RUNNING HEAD :RtI

Response to Intervention: A tiered Approach to Accommodating and Pre-Referral to Learning and Behavioural Disorders

Chantal Thriault-Serroul University of New Brunswick

!"#$ Response to Intervention: A tiered Approach to Accommodating and Pre-Referral to Learning and Behavioural Disorders

%$

The traditional approach to accommodating and identifying a learning disability or behavioural disorder was often based on traditional and cognitive assessment results as well as other data collection such as observations and interviews during testing. Consequently, much of the school psychologists time was spent conducting psychoeducational assessments for special education services (Berkeley, Bender, Peaster & Saunders, 2009). The Response to Intervention (RtI) model () came about partly as a result of discontent with the measures used to assess students with mild learning and behavioural challenges (Overton, 2012, p.207). It thus offers a proactive instructional framework through which schools can provide early intervention for students experiencing academic and behavioural difficulties (Hughes & Dexter, 2011, p.4). Within the RtI process, there is the potential that the school psychologists role may change. As McIntosh et al., (2011) stated () from that of gatekeeper to a dynamic agent for change in the school system (p.19). Furthermore, RtI has been promoted as: an alternative identification method to IQ achievement discrepancy as a marker for a learning disability (Fuchs, Mock, Morgan & Young, 2003), offering preventive support for all students (McIntosh et. al, 2011) and an effective approach to separating students with disabilities from those who perform poorly because of inadequate prior instruction (Fuchs, et.al, 2003, p.159). Definition of the RtI model RtI is defined as student-centered assessment models that use problem-solving and research-based methods to identify and address learning difficulties in children (Berkley, et al., 2009, p.86). The major components of an RtI model include: scientifically based core

curriculum, universal screening, progress monitoring, and decisions about adequate progress in

!"#$

&$

subsequent tiers (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). There are two versions of the RtI model: problem solving and the standard protocol approach (Fuchs, et.al, 2003). In the problem-solving model, an individual students needs and difficulties are assessed and addressed by employing research-based interventions. A team involving teachers,

administrators, school psychologists and parents make decisions following a four-step process: 1. Defining the problem, 2. Planning intervention (s), 3. Implementing intervention (s), 4. Evaluating the students progress (Berkeley et. al, 2009). In the standard protocol model, students with similar difficulties are administered standardized research-based interventions that have been proven effective for students with similar difficulties for a predetermined amount of time (Berkeley et. al, 2009). In both models, instructional interventions of increasing difficulties are delivered in tiers. (Hughes & Dexter, 2011) RtI Tiers Most RtI models are based on three levels (tiers) of interventions. Tiered instruction represents a model in which the instruction delivered to students varies on several dimensions that are related to the nature and severity of the student's difficulties (Shapiro, 2013, para.1). The first tier (preventive tier) accounts for 80-85% of the schools student population. It

encompasses general instructions provided in all subjects to all learners and universal behavioural strategies (Overton, 2012). The preventive tier involves universal screening and whole-group instruction delivered via scientifically based core curriculum (Berkeley et al., 2009) and differentiated instruction (Overton, 2012). It has been found that () high-quality Tier 1 support can reduce the prevalence of students who require support as Tiers II and III (McIntosh et al., 2011). Scientifically Based Core Curriculum and Differentiated Curriculum

!"#$

'$ Tier 1 instructions (referred to as core curriculum) are grounded in scientifically based

research. The skills taught provide the foundation for instructional strategies and instructional routines (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). The intent of the core program is the delivery of a highquality instructional program in reading or math that has established known outcomes that cut across the skill development of the targeted area (Shapiro, 2013, para.2). Universal Screening Universal screening is the first step in identifying students who are struggling or at risk for learning or behavioural difficulties. In a typical RtI model, all students are screened in one or more academic areas, and those identified as at risk for learning or behaviour difficulties are provided additional evidence-based intervention in that area (Hughes & Dexter, 2011, p.6). Curriculum-based measurements/assessments and other informal measures are used in instructional programming, to monitor the progress of students and may be used to a pre-referral strategy (Overton, 2012). It was found that when curriculum-based measurements are used in instructional programming, teachers use the results to adapt and modify their instructions according to their students needs leading to greater gains in students academic achievement (Overton, 2012). Progress Monitoring Once students are identified as at risk during universal screening, their progress is monitored in relation to Tier I instruction. It is recommended that their progress is monitored frequently at least monthly but if possible weekly or bi-weekly (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). Students who seem to be struggling in the general education setting may benefit from a closer look at their progress to determine exactly where and why their learning breaks down (Overton, 2012, p. 206). If progress is not made within Tier I instructions (usually between 8-10 weeks), a move onto Tier II interventions (e.g., small group instruction) coupled with more frequent

!"#$

($

progress monitoring is warranted (Hughes & Dexter, 2011). Overton (2012) states that () a school using the standard protocol model will likely implement academic interventions and monitor progress through a commercially produced curriculum or published interventions, and likely use a commercially produced progress-monitoring system such as AIMSweb, and DIBELS (p.209). However, Overton (2012) warns that commercially produced progressHence, it is important that all

monitoring programs may not include all academic skills.

