Reforming Pk-12 EducationThe Promise of RTI
Response to InterventionSummer Institute
June 14, 2010 University of Cincinnati
David P. Prasse, Ph.D
Loyola University Chicago
Focus/Overview
• National/State Implementation
• Teachers and Competencies
• RTI Overview• Documenting Need
– Historical View
Here is Edward Bear, coming downstairs now, bump, bump, bump on the back of his head behind Christopher Robin. It is, as far as he knows, the only way of coming downstairs. He feels that there really is another way… If only he could stop bumping for a moment and think of it.
From Winnie-the-Pooh
We Don’t Have Time to Think
GROWTH IN RTI IMPLEMENTATION
• 2007 – 40% districts piloting or implementing• 2008 – 60% piloting or implementing• 2009 - 71% piloting or implementing
– (Spectrum K12 School Solutions, 2009)
• 100% of special ed faculty report including RTI in teacher preparation important
(Gallagher & Coleman, 2009)
NATIONAL AND SEA DEVELOPMENT
• Majority of SEA’s adopting RTI in special education eligibility & entitlement
• Understood as vehicle for LEA transformation
• Component of many Race to Top applications
• Option in I3 RFP (Absolute Priority 2)
When do you anticipate RTI will be fully implemented district wide
12% - Daily Use
17% - 09-10 School Year
32% - 10-11 School Year
30% - Don’t Know
Is Your District using RTI For
88% - Identification for early intervening services and supports.
60% - Identification of students for special education services.
51% - Identification specialized services and supports in addition to sped.
Using RTI as part of the process to Identify Students for SPED.
73% - Yes
27% - No
For Which Grades and Areas
Elementary – Reading (81%), Math (49%), Behavior (44%), None (16%)
Middle – Reading (39%), Math (26%), Behavior (25%), None (36%).
High School – Reading (19%), Math (14%), Behavior (18%), None (49%)
Significant Obstacles(rank ordered)
Insufficient Teacher TrainingLack of Intervention ResourcesLack of Resources – Instruction or progress
monitoring.Lack of support/direction from stateLack of resources
benchmarking/assessment/data managementLack of support from district leadership
PRACTIONER DATA:KNOWLEDGE & SKILL GAPS
• Survey of classroom teachers
• Looked at beliefs and teacher perceptions of RTI skills
• Analyzed data for beginning teachers only (first-year and one to four years)
• Response options ranged from “strongly agree” to “strongly disagree”
(www.floridarti.usf.edu)
TEACHER BELIEFSAll Students Can Learn
Disagree40%
Agree60%
TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’t
33
40
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Percentage who agree with the
statement
First-year 1-4 years
Years of Experience
Students with high incidence disabilities (e.g. LD) are capable of achieving academic benmarks
TEACHER BELIEFS – Con’tUsing data to determine effectiveness of
interventions is better than using "teacher judgment"
Agree55%
Disagree45%
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS
25
66
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Percentage of teachers
Substantial support Some level of support
Level of support needed to use data to make decisions about individuals and groups of students for core academic curriculum
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
33
76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage of teachers
Substantial support Some level of support
Level of support needed to use data to make decisions about individuals and groups of students for school-wide discipline
plans
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
58
36
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage of teachers who
needed some level of support
First-year 1-4 years
Years of Experience
Using data to define the current level of academic performance for a target student
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
40
76
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
Percentage of teachers
Substantial support Some level of support
Level of support needed to use gap data to determine whether core instruction should be adjusted or supplemental instruction is needed
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
16
58
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
Percentage of teachers
Substantial support Some level of support
Level of support needed when it comes to selecting data to use for progress monitoring
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
30
43
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
45
Percentage of teachers
First-year 1-4 years
Years of Experience
Percentage of teachers who have skills to interpret graphed data
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
• For the 6 areas listed (3 academic and 3 behavioral), between 60% and 75% of beginning teachers reported needing some level of support for accessing resources to develop evidence-based academic and behavioral interventions at each tier.
