Response to InterventionMoving Beyond the Six

Data PointsAndrea Ogonosky, Ph.D., LSSP, NCSP

Licensed Psychologistaogonosky@msn.com

(832)656-0398

Agenda• Technical Adequacy of Process• District Expectations • Multiple Sources of Data• Staff Knowledge• Leadership

Important Points for Success

1. Foundations1. Laws2. Process

2. Format1. District support: Data collection2. District support: Resources –Ease of Implementation

3. Fidelity1. Staff Understanding2. Staff Development

3

From NCLB:“…holding schools, local education agencies, and States accountable for improving the

academic achievement of all students…” and “…promoting schoolwide reform and ensuring the access of all children to effective, scientifically-based instructional strategies…” [PL 107-110 §1001(4) and (9)]

From IDEA:“…to improve the academic achievement and functional performance of children with

disabilities including the use of scientifically based instructional practices, to the maximum extent possible.” [20 U.S.C. 1400(c)(5)(E)]

RtI Foundations for Success1. Multiple Tiers of Instruction and Assessment2. Using Data: Balanced Assessments3. Technology4. Highly Qualified Staff

Response to Intervention

Is an organizational system with increasing layers of intensity.

Not a categorical system for labeling students.

Is designed for smooth movement

Not a service or place.

Increased intensity of instruction -matches student need -determined by data.

Not a referral system for special education eligibility.

RtI: Problem Solving

Assessment

80%

15%

5%

Interventions

Universal ScreeningProgress Monitoring

Progress MonitoringDiagnostics

Progress MonitoringDiagnostics

Grade LevelInstruction/ Support

Student Instructional LevelSupplemental Interventions90 min per week additional

Student Instructional LevelSupplemental Interventions120 min per week additional

“I was so excited about RtI -I went about enthusiastically building a technically sound guidance document. As I began to work with staff on implementation [from the cultural perspective of shifting the way we think about problem solving] I realized suddenly that to me, RtI had become….

One swirling VORTEX OF TERROR!”---Dr. Quentin Woods, Pine Tree ISD

The Reality of Striving for the Goal of Change…

RtI

From the Student Perspective The Goal is to create…

Academic Learning,

Mastery, and Achievement

Independent Learner

Let’s start at the beginnng….

RtI Is not simply implementing a different type of problem

solving. It also involves giving up certain beliefs in favor of

others. Systems will need to change….

10

Tier 1: Core Instruction /Universal Interventions

ACADEMICQuality core instruction and strategies

Differentiated InstructionEmbedded Interventions

Universal Screening: Academic Continuous progress monitoring of grade level success

“The highest predictor of academic achievement is the proficiency of teachers in effective instructional

practice.”

Donna Walker Tileston Why Culture Counts

Effective Instruction and Intervention Strategies (Tier 1)

Instructional Delivery: Frame the lesson Work in the “Power Zone” Use frequent small group, purposeful

talk about learning Recognize and Reinforce Write critically

Relevant PracticeUse data to determine flexible groupingBuild on student “knowns”Use learning style information to

differentiate student content-product-process

Interventions Are NOTAccommodationsAdaptations Interagency referralsReferral to Special education Assessments, evaluations, screenings Classroom observationsAdvice or consultationsAssisting with instructional methods and materialsPlaces

The Importance of Vocabulary“At the secondary level, much of the reading that students do is in the

content areas; thus, the research on reading measures at the secondary level is closely tied to the research on content-area

learning” (Espin & Tindal, 1995, p. 226).

Activity

How are you defining Tier 1 instruction and strategies? Is there consistency with this definition throughout your district?

It is vitally important that there is an understanding that there is continued discussion and consultation between the teacher, the team, and the

interventionist(s).

Tier 2:Targeted Interventions

ACADEMICStrategic and supplemental

Standard protocol / evidence-basedSmall group (5:1)

Rubric for decision making: decision rules, aim-line/goals, guidelines for increasing /decreasing support or changing intervention.

Focused continuous progress monitoring that increases with intensity of instruction and intervention.

Tier 3:Intensive Interventions

ACADEMICIncreased strategic and supplemental

Group size decreased (3:1)

Rubric for decision making: decision rules, aim-line goals, guidelines for increasing /decreasing support or changing intervention.

Focused continuous progress monitoring that increases with intensity of instruction and intervention.

Pattern of inadequate responses may lead to refer for Section 504 or Special Education.

The use of technology makes ongoing data collection, data consumption, and data-based

decision making a more plausible proposition, and it can keep these important aspects of RtI from

monopolizing teacher time

Lessons Learned: RtI & Technology

• Online learning• Summer trainings• After school trainings ‐• Credit Recovery• Grade level team meetings (easy access to data bases)• Coaching: Using the expertise within to support teachers

Leadership

Critical Component

s

Strong Leader

Focused on Ongoing RtI Vision

Well versed in District RtI Philosophy

Uses ongoing evaluation of

needs to drive Resource

allocation and professional development

Ensure fidelity by having meaningful conversations with staff about outcome data.

