Using Response to Intervention (RTI) for Washington’s Students Dr. Terry Bergeson State Superintendent of Public Instruction June 2006 Using Response to Intervention (RTI) for Washington’s Students Dr. Terry Bergeson State Superintendent of Public Instruction Dr. Mary Alice Heuschel Deputy State Superintendent Learning and Teaching Bob Harmon Assistant Superintendent Special Programs Douglas H.
Director of Special Education Paul Alig Tonya Middling Program Supervisor Program Supervisor Special Education Special Education This is a publication of Special Education, Office of Superintendent of Public Instruction (OSPI), and developed under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act of 2004 (IDEA) federal grant and may be reprinted without permission. This material is available in alternative format upon request. Contact Special Education at (360) 725-6075, TTY (360) 586-0126, or speced@ospi. OSPI complies with all federal and state rules and regulations and does not discriminate on the basis of race, color, national origin, sex, disability, age, sexual orientation, including gender identity, or marital status.
Acknowledgements This paper could not have been developed without the assistance of the Early Intervening Services/Response to Intervention and Specific Learning Disability Committees. The Special Education Department appreciates their willingness to share their skills and knowledge to benefit Washington students and their families. David Anderson Tony Dunn Program Supervisor Regional Coordinator OSPI ESD 112 Adric Arndt Cindy Dupuy School Psychologist Director Medical Lake School District Explanations, Inc. Kathy Bartlett Rick Eigenbrood Director, Special Education Learning Improvement Chair of Special Education OSPI Seattle Pacific University Meredith Barton Hugh Flint School Psychologist Director of Student Support Services Enumclaw School District White River School District Crystal Bragg Anna Fritts Special Education Program Director School Psychologist Wenatchee School District Spokane Public Schools Robert Bro Tim Galpin Teacher Development Educational Consultant Spokane Public Schools Vancouver Washington Teresa Christianson Janet Gates-Cortez I/LAP Program Specialist Special Education Administrator Tacoma Public Schools Tacoma Public Schools Gail Cleveland Robert Gose Special Education Director Student Services Specialist Oak Harbor School District Shoreline School District Katherine Cove Debbie Griffith Special Education Director Assistant Director of Special Education Toppenish School District Tacoma Public Schools Teri Davidson Don Haas Director of Special Education School Psychologist Wahluke School District Brewster School District Tom Delaney Carol Hall School Psychologist Director of Early Childhood Lake Washington School District ESD 112 Pamela Hamilton Linda Mitzlaff School Psychologist School Psychologist Granite Falls School District Spokane Public Schools Debra Hawkins Patrick J.
Molloy Director of Student Learning School Psychologist Longview School District Lake Chelan and Bridgeport School Districts Sonja Hemmerling-Ryskamp Carolyn Mosiman Secondary Specialist Psychologist Bethel School District Central Kitsap School District Steve Hirsch John Osegueda School Psychologist Certification Program Special Education Teacher WSU-EWU Department of Education Yakima school District Kenneth Howell Kenn Priebe Department of Special Education School Psychologist Western Washington University Central Valley School District Marci Howells LeAnne Robinson Assistant Director for Special Education Department of Special Education Tacoma Public Schools Western Washington University Mike Jacobsen Susan Ruby Curriculum and Assessment Director Assistant Professor, Department of Psychology White River School District Eastern Washington University Jan Karlberg Amy Seufert School Psychologist School Psychologist Stanwood Camano School District Washougal School District Dannie Loriano Cynthia Sheller School Psychologist School Psychologist ESD 101 Rainier School District Carrie Mathews Liz Stucker Assistant Director of Special Education Special Education Director Northshore School District Tonasket School District Linda Maxwell Ellen Wiessner School Psychologist School Psychologist Highline School District Battleground School District Susan Miller Tracy Wilson Reading Specialist/Literacy Coach Assistant Director for Special Services Wenatchee School District Pasco School District Table of Contents Introduction. 2 RTI: Big Ideas. 2 Features of a Tiered Service Delivery Model. 5 Problem Solving Process.
8 Standard Treatment Protocol. 10 RTI and Behavior. 10 Support of RTI through Early Intervening Services Funds. 11 Child Find Obligations within RTI Systems.
12 Changing Roles and Responsibilities. 13 District Readiness and Professional Development. 14 Identifying a Specific Learning Disability Using RTI. 14 Frequently Asked Questions.
I Appendix A - Matrix Using Three-Tiered Model.I Appendix B - Explanation and Matrix of Content of Assessment Domains .III Appendix C -Matrix of the Review, Interview, Observe, and Test (R.) Approach to the Four Content of Assessment Domains. V Appendix D - Using Problem Solving to Address Writing Problems. VIII Appendix E - Examples of Selecting Writing Interventions. X Appendix F - Model Intervention Plan.
XII Appendix G - Using Error Analysis in Targeted Assessments of Reading. XV Appendix H - Example of Information for Evaluation Report Using RTI Data. XVIII Appendix I - District and School RTI Readiness Checklist. XX Appendix J - IDEA Federal Regulations Concerning Response to Intervention (RTI) .XXVI Introduction On December 3, 2004, Congress reauthorized the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004).
The language that Congress uses in IDEA 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB 2001) stresses the use of professionally sound interventions and instruction based on defensible research, as well as the delivery of effective academic and behavior programs to improve student performance. Congress believes that as a result, fewer children will require special education services. Provisions of IDEA 2004 allow school districts to use scientific, research-based interventions as an alternative method for identifying students with specific learning disabilities (SLD). This process is generally referred to as Response to Intervention (RTI).