PERCEPTIONS OF RTI SKILLS – Con’t
• Less than half of beginning teachers reported being able to collect universal screening data (e.g., early literacy skills).
High above the hushed crowd, Rex tried to remain focused. Still, he couldn’t shake one nagging thought: He was an old dog and this was a new trick.
We are being asked to accomplish things we’ve never done before. Lack of knowledge = Lack of confidence
Why RtI?
• Moves the focus of attention to student progress not student labels
• Focus on achieving benchmarks, regardless of student needs
•Scarce available resources - efficiency
•Represents systemic transformation
•Responsive to best practice and national direction
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.
• Problem-solving is the process that is used to develop effective instruction/interventions.
ACADEMIC SYSTEMS BEHAVIORAL SYSTEMS
STUDENTS
The VISION: To Provide Effective Interventions to Meet the Needs of ALL Students Through Early and Scientifically Based Interventions Through Careful
Systems Planning
Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction• All students• Preventive, proactive 80% 80%
Tier 1 Core Effective Instruction • All settings, All students• Preventive, proactive
Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response
15%Tier 2 Targeted Group Interventions• Some students (at-risk)• High efficiency• Rapid response
15%
Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• Intense, durable procedures
5%
Tier 3 Intensive, Individual Interventions• Individual Students• Assessment - based• High intensity• Of longer duration
5%
Why a Pyramid?
Tier 3
Tier 1
Tier 2
An aerial view- emphasizing that all students need a strong foundation in core instruction and that all students are part of the same educational system.
RtI: Basic Premises
• Effective Core Instruction is the basis for this model.
• The model alone cannot “fix” core instruction but demands effective core (Tier I) instruction
• Cannot do “more” in existing time frame – work differently
• “Unit of analysis” is the school building– Role of the building principal is critical to success
Key Characteristics of RtI
• Universal screening of academics and behavior
• Multiple tiers (3) of increasingly intense interventions
• Use of evidenced-based interventions
• Continuous monitoring of student performance
• Evaluating student performance against benchmarks/outcome assessment
Key Assumptions
• Supplemental instruction is best delivered through “standard protocols” of intervention to groups of students with common needs
• Data drives decisions• Its all about the rate of student progress in
the amount of time remaining• Data collection WITHOUT intervention
integrity is useless• Staff, resources and time must match the
demand
Standard Practices• All intervention and eligibility decisions are based
on the assumption that the “core” instruction--academic and behavior--is effective.
• Procedures exist for tier-based resource allocation• Procedures exist to support intervention integrity
and to document the “dosage” of intervention provided
• A cadre of interventions exist that the entire school is knowledgeable about
• A single problem-solving process exists and the implementation steps and skills are standardized.
How Does it Fit Together?Standard Treatment Protocol
Addl.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
Embrace RtI as general education model with other initiatives
• RtI is a framework for student improvement, not another initiative
• Other initiatives, if focused on the same outcome, will fit this framework (PBIS, PLC)
• Consider how well school staff use data to make instructional decisions for student improvement
• Consider how well current services for struggling students are coordinated/integrated
What Are These Initiatives Telling Us?
• Focus on “Results” not Process• Intervene Early & Focus on Prevention• Insist on Greater Parental Involvement• Integrate General and Special Education
Services• Make only Data-Based Decisions• Interventions Must be Evidenced-Based• Be Accountable, Efficient, and Flexible
Interventions are NOT:
• Activities which are intended to put students into alternative settings where appropriate interventions can occur.
Or
• A different setting or location:– Special Education
– Title I
– Day Treatment
– Residential Programs
Quick Look Back
Control of the Educational AgendaBusiness and Politicians
Emergence of Special Education SystemExpansion and shrinkage
“If it’s a school day, during school hours, one-fifth of the total American population consists of public school students K
through 12. One in five Americans. And if you count teachers and administrators you are probably going to get pretty close to one-quarter of the population of the country at any given
time on a weekday sitting in a public school building.” (Lemann, 2001)
In 2006 nearly 90 percent of American children – 50.3 million students – were enrolled in public schools.
