency

What is it? Reading aloud fluently and accurately from text.

Why do it? Indicator of proficiency in reading that is sensitive

to growth Highly correlated with performance on

standardized tests and tests of comprehension Provides information that may be used to evaluate

effects of instruction Word Calling Myth

Reschly RTI 59

Administering Oral Reading Passages Essential Items

-One student copy

-One administration copy

-Timer or stopwatch (make sure to time exactly 1 min)

-Administration script

Reschly RTI 60

Instructions to Child When I say “please begin” start reading

aloud at the top of this page. Read across the page. [Demonstrate by pointing] Try to read each word. If you come to a word you don’t know, I’ll tell it to you. If you get to the end of the page, start over. Be sure to do your best reading. Are there any questions? [Pause] Please begin.

Reschly RTI 61

Examiner’s Administration Rules

After reading instructions to students,

Start timer. If the student fails to say the first word of the passage after 3 sec., tell him/her the word and mark it incorrect. If the student stops or struggles with a word for 3 seconds, tell the student the word and mark it incorrect. If the student reaches the end of the page and does not continue, point to the first word and ask the student to start over. At the end of 1 minute, place a bracket after the last word and say, please stop.

Reschly RTI 62

Scoring Rules Words must be pronounced correctly to be

counted as correct (disregard if mispronunciations due to speech

problems or dialect) Ignore inserted or repeated words

Reschly RTI 63

ORF Passage: Making Friends(from Deno and Amy Reschly)

There once was a little girl named Ann who 9was very shy. She was too shy to make friends. 19Ann lived in an apartment building with her mother 28and brother. Ann liked to play at the playground 37near her apartment building. 41

One day Ann was playing on the swings when 50

Total words read = 49Words read incorrectly = 3 Words read correctly = 46

Reschly RTI 64

What is recorded? Give 3 Passages Record the Median Score Example:

If a student’s scores on the 3 passages were:

24 words read correctly

38 words read correctly

35 words read correctly

GO TO VIDEO

Reschly RTI 65

Dad and I took a hike in the woods. We walked for a long 14time and stopped to take a rest. We sat down on a log and had a 30drink of water. A big hill was nearby. 38

Dad said, "Look, there's an ant hill." 45

I walked up to the hill and took a closer peek. At first it 59looked just like a dirt hill. Then I noticed a few ants running 72around. I looked closer. I saw little ants carrying pieces of 83mushroom. The pieces were almost as big as the ants. 93

"What are they doing, Dad?" I asked. 100

"They're taking food inside the hill. They probably have 109

Sample passage from DIBELS, http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

The Ant Hill

Reschly RTI 66

This morning when I woke up it was freezing cold. I looked12

out and the ground was covered with white. It had snowed23

during the night. Mom said there would be no school because of35

the snow. She said I could go outside and play in the snow. I had50

to eat a hot breakfast first. 56

I dressed in my warm clothes. I wore mittens and a stocking68

cap. Mom helped me with my rubber hoots. I was so bundled up81

1 could hardly walk. 85

The grass was covered with soft snow and it was very quiet.97

Then all my friends came out to play. It wasn't quiet for long!110

My friends helped me make a snow person. We made snowballs 121

first. We rolled them up until they were big. Then we stacked133

three big balls of snow on top of each other.143

The Snow Person

Sample passage from DIBELS, http://dibels.uoregon.edu/

Reschly RTI 67

Resources for Assessment and Interventions

Good & Kaminski: DIBELS http://dibels.uoregon.edu/ http://www.dibelsassessment.com/

Gary Germann and Mark Shinn AIMSWEBWWW.AIMSWEB.COM ; WWW.EDFORMATION.COM

James Wrightwww.interventioncentral.org

Vaughn-Gross Reading Centerhttp://www.texasreading.org/utcrla/

Florida Reading Center-Torgesen/Wagnerhttp://www.fcrr.org/

Reschly RTI 68

Math CBM Scoring rule: Count the number of correctly

written digits in the problems64

x 722 128 Answer= 128 448__

46208

Reschly RTI 69

Math CBM

Scoring rule: Count the number of correctly written digits in the problems

64 x 722 128 3 pts Answer=17 1280 4 pts 44800 5 pts

46208 5 pts

Reschly RTI 70

Math CBM

Scoring rule: Count the number of correctly written digits in the problems

64 x 722 126 2 pts Answer=12 1380 3 pts 54800 4 pts

56206 3 pts

Reschly RTI 71

Tier I Assessment of Behavior

Focus on classroom and individuals Screen all children for behavior

Skills, performance, emotional regulation Aggressive behaviors-identify and treat at young

