Docstoc

Three Tier Model

Document Sample
Three Tier Model Powered By Docstoc
					    Response to Intervention:
Implications for General, Remedial
      and Special Education

      Joseph F. Kovaleski, D.Ed.

       Indiana University of PA
          Indiana, PA 15705
            724/357-3785
            jkov@iup.edu
      www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski
                   Acknowledgements
• Selected slides for this presentation were developed by the
  following:

   David Prasse, Loyola University (Chicago) and Dick Hall (Eastern
   Lancaster County School District).

   Jeff Grimes and David Tilly, presented at the Innovations
   Conference, Charleston, SC, September, 2003.

   Joy MacKenzie, Lancaster-Lebanon Intermediate Unit, East
   Petersburg, PA.

   Jason Pedersen, Jennifer Lillenstein, and Tracey Clemens,
   Cornwall-Lebanon School District, Lebanon, PA.
     Goals of Today’s Session
• Understand the response to intervention
  (RTI) format and its use in determining
  eligibility for special education.
• Reconceptualize support services within a
  three-tier model of service delivery.
• Understand a school-wide restructuring
  process based on student data.
• Fuse diverse programs for at-risk students.
Related goals …
• Understand how RTI can help school
  administrators meet the challenge of NCLB
  and AYP.
• Imagine the principal’s role as being
  directly connected to student proficiencies.
• Conceptualize the three-tier format as a
  model of staff development.
           IDEA 2004 –CHANGES:
    Eligibility Determinations
• A child shall not be determined to be a
  child with a disability if determinant
  factor is:
  – Lack of scientifically-based instructional
    practices and programs that contain the
    essential components of reading instruction.
  – Lack of instruction in math
  – Limited English Proficiency
  §614(b)(6)(B)
          IDEA 2004 Changes
      Specific Learning Disabilities
• The LEA shall not be required to take
  into consideration whether the 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.
          IDEA 2004 Changes
  Specific Learning Disabilities (cont.)

• In determining whether a child has a
  specific learning disability, a local
  educational agency may use a
  process which determines if a child
  responds to scientific, research-
  based intervention.
          PA Regulations

1)   Academic assessment
2)   Behavioral assessment
3)   Intervention based on assessment
4)   Assessment of response to intervention
5)   Lack of instruction or limited English
     proficiency
6)   Ability of the regular education program to
     maintain the student
7)   Activities designed to gain the participation
     of parents
    Influences on Current Practice

• IDEA 1997
• LD Summit – August 2001
• President’s Commission on Special
  Education
• Reauthorization of IDEA 2004
  (underway)
• No Child Left Behind
 Summary: Problems with the
   Discrepancy Approach
• Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI

• Doesn’t link with intervention

• False positives (high IQ; average achievement)

• False negatives (the slow learner myth)
• The average intelligence test score of
  children in the juvenile justice system
  is 81.3
• The average intelligence test score of
  high school dropouts is 86.5.
• The average intelligence test score of
  girls who leave high school due to
  pregnancy is 80.2
                                   (Shaw, n.d.)
      NCLB AND IDEIA 2004
• Scientifically based instruction, curriculum, and
  interventions.
• Identification of learning problems early.
• Ongoing monitoring to determine impact of curriculum
  and instruction.
• Design and implement remedial and individualized
  intervention for those who don’t respond.
• Inclusion of students in single accountability system.
• Documentation of student outcomes through AYP.
 It’s not just about identification…
• IDEIA and NCLB are companion laws.
• They are mutually referential.
• Together, they envision a seamless system
  of supports, based on the use of
  scientifically based instruction, in both
  general and regular education.
• The mission is the development of
  proficiency in basic skills (particularly
  reading) for all students.
   What Is Response to Intervention?

