Download Intervention - Student Support Services Project

SLD Eligibility Determination in an RtI World
 Describe practical and conceptual issues related to
implementing the specific learning disabilities rule
 Apply a problem-solving/response to intervention thinking logic
to intervention decisions and disability determinations.
 Identify the technical assistance resources available through the
Florida Department of Education and other resources and tools
of relevance to practitioners.
 Analyze student performance data (level of performance and rate
of progress) at both group and individual levels relative to
expectations/standards.
 Improved student outcomes
 Effective instruction (highly effective teachers
& leaders)
 Early intervention and prevention
 Use of evidence-based interventions
 Data-driven accountability & data-based
decision making
Standards and Assessments
Data Systems
Effective Teachers and Leaders
Turning Around the Lowest
Achieving Schools
4
 Highly effective teachers & leaders in every school
 College- and career-ready students (rigorous standards
& assessments aligned with standards
 Equity & opportunity for all students (improving
learning and achievement in America’s lowest
performing schools)
 Raise the bar & reward excellence (performance pay)
 Promote innovation and continuous improvement
 What we need . . . is a way of screening children, early in
their schooling, that can help schools and educators
identify those who may not be responding to instruction –
and thus may be at risk for school failure. The technique
allows schools, on a school-wide basis, to provide any
student more intensive support–and monitor their progress
– than may be typically available in every classroom.
 What we need is . . . “Response to Intervention”
Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary, OSERS at NASP 2010
 Provide professional development
 Provide culturally competent services at all tiers of service




delivery
Work closely with teachers and school teams to enhance
critical skills
Consult with teachers and other school staff
Advocate for evidence-based and culturally competent
practices
Help schools reform practices that result in inequitable
and ineffective outcomes
Alexa Posny, OSERS, NASP 2010 Convention
IDEA 2004
 Vision - “Improving educational rights for children with
disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of
ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation,
independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for
individuals with disabilities.”
 Purpose:
 Ensure that children with disabilities have services
designed to meet their unique needs and prepare them for
further education, employment, and independent living
 Ensure that educators and parents have the tools to
improve educational results for children with disabilities
 Assess the effectiveness of efforts to educate children with
disabilities
 Having high expectations & ensuring access to the
general education curriculum in the regular
education classroom.
 Coordinating special education with other efforts so
that special education becomes a service NOT a
place.
 Providing incentives for whole-school approaches,
scientifically based early reading programs, positive
behavioral interventions and supports, and early
intervening services to reduce the need to label
children as disabled in order to address their
learning and behavioral needs.
 Professional development that improve staff
capacity to deliver scientifically-based academic
and behavioral interventions
 Educational and behavioral evaluations, services,
and supports including scientifically-based
literacy instruction
Making the shift to a
new paradigm does not
simply involve accepting
a new set of skills. It also
involves giving up
certain beliefs and
practices in favor of
others.
The central question is not:
“What about the student is causing the performance
discrepancy?”
but
“What about the interaction of the curriculum,
instruction, learner and learning environment
should be altered so that the student will learn?”
This shift alters everything else
Ken Howell
 Focus on intervention rather than placement
 Use assessment to identify and monitor interventions
 Base intervention intensity (dosage) on student need
rater than label or diagnosis
 Make decisions based on student outcomes
 Apply problem solving fluidly
 ALL students
Intervention
J
L
Intervention
Traditional
Problem
Solving
J
L
Monitor
Progress
Problem
Solving
Response to Intervention
J
L
J
L
Consider ESE
Monitor
Progress
Problem
Solving
J
General
Education
Consider
ESE if
necessary
Problem
Solving
 Shift from correlational science of standardized testing to
experimental science of interventions guided by problem
solving and response to intervention
 Shift from search for pathology (underlying process
deficits, disabilities, and disorders) to one focused on
building capacity of systems to improve student
competence
 Shift from deficit perspective focusing on weaknesses to
resilience perspective emphasizing strengths & ways to
modify the environment to increase probability of success
Jim Ysseldyke – 2009 NASP Legends of School Psychology Address
 School psychologists should work to improve competencies
for all students and build and maintain the capacity of
systems to meet the needs of all students
 School psychologists should be instructional consultants
who can assist parents and teachers to understand how
students learn and what effective instruction looks like
 School psychologists must possess a set of skills, including
the ability to use problem solving and scientific
methodology to create, evaluate and apply empirically
validated interventions at both an individual and systems
level
Domain of Competence
School Psychologist role . . .
Data-based Decision Making and
Accountability
. . . Problem solvers who collect information
relevant to understanding problems & making
decisions about interventions
. . . Versed in assessment & evaluation methods
that relate to prevention and intervention
. . . Leaders in data collection & interpretation
Systems-based Service Delivery
. . . Organize schools/classrooms in ways that
promote learning & prevent problems
. . . Liaison between home & school
. . . Leaders for improvement & change
Enhancing the Development of
Cognitive and Academic Skills
. . . Apply learning theories & cognitive strategies to
instructional process
. . . Work to ensure treatment integrity
Enhancing the Development of
Wellness, Social Skills, Mental Health,
and Life Competencies
. . . Address the mental health and awareness
issues that influence learning
General Education Intervention Procedures
2) PreK Procedures
1)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Initial Evaluation
Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation
Evaluation Procedures
Determination of Eligibility
Reevaluation Requirements
Additional Evaluation & Reevaluation Requirements
Parental Consent for Services
Rule 6A-6.0331 (1)
 Why? – Provide a coordinated system of
intervention support in general education.
 Who? – Students needing additional support to
succeed in the general education environment.
 How? – Teams applying a problem solving process to
develop and implement coordinated general
education intervention procedures.
 District responsibility to implement coordinated
general education intervention procedures for
students needing additional academic and
behavioral support to succeed in the general
education environment
 District may carry out activities that include the
provision of educational and behavioral
evaluations, services, and supports as part of
general education intervention procedures
 Group of qualified professionals and parent may
determine that general education interventions
are not appropriate for some students
 Parent involvement in process including




