Response to Intervention (RtI) Handbook · Intervention Process Flow Chart in Resource ... and more strategic ... During the three tiers of scientifically-based intervention, was

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS

OFFICE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES

Response to Intervention (RtI) Handbook

(Summer 2009)

Sheilah Wright, MA, LLP, CSP Director


A Framework for

Building Centers of Excellence in Every School, for Every Child, in Every Neighborhood

Sheilah Wright, M.A., L.L.P., C.S.P., Director

Paul G. Chrustowski, Ph.D., L.P., C.S.P., Supervisor David Maxwell, M.A., N.C.S.P., Supervisor

Fran Brady, Psy.S., C.S.P.

Gianna Coburn, Psy.S., C.S.P. Elise Daniels, M.A., L.L.P., C.S.P.

Sharon Hardrick, Psy.S., C.S.P. Shelly Neal, M.A., C.S.P.


A Framework for

Building Centers of Excellence in Every School, for Every Child, in Every Neighborhood

TABLE OF CONTENTS

RtI: What is it and How Does it Fit in the Mission of Detroit Public Schools…….. 1

RtI, Special Education Law, and Specific Learning Disability Determination…….. 3

January 22, 2009 Memo from MDE…………………………………………. 5

RtI and the Resource Coordinating Team Process………………………………….. 7

The Problem-Solving Process Utilized in Both RCT & RtI………………….. 8

Intervention Process Flow Chart in Resource Coordinating Team (RCT) Process………………………………………………………………………… 9

Response to Intervention (RtI) Process Flow Chart…………………………... 10

A Proposed Plan for Implementing RtI in the Detroit Public Schools by the Office of Psychological Services…………………………………………………………… 11

An Example of RtI in Action: Student Vignette……………………………………. 14

How Close is DPS to a Successful Implementation of RtI? Survey Results……….. 16

Sample Forms and Parent Information Letters……………………………………… 20

References…………………………………………………………………………… 44

Appendix: Sample from Plymouth-Canton Community Schools………………….. 46

RtI: What is it and How Does it Fit in the Mission of Detroit Public Schools? The National Association of State Directors of Special Education (2006) define the Response to Intervention (RtI) model as “the practice of providing high quality instruction and interventions matched to student need, monitoring progress frequently to make decisions about changes in instruction or goals, and applying child response data to important educational decisions.” Others define it more simply by describing it as a “framework for making instructional decisions, based on data, in order to accelerate learning for all students” (Renaissance Learning Inc., 2009). The Office of Psychological Services sees the RtI approach as fully aligned with the district’s goals of transforming itself so that every school in every neighborhood will be a center of excellence for every student. RtI is not a program or theory, as much as it is a structure and organization for providing quality instruction to students. RtI is a tiered delivery model, typically visualized as a triangle with three levels. Each level describes a group of students with differing needs. The levels are flexible and fluid, with students able to move between them when needed.

Tier 1 represents the majority of students. These are students who are receiving a scientifically-validated good core curriculum and are making progress and achieving benchmarks. Ideally, 80% of students should be in Tier 1. Within this solid core curriculum, differentiated instruction should still be occurring to maximize achievement for as many students as possible. Within Tier 1, curriculum based measurement (CBM) is used to determine if students are responding to the core curriculum.

differentiated instruction: Proactive teaching that provides students with various options for learning what they need to learn, how they learn it, and how they can demonstrate what they have learned to maximize achievement for all students.

1

curriculum based measurement (CBM): Tests which are brief to administer and sensitive to growth, so that they can be used to determine if students are adequately progressing in a curriculum and meeting expectations.

Tier 2 represents a smaller group of students (10-15%) whose CBM results show they are not learning at a rate necessary to meet grade level content expectations. These students require additional help, or targeted interventions. These interventions are often not different from the core curriculum. However, the interventions provide more exposure to the core curriculum, supplemental instruction, and more strategic approaches.

Tier 3 represents a smaller group of students (about 5% or fewer) who have not made progress in the core curriculum, nor responded to the targeted interventions of Tier 2. These students require intensive, highly individualized interventions. While still aligned with standards, Tier 3 interventions often need to go beyond the core curriculum.

interventions: Often interventions are just good instructional approaches which many teachers already know and utilize. They become interventions when they are done with intentionality and done in such a way that they yield data so that progress can be monitored.

It is important to note that the tiers represent instructional approaches, not a classification system or a grouping of students on ability level. Students can “flow” through levels as needed. At any time, a student may be responding to the core curriculum at Tier 1 in one subject, while receiving a Tier 2 or Tier 3 intervention in another subject. As students progress to higher tiers, not only are the interventions more intensive, but progress monitoring becomes more frequent. The results of this progress monitoring are used to make educational decisions, such as: Is this intervention working? Is the student now making sufficient progress such that he no longer needs the intervention? Do we need to modify the intervention or try a new one? As will be discussed in the following section, lack of response to intervention may ultimately also be used to make diagnostic decisions about the presence of educational handicaps and the need for special education.

