Download Handbook of response to intervention the science and practice of multi tiered systems of su
Handbook of Response to Intervention
The Science and Practice of Multi
Tiered Systems of Support 2nd Edition
Shane R. Jimerson
Visit to download the full and correct content document: https://textbookfull.com/product/handbook-of-response-to-intervention-the-science-an d-practice-of-multi-tiered-systems-of-support-2nd-edition-shane-r-jimerson/
More products digital (pdf, epub, mobi) instant download maybe you interests ...
Constitutional Asymmetry in Multinational Federalism: Managing Multinationalism in Multi-tiered Systems
This work is subject to copyright. All rights are reserved by the Publisher, whether the whole or part of the material is concerned, specifically the rights of translation, reprinting, reuse of illustrations, recitation, broadcasting, reproduction on microfilms or in any other physical way, and transmission or information storage and retrieval, electronic adaptation, computer software, or by similar or dissimilar methodology now known or hereafter developed.
The use of general descriptive names, registered names, trademarks, service marks, etc. in this publication does not imply, even in the absence of a specific statement, that such names are exempt from the relevant protective laws and regulations and therefore free for general use. The publisher, the authors and the editors are safe to assume that the advice and information in this book are believed to be true and accurate at the date of publication. Neither the publisher nor the authors or the editors give a warranty, express or implied, with respect to the material contained herein or for any errors or omissions that may have been made.
Printed on acid-free paper
Springer Science+Business Media LLC New York is part of Springer Science+Business Media (www.springer.com)
This second edition of the handbook is dedicated to the many professionals who work diligently to educate and enhance the success of students and also to the scholars who inform our understanding of promoting the social and cognitive competence of students at school. By bringing the best of science to professional practice and highlighting lessons learned from implementation efforts across the country, it is hoped that the information presented in this handbook serves as a catalyst that advances the science and practice of assessment and intervention at school and, ultimately, promotes enhanced student outcomes.
Foreword
This handbook of response to intervention (RTI) exceeds all of the lofty goals typically used to describe topical handbooks. Shane Jimerson, Matthew Burns, and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden have edited a book assembling an outstanding group of contributors that form the foundation and pillars for our knowledge on response to intervention or multi-tiered systems of support. Additionally they have organized the content of the book to cover every issue related to response to intervention including the scientific foundations of RTI, psychometric measurement related to RTI, the role of consultation, monitoring response to intervention, using technology to facilitate RTI, and RTI and transition planning. In particular, I am impressed with the emphasis on both problem-solving and standardized approaches to RTI—as well as the breadth of coverage of assessment, progress monitoring, and interventions. Unlike many handbooks, this one provides critical information addressing issues for a range of individuals including school leaders, school psychologists, social workers, counselors, academic specialists, general education, and special education teachers. Anyone working on understanding RTI, whether as a scholar conducting research on this topic or a school practitioner searching for solutions to problems related to successful implementation of RTI, will find research-based practice knowledge in this text.
RTI or multi-tiered systems of support provide a framework for screening students with academic and behavior problems across all grades but with an emphasis on identifying students early who require additional instruction. Within the RTI framework are research-based systems for providing intensive interventions to accelerate students’ progress, assuring all students are provided with high-quality instructions they need to meet the challenging goals of postsecondary education. RTI is beneficial to all educators not just those who have high numbers of students at risk because it assures that students’ educational and behavioral needs are monitored with an action-plan for improved outcomes. While there are many ways to implement RTI well, supporting implementation of RTI is essential because it provides a safety net for our most vulnerable students.
Busy professionals are bombarded with information and sifting through it to determine sources that are worth reading—even studying—is a challenging task. This book is a resource worth reading for even the busiest professional.
Sharon Vaughn University of Texas
Acknowledgments
The editors would like to acknowledge the exceptional efforts of colleagues who contributed to this handbook as authors, and also to Judy Jones and Garth Haller at Springer who were instrumental in bringing this handbook to print. In addition, we are grateful for the extraordinary efforts of numerous individuals who provided reviews of chapters, which further enhanced the quality and contents. The collective efforts of all those involved have resulted in an incredibly informative and valuable second edition of the handbook. Finally, we acknowledge the tremendous support, inspiration, and perspective that our families provided throughout the development of this handbook. The collective adventures, celebrations, and challenges we have shared have enriched each of us. Our sincere appreciation to the following contributors: Kathryn O’Brien, Gavin Jimerson, Taite Jimerson, Mary Beth Burns, Kate Burns, Matthew Burns, Jr., Chad VanDerHeyden, Benjamin VanDerHeyden, and Kate VanDerHeyden.