discussion of RtI
Observations in educational environment to
document area of concern
Review of existing data including attendance
Screenings – permits screening or
assessments for intervention planning
Evidence-based interventions
 Developed through a PS/RtI process that uses
student performance data to:
 Identify the area of concern
 Analyze the area of concern
 Select and Implement Interventions, and
 Monitor the effectiveness of interventions
 Interventions implemented as designed for a
reasonable period of time (fidelity)
 Intervention intensity matched to student need
 Ongoing progress monitoring communicated to
parents in understandable format
 General Education Intervention Requirements for
Home Education and Private School Students – June
27, 2008
 General Education Intervention Prior to Referral for
Special Education – December 23, 2008
 Response to Intervention for Gifted Learners – January
19, 2009 and February 4, 2009
 Florida’s RtI Website http://www.florida-rti.org/
 Statewide Projects
 PS/RtI Project http://www.floridarti.usf.edu/
 PBS Project http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/
 TLC Project http://www.rtitlc.ucf.edu/
 Florida’s SLD Website
http://www.fldoe.org/ese/sldr.asp
 News, Events, & Resources
 On-line Professional Development
 Parent Brochure
 BEESS Weekly Memo
 Florida Response to Intervention http://www.florida-





rti.org/Partnership/involvement.htm
RtI Action Network
http://www.rtinetwork.org/Essentia/Family/Schools-Familiesand-Response-to-Intervention
National Center on Response to Intervention (RtI) – RtI
Stakeholders:
Familieshttp://www.rti4success.org/index.php?option=com_con
tent&task=blogcategory&id=12&Itemid=65
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities
http://www.nrcld.org/topics/parents.html
Parent Advocacy Brief – National Center for Learning
Disabilities http://www.ncld.org
Response to Intervention (RTI) – A Primer for Parents – NASP
http://www.nasponline.org
 National Center on Response to Intervention