• A comprehensive, multi-tiered intervention
  strategy to enable early identification and
  intervention for students at academic or
  behavioral risk.
• An alternative to the discrepancy model for
  the identification of students with learning
  disabilities.
     RTI is “the practice of…
• (1) providing high-quality instruction and
  interventions matched to student needs and,
• (2) using learning rate over time and level
  of performance to
• (3) make important educational decisions.
  (p.5)”

 National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2005)
 Response to Intervention: Policy Considerations and Implementation, p. 5   15
        Key Characteristics of RtI
• Universal Screening of academics and behavior
• Multiple tiers of increasingly intense interventions
• Differentiated curriculum-tiered intervention
  strategy
• Use of evidence-based interventions
• Continuous monitoring of student performance
• Benchmark/Outcome assessment
What is a School-Wide Model?
 • A system-wide intervention model to
   enhance academic and social behaviors
   of all students
    – Prevention
    – Proactive instruction
    – Data-based decision making
    – Assessment driving instruction
     (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Building the Infra-structure for RTI

• Using RTI requires an infra-structure of
  assessment and intervention techniques.
• We do not recommend implementing RTI if
  the infra-structure is not in place.
• Therefore, initial efforts should be placed
  on building the infra-structure.
        The Multi-tier Process
• Ensures that scientifically validated
  interventions are used at a high degree of
  fidelity.
• Allows for the collection of valid, reliable,
  and functionally meaningful data that
  inform both identification and treatment
  decisions.
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered
                model.
                     Universal Screening
       TIER I        Evidence-based core program
                     Data analysis teaming

       TIER II       Supplemental programming in the
                     regular classroom (push in)
       TIER
        III          Specialized targeted intervention
                     (pull-out groups)
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered
                model.

       TIER I          Movement through the
                       tiers is managed by a
                       building-wide IST:
       TIER II         • monitoring the non-
                          responders
       TIER            • Identifying and providing
        III              supplemental materials
                       • Orchestrating tier 2 & 3
                          supports
                       • Problem solving process
                          for individuals
Tier 1: Evidence-based
   Core Curriculum
    The Context for NCLB and IDEA

• 5% of children learn to read effortlessly
• 20-30% learn relatively easily once exposed to
  reading instruction
• For 60% of children learning to read is a much more
  formidable task
• For at least 20-30% of children, reading is one of the
  most difficult tasks that they will have to master.
• For 5% of students even with explicit and systematic
    instruction, reading will continue to be a challenge.

•   MacKenzie (2000), citing statistics from Lyon, Kamme’enue, Simmons, et al.
          Fluent
          Reflective
          Reade rs/
          Writers


                                      Reading
      C   •   Backgroun d
      O       Kno wledge
      M
          •   Predi ctio ns
      P
      R
      E
          •   Cl ari fi ca ti on/          Is
              que stio nin g
      H
      E   •   Moni tori ng
              fo r Mean ing
      N
      S
      I
          •   Summariz in g            Rocket
      O   •   Maki ng
      N       Pe rs onal
              Co nnecti ons


                                      Science
 • Automaticity with
   the code
 • Structure of the
   language
 • Alph abetic principle            Louisa Cook Moats
 • Phonological awaren ess



Early Literacy Experiences
             and
Oral Language Development                               MacKenzie (2000)
      National Reading Panel
• http://www.nationalreadingpanel.org/defaul
  t.htm
       CONTINUUM OF EXPLICIT INSTRUCTION
  IN “PHONICS” OR THE STRUCTURE OF LANGUAGE

   IMPLICIT                                                                                     EXPLICIT

Language                        Basal with          Linguistic      Systematic   Systematic         Multisensory
Experience   Whole Language     embedded            Word Families   Phonics      Phonics with       Structured
                                phonics             based on                     Direct             Language
                                                    Orthographic                 Instruction
                                                    Families




Whole                                                                            • Reading         • Project Read
             Smith &            Meaning-Based       • Merrill       • Open         Mastery         • Wilson Language
Words                                                 Linguistics     Court
             Goodman’s          Basals                                           • Corrective        System
             Work                                                                  Reading         • Preventing
                                                                                                     Academic
             Using literature   e.g., Invitations                                                    Failure, etc.
             and authentic      to Literacy
             text with mini
             lessons
                                                                                 Carmine           Orton Gillingham-
                                                                                 Engleman,         based approaches
                                                                                 et al

                                                                                                Joy MacKenzie 3/00
         Evaluating Your Core
          Reading Curriculum
• http://www.fcrr.org/

