Thinking of Yellow-Brick Roads, Emerald Cities and Wizards...Thinking of Yellow-Brick Roads, Emerald Cities and Wizards Gary Germann, Retired Special Education Director To appear in

Thinking of Yellow-Brick Roads, Emerald Cities and Wizards

Gary Germann, Retired Special Education Director

To appear in M.R. Shinn and H.M. Walker (Eds.) (anticipated 2008). Interventions for Achievement and Behavior Problems in a Three-Tier Model including RTI. Bethesda,

MD: National Association of School Psychologists

Please Relay Feedback to the Primary Author, Gary Germann, via the Following Email Address

[email protected]

Germann Introduction

2

Introduction

The editors and authors in the chapters to follow, describe nothing less than a new

assessment model and special education delivery system, one consistent with the spirit,

intent and, as of 2004 reauthorization, the language of IDEA 2004. In the model

proposed by the title of this book, school psychologists are involved primarily in

developing interventions directed at student’s achievement and behavior problems.

Second, the interventions are delivered across three tiers that begin in the general

education classroom, evolve to a modified general education program and finally are

intensified and individualized and may include special education. Third, the model is

framed and supported by a legally sanctioned educational problem-solving process called

RTI (Response to Intervention). RTI is characterized by systematic and universal

screening of all students; early response with high quality and evidence based

interventions; team decision making based on and matched to, individual student needs;

and frequent, direct and continuous assessment of progress within a formative evaluation

model.

In the school that your child attends, which part of the above described model

would you be comfortable in eliminating? Shouldn’t we all insist upon such a model?

Wouldn’t kids benefit from implementation of such a model? Why is something so

consistent with best practice so resisted and controversial? Why is its success still so

uncertain? Why did policy makers, when reauthorizing IDEA in 2004, give practitioners

a choice to (a) adopt the assessment and problem-solving model described in this book;

(b) continue with the current model; or (c) do both? Which choice represents the “yellow


3

brick road” that will lead us towards the Emerald City of Oz? If kids benefit by adopting

option (a), who benefits from options (b) and (c)?

Dorothy: Now which way do we go? Scarecrow: Pardon me, this way is a very nice way. Dorothy: Who said that? [Toto barks at scarecrow] Dorothy: Don't be silly, Toto. Scarecrows don't talk. Scarecrow: [points other way] It's pleasant down that way, too. Dorothy: That's funny. Wasn't he pointing the other way? Scarecrow: [points both ways] Of course, some people do go both ways.

Has 50 years of practice created a system that will not or cannot embrace a new

legally sanctioned model (RTI) because it perceives the new system to be contrary to its

own self-interest? Is it possible as Pogo said: “We have seen the enemy and he is us.”

It must be remembered that there is nothing more difficult to plan, more doubtful of success, nor more dangerous to manage than the creation of a new system. For the initiator has the enmity of all who would profit by the preservation of the old institution and merely lukewarm defenders in those who would gain by the new ones. Machiavelli, The Prince (1513).

As I write this it is the fall of 2008 and in an effort to answer these questions, I find

myself thinking back 29 years to 1979 when my special education cooperative made the

decision to choose option (a), RTI. At that time the yellow brick road wasn’t so much a

road as a minefield. The challenge was not to follow the road. Rather the challenge was

to build it. I am also reminded of a bet I made long ago with Stan Deno (Professor,

Special Education Programs, University of Minnesota). It is time to concede its loss. A

bit of history will clarify and explain.


4

Building the Yellow Brick Road

Professor Marvel: Better get under cover, Sylvester. There's a storm blowin' up, a whopper. Just speakin' the vernacular of the peasantry.

My experience in education dates back to 1966 when I graduated with an

undergraduate degree in Speech and Hearing Science. The country was engaged in the

Civil Rights movement with its primary emphasis on race and gender. The rights of

those with special education needs were caught up in the movement and it gave birth to

an already evolving and exciting profession. Primary responsibility for ensuring equal

education opportunity for those with special education needs was left up to individual

states. State laws had evolved at different times and with different requirements causing

confusion among providers and inconsistencies in service options. During this time I

worked in K-12 as a special educator, attained various degrees and taught graduate

courses at an institution of higher education. Something new and exciting was happening

and I was right in the middle of it!

In 1975, the Education for All Handicapped Children Act (EAHCA; P. L. 94-142)

was enacted. This landmark legislation represented the original federal special education

law and guaranteed the right to a free and appropriate public education (FAPE) in the

least restrictive environment (LRE) to all children with disabilities. At this time I was a

young Director of Special Education in the Pine County Special Education Cooperative

(now the St. Croix River Education District or SCRED), with just 3 years of experience.

I joined a growing legion of energized special educators who vigorously advocated for

students whose achievement and behavior problems required specially designed

instructional modifications. Working with young, newly trained and dedicated teachers,


5

inspired by the good intentions of parent advocate groups and enabled by concerned

policy makers, we championed the special education cause and dramatically grew the

number and kinds of services and students. These were times of unprecedented

expansion of services resulting in new educational opportunities for millions of students.

New special teachers taught in special places to special kids using special materials. Our

vision was clear, our mission was right and our will was strong. It was the best of times.

Beware the Potholes

No one, including myself, can question the promise or intent of EAHCA, nor can

the motivations of those who struggled to implement it in those early years, or now, be

characterized as anything but well intended. However the foundational beliefs on which

that law was written has had a profound, and often negative, influence on special

education over the last 33 years in terms of research, training, and practice. What should

have heralded a revolution of innovation resulting in improved instruction and increased

achievement instead turned into a quagmire of rules, process, testing and regulation

focused on controlling entitlement, not improving instruction.