Preservice Teacher Education and Response to Intervention Within Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: What Can We Learn from Research and Practice? .............................................................. 143
David H. Allsopp, Jennie L. Farmer and David Hoppey
Common Core State Standards and Response to Intervention: The Importance of Assessment, Intervention, and Progress Monitoring 165
Shane R. Jimerson, Rachel Stein, Aaron Haddock and Reza Shahroozi
Part III Tier 1– Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention
Screening Assessment Within a Multi-Tiered System of Support: Current Practices, Advances, and Next Steps ................................... 187
Nathan H. Clemens, Milena A. Keller-Margulis, Timothy Scholten and Myeongsun Yoon
The Role of Tier I Mathematics Instruction in Elementary and Middle Schools: Promoting Mathematics Success .................... 215
Asha K. Jitendra and Danielle N. Dupuis
Classroom Reading Instruction for All Students .............................. 235
Barbara R. Foorman and Jeanne Wanzek
Classwide Intervention Using Peer-Assisted Learning Strategies ... 253
Kristen L. McMaster and Douglas Fuchs
Part IV Tier 2– Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention
Assessment: Periodic Assessment to Monitor Progress .................... 271
Benjamin Silberglitt, David Parker and Paul Muyskens
Problem Analysis at Tier 2: Using Data to Find the Category of the Problem 293
Matthew K. Burns, Kathrin E. Maki, Abbey C. Karich, Matthew Hall, Jennifer J. McComas and Lori Helman
Multilevel Response-to-Intervention Prevention Systems: Mathematics Intervention at Tier 2.................................................... 309
Lyn n S. Fuchs, Douglas Fuchs and Amelia S. Malone
Implementation of Tier 2 Reading Interventions in the Primary Grades 329
Jeanne Wanzek, Stephanie Al Otaiba and Brandy Gatlin
Part V Tier 3– Assessment, Problem Analysis, and Intervention
Progress Monitoring for Students Receiving Intensive Academic Intervention ......................................................................................... 343
David A. Klingbeil, Tera L. Bradley and Jennifer J. McComas
Introduction to Problem Analysis to Identify Tier 3 Interventions: Brief Experimental Analysis of Academic Problems ..............................................................................................
Tier 3 Primary Grade Reading Interventions: Can We Distinguish Necessary from Sufficient?
Stephanie Al Otaiba, Jill Allor, Miriam Ortiz, Luana Greulich, Jeanie Wanzek and Joseph Torgesen
Part VI Contemporary Implementation Science
Assuring the Response to Intervention Process Has Substance: Assessing and Supporting Intervention Implementation ................
George H. Noell and Kristin A. Gansle
Accuracy and Validity of Methods for Identifying Learning Disabilities in a Response-to-Intervention
Jeremy Miciak, Jack M. Fletcher and Karla K. Stuebing
Using Single-Case Design in a Response to Intervention Model ....
T. Ch ris Riley-Tillman and Daniel M. Maggin
Part VII Contemporary Implementation Topics
Gerald Tindal and Julie Alonzo
Educational Technology and Response to Intervention:
Janet S. Twyman and Melinda S. Sota
Response to Intervention for English Learners ................................ 519
Diana Socie and Mike Vanderwood
Essential Features of Tier 2 and 3 School-Wide Positive Behavioral Supports 539
Barbara S. Mitchell, Allison L. Bruhn and Timothy J. Lewis
Implementing Response to Intervention in Secondary Schools 563
Mark R. Shinn, Holly S. Windram and Kerry A. Bollman
Advances in Multi-Tiered Systems of Support for Prekindergarten Children: Lessons Learned from 5 Years of Research and Development from the Center for Response to Intervention in Early Childhood .................................................... 587
Judith J. Carta, Charles R. Greenwood, Howard Goldstein, Scott R. McConnell, Ruth Kaminski, Tracy A. Bradfield, Alisha Wackerle-Hollman, Maura Linas, Gabriela Guerrero, Elizabeth Kelley and Jane Atwater
Teacher Formative Assessment: The Missing Link in Response to Intervention 607
Linda A. Reddy, Christopher M. Dudek and Elisa S. Shernoff
Part VIII Effective Contemporary Models
Challenges Faced by New Implementation Sites: The Role of Culture in the Change Process 627
Daw n Miller and Rachel Freeman
Making Response to Intervention Stick: Sustaining Implementation Past Your Retirement .............................................. 641
Kim Gibbons and W. Alan Coulter
Evaluating the Impact of Response to Intervention in Reading at the Elementary Level Across the State of Pennsylvania 661
Edward S. Shapiro
Data-Based Decision-Making, the Problem-Solving Model, and Response to Intervention in the Minneapolis Public Schools .......... 677 Doug Marston, Matthew Lau, Paul Muyskens and Jennifer Wilson
Implementing Response to Intervention in a Rural Setting............. 693 Renee Guy, Amanda Fields and Lynn Edwards
School-wide Positive Behavior Support and Response to Intervention: System Similarities, Distinctions, and Research to Date at the Universal Level of Support .............................................