• http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_gu
  ide.php

• http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downl
  oads/106_High_Priority_Programs.pdf
  Tier 1: Data Analysis Teaming
• Teams of like teachers working together to…
• Access critical data on all students’ performance
  related to achievement of standards
• Analyze data and find which students have which
  gaps in attainments
• Set measurable goals to close the gap
• Brainstorm or create instructional strategies
    Teachers Working Together
• Like teachers = grade level or department
  level
• Use skills of collaborative consultation
  (e.g., problem identification, brainstorming)
• Need a structure (time, place, etc.)
      Accessing Critical Data
• Two forms of data: group tests and district
  performance tests/tasks
• Need a process for gathering data
• Need someone to convert data into teacher-
  friendly summary documents
• Need to train teachers on how to read
  summary documents
           DIBELS Website
• http://dibels.uoregon.edu/index.php
         Teachers Analyze Data
•   View skills critical to meeting standards
•   Identify which students have attained skill
•   Identify which are developing skill
•   Identify which are deficient
                 Tier 1
Screening and Intervention Record Form
                (SIRF)
             Adapted from Schmoker (1999)
     Teachers Set Group Goals
• Create brief statements describing expected
  attainments of group
• Set a deadline or target date
• For example: By January, 90% of students
  will demonstrate proficiency on… (describe
  specific skill)
 Teachers Brainstorm Strategies
• With goal in mind, teachers brainstorm
  specific ideas for teaching to the target skill
• Can use existing known strategies
• Many teams choose to create entirely new
  strategies
• Keep focused on research-based strategies
  Teachers Implement Strategies
• All strategies are whole- or small-group
  interventions
Using the “Consumer Reports”
        rating system:
   Strategy is recommended based on criterion.




   Strategy is recommended with reservations
   based on criterion.




   Strategy is not recommended based on criterion.
     Sample Strategy Rating Sheet
          Strategy        EBP?   Easy?   Stuff?
Choral reading

Match to learning style

Impress

Sing the words
          Benefits of Tier 1
• Promotion of evidence-based instruction on
  a whole-class, whole-school level
• Systematic identification of non-responders
  (not just teacher referral)
• Eventual focusing of resources on fewer
  students at tiers 2 and 3
Kindergarten Tier 2 Students Progress
                (SL)
First Grade Tier 2 Students Progress
                (SL)
Kindergarten Data




    Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
Kindergarten Data




    Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
   Quarterly Assessment Products:
        What to Look For…
• Brief (minutes per student)
• Quarterly
• Capable of giving useful printouts
   – By individual students
   – By specific benchmark skills
• Examples:
   – Testlynx? Voyager?
http://www.coe.iup.edu/kovaleski/RTI%20websites.
   htm
Interventions organized into a 3 tiered
                model.
                     Universal Screening
       TIER I        Evidence-based core program
                     Data analysis teaming

       TIER II       Supplemental programming in the
                     regular classroom (push in)
       TIER
        III          Specialized targeted intervention
                     (pull-out groups)
                     Tier 2
•   Use of standard protocol interventions
•   Supplemental materials in general ed.
•   Differentiated instruction in general ed.
•   Specialists may “push-in”
•   Cycle responders back to tier 1
•   Identify non-responders for tier 3
A Standard Protocol Intervention
              …
• is scientifically based.
• has a high probability of producing change
  for large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving
  team.
    Direct Instruction Techniques
•Explicitly teach the students what you want
them to learn
•Teach to mastery and use error correction
•Keep pace of instruction brisk
•Engage students via choral response and
random selection of individuals


                 Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
        Three approaches to Phonics
                Instruction
 Whole-Language                     Embedded                     Systematic

Phonics lessons are           By substituting different       Letter sound
conducted                     beginning sounds and            correspondences and
opportunistically (i.e.,not   spellings, students are         spelling conventions
planned) in the context of    lead to generalize the          are explicitly taught
meaningful reading and        pattern to new words.           and interactively
writing.                                                      practiced and
                                                              extended.




