Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
RTI: Wai)ng (Even Longer) to Fail
Sco9 Schwartz, Ph.D., CCC/SLP BVSD
University of Colorado Boulder
What is RTI?
• Defini)on of RtI – Mul) )ered process of instruc)on and assessment that is designed to iden)fy students who demonstrate deficits in basic skills and who would fall further behind without focused instruc)on.
– The process involves providing high quality instruc)on, monitoring progress and adjus)ng instruc)on based on the student’s response.
Don’t Dis RTI
• RTI was implemented quickly, without warning, without a solid scien)fic base and without sufficient guidance (at every level).
• “Ques)oning RTI is nearly here)cal” • “Those who oppose RTI and the in-‐depth applica)on of the RTI model are (seen as) simply uninformed.” (Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009)
• Because there were posi)ve results in small scale, university run studies does not mean it will scale to the na)on without intensive guidance.
RTI
• “The rapid implementa)on of RTI-‐currently lacking a sufficient evidence base-‐seems to reflect a giant step backward and reeks more of educa)onal faddism and poli)cal correctness than of science based, effec)ve educa)onal prac)ces.” (Reynolds and Shaywitz, 2009), (Kavale, et al, 2008)
Let the Pendulum Swing
• 70’s Open Schools, tear down those walls • Tracking of students (Track 1, 2 and 3) (are we back?) • 80’s Whole Language, not phonics (much success?) • Fuzzy math, New Math, (e.g. Inves)ga)ons) • No Child Lef Behind-‐all students must reach "proficient" on state tests by 2014 (Diane Ravitch)
• Race to the Top –Evaluate teachers by student test scores (for some, a9ach pay to success (Atlanta))
• Guru of the year
The Old Wait to Fail Model
• The discrepancy formula for iden)fying children with a Specific Learning Disability (SLD) made it difficult to iden)fy young students.
• We had to wait, providing no services, (3rd grade) un)l they failed academically to show a big enough discrepancy .
• Since there was no cogni)ve/academic discrepancy, students with lower cogni)ve scores (gray area) would receive no services.
The New Wait (even longer) to Fail Model
• Students with SLD (and others) are receiving interven)ons early.
• Students with SLD are responding to )er 2 (gen ed) interven)ons enough to not qualify for special educa)on but not enough to succeed in class.
• Students with low cogni)ve abili)es are minimally responding, not succeeding and qualifying as SLD.
• Students with SLD are wai)ng even longer to fail and receiving non-‐targeted instruc)on during the wait.
Ques)ons We Will Look at Today
• Is the RTI process a valid way to iden)fy students with Specific Learning Disabili)es (SLD)?
• How has the eligibility criteria for SLD changed in the RTI model?
• Who are the students who are being considered to have a “specific learning disability”?
• Is the RTI process making it a more difficult and lengthy process to iden)fy students who have specific learning disabili)es?
• What is the fallout of the RTI process for students?
Defini)on of Specific Learning Disability
Basically unchanged from 1968 • a disorder in one or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or wri9en, that may manifest itself in an imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do mathema)cal calcula)ons, including condi)ons such as perceptual disabili)es, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunc)on, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia.
• Exclusions
History
• On April 6, 1963, Samuel A. Kirk told a parent advocacy group that “Recently, I have used the term ‘learning disability’ to describe a group of children who have disorders in development, in language, speech, reading, and associated communica)on skills needed for social interac)on.”
• By 1968, “specific learning disability” (LD) became a federally designated category of special educa)on (U.S. Office of Educa)on, 1968).
Common Characteris)cs of SLD
• Poor decoding, fluency and reading rate • Poor phonological awareness • Poor reading comprehension
• Weak vocabulary and conceptual knowledge
• Frequent spelling errors of HF words • Poor wri)ng fluency; difficulty organizing wri9en work
• Disorganized recall and retell of facts and details
And…..
• Weak ability to store and retrieve informa)on efficiently.
• Poor working memory. • Weak ability to solve problems. • Difficulty using specific informa)on to reach general conclusions.
• Poor organiza)on and )me management. • Poor organiza)on of notes and other wri9en materials.
• Need more )me to complete assignments.
