Understanding & Implementing Problem- Solving Response to Intervention: It ’ s a Journey, Not a Sprint SASED Spring Institute Naperville, IL February 29,

Understanding & Implementing Problem-Solving Response to Intervention: It’s a

Journey, Not a Sprint

SASED Spring Institute

Naperville, ILFebruary 29, 2008

Dr. George M. Batsche

Professor and Co-Director

Institute for School Reform

University of South Florida

Resources

• www.nasdse.org– RtI Primer and Research Bibliography

• www.fcrr.org– Interventions– Integrity Monitoring Tools (Tier 1/2)

• www.texasreading.org• www.whatworks.org• www.interventioncentral.org

http://www.nasdse.org/

http://www.fcrr.org/

http://www.texasreading.org/

http://www.whatworks.org/

http://www.interventioncentral.org/

The Vision

• 95% of students at “proficient” level

• Students possess social and emotional behaviors that support “active” learning

• A “unified” system of educational services

– One “ED”

• Student Support Services perceived as a necessary component for successful schooling

Response to Intervention

• RtI is the practice of (1) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions.

(Batsche, et al., 2005)

• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.

Stages of Implementing Problem-Solving/RtI

• Consensus– Belief is shared– Vision is agreed upon– Implementation requirements understood

• Infrastructure Development– Problem-Solving Process– Data System– Policies/Procedures– Training– Tier I and II intervention systems

• E.g., K-3 Academic Support Plan– Technology support– Decision-making criteria established

• Implementation

The Process of Systems Change

• Until, and unless, Consensus (understanding the need and trusting in the support) is reached no support will exist to establish the Infrastructure. Until, and unless, the Infrastructure is in place Implementation will not take place.

• A fatal flaw is to attempt Implementation without Consensus and Infrastructure

• Leadership must come both from the Principal and from the educators in the building.

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative?

• Priority of superintendent and school board– District Leadership Team– Strategic Plan

• Focus is on effectiveness of Tier 1 for disaggregated groups– Unit of Analysis is the BUILDING

How Do We Know If This is a General Education Initiative?

• Principal Led– Regular data analysis– Data Days– Team focuses in improving impact of core

instruction

• Prevention and Early Intervention– Screening and early intervention with

Kindergarten students

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Steps in the Problem-Solving Process

1. PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION• Identify replacement behavior• Data- current level of performance• Data- benchmark level(s)• Data- peer performance• Data- GAP analysis

2. PROBLEM ANALYSIS• Develop hypotheses( brainstorming)• Develop predictions/assessment

3. INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT• Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified• Proximal/Distal• Implementation support

4. Response to Intervention (RtI)• Frequently collected data• Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

Intervention Framework

• Intensive Interventions– A few

• Supplemental Interventions– Some

• Core/Universal Interventions– All

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90%80-90%

Students

Academic Behavior

How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol

Addl.Diagnostic

Assessment

InstructionResults

Monitoring

IndividualDiagnostic

IndividualizedIntensive

weekly

All Students at a grade level

ODRsMonthly

Bx Screening

Bench-Mark

Assessment

AnnualTesting

Behavior Academics

None ContinueWithCore

Instruction

GradesClassroom

AssessmentsYearly Assessments

StandardProtocol

SmallGroupDifferen-tiatedBy Skill

2 times/month

Step 1Step 2 Step 3 Step 4

Supplemental

1-5%

5-10%

80-90%

Core

Intensive

Consensus Development:Data

• Are you happy with your data?

• Building/Grade Level Student Outcomes– Disaggregated– AYP

TIER ONE DATA ANALY SIS School A (K-5) 2006-07 Student population (size) at site 608

Percent of students on free/reduced lunch 56%

Percent of students who are ELL 38%

Percent of students served in Special Education 10%

Percent of students identified as having a Specific Learning Disability 3.8%

Per pupil funding $8,100

Percentage of students per grade proficient on school screening measure

K Š 88% 1 Š 71% 2 Š 66% 3 Š 91%1 4 Š 81% 5 Š 85%

Reading First School N

Title I school Y 1School indicated that 3rd grade scores are high because they were the first grade to receive targeted interventions since K.