Although righteous in our cause and sincere in our motives, our enthusiastic and

zealous advocacy was charting a path for special education’s future with critical

unintended consequences. It is ironic, that in the evolution of special education trends,

two are markedly and paradoxically divergent: First, is the systematic integration of

children with special “needs” into school environments. Second, is the systematic

separation of the structures designed to manage and deliver “special” instruction and

related services. It is a classic case of unintended consequences caused by actions based

on good intentions. If students with special instructional needs are to continue to become


6

a part of general education then we must stop building special education delivery

structures that are apart from general education. What would lead us to conclude that we

can now expect general education to embrace us as service partners, when for 33 years

we have charted our own path without them? How did this happen?

Scarecrow: Come along Dorothy. You don't want any of those apples. Apple Tree: Are you hinting my apples aren't what they ought to be? Scarecrow: Oh, no! It's just that she doesn't like little green worms!

I argue that the potholes that have impeded our progress are attributable to

EACHA’s, and its subsequent reauthorizations, underpinnings that are based on set of

fundamental beliefs, not empirically derived conclusions.

A belief is something regarded as true. Belief systems act like filters. By editing

reality they cause us to see and act in particular ways. Values and ethics evolve from

belief systems. Nations fight wars over belief systems. Reading “wars” are fought

because of fundamental beliefs about how to define and measure reading. The approach

to sex education is argued between those who believe in abstinence for moral reasons and

those who favor prevention through education. The science of evolution is challenged by

the belief in intelligent design. Our penal system is designed around the belief that

punishment, not retribution and rehabilitation, should guide practice. Belief systems

influence values, symbols, language, interpretations, and perspectives that distinguish

members of one category of people from another and through these shared qualities

create unique cultures. Beliefs are slow to respond to science and data.

The entire modern special education system has created a culture based on the

following set of foundation beliefs. The extent to which these are empirically correct

determines the extent to which an efficient and effective service delivery system can be


7

built. The beliefs are a statement of what we value, and what we value is what we

implement in practice.

• Children are born “constitutionally broken” or acquire pathology, illness,

impairment, disorder and/or disability.

• Disabilities result from an intrinsic physical condition and identification requires a

diagnosis of the illness or disability.

• Internalized disabling conditions cause educational disadvantage that handicaps

educational performance.

• Disabilities can be grouped into distinct diagnostic categories or classifications

based on a set of common unique attributes identifiable and differentiated through

the use of modern psychometrics.

• There is a known and unique set of treatment-aptitude interactions to each

disability that can be used to guide and direct instruction.

• Only children whose poor school performance is the result of identified

disabilities are entitled to “specially” designed and funded instruction and related

services.

Laws based on the above set of beliefs lead to the following questions in our schools:

• The referring question is: Does the child have a disability?

• The assessment question is: Does the child meet the disability eligibility criteria

for special education entitlement?

What are the consequences, intended and unintended, of a federal entitlement

system based on these beliefs? Certainly a partial answer is that a special education


8

system is created, flourishes and systematically separates itself from general education

with the following actions:

• A separate and unique classification system based on medical pathology is

imposed on an institution designed to deliver educational services. At the time of

this writing the number of disabilities, impairments, disorders, disturbances or

injuries is 13. These are just the major categories. Dozens of sub-categories also

exist and various other descriptors number in the hundreds.

• Separate earmarked fiscal entitlements are provided to serve children with

disabilities.

• Separate and specific rules and process are promulgated, defining in minute

detail the type of disabilities entitled to be served, by whom, when, where and

how.

• Separate administrative “special” education bureaucracies at the federal, state

and local district level are established to monitor implementation by policing

process and punishing violations.

• Separate remedial, general education and special education systems are

encouraged to ensure funding is not co-mingled or misappropriated.

• Children, teachers and services are labeled according to disability categories.

• Separate “due process” rules are promulgated ensuring parents are given every

possible opportunity to object to the special assessment, label, service and

entitlement.


9

• Compliance to statute is based on administrative process, not student outcomes.

Bureaucratic entitlement compliance needs (i.e., a paper trail) take precedent over

student needs and performance outcomes.

• A separate and special education plan (IEP) is required with general education’s

passive involvement.

• Separate and related types of services are mandated but not defined, expanding

the depth and breadth of special education.

• A separate teacher licensing mechanism is created that defines, restricts and

certifies competence according to the type of disability the teacher can serve, not

the instructional services they can deliver.

• Separate teacher training departments are organized according to categorical

disabilities and train teachers to meet the new teacher certification requirements.

• A separate “special education publishing industry” is created to provide the

necessary special materials for students whose disabilities cause them to “learn”

differently and therefore require instruction uniquely designed to fit their

instructional needs and learning styles.

• A separate “test publishing industry” is created and responds with hundreds of

new tests and assessment tools designed to document and certify disability

eligibility criteria. School psychologists are overwhelmed with “testing for

eligibility” and are effectively removed from the problem-solving effort.

• A separate network of advocate groups representing disability categories is

created.


10

• New special education vocabulary and/or jargon are developed within the

education establishment separating special and general education.

• Separate professional organizations directed at specific disability areas are

created with their own conferences, journals, membership, dues, etc.

In summary the above actions, values, symbols, language, interpretations, and

perspectives distinguish members of one category of people from another (special and

general educators) and through these shared qualities created two unique cultures. A

separate and unequal special education system was created, a parallel educational

universe that exists in a different dimension from general education. Over three decades

of implementation inertia now drive this system. It has spawned a system of two groups

with conflicting interests for whom student outcomes are an afterthought. The system

has a life of its own and any efforts to change it are viewed as a threat and are resisted.

Wizard of Oz: You, my friend, are a victim of disorganized thinking.

From the very beginning it was obvious to some of us that there was a disconnect

between what was being assessed at the point of referral and what the referrer was asking

to be assessed. Teachers were referring students for special education services because of

achievement and/or behavior problems. The problem from their perspective, and that of

the child, was not a disability caused from presumed pathology; rather it was a

discrepancy between the progress they expected in achievement and/or behavior and the

child’s actual progress. What we gave teachers, and what we believed the law required,

is the answer to two entitlement questions: Does the child have a disability, and does the

child meet the disability eligibility criteria for special education entitlement? What we

should have been giving them were answers to at least the following questions:


11

• For whom do I need to individualize instruction or find more intensive

instructional programs?