Evidence from Neurology • Booth and Burman (2001) found that people with dyslexia
have less gray ma9er in the lef parietotemporal area than nondyslexic individuals
• Heim and Keil (2004) found that right-‐handed people with dyslexia show a pa9ern of symmetry (right equals lef) or asymmetry in the other direc)on (right larger than lef).
• Shaywitz (2002). When presented with iden)fying the names or sounds of le9ers, sounding out nonsense words and sounding out and comparing meanings of real words readers with SLD show underac)va)on in areas where they are weaker (lef hemisphere) and overac)va)on in other diffuse areas in order to compensate.
Evidence from Gene)cs
• Twin Studies • For language disability concordance (the likelihood that one twin will be affected if the other twin is affected) – 75% for monozygo)c (MZ, iden)cal) twins – 43% for dizygo)c (DZ, fraternal) twins
• For reading disability, the concordances • 84% for monozygo)c (MZ, iden)cal) twins and • 48%, for dizygo)c (DZ, fraternal) twins
Evidence from Gene)cs
• Hereditary from parents • If father effected, 45% chance of children being effected
• If mother effected, 28% chance of children effected
• If both mother and father, 79% of children effected.
• Such studies consistently indicate substan)al heritability for learning abili)es as well as for disabili)es.
Basic Psychological Processes
• A2en4on -‐ selec)ve a9en)on, sustained a9en)on, response inhibi)on, a9en)on shifing, and focus.
• Auditory -‐ may include phonemic awareness auditory percep)on, sound discrimina)on, and auditory mental manipula)on.
• Language Use -‐ measures of recep)ve language, expressive language, listening comprehension, vocabulary development, and general knowledge.
Basic Psychological Processes
• Memory -‐ short term memory, working memory, associa)ve memory and long term retrieval.
• Mental Control -‐ execu)ve func)oning, planning, organiza)on, and self-‐regula)on.
Basic Psychological Processes
• Problem-‐Solving/Judgment -‐social awareness, reasoning skills, decision-‐making, fluid reasoning and emo)onal control.
• Processing – to quickly perceive and respond to dis)nc)ons in s)muli; processing speed, automa)city, and rapid decision-‐making. (Rapid Automa)c Naming)
Basic Psychological Processes
• Sensori-‐Motor (Ac4on/Output) -‐visual-‐motor integra)on, motor speed, and overall fine/gross motor skills.
• Visual -‐ spa)al awareness, visual perceptual skills, visual memory, perceptual organiza)on, visual mental manipula)on, and perceptual discrimina)on.
Criteria for a Specific Learning Disability Using the Discrepancy Model • A significant discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability.
• Discrete formula for determining SLD (IQ and SS on academic assessment).
• Looking for “unexpected underachievement” within the child.
• Resulted in “wait to fail” because of the wide range of allowable variability in achievement in the early grades.
Does Cogni)ve Tes)ng Help us Understand the Student?
• Info gathered from cogni)ve assessment helps create a profile of basic psychological processes: – Visual or auditory strengths and weaknesses – Verbal abili)es – Processing speed – Working memory – Overall ability (consistent or not) This info can enlighten us and direct us in strategies to accommodate the student’s learning style.
How The Old Process Failed the Student with SLD
• Teacher or parent knew a student was struggling/different in kindergarten or first grade.
• Teacher referred child to special educa)on. • Special Ed either did an evalua)on that did not show enough of a discrepancy or told teacher to wait un)l next year.
• No process or resources were in place to focus on the student who did not qualify.
Ring Out the Old, Ring in the New
New Criteria for a Specific Learning Disability using RTI Model
• Unexpected underachievement for grade or age. • Student does not make sufficient progress to meet age or state approved grade level standards when using a process based on the student’s response to scien)fic, researched based interven)on.
• An evalua)on that indicates a discrepancy (below the 12th %ile) between student achievement compared with reference group in iden)fied areas.
• No need to show discrepancy between academic achievement and intellectual ability or to show any processing deficits.
New Criteria for a Specific Learning Disability
• No clear cut guidelines to allow for consistency of a diagnosis between students, schools, districts or states.
• No specific )meline or response criteria to determine when to evaluate and provide a more targeted interven)on (wai)ng even longer to fail)
• “Recogni)on that children we might have thought of as “slow learners” may very well have specific learning disabili)es.” CDE
• The only cogni)ve exclusion is IQ below 70 (intellectual disability)
How RTI Fails the Student with SLD
• Test (DRA?) scores indicate a student is not performing as well as peers.