2

RtI, Special Education Law, and Specific Learning Disability Determination

The field of school psychology has long recognized the limitations of the current special education system and has advocated for the more effective and seamless approach to educating all students, general and special education, provided by the Response to Intervention (RtI) model. Although components of RtI have been in practice for years, they truly sprang to the forefront with the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Specific Learning Disability is the highest incidence disability for which a psycho-educational evaluation is requested. Prior to IDEA 2004, a “discrepancy model” was often used to identify learning disabilities, in particular a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability. IDEA 2004 states “….In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to a scientific, research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures.” (H.R. 1350, 2004, Section 614(b)(6) (A&B)). The federal regulations for implementing IDEA 2004 stated: “There are many reasons why the use of the IQ-Discrepancy criterion should be abandoned. The IQ discrepancy criterion is potentially harmful to students as it results in delaying intervention until the student’s achievement is sufficiently low so that the discrepancy is achieved.” (Assistance to States for the Education of Children with Disabilities, 2005, p. 35802). Despite this sage advice, the Michigan Department of Education has not unilaterally adapted the change, and has left the decisions to the individual school districts. The Michigan Department of Education Administrative Rules as amended September 11, 2008 defines a learning disability in the following way:

R 340.1713 Specific learning disability defined; determination. Rule 13. (1) “Specific learning disability” means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional impairment, of autism spectrum disorder, or of environmental, cultural or economic disadvantage. (2) In determining whether a student has a learning disability, the state shall: (a) Not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. (b) Permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. (c) Permit the use of other alternative research based procedures. (3) A determination of a learning disability shall be based on a comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, which shall include at least both of the following: (a) the student’s general education teacher, or if the student does not have a general education teacher, a general education teacher qualified to teach a student of his or her age, or for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the state educational agency to teach a child of his or her age. (b) At least 1 person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, an authorized provider of speech and language under R 340.1745(d), or a teacher consultant.

3

The Administrative Rules further state that it must be shown that “lack of achievement is nA red fw f ng inm

1. Isree tiers of scientifically-based intervention, does the data show that the

e student’s rate of p

ent of eers?

been ruled out as potential causes for the lack of a

o lack of appropriate instruction in reading and math.” The Michigan ssociation of School Psychologists (MASP) asserts that prior to a student being refer

or special education, in order to fulfill the law, there must be data to show that the child as provided appropriate instruction by qualified personnel and documentation of data

rom repeated assessments at reasonable intervals reflecting the student’s progress duristruction. The following five questions were also posed as recommended guides for aking eligibility determinations:

t due to

there data to show if the student was effectively taught? 2. After th

student is still significantly deficient in relation to the benchmarks? 3. During the three tiers of scientifically-based intervention, was th

rogress (slope) significantly deficient in relation to peers, such that, even ifprogress is being made, it will not bring the student to the level of achievemhis p

4. Does the student need specially designed instruction in the form of special education in order to make meaningful progress?

5. Have other factors fullychievement?

An effectively implemented RtI model will ensure that these questions are fully and appropriately addressed. In January 2009, the Michigan Department of Education issued the following attached memo to further assist districts in clarifying the revised administrative rules as they relate to Specific Learning Disability.

4

JENNIFER M. GRANHOLM GOVERNOR

MICHAEL P. FLANAGAN SUPERINTENDENT OF

STATE OF MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

LANSING

PUBLIC INSTRUCTION

January 22, 2009

MEMORANDUM TO: Intermediate School District Directors of Special Education FROM: Jacquelyn J. Thompson, Ph.D. Director Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services SUBJECT: Specific Learning Disabilities – Clarification

DISSEMINATE TO LEAs AND PSAs

Michigan’s Administrative Rule 340.1713, Specific Learning Disability Defined, Determination, was amended on September 11, 2008 (enclosed). A few components of the rule warrant clarification. The Role of Severe Discrepancy Rule 340.1713 of the Michigan Administrative Rules for Special Education (Rules) allows the use of three options for determining specific learning disability (SLD) eligibility. The rule allows a district to use severe discrepancy, but only as one part of a full and individual evaluation. Severe discrepancy may never be used alone to determine a student eligible as a student with a SLD. Response to Scientific, Research-based Intervention Process In determining eligibility under SLD, one of the options a school district may use is a process that is based on a student’s response to scientific, research-based intervention. Depending on the local district’s practice, this process may have a variety of names; e.g., Instructional Consultation Team, Response to Intervention, Michigan’s Integrated Behavior and Learning Support Initiative. The Michigan Department of Education (MDE) does not mandate any specific scientific, research-based intervention process.

OSE-EIS 09-02 STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION

KATHLEEN N. STRAUS – PRESIDENT • JOHN C. AUSTIN – VICE PRESIDENT

CAROLYN L. CURTIN – SECRETARY • MARIANNE YARED MCGUIRE – TREASURER NANCY DANHOF – NASBE DELEGATE • ELIZABETH W. BAUER

REGINALD M. TURNER • CASANDRA E. ULBRICH

608 WEST ALLEGAN STREET • P.O. BOX 30008 • LANSING, MICHIGAN 48909 www.michigan.gov/mde • (517) 373-3324

5

Memorandum Page 2 January 22, 2009 A pattern of strengths and weaknesses is not the same as severe discrepancy. At §300.309(a)(2)(ii), the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act regulations identify a pattern of strengths and weaknesses as an option in determining SLD eligibility. The Rules permit local districts to use this option. The MDE does not mandate any specific process to determine a pattern of strengths and weaknesses. Any determination of SLD requires a full comprehensive evaluation according to the evaluation procedures in the federal regulations at §300.301 – §300.311, including those particular to a student suspected of having a SLD in §300.307 – §300.311. If you have any questions, please contact Dr. Joanne Winkelman, Coordinator, Program Accountability, Office of Special Education and Early Intervention Services, at (517) 373-1696, or via e-mail at [email protected] JJT/JW/sfk Enclosure