An additional 5 million enrolled in private schools.
There were 4.9 million teachers – 3.3 million K-12.
Education Costs
• 1995-1996 per pupil expenditures=$2,853
• 2004-2006 = $7,686
• Since 1965 federal government spent over $351 billion on education and,
• States have spent additional trillions.
Education Costs – cont’t
• 2005-2006 – Nation spent $922 billion, Kdg-grad.
• 2005-2006 spent $558 billion K-12.
• Expenditures = 7.4% gross domestic product
Quick Look Back1970’s we saw
• Rising unemployment
• Market share loss to Japan and Germany
• Swift changes in technologies
• Decline of U.S. workplace productivity
Corporate leaders and public officials pointed the finger at our
nation’s schools
Criticisms included
• Unprepared high school graduates
• Poor scores on national tests
• Violence in our schools
• High drop out rates in urban schools
• White flight from cities to suburbs
Business Roundtables - Presidential Commission – A Nation At Risk
• Increased high school graduation requirements
• Lengthened school year
• Added more tests
1989 President Bush – Governors Education forum- Goals 2000
• Six (later 8) national goals
• 1st math and science by 2000.
Three key assumptions
• Public school more efficient and effective – compete and parent choice
• Students perform better in workplace with rigorous academic subjects, especially math and science.
• Test scores measure what has been learned & predict future employees performance.
Resulted in
• High-stakes testing programs
• Reduction in social promotions
• Emergence of choice programs/charters, etc.
Over past two decades
• Reading and math scores stagnant.
• Criticisms of the schools and preparation programs increased
• Privatization/business orientation emerged
• Tax payer supported – political/legislative interest
The Emergence of Special Education
HISTORICAL CONTEXT
1960’S
• Segregation no Longer Permitted
• Disabled Students Denied Access to Public Schools
• Litigation Brought Against Public Schools Seeking Access for Disabled
• Public Schools Concede
• School House Doors Opened
1970’s
• States pass special education access legislation
• Congress follows suit in 1974-75
• 1975 Gerald Fords Signs PL 94-142
• Promise of Federal $$ accompanies legislation
• States implement federal law
Basic Tenets
• Affirmatively find and education students with disabilities
• Determine type of disability
• Required to meet eligibility criteria
• Extend and follow procedural due process requirements
IMPACT
• Found millions of students
• Capped #’s via limits on funding
• Equated category/label with program
• Once identified outcomes didn’t matter
• For 35+ years taught educational personnel to refer kids if they don’t learn
• Expanded number of categories
CONSEQUENCES
• Special Education students didn’t need to learn
• General Education students didn’t need to learn
• Parents, teachers, society, believed identification meant problem solved
• Created two school systems
Experiencing Substantive Educational
Reform Initiatives
• Comprehensive
• Enjoy broad political support
• Priority federal/presidential agenda
• Nothing like it in 35 plus years (ESEA)
CHALLENGES
• KEEP DOING WHAT WE ARE• DON’T LOOK FOR SHORT CUTS• BE CAUTIOUS OF “TAKE IT TO SCALE.”• PATIENCE – OLDEST INTRACTIBLE
INSTITUION• BATTLE VESTED INTERSTS WITH DATA,
NOT OPINION• SUBSTANCE – NOT PROCESS
OPPORTUNITIES
• Embrace Accountability• Embrace Technology – Data Systems• Meet with a Politician• Insist on & Be Involved with State Rules and
Regulations• Ask the Different Question – Always,
Everywhere• Sliced Bread
“Stop asking me if we’re almost there; we’re Nomads, for crying out loud.”
People see change as an event: “But we just changed last year.”