Wayne Callander, Ed.S Idaho Bureau of Special Education
Boise, ID
School Psychologist for four years before he became one of the
first to begin implementing the RTI.
wcallend@boisestate.edu
Also available: PowerPoint handout, CD of presentation.
Goal is that by 2010 RTI will be in place. 38% of districts in ID are non-categorical
and using RTI.
Implementation of a statewide problem-solving model that includes Response to
Intervention (RTI) to identify students for special education.
He was not supportive to begin with. However, he had more concerns with the
current approach. He feels that RTI addresses all the concerns of the older
system. It was not easy. School districts that have used this have received
a waiver from the state department (for what?) They also receive grant money
and training to make this work. Teams are selected from each school and training
is given around the state. Five days of core training. It is not consecutive.
The training is one day per month, then folks go back and implement and the
experts then come to the schools, during the subsequent month, and help. The
first year is a struggle for schools, year two things improve and by the third
year schools have the process down. The first year there is a foot in both camps.
They can’t abandon the old, but are learning the new.
They have a problem-solving team. A student who may be qualifying, use research
based information, curriculum based assessments, monitoring response to the
interventions and using that (and the Dibbles) to identify for SPED. The special
education identification population has declined by 6%.
This approach is being used for all concerns, behavior, autism, ESL, LD. ESL
and absenteeism are not qualifiers, but effort must be shown to address those
areas.
(participants from Oregon, Missouri and Nevada shared that they are moving to
this model. Oregon has implemented)
Input: Data is showing that the longer that you implement interventions, the
less effective the interventions are. This seems to come 9-10 weeks in to an
intervention. Continually do progress monitoring and then adjust. Assure the
quality of interventions and the fidelity of the intervention. It is critical
to properly monitor the progress. Use data points and measure the intervention
progress precisely. If the target data points (aim lines) are not reached, then
check it and change. One intervention with many students will not get you there.
Interventions are 9, 18 or 27 weeks sometimes. (Question: How do you convince
gen. Ed. Teachers that one intervention is not enough to say, “ok, let’s
send to special education”, answer: We provide extensive training and
give a short list of reading interventions, (one of which is “read first”))
Example: If 38% of your kids are not meeting standards, this won’t work.
If that is the case, curriculum needs to change. 80-90% should be receiving
“3’s” on the IRI (state test), that is meeting standards.
If they aren’t, then again, the quality of teaching, curriculum needs
to change.
Instruction, environment, curriculum are all considered BEFORE the learner is
looked at. Is this all in place, then look at learner.
Special Education in this model keeps a low profile and is used in a consultive
role. It is the regular educations responsibility to make this work. If the
primary responsibility falls on special education teachers, it won’t work.
The system has created many problems and may need to be fixed. Reading MUST
be taught with research based reading programs. (See handout on what Effective
Schools look like)
Before a school in Idaho can sign on as a school to participate, they must bring
in their data of reading progress. (They need to submit that they are following
“Effective Schools “guidelines.) (90 minutes of Uninterrupted reading
instruction each day is one part of this)
There is not a state curriculum, but there are state-wide measures. The schools
in Idaho are motivated to participate because they aren’t meeting AYP.
What schools are seeing is that they can’t write IEPs for all the kids
not meeting standards. With RIP the kids who are slower and haven’t (in
the past) qualified for special education services, now qualify. Special Education
is considered “help” for all learners who are not responding to
research based interventions. The biggest difficulties are with gen ed teachers
not buying in. Identifying what to do is not the issue. The concern is how to
implement.
Testing is done with CBM (curriculum based measurement)and DIBLE dynamic indicator
of basic early literacy skills) Phonemic evaluation system developed at University
of Oregon) scores and response to intervention. ESL is dealt with in a clear,
structured way. In some schools this is 50% of the population.
The national research on special education is that it hasn’t been very
good. It doesn’t close the gap, it maintains the gap. The only thing that
will impact reading, is reading intervention. Direct intervention is the way
to go.
Pre-referral teams: Admire the problem for a while, then do something later.
Assume that the teacher tried what they could already, so change things.