http://www.rti4success.org/
RTI Action Network http://www.rtinetwork.org/
Center on Instruction http://centeroninstruction.org
What Works Clearinghouse
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
NCCRESt http://www.nccrest.org/
 Intervention Central http://www.interventioncentral.org/
 IRIS Center – Vanderbilt
http://iris.peabody.vanderbilt.edu/index.html
 NASP http://nasponline.org/
Rule 6A-6.0331 (3) – (8)
 District must conduct full and individual evaluation before
initial provision of special education
 Documentation that
 General education interventions were implemented &
indicate need
 General education interventions not appropriate based on
nature & severity (determined by team of qualified
individuals)
 If parent requests evaluation, district must complete
interventions concurrently with evaluation
 Conducted by qualified examiners
 Completed within 60 school days (of attendance) from
receipt of parent consent
6A-6.0331(4)
 When student’s response to intervention indicates:
 Intensive interventions are effective but require a high
level of intensity & resources to sustain performance
 Student does not make adequate progress when given
effective core instruction and intensive & individualized
evidence-based interventions
 Whenever a parent initiates a request for an initial
evaluation district must
 Obtain consent and conduct the evaluation, or
 Provide parent with written notice of refusal
 Consent required whenever district proposes to
conduct assessment procedures to determine special
education eligibility.
 Consent is not required when sole purpose of
assessment is to inform/plan general education
instruction or interventions.
 Consent is not required if team determines that
existing data are sufficient to establish special
education eligibility.
Rule 6A-6.0331(5) and (8)
 All of the procedures used to determine whether a student
is a student with a disability, and the nature and extent of
the special education needs (Rule 6A-6.03411(1)(l), F.A.C.)
 Team must (6A-6.0331(8), F.A.C.):
 Review existing evaluation data on student
 Identify additional data needed if any
 Evaluation data used to determine:
 Whether the student is a student with a disability
 Educational needs of the student
 Need for special education & related services
38
 Use variety of assessment tools and strategies
including
 Information provided by parent
 Information enabling student to progress in general ed
curriculum
 Not use any single measure or assessment as sole criterion
for determining eligibility
 Use technically sound instruments
 Selected & administered so as not to be discriminatory
 Administered in native language or mode of






communication
Used for purposes for measure is valid & reliable
Administered by qualified personnel
Selected to accurately reflect student’s aptitude or
achievement
Assess student in all areas of suspected disability
Provide relevant information for determining need
Sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a student’s
special education needs
 Review existing evaluation data including
 Evaluations & information provided by parents
 Classroom, district, and state assessments
 Observations by teachers & related service providers
 Identify what additional data, if any, are needed to
determine




Whether student is student with a disability
Educational needs of the student
Present levels of academic achievement & related needs
Whether student needs special education & related services
 Administer tests and other evaluation materials needed to
answer questions in 2nd bullet
 Evaluation timeline starts when district receives
parental consent
 Evaluation is complete:
 After the last assessment procedure is conducted
OR
 When the team determines there is sufficient
information to determine eligibility
 District must determine eligibility within a reasonable
timeframe
Rule 6A-6.0331(6)
 Made by group of qualified professionals & parent
 Draw on data/information from variety of sources





Aptitude & achievement tests
Student response to instruction/intervention
Parent and student input
Teacher recommendations
Info about student’s physical condition, social/cultural
background, and adaptive behavior
 NOT eligible if determinant factor is:
 Lack of appropriate instruction in reading
 Lack of instruction in math
 Limited English proficiency
 PS/RtI
interventions
 RtI Eligibility
Criteria
 Consideration of
impact of other
factors
EBD
InD
LI
SLD
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
✔
46
 Student needs addressed proactively – early




intervention
Reduces the number of students misidentified because
of mismatch between instruction, curriculum,
environment and student need
Focus on what works for the student rather than what’s
wrong with the student
Eligibility determination based on educational need
PS/RtI continues after eligibility determination
 What is the student’s educational progress as
measured by rate of improvement/progress?
 What is the discrepancy between the student’s level of
performance and peer group and/or standard?
 What are the instructional needs of the student?
 Evidence of lack of response to evidence-based
general education interventions OR effective
intensive interventions that require sustained
effort
 Evidence of severe discrepancy from peer
performance levels
 A data-based description of resources necessary to
improve and maintain the individual’s rate of
learning at an acceptable level
 Convergent evidence logically and empirically
supporting the team’s decisions
49
Specific Learning Disabilities
 Disorder in one or more of the basic psychological
processes involved in understanding or using
language…which may manifest itself in the imperfect
ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or do
mathematical calculations
 Includes conditions such as perceptual disabilities,
brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and
developmental aphasia
 Does not include a learning problem primarily the
result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of
mental retardation, of emotional disturbance, or of
environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage
 LEA shall not be required to take into consideration
whether a child has a severe discrepancy between
achievement and intellectual ability
 In determining whether a child has a specific learning
disability, LEA may use a process that determines if the
child responds to scientific, research-based
intervention as part of the evaluation process
 Initial Evaluation - §300.301
 General evaluation procedures - §300.304
 Additional evaluation procedures - §300.305
 Determination of of eligibility - §300.306
 Specific Learning Disability (SLD) - §300.307
through §300.311
http://idea.ed.gov/explore/home
Child does not achieve adequately for age or to meet
state-approved grade level standards in one or more area
2) Child
1)
i.
ii.
3)
does not make sufficient progress to meet age or grade
standards when using a process based on the child’s
response to scientific, research-based intervention; OR
exhibits a pattern of strength & weaknesses in performance,
achievement, or both, relative to state-approved grade level
standards, or intellectual development, determined by
group to be relevant to identification of SLD
Not primarily the result of any exclusionary factor
 State must adopt criteria for determining SLD
consistent with §300.309
 Must not require ability-achievement discrepancy
 Must permit use of process based on response to
intervention
 May permit use of other alternative research-based
procedures
 Public agency must use state criteria
 Screening for instruction is not an evaluation