Timothy J. Lewis, Barbara S. Mitchell,D. Tichelle Bruntmeyer and George Sugai
Toward a Unified Response-to-Intervention Model: Multi-Tiered Systems of Support 719
Matthew K. Burns, Shane R. Jimerson, Amanda M. VanDerHeyden and Stanley L Deno
About the Editors
Shane R. Jimerson Ph.D. is the chair and professor in the Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology at the University of California, Santa Barbara. Currently, Dr. Jimerson is the editor of School Psychology Quarterly published by the American Psychological Association, and President-Elect of the International School Psychology Association. He was also recently the president of Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. He has contributed over 200 presentations during the past 15 years to diverse audiences of students, scholars, and professionals across more than 25 countries, including, Australia, Bangladesh, Canada, China, Denmark, England, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Greece, Hong Kong, India, Ireland, Jamaica, Japan, Latvia, Lithuania, Macau, Malta, Puerto Rico, the Netherlands, New Zealand, Portugal, Spain, and the USA. Dr. Jimerson is the co-founder of the International Institute of School Psychology (http://mina.education.ucsb.edu/jimerson/IISP/index.html). Among over 300 publications, Dr. Jimerson is the editor of and contributor to a special issue of The California School Psychologist journal addressing the topic of response to intervention and problem-solving strategies, entitled, Response to Interventions Approaches: Supporting Early and Sustained Success for all Students. He is also the lead-editor of The Handbook of School Violence and School Safety: International Research and Practice 2nd Edition (2012, Routledge), co-editor of Best Practices in School Crisis Prevention and Intervention 2nd Edition (2012, National Association of School Psychologists), The Handbook of Bullying in Schools: An International Perspective (2010, Routledge), the lead-editor of The Handbook of International School Psychology (2007, SAGE Publishing), and the lead editor of The Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention (2007, Springer Science). He is also co-author of School Crisis Prevention and Intervention: The PREPaRE Model (2009, National Association of School Psychologists), a co-author of a five-book grief support group curriculum series The Mourning Child Grief Support Group Curriculum (2001, Taylor and Francis), co-author of Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Autism at School (2006, Springer Science), co-author of Identifying, Assessing, and Treating Conduct Disorder at School (2008, Springer Science), co-author of Identifying, Assessing, and Treating PTSD at School (2008, Springer Science), co-author of Identifying, Assessing, and Treating ADHD at School (2009, Springer Science), and co-author of the Promoting Positive Peer Relationships (P3R): Bullying Prevention Program (2008, Stories of Us). He
has also served as the editor of The California School Psychologist journal, associate editor of School Psychology Review, and the editorial boards of numerous journals including the Journal of School Psychology and School Psychology Quarterly. Dr. Jimerson has chaired and served on numerous boards and advisory committees at the state, national, and international levels, including, vice president for Convention Affairs and Public Relations of Division 16 (School Psychology) American Psychological Association, chair of the Research Committee of the International School Psychology Association, chair of the Division 16 (School Psychology) conference proceedings for the American Psychological Association conference, and chair of the School Psychology Research Collaboration Conference. The quality and contributions of his scholarship are reflected in the numerous awards and recognition that he has received. Dr. Jimerson received the Best Research Article of the Year Award from the Society for the Study of School Psychology, in 1998 and then again in 2000. He also received the 2001 Outstanding Article of the Year Award from the National Association of School Psychologists’, School Psychology Review. Also in 2001, he was elected to membership in the Society for the Study of School Psychology. Dr. Jimerson’s scholarly efforts were also recognized by the American Educational Research Association with the 2002 Early Career Award in Human Development. He and his UCSB research team received the 2003 Outstanding Research Award from the California Association of School Psychologists. Also during 2003, Dr. Jimerson received the Lightner Witmer Early Career Contributions Award from Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association. He and his UCSB research team also received the 2004 Outstanding Research Award from the California Association of School Psychologists. In 2006, Dr. Jimerson received the President’s Award for Exemplary Contributions from the California Association of School Psychologists. In 2007, Dr. Jimerson was elected fellow of the American Psychological Association, Division 16 (School Psychology). Dr. Jimerson received the 2010 Outstanding Contributions Award from the American Psychological Association, Division 16 (School Psychology). Dr. Jimerson presented the 2012 Evan Brown Distinguished Lecture at the University of Nebraska, Omaha and also received the 2012 Ronda Talley Distinguished Leader and Advocate Award from Indiana University. In 2013 Dr. Jimerson was elected Fellow of the American Psychological Association, Division 52 (International Psychology) and also received the Outstanding Contributions Award from the American Psychological Association, Division 16 (School Psychology). Dr. Jimerson received the 2014 Award of Excellence for Distinguished Contributions to School Crisis Management from the National Association of School Psychologists and he also received the 2014 Outstanding International Psychologist Award from the American Psychological Association, Division 52 (International Psychology). His international professional and scholarly activities aim to advance and promote science, practice, and policy relevant to school psychology, in an effort to benefit children, families, and communities across the country and throughout the world.