Using Response to Intervention for Washington’s Students is designed to: (a) explain the principles and components of the RTI process, (b) provide guidelines related to decision making within a RTI system, (c) recommend how to use RTI data in identifying specific learning disabilities, (d) answer common questions, and (e) identify additional resources that school districts may use in developing their own RTI systems. Recent research shows that multi-tiered models are effective educational practices within schools to bring high quality instruction to all students. When discussing the first step to take in the future of education in Washington, the State School Superintendent noted in her November 17, 2005 State of Education Address that: “We must personalize education. We must put our students at the center of everything we’re doing.
Terry Bergeson Dr. Bergeson has outlined the aspects of personalizing education which include: • Decisions based on data; • Screening for at-risk students; • School wide collaboration to help each student; • Progress monitoring; and • Evaluating the effectiveness of instruction and interventions. The RTI concepts presented in this document make use of a multi-tiered approach that incorporate the aspects of a personalized education. The use of ‘tiered’ models is common in both education and mental health.
For example, there are many similarities between this RTI framework and Washington’s K-12 Reading Model. While this manual intentionally aligns with the K-12 Reading Model, RTI may be applied to other academic content areas, such as math, written language and social behavior. Due to the state’s cultural and linguistic diversity in student populations, resources, geographic areas, and rural, urban and suburban populations, it is expected that no two school districts or even school buildings will implement RTI in precisely the same way. With that in mind, this manual has been designed to propose a framework for schools and districts that choose to implement RTI.
1 RTI Defined The National Research Center on Learning Disabilities (NRCLD, 2006) defines RTI as: “…an assessment and intervention process for systematically monitoring student progress and making decisions about the need for instructional modifications or increasingly intensified services using progress monitoring data.” RTI is an integrated approach to service delivery that encompasses general, remedial and special education through a multi-tiered service delivery model. It utilizes a problem-solving framework to identify and address academic and behavioral difficulties for all students using scientific, research-based instruction. Essentially, RTI is the practice of: (a) providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to all students needs and (b) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (c) make important educational decisions to guide instruction (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, 2005). RTI practices are proactive, incorporating both prevention and intervention and is effective at all levels from early childhood through high school.
RTI is intended to reduce the incidence of “instructional casualties” by ensuring that students are provided high quality instruction with fidelity. By using RTI, districts can provide interventions to students as soon as a need arises. This is very different, for example, from the methods associated with the aptitude-achievement discrepancy models traditionally utilized for SLD identification which have been criticized as a “wait to fail” approach. RTI: Big Ideas RTI is comprised of seven core principles that represent recommended RTI practices (Mellard, 2003).
These principles represent systems that must be in place to ensure effective implementation of RTI systems and establish a framework to guide and define the practice. Use all available resources to teach all students. RTI practices are built on the belief that all students can learn. One of the biggest changes associated with RTI is that it requires educators to shift their thinking: from the student--- to the intervention.
This means that the initial evaluation no longer focuses on “what is wrong with the student.” Instead, there is a shift to an examination of the curricular, instructional, and environmental variables that change inadequate learning progress. Once the correct set of intervention variables have been identified, schools must then provide the means and systems for delivering resources so that effective teaching and learning can occur. In doing so, schools must provide resources in a manner that is directly proportional to students’ needs. This will require districts and schools to reconsider current resource allocation systems so that financial and other support structures for RTI practices can be established and sustained.
Use scientific, research-based interventions/instruction. The critical element of RTI systems is the delivery of scientific, research-based interventions with fidelity in 2 general, remedial and special education. This means that the curriculum and instructional approaches must have a high probability of success for the majority of students. By using research-based practices schools efficiently use time and resources and protect students from ineffective instructional and evaluative practices.
Since instructional practices vary in efficacy, ensuring that the practices and curriculum have demonstrated validity is an important consideration in the selection of interventions. With the absence of definitive research, schools should implement promising practices, monitor the effectiveness and modify implementation based on the results. Monitor classroom performance. General education teachers play a vital role in designing and providing high quality instruction.
Furthermore they are in the best position to assess students’ performance and progress against grade level standards in the general education curriculum. This principle emphasizes the importance of general education teachers in monitoring student progress rather than waiting to determine how students are learning in relation to their same-aged peers based on results of state-wide or district-wide assessments. Conduct universal screening/benchmarking. School staff conduct universal screening in all core academic areas and behavior.
Screening data on all students can provide an indication of an individual student’s performance and progress compared to the peer group’s performance and progress. These data form the basis for an initial examination of individual and group patterns on specific academic skills (e., identifying letters of the alphabet or reading a list of high frequency words) as well as behavior skills (e., attendance, cooperation, tardiness, truancy, suspensions, and/or disciplinary actions). Universal screening is the least intensive level of assessment completed within a RTI system and helps educators and parents identify students early who might be “at-risk.” Since screening data may not be as reliable as other assessments, it is important to use multiple sources of evidence in reaching inferences regarding students “at risk. Use a multi-tier model of service delivery.
A RTI approach incorporates a multi- tiered model of service delivery in which each tier represents an increasingly intense level of services associated with increasing levels of learner needs. The system described in this manual reflects a three-tiered design. All multi-tiered systems, regardless of the number of levels chosen, should yield the same practical effects and outcomes. In a RTI system, all students receive instruction in the core curriculum supported by strategic and intensive interventions when needed.