• Student is placed in small group literacy instruc)on that focuses on targeted skills (or not).
• Students makes some progress in interven)on but are s)ll not successful in classroom.
• Student has, at least, two PST mee)ngs where it is decided to go to special educa)on evalua)on (classroom teachers!)
How The New Process Fails the Student with SLD
• Student is assessed but does not qualify for services because they have enough informa)on and strategies for assessments to not qualify but not enough to succeed in class.
• Con)nue RTI ad nauseum
• Student, teachers and parents are frustrated at the results.
• Wait un)l the demands are increased and child fails. Student knows they are doing poorly.
Grandfathered In?
• If a student qualified for a Specific Learning Disability before the change in defini)on, he or she s)ll qualifies.
• If a student already qualified, a different criteria is established to maintain services.
• Because the student has been given ongoing instruc)on, he need not score below the 12th %ile to con)nue to qualify.
• We expect to see improvement due to interven1on.
For an Ini)al Evalua)on
• For an Ini)al evalua)on, the student must go through the RtI process to qualify for an iden)fica)on of having a specific learning disability.
• The student must have gone through mul)ple interven)ons without sufficient response.
• “A score at or below the 12th percen)le or 1 ½ standard devia)ons below the mean may be considered to represent a significant deficit.”
The Problem with This Model: Students with Specific Learning
Disabili4es Learn! • If given focused a9en)on in literacy, most children with typical or above intelligence will learn the tasks to be assessed. Most will improve above the 12%ile.
• The student with SLD will not learn enough in the less targeted Tier 2 to catch up, but will learn enough to not qualify.
• Students with low abili)es might remain below the 12th%ile, qualifying as SLD.
• We expect to see improvement due to interven1on.
Reality Check
• Almost 14% of individuals have cogni)ve scores between 70 and 85.
• We would expect these students to have reading scores between 1 and 2 SD below the mean. This would be ‘expected underachievement’.
• A student with a 115 IQ and standard scores in the 70-‐85 range would demonstrate “unexpected underachievement”.
Change the Construct of SLD?
• “If a low achievement defini)on of learning disabili)es takes hold, the learning disability field will necessarily change in very significant ways. Learning disabili)es as a field will disappear. That may be a bit premature and melodrama)c, but it may not be.” L. Fuchs
Gap Analysis?
• “A gap of 2.0 or greater, even afer targeted/intensive interven)on, is ofen considered significant, but is not an absolute cut-‐point.
• If the majority of students have a skill gap of 2.0 or greater, a 2.0 gap for the student being evaluated would not necessarily signify the presence of a disability.” (CDE)
• If you have an SLD and, unfortunately, go to a low performing school, you will not be iden)fied.
Is the RTI process a valid way to iden)fy students with Specific Learning Disabili)es (SLD)?
• In a word….NO. • It does not address the defini)on of a learning disability. • It causes students with specific learning disabili)es to wait even longer to be iden)fied.
• It iden)fies students with “expected underachievement” as having a specific learning disability.
• Students with SLDs in a low performing school become invisible in the RTI model.
Lets Get in the Weeds
• What interven)on? • Who provides the interven)on?
• How long do we wait for a response? • What is or is not a response?
• What do we do?
What are the Interven)ons
• Should be specific to the deficit area according to standards based tes)ng (fluency, comprehension, phonemic awareness, etc.).
• Canned programs: Is the lack of trust of teachers determining interven)ons? no wiggle room for individual differences.
• Is the best the enemy of the good? (We bought this program, it has research behind it, use it. Don’t tell me it is inappropriate for those students.)
Who Gives the Interven)ons?
• Classroom teacher (what’s in your toolbox?) • Paraeducator • Reading tutors • Literacy teachers • Special educa)on teacher • Speech Language Pathologist
What is So Special about Special Educa)on?
• Certain programs are deemed to be specific to special educa)on (funding) and are only allowed to be used by students who are in special educa)on.
• Lexia, Wilson, Lindamood Bell, SOAR
• Withhold these programs from students even though it might be what they need (un)l they fail long enough to qualify).
How Long Do We Try Different Interven)ons?