• How do I organize my classroom for instructional grouping?

• How do I set measurable goals for student progress in the short term (months) vs.

the long term (years)?

• How do I clearly communicate educational need and progress in non-technical

language to parents, and other professional colleagues?

• How do I determine instructional needs of new students as they constantly arrive

at our school door?

• How do I provide information on educational needs, goals, and progress for those

students who may need remedial programs like special education?

• Most importantly, how do I know that my teaching is “working” for each student

so that I can make changes in instruction when necessary?

It was also immediately evident that mild intellectual disability (MID), specific

learning disabilities (SLD) and emotional-behavioral disabilities (EBD) eligibility were

the tails wagging the special education dog. Whereas sensory, motor, and severe

developmental problems were diagnosed by evident pathology discovered during

ancillary testing, these three high incidence disabilities (MID, SLD and EBD) were

actually diagnosed by the student’s achievement and/or behavior with only the

implication for genuine pathology not cited or observed at the time of referral. The nine

to three o’clock disabled children (i.e., students whose disabilities only became obvious

when they entered school in the morning and were gone when they left school in the

afternoon) were overwhelming the system. In fact, if you remove speech and language


12

students from the population, more than 85% of special education students fell within

these three disability categories and the vast majority of these students were experiencing

reading and/or behavior problems.

Enormous human resources were being expended at great costs to answer questions

that were neither asked by the referrer nor were the answers necessary or relevant for

educational problem-solving. This was not something that could be fixed by tweaking

the system.

Scarecrow: I could while away the hours/conferrin' with the flowers/consultin' with the rain/And my head I'd be scratchin'/ While my thoughts were busy hatchin'/If I only had a brain.

Adopting one of the many new assessment “widgets” designed to identify presumed

pathology was not an answer. They, in fact, represented the problem! If we were to

respond to student’s achievement and behavior problems identified via the referral

question then we required nothing less than a new assessment and decision-making

paradigm. A difficult task, made even more difficult by at least the following obstacles:

• Our school psychologists were our assessment experts and they had to manage

and implement a new system. This was not possible when 75% of their time was

being used to implement the deviant status disability model.

• Any attempts at innovation were probably going to be interpreted as a violation of

law by our state department and result in loss of funding.

• We had no money to pay for costs associated with a major innovation.

• Our system evaluation required monitoring process, not student outcomes

resulting in a system overwhelmed with process where student outcomes received

only secondary consideration.


13

• Our largest and fastest growing disabilities (SLD and EBD) could not be reliably

identified.

• General education and parent perception of needs outweighed available special

education resources.

• Due process requirements were unmanageable, undecipherable and invited

conflict.

• Parent advocacy was viewed with suspicion and relationships were becoming

adversarial, as parents turned to a growing industry of attorneys, poised and ready

to exploit a system in distress.

• We were communicating with general education with a new vocabulary they did

not understand: “IDEA mandates we provide IEPs to children with ADHD and

SLD in the LRE.”

• Costs were soaring and traditional educational boundaries were expanding into

new and poorly understood therapies, treatments, assessments, interventions, etc.

that lacked supporting evidence and were prohibitively expensive.

• The search for pathology and the case for entitlement consumed inordinate

amounts of resources.

• Children were being labeled with stereotypical labels that created a negative and

disempowering caricature of the child.

• A “wait to fail” model was required.

• Services and teachers were labeled according to disability categories, not by their

instructional expertise.


14

• The primary evaluation question was: “Did” the student learn as opposed to “is”

the student learning?

• The primary assessment question was: What is wrong with the child?

• And finally, and most importantly, although we understood these problems, we

lacked a solution!

On the other hand the thought of continuing with this seriously flawed system was

not an acceptable option. What we lacked in resources, however, was more than

overcome by a certain “audacity of hope.” My school colleagues provided the audacity

and the University of Minnesota provided the hope.

Over the years I have attempted to summarize the situation we found ourselves in

through the use of short metaphors. Readers might find themselves relating to any of the

following: First, “When you are up to your neck in alligators, it is hard to remember that

your mission is to drain the swamp!” Second, “We are so busy being what we are, that

we don’t have time to become what we should be!” Third, “It’s hard to build an airplane

while you’re flying it.” Finally, “If you don’t like what you been gittin, then you gotta

stop doin what you been doin; because if you keep on doin what you been doin, then

you’re going to keep on gittin what you been gitten.”

Auntie Em: Why don't you find a place where there isn't any trouble. Dorothy: A place where there isn't any trouble. Do you suppose there is such a place Toto? There must be. It's not a place you can get to by a boat or a train. It's far, far away. Behind the moon, beyond the rain.

Unknown to us, Stan Deno and Phyllis Mirkin, both at the University of Minnesota,

had described a different type of education problem-solving and decision-making system

in their book, Data-based program modification – A manual (Deno & Mirkin, 1977). At


15

the same time (1977) an Institute for Research on Learning Disabilities (IRLD) was

created at the University of Minnesota. Its Principal Investigator was Jim Ysseldyke.

Phyllis Mirkin was Associate Director and Stan Deno was the Lead Researcher for the

formative evaluation program. The purpose of the IRLD was to study the assessment and

decision-making process that leads to the placement of students in special education

programs. By 1979 Stan and Phyllis, along with a remarkable group of graduate students

including Lynn Fuchs, Vanderbilt University; Karen Wesson –King, University of

Wisconsin/Milwaukee and now deceased; Doug Marston, Minneapolis Public Schools;

Mark Shinn, formerly at the University of Oregon and now at National-Louis University

and co-editor of this book; and Jerry Tindal, University of Oregon were carefully laying

the research foundation for Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) as an approach to

monitoring individual student’s academic progress and teachers’ instructional

effectiveness. At the same time Jim Ysseldyke was focusing on the problems associated

with the existing methodology for assessing and identifying SLD. (Note: As a graduate

student, then as a doctoral intern and finally as an employee of the Cooperative Jerry

Tindal provided the necessary bridge between training, research and practice. His

contributions to the development of the original Pine County model were fundamentally

critical and essential.)