TIER ONE DATA ANALY SIS

School E (Grades 6-8 middle school) 2005-06

Student population (size) at site 870

Percent of students on free/reduced lunch 50

Percent of students who are ELL 22

Percent of students served in Special Education 11

Percent of students identified as having a Specific Learning Disability 3

Per pupil funding $5,277.30

Percentage of students per grade proficient on state measure (CST English/Language Arts)2

6th 50% 7th 57% 8th 50%

Is this a Reading First School? N

Is this a Title I school? Y 2The percentage of students who were below or far below basic was 16% for 6th grade, 17% for 7th grade, and 16% for 7th grade.

Tier 1 Data Example

Reading Instruction - Tier I Grade Level

Anclote NWF-3

Low Risk59%

Moderate Risk21%

High Risk20%

Anclote NWF-4

Low Risk70%

Moderate Risk21%

High Risk9%

Referral Analysis

• 42% Noncompliance• 30%

Off-Task/Inattention• 12% Physical/Verbal

Aggression• 6% Relational

Aggression• 10% Bullying

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

1stQtr

2ndQtr

3rdQtr

4thQtr

Noncompliance

Off Task

Aggression

RelAggressionBullying

Building-Level Behavior Data

• % Building %ReferredMale 50%

80%White 72%

54%Hispanic 12%

20%African American 15%

24%Other 1%

2%Low SES 25%

50%

Behavior Referral Analysis

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

Building

Referred

www.swis.org

www.swis.org

Infrastructure:Critical Issues

• Policies and Procedures– The Model

– Steps in the Model

– Decision Rules

– Decision Rules and Impact on Intervention Development

• Expectation for Tier Functions/Integration• Data Collection and Interpretation• Intervention Development• Intervention Integrity and Documentation

Infrastructure:Policies and Procedures

• Clearly delineate the components of the model– Triangle– 4-Step Model

• Identify steps/skills required for each component

• Decision Rules

Decision Rules

• Response to Intervention Rules

• Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to Intervention?

• Positive Response– Gap is closing– Can extrapolate point at which target student will

“come in range” of peers--even if this is long range• Questionable Response

– Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening

– Gap stops widening but closure does not occur• Poor Response

– Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

• Positive, Questionable, Poor Response• Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)

– Positive• Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark (at

least).• Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired functional

independence.– Questionable

• Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

– Poor• Return to problem solving for new intervention

Intervention Development

• Tiers 1 and 2

• Critical Components

• Evidence-based

Data Infrastructure: Using Existing Data to Predict Intervention Needs

• Previous referral history predicts future referral history

• How do we interpret teacher referrals?• Previous intervention history predicts future

intervention history• How do we use this information to establish an

infrastructure for change?

Data-Driven Infrastructure:Establishing a Building Baseline

• Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years– Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the skills/support

to handle– Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the resources

currently in place and the “history” of what constitutes a referral in that building

– Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years– Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND

potential Tier II and III interventions– Present data to staff. Reinforces “Need” concept

Data-Driven Infrastructure:Establishing a Building Baseline

• Assess current “Supplemental Interventions”– Identify all students receiving supplemental interventions– For those interventions, identify

• Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc)• Duration (minutes/week)• Provider

– Aggregate• Identifies instructional support types in building• This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs

How the Tiers Work

• Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral

• Greater the tier, greater support and “severity”• Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an

intervention that results in a positive response to intervention• Continue until student strengthens response significantly• Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)• Determine the relationship between sustained growth and

sustained support.

Integrating the Tiers

• Tier 1 (Core) instruction present at all three levels

• Purpose of Tier 2 is to improve success in Tier 1

• Purpose of Tier 3 is to improve success in Tier 2

• Is there a single “intervention” plan made up of different Tier services?

Integrating the Tiers

• 5th grade student reading at the 2nd grade level– Tier 3

• Direct Instruction, Targeted, Narrow Focus (e.g., phonemic awareness, phonics, some fluency)

– Tier 2• Fluency, vocabulary, comprehension, pre-teach for Tier 1

– Tier 1• Focus on comprehension, participation, scripted decoding

• Use core materials for content• Progress monitor both instructional level and grade placement

level skills

Cascade of Interventions

• Entire staff understands “triangle” and the available interventions at each Tier.