§300.302
Comprehensive evaluation requires a variety of
assessment tools NOT multiple tests - §300.304
Group determines what (if any) additional data
needed - §300.305
RtI is a process for determining SLD eligibility §300.309(a)(2)(i)
RtI OR not AND Pattern of strengths and weaknesses
IDEA does not require process testing - §300.309
(See 46651 of Federal Register)
Rule 6A-6.03018
1)
2)
3)
4)
5)
6)
Definition
General Education Intervention
Procedures and Activities
Evaluation
Criteria for Eligibility
Documentation of Criteria of
Eligibility
Implementation
 Disorder in basic learning processes involved in
understanding or using language that manifests in
difficulties affecting ability to listen, speak, read, write,
spell or do mathematics
 Associated conditions may include dyslexia,
dyscalculia, dysgraphia, or developmental aphasia
 Not primarily the result of sensory, intellectual, or
emotional/behavioral disabilities, limited English
proficiency, or environmental, cultural, or economic
factors
 To ensure that lack of progress is not due to lack of
appropriate instruction…
 Data that demonstrate that the student was provided
well-delivered scientific, research-based instruction
delivered by qualified personnel in general education
settings
 Data-based documentation, provided to parent, of
repeated measures of achievement at reasonable
intervals, graphically reflecting student’s RtI during
instruction
 Requirements in 6A-6.0331 may satisfy requirement for
data-based documentation
61
 Request parental consent to evaluate if
 Student has not had adequate response to
intervention or
 Effective interventions require sustained and
substantial effort and
 Whenever referral is made
 Adhere to procedures in 6A-6.0331
 Adhere to timelines in 6A-6.0331 unless extended
by mutual agreement
 Does not achieve adequately to meet grade-level
standards in one or more of the eight areas based
on review of multiple sources - may include normreferenced and diagnostic assessments
 Does not make adequate progress to meet gradelevel standards based on RtI process, consistent
with comprehensive evaluation procedures
 Findings not primarily result of exclusionary
factors
Condition 1
Underachievement in:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skills
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics Calculation
Mathematics
problem-solving
Condition 2
+
RTI:
Resource intensive or
insufficient response to
scientific, researchbased intervention
Condition 3
+
Conditions 1 and 2 not
primarily the result of:
Visual, hearing or motor
disability
Intellectual disability
Emotional/Behavioral
disability
Cultural factors
Irregular attendance
Environmental or
economic disadvantage
Classroom behavior
Limited English
proficiency
64
 Group determining eligibility must include:
 General education teacher,
 At least one person qualified to conduct and
interpret individual diagnostic examinations,
 District Designee
 At least one observation in typical learning
environment
65
 Basis for determination, behavior during





observation, medical findings
RtI data confirming 1) performance discrepancy, 2)
rate of progress, and 3) educational need
Effects of other factors
Interventions, support provided, duration,
frequency, student response to
instruction/intervention data
Parent involvement
Signatures of agreement
 IDEA 2004
 RtI TAP – February 2006
 IDEA Federal Regs – August 2006
 SLD Interim Memo – March 23, 2007 (Revised March 25,