6

mailto:[email protected]

R 340.1713 Specific learning disability defined; determination. Rule 13. (1) "Specific learning disability" means a disorder in 1 or more of the basic psychological processes involved in understanding or in using language, spoken or written, that may manifest itself in the imperfect ability to listen, think, speak, read, write, spell, or to do mathematical calculations, including conditions such as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia. Specific learning disability does not include learning problems that are primarily the result of visual, hearing, or motor disabilities, of cognitive impairment, of emotional impairment, of autism spectrum disorder, or of environmental, cultural, or economic disadvantage. (2) In determining whether a student has a learning disability, the state shall: (a) Not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement. (b) Permit the use of a process based on the child's response to scientific, research-based intervention. (c) Permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures. (3) A determination of learning disability shall be based upon a comprehensive evaluation by a multidisciplinary evaluation team, which shall include at least both of the following: (a) The student's general education teacher or, if the student does not have a general education teacher, a general education teacher qualified to teach a student of his or her age or, for a child of less than school age, an individual qualified by the state educational agency to teach a child of his or her age. (b) At least 1 person qualified to conduct individual diagnostic examinations of children, such as a school psychologist, an authorized provider of speech and language under R 340.1745(d), or a teacher consultant.

7

RtI and the Resource Coordinating Team Process

The Resource Coordinating Team (RCT) is a researched-based student support program developed by Drs. Howard Adelman and Linda Taylor of the UCLA School Mental Health Project. The RCT is designed to be a collaborative problem-solving team used to coordinate services in the home, school and community to remove barriers to learning and achievement. RCT has been utilized in Detroit Public Schools since the 1998-99 school year. When done as prescribed, the RCT operates and functions using the same tiered framework and systematic problem-solving process as the Response to Intervention model. Schools with an effective RCT should find the transition to the RtI model an easy one. The flowcharts on the following pages highlight the similarities in the processes.

8

The Problem-Solving Process Utilized in Both RCT & RtI

Problem Identification: Using data, determine if the student is meeting academic and behavioral expectations.

Analyze the Problem: Using data, exactly define the problem and form hypotheses about why the problem is occur-ring.

Set Goals: Determine how much you want the student to improve and make some decisions about things you might change to solve the prob-lem.

Intervene: Implement an intervention plan to try to resolve the problem.

Progress Monitoring: Evaluate at predetermined inter-vals to determine if your plan is working or needs to be changed

9

Intervention Process Flow Chart in Resource Coordinating Team (RCT) Process

A student experiencing academic or behavioral problems is identified. The goal of Level One in-terventions is for the teacher, parent and/or grade level team to develop procedures and strategies to address the student’s difficulty in his/her present educational setting. Interventions at Level One involve implementing those interventions already built into the curriculum and assisting the teacher with differentiating instruction.

The RCT referral is initiated ,when Level One interventions do not produce the desired outcomes, using the RCT Intervention Referral From

Level One

Level Two The referral form is reviewed by the RCT representative and referring person for problem clarification and to identify prior intervention strategies, assessments and academic benchmarks.

Specific interventions and timelines are established

A RCT problem-solving meeting is scheduled to develop an intervention action plan.

Intervention does produce the desired outcomes. Intervention does not produce

the desired outcomes

Progress is monitored Baseline data is collected based on student needs and teacher concerns using Curriculum Based Measures,

PAL, AIMS, social skills assessment, etc.

Level Three

A recommendation for referral to the appropriate specialized student services unit is made.

The person who initially referred the student will complete the necessary district referral forms.

Referral for Section 504

Referral for IDEA

10

Response to Intervention (RtI) Process Flow Chart

Tier One Intervention (Universal Level / Prevention & Early Intervention) UNIVERSAL SCREENING first completed during the first two to three weeks of school using

evaluation tools such as: DIBELS, K-TEA Brief, Woodcock-Johnson-3, MAZE Test, AIMS Web

ANALYZE ASSESSMENT DATA comparing universal screening data to appropriate grade level content expectations using the Michigan Curriculum Framework

Identify students performing in the lowest 10th to 15th percentile

Students meeting bench-mark monitor progress at

least quarterly

Continue Tier 1 interventions, adding small-group instruction in flexible groupings, cross-grade if necessary.

If behavior issues are targeted, use the Observation Forms to develop intervention plans.

Use the RCT process to develop additional interventions. Implement for 6-8 weeks.

Monitor progress every two weeks (Open Court Assessment Tools, Corrective Reading

Assessment, DIBELS, K-TEA Brief)

PROVIDE INTERVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT LEARNING STYLES & RATES: Differentiated Instruction, Open Court Workshop, suggestions from Psychological Services Intervention Toolkit

No progress

Tier Two (Targeted Intervention)

Progress

No progress Progress

Continue Tier 1 & 2 interventions, with small-group or one-on-one instruction.

If behavior issues should be monitored to determine need for adjustments.

Use the RCT process to develop more intensive interventions and implement for an additional 6-8 weeks.