Matthew K. Burns Ph.D. is the Associate Dean for Research and Professor of School Psychology with the College of Education at the University of Missouri. Dr. Burns has published over 200 articles and book chapters in national publications, and has procured over $ 11 million of external funding to support his research. He has also co-authored or co-edited 12 books including Advanced RTI Applications, Volumes 1 and 2, Response to Intervention Implementation in Elementary and Secondary Schools: Procedures to Assure Scientific-Based Practices (2nd edition), A Guide to Refining and Retooling School Psychological Practice in the Era of RtI, Single Case Design for Measuring Response to Educational Intervention, and Curriculum-Based Assessment for Instructional Design: Using Data to Individualize Instruction. Dr. Burns is the editor of School Psychology Review and past editor of Assessment for Effective Intervention. He has received numerous awards including the 2013 Discovery Award for Distinction in Educational Research from the Midwest Instructional Leadership Council and the 2011 Evidence of Scientific Research Education Award from the Minnesota Consortium for Evidence in Education. Finally, Dr. Burns is a highly sought after national speaker and has delivered over 70 invited or keynote presentations to national, regional, or state conferences, and has worked with dozens of schools across the country in implementing response to intervention.
Amanda M. VanDerHeyden Ph.D. is a private consultant and researcher who has directed and evaluated numerous school-wide intervention and reform efforts and her work has been featured on “Education News Parents Can Use” on PBS and The Learning Channel. Dr. VanDerHeyden has held faculty positions at Louisiana State University Health Sciences Center and University of California at Santa Barbara. She is the president of Education Research & Consulting, Inc. in Fairhope. Dr. VanDerHeyden serves as a former scientific advisor to the RTI Action Network at the National Center for Learning Disabilities, iSTEEP (a web-based data management system), and the Center on Innovations in Learning. She is a former guest and standing panel member for the Institute for Education Sciences at the U.S. Department of Education, and serves on the board of trustees for the Southwest Development Laboratory (SEDL, one of 10 regional laboratories funded by the US Department of Education). Dr. VanDerHeyden has published more than 70 scholarly articles and chapters, 6 books, and has given keynote addresses to state school psychology associations and state departments of education in 22 states. She is the co-author of the Evidence-Based Mathematics Innovation Configuration for the National Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality at Vanderbilt University and now the Collaborator for Effective Education Development, Accountability, and Reform at University of Florida. Her most recent book (The RTI Approach to Evaluating Learning Disabilities) was featured at a forum for policymakers hosted by the National Center for Learning Disabilities as a best-practice guide for identifying and serving children with Learning Disabilities in October of 2013 in New York, NY. She actively conducts research focused on improving learning outcomes for students and her scholarly work has been recognized in the form of article of the year award in 2007 from Journal of School Psychology, the Lightner Witmer Early Career
Contributions Award from Division 16 (School Psychology) of the American Psychological Association, and her 2012 induction into the 100-member Society for the Study of School Psychology.
Contributors
Jill Allor Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
David H. Allsopp Tampa, USA
Julie Alonzo University of Oregon, Eugene, USA
Scott P. Ardoin Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Jane Atwater University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
Kathryn E. Bangs Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Kerry A. Bollman TIES, Cleveland Heights, USA
Tracy A. Bradfield University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Tera L. Bradley Boling Center for Developmental Disabilities, Memphis, USA
Allison L. Bruhn University of Iowa, Iowa City, USA
D. Tichelle Bruntmeyer University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
Matthew K. Burns Department of Educational Psychology, University of Missouri, Missouri, USA
University of Missouri, Minneapolis, USA
University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Judith J. Carta University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
Nathan H. Clemens Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
Robin S. Codding University of Massachusetts-Boston, Boston, USA
Melissa Coolong-Chaffin University of Wisconsin—Eau Claire, Eau Claire, USA
University of Wisconsin, Eau Claire, USA
W. Alan Coulter TIERS Group, Human Development Center, LSU Health Sciences Center—New Orleans, New Orleans, LA, USA
Stanley L. Deno Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minnesota, USA
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Christopher M. Dudek Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
Danielle N. Dupuis Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Lynn Edwards University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
William P. Erchul Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Jennie L. Farmer Tampa, USA
Amanda Fields Luverne Public Schools, Luverne, USA
Jack M. Fletcher Department of Psychology and Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Barbara R. Foorman Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Jeremy W. Ford Boise State University, Idaho, USA
Rachel Freeman University of Minneosota, Minneapolis, USA
Douglas Fuchs Peabody College of Vanderbilt University, Nashville, USA
Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Lynn S. Fuchs Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Kristin A. Gansle Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Brandy Gatlin Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Maribeth Gettinger University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
Kim Gibbons St. Croix River Education District, Rush City, MN, USA
Howard Goldstein University of South Florida, Tampa, FL, USA