Wizard of Oz: I am the great and powerful [steps out from behind the curtain] Wizard of Oz: Wizard of Oz.

I wish I could credit personal sagacity as the reason for calling Stan Deno sometime

in the winter of 1979. Accident and serendipity are better explanations. I remember the

call well. It went like this:


16

Gary: Hi, I am the director of the Pine County Special Education Cooperative and I

am interested in implementing a data based program modification system modeled after the one described in your Manual.

Stan: Say what? Can you meet for lunch with Phyllis and myself? Gary: How about 12:30? Stan: See you then. You’re buying right? Bye.

Over the next several weeks it was agreed that Stan, Phyllis and the IRLD would

provide the Cooperative with its intellectual and developmental capital; graduate

students’ sweat and energy; and the supporting science necessary to create a

comprehensive, intervention and outcome based education problem-solving system

modeled after Stan and Phyllis’s DBPM.

The Cooperative would provide two school psychologists (Chris McHugh and Jeff

Menigo) to manage the implementation effort; an unbelievable group of willing teachers;

a supportive group of principals, and the nervous approval of the superintendents. I

would provide leadership, implementation and design management, developmental

oversight, resources, damage control and the necessary reality-based perspective. In

addition, the Cooperative and schools would provide five days of teacher training prior to

the upcoming school year (1979-80) and an additional .5 days of training every other

week during the first year. This was possible because I had convinced my board that we

should use our new EAHCA entitlement to make ourselves better, not bigger. Finally,

we would provide the IRLD a school-based research and training laboratory. Sometime

during this planning process Stan reminded me that in the future I should remember that

his job as a university professor was to “admire” problems and as a school administrator,

mine was to “solve” problems. The significance and relevancy of the statement was not

apparent at the time.


17

The Data Based Program Modification (DBPM) Model – A Different Paradigm

Dorothy: Oh, thank you so much! We've been gone such a long time and we feel so messy... What kind of a horse is that? I've never seen a horse like that before! Guardian of the Emerald City Gates: And never will again, I fancy. There's only one of him and he's it. He's the Horse of a Different Color, you've heard tell about.

Beginning in the fall of 1979 the Pine County Special Education Cooperative, (now

the St. Croix River Education District, Rush City, MN) implemented a special education

system conceptualized by Deno and Mirkin in their DBPM Manual. The actual problem-

solving system was necessarily modified as we evolved practice and learned from our

experience and research. However, the four basic imperatives described in the Manual

and the related implications about instruction of children whose achievement and/or

behavior are educationally handicapping were never compromised. They are described in

Table 1.

Table 1 Imperative Implication

1. The program goals for all students, regardless of the nature of their handicaps, must be derived from an analysis of those behaviors that are necessary to function in a less restrictive environment.

In a practical sense, this imperative means that teachers at any level of the Cascade (Evelyn Deno’s Cascade of Services) should determine the behaviors that are necessary for the children to function at the next higher level, and they should direct their instruction toward those behaviors. To do so at level 2, for example, would eliminate the setting of auditory and visual processing tasks as educational objectives unless the value of the tasks for level 1 performance could be demonstrated.

2. Placement of a pupil in an educational setting should be determined by their present

Present assumptions are that labels may be necessary to justify the use of


18

repertoire of behaviors rather than their diagnostic label (e.g., learning disabled, dyslexic, minimally brain damaged, neurologically impaired, emotionally disturbed).

program resources but not, generally, to make instructional program decisions. Further, it is generally believed that labeling has had detrimental effects on individual development; for that reason alone they should be avoided.

3. The success of instructional programs should be based on the rate at which the program moves the pupil toward functioning in more normal environments.

At the level of instruction, this imperative means that evidence must be presented that the pupil is making progress along a sequence of approximations to normality. If a "special" education program cannot demonstrably improve a child's rate of development, it is indefensible as a service. We are critical of defining quality of service in terms of time, program or teacher-pupil ratio.

4. Whenever possible, special educational services for handicapped students should be brought to the individual rather than bringing the individual to the services.

In effect, this imperative means that revision in either instructional objectives or instructional treatments should occur within the natural environment (i.e., home, school, and community) rather than in one that is foreign to the child (i.e., special class, school, or residential center). In practical terms, this imperative has produced the need to retrain regular school personnel so that they can individualize instructional programs and, thereby, increase classroom tolerance for behavioral diversity.

The Pine County Special Education Cooperative Model

Cowardly Lion: All right, I'll go in there for Dorothy. Wicked Witch or no Wicked Witch, guards or no guards, I'll tear them apart. I may not come out alive, but I'm going in there. There's only one thing I want you fellows to do. Tin Woodsman, Scarecrow: What's that? Cowardly Lion: Talk me out of it.


19

It is easy to understand why a deviant status disability model is popular with

general educators. A model that blames the child’s achievement/behavior failures on the

child’s disability and allows adults to abdicate their instructional responsibility is one that

is easy to love. Couple this with the “user friendliness” of the system to general

education (i.e. the problem is the disability, not the instruction; we refer them, you serve

them; we are not a part of the problem, we are apart from the problem; don’t ask us to

change a system that serves us so well and you championed for so many years; and if you

want us to serve them, give us the money). It is helpful to remember that when teachers

refer a child for special education they are asking to have two problems solved: First,

solve the teacher’s problem by assuming the responsibility for expected progress and

second, solve the student’s problem by increasing actual progress.