Monitor progress weekly (Open Court Assessment Tools, Corrective Reading

Assessment, DIBELS, K-TEA Brief)

Tier Three (Intensive Intervention)

No progress Progress

Referral for IDEA evaluation or 504 Plan

Extend the length of the Tier 3 intervention

11

A Proposed Plan for Implementing RtI in the Detroit Public Schools by the Office of Psychological Services

Our mission as a school district is to provide an effective education for all students. The Michigan Department of Education has developed the Michigan Curriculum Framework and supporting Grade Level Content Standards to assist school districts in designing that effective education. National research indicates that approximately 80% of students are successful in performing to grade level content standards with general education instruction and materials. We also know that students do not come to us as “one size fits all” learners, and have different learning styles and rates. Providing an effective education for all students requires ongoing progress monitoring. This allows us to intervene early when it is noted that students are having difficulty achieving to grade level content standards (i.e. benchmarks) and make adjustments to our teaching to better meet their needs. The Response to Intervention (RtI) approach provides a process for monitoring progress and making those adjustments. As described previously, RtI functions using the same systematic problem-solving process utilized by the Resource Coordinating Team (RCT) process already familiar to Detroit Public Schools. The following represents a proposal for implementing RtI by utilizing and expanding upon existing frameworks and processes in Detroit Public Schools. It is proposed that the plan begin with grade kindergarten through second.

12

TIER 1 INTERVENTION UNIVERSAL SCREENING completed during the first 2 to 3 weeks of school using tools such as DIBELS, K-TEA Brief, Woodcock-Johnson-3, MAZE Test, AIMS Web.

ANALYZE ASSESSMENT DATA by comparing universal screening results to appropriate grade level benchmarks based on the Michigan Curriculum Framework. Identify the students who are performing in the lowest 10th to 15th percentile. PROVIDE INTERVENTIONS FOR STUDENTS WITH DIFFERENT LEARNING STYLES AND RATES by differentiating instruction, utilizing Open Court Workshop, and consulting other resources, such as the Office of Psychological Services publication, Intervention Toolkit. ASSESS PROGRESS again at the end of a six-week intervention period. If the student has not made expected progress, the student is referred to Tier 2.

TIER 2 TARGETED INTERVENTIONS (six to eight weeks) Continue Tier 1 Interventions, adding additional SMALL-GROUP INSTRUCTIONAL TIME. If behavior issues are targeted, use structured classroom observations to develop a Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP).

Use the expertise of the Resource Coordinating Team to choose and/or develop more TARGETED INTERVENTIONS. (RCT referral forms and Intervention Plan forms are available in the RCT manual). PROGRESS MONITORING every two weeks (Suggested tools include DIBELS, K-TEA Brief, Woodcock-Johnson-3, MAZE Test, AIMS Web). If the student has not made expected progress, the student is referred to Tier 3.

TIER 3 INTENSIVE INTERVENTIONS (six weeks) Continue Tier 1 & Tier 2 Interventions, adding small-group, as well as INDIVIDUALIZED, ONE-ON-ONE INSTRUCTION. Behavior issues should be closely monitored to determine the need for adjustments to any existing Behavior Intervention Plan (BIP).

PROGRESS MONITORING weekly (Suggested tools include DIBELS, K-TEA Brief, Corrective Reading assessment, Open Court Assessment Tools, AIMS Web).

13

ANALYZE THE DATA. This can be done within the context of the RCT. If the team concludes that progress was not at a rate sufficient to meet the goals, the following can be done:

Revise or extend the length of the Tier 3 intervention.

Refer for special education consideration using the Evaluation Review (ER) process and consider the possibility of Specific Learning Disability using the revised criteria.

14

An Example of RtI in Action

The following vignette is taken from: Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE) (2007). Response to Intervention: Enhancing the Learning of All Children (2nd ed.) The following is an example of how the RtI process is implemented using a student vignette (MAASE, 2007). Taylor is a first-grade student having reading difficulties and is at risk of not meeting the end-of-the-year benchmarks. This vignette encompasses a concrete example of how to implement RtI utilizing Tier 1, Tier 2, and Tier 3.

15

16

How Close is DPS to a Successful Implementation of RtI?

In an effort to take a “hands-on” approach, our committee interviewed individuals in several Michigan school districts familiar with the RtI process. Our intent was to explore how other school implemented RtI and to consider their input as to what worked and what did not work so well. The following represents a compilation of our survey results.

17

Summary of School Districts Survey

District Has your district

implemented RtI?

In which grades /

schools?

How is progress

measured?

How did you begin

implemen-tation?

What areas does your

RtI program address?

Who carries out interven-

tions?

Who manages

data?

How did you train

teachers?

In retrospect,

is there anything you’d do

differently?

What is the role of the

school psychologist

in RtI?

Misc. info.

Ann Arbor Yes, since 2007-2008 school-year

6 Elem. K-6, 2 Middle schools

Standardized tests (names unknown by informant)

(No information available)

Reading, Math, & behavior

Tier 1-Gen Ed teacher, Tiers 2 & 3- SSW, TSLI, Spec Ed staff

Tier 1-gen ed teachers test and collect data, there is also a Data Manager

3 days of professional development by spec ed dept heads and curriculum heads

Inform parents & students of implementation of process, standardize process throughout district, change mindset of gen ed to utilize RtI rather than jump to spec ed eval.

School psychologists become involved in Tier 2. Psychologists are in the school at least 4 days per week

80% spec ed initiative, schools with strong SST experienced better implementation of RtI, only marginal decreases in spec ed referrals thus far

Birmingham Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Charlevoix Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Dearborn Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Farmington Hills

Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Flint No, but they have an intervention model similar to our RCT. RtI will be implemented in the near future.