Charles R. Greenwood University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
Luana Greulich Andrews University, Berrien Springs, USA
Gabriela Guerrero University of Kansas, Kansas City, KS, USA
Renee Guy Luverne Public Schools, Luverne, USA
Aaron Haddock University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Matthew Hall University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Lori Helman University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Kiersten Hensley Minnesota State University, Mankato, MN, USA
David Hoppey Tampa, USA
John L. Hosp University of Iowa, Iowa, USA
Sally Huddle Iowa Wesleyan College, Iowa, USA
Shane R. Jimerson University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA
Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Asha K. Jitendra Department of Educational Psychology, University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Ruth Kaminski Dynamic Measurement Group, Eugene, OR, USA
Abbey C. Karich University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Milena A. Keller-Margulis University of Houston, Houston, USA
Elizabeth Kelley University of MIssouri, Minneapolis, MN, USA
David A. Klingbeil University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee, Milwaukee, USA
Joseph F. Kovaleski Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, USA
Matthew Lau Minneapolis Public Schools, Minneapolis, USA
Timothy J. Lewis University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
David J. Lillenstein Derry Township (PA) School District, Hershey, USA
Maura Linas University of Kansas, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Daniel M. Maggin University of Illinois at Chicago, Chicago, USA
Kathrin E. Maki University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Amelia S. Malone Vanderbilt University, Nashville, TN, USA
Doug Marston Minneapolis Public Schools, Minneapolis, USA
Ryan Martin University of Massachusetts-Boston, Boston, USA
Jennifer J. McComas University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Scott R. McConnell University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Kristen L. McMaster University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Jeremy Miciak Department of Psychology and Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
Dawn Miller University of Kansas, Lawrence, USA
Barbara S. Mitchell University of Missouri, Columbia, USA
Paul Muyskens TIES, Saint Paul, USA
Minneapolis Public Schools, Minneapolis, USA
George H. Noell Louisiana State University, Baton Rouge, LA, USA
Stephanie Al Otaiba Southern Methodist University, Dallas, TX, USA
Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
Miriam Ortiz Southern Methodist University, Dallas, USA
David Parker ServeMinnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Linda A. Reddy Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
Amy L. Reschly University of Georgia, Athens, USA
T. Chris Riley-Tillman University of Missouri, Columbia, MO, USA
Kay Rosheim University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Timothy J. Runge Indiana University of Pennsylvania, Indiana, USA
Timothy Scholten Ossining Union Free School District, New York, USA
Ann C. Schulte T. Denny Sanford School of Social and Family Dynamics, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ, USA
Reza Shahroozi University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Edward S. Shapiro Center for Promoting Research to Practice, Lehigh University, Bethlehem, USA
Elisa S. Shernoff Rutgers University, New Brunswick, USA
Mark R. Shinn National Louis University, Chicago, USA
Benjamin Silberglitt TIES, Saint Paul, USA
Diana Socie University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
Melinda S. Sota Illinois, USA
Rachel Stein University of California, Santa Barbara, USA
Karen C. Stoiber Univerisity of Wisconsin, Milwaukee, WI, USA
Karla K. Stuebing Department of Psychology and Texas Institute for Measurement, Evaluation, and Statistics, University of Houston, Houston, TX, USA
George Sugai University of Connecticut, Storrs, USA
Gerald Tindal University of Oregon, Eugene, USA
Joseph Torgesen Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Janet S. Twyman University of Massachusetts Medical School/Shriver Center and The Center on Innovations in Learning, NY, UK
Amanda M. VanDerHeyden Education Research & Consulting, Inc., Fairhope, AL, USA
Mike Vanderwood University of California, Riverside, CA, USA
Alisha Wackerle-Hollman University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN, USA
Liliana Wagner Department of Educational Psychology, University of Georgia, Athens, Georgia
Jeanie Wanzek Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, USA
Jeanne Wanzek Florida Center for Reading Research, Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Florida State University, Tallahassee, FL, USA
Caryn S. Ward University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, USA
Jennifer Wilson University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, USA
Holly S. Windram Hope Network, Michigan Education Corps, Grand Rapids, USA
Myeongsun Yoon Texas A&M University, College Station, USA
From Response to Intervention to Multi-Tiered Systems of Support: Advances in the Science and Practice of Assessment and Intervention
Shane R. Jimerson, Matthew K. Burns and Amanda M. VanDerHeyden
The 2004 reauthorization of the federal Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA 2004) permitted a choice when diagnosing a specific learning disability (SLD) between (a) demonstrating continued poor performance when the student is provided with a research-based intervention and (b) conducting an assessment to demonstrate a pattern of strengths and weaknesses, which could include ability–achievement discrepancy (PL 108–446, Part B, Sec 614(b)(6) (b)). The federal regulations still required, as they always have, documentation of low achievement, a determination that the student’s academic deficiencies were not the result of other disabilities or situational factors, and that learning deficiencies were not the result of insufficient instruction. The 2004 federal provision also allowed for response to intervention (RTI) to be used as part of the SLD identification process. Thus, an idea that had been discussed for years suddenly became a part of special education regulations (Gresham 2007).