ages Social isolation Bullying Classroom related social skills (or academic

enablers

Reschly RTI 72

Tier I: Importance of Classroom Organization and Behavior Management

Kellam, Baltimore Schools Students randomly assigned to 1st grade teachers,

then classroom was the unit of analysis Classrooms observed during first 9 wks., high rates

of disruptive behavior and aggression, large differences across classrooms

Classrooms randomly assigned to, Experimental condition: Good Behavior Game (Barrish,

et al, 1969; Sulzer-Azaroff & Mayer, 1991) vs. Control condition of in-service on general curriculum

issues

Reschly RTI 73

Kellam Research: Classroom Organization and Management

Good Behavior Game (Barrish, et al., 1969) Group contingency Two groups formed into teams Define rules and positive behaviors Teams compete for positive consequences Team with highest rate of appropriate behaviors earn

“rewards” Lining up first, Help teacher pick-up classroom,

free time, etc.

Reschly RTI 74

Kellam Research: Effects of Good Behavior Game Were Statistically Significant

Aggression and disruptive behavior continued in control classrooms

Marked reduction in experimental condition Experimental classrooms had higher academic

productivity and achievement Aggressive students in both conditions followed

through 6th grade and first grade classroom effects persisted

First grade experience sets academic and behavioral trajectory

Reschly RTI 75

Tier I: Implications of Behavior

Classroom organization and behavior management are crucial to student success “Teacher’s skills at classroom management were then

critical to children’s socialization, particularly in the face of family poverty.” (Kellam, et al., 1998a, p. 182)

“Teacher training typically does not provide effective methods and experience in classroom behavior management.” (Kellam, et al., 1998, p. 182).

Relatively simple, cost effective interventions can produce large and persistent effects

Reschly RTI 76

Summary of Tier I Universal level, all students Scientifically-based, right content and direct

instruction Greater intensity and increased measurement

precision for students below benchmark trajectories Criterion for success? 80% to 85% are at or above

benchmarks Assess classrooms, schools, districts Identify students needing additional assistance

Reschly RTI 77

Tier II: Secondary Prevention (Strategic Intervention)

(Standard Protocol and Problem Solving) Goals: Move performance to benchmark trajectories and, If

needed, consider more intensive interventions Example of Tier II academic intervention

Small group, N=4-5, pull out, similar needs 30 to 35 minutes per day in addition to classroom

instruction Progress monitoring weekly 10 to 20 weeks of instruction 5-component reading interventions, with emphasis on weak

components Early identification-early intervention in general educ.

Reschly RTI 78

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 79

Tier II: Behavior

Targeted individual interventions in classrooms and in standard protocol academic settings Application of problem solving steps and criteria Behavior consultation model (not discussed here) Behavior is significant predictor of Tier I and

Tier II effects Improved behavior often is crucial to persistence

of academic interventions effects over time and generalization to classroom settings

Reschly RTI 80

0

20

40

60

80

100BenchmarkGoal

Egbert

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Graph Current Status

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Benchmark=24

Egbert=11

Reschly RTI 81

0

20

40

60

80

100 Line 1

Line 2

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Determine Goal: Class=1.5 wd growth per week; Egbert Goal: 2 wd growth per week

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

Reschly RTI 82

0

20

40

60

80

100Bench

Goal

Egbert

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Monitor Egbert’s Progress Relative to Goal

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

Reschly RTI 83

0

20

40

60

80

100Bench

Goal

Egbert

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Formative Evaluation: Change Intervention

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

ChangeIntervention

Reschly RTI 84

0

20

40

60

80

100Bench

Goal

Egbert

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

ChangeIntervention

Reschly RTI 85

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassBenchEgbertGoal 2

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Raise Goal to 2.5 WCM Growth