• 6-‐8 weeks per interven)on group? • Student is showing some progress but not enough to close the gap; another 6-‐8 weeks?
• Change to a different program; another 6-‐8 weeks?
• Some students are in RtI for a year, two years, for ever (wai)ng……). These students con)nue to show some progress when receiving interven)ons but can not succeed without them.
How Long Do We Wait for a Response?
• Cau4on should be taken not to delay a referral for special educa4on evalua4on beyond the point when the team should be suspec4ng a disability. RtI problem-‐solving and the provision of interven4ons do not replace the right of a child with a disability to be iden4fied as such and to receive special educa4on and related services. (CDE)
• Parents can request an evalua4on and, if there is a suspected disability, the school must do an evalua4on.
What is a “Response”?
• How do we define a “response”. • “There are no widely accepted criteria for iden)fica)on of inadequate responders” (Fletcher and Vaughn, 2009)
• Students either respond well, respond a li9le or do not respond.
Closing the Gap
• Students who respond well: – Students who were not presented with the material previously or not recep)ve to the informa)on.
– Students who needed a different presenta)on. – Students who need more explicit instruc)on in specific areas of weakness.
– These students will close the gap.
Trajectory that Does Not Close the Gap
• Students who respond a li9le: – Students with learning disabili)es: these students will respond enough to not qualify for services but not enough to succeed in class.
– Those students with cogni)ve abili)es that are approaching typical but are s)ll lower.
Limited Response
• Students who do not respond (or respond extremely slowly): – Low ability students; cogni)ve level is limi)ng rate of improvement.
– Students with significant a9en)onal and behavioral issues.
– Students who do not speak the language of instruc)on.
The Issues and The Fallout of RTI
• Students with learning disabili)es can learn. They are receiving )er 2 instruc)on and gewng enough to not qualify but not enough to succeed.
• We are withholding appropriate interven)ons and using inadequate interven)ons un)l we know the student with an SLD will qualify.
• Students with SLD who are receiving outside tutoring are not qualifying because their test scores are too high.
The Issues and The Fallout of RTI
• Students know they are failing in the classroom and are affected (damaged) emo)onally and socially with no support.
• Parents are gewng outside tes)ng early on in the process to obtain scores that are low enough to qualify their student for services.
• Without any cogni)ve tes)ng we have no evidence to present to the child to let them know that they are intelligent, leaving them crea)ng their own reality about their intelligence.
The Issues and The Fallout of RTI
• Parents are gewng outside diagnoses of ADHD or ADD to qualify for services (must only show the impact of ADD on learning to qualify).
• Students who are slow learners are being qualified as having a specific learning disability.
• Bright (high IQ) students who are struggling with reading (but perform similar to classmates) become invisible in the process.
What Can We Do to Improve the System
• Allow and encourage cogni)ve tes)ng, not for a discrepancy formula, but to look for basic psychological processes that are affected.
• RTI should be looked at as an instruc)onal model, not a diagnos)c tool.
• Allow for professional judgment. For many students, we do not need to wait a year…we know.
• Provide appropriately targeted services earlier. • Con)nue to serve lower func)oning students but not as “specific learning disability”.
RTI-‐The Good
• Typical students who needed an extra boost are gewng it (is that any different).
• We are collec)ng data to drive our decisions.
• Students who are lower func)oning (gray area) can now receive services through special educa)on.
RTI-‐ The Bad
• Students with “specific learning disabili)es” are wai)ng even longer to fail before qualifying for services.
• We are collec)ng (too much) data to drive our decisions.
• Low func)oning students are qualifying as students with “specific learning disabili)es”.
• Student in lower func)oning schools are not being iden)fied.
The Ugly
• General educa)on teachers are gewng so frustrated with the system they are not referring students.
• Special educa)on teachers are scrambling to figure out how to get students the help they need.
• Parents, teachers and students are frustrated. • Students who are wai)ng to be iden)fied are losing valuable interven)on )me and are being further damaged socially and emo)onally as they wait.
• More students are gewng the iden)fica)on of ADHD to get services.
Final Words
• Hopefully: This, too, will pass (or at least morph into something reasonable).
• RTI is not all bad, we need to accurately assess what it does well.
• We need to con)nue to get the students who need our help, the help they need.