Shortly after RTI was included in federal special education regulations, many school personnel realized that they did not have effective assessment tactics to evaluate these criteria when determining
S. R. Jimerson ()
University of California, Santa Barbara, CA, USA e-mail: Jimerson@education.ucsb.edu
M. K. Burns
University of Missouri, Minneapolis, USA
A. M. VanDerHeyden
Education Research & Consulting, Inc., Fairhope, AL, USA
eligibility. The research base for RTI provided a set of codified tools and tactics that improved decision accuracy and student learning and made apparent when alternative causes of poor achievement could not be ruled out during the eligibility process (e.g., given instruction, the student’s performance improves so poor instruction as a cause of low achievement cannot be ruled out). Better procedures and tactics to directly assess and rule out inadequate instruction as a cause of low achievement both enhanced decision accuracy and improved student learning. Today, many education professionals recognize that RTI involves universal screening, evidence-based instructional programming and curricula, routine progress monitoring of all students, increasingly intensive supplemental support and intervention for struggling students, and effective teaming practices; indeed, there have been many advances since 2004.
Policy documents and federal legislation governing educational service delivery over the past two decades have shifted to reduce the gap between instruction and evaluation. Recently, Kovaleski et al. (2013) discussed how to use RTI to determine eligibility for special education under the category of SLD and described the language used in Senate reports leading up to the passage of IDEA 2004 and No Child Left Behind (NCLB) 2004 as mutually referential. The revisions to IDEA were intended to advance the learning of all struggling students via high-quality, evidencebased instruction, to conduct effective primary prevention through regular screening and intervention support in general education, and to
permit more accurate identification of children requiring special education under the SLD label. Contemporary educational policy language is aspirational and geared toward delivering results for all students and especially for students who might otherwise struggle academically and experience academic failure. Educational systems have shifted to value consequential validity (Kane 2013; Messick 1995) and to focus on diagnostic markers and processes that produce value for students who are made eligible for services. Scientifically informed and converging efforts in general and special education highlight the need and opportunity for enhanced prevention efforts directed at improving the proficiency of all students, frequent monitoring of and enhancement of the adequacy of the instructional system, emphasizing selection of evidence-based instructional strategies, fine-tuning of identification and eligibility decisions, and enhanced intensity of instructional offerings in special education. Identifying systemic and individual child needs, subsequently providing targeted interventions, and monitoring reduced risk and student growth (the core tenets of RTI) which were only emerging in 2006 when the first edition of this book was published, have now firmly arrived as best practices in enhancing student achievement.
Current Practices to Enhance Student Achievement
When the first edition of this book was written, RTI referred to a system of loosely grouped techniques accomplishing screening, progress monitoring, intervention delivery, and data-driven decision-making. RTI, with some variability, was being widely used and studied in several states. Currently, all 50 states encourage RTI for prevention purposes and a large and growing number of states allow the use of RTI for the identification of learning disabilities (Fuchs and Vaughn 2012; Zirkel and Thomas 2010) (for examples of state RTI initiatives, see Table 1).
Since the first edition of this book appeared, there has been a virtual explosion of RTI practices such that RTI structures and tenets are
now considered foundational to best practices in school psychology (Ysseldyke et al. 2006) and consultation in schools (Reschly and Reschly 2014). RTI has been the focus of professional development efforts in nearly every state (Spectrum K–12 School Solutions 2010). The US Department of Education has funded resource and technical assistance centers (e.g., National Center on Response to Intervention, National Center on Intensive Intervention, National Center on Progress Monitoring, National Center on Early Childhood Response to Intervention) and has prepared practice guides on the use of RTI in schools via the What Works Clearinghouse at the Institute of Education Sciences (Gersten et al. 2008). Advocacy groups (National Center for Learning Disabilities) and professional educational associations (National Association of State Directors of Special Education, Chief State School Officers’ Association, National Association of School Psychologists, Council for Exceptional Children) have given attention to RTI as a foundation in serving the educational needs of all students, including students who are vulnerable to failure. RTI processes typically include a data-based framework for decision-making, use of a problem-solving process across all levels of the system, and a team-based approach for leading, planning, and evaluating intervention effects (Hawken et al. 2008). Common core standards that are stable and rigorous have been adopted by most states and are consonant with the aspirations of NCLB and IDEA that all students master essential learning objectives by the conclusion of their formal education in the USA. Perhaps most notably, RTI implementations have merged with school improvement or school reform efforts and have been retitled multi-tiered systems of support (MTSS).