2008)
General Education Intervention Requirements for Home
Education and Private School Students Memo – June 27,
2008
General Education Interventions – December 23, 2008
Response to Intervention for Gifted Learners – January
19, 2009
RtI for Gifted Clarification – February 4, 2009
67
 Compilation of Stakeholder Concerns & FDOE




Responses – April 22, 2009
SLD Contact Conference Calls
Questions & Answers - SLD TAP – November 2009
BEESS Weekly Memo – SLD Updates
Questions & Answers – 6A-6.0331 TAP
68
 Comprehensive evaluation – Jan 29, 2010
 RtI impact on Developmentally Delayed students




entering kindergarten – Feb 12, 2010
RtI and Accommodations – Feb 22, 2010
Comparative data for private school students – March
12, 2010
Responsibility for writing Comprehensive Evaluation
report – March 5, 2010
Weekly Memorandum Excerptshttp://www.floridarti.org/weekly/WeeklyMemorandum.pdf
A Broader View
 Learning disabilities are heterogeneous
 No defining characteristic is common to all SLD
 Majority of individuals with SLD have disability in the




area of reading
Cognitive dysfunction underlying most SLD is
language based
Manifestation of an SLD is contingent upon
characteristics of the learning environment
Degree of severity varies
Persists throughout the lifespan
A. Group of disorders characterized by difficulties in
learning basic academic skills that are not consistent with
the person’s chronological age, educational
opportunities, or intellectual abilities. Basic academic
skills refer to accurate and fluent reading, writing, and
arithmetic.
Multiple sources of information are to be used to assess
learning, one of which must be an individually
administered, culturally appropriate, and
psychometrically sound standardized measure of
academic achievement.
B. Disturbances in A, without accommodations,
significantly interferes with academic achievement or
activities of daily living that require these academic skills.
 No previous general criteria for learning disorders.
 Learning disabilities interfere with the acquisition and use of one
or more of the following academic skills: oral language, reading,
written language, mathematics. These disorders affect
individuals who otherwise demonstrate at least average abilities
essential for thinking or reasoning. As such, learning disabilities
are distinct from intellectual ability.
 However, the diagnostic criteria do not depend upon
comparisons with overall IQ and are consistent with the change
in the USA’s reauthorized IDEA regulations (2004)which state
that: “the criteria adopted by the State must not require the use
of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and
achievement for determining whether a child has a specific
learning disability, as defined in 34 CFR 300.8(c)(10).”
 Low achievement (Inclusionary criteria)
 Insufficient response to effective, research-based
interventions (Inclusionary criteria)
 Consideration of impact of other disabilities and
contextual factors that interfere with achievement and
student response (Exclusionary criteria)
Jack Fletcher, Paper posted on RTI Action Network
 Comprehensive Evaluation
 In RTI the evaluation is aligned with IDEA 2004 as a
comprehensive data gathering process, not a mandated
approach to assessment that represents a battery of the
same tests with every child
 In an RTI model, the adaptive impairment (i.e.,
educational need) is determined prior to consideration
of eligibility
 Important to conceptualize identification of LD as
requiring multiple criteria and resist formula-based
decision making
NASP recommends that initial evaluation of a student with a
suspected specific learning disability includes an individual
comprehensive assessment, as prescribed by the evaluation team.
This evaluation may include measures of academic skills (normreferenced and criterion-referenced), cognitive abilities and
processes, and mental health status (social-emotional
development); measures of academic and oral language
proficiency as appropriate; and indirect sources of data (e.g.,
teacher reports). Existing data from a problem-solving process
that determines if the child responds to scientific evidencebased intervention may be considered at the time of referral, or
new data of this type may be collected as part of the Tier 3
comprehensive evaluation. An eligibility determination should
not be based on any single method, measure, or assessment.
 RtI Process – evidence that:
 Scientific, research-based instruction at each tier
 Multiple tiers with defined decision points
 Data-based doc of repeated assessment of student progress
 Data that demonstrate child was provided appropriate instruction in
general education
 Evaluation Process – evidence that:
 Promptly requested parental consent
 Determined that lack of progress not primarily result of other factor
 Conducted observation of academic performance & behavior in area of
difficulty
 Included evaluation components beyond RtI
 Needs special education
 Written Analysis
 Addressed required elements
Zirkel, The School Psychologist, Spring 2008
GTIPS
 Guiding Principles: Meeting the Needs of All Students
 Guiding the Problem Solving Process
 General Education Interventions
 ESE Eligibility Decisions
 Eligibility Decisions in Specific Program Areas
 On-going Problem-solving for All Students
 Re-evaluation Decisions
 Guide the application of problem solving within the
RtI framework as a system wide school improvement
model
 Provide practical decision making tools that maintain
the integrity of the problem solving process
 Reinforce the primary purpose of instructional
decision making (to improve instructional outcomes
for all students) while expanding the application of
PS/RtI to ESE
 Evidence-based practices delivered by highly effective