On the other hand a model predicated on the assumption that (a) the child’s lack of

progress has its solution in modification of the instructional program; (b) a modification

may or may not work; (c) you need to frequently, directly and continuously monitor the

effects of the modification; (d) you may have to modify it again it if its not successful; (e)

you begin this process in the general education classroom and (f) you intervene early in

an effort to prevent referral to special education is a model easy for general education to

question or reject. This model requires a cultural change!

During the next several school years, our Cooperative/University unique practice,

training and research partnership created, developed, nurtured and improved on an

intervention-based, problem-solving model built on direct, frequent and continuous

monitoring of student’s achievement and behavior; in a tiered system that systematically

provided data for guiding and justifying more intensive instruction in more restrictive


20

environments.

From the very beginning we targeted special education services with three goals:

increase student achievement, improve teacher instruction, and report success. To

achieve these responsibilities we used Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM) to assess

frequently, directly and continuously where the student was at any given time relative to

his norm group and criterion and also in terms of his/her rate of progress. A team of

people examined the data and determined if the current intervention was generating the

appropriate progress. If the student was falling behind in achievement, we attempted to

respond by improving our instruction. Finally, we reported our progress to relevant

stakeholders using computer applications that we designed and wrote.

To assist in this process, starting in 1981, we developed a process of

“benchmarking” our schools three times each year using CBM probes and monitoring

some students on a more frequent basis.

Why Fall-Winter-Spring Benchmark Testing?

Measurement of general outcomes in the basic skill areas of reading, spelling,

writing and math for all students, as well as measurement for early literacy skills for non-

readers, was done three times a year. This benchmark testing had several purposes

including the following:

• To monitor the progress of each student in the school regularly.

• To establish school and district reading benchmark/norms.

• To call immediate attention to students who were having difficulty.

• To aid communication between teachers, parents, and other professionals.


21

• To provide information on effectiveness of educational programming.

• To place new students in the appropriate course or instructional setting.

• To focus instruction for new students.

• To monitor growth in student achievement over time.

• To determine student proficiency related to the district's graduation standards.

• To screen students for Title I eligibility, special education services, and gifted.

Why Frequent Monitoring of Students of Concern? Students of concern included any special education or Title I students, as well as

any other student any teacher or parent was concerned about. The progress of students of

concern was monitored frequently. Data were displayed graphically to all stakeholders

on a software program called the Progress Monitoring Program. Frequent monitoring of

students of concern had several purposes including the following:

• To provide a basis for evaluation of instructional programming for individual

students with difficulties, as it was occurring.

• To provide information to help teachers make decisions about goals,

materials, levels, and groups.

• To document progress for IEP students. This documentation was necessary

for periodic and annual reviews.

In the late 1970’s and early 1980’s, desktop computing was just beginning to

demonstrate its usefulness to educators. Although not sophisticated by today’s standards

(e.g., AIMSweb) we managed and reported benchmark data to teachers and principals

using computer spreadsheet applications. We developed Continuous Assessment

Programs (CAPs) for the Apple IIe that created random equivalent lists of nonsense


22

words, letters of the alphabet for letter naming and letter sound fluency, spelling lists,

math computation problems, and isolated and nonsense word lists. Of course, the basic

research had already validated Reading-CBM. In the beginning we used passages

selected from the basal reading series; after several years we moved to standard and more

equivalent reading passages across our schools and districts. We also developed Sheri, a

software program that charted individual student’s progress over time, computed slope of

improvement, marked program modifications and red-flagged the lack of student

improvement. Special education eligibility was based on the degree to which expected

and actual achievement and/or behavior was discrepant. The entire problem-solving

effort was documented using a series of seven Case Report Summaries. And finally our

total special education system essentially eliminated the use of “disability” descriptors

for teachers, resources and students. Instead of labeling children according to disabilities

our labels described children’s educational problems as they related to the areas in which

performance was discrepant, (i.e., children with academic skill discrepancies and/or

motor skill discrepancies and/or, social skill discrepancies and/or communication skill

discrepancies and/or vocation/transition skill discrepancies and/or adaptive living skill

discrepancies). Instead of labeling services according to disabilities, our labels described

special education services as they related to functions, (i.e., assessment services, program

modification services (academic, social, communication, vocational/transition, motor,

adaptive living), general education consultation services, training services and education

support/related services.

Pine County Special Education Cooperative Beliefs

Dorothy: We must be over the rainbow!


23

If we are to create new possibilities, we must question and challenge the dominant

belief structures because if the beliefs are not true, then the consequences will be

predictably troublesome. Poor student outcomes are a seriously troublesome

consequence! As indicated previously, what we believe about the causes of student

variance influences how we organize resources to deal with those variances. This is best

understood by examining SLD eligibility. If you believe that some children are born with

specific learning disabilities and that the disability manifests itself in a discrepancy

between the child’s ability and his/her achievement then you organize your assessment

and decision making resources accordingly. Because entitlement is based on the

psychometrics used to make eligibility decisions, the assessment process becomes

focused on which instruments can be used to entitle; their reliability and validity; and the

specific criteria that represents a statistically significant internal discrepancy. If the basic

belief is not true, then the assessment and problem-solving web that is woven, can

indeed, become very tangled and one can imagine might even last for years.

The foundational belief of DBPM and the Pine County Special Education

Cooperative was the disability is never the problem. The handicap/problem is always the

discrepancy between the student’s actual progress and the expected progress. It is this

progress discrepancy that is the basis of the teacher's referral and concern. It is this

discrepancy they are requesting to be assessed. It is this discrepancy they want targeted

for reduction or elimination in the IEP. It is the reduction of this discrepancy they want

periodically reviewed and ultimately, it is the elimination or reduction of the discrepancy

that certifies the referring problem’s solution.


24

In this model the purpose of assessment is not to determine the cause of the

variance; it is to determine the extent of the discrepancy and the instructional factors that

may be contributing to its existence. Assessment becomes a formative process whereby a

database of student progress becomes the basis to form and direct instruction. Instruction

is modified “a posteriori” (dependent on experience) to the process of assessing as

opposed to attempting to predict “a priori” (independent of experience) the instructional

modifications that will be effective. Table 2 describes the process.

