RtI in the Secondary Schools

Chris OttoKaren Schmidt Klinzing

June 28, 2011

Some Goals of IDEA 2004

Reduce the numbers of ethnic minority students identified as needing special education service

Reduce paperwork

IDEA 2004 Changes: Regulation Limits U.S. Secretary ability to direct rule and regulation

changes to “compliance issues” only Recommends that states reduce the number of rules they

have No longer mandates that IEP teams establish short-term

objectives for students (FAPE) Encourages collaboration between team members for

transition from Part B to Part C. (FAPE) Pilot programs for three year IEP’s and reduced paper

work IEPs

IDEA 2004 Changes: Identification

Discrepancy Model no Longer mandated Commission on Excellence in Special Education

recommended that the identification process for SLD incorporate an RTI approach. (OSERS on Ed.gov)

States MUST allow RtI to be used in districts as a criterion. (OSERS on Ed.gov)

Discrepancy model (IQ test discrepancy) is no longer mandated method

Identification through RtI is authorized, but not mandated School districts have choice

Why RtI in IDEA 2004?

Federal Congressional Committees’ concerns with models of identification of SLD that use IQ tests

recognition that a growing body of scientific research supports methods, such as RTI, that more accurately distinguish between children who truly have SLD from those whose learning difficulties could be resolved with more specific, scientifically based, general education interventions.

Source: Ed.gov

RtI Leads to Less IEP’s “The National Academy of Sciences recommends

using RTI strategies to improve achievement and behavior and to help reduce the disproportionate representation of minority students in special education (Donovan &Cross, 2002). Successful implementation of an RTI program can translate into fewer IEPs, reduced rates of student disengagement andfailure, and increased numbers of students achieving grade-level standards in general education.” Canter et al 2008

IDEA 2004 Changes: IEP’s Now mandates that IEP objectives be aligned to state standards

(FAPE) Only most cognitively disabled (1% or less of population) should

qualify for alternative achievement standards and alternative assessments. All other IEP students should take the regular assessments. (FAPE)

Requires transition plan in IEP at age 16 Non longer requires all people need to stay in attendance when their

subject area is not being discussed (e.g. Social Studies teacher need not stick around for Math) AND allows IEP team members to conference in. (FAPE)

IDEA 2004 Changes: Due Process

Hand out procedural safeguards to parents once a year 2 year statute of limitations for parents to bring a claim

against the school district Specific timeline within which the school district must

handle the claim Resolution session must occur before the claim goes to a

hearing Parents may have to pay attorney fees for frivolous claims

brought

NCLB and IDEA 2004: Highly Qualitfied Teachers

NCLB A teacher must

hold a bachelor’s degree

be certified by the state or passed a state licensing exam

demonstrate subject level competency

IDEA 2004 Provided additional options for special

needs teachers by which they could meet the definition in multitude of different settings.

Requires that all special education teachers meet state licensing requirements.

Special needs teachers teaching in core subject area must meet the HQT requirements for those core subject areas.

Special needs teacher who are collaborative teaching in a class with an HQ teacher do not heed to be HQ in the subject area but do need to be HQ in SPED.

NCLB and IDEA 2004: Plans to the Feds

NCLB Must submit plans to the

feds about how the state will close the achievement gap, move all children toward proficiency and develop an accountability system that annually measures the progress of districts and schools to make Adequate Yearly Progress towards proficiency

IDEA 2004 Reiterates NCLB accountability

mandates by requiring each state, as a condition of receiving IDEA funding, must establish performance goals and indicators for students with disabilities that incorporate AYP measures. They must promote purpose of IDEA; match state definition of AYP; address graduation and drop out rates, stay consistent with all goals of all children in state.

NCLB and IDEA 2004: Public School ChoiceNCLB

After a school fails to reach AYP in two consecutive years, it must offer all of its students the option to transfer to a higher performing school in the district, including charter schools with priority going to the lowest performing students in the district who are from the lowest income families.

IDEA 2004 Includes students with disabilities.

Requires that students with disabilities covered under the IDEA or Section504, continue to receive a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) if they elect to transfer to a new school.

Non regulatory guidance gives the new school the option of using the former school’s IEP for the student or convening the IEP team to create a new IEP.

This does NOT represent a change of placement in the traditional sense

NCLB and IDEA 2004: Supplemental Education Services

NCLB Schools that fail

to make AYP for three years in a row must offer low income students SES

IDEA 2004 NCLB mandates that the provisions of the

agreement with the service provider must be consistent with the student’s IEP or 504 plan.