personnel
Curriculum & instructional approaches have a high
probability for success for most students
Instruction is differentiated to meet individual needs
Assessments are instructionally relevant
Systematic problem solving used to make decisions across a
continuum of student needs
Student data guide decision making
Professional development and coaching are provided to
ensure effective instruction
School culture characterized by leaders who are actively
engaged in data-based decision making
Students and families are part of a single proactive,
seamless educational system
 Characterized by continuum of academic & behavioral
supports reflecting fluidity of student needs
 Three tiers describe level & intensity of
instruction/interventions
 Tier 1: Universal Instruction/Supports
 Tier 2: Targeted, Supplemental Interventions/Supports
 Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions/Supports
 Problem solving process used to match instructional
resources to student need
ACADEMIC and BEHAVIOR SYSTEMS
Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized,
Interventions.
Individual or small group intervention.
Tier 2: Targeted, Strategic Interventions
& Supports.
More targeted interventions and
supplemental support in addition to the
core curriculum and school-wide positive
behavior program.
Tier 1: Core, Universal Instruction &
Supports.
General instruction and support
provided to all students in all settings.
Revised 10.07.09
Decision Making within an RtI Framework
 Are students provided with well-delivered, scientific,
research-based core instruction? How do we know?
 What assessment tools/processes are used to identify
instructional needs and student response to instruction?
 Is core instruction/support effective?
 % of students achieving
standards/benchmarks/expectations?
 % of students in subgroups achieving
standards/benchmarks/expectations?
 If core instruction is not effective:
 Is curriculum matched to needs of the student?
 Is support provided for implementation fidelity?
 What specific supplemental intervention/support is
planned to improve the performance of students
needing additional instruction & support?
 Amount of additional time
 Focus of the intervention
 Method and frequency of progress monitoring
 Evidence of fidelity
 Support for implementation
 How is the supplemental intervention implemented?
 Who? What? How long? What support?
 How effective is supplemental instruction?
 What assessments are used for progress monitoring?
 How frequently are assessments conducted? How
frequently are assessments analyzed by the team?
 How does the team determine whether the
instruction/intervention is effective?
 What is the decision rule to determine if student
requires more intensive support?
 How are parents involved in process and analysis of level
of performance and rate of progress?
 What specific intensive, individualized intervention is
planned to improve level of performance and rate of
progress?
 How is the intensive, individualized intervention
delivered?
 How effective is the intensive, individualized
intervention?
 How unique is student’s response in comparison to
peers?
 How do teams determine whether the intervention is
effective?
 Set goals for students
 Always looking for ways to improve effectiveness
 Avidly recruited students and families into the
learning process
 Focused on student learning
 Planned purposefully working backward from
desired outcome
 Worked relentlessly refusing to surrender to
poverty, bureaucracy, or budget shortfalls
http://link.brightcove.com/services/player/bcpid47620493001?
bclid=59754690001&bctid=59858579001
89
Are over 20% of
students struggling?
Examine curriculum,
instruction, &
environment for needed
changes or adaptations
& develop school or
group intervention
Are between 5% and
20% of students
struggling?
Are 5% or fewer
students struggling?
Go to problem
definition
Develop small group
intervention
Evaluate
intervention
 Curriculum Sampling
 Systematically sample items from the annual
curriculum on each measure
 Robust Indicators (GOM)
 Identify a global behavior that either encompasses
many skills taught in the annual curriculum or is
predictive of proficiency in the annual curriculum
 Reading
 Florida Assessments for Instruction in Reading (FAIR)
 FCRR – http://www.fcrr.org
 Math
 Formative assessments – being developed
 FCR-STEM – http://www.fcrstem.org
93
 AIMSweb http://www.aimsweb.com/
 mCLASS