                              Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
          Standard Protocols
          for Early Literacy
• Phonological Awareness Training for
  Reading (PATR)
• Early Reading Intervention (Scott
  Foresman)
• REWARDS (Sopris West)
    Phonological Awareness Training
          for Reading (PATR)
• Author: Torgesen & Bryant
• Publisher: Pro-Ed
• Can use as supplement for whole group
• Or as standard protocol
• PA training takes 20 hours to get to
  proficiency
• 15 minute sessions
        Early Reading Intervention
                  (ERI)
•   Publisher: Scott-Foresman
•   Reusable materials
•   Phonological awareness & phonics
•   K-2
•   Research: 97% success rate
•   Local results (CLSD): 70%
•   $1,500
•   30 minutes/lesson
•   Enough lessons for one year on a daily basis
•   Small group (3-5 students)
Kindergarten Peer-Assisted Literacy
       Strategies (K-PALS)
• Author: Mathes, Clancy-Menchetti, &
  Torgesen
• Publisher: Sopris West
• 3x/wk.
• 10-15 min.
    Standard Protocol Websites
• http://www.fcrr.org/

• http://reading.uoregon.edu/curricula/con_gu
  ide.php


• http://oregonreadingfirst.uoregon.edu/downl
  oads/106_High_Priority_Programs.pdf
                  Tier 3
• Use of standard protocols
• Supplemental instructional materials
• Small intensive groups outside the general
  ed. classroom
• Managed by remedial educators
• 10-20 week interventions
• Cycle responders back to tier 2
“Special-education-like Instruction”
     (McMaster et al., 2003)
• immediate corrective feedback
• mastery of content before moving to next lesson
• more time on activities that were especially
  difficult
• more opportunities to respond
• fewer transitions
• setting goals and self-monitoring progress
• special relationship with tutor
How much achievement is gained
   per time spent per child?
                                                Compa rison Be twe e n Re ading Inte r v entions In First Grade

                                         1.60


                                         1.40

                                                                                             Scientifically
Increas e in NWF s cores Pe r Ses sion




                                         1.20

                                                                                                -validated
                                         1.00

                                                                                                                    Re adi ng Re covery
                                         0.80                                                 Small Group           PAT R
                                                                                               Instruction
                                         0.60
                                                                                                  (1:4)
                                         0.40


                                         0.20
                                                            1:1 Instruction

                                         0.00
                                                          Average Improvement per 1 Sessi on o f i nte rven ti on




                                                                        Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
     Types of Interventions by Tier
Tier 2                    Tier 3                            Special
                                                            Education
•Road to the Code         •PATR                             •Early Reading Intervention
•Phonemic Awareness for   •Teach Your Child to Read         (ERI)
Young Children
•K-PALS
•Teacher Directed PALS    •Early Reading Intervention       •Project Read
                          (ERI)
                          •Teacher Directed PALS
•PATR                     •Reading Mastery                  •Corrective Reading
                          •Talking Letters
•Reading to Read          •Corrective Reading               •Reading Mastery


•Reader’s Theater         •REWARDS                          •REWARDS

                            Lillenstein & Pedersen (2005)
              Teaming During RTI
Tier 1        Data analysis team         Review movement of students
              School Coordinating Team   to tier 2

Tier 2        School Coordinating Team   Coordinate push-in services.
                                         Review movement of students
                                         to tiers 1 and 3.

Tier 3        School Coordinating Team   Coordinate pull-out services.
                                         Review movement of students
                                         to tiers 2 and referral for
                                         evaluation.
Eligibility   Multidisciplinary Team     Determine eligibility for
                                         special education.
Current Model        Former Model

                   Concern Expressed
 Conduct
 Thorough
 Assessment

                      Team Meets
                   Identifies Problem
 Trial Teaching
   Establish
   Strategies



 Work Strategies
 Into Class        Teacher Implements
 Routines


  Assess
  Continuously

                   Progress Evaluated
Graph of IST data
Troubleshooting Interventions
• Integrity of current interventions
• How much time was the intervention
  delivered?
• Was the group an appropriate (1-3 or 1-6)
           Results of Tier 3
• Identify which students have good or poor
  response to instruction (RTI)
• Sort students who need further help
• Decide which students are helped in general
  education
• Decide which students need evaluation for
  special education
         Tier 2: Ongoing Support
          What                     Who

Tier 1                   Nearly average level
                         Nearly average rate
Tier 2                   Nearly average level
                         Low rate
Tier 3                   Low level
                         Accelerating rate
Refer to Special Educ.   Low level
                         Low rate
 Tier 2/3: Flexible Service Delivery