Lincoln Park

Yes K-2 Weekly, measure unknown to informant


Reading Reading teacher & Interventionist

Reading teacher & Interventionist


Nothing reported


Although informant responded that the process was RtI, it did not follow tiered approach

Livonia Will start with 2009-2010 school-year

2 K-4 schools volunteered to participate in pilot

Tier 1-benchmark testing Tier 2-AIMS Web & DIBELS

Formed a steering committee and solicited volunteer schools who were able to secure 80% staff buy-in

Reading, Writing and some behavior

Tier 1 & 2—2 literacy coaches, Universal Design for Learning Coach, Reading Consultants, TSLI’s Tier 3-Psychs, SSW address behavior


Principals and staff attended in-services, read research, & visited / observed other districts. RtI components addressed at some district-wide professional development.

Will start 2009-2010 school-year

Part of the child study team used in more difficult cases, Tier 3 intervention & data collection

Also hiring an RtI Facilitator. The staff will decide how RtI will look within their school within the district framework. They hope to have the PTA fund AIMS Web fees.

18



implemented RtI?

In which grades /

schools?

How is progress

measured?

How did you begin

implemen-tation?




tions?

Who manages

data?

How did you train

teachers?

In retrospect,


differently?


school psychologist

in RtI?

Misc. info.

Northville Yes, for 15 years

Elementary. Beginning in Middle schools

Student achievement, report cards, DRA scores, MEAP & DIBELS

University of Maryland consultation

Reading Tier 1-Gen ed teachers, Tier 2-Spec Ed, Gen Ed, and parents


RtI trainers Nothing reported

Traditional LD is reduced as a result of using RtI. Reform is difficult when team members change.

Novi They responded “yes,” but program informant described was similar to RCT.

Oak Park Partially 2 out of 4 Elem schools which are Reading First schools

DIBELS (No information available)



Title 1 teacher


Nothing reported


District has RCT & RtI planning committee

Plymouth-Canton

Yes, since 2007-08 school-year

K-5 DRA scores WCRESA training

Reading, Math, behavior

Teachers and RtI team

Interventionist & School Psychologist

RtI trainers Doing more work on the universal screening and progress monitoring

Traditional role + assist RtI team

RtI Interventionist disliked info. Obtained from DIBELS. This school-year they will develop their own progress monitoring tools.

Southfield Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Southgate Yes K-2 in all 6 Elem. Schools, but each varies in quality of implementation

CBM created by intervention team & tweaked by teachers

RtI committee with representatives from all disciplines & buildings.

Reading, but will add Math after putting Reading in K-5

Tier 2-Interventionists (former Reading Recovery teachers), TSLIs do some classroom intervention, Tier 3-Resource w/out IEP

Teachers Small groups, “Train the Trainer” model with teacher rep from each building training teachers in their respective schools

Maybe more prelim. training, but teachers didn’t fully understand until it was put into practice anyway, Q&A session after beginning implementation to find out how secure teaches are in knowledge of the areas of reading.

Traditional role + consultation

Half of Tier 3 did not go to special education. Gen ed teachers re being trained in reading by RESA. RESA resistant to gen ed teachers being trained in spec ed. Principals do walk-throughs to ensure implementation.

19



implemented RtI?

In which grades /

schools?

How is progress

measured?

How did you begin

implemen-tation?




tions?

Who manages

data?

How did you train

teachers?

In retrospect,


differently?


school psychologist

in RtI?

Misc. info.

Taylor Yes K-1 MLPP, DRA (No information available)

Reading. Behavior next year.

Tier 1-gen ed teacher, TSLI & SSW Tiers 2&3-Resource teacher

School Psychologist

3 days of professional development

Nothing reported

Coordinate meetings, manage date, consult, monitor program & intervention process, determine which students are in which tiers, eval Tier 3 students suspected of having a disability.

Utica Yes K-2, beginning efforts to pt it in the upper elem.

DIBELS, Number Worlds, Houghton Mifflin series for CBM

Gen ed & Spec ed joint effort; RtI training for staff

Academics with a focus on Reading, but some schools have MiBLSi

Reading Consultant w/ Gen ed teacher, Para-pros, trained parent volunteers, & support staff


RtI training The administrators must be on board, and if you implement it and show progress, the program sells itself.

Monitor progress and work with the Reading Specialist

RtI program is each school is different because of population & resources. The key component is at least 15 min/day devoted to interventions.

Warren-Woods

Contacted, but due to unavailability of staff or lack of response to inquiries, data is not available.

Wayne-Westland

Will implement 2009-2019 school-year

K-6 with modifications for Middle & High school

AIMS Web, WJ-III, & Levels of Literacy

District already was using PBS and Reading program

Reading, Writing, Math & behavior

Tier 1-Gen ed teacher with support from SAT, Tiers 2 & 3- Resource teachers


Lynn Eichenberger from Indiana will train teachers this summer

Will start 2009-2010 school-year

Coach gen ed teachers, active in Tiers 2 & 3

Ypsilanti No, but they have a process similar to RCT called ICT

K-8 No Tier 1

20

FORMS

The following pages contain sample forms and parent informational letters which could be used in the RtI process

21

SAMPLE PARENT INFORMATIONAL

LETTER

SCHOOL WIDE NOTICE

The following is adapted from: Wayne County RtI/LD Committee. (2007). Field guides to Response to Intervention (RtI). Wayne, MI:

Wayne RESA.

