Response to Intervention (RTI)
Panel Discussion
March 31, 2011
RTI Panel Discussion
• Dean Robert Bangert-Drowns, moderator
• Panelists:
– Dr. Frank Vellutino, Educational Psychology
& Methodology
– Dr. Peter Johnston, Reading
– Dr. Kevin Quinn, Special Education
– Dr. Stacy Williams, School Psychology
– Dr. Donna Scanlon, Reading
Response to Intervention
Brief History
Dr. Frank Vellutino
Definition of Response to Intervention
– RTI is a new approach to determining whether students should be
classified as learning disabled. It involves:
• Identifying those students who are not meeting grade level
expectations in a targeted academic area (e.g. reading, math,
etc.).
• Providing remedial services that are intensified over several
tiers of intervention (e.g. three-tier model).
• Assessing and monitoring students’ gains in the targeted
academic area to determine whether they have accelerated
their progress sufficiently to meet grade level expectations.
– The RTI approach to LD classification is an alternative to
traditional psychometric approaches having the IQ-achievement
discrepancy as the central defining criterion.
5
The Psychometric Approach
• Definition by Exclusion
– IQ-Achievement discrepancy.
– Sensory, physical, and emotional deficits, frequent
absences from school, and socioeconomic disadvantage
used as exclusionary criteria.
– “Neuropsychological” tests of cognitive abilities presumed
to underlie an academic skill.
• Estimates of incidence of learning disability range from 10% to
20% using the above criteria.
6
• Basic Assumptions of the Psychometric Approach
– Learning disabilities are caused by neurodevelopmental
disorders affecting academic learning in otherwise normal
children.
– Specific learning disabilities are different from general
learning difficulties caused by low IQ, sensory, physical, or
emotional deficits, or socioeconomic disadvantage.
– These assumptions were codified by Public law 94-142
(EAHCA, 1975) which led to the widespread use of
psychometric definitions of LD having the IQ-achievement
discrepancy as the central defining criterion.
7
Problems with the Psychometric Approach to
LD Classification
• No control for pre-school experiences and instruction
• Low diagnostic validity of most tests
• Rely primarily on IQ-achievement discrepancy
• “Wait to fail” approach to classification
• Too many children classified as “disabled learners” (10%-20%)
• Low expectations for achievement
• No direction for instruction
• Little or no attention given to the nature and quality of
instruction
8
How did RTI Emerge as a New Approach to
Learning Disability Classification?
• Marie Clay’s Reading Recovery: The Prototypical RTI Model
• Over two decades of research undermining the use of the IQachievement discrepancy to define learning disabilities.
• Well over a decade of intervention research documenting the
utility of using an RTI approach to identifying learning
disabilities in lieu of the IQ-achievement discrepancy.
• IDEIA (2004) which allowed and encouraged the use of RTI
approaches to LD classification in lieu of traditional
psychometric and discrepancy-based approaches.
• Widespread implementation of RTI approaches to LD
classification in subsequent years.
9
Prevention versus Classification
Dr. Peter Johnston
The language in IDEA 2004 offers two frames
for viewing RtI:
A. A measurement problem – a strategy for
identifying children who have disabilities. (§
300.307)
B. An instructional problem – a strategy for
ensuring a child has appropriate instruction,
thereby reducing the number of children who
end up with disabilities. (§ 300.307)
RtI as Identification (a measurement problem)
• Goal: accurately identify individuals with LD.
• Measurement priority requires standardization (in timing,
instruction, assessments).
• Assessment does not have to be instructionally informative.
• Assume that standardized instruction that is effective on
average in one setting will be effective with each new child in
any new setting.
• If the standard instruction is not successful even when the
intensity is increased, the child is identified as having a
disability the instruction remains “scientific, research based.”
RtI as Prevention (an instructional problem)
• Goal: Prevent children becoming LD - state oriented.
• Emphasizes optimizing instruction for the individual. The central
concern is providing the means and context for improving
teaching (and teacher expertise).