• No further data collection needed for most
  remedial programs (e.g., Title 1, Reading
  Recovery)
• MDE decides if further evaluation is needed
  for special education eligibility
• At this stage, specialists are added to the
  ongoing implementation of the remediation
            System Change
         for Flexible Services
• Consensus on evidence-based practice (“a
  house divided”)
• Administrative leadership and involvement
• Revision of paperwork and job descriptions
      Critical Features of “Flex”
•   Cross training of staff
•   Non-categorical deployment of staff
•   Remediation based on students’ needs
•   Transitory services
             Cross Training
• Identification of critical knowledge and
  strategies
• Training of all “flex staff” in ALL of the
  procedures
   Non-categorical Deployment
• Eliminate wide variety of job titles (at least
  conceptually)
• Specialists are fungible -- anyone can take
  another’s place or role
         Need-based Services
• Data are now used to sort students into
  appropriate levels and types of service
• Level = how much time during school day
• Type = what type of strategies are needed
• Use of double-grid system of planning
• Data profiles of students receiving different
  types of services created
         Transitory Service
• Students may not need a given service for
  the entire year
• Program may be reorganized from month to
  month and from year to year
• Program organization follows needs of
  students, not a “model”
Flexible Service Delivery Model
     Time              Period        A
                                           `       B            C             D
   9:10-9:55              1          PT        LA 2/3       Flex             Flex
  10:00-10:45             2          PT        LA 2/3      LA 4/5            Flex
  10:50-11:35             3          PT         Flex       LA 4/5            M2
  11:40-12:25          Lunch       Lunch       Lunch       Lunch            Lunch
   12:30-1:10           Flex         PT         Flex        Flex            LA2B
   1:10-1:55              4          PT         M 3/4      M 4/5            LA2A
   2:00-2:45              5          PT         LA 4       LA 1B            LA1A
   2:50-3:20           Activity     Prep        Prep        Prep             Prep
  3:20 until ?                             Parent Meetings
  Flex = IST, DIBELS, TARGETED INTERVENTION, ASSESSMENT DATA
  Additional Support Members such as Reading Specialists, ESL, Guidance,
  Learning Facilitator, Speech and Language, etc. will also work on data collection
  and collaboration.
                                  Roles and Functions
                            Newark Valley (NY) School District
     AIS Teacher                   AIS Assistant                 Special Education               Classroom Teacher
                                                                     Teacher
Provide standard protocol     Work with students in study       Share some students with        Participate in Tier 1 teaming
interventions                 halls to support skills learned   ASSIST teachers for             Move toward consistent and
Facilitate IST process        in general education.             interventions.                  pervasive practices across
Consult on Tier 1 teams       Observe general education         Participate in IST and Tier 1   classrooms
Consult with teachers on      instruction to follow up later    meetings.
lesson planning               (not all classes).                Share strategies with ASSIST
Help plan roll-throughs       Paperwork/record-keeping.         teachers.
Liaison with parents          Library work (e.g., AR
                              books).
Advocate for students
                              Assist in general ed
                              classrooms. Spot checks and
                              re-teaching.
                              Develop personal relationship
                              with students to assist with
                              literature selection, self-
                              planning, organizational
                              skills.
                              Pull-out instructional groups.
Entitlement for Special Education
         Assessment and Progress Data
         From Problem Solving Process


  Educational   Discrepancy       Instructional
   Progress                          Needs


         Convergence of Data from a
             Variety of Sources

                           (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
Step 1: Appraising the student’s rate
            of learning

• Evaluating the student’s response to
  scientifically based instruction.

• What was the student’s progress during the
  intervention?
Conditions for Special Education
   Entitlement: Progress
• Educational Progress - previous
 interventions have not sufficiently
 improve a student’s rate of learning and
 additional resources are needed to
 enhance student learning or the
 interventions that have sufficiently
 improved the student’s learning are too
 demanding to be implemented without
 special education resources (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
  Assessing Progress (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)

                             Progress better than
                             expected

Student
                             Progress within expected
performance
                             range
on measure
              base-
              line
                             Progress less than
                             expected

                      (Grimes   & Tilly, 2003)
          100
           90
           80
           70
           60
    wpm    50
           40
           30
           20
           10
            0
                1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

                                            As s es s m ent Ses s ions


Description:          Lack of instruction is not evident.