Dorothy: Somewhere Over The Rainbow, Bluebirds fly. Birds fly Over The Rainbow. Why then, oh why can't I? If happy little bluebirds fly beyond the rainbow, why oh why can’t I?

Table 2: Pine County Special Education Cooperative Beliefs (1983)

Problem Solving Phase Decision Question Beliefs Problem Selection What are the problem(s) requiring

program modifications? 1. It is the child's performance on mainstream tasks that result in a child being viewed

as successful or unsuccessful by the teacher. 2. Assessments should be directed to specific areas of difficulty in the school

curriculum and/or environment. 3. Special education service eligibility should be related to the severity of the

discrepancy between the referred child's performance on functional district curriculum tasks and his/her peers on the same tasks.

4. The primary focus of assessment should be on variables that can be manipulated in the environment.

5. Provision of special education services should be determined by the student's present repertoire of behaviors.

Program Selection What plan is likely to be least

restrictive and yet effective in solving the problem?

6. For an individual student, on the basis of assessment data, we cannot reliably identify an educational alternative that will be more effective than the regular classroom program.

7. Given the above, the IEP is a guess about what might be helpful to the student rather than a plan that will help.

8. Given the above, we have no alternative but to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of our IEP using time series data and modify it when it is not working.

9. No a priori assumption should be made that the optimal program for any student will simply occur as a result of matching student disability with teacher certification.

Program Operationalization Is the agreed upon program

modification being implemented as planned?

10. IEPs should be specific with regard to the skills/behaviors for which special education services are being provided; the person(s) responsible for delivering services; the measurable annual short term goals for each discrepancy; location of service; time allocated for the service; and the measurement system to be employed to monitor the effectiveness of the service.

11. Since a plan is only good if implemented, IEP component implementation (number 10) should be continuously monitored.

Program Improvement Does the program modification

implemented appear to be solving the problem?

12. Time series student performance data should be the primary datum when monitoring programs to determine if they are working or should be changed.

13. The measurement system (materials) used to monitor program improvement, if truly practical and useful:


26

a. Should be immediately sensitive to the effects of relatively small adjustments made in a) instructional methods and materials, b) motivational techniques and c) administrative arrangements (e.g., adjustments in group, setting for instruction, teacher/tutor, time of instruction, etc.).

b. Should be easy to administer by teacher, parent and student. c. Should be able to include many parallel forms that are frequently administrable

(daily) if necessary, to the same student. d. Should be time-efficient. e. Should be unobtrusive with respect to routine instruction. f. Should be inexpensive to produce. g. Should be simple to teach.

Program Certification Should the program a presently

planned and implemented be terminated?

14. It is the student's performance that ultimately certifies the program as successful. 15. Time series data on IEP goals are the primary indicator of program completion. 16. If a special education program cannot demonstrably improve a student's rate of

performance, it is indefensible as a service.

Now About that Bet I Lost to Stan Deno

Dorothy: I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.

It was, I believe, some time in the early to mid 1980’s. Stan Deno and I were

driving back to Minneapolis, Minnesota from Des Moines, Iowa where we had provided

the initial training to Iowa teachers on the intervention and outcome-based education

problem-solving system we had developed in Pine County, Minnesota.

Wizard of Oz: To confer, converse, and otherwise hob-nob with my brother wizards.

Stan, myself and some of the previously mentioned graduate students, now working

in various universities and locations, were training and consulting with Jeff Grimes (at

that time the Iowa State Department of Instruction’s Manager of School Psychology

Services) and Iowa school staff to implement what was known as project RE-AIM

(Relevant Educational Assessment and Intervention Model). This project was written by

the Iowa Department of Public Instruction and was designed to train 500 Iowa special

educators in the use of an intervention model comprised of (a) behavioral consultation,

(b) CBM and (c) referral question consultative decision-making. The focus of the project

was the construct of Specific Learning Disability.

Stan and I were excited by the reaction to our just completed training event and were

contrasting Iowa’s acceptance of our model to that of Minnesota’s complete rejection and

repudiation of the model.

Auntie Em: I saw you tinkering with that contraption, Hickory. Now you and Hunk get back to that wagon. Hickory: All right, Mrs. Gale. But someday, they're going to erect a


28

statue to me in this town. Auntie Em: Well, don't start posing for it now.

We were taken by the irony of the contrast between Minnesota and Iowa. Three

examples will clarify: First, Iowa was re-aiming their efforts to our problem-solving

model and away from an “internal discrepancy” model they had endorsed and developed

and had actually become known as the “Iowa Discrepancy Model.” At the same time

Minnesota’s state special education department was embracing that same Iowa “internal

discrepancy” model despite Iowa’s experiences and a growing body of research (e.g.,

IRLD at the University of Minnesota) questioning the science of the psychometrics and

the validity of the SLD construct. It was particularly frustrating because the IRLD at the

University of Minnesota had just completed its 5-year research effort and published its

findings (Ysseldyke, Thurlow, Graden, Wesson, Algozzine & Deno, 1983). Among the

conclusions were the following:

• There are no reliable psychometric differences on norm-referenced tests

between students with learning disabilities and their low-achieving peers.

• There are technically adequate norm-referenced tests, but no technically

adequate measures of the psychological processes and abilities which

assessors were required to use to identify deficiencies.

• Curriculum-based measurement is a technically adequate alternative to

lengthy assessments currently administered.

• Student results are better when teachers gather data on student performance

and use the data to adapt instruction. It is difficult to get them to do so.


29

• Clear and consistent differences exist in the performance of LD resource room

students and regular class students on one-minute samples using simple

measures of reading, spelling, and written expression. Given that these

measures reliably differentiate students, they also are useful for referral and

assessment (eligibility) decisions.