Now Idaho 1. Identifies the problem clearly, (student reads 50 words a minute,
but they need to read 100 words per minute) Question: how do you identify the
appropriate intervention? A. We do a functional analysis: phonemic awareness,
fluency (use read naturally), vocabulary, decoding (if multi-syllabic decoding
problems, then they use the “rewards” program because it is research
based and teaches multi-syllabic words) , comprehension,
[If you can read 90 words per minute by the end of second grade, the odds are
that they will be successful without support (most likely)]
Schools must be using research based reading program! The program may be in
the school, but the teacher may not be using it. Idaho has found many programs
sitting on the shelf. Intervention involves differentiated instruction with
groups within the classroom.
This implementation involves huge system changes within schools.
Question: where does special education come into the system. Answer: Special
Education comes in when progress monitoring demonstrates that the child is not
making the progress expected. If they are not making progress they need intervention
level programs – (MR and others would be here). If gap is not closing,
then intense, long term needs would be identified and implemented. (corrective
reading, reading mastery, read well – if these are not effective , then
school looks at alterable components: smaller groups, double dosing (two dosing
of reading mastery – up to three hours of reading instruction per day)
research says that getting them there is key, if they don’t make enough
progress, then they need more.
Oregon uses the 80/20 rule. Intervention should improve 80% of the problems,
If not, then the interventions should be changed for all. If the tool works
for 80%, then more happens.
Fidelity is key- is the program being implemented properly, is the proper amount
of time being given, are the training for the teachers adequate.
Implementation – schools that are successful have not hired new people,
just use the people very differently. Extra money is needed to buy the research
based programs and training the teachers how to use them. Typically restructuring
of the sytem is needed. I.E. Grades 1-3 would have reading at the same time.
All the classroom teachers and special teachers are teaching reading at the
same time. Students are grouped by skill level (not ability level) this are
flexible groups that change all the time. Kids move in and out all the time.
This way groups move quickly and education time is maximized.
Schools report that the data and interventions are the biggest change.
Special Education students are determined as the “non-responders.”
Question; how do you then separate the special education students. Answer: the
programs continue, monitored for progress and efficacy. They may go to double
dosing.
Question: How about these students as they move to middle school? Answer; In
4-6tyh grade the help goes into the resource room.
The early identification allows earlier intervention. In high school it translates
in the mainstream consultive model. (Mark Shinn) The students can have things
adjusted.
In Idaho – students are required to take reading as an elective. Schools
have a right to change the specific requirements as they go on to graduation.
Idaho has stopped teaching “special education biology.” [Falmouth
seems to be right on target here]
The math research based instruction is not as well established.
Behavior is less well defined. The pyramid of effective schools (Randy Spriggs)
is also used with the behavior.
The writing research based instruction is not as well developed as well. It
is important that school psychologists be aware of what the programs should
be. The school psychologist should be able to say not only: “This is what
we now about Johnny, and this is what is needed to help him improve”
[School psychologist trainer (supervises 30 psychologists in Iowa) has been
using the RTI model. He finds that each year the psychologists want more reading
program instruction and math program instruction.]
It seems that Part B funding can be used for early interventions. In Missouri
special education acts as an advisor so that it doesn’t turn into a special
education issue all over again.
In Idaho it is no longer an “us versus them” model. All teachers
work together.
Psychologists now give less IQ testing. They spend more time advising and evaluating
programs to support the educational process. It is the professional judgment
of the team when to do the WISC. In his last year as a psychologist (served
three districts, 14 buildings, 1500 students) the speaker went from 130 WISCs
to 2 in one year.! He became a specialist helping many teachers and classrooms.
Actually more school psychologists were hired.
Sharon Vaughn study (2003) (in packet.) found that in 10 weeks 25% kids could
be exited, 20 weeks in 25% could be exited, 25 % more at 30 weeks, after 30
weeks 25% were left for intervention.
Question: What about “mobility rate?” 50% of students in school
in Florida move each year. Answer: RTI plan lays out what to do. If they move
their, I Plan, moves with them. Some schools will not implement the I Plan,
but the best you can do, is pass it on.
Impact:
This was a good primer for me. This really seems to be the direction things
are going. The national Center on LD brought this to the forefront two years
ago. Clearly this is being implemented in many states and there are several
models to follow. There is still a dual model of identification, that is the
assessment scores and the response to intervention. I spoke with the presenter
at the end. He is traveling the country explaining RTI. He initially felt that
over-identification was going to happen and that non-special education students
would be the focus of special education. He has not seen this to be the case.
Rather, all students who need help are getting research, data based instruction.
Idaho has not had to deal with the diploma issue. Their “high stakes”
exam will be implemented in 2006. However, he is confident that students will
do better with the RTI model.