http://www.wirelessgeneration.com/solutions/mclassdibels.html
DIBELS https://dibels.uoregon.edu/
Easy CBM http://easycbm.com/
STEEP RTI http://www.isteep.com/login.aspx
RTI Plus
http://www.educationprocesssolutions.com/solutions.
html
 Spectrum K12 EXCEED http://www.spectrumk12.com/
 MBSP – Monitoring Basic Skills Progress
 Intervention Central





http://www.interventioncentral.org/
Edcheckup http://www.edcheckup.com/
Yearly Progress Pro
http://www.ctb.com/ctb.com/control/main?p=home
Accelerated Math http://www.renlearn.com/am/
Algebra Assessment and Instruction
http://www.ci.hs.iastate.edu/aaims/
GSV – Growth Scale Values?
96
 Key questions
 What are you looking for in a PM tool?
 What are the most important criteria you will consider?
 Evaluate needs based on








Content area & grade level
Reliability/Validity
Frequency of administration:
Cost
Data management capability
Technology requirements
Staff training
Student accommodations
 Matching instruction/intervention to needs of





the student
Scheduling – finding time & resources to develop
interventions
Decision rules for movement – How much time
at each tier? What ROI indicates need to
intensify?
Lack of consistency between schools
Composition of problem solving team
Ensuring/Supporting fidelity
99
 Is the intervention evidence-based?
 How effective is the intervention with students
from similar backgrounds?
 How intense is the intervention? – the dosage
(time, focus of intervention, personnel)
 Was the intervention implemented as planned?
101
 Stronger treatments generally result in greater change than





weaker treatments
Evidence-based treatments are stronger than treatments
lacking sufficient empirical evidence
Treatment strength may be diluted or enhanced by
treatment integrity
Treatment integrity does not necessarily result in stronger
treatments
Each component of a given treatment is not equally strong
Treatment strength ultimately determined by the
magnitude of the change it produces
Name:
Goal:
Response to Intervention
1
1
1
Progress
1
label
1
1
0
Interventions
0
0
Intervention
0
0
Baseline
Probes
Aim Line
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Beginning Date to Ending Date
0
0
0
0
Outcome Based Instructional Guide
Aim Line
Trend Line
Data Point
Mickey Haalman
105
 98% agreed that TI a key factor when evaluating
interventions & using data for eligibility decisions
 13% of PS team records would contain statement that
TI was monitored
 Only 5% of PS team records contain evidence of TI as
numerical index (mean percentage of time
interventions steps were implemented as intended)
 Only 18.5% of published studies on interventions for
children with learning disabilities provided
documentation of TI (Gresham et al., 2000)
Cochrane & Lane (2008) Survey investigating school psychologists’ measurement of
treatment integrity
 Lack of integrity of Three-Tier Model
 Lack of integrity of Problem-solving Process
 Lack of integrity of Intervention Implementation
107
 Self-report – implementer completes checklist recording
critical components of the intervention plan (e.g.,
checklists of integrity of instruction completed by teacher
 Direct observation – observation of the implementer &
recording presence or absence of each step of intervention
plan (e.g., walkthroughs - observation of teacher
performance during instructional period; completion of
checklists)
 Link to treatment fidelity
checklists:http://www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/
http://www.aea11.k12.ia.us:16080/idm/checkists.html
108
Level of implementation
integrity
Description
Evidence
Overall Implementation:
Optimal
Intervention components used
consistently as designed for
the recommended amount of
time and on the recommended
schedule.
• Observation Form
• Self-report checklist
• Permanent product
• Teacher interview
Overall Implementation:
Good
75-80% of intervention
components used as designed
& schedule and time of use
were acceptable.
• Observation Form
• Self-report checklist
• Permanent product
• Teacher interview
Overall Implementation:
Poor
Fewer than 50% of
intervention components were
routinely used & the amount
of time and schedule was
erratic.
• Observation Form
• Self-report checklist
• Permanent product
• Teacher interview
Roach & Elliott (2008), Best Practices V
109
 Developing Interventions
 Problem Solving Worksheet (GTIPS)
 Intervention Documentation Worksheet – Group and
Individual (GTIPS)
 Evaluating PS/RtI Process
 Self-Assessment of Problem Solving Implementation
(SAPSI)
 Tier I & II Observation Checklist
 Problem Solving Team Checklist
 Most interventions fail because they are not properly