professionals working with the child is able to collect and interpret various data in order to make decisions on the relevancy and effectiveness of the interventions (Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). Tier II Interventions Tiers II (sometimes referred to as secondary intervention) serve approximately 15% of the student population within small group interventions (Berkeley et al., 2009). These interventions can be administered and monitored by teachers, paraeducators, reading or math specialists or other school staff (Overton, 2012). Here, students who are at risk are served with more

intensive, research-based interventions with close progress monitoring in addition to the primary instruction received by all students (Berkley et.al, 2009, p.86). Once secondary interventions are delivered, student responsiveness is evaluated. Progress can be measured in a variety of ways. Overton (2012) identified five methods for identifying responders and non-responders to interventions: absolute change, reliable change index, percent of non-overlapping data points, percent change and visual inspection. If the student is successful with Tier II support, this additional support can be withdrawn and progress can be continued to be monitored to determine if the student remains successful with Tier I support (McIntosh et al., 2011, p.24). Furthermore, if the student requires Tier II support to be successful, interventions can be continued. However, if the student is not successful with Tier II interventions, the team may implement different secondary interventions or move onto Tier III interventions (McIntosh et al., 2011).

!"#$ Tier III Interventions

)$

Tier III (sometimes referred to as tertiary intervention) serves the needs of approximately 5% of the student population (Berkeley et. al, 2009). Tertiary interventions are frequently monitored for progress and involve individualized or smaller group instructions that are higher in intensity and longer in duration (Berkeley et. al, 2009). Tier III interventions may be delivered by specialists, including the special education teacher or other school personnel (Overton, 2012). Interventions are individualized to match the students needs and progress is monitored weekly (McIntosh et al., 2011). If remedial instructions are successful, the student may move down to secondary interventions or continuation of tertiary interventions may be warranted (Overton, 2012). For those who do not make sufficient gains at the Tier III level, the team will make adjustments to enhance success. At this point, special education eligibility may be considered (McIntosh et al., 2011, p.25). Special Education Eligibility and Diagnosis of Learning/Behavioural Disability RtI offers a proactive approach to help serve the needs of more students and decrease the number of students that would otherwise require more intensive interventions (McIntosh et al., 2011). Though the process may vary from district to district, each RtI system has a point at which special education eligibility is determined (McIntosh et al., 2011, p. 25). First, the team must rule out external factors such as absenteeism, poor performance due to prior instruction or cognition, cultural or linguistic barriers, and hearing or visual impairments. Second, the team must decide if intensive individual intervention is necessary (McIntosh et al., 2011). Consequently, the RtI process directly tests the level of support required for success rather than inferring the level of support through traditional assessment (McIntosh et al., 2011). As Overton (2012) stated RtI data can offer evidence that within a general classroom setting, even with interventions that are based on researched strategies, the student is not making progress and may

!"#$

*$

need special education support (p.217). Nevertheless, as required by law, students who are suspected as having a disability should be assessed. Overton (2012) points out that relying on RtI data alone will not provide sufficient information for the diagnosis of a specific emotional disturbance or learning disability. As Ofiesh (2006) indicated: To identify a specific learning difficulty (), we must be able to understand the underlying cause of instructional problems, not just an individuals response to instruction (p. 884). Conclusion We should not wait until a student falls far behind his/her peers to provide them with the help they need. RtIs proactive approach, as mentioned previously, provides students, who otherwise would not qualify for special education services, with the support needed to succeed in the general classroom. Moreover, RtI implementations in the classroom help the teacher gather data and discover his/her students strengths and needs. The latter data may also be helpful in the referral for assessment or special education. As Overton (2012) explained: RtI data become part of the comprehensive evaluation data that are incorporated into the assessment results report to provide background information, reason for referral, and classroom performance (p.219). Finally, in order to be successful, RtI practices must be established in settings that provide the necessary conditions to support their use. Fuchs & Deshler (2007) proposed that effective RtI implementation is dependent on: 1. Professional development for teachers and ongoing staff, 2. Engaged administrators who set expectations for the adoption and implementation of RtI, 3.District level support to hire teachers who have the skills to implement RtI in their classrooms, 4. A willingness of teaching and other staff (such as school psychologists) to have their roles redefined to support RtI implementations, 5. Staff should be given sufficient time to understand RtI and accommodate the model into their instructional framework.

!"#$ References

+$

Berkeley, S. Bender, W. Peaster, G. Saunders, L. (2009). Implementation of response to intervention. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 42(1), 85-95.

Fuchs, D. Deshler, D. (2007). What we need to know about responsiveness to intervention (and shouldn't be afraid to ask). Learning Disabilities Research & Practice (Wiley-Blackwell), 22(2), 129-136. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5826.2007.00237.x

Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P., Young, C., (2003) Responsiveness to intervention: definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18 (3), 157-171.

Hughes, C. Dexter,D. (2011). Response to intervention: A research-based summary. Theory into Practice, 50(1), 4-11.

McIntosh, K. MacKay, L. Andreou, J. Brown, J. Mathews, S. Gietz, C. Bennett, J. (2011). Response to intervention in Canada:Definitions, the evidence base, and future directions. Canadian Journal of School Psychology, 26 (1), 18-43.

Ofiesh, N. (2006). Response to intervention and the identification of specific learning disabilities: Why we need comprehensive evaluations as part of the process. PITS Psychology in the Schools, 43(8), 883-888.

Overton, T. (2012). Assessing Learning with Special Needs: An Applied Approach, 7th Edition. Upper saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

Shapiro, E. (2013). Tiered instruction and intervention in a response-to intervention model. Retrieved from: http://www.rtinetwork.org/essential/tieredinstruction/tiered-instruction-and-intervention-rtimodel