• Supplemental and intensive interventions are in addition to core instruction.

• A student intervention plan is a single document that is integrated across the tiers.

• Different tiers ensure that outcomes in Tier 1 are improved• Tier 1 progress monitoring data are used for effectiveness

determination for all Tiers

Intervention Development

• Criteria for “Appropriate” and “Effective” Interventions:– Evidence-based

• Type of Problem• Population• Setting• Levels of Support

• Focused on most important needs• Group interventions have priority• Interventions MUST be linked to Tier 1 focus, materials,

performance criteria

Interventions: Tier 2

• First resource is TIME (AET)– HOW much more time is needed?

• Second resource is curriculum– WHAT does the student need?

• Third resource is personnel– WHO or WHERE will it be provided?

Tier 2: Getting TIME

• “Free” time--does not require additional personnel– Staggering instruction

– Differentiating instruction

– Cross grade instruction

– Skill-based instruction

• Standard Protocol Grouping• Reduced range of “standard” curriculum• After-School• Home-Based

Tier 2: Curriculum

• Standard protocol approach• Focus on essential skills• Most likely, more EXPOSURE and more FOCUS of

core instruction• Linked directly to core instruction materials and

benchmarks• Criterion for effectiveness is 70% of students

receiving Tier 2 will reach benchmarks

Tier 2: Personnel

• EVERYONE in the building is a potential resource• Re-conceptualize who does what• Personnel deployed AFTER needs are identified• WHERE matters less and less• REMEMBER, student performance matters more than labels,

locations and staff needs.• A school cannot deliver intensive services to more than 7% of

the population

Evidence-Based

• Nationally Evidenced– Select to increase probability of success

• Locally Validated

– Local outcome data used to evaluate degree to which interventions “worked”

– Local outcome data trumps national “evidence.”

Intervention Support and Documentation

• Intervention Integrity

• Intervention Support

• Intervention Documentation

Intervention Integrity

• Enhanced through two practices

– Intervention Support System– Intervention lmplementation

Documentation

Intervention Support

• Intervention plans should be developed based on student need and skills of staff

• All intervention plans should have intervention support

• Principals should ensure that intervention plans have intervention support

• Teachers should not be expected to implement plans for which there is no support

Critical Components of Intervention Support

• Support for Intervention Integrity

• Documentation of Intervention Implementation

• Intervention and Eligibility decisions and outcomes cannot be supported in an RtI model without these two critical components


• Pre-meeting– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Determine logistics

• First 2 weeks– 2-3 meetings/week– Review data– Review steps to intervention– Revise, if necessary


• Second Two Weeks– Meet twice each week

• Following weeks– Meet at least weekly– Review data– Review steps– Discuss Revisions

• Approaching benchmark– Review data– Schedule for intervention fading– Review data

Basic Issues in Eligibility Determination

• Student must have the CHARACTERISTICS of the disability

• Student must demonstrate a NEED for the program

» (IDEIA, 2004)

Criteria for Special Education Eligibility

• Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance

• The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark

• Student is not a functionally independent learner

• Complete comprehensive evaluation

Elsie

• Second grade student• End of School Year• Regular Education• Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class

observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF – not great, not terrible

Elsie Grade 2 Tier 1 Oral Reading Fluency

39

53

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Benchmark

Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction

• Step 1: Screening

• ORF = 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box)

• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 12th percentile + or -

• Elsie’s teacher reports that she struggles with multisyllabic words and that she makes many decoding errors when she reads

• Is this student at risk?

No YesMove to Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

This Student is at Risk, General Education Not Working

Elsie

Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction will be provided to Elsie

• She will participate in two different supplemental groups, one focused on Decoding (Phonics for Reading; Archer) and one focused on fluency building (Read Naturally; Imholt)

• She will participate in small group instruction 3x per week, 30 minutes each – and she will also continue with her core instruction

• Supplemental instruction implemented by certified teachers in her school (2 different teachers)

• Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks

Elsie Tier 2 (Results 2)End of Grade 2 and Grade 3

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Tier 2: Supplemental

Note: Third Grade Msmt.Materials used at end of Second grade and throughThird grade

Aimline = .83 words per week

Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie

• Benchmark Level: 90 WCPM• Current Level: 47 WCPM• Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 34 WCPM• Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks• Rate of Growth Required:

– 34/41= .83 WCPM for Elsie– NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

• What would happen if we moved the target to the middle of the “some risk box?”


0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er

Tier 2: Supplemental -


Aimline = 1.29 words per week



– 53/41= 1.29 WCPM for Elsie• Peer Group Rate = about 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark)

1.2 WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark)• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET


62

4752

56 5855 56

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er


Trendline = 1.07 words/week



Questionable RtI

Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision

• The intervention appeared to be working. What the teachers thought was needed was increased time in supplemental instruction.

• They worked together and found a way to give Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on phonics and fluency, 5x per week.



– 44/27= 1.62 WCPM for Elsie• Peer Group Rate = 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2

WCMP (for “some risk” benchmark)• REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET


62

4752

56 5855 56

62

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er






62

4752

56 5855 56

6265 66

7377 75 76

89

8288

92 90

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

110

School Weeks

Word

s C

orr

ect P

er




Trendline = 1.51words/week

Supplemental Revised

Aimline = 1.62words/week

Good RtI

By the Spring of Third Grade

• Elsie’s reading accuracy had improved significantly. Her average % correct hovers around 95 percent.

• She still struggles with multisyllabic words• Normatively, at periodic and annual review

time, she is now performing at about the 19th percentile compared to peers from Heartland AEA. She is catching up!

• Elsie is not a student with a disability


• Step 1: Screening• ORF = on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade

benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of box)

• Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 19th percentile + or -

• Is this student at risk?• Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction for

another benchmark period, if progress continues, move to tier 1

No YesMaintain Tier 2: Strategic Interventions

Elsie

Continue Monitoring or Move Back to Tier 1

Steven

• Second grade student• Beginning of school year• Regular Education• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class

observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Steven

20

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100

Sept Oct Nov Dec Jan Feb

School Weeks

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

in

Benchmark


– Step 1: Screening• ORF = 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk =

44 wcpm• Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5

areas• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working• Is this student at risk?

No YesMove to Tier 2: Strategic InterventionsRita

Steven

Continue Tier 1 Instruction

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction in Rita’s group (3-4 students with similar skill levels)

• Standard protocol implementation• 3x per week, 30 minutes each• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)• Implemented by 2 different available instructional personnel• Implemented for 8 weeks• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

Steven

20 1822 21

24

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wor

ds C

orre

ct P

er M

in

Tier 2: Strategic -PALS

Aimline= 1.50 words/week


Poor RtI

Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention & Instruction

– Step 2: Is student responsive to intervention?

• ORF = 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks away) for some risk = 52 wcpm

• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5 words/week

• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week• Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark• Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?

NoYesMove to Tier 3: Intensive Interventions

Steven

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions & Instruction

• Supplemental, 1:3, pull-out instruction• Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted

Instruction• Specific decoding and analysis strategies • Emphasis on comprehension strategies• 5x per week, 30 minutes each• Implemented by 2 different available

instructional personnel• Implemented for 8 weeks• Progress monitoring once every week

Steven

20 1822 21

2428

3136 35

42 4440

45

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in


Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension Strategies


Trendline = 0.2.32 words/week

Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention & Instruction

– Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 3?• ORF = 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks away)

for some risk = 52 wcpm• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5

words/week • Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week• At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas• Student on target to attain benchmark• Step 3: Is student responsive to intervention?• Move student back to Strategic intervention

NoYesMove to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination

Steven

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2

Tier 3 Decisions

• GAP?

• Rate??

• Independent Functioning?– Fade Intervention to Supplemental Level– Evaluate Rate

Bart

• Second grade student• Beginning of school year• Regular Education• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material• Teacher judges (based on in-class

observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF

Bart

20 1822 21

24 2225

3026

2830

2831

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

80

90

100


School Weeks

Wo

rds

Co

rrec

t P

er M

in


Tier 3: Intensive - 1:1 instruction, 5x/week, Problem-solving Model to Target Key Decoding Strategies, Comprehension Strategies



Documents

Understanding & Implementing Problem- Solving Response to Intervention: It ’ s a Journey, Not a Sprint SASED Spring Institute Naperville, IL February 29,