• Assessment must be informative about qualities of learning and
teaching, it must be formative.
• Instruction is not appropriate (evidence based) unless the
evidence says it’s effective for this child (with this teacher).
Why Choose Prevention (instructional)
• Although there are differences in children’s facility with
language processing competencies that make it harder for
some children to acquire literacy, given appropriate
instruction, children with the most limited competencies have
almost all been taught to read on par with their peers.
• And, in the process, their language processing competencies
improve (Vellutino & Scanlon)
• By shifting attention to the nature of instruction, 76% of the
remaining 1.5% can be brought into the normal range in 26-30
weeks. (Phillips & Smith)
Assessing /Teaching to Increase Student Learning
and Reduce Learning Disabilities
• Teaching requires close attention to the child’s literate
interactions and engaging the child at critical points in ways
that keep the child in control of processing and expand the
child’s use of resources.
• The method of documenting learning must focus the
teacher’s attention on the child’s processing and provide a
history for problem solving.
• Particularly for children experiencing difficulty becoming
literate, improving the child’s learning requires examining
(through data) and improving the teacher-child interaction
and shared meaning-making.
• Literacy must minimally be addressed as a meaning-making
problem-solving activity of personal significance.
Johnston/Phillips & Smith
School-wide Positive Behavioral
Support
Dr. Kevin Quinn
School-wide Positive Behavioral Support is a
Framework for enhancing
adoption & implementation of
Continuum of evidence-based
interventions to achieve
Academically & behaviorally
important outcomes for
All students
CONTINUUM OF
SCHOOL-WIDE
INSTRUCTIONAL &
POSITIVE BEHAVIOR
SUPPORT
FEW
~5%
~15%
SOME
Primary Prevention:
School-/ClassroomWide Systems for
All Students,
Staff, & Settings
ALL
~80% of Students
Tertiary Prevention:
Specialized
Individualized
Systems for Students with
High-Risk Behavior
Secondary Prevention:
Specialized Group
Systems for Students with
At-Risk Behavior
Responsiveness to Intervention
Academic Systems
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•High Intensity
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
Universal Interventions
•All students
•Preventive, proactive
Behavioral Systems
80-90%
Intensive, Individual Interventions
•Individual Students
•Assessment-based
•Intense, durable procedures
1-5%
5-10%
Targeted Group Interventions
•Some students (at-risk)
•High efficiency
•Rapid response
80-90%
Universal Interventions
•All settings, all students
•Preventive, proactive
Integrated Functions Across All Tiers of Support
Behavior Support
Universal Screening
Evidence-based
practices
Progress monitoring
Data-based decisions
Reading Support
Team approach
Integrated
Elements
Supporting Social Competence &
Academic Achievement
OUTCOMES
Supporting
Decision
Making
Supporting
Staff Behavior
PRACTICES
Supporting
Student Behavior
ESTABLISHING CONTINUUM of SWPBS
~5%
~15%
TERTIARY
TERTIARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Function-based support
•• Wraparound
•• Person-centered planning
••
••
SECONDARY
SECONDARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Check in/out
•• Targeted social skills instruction
•• Peer-based supports
•• Social skills club
••
~80% of Students
PRIMARY
PRIMARY PREVENTION
PREVENTION
•• Teach SW expectations
•• Proactive SW discipline
•• Positive reinforcement
•• Effective instruction
•• Parent engagement
••
RTI
Math
Intensive
Social Behavior
Targeted
Continuum of
Support for ALL
Spanish
Reading
Soc skills
Universal
Soc Studies
Basketball
Label behavior…not
people
Dec 7, 2007
Practices of Behavior and Reading Supports
Behavior Supports
Integrated Behavior
and Reading
Supports
Independent Behavior and
Academic Supports
Reading
Supports
Meeting The RTI Challenge
Dr. Stacy Williams
Meeting The RTI Challenge
• open to change—change in how students are identified for
intervention; how interventions are selected, designed, and
implemented; how student performance is measured and