22

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: ____________________ Dear: ____________________ (Parent of Legal Guardian) Our school has begun an early intervention program to help our students develop and increase their skills in reading, math, writing, and communication. This program involves classroom teachers, speech and language pathologists, resource room teachers, teacher consultants, as well as reading specialists. The students are administered screening assessments [insert DIBELS or name of screening assessment here] three times a year and student progress is measured throughout the year. You son/daughter [insert student name here] is being recommended to receive small group instruction to help improve his/her reading skills. A Student Assistance Team meeting is scheduled to meet on [insert date, time, and location here] to explain this program to you. We hope you are able to attend this important informational/planning meeting. If you have questions, please feel free to contact your child’s classroom teacher. Thank you. Principal School Interventionist

23

SAMPLE TIER 1 DOCUMENTATION

FORM

The following is adapted from: Wayne RESA. (2006). Response to Intervention report. Wayne, MI: Author.

24

Wayne RESA. (2006). Response to Intervention report. Wayne, MI: Author.

Response to Intervention Tier 1

Date:

Name:

Birthdate:

ID #:

Address:

Zip Code:

Phone:

School:

Grade:

Teacher:

Parent/Guardian:

Primary Language in Home:

Primary Language of Student:

Interpreter needed for parents: Yes No Records Review: School History (How long in the school, retentions, number of schools attended, transfers): Days Absent:

Current Year:

Accumulative:

Medical:

Vision:

Hearing:

Other:

Medications (list/dates)

Behavioral concerns (number of exclusions)

Other:

Description of the problem:


25

Student Areas Targeted for Intervention:

Interventions Strategies / Intervention

Research Based Person Responsible Date Achieved

PROGRESS MONITORING

A

CH

IEV

EMEN

T

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

WEEKS

Outcome: Intervention at Tier 1 is success Continue Intervention at Tier 1 Proceed to Tier 2 Intervention

26

SAMPLE CBM / PROGRESS

MONITORING DATA RECORDING SHEET

27

Curriculum Based Assessment / Progress Monitoring Data Recording Sheet

Date:

Name:

Birthdate:

ID #:

Address:

Zip Code:

Phone:

School:

Grade:

Teacher:

Parent/Guardian:

Skill Assessed: Date Probe Type (e.g. PAL,

DIBELS, AIMS Web) Score / Measure Comments


28

SAMPLE TIER 2

DOCUMENTATION

29

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Response to Intervention

Tier 2 Intervention Monitoring Log

Date:

Name:

Birthdate:

ID #:

Address:

Zip Code:

Phone:

School:

Grade:

Teacher:

Parent/Guardian:

Interventionist:

Directions for Intervention Monitoring Log: Indicate date, length of intervention session, person responsible for intervention, and outcome of session. Document outcomes in a quantifiable way, e.g. # of correct responses / # of trials, words correct per minute, etc.

Date Length of session

Person responsible

Outcome Intervention plan

Continue Revise Refer Terminate















Attach additional sheets as needed.

30

SAMPLE TIER 2

PARENT LETTER

31

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: ____________________ Dear: ____________________ (Parent of Legal Guardian) This is a follow-up letter to our [intervention team meeting or phone conversation] on [date]. As we discussed, [student’s name] will begin Tier 2 supplemental interventions on [date]. As part of the Tier 2 interventions, [student’s name] will receive supplemental instruction to the general [reading, math, writing] curriculum. Additionally, you can contact your child’s teacher for information and activities that can help reinforce these skills at home. During the Tier 2 interventions, we will continue to monitor your child’s progress. At that time, if your child has not made significant progress, we will contact you to discuss further options. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or your child’s teacher at [phone number]. Thank you. Principal Intervention Team

32

SAMPLE TIER 3

PARENT LETTER

33

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: ____________________ Dear: ____________________ (Parent of Legal Guardian) As you know, we have provided several weeks of intervention for your child. Although your child has put forth great effort and worked hard for the past several weeks, he/she is not progressing at a level necessary to succeed at his/her current grade level. We would like to invite you to a meeting of the Response to Intervention team to be held on [date] at [time] in [place]. The purpose of this meeting is to discuss other intervention options at Tier 3 of our intervention process. If you have any questions, please do not hesitate to call me or your child’s teacher at [phone number]. Thank you. Principal Intervention Team

34

SAMPLE RtI

COMPLETION OF SERVICES PARENT LETTER

35

DETROIT PUBLIC SCHOOLS Date: ____________________ Dear: ____________________ (Parent of Legal Guardian) Based on progress monitoring results, the RtI team has determined that your child has made adequate gains academically and/or behaviorally. Your child will no longer require supplemental or individualized services from the RtI program at this time. To ensure that your child continues to progress in school, please consider some of the following suggested activities that you may do with your child:

Read with or to your child every night. Practice spelling words and writing sentences. Encourage your child to keep a journal. Visit your local library with your child. Have your child compare prices on items when shopping. Count correct change after a purchase. Incorporate math facts into the daily routine. Praise your child’s good behavior and efforts. Maintain a relationship with you child’s teacher.