These services are in addition to and not a substitute for services required to rendered in the IEP and 504 plans.

States can use their IDEA state level reserve to provide technical assistance and Professional Development to LEA’s of schools that have missed AYP for two years or more solely on the basis of the scores of their subgroup of students with disabilities.

NCLB and IDEA 2004: AssessmentsNCLB The standardized

method towards measuring progress towards proficiency minimum of 95% of all students in all subgroups must participate in the testing. Allows three year averages for participation rates.

IDEA 2004 All students with disabilities must be

included in all assessments unless an accommodation or alternative assessment is stated in the student’s IEP.

Alternative assessments and alternative standards for a student with a disability MUST be aligned to the state academic standards.

The “vast majority” of students with disabilities should participate in the standardized test that most all of the students take.

IDEA 2004: 1% and 2 % RuleState can count the “proficiency” scores of

students taking the alternative assessment as long as the number of students taking the alternative assessment does not exceed 1 percent.

In 2007, expanded testing exemptions to 2 % of the student population who might be taking modified tests pegged to modified achievement standards

IDEA 2004: New on 2% Proxy RuleU.S. Secretary of Education Vows to 'Move Away'

from the 2% Proxy Rule

On March 16, 2011, U.S. Secretary of Education announced that the Department would be moving away from the 2 percent proxy rule in assessing students with disabilities, saying that students with disabilities should be judged with the same accountability system as everyone else.

RtI is Effective for All

“Despite its legal underpinnings in IDEA,RTI is not a special education process but a general education initiative that fits within school improvement efforts. RTI is an effective method for helping struggling learners in the general education environment before they fail and face special education referral and placement. In fact, many experts advocate for the inclusion of RTI strategies in the upcoming reauthorization of the No Child LeftBehind Act.” Canter et al 2008

Response to Intervention (RtI)MORE than special ed criteria…

RtI is a comprehensive system designed to meet the needs

of ALL students using a hierarchy of interventions

Key RtI Components: All students can learn Early intervention Differentiated curriculum and instruction Problem-solving approach Research-based, scientifically validated

instruction and intervention Assessments to screen, diagnose, and

monitor progress Data-based decision-making

Tiers of Intervention:

Tier 1: all students in general ed classroom (80-90%)

Tier 2: specific, research-based, targeted interventions delivered (10-15%)

Tier 3: intensive, individualized interventions (1-5%)**qualify for special education IEP

Secondary Implementation:

First: focus on Tier 1 Staff attitude that all students can learn

(Failure is NOT an Option!) Implement assessment system ELOs, LTs, and common assessments Differentiation Training Identification & Early Intervention

Sample Interventions: Math & reading skill building classes Read 180/SpEd math SpEd study support class Advisory placement Weekly support meetings Homework/organizational support Homework club Standards/credit recovery class Referral for outside support/treatment

It’s a PROCESS…

Work together and support each other through it!

RtI in Action

SCREDChisago LakesSt. Croix Prep’s Upper School

Implementing Tier I for Reading and Math and Tier II with Team taught classes this year.

RtI in Secondary Sources Buffum, A., Mattos, M., and Weber C. (2009). Pyramid Response to

Intervention: RtI, Professional Learning Communities, and How to Respond When Kids Don’t Learn. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Burns, M.K. and Coolong-Chaffin, M. (2006). Response to Intervention: The Role of and Effect on School Psychology. NASP: School Psychology Forum Research in Practice.

Canter, A. Klotz, M.B. and Cowan, K. (2008) “Response to Intervention: The Future for Secondary Schools.” Principal Leadership. February 2008, 12 -15: http://www.nasponline.org/resources/principals/RTI%20Part%201-NASSP%20February%2008.pdf.

RtI in Secondary Sources (continued)

Howell R., Patton S., and Deiotte, M. (2008). Understanding Response to Intervention: A Practical Guide to Systematic Implementation. Bloomington, IN: Solution Tree Press

Hullet, K (2009) Legal Aspects of Special Education. Pearson: Upper Saddle River, New Jersey.

The IDEA 2004 Summary http://www.fape.org/idea/2004/summary.htm

Office of Special Education and Rehabilitative Services http://idea.ed.gov/explore/view/p/%2Croot%2Cdynamic%2CQaCorner%2C8%2C