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

ChangeIntervention

Change Goal

Reschly RTI 86

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassBenchEgbertGoal 2

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Continue Intervention and Monitor Progress

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egbert=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

ChangeIntervention

Change Goal

Fade Tier II

Reschly RTI 87

Decisions Re: Egbert

Fade Tier II academic intervention Reduce number of weekly sessions Monitor progress to ensure continued progress

Evaluate behavioral intervention (not shown here) Depending on results, consider enhancing,

fading, or discontinuing Do NOT consider more intensive interventions

Reschly RTI 88

Prevention of Special Education

President’s Commission (2002) Values and Outcomes: Efficacy of special education is not universally

documented—lowered expectations, reduced academic press

Later educational opportunities typically are better if learning and behavior problems can be resolved in early grades

Probable later career opportunities are better if students can complete general education programs

Prevention and early intervention enhance positive outcomes and expand educational and career opportunities

Reschly RTI 89

Case II: Egberta, Academic Intervention

Egberta (Egbert’s twin sister) Similar performance in reading No behavioral issues, described as quiet,

cooperative child who tries hard and does not disrupt the class

Would not have been referred by teacher, but discovered through universal screening

Reschly RTI 90

0

20

40

60

80

100Class

Goal

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Egberta: Determine Goal: Class=1.5 wd growth per week; Egberta Goal: 2 wd growth per week

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egberta=11

Benchmark

Egbert goal line

Reschly RTI 91

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgberta

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Monitor Egberta’s Progress Relative to Goal

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egberta=11

Benchmark

Egberta goal line

Reschly RTI 92

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgberta

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Change Egberta’s Intervention

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Class=24

Egberta=11

Benchmark

Egberta goal line

ChangeIntervention

Reschly RTI 93

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgberta

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Implement Revised Intervention and Continue to Monitor Progress

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Benchmark

Egberta goal line

ChangeIntervention

Reschly RTI 94

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgberta

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Implement Second Intervention Revision

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Benchmark

Egberta goal line

ChangeIntervention

Reschly RTI 95

0

20

40

60

80

100ClassGoalEgberta

Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rre

ct

Per

Min

ute

Gap Not Closing: Consider Eligibility and More Intensive Interventions

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 12 14 16 18 20

Benchmark

ChangeIntervention

ClassWCM=54

EgbertaWCM=32

Reschly RTI 96

Old Models of SLD Cognitive processing option ??

Scatter is normal, virtually all children will show significant strengths and weaknesses

Pattern of cognitive processes unrelated to More accurate SLD identification Improved instruction Improved child outcomes

No scientifically-based studies showing benefits of designing instruction from cognitive profiles Vested interests? and Burden of proof

Reschly RTI 97

Cognitive Processing and Interventions: ATI or Matching Strengths Effects

Treatment/Intervention Effect Size

Modality Matched Instr. (Aud.) +.03

Modality Matched Instr. (Vis.) +.04

Simultaneous/Successive .??

Right Brain/Left Brain .??

Cultural Leaning Style .00

NOTHING FOR KIDS

FEEL GOOD ASSESSMENT

Reschly RTI 98

Results of ATI Research King of England describing his Danish brother-in-

law: There is nothing there. Cronbach, (1975). “Once we attend to interactions,

we enter a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity.” (p. 119)

Kavale (1999) No supportive data, but cannot kill “Phoenix-like” processing claims

Vaughn and Linan-Thompson (2003), “There is no empirical support for the use of modality-matched instruction or learning styles as a means to enhance outcomes for students with LD.” (p. 142).

Reschly RTI 99

Challenge to Cognitive Processing Advocates in SLD

Show the field one scientifically-based study confirming a statistically significant interaction between cognitive processing pattern and teaching methodology OR

Document how cognitive processing can be used by practitioners to make reliable and valid SLD diagnoses, using the joint APA-AERA-NCME Test Standards?