If you have any questions, please feel free to contact the school. Educationally Yours, Principal Intervention Team ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------I have read and understand that _____________________________________ will no longer receive services Student’s name

from the RtI program at this time. I will continue to support my child’s development. _______________________________________________ __________________ Parent Signature Date

36

SAMPLE PSYCHOLOGICAL

REPORT TEMPLATE UTILIZING RtI DATA

FOR LD DETERMINATION

37

Detroit Public Schools OFFICE OF PSYCHOLOGICAL SERVICES

EVALUATION SUMMARY REPORT

School:

DPS ID No.:

Name: DOB: C.A.: Sex:

Address:

Zip:

GR.:

Eligibility:

Program:

Parent/Guardian:

Phone:

ER/Consent Date:

Evaluation Date:

CRITERIA DOCUMENTATION Specific Learning Disability: The student’s general ability level or effective functioning falls Test Administered: within the range, based on his/her Index SS %ile Level

Full Scale/Composite IQ

Index

Other

The student was evaluated in the following areas and exhibits a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement and/or lack of response to research-based interventions in: Test SS %ile GE Test SS %ile GE Written Expression

Reading Phonemic Awareness Phonics (Basic Reading) Vocabulary Reading Comprehension

NOTE: disabilities in reading require evaluation in all 5 core areas of reading as identified by the National Reading Panel

Fluency Mathematics Calculation

Mathematics Reasoning

Listening Comprehension

Oral Expression

General education interventions were provided. Outcome (describe in data-based terms, e.g. pre- post CBM) How long? Describe intervention(s)

The learning problems are not primarily the result of visual, Parent interviews hearing, motor handicap, cognitive impairment, emotional School records impairment, autism; or of economic, cultural or Evaluation results environmental disadvantages Other Educationally relevant medical findings: No Yes (describe) The student was observed on in Summary Report Classroom Observation

the regular/special education classroom setting an environment appropriate for his/her age (nonenrolled)

It is recommended that the student be considered by the Multidisciplinary Evaluation Team as a student with a Specific Learning Disability.

38

SAMPLE CLASSROOM OBSERVATION FORM

YIELDING QUALITATIVE DATA

ONLY

39

Student Name: DOB: Grade/Program: ID #:

SUMMARY REPORT CLASSROOM OBSERVATION

Class: Activity Observed: Duration: Time: Teacher:

Indicate the deficit area(s) as indicated on the RCT Referral form or ER (if applicable) or as a result of standardized or informal achievement

testing:

Is the classroom climate individualized to meet student’s needs? Yes No

Is the instructional level an appropriate fit to allow the student to be able to engage in assessment and learning activities without being

excessively challenged or frustrated? Yes No

Specify instructional level:

Please respond to the following statements:

Skills noted: Strength Weakness Volunteers answers When called upon, gives the correct answer Attentive in class Stays on task Completes assigned work in required time Work is accurate Remains in seat when required Motivated to learn Follows directions without repetition Expresses thoughts/ideas appropriately Has appropriate articulation (sound production) skills Has appropriate verbal language ability Displays fluent speech Has appropriate vocal quality

Off-task behaviors: If yes, provide details Yes No Not Attending

Noisy (talking)

Verbal/Physical Aggression (name calling, bullying, pushing, hitting)

Inappropriate location

Behavior developmentally inappropriate

% of inappropriate behaviors in comparison to peers

Yes No Demonstrates academic difficulty Observation was indicative of the student’s daily classroom performance as reported by teacher Observation reflects the ability demonstrated in the formal measure of achievement Was given the opportunity to participate in the instructional process Additional observation(s) needed

Significant behaviors noted to adversely affect ability to benefit from learning environment (Attach additional sheets if necessary.)

NOTE: If significant inappropriate behaviors are observed, complete the BASC Student Observation System (SOS)

Observer’s Name/Title: Date:

Revised 1/4/07

40

SAMPLE CLASSROOM

OBSERVATION FORM

YIELDING

QUANTIFIABLE DATA APPROPRIATE FOR TIERS 2 & 3

OR FOR

FUNCTIONAL BEHAVIORAL ASSESSMENTS

(FBA)

The following form is based on the research-based recommendation of RtI leader and expert, Dan Reschly of

Vanderbilt University, as presented to the DPS School Psychologists September 17, 2004 in the presentation

entitled Response to Intervention and the Future of School Psychology and Special Education.

41

Psychological Evaluation Report Continued - Page

CLASSROOM OBSERVATION

Class: Activity Observed: Time: Teacher:

Please respond to the following statements:

Yes

No

Is the classroom climate individualized to meet student’s needs?

Is the instructional level an appropriate fit to allow the student to be able to engage in assessment and learning activities without being excessively challenged or frustrated?

Does the student demonstrate academic difficulty?

Was the observation indicative of the student’s daily classroom performance as reported by the teacher?

Does the observation reflect the ability demonstrated in formal measures of achievement?

Was the student given the opportunity to participate in the instructional process?

Specify instructional level:

Describe any significant observed behaviors noted to adversely affect the student’s ability to benefit from the general education learning environment: Skills noted: Strength Weakness Skills noted Strength Weakness Volunteers answers Motivated to learn When called upon, gives the correct answer Follows directions without repetition Attentive in class Expresses thoughts/ideas appropriately Stays on task Has appropriate articulation (sound production) skills Completes assigned work in required time Has appropriate verbal language ability Work is accurate Displays fluent speech Remains in seat when required

Has appropriate vocal quality

Interval recording not utilized (stop here—if not checked, proceed to page 2 of observation form).