It is amazing that after 25 years of failed practice and conflicting science how mired

our profession remains in the dialectic of entitlement and disability, in particular as it

relates to SLD.

Second, Iowa was embracing CBM as valid and reliable for identifying academic

discrepancies and monitoring interventions and their effects. At the same time,

Minnesota was rejecting the use of CBM in Pine County’s intervention-based problem-

solving model and eventually this resulted in an official Minnesota State Department

response stating among other things that “the use of CBM to determine eligibility is

highly inappropriate, in violation of state and federal requirements and, in my opinion,

an outrageous example of poor assessment practice as these procedures are currently

used in Minnesota.”

Dorothy: Weren't you frightened? Wizard of Oz: Frightened? Child, you're talking to a man who's laughed in the face of death, sneered at doom, and chuckled at catastrophe... I was petrified.

Third, Iowa was using their Federal Special Education allocations to pay us to train

them on a problem-solving model and at the same time the Minnesota Special Education

Monitoring Section had just taken away a significant amount of the Cooperative districts’

Federal allocation and a portion of state special education funding for developing and


30

implementing the same system in Pine County schools! I was reminded of Stan’s

observation about my job being to solve problems and his was to admire them, as I stood

alone and told my superintendents that, despite a foundation of scientific evidence,

enthusiastic staff support, strong parent satisfaction and demonstrated student growth

they were losing most of their Federal special education allocations and a share of their

state special education reimbursement.

What was done in Pine County, Minnesota was punished, and when done in Iowa

schools it was rewarded. There are two lessons to be learned here. First, when science

contradicts practice, innovation is a better response then retrenchment. Second, the first

rule of holes is, if you are in one, stop digging!

Auntie Em Gale: Almira Gulch. Just because you own half the town doesn't mean that you have the power to run the rest of us. For twenty-three years I've been dying to tell you what I thought of you! And now... well, being a Christian woman, I can't say it!

As part of my Iowa presentation I had provided the audience the following written

summary:

In no other environment is human variance so obvious as in our schools. When a child’s actual achievement is severely discrepant from the expected, they find themselves handicapped within the school environment. For too long special educators have searched within the child for pathology in the hopes that such knowledge would direct their instruction, as well as provide justification for political action. We now recognize that answers to learning problems are not to be found within the child, but are explained only through an analysis of the instructional program. This increased understanding of student variance in addition to an expanding knowledge regarding the contributions of the environment on student's achievement, make it increasingly unnecessary to identify inferred "mentalistic constructs" in order to engage in educational problem-solving. The call for retrenchment through the continuation of past assessment practices, the maintenance of strict and narrowly defined eligibility criteria and the addition of regulation and process, no longer suggest the solutions but best states the problem. The


31

solution requires fundamental reform and restructuring of the educational system. Within this system, children will no longer receive special education because they are "broken" but because their diversity, without regard to causation, requires a greater degree of accommodation than is currently available. The special educator's primary function will be to expand the capacity for accommodation via an effective problem-solving model.

Buoyed by our Iowa reception, Stan and I were expressing our hope that special

education practice would ultimately be guided and persuaded by science and the

“disability treatment” model would evolve into an educational DBPM/Pine County

problem-solving model characterized by data-based interventions targeted at achievement

and behavior discrepancies and guided by positive student outcomes. From his

perspective and experience as an academic, trainer, and scientist Stan was optimistic that

a growing and substantial database of scientific evidence would soon result in a

fundamental shift in the current assessment paradigm and delivery model. I said to Stan

that I shared the “audacity” of his hope and had attempted to express it in my handout,

but questioned the rationale for his optimism. From my perspective, special education

eligibility and entitlement was about resource allocation and was best answered by

politicians, not educators. Therefore change would occur only when the system’s

inefficient entitlement decisions caused it to be economically bankrupt necessitating

political action. From my perspective and experience as a practitioner I thought that in

the far future, certainly after I was gone, science, research, data and evidence would

influence and guide change, but they would not cause change. Rather, the system would

only change when it simply could not afford to maintain the entitlements resulting from

the old system. At this time the bright sunshine of science, research, data and evidence

would lead policy makers towards a more enlightened and of course, more cost effective

entitlement system.


32

At that time, I “bet” that a shift to an all school intervention and outcome-based

problem-solving system represented by the Pine County model would not occur in my

lifetime. Stan, ever vigilant where money is concerned, recognized that this was a bet he

liked, since I would have to be dead for him to lose, and of course I would be unable to

accept his payment. The bet was wagered.

With the reauthorization of IDEA in 2004 and the publication of this book, the loss

of the bet is conceded. I am alive and so is an education problem-solving model (RTI).

There is no right way to do a wrong thing

The allocation of needed educational services based on a deviant status

classification system is wrong. The disability is never, never, ever, ever, the educational

problem requiring instructional solution. This perspective results in the wrong labels,

identified with the wrong instruments, given for the wrong purposes, by people trained in

the wrong methodology and implementing the wrong interventions. It creates an

administrative bureaucracy (i.e., special education) that is separate from the general

education system in terms of its funding, administration, staffing, licensing, rules,

curriculum, locations, language, etc. It focuses attention on process, not progress, to the

detriment of all. It perpetuates a model that blames the child for instructional failure,

with the unintended consequence of delaying instructional improvements in the general

education programs. The problem, from an educator’s perspective is always the

discrepancy between a set of expectations for progress/performance and the child's actual

progress/performance. The purpose of assessment is to identify this discrepancy as the

problem, measure and quantify it and measure the response to instruction intended to

reduce or eliminate the discrepancy.