This student has responded poorly to the intervention strategy. After an initial
adaptation period of five days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed
for the duration of the intervention period. In spite of this assistance, the student's
rate of learning throughout the period has been slow. This response-to-instruction
pattern indicates that the student's lack of progress is more likely the result of
learning difficulties than a lack of effective instruction. Specially designed instruction
is likely needed for this student to acquire and retain new information.
                        100

                         90
                         80

                         70
                         60

                 w pm    50
                         40

                         30
                         20
                         10

                          0
                              1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 30

                                                        Assessm ent Sessions

Description:       Student responds well to effective instruction.

This student responded well to the intervention strategy. After an initial adaptation period
of six days, the teacher implemented the strategy as designed for the duration of the
intervention period. With this assistance, the student's rate of learning throughout the
period was steady and in a positive direction. This response-to-instruction pattern
indicates that the student's difficulties are more likely the result of a lack of effective
instruction than a disability. This student does not display a high degree of need for
special education because he can demonstrate acquisition and retention with adapted
instruction in the regular classroom.
                 100
                  90
                  80
                  70
                  60
          w pm    50
                  40
                  30
                  20
                  10
                   0
                        1   3   5   7   9   11   13   15   17   19   21   23   25   27   29

                                            Assessment Sessions



Description:           Response to instruction cannot be determined.

This student has responded poorly during the intervention strategy. However, in
spite of support, the intervention was not implemented as planned throughout the
intervention period. Consequently, it cannot be determined whether the student's
lack of progress are more likely the result of learning difficulties or a lack of
effective instruction. Another period of support is needed to assist the teacher to
implement the strategy as designed in order to make a conclusion about this
issue.
Step 2: Appraising the Extent of
      Academic Deficiency

• Is the student discrepant from realistic
  expectations for his or her grade and age
  level?
Conditions for Special Education
  Entitlement: Discrepancy


• Discrepancy - given equal or
 enhanced opportunities, the student’s
 current level of performance is
 significantly lower than typical peers
 or identified standards (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
                    Discrepancy (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)

                               Above the range of
                               expected performance
     Standard
     of expected               Within the range of
     performance               expected performance

                              Below the range of
(Grimes   & Tilly, 2003)
                              expected performance
Verifying Academic Deficiency
         Using CBM

• Development of local norms

• Determining discrepancy from local
  norms

• 2.0 X criterion
           2.0X calculation

• Divide norm group mean by student’s
  score

• Result expressed as a ratio of deficiency

• Example: 100 wpm / 50 wpm = 2.0X
Cornwall-Lebanon SD Elementary
  Oral Reading Fluency Norms

Grade   1F   1W   1S   2F   2S    3F   3S    4F    4S    5F    5S


WPM     18   42   69   76   113   79   107   107   125   129   146



EPM     10   6    4    4    2     5     3     3     3     2     2
    Is there a role for norm-
  referenced tests of academic
         achievement?

• Group testing

• Individual testing
     3 Purposes of Assessment Data

1. To enable student performance

2. To enable student performance

3. To enable student performance

•   (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
       The Burden of Proof…
• Assess student on measures of cognitive
  processing.
• Develop strategies that link from results to
  unique interventions.
• Implement the intervention.
• Precisely evaluate the effectiveness of the
  intervention vs. another evidence –based
  intervention.
Step 3: Evaluating the Need for
Specially Designed Instruction


• Deviations in materials

• Deviations in planning

• Deviations in personnel
 Conditions for Special Education
Entitlement: Instructional Needs
• Instructional Needs - instructional needs have
  been identified that are beyond what can be
  provided in general education. This is evident
  when curriculum, instruction or environmental
  conditions need to be very different for the
  student as compared to the needs of other
  students in the general education environment.
  (Grimes & Tilly, 2003)
        Intervention Intensity
• Qualities of time, effort, or resources that
  make intervention support in typical
  environments difficult as intensity increases




                           Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
     Logistical Characteristics of
  Interventions Related to Intensity
• Intervention management and planning

  – Adults’ monitoring of activities
  – Teacher prompting
  – Communication with stakeholders (e.g.,
    parents)
  – Progress-monitoring activities (e.g.,
    assessment, graphing)
  – Consultation and meetings between
    professionals
                            Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
     Logistical Characteristics of
  Interventions Related to Intensity
• Activities embedded in typical classroom routines