Name: ID No.:

Psychological Evaluation Report Continued - Page Directions for interval recording: Observe the student for 15 minutes. Mark each 20” interval box as either 1 or 0, indicating whether the behavior occurred during that interval (1) or not (0), regardless of the actual number of occurrences within that interval. Target Student Random Peer

(if peer-referenced observation utilized)

Behavioral Category Totals (from below)

# of intervals

% Totals (from below)

# of intervals

%

(AE) Actively Engaged actively doing something related to a lesson, such as orally reading, responding to a teacher’s inquiry, asking a question, writing, or doing a pencil-to-paper activity

/ 45 =

/ 45 =

(PE) Passively Engaged

looking at the teacher, listening to teacher or peers, or reading silently / 45 = / 45 =

(OT) Off-Task / Not Attending not engaging in any of the above task-related activities

/ 45 = / 45 =

(IL) Inappropriate Location out of seat without permission

/ 45 = / 45 =

(N) Noisy

talking without permission, singing, humming, tapping, etc. / 45 = / 45 =

(PN) Physically Negative

Destructive, pushing, hitting, etc. / 45 =

/ 45 =

Use split boxes for peer referenced observations: top half—student; bottom half—peer. :20 :40 :60 1:20 1:40 2:00 2:20 2:40 3:00 3:20 3:40 4:00 4:20 4:40 5:00 5:20 5:40 6:00 6:20 6:40 7:00 7:20 7:40 8:00

AE

PE

OT

IL

N

PN

8:20 8:40 9:00 9:20 9:30 10:00 10:20 10:40 11:00 11:20 11:40 12:00 12:20 12:40 13:00 13:20 13:20 13:40 14:00 14:20 14:40 15:00

AE

PE

OT

IL

N

PN

ABC recording not utilized (stop here—if not checked, proceed to page 3 of observation form).

Name: ID No.:

Psychological Evaluation Report Continued - Page ABC Recording for Functional Behavioral Assessment Record Antecedents: What was going on at the time or just preceding the observed behavior? What was asked of the student? What was the task? Who was present? What time of day? What was the location? Etc. Record the observed Behavior: Describe the behavior as specifically as possible, in terms which are quantifiable. Record the Consequences: What happened after the occurrence of the behavior? What reinforcer is maintaining the behavior? What is the response of the teacher or adults in the environment? Record the Duration: How long did the problem behavior last?

Antecedent Behavior Consequence Duration Intensity What maintains behavior?

Reinforcement, describe:

Escape from demands, describe:

Other, describe:

Date:

Alone Asked to do something With teacher/aide Redirected Structured activity Riding to/from school Recess Starting a new activity Working on academics:

Which one?

Time:

With peers Told “no” / “not to…” In group Being ignored Unstructured activity Lunch Transitioning Ending an activity Other: Describe:

Teacher/Adult response: Student ignored Student redirected Proximity control Warning Verbal / nonverbal cue Loss of points/ privilege Physical assist / prompt Physical management Other: Describe:

Time out Sent out of room Office referral Detention Suspension Changed activity Physical escort

< 1 min.

1-5 min.

5-10 min.

10-20 min.

20-30 min.

½ - 1 hour

1-2 hours

2-3 hours

3+ hours

1 Low

2

3

4

5 High

Additional notes:

Utilize additional copies of this page as needed for on-going documentation of problem behaviors.

Name: ID No.:

REFERENCES AND

RESOURCES The following are a list of resources used and cited in the development of this handbook.

45

References

Detroit Public Schools Department of Student Support Programs and Office of Specialized Student Services. (2007). Resource Coordinating Teams: An integrated learner support system and intervention process. Detroit, MI: Author.

Detroit Public Schools Office of Psychological Services. (2006). Intervention toolkit for

school psychologists (working within the RtI framework). Detroit, MI: Author. Klotz, M. B. (2009, January/February). IDEA in practice. Communiqué: The

Newspaper of the National Association of School Psychologists, p. 11. MASP Executive Board (2007, Winter). MASP position statement on Response to

Intervention. The Michigan Psych Report, 34 (2). Michigan Association of Administrators of Special Education (MAASE). (2007).

Response to Intervention: Enhancing the learning of all children (2nd ed.). Holland, MI: Author.

National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Inc. (NASDSE). (2005).

Response to Intervention Policy Considerations and Implementation. Alexandria, VA: Author.

Plymouth-Canton Community Schools Intervention Review Team. (2008-2009).

Intervention Handbook. Plymouth-Canton, MI: Author. The Psychological Corporation. AIMSweb. www.AIMSweb.com. Renaissance Learning, Inc. (2009). Making RTI work: A practical guide to using data

for a successful “Response to Intervention” program [White Paper]. Wisconsin Rapids, WI: Author.

Reschly, D. J. (2004, September). Response to Intervention and the future of school

psychology and special education. Presented at the city-wide meeting of Detroit Public Schools’ Office of Psychological Services, Detroit, MI.

Somers, C. (2007, Spring/Summer). Summary of MASP’s critical issues 2007:

Response to Intervention: Building the infrastructure for intervention and decision making—Dr. Joe Kovaleski. The Michigan Psych Report, 34 (3).

Wayne County RtI/LD Committee. (2007). Field guides to Response to Intervention

(RtI). Wayne, MI: Wayne RESA. Wayne RESA. (2006). Response to Intervention report. Wayne, MI: Author.

46

The following document is a publication from Plymouth-Canton Community Schools, used with permission. The RtI team viewed this as a good teacher-friendly summary of the process and modeled the DPS handbook after this publication.

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

Documents

Response to Intervention (RtI) Handbook · Intervention Process Flow Chart in Resource ... and more strategic ... During the three tiers of scientifically-based intervention, was