Reschly RTI 100

What is a Comprehensive Evaluation Note Federal Regulation,

(g) The child is assessed in all areas related to the suspected disability, including, if appropriate, health, vision, hearing, social and emotional status, general intelligence, academic performance, communicative status, and motor abilities. (34 C.F.R. 300.532

Meaning? Note “if appropriate”

Reschly RTI 101

Federal Requirements Multiple domains must be considered Screening in multiple domains followed by, if

appropriate, …… If potential educationally related deficits are

suggested by screening, THEN In depth assessment in the domain

Principle: If screening suggests adequate functioning, then in depth assessment is wasteful and irrelevant

Reschly RTI 102

Comprehensive Evaluation: After Tier II

Domain Screening If depth, if appropriate

Possible

Decision

Health Nurse, records

Referral

MD Eval

Medical condition

Vision Nurse, records

Ophthalmology Visual Impairment

Hearing Nurse, records

Otological, Audiologist

Hearing Impairment

Intelligence Records, Tch ratings, ach. tests

Psychologist, Gen’l Intell Functioning (GIF)

Sig subaverage GIF, possible MR, possible sp ed

Reschly RTI 103

Domain Screening In Depth, If Appropriate

Possible Decision

Reading Class work, Tch eval., CBM, group tests

Individual tests, diagnostic tests

More intense intervention, possible sp ed

Math Class work, Tch eval., CBM, group tests

Individual tests, diagnostic tests

More intense intervention, possible sp ed

Adaptive Behavior

Records, Tch checklist

Observations Parent interview

Possible eligibility for MR

Written Language Class work, Tch eval., CBM, group tests

Individual tests, diagnostic tests

More intense intervention, possible sp ed

Comprehensive Evaluation: After Tier II

Reschly RTI 104

Domain Screening In depth, if appropriate

Possible Decision

Communication Tchr Observations, Sp/L screening

Sp/L eval, tests, obs.

Sp/Lang need, therapy

Behavior Tchr judgment, checklists, nomination

Observation, Interview, Indiv intervention

Emotional Regulation

Tchr judgment, checklists, nomination

Observation, Interview, Indiv intervention

More intense intervention, possible sp ed

Motor Physical, Tch, PE observations

Medical evaluation

More intense intervention, possible sp ed

Comprehensive Evaluation: Post Tier II

Reschly RTI 105

Egberta Consideration of Eligibility Levels Difference: Large performance differences compared

to peers and benchmark expectations in relevant domains of behavior

Rate Difference: Large differences in rate of learning compared to peers and trajectories toward benchmark standards when provided with high quality interventions implemented over a significant period

Documented Adverse Impact on Education Documented Need for Special Education Exit Criteria Exclusion Factors: Rule out MR etc.

Reschly RTI 106

Digression: Neuropsychology

and Neuroscience Distinguish between neuropsychology and

neuroscience Neuropsychology is dependent on

psychometric profiles Difference scores are less reliable Scatter is normal Base rates for profile variations Flat profiles are atypical

Nearly all have profile variations

Reschly RTI 107

Neuroscience Findings

Instruction in decoding changes brain functioning on fMRI

Neuroscience findings generally refute traditional neuropsychology with learning problems

Neurological functioning more dynamic, less static Little practical application of fMRI to current school

psychology practice No unique LD markers!!

Reschly RTI 108

Digression: fMRI Studies

Science article: fMRIs of boys and girls engaged in decoding-Girls used both hemispheres, boys one

Implications?? Do fMRI to find real LD? Abandon IQ and go to fMRIs Trade the hatchback for an 18 wheeler Cost issues: $3m per machine, plus

maintenance

Reschly RTI 109

More fMRI Implications

Delay reading until both hemispheres work for males simultaneously So that is going to happen?

Equity issue---restrict girls to one hemisphere; hemispherectomy Hey, fair is fair

Improve male-female communication if females could use only one hemisphere at a time Wait until I tell Krisann

Reschly RTI 110

RTI in Special Education Programs

Special education programs should be, Scientifically based Matched to student need Progress monitoring against goals (exit criteria) Formative evaluation Goal of passing benchmark tests, exiting

Current special education programs????