   – Modification of typical routines
   – Modification of tasks or assessments
   – Increased levels of assistance to students during class
     work
   – Increased one-to-one interaction (e.g. additional
     practice within activities, different feedback system)
   – Provision of contingencies (social or otherwise) for
     expected behaviors


                                   Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
     Logistical Characteristics of
  Interventions Related to Intensity
• Intervention episodes

   –   Tutoring
   –   Social skill groups
   –   Counseling
   –   Additional remedial instruction (group or individual)
   –   Completely new instructional formats
   –   Provision of contingencies related to these efforts



                                    Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
     Logistical Characteristics of
  Interventions Related to Intensity
• Materials and other tangible resources

  – Additional practice materials
  – Published remedial or new curricular packages




                            Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
     Logistical Characteristics of
  Interventions Related to Intensity
• Change agents

  –   Peers
  –   Adult volunteers
  –   Paraprofessionals
  –   Certificated educators



                               Barnett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz (2004)
   Intensity of the Need for Special
                Support
• Extraordinary effort, time, or resources to
  be sustained

• Extensively or throughout the school day

• Re-planning and special resources


                           Hardman, McDonnell, & Welch (1997)
      Rule Outs: Screen for…
• Mental Retardation:
  – IQ
  – Adaptive Behavior
• Emotional Disturbance
• Sensory Impairments
                               Decision Making
      •      Is the student’s rate of progress given equal opportunity
             significantly less than the rate of typical peers or an expected
             rate of skill acquisition or are the interventions that
             sufficiently improved the student’s rate of learning too
             demanding to be implemented with integrity without special
             education resources?

      •      Does the student’s performance remain significantly different
             than that of peers or identified standard?

      •      Does the student continue to need curriculum and instruction
             that is significantly different than what is provided in the
             general education classroom?


(Grimes   & Tilly, 2003)
                 Entitlement Decision

    A.                             B.                C.
Educational                   Discrepancy      Instructional    Entitlement
 Progress                                         Needs          Decision

                                Tells us how                   Tells us whether
  Tells us                                       Tells us
                                unique the                     or not interventions
  what                                           what and
                                student is                     require special
  accelerates                                    how to
                                compared to                    education.
  learning.                                      teach.
                                peers.




  (Grimes   & Tilly, 2003)
        Action Planning: Tier 1
• Do you need to add a Tier 1 function to your
  Student Support Team effort? What do you need
  to do to make time available for team meetings to
  address this function? How will you train teachers
  in basics of collaborative problem-solving?
• What data do you have available that should be
  used in this process? Who in your organization
  will be in charge of entering district data into the
  data summary that we provided?
       Action Planning: Tier 1
• How will you go about obtaining or developing
  periodic performance assessments?
• What is your timeline for developing these
  assessments? When do you plan to implement
  these assessments?
• Who will be in charge of the data and reporting?
  How will training of teachers in understanding
  summary formats be conducted? Who? When?
      Action Planning: Tier 2
• How will you go about identifying a set of
  evidence-based instructional practices
  that can be converted to standard
  protocol interventions?
• Who in your school can be deployed to
  conduct standard protocol interventions?
       Action Planning: Tier 2
• Does IST work for you now? Do you really
  have “data driven problem solving team” like
  ISTs or just a prereferral team or TATs?
• What steps do you need to put in place to
  upgrade this stage of the process to attain
  criterion level (all steps of the flowchart)?
  What training does your staff need to
  implement IST at criterion level?
        Action Planning: Tier 3
• What steps can you take to build a school-based
  literacy team to respond flexibly and directly to
  students’ academic needs?
• How will this change your existing remedial
  program?
• What training do your school psychologists need
  in using the three-tier model in their consideration
  of students’ eligibility for special education?
              The Big Picture
• How will you know if this restructured delivery
  model is working?
• How do we know if Tier 1 and Tier 2
  interventions are effective?
• How will you know if Tier 3 services are effective
  in general and for various subgroups?
• Can we use the data to fine tune decision-making
  regarding students and services?
    School Psychologists: Our Skill Set
             as RTI Leaders
•   Collaboration/consultation
•   Data analysis
•   Program evaluation
•   Assessment understanding (including CBM,
    etc.)

				
DOCUMENT INFO
Shared By:
Categories:
Stats:
views:6
posted:7/15/2011
language:English
pages:110