evaluated; how evaluations are conducted; and how decisions
are made;
• open to professional development—training (as needed) in
evidence-based intervention approaches, progress monitoring
methods, evaluation of instructional and program outcomes,
and contextually based assessment procedures, and the
implications for both pre-service and in-service training;
• willing to adapt a more systemic approach to serving schools,
including a workload that reflects less traditional service
delivery (i.e., SLPs, SPs, etc) and more consultation and
collaboration in general education classrooms;
PD for Teachers of Students with
Learning Disabilities
• understand and apply pedagogy related to cognition, learning
theory, language development, behavior management and
applied behavioral analysis,
• possess a substantial base of knowledge about criteria for
identifying scientific research-based methodology,
instructional programs/methodology available for use with
students with Learning Disabilities and individualization of
instruction,
• be proficient in providing direct skill instruction in reading,
writing, spelling, math, listening and learning strategies,
• be able to adjust instruction and learning supports based on
student progress, observation and clinical judgment,
General Educators
Professional Development
• The general education
teacher has a crucial role in
ensuring that the RtI
process is implemented
with integrity.
– Collection of data
– Implementation of
interventions
– Tier 1 Instruction
•
Differentiating instruction for a
diverse classroom,
•
Ongoing curriculum-based data
collection and analysis,
•
Evidence-based intervention
strategies for both academics and
behaviors,
•
Progress monitoring processes and
procedures,
•
Problem-solving methods to facilitate
data-based instructional decisionmaking, and
•
Professional collaboration skills.
Obstacles to Effective Professional
Development
The Role of Instruction in Preventing
and Remediating Reading Difficulties
Dr. Donna Scanlon
Prevention –
the best part of…
the most promising practice of…
the logical focus of…
RtI
Priorities for Planning/Implementing
Instruction in an RTI context
Knowledgeable teachers
• Studies demonstrate that children’s learning is more
dependent on what teachers do than on the
programs they use.
–
–
–
–
Bond & Dykstra, 1967
Duffy & Hoffman, 1999
Nye, Konstantopoulos, & Hedges, 2004
Scanlon, Gelzheiser, Vellutino, Schatschneider, & Sweeney,
2008
– Tivnan & Hemphill, 2005
Priorities for Planning/Implementing
Instruction in an RTI context
• Ensure that instruction across the tiers is:
– Responsive
– Coherent
– Collaborative
– Comprehensive
Experience in
World
Vocabulary
& Language
Motivation &
Engagement
Experience with
Books & Print
Comprehension &
Knowledge
Word Identification
and Word Learning
High
Frequency
Words
Strategic Word
Learning
Alphabetics:
Print Concepts
Phonological Awareness
Letter Names
Letter Sounds
The Alphabet Principle &
Alphabetic Code
Larger Orthographic
Units
Priorities for Planning/Implementing
Instruction in an RTI context
• Begin as early as potential difficulties are
apparent and before the children have come
to identify themselves as less able.
– Scanlon, Vellutino, Small, Fanuele, & Sweeney
(2005) found that small group intervention in
kindergarten:
• Reduced the number of children who qualified for
more intensive forms of intervention in first grade
• Substantially reduced the proportion of at risk children
who continued to experience serious reading
difficulties at the end of first grade.
Areas of Concern in RTI Implementation &
Practices not Supported by Research
– Frequent progress monitoring of isolated skills
• No evidence that it contributes to improved outcomes for children
– Implementation of distinct programs at different tiers of
instruction
• Apt to confuse the children
– Too much emphasis on fidelity of implementation
• May result in lack of teacher responsiveness and failure to match
instruction to the students’ current abilities.
– Too much emphasis on isolated skills
• May limit the amount of reading children do
• May confuse children about the purposes of reading
– Too much emphasis on fluency
• May lead some children to be inattentive to meaning-making.