Reschly RTI 111

Special Education for Students with High Incidence Disabilities

High Incidence Disabilities Mild Mental Retardation Emotional Disturbance Specific Learning Disability Other Health Impaired-Attention Deficit

Hyperactivity Disorder Rate is 1% or more of the general student

population

Reschly RTI 112

High Incidence Disabilities

School age identification Usually not identified as adults Teacher referral due to poor achievement

plus, for many, disruptive behavior No identifiable biological anomaly, normal

appearance Reading is a major concern for most (70%-

80%)

Reschly RTI 113

Improving Special Education with RTI

Diagnosis (see previous segment) Graphs showing insufficient progress with

high quality general education interventions at Tiers I and II

Other Tier III interventions are not sufficient Special education eligibility determined Then what????

Reschly RTI 114

Improving IEPs Connect individual evaluation with IEP with Special

Education Interventions Critical IEP Components (relevant to the

intervention) (not an exhaustive list) Present Levels of Educational Performance Measurable Annual Goals Specifically designed instruction provided by qualified

personnel Participation in the general education curriculum and state

wide assessments

Reschly RTI 115

Present Levels of Educational Performance

Must be related to the full and individual evaluation

Desirable Stated in terms of the school curriculum Specification of gaps between current

performance and trajectories toward reaching benchmarks

Exit criteria for special education dismissal

Reschly RTI 116

Measurable Annual Goals

Goals are described in objective, measurable terms

Goals are stated in terms of the general education curriculum Rate of progress specified, graphed Skills specified Progress compared to goals Interventions changed or goals changed

depending on progress

Reschly RTI 117

Specially Designed Instruction Uniqueness of special education is NOT in different

methodologies BUT IS IN Intensity, frequency of progress monitoring and

formative evaluation, precision of goals, and specificity of instruction Intensity involves time, group size Specificity of instruction, thoroughness of skills

specification, intentional teaching, integration with other skills

Application of explicit, systematic instructional methods

Reschly RTI 118

Special Education Final Remarks

Special education can be effective Set of services brought to students, not a place Integrated with general education curriculum Strong accountability Implementation of scientifically based interventions with Specification of goals Frequent progress monitoring Formative evaluation Exit criteria

Reschly RTI 119

Critical Skills/Competencies Problem solving-interviewing skills Behavior assessment including CBM Powerful instructional interventions Powerful behavior change interventions Relationship skills Tailoring assessment to referral concerns

Reschly RTI 120

Continuing Education: Problem solving and system design

Reschly, D. J., Tilly, W. D. III, & Grimes, J. P. (Eds.). (1999). Special education in transition: Functional assessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

Bergan, J. R., & Kratochwill, T. R. (1990). Behavioral consultation and therapy. New York: Plenum.

Shinn, M. R. (Ed.). (1989). Curriculum-based measurement: Assessing special children. New York: Guilford Press.

Reschly RTI 121

Continuing Education: CBM, CBE, Behavioral Assessment

Shinn, M. R. (Ed.) (1998). Advanced applications of curriculum-based measurement: New York: Guilford Press.

Shapiro, E. S. (Ed.) (1996). Academic skills problems: Direct assessment and intervention (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Shapiro, E. S., & Kratochwill, T. R. (Eds.). (2000). Behavioral assessment in schools: Theory, research, and clinical applications (2nd Ed.). New York: Guilford Press.

Reschly RTI 122

Continuing Education: Academic and Behavioral Interventions

Sulzer-Azaroff, B., & Mayer, G. R. (1991). Behavior analysis for lasting change. Fort Worth, TX: Holt, Rinehart, Winston.

Howell, K. & Nolet, V. (2000). Curriculum-based evaluation: Teaching and decision making (3rd Ed.). Atlanta, GA: Wadsworth.

Shinn, M.R., Walker, H.M., & Stoner, G. (2002).  Interventions for academic and behaviors problems II:  Preventive and remedial approaches.  Bethesda, MD: NASP

Reschly RTI 123

Is the Past the Future? Paradigm Shift

Reschly & Ysseldyke, 2002, Vision of a different future “Insight” absent explicit ties to effective

interventions is useless to the student Why change? Better answers to old problems

Improved knowledge base and technology Different questions-Eligibility vs Outcomes Outcomes criteria guide practice

Reschly, D. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2002). Paradigm shift: The past is not the future. In A. Thomas & J. Grimes (Eds.) Best practices in school psychology IV (4th Ed.) (pp. 3-20). Bethesda, MD: National Association of School Psychologists.