33

What a shame it will be, and what an opportunity lost, if RTI becomes just another

way to define SLD or is defined as a “pre-referral” intervention strategy! RTI is a new

paradigm for educational problem-solving, not a new way of identifying SLD! There

aren't any better psychometric solutions for identifying SLD. Trying to identify SLD as

an internal, child-centered disability is the problem, not the solution. The basic problem

that educators face each day is the natural diversity that is found in a classroom. When

public policy requires the identification of pathology to justify program modification it

lessens general education’s needs to create instructional programs designed to deal with

natural diversity for all students. We need to stop trying to answer political resource

allocation and entitlement questions using psychometric models. Who is SLD is not a

question answered by educators, it is one answered by politicians. If the purpose of

determining eligibility is to improve instruction and increase achievement, then academic

and social skills and the response to instruction is best measured, not pathology. If its

purpose is to justify entitlement, it is a question of resource allocation and best answered

by politicians. Eligibility for SLD is not, has never been, nor will ever be a question best

answered with psychometrics.

In Summary – The Promise of RTI

Scarecrow: The sum of the square roots of any two sides of an isosceles triangle is equal to the square root of the remaining side. Oh joy! Rapture! I got a brain! How can I ever thank you enough? Wizard of Oz: You can't.

In a field whose self-identity has been defined by a deviant status model since the

beginning – eligibility for services is based on a label of deviance – RTI is long overdue.


34

To repeat, RTI is an educational problem-solving process characterized by

systematic and universal screening of all students; early response with high quality and

evidence based instruction and behavior interventions; team decision making based on

and matched to, individual student needs; and frequent, direct and continuous assessment

of progress that is applied to individual educational decisions within a formative

evaluation model. RTI requires all school resources to be aligned and allocated to

provide effective and efficient interventions for the purpose of improving child outcomes.

The provision of instructional and behavior interventions is not limited to those who have

a disability. The existence of disability is removed from the equation and all students are

served on the basis of their need, without regard to causality. Just as medicine does not

make treatment to patients with cancer available, or not available, based on whether the

patient's cancer is primarily caused by genetic or environmental reasons, educators

should not make instructional interventions available to students based on the presumed

etiology of the problem.

A child reading 6 words correct in first-grade materials at the end of Grade 1 is

“educationally handicapped” to the same degree regardless of what is causing the

discrepancy. In an RTI model, instruction is provided along a continuum and special

education and its related and supportive services are operationally defined and provided

to those students demonstrating a need for the services. Movement along the continuum

is based on team decisions formed with data collected from an all school assessment

process using valid and reliable measures and reported on a direct, frequent and

continuous basis.


35

RTI provides a delivery vehicle, now sanctioned by law, consistent with best

practice and based on science that provides an opportunity to chart a new path and create

a new history for special education. Given the manner in which the reauthorization dealt

with RTI it is unclear as to the path that will be taken. The authorization to identify

special education need using an RTI process is strong evidence that we have arrived at a

redefining moment in educational evolution. The idea that students can receive

individualized and special instruction based solely on their needs has never been more

than a remote eventuality. But with the inclusion of RTI in the 2004 IDEA

reauthorization, the idea is no longer relegated to a distant future. It is possible today.

RTI’s authorization is, to be certain, a significant milestone, but it remains unclear

as to where the marker is going to be posted. If it becomes just another procedure to

identify SLD, then it too, is relegated to the “problem” pile, not a part of the solution. I

am hopeful that RTI is neither a solitary nor an isolated event, but rather it marks a

significant event in the politics of dealing with student variance and represents the first

incremental step – and potentially an important one – in a gradual evolution that will

eventually lead to a more enlightened approach to those students with achievement and

behavior problems.

As powerful as the separate components are, the concept of RTI is so much more

than the sum of its parts. Long, long ago, in a galaxy far, far away, I concluded that if

people could be made to experience the diversity of student performance identified

through an all school assessment system and the challenge of providing instruction

matched to all students needs, disability classification would cease to be an important

issue. It would be as the old saying goes that “familiarity breeds affection.” As we


36

became accustomed to dealing with all student variance, disability would vanish as a

concern. Have we finally arrived at a point where disability, even thought it may remain

a potent factor in entitlement decisions in the near future, will not be relevant to the

process of solving children’s achievement and behavior problems?

Scarecrow: I've got a way to get us in there, and you're gonna lead us.

Science claims a search for truth and that would seem to protect it from

conservatism and the irrationality of belief: Science represents a culture of innovation.

Yet when Charles Darwin published his ideas of evolution, he faced fiercer opposition

from his fellow scientists than from religious authorities. His theories challenged too

many fixed ideas and too many strongly held beliefs. Jonas Salk ran into the same wall

with his radical innovations in immunology, as did Max Planck with his revolutionizing

of physics. Planck later wrote of the scientific opposition he faced: “A new scientific

truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but

rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is

familiar with it.”

This book is written for this new generation of school psychologists. There is no

better future in continuing the practices of the past. Will you lead or will you follow?

Dorothy: [as the Wizard's balloon goes off without her] Come back! Come back! Don't leave without me! Come back! Wizard of Oz: I can't come back! I don't know how it works! Good-bye folks!


37

References Deno, E. (1970). Special education as developmental capital. Exceptional Children, 37,

229-237. Deno, S. L., & Mirkin, P. (1977). Data-based program modification: A manual. Reston,

VA: Council for Exceptional Children. Lombard, T. (1988). Curriculum-based measurement: Megatesting or mctesting.:

Minnesota State Department of Education. Tindal, G., Wesson, C., & Deno, S. (1985). The Pine County model for special education

delivery: A data-based system. In T. Kratochwill (Ed.), Advances in school psychology: Volume IV (pp. 223-250). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Earlbaum.

Ysseldyke, J., Thurlow, M., Graden, J., Wesson, C., Algozzine, B., & Deno, S. L. (1983). Generalizations from five years of research on assessment and decision-making: The University of Minnesota Institute. Exceptional Education Quarterly, 4, 75-93.

Documents

Thinking of Yellow-Brick Roads, Emerald Cities and Wizards...Thinking of Yellow-Brick Roads, Emerald Cities and Wizards Gary Germann, Retired Special Education Director To appear in