Several changes have occurred in K–12 schools as a result of research and policy changes. Curricula have emerged that incorporate assessments to evaluate skill mastery and learning progress and provide lesson supplement plans to assist teachers in layering more intensive instruction to improve student learning (O’Connor et al. 2005). Universal screening systems, once relatively rare and researcher-developed, are now
Table 1 Examples of state response to intervention and multi-tiered system of support initiatives
Minnesota—http://education.state.mn.us/MDE/EdExc/StandImplToolkit/Exploration/CriticalCompMTSS/index.html Mississippi—https://www.mbaea.org/en/multitiered_systems_of_support_mtss/ Missouri—http://mimschools.org/ Montana—http://opi.mt.gov/Programs/SchoolPrograms/rti/index.html Nebraska—http://rtinebraska.unl.edu/ Nevada—http://www.doe.nv.gov/SPED_Response_Intervention/ New Hampshire—http://www.education.nh.gov/innovations/rti/index.htm
New Jersey—http://www.state.nj.us/education/ New Mexico—http://www.ped.state.nm.us/rti/index.html New York—http://www.nysrti.org/ North Carolina—http://www.learnnc.org/lp/pages/6880 North Dakota—http://www.dpi.state.nd.us/speced1/personnel/implement.shtm Ohio—https://education.ohio.gov/Topics/Special-Education/Federal-and-State-Requirements/ Procedures-and-Guidance/Evaluation/Instruction-and-Intervention-Supported-by-Scientif Oklahoma—http://www.ok.gov/sde/oklahoma-tiered-intervention-system-support-otiss Oregon—http://www.ode.state.or.us/search/page/?id=315 Pennsylvania—http://www.pattan.net/category/Educational%20Initiatives/Response%20to%20Instruction%20 and%20Intervention%20%28RtII%29
Rhode Island—http://www.ride.ri.gov/InstructionAssessment/InstructionalResources/ResponsetoIntervention.aspx South Carolina—http://ed.sc.gov/agency/programs-services/173/ResponsetoInterventionRTI.cfm South Dakota—http://doe.sd.gov/oess/sped_RtI.aspx
Washington—http://www.k12.wa.us/RTI/ West Virginia—http://wvde.state.wv.us/osp/RtIOSP.html Wisconsin—http://rti.dpi.wi.gov/ Wyoming—http://edu.wyoming.gov/rti/
commonly used in many schools (Kettler et al. 2014).
Research and implementation efforts in RTI have also made apparent some of the threats to validity that certainly have existed for many years and remain pertinent today (e.g., intervention implementation integrity). The criterion that was new to the 2004 reauthorization and 2006 federal regulations was criterion 2 (use of RTI vs. use of cognitive battery of assessment to document strengths and weaknesses) and has been the focus of some controversy and debate (Colker 2013).
Context for the Current Edition
In the first edition of this book, contributing authors highlighted the historical emergence of RTI as a practice for serving struggling students, reducing student risk, increasing student achievement, and generating data that could permit earlier and more accurate identification of students in need of special education services. The emergence of RTI has been described as a logical evolution of best practices in education and in school psychology (Reschly 1988). Seminal scholarly articles, policy reports, and legislative language note several catalysts in the emergence of RTI as both an eligibility determination and student achievement improvement tool, many of which were highlighted in chapters in the first edition of this book (e.g., Gresham 2007; Kratochwill et al. 2007). First, a substantial research base scientifically discredited traditional SLD diagnostic practices as lacking validity and potentially causing greater harm than benefit to students as a result of misdiagnosis and weak outcomes for this group of vulnerable students. Second, concerns about general educational achievement in the USA, es-
pecially in the area of reading, raised concerns about the adequacy of instructional practices to establish minimal proficiencies for most students. Third, the rapid proliferation of the SLD diagnosis in concert with relatively weak evidence that the diagnosis led to specialized interventions that produced meaningful gains for the students receiving the diagnosis (Kavale and Forness 1999) raised questions about the value of the eligibility decision for students and whether eligibility and subsequent services caused these students to experience better outcomes than they would have experienced without eligibility. Fourth, the availability of short-term brief assessments to assess the overall health of the educational program, to monitor learning progress of students, and to permit midstream adjustments to instruction to improve learning were widely studied and readily available to educators. Fifth, more rigorous research evaluations and research meta-analyses and syntheses identified effective interventions that could be deployed to prevent failure for students who were experiencing academic risk.
In the 8 years since the first edition of this book, RTI implementation has grown and evaluation efforts show some promising findings. For the first time in the existence of the category, eligibility for special education under the category of SLD has declined. In 1980, approximately 10 % of students aged 3–21 years were diagnosed with an SLD, and that number increased each year until it reached 13.8 % in 2004–2005, but it then started to decrease for the first time since SLD was included in IDEA to 13.7 % in 2005–2006, 13.6 % in 2006–2007, 13.4 % in 2007–2008, to 13.0 % in 2010–2011 (US Department of Education, National Center for Educational Statistics 2013). In the first edition of the book, authors noted a need for more rigorous evaluations of interventions, study of RTI practices in preschools
and secondary settings, use of RTI practices to promote learning in content areas other than reading. In the 8 years since the first edition of this book, rapid progress has been made in identification of effective interventions, development of practices and tools for use in preschool and secondary settings, and in mathematics.