Reschly RTI 124

Correlational to Experimental Science Cronbach’s Two Disciplines

Correlational: Promote human welfare through measurement of natural human variations and then assigning (placing) persons in treatments that are appropriate to their abilities: In school psychology, refer-test-place

Experimental: Promote human welfare by implementing effective treatments School psychology, problem solving

Reschly RTI 125

Cronbach’s Merger: ATIThe ATI Manifesto: “For any potential problem there is some

best group of treatments to use and some best allocation of persons to treatment.” (Cronbach, 1957, p.680)

Failure of ATI: "Once we attend to interactions, we enter a hall of mirrors that extends to infinity." (Cronbach, 1975, p. 119

ATI Today: Phoenix like (Kavale & Forness, 1999); No evidence to support ATI with LD (Vaughn and Linan-Thompson, 2003)

Reschly RTI 126

Paradigm Shift: Problem Solving and RTI

Experimental methods: Time Series Analyses; "One monitors responses to the treatment and adjusts it .." (Cronbach, 1975, p. 126).

Problem Solving connects scientific instructional-intervention literature to academic and behavioral needs of children

RtI: Criteria to determine needs, make changes in programs, and select more intensive interventions as needed

Reschly RTI 127

Paradigm Shift: What Happens to School Psychologists

Roles change, less assessment and more intervention

Roles move toward universally endorsed ideal roles since 1955

School psychology employment remains stable or grows

School psychology satisfaction is the same or higher

Reschly RTI 128

Modern Foundations of Problem Solving and RtI

Bergan (Kratochwill) Behavioral Consultation Multiple step problem solving process Connects science to practice in terms of child

outcomes Deno & Mirkin Data-based program

modification Assessment of academic and behavior growth

with intervention revision rules

Reschly RTI 129

Purpose of Our ActivitiesThe Why of Our Professions

Some Questions: 1. Outcomes criterion: Effects of services?2. Predict outcomes OR change behavior and

disconfirm predictions?3. Focus on hypothetical constructs or increase defined

competencies in crucial domains of behavior4. Expand opportunities for meaningful choices or make

placements Can We Do Better??If So, What is Our Obligation?

Reschly RTI 130

Current Roles of School Psychologistsin the U.S. and Iowa

School Psychology Role

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

USIA

Assessment Direct Intervention

Problem Solving

Consultation

Research/Evaluation

Systems Organizational Consultation

Est

ima

ted

Hou

rs P

er W

eek

22.6

14.6

7.3

9.2

6.6

12.2

2.63.6

1.0 0.8

Reschly RTI 131

School Psychology Assessment in Traditionaland Alternative Delivery Systems

Tim

es P

er

Mo

nth

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

22

24

26

28

30

USIA

Ability Educational Behavior Projectives V-M Pre-Sch Social/

Observation Fam Emotional A.B

18.16

0.04

12.89 12.30

10.64

28.69

17.59

0.44

10.49

0.00

1.76 0.81

20.44

7.11

Reschly RTI 132

Assessment of Educational Skills:U.S. and Iowa

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

USIA

K-TEA Key-Math PIAT WRMT WRAT CBM/CBE W-J ACH WIAT Other

1.49

0.0 0.42 0.030.00

0.69 0.00 0.68 0.03

1.43

0.03

1.61

12.12

3.51

4.04

0.00

2.88

0.52

Reschly RTI 133

School Psychologists’ Job Satisfactionin the U.S. and Iowa

0

1

2

3

4

5

Work Colleagues Supervision Pay Promotion

USIA

3.54

3.81

4.01 4.13

3.34

4.64

3.03 2.95

2.29

2.95

High

Job

Satisfaction

Low

Job Satisfaction Dimension

Reschly RTI 134

0

5000

10000

15000

20000

25000

30000

35000

77 79 81 83 85 87 89 91 93 95 97 99 1 3

NumberLinear

National School Psychology Growth

Trend Line

30,154 in 03-04

Reschly RTI 135

Summary

Moving from where we are to where we need to be is a huge challenge for the new century

BUT I Believe

The Best Is Yet To Be