Create a culture of common values and work together to achieve common goals.

Provide clear staff expectations

Creatively allocate limited resources to ensure personnel have access to necessary supports.

Strong Administrators

Essential Tasks for Leadership Team

Study and plan ongoing RtI development.

Embed data based decisions across all systems

Use hybrid model of problem solving.

Campus Culture

Question

“If an educator keeps using the same strategies over and over and the student keeps failing,who

Who really is the slow learner?”

Michael Rettig

Professor, Emeritus James Madison University

• Resiliency: Over 40% of teachers do not make it to their 5th year of teaching- many leave by year 3.

• Encouragement of Innovation: PD to support advances in technology. Teachers reinforced and encouraged for “thinking outside the box”.

Quality of Student teacher relationships

Variables affecting Culture

The most important aspect of a strong RtI process is the richness of the conversations that occur because of the layers of multiple

occurring data sources.

It is essential to implement bothProfessional Learning Communities (PLC) and Response to Intervention (RTI) because these complementary processes

are considered research-based best practicesto improve student learning.

Connections• What exactly do we expect all

students to learn?• How will we know if they’ve

learned it?• How will we respond when

some students don’t learn it?• How will we respond when

some students have already learned?

• Core program• Standards• Alignment Documents

Connections• What exactly do we expect all

students to learn?• How will we know if they’ve

learned it?• How will we respond when some

students don’t learn it?• How will we respond when some

students have already learned?

• Progress monitoring• Universal screener• Diagnostic assessments• Formative Assessments

Connections

• What exactly do we expect all students to learn?

• How will we know if they’ve learned it?

• How will we respond when some students don’t learn it?

• How will we respond when some students have already learned?

• Differentiated Strategies• Interventions• Decision rules• Protocol

Connections• What exactly do we expect

all students to learn?• How will we know if they’ve

learned it?• How will we respond when

some students don’t learn it?• How will we respond when

some students have already learned?

• District Expectations• Decision rules• Protocol

• PLC Essential Characteristics

• Focus on learning and collaborative culture

• Focus on results (data driven)

• Action experimentation (is your system able to respond)

• Collective inquiry

RTI Fundamental Elements

• Collective responsibility and teaming

• Universal screening and progress monitoring

• Systematic interventions and decision protocols

• Research based core program and interventions

Underscoring a Problem

“Most teachers just do not possess the skills to collect data, draw meaningful conclusions, focus instruction, and

appropriately follow up to assess results. That is not the set of skills we were hired to do.”

Balancing Assessments

-- Assessment systems-- Multiple measures-- Varied types -- Varied purposes-- Varied data sets-- Balanced with needs

38

Multiple Data Sources Criterion Referenced Assessment

Formative Summative ScreenProgress Monitor

Norm Referenced AssessmentDiagnosticComparativeProgress Monitor

Curriculum Based MeasurementRate of ImprovementUniversal ScreenProgress Monitor

Legal Issues

Two Requirements (Zirkel, 2014)

• “If student participates in RTI, include documentation of instructional strategies and the student-centered data….

• Consider as part of the evaluation… data based documentation of repeated assessment of achievement at reasonable intervals reflection formal assessment of student progress during the instruction, which was provided to the parents” (300.309(b)(2)).

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• Legally binding in 9 western states in the Ninth Circuit• It is generalizable and potentially influential in rest of the country.• 2005-06 CM entered Kindergarten• US (SORT) and DIEBVELS administered 3 times by reading Specialist-

K-3. • CM scores fell below cut score and began reading interventions

throughout Kindergarten.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• Grade 1: Continued reading interventions. • October: parents requested SPED testing.• School held two RtI meetings in November and February to discuss

parental concerns. • District provided SORT and DIEBELS data, but not progress monitoring

data.• Feb. 20th districted completed FIE in a timely manner using

discrepancy scores to determine SLD.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• The eligibility form noted the RtI data but did not include or attach

summary of the RtI data.• April 18th IEP meeting met and determined eligibility for SLD.• IEPs written included specialized reading and writing instructions for

45 minutes, 4 times per week.• End of grade 1: below grade for reading; writing improved to grade

level.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• Grade 2 continued same services on IEP.• Parents received private evaluation and CM diagnosed with CAPD:

recommendations specified environmental modifications, direct interventions and compensatory strategies. Parents provided information to the IEP team

• IEPs at annual were again “identical” to previous ones, despite declining US and diagnostic data scores on SORT and DIEBELS

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• End of grade 2 failed state assessment and again below average on

report card for reading and writing.• Grade 3 beginning of year: IEP team met at parents’ request to

discuss concerns and disagreement with the CAPD evaluation and needs for revisions to the IEP.