In this second edition of the handbook, chapters describing the evolved and more rigorous research base for which a need was noted in 2007 are presented. First, chapters are organized according to foundations of science and practice, which provide chapters regarding the basic and applied research that led to RTI. Second, chapters are organized according to assessment, problem analysis, and intervention for each of the three tiers. The chapters that summarize practice as contemporary implementation science to bring in information from a relatively new branch of professional knowledge, but then also provided examples of novel applications and effective practices with chapters regarding contemporary issues and effective contemporary practices are also included. Each chapter was required to include some data to support their claims. Some of the chapters include experimental or quasi-experimental designs and some include surveys or case studies, but all of the conclusions are supported with data. Finally, in the authors’ efforts to advance both science and practice, each chapter includes a table that highlights the implications for practice.
Future Direction and Challenges
Research outlined in this book and previously conducted highlights potential threats to validity of decisions made with RTI data, could negatively affect student outcomes, and present opportunities for future research. Over-assessment is a near-ubiquitous reality in most school systems. Many children are exposed to multiple early literacy screening measures that tend to have highly correlated scores and do not offer improved accuracy of decision-making as a result of their use. The collection of too much data complicates data interpretation and can introduce delays and error into the decision-making process. Collection of
assessment data is resource intensive and comes at a direct cost to available instructional time. Additionally, very liberal cut scores designed to limit false-negative errors at screening create inflated numbers of students who appear to require intervention. Inefficient cut scores are burdensome to the system, complicate intervention support and deployment, and often compromise intervention effects. Research translating and supporting smarter screening procedures are needed to enhance efficiency of assessment and decision-making within RTI. Second, some of the criticisms levied against problem-solving teams (e.g., inconsistency in implementation, not following a problem-solving framework; Burns et al. 2005) are also applicable to grade-level teams, professional learning communities, and other school-based teams. In fact, although the research regarding problem-solving teams suggests inconsistent results, the effectiveness of Professional Learning Communities (PLCs) has yet to be thoroughly examined in the extant research. Finally, more research is needed to ensure better integrity of interventions, decision-making rules, and problem-solving processes.
Conclusions
Educational practices related to RTI continue to be modified, amidst an increasing array of resources that synthesize essential knowledge regarding the conceptual and empirical underpinnings of RTI and actual implementation. The IDEA legislation and many RTI initiatives during the past two decades continue to serve as a catalyst for further efforts and future scholarship to advance understanding of the science and practice of assessment and intervention at school. The Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (Jimerson et al. 2016) provides a collection of chapters that address essential aspects and aim to enhance the future developments of RTI, toward facilitating enhanced student outcomes. Whereas the roots of RTI are discernible in a research base that stretches back over the past 40 years in the areas of behavior analysis, precision
teaching, direct instruction, curriculum-based assessment, measurement, and evaluation, and effective teaching, RTI remains an evolving science of decision-making. It is the authors’ intent that this second edition of the Handbook of Response to Intervention: The Science and Practice of Multi-Tiered Systems of Support (2016) advance both science and practice, and enhance the lives of the children they serve.
References
Burns, M. K., Christ, T. J., & Ysseldyke, J. E. (2005). Conceptual confusion within response-to-intervention vernacular: Clarifying meaningful differences. NASP Communiqué, 34 (3), 1.
Colker, R. (2013). Disabled education: A critical analysis of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. New York: NYU Press.
Fuchs, L. S., & Vaughn, S. (2012). Responsiveness-tointervention: A decade later. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 45, 195–203.
Gersten, R., Compton, D., Connor, C. M., Dimino, J., Santoro, L., Linan-Thompson, S., & Tilly, W. D. (2008). Assisting students struggling with reading: Response to intervention and multi-tier intervention for reading in the primary grades. A practice guide (NCEE 2009-4045). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education. http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/publications/ practiceguides/. Accessed 15 Nov 2004.
Gresham, F. M. (2007). Evolution of the RTI concept: Empirical foundations and recent developments. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), The handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention New York: Springer.
Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportunities. Journal of Emotional and Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213–225. Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (2004). Public Law 108–446 108th Congress. Online at http://idea.ed.gov/download/statute.html. Accessed 15 Nov 2004.
Jimerson, S. R., Burns, M. K., & VanDerHeyden, A. M. (Eds.). (2016). Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of multi-tiered systems of support (2nd ed.). New York: Springer Science.
Kane, M. (2013). The argument-based approach to validation. School Psychology Review, 42, 448–457.
Kavale, K. A., & Forness, S. R. (1999). Efficacy of special education and related services. Washington, DC: American Association on Mental Retardation.
Kettler, R. J., Glover, T. A., Albers, C. A., & FeeneyKettler, K. A. (2014). An introduction to universal screening in educational settings. In R. J. Kettler, T. A. Glover, C. A. Albers, & K. A. Feeney-