implemented
Untreated integrity problems become student learning
deficits, school-wide learning problems, and false positive
decision errors
Intervention implemented with integrity functionally
different (integrity problems affect dose and quality of
intervention )
Integrity of implementation positively correlated with
student learning gains
Intervention support, monitoring and follow-up are
required
Amanda VanDerHeyden, LRP Conference – May 20, 2010
Facilitate
Inhibit
• Acceptability of the intervention
• Rate of change produced
• Complexity of intervention
• Multiple resources required
• Time required
Interventionist
• Level of training/education
• Motivation
• Resistance
• Diversity of students
• Familiarity with other
interventions
Student
• Motivation
• Cooperation
• Difficult behavior or anger/hostility
• Severity or duration of the problem
Intervention
Roach & Elliott (2008), Best Practices V
112
Evidence-based intervention linked
to verified hypothesis planned
Evidence-based intervention
implemented
Student
Outcomes (SO)
Assessed
Treatment
Integrity (TI)
Assessed
Continue Intervention
Data-based
Decisions
From Lisa Hagermoser Sanetti, 2008 NASP Convention
Implement strategies to promote
treatment integrity
Modify/change Intervention
Condition 1
Underachievement in:
Oral expression
Listening comprehension
Written expression
Basic reading skills
Reading fluency skills
Reading comprehension
Mathematics Calculation
Mathematics
problem-solving
Condition 2
+
RTI:
Resource intensive or
insufficient response to
scientific, researchbased intervention
Condition 3
+
Conditions 1 and 2 not
primarily the result of:
Visual, hearing or motor
disability
Intellectual disability
Emotional/Behavioral
disability
Cultural factors
Irregular attendance
Environmental or
economic disadvantage
Classroom behavior
Limited English
proficiency
115
 Does convergence of data from multiple sources
validate that student is not achieving adequately based
on grade level standards or chronological age?
 Was student provided with learning experiences and
instruction appropriate for age?
 Is there evidence that student was provided researchbased instruction delivered by qualified personnel?
 What is the evidence?
 Is curriculum matched to needs of students?
 What data substantiate the effectiveness of core
instruction?
 How unique is the student’s current level of
performance compared to:
 Grade-level peers at state, district, school, class level
 Grade-level peers in relevant subgroups
 Age peers on nationally normed assessments
 How unique is the student’s rate of progress compared
to:
 Grade-level peers at state, district, school, class level
 Grade-level peers in relevant subgroups
 Age peers on nationally normed assessments
 Was team’s decision based on student’s response to
research-based instruction?
 Were parents provided documentation of repeated
measures of achievement? What? How often? How
communicated?
 Was student’s level of performance & rate of progress
adequate to meet expectations through general
education resources within a reasonable amount of
time
Is level of performance and rate of progress
primarily the result of:
 Other Disabilities?
 Visual, motor, or hearing disability?
 Intellectual disability?
 Emotional/behavioral disability?
 Student Background & Experience?
 Cultural factors?
 Environmental or economic factors?
 Limited English proficiency?
Is level of performance and rate of progress
primarily the result of:
 Opportunity to learn?
 Irregular pattern of attendance/disrupted schooling
 Classroom behavior
 Lack of instruction
Exclusionary Factor
Evidence
Visual, Motor, or Hearing Disability
Sensory screenings; medical records; observation
Intellectual Disability
Classroom performance; academic skills; language
development; adaptive functioning; IQ
Emotional/Behavioral Disability
Classroom observation; student records; discipline
Hx, emotional/behavioral screenings; rating scale
Cultural factors
LOP & ROP compared to students from same
ethnicity
Environmental or Economic factors
LOP & ROP compared to students from similar
economic background (free/reduced lunch);
situational factors that are student specific
Limited English Proficiency
English language proficiency (oral language;
vocabulary; verbal ability); LOP & ROP compared to
ELL with similar exposure to language and
instruction
Irregular Pattern of Attendance
Attendance records; # of schools attended; tardies;
discipline; migrant status
Classroom Behavior
Classroom observations; academic engagement
(AET); ODR
121
Written Summary of Group’s Analysis
 Specify the educational interventions and supports
necessary to sustain the expected level of performance
and adequate rate of progress
 Do the data establish a need for individualized
interventions that significantly differ in intensity &
duration from what can be provided through general
education resources?