• Did not revise IEP, proposed reevaluation. Parents declined to give consent.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014

• • Parents withdrew CM and placed him in a private school that offered

such services. They also filed for due process.• After 11 sessions, the hearing officer decided the IEP was appropriate

and denied the requested reimbursement for the private services. They filed an appeal for judicial review.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• In Feb. 2012, the federal district ruled in favor of the district:

procedural regulations were followed. Also ruled the district did not deny the parents’ opportunity for meaningful participation in light of the correspondence, various meetings, and extensive exchange of information, including some derivative of the RtI data. Parents appealed to the Ninth Circuit.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014• 2-1 decision at the Ninth Circuit- reversed the IEP ruling. Two claims

by parents:1. Majority disagreed with this claim. The district did not commit a

procedural violation by not including the specific RtI data in the evaluation since it used multiple sources of data within the variety of assessment tools in the FIE.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 20142. District violated informed parental consent by not providing parents

with the opportunity to examine the child’s records when asking for consent because it did not provide RtI data when parents were giving consent.

3. District violated provision of providing parents with “the documentation of determination of eligibility” by failing to provide the RtI data when considering eligibility.

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014

• Agreed with parents on this claim. The district violated IDEA by failing to ensure that the RtI data was documented and carefully considered by the entire IEP team and failing to furnish the parents with the RtI data- thereby making the parents unable to give informed consent for both the initial evaluation and the special education services CM received. Based on 3 general IDEA criteria:

M.M. v Lafayette School District, 2014Based on these three points the Ninth Circuit determined that the district prevented the parents from meaningful participation in the IEP process.

Issue in this case was FAPE.

Align Data Sources

Universal Screening

Progress Monitoring

Diagnostic Assessments

Outcome Assessments

Does the data tell a clear and concise story of the student’s learning?

If there is inconsistency team must investigate why

Review integrity of instruction

Align to student needs

Student variables

Example of Using Multiple Sources of Data for Problem Solving ….

Question

Do your teams spend more time talking about individual kids or do they spend time more time on the needs of ALL kids?

Team Philosophy

• The 1st intervention is always effective classroom instruction and classroom management which yield high rates of academic engagement.

• The team always uses the model of problem solving-consultation- instruction/intervention approach.

Problem Identification

• Review existing information• Determine student’s functional level• Identify initial concerns • Analyze multiple data sources• Operationally define the problem

Existing Data Review• Determine the Student’s Current

Classroom Status: Academic Progress and Work Samples

• Teacher Describes and quantifies concerns

• Review of Records• Parent Contact(s)• Medical Information• Classroom Observations (ICEL)

Determine Student Functional Levels

• Identify assets and weaknesses• Identify Critical Life Events, Milestones,

Circumstances (Positive and Negative) • Identify medical and/or physiological

sources of concern• Identify academic variables such as

“speed of acquisition” or retention of information

• Identify issues of attendance, transitions, motivation, access to instruction

60

Review - assessment information, curriculum, discipline referrals, cumulative & health files, etc.

Interview – teacher, parent, student, specialist, etc.Observation – instruction, student, curriculum use,

environment, etc.Test/Assess – research on curriculum, instructional

effectiveness, screening, diagnostic and outcome measures, etc.

ICEL/RIOT:

61

Instruction – Does the teacher use data to make instructional decisions?; Does the teacher provide differentiation to assist at-risk learners?

Curriculum - Is the curriculum research-based and completed with fidelity?

Environment – What factors in the environment impact the student’s learning?

Learner - What are the learners strengths and weaknesses?; What kind of learner is he/she?

ICEL/RIOT (continued):

Supplemental Supports• Do your students show movement in the Tiers?• How long is too long?• Do you have students who are referred and then

DNQ? What happens next?• Do you have teams that are reluctant to move kids out

of Tiers because they are successful?

Monitor Fidelity Intervention Well Checks Observe in Tiers 1 and 2/3 Consult with Teacher Review data weekly in PLC/

Planning meetings Check data collection Talk to parent

• Purpose is to develop instruction and intervention• Never use documentation (or lack of) for delaying a special

education evaluation when there is strong evidence of a suspected disability.

• Keep it simple . . . use naturally occurring data to drive RtI problem solving

• Focus documentation on converging multiple sources of data.

• Consistency is key.• Have a rubric for teams to follow

RtI Documentation . . .

Tips for Moving Forward

1. Make sure the system of intervention is fluid.2. Systems of intervention work better when they are

supporting teams rather than individual teachers.3. Realize that no support system will compensate for

inadequate teaching.4. Ensure a common understanding of “system of

interventions.”

Questions?

aogonosky@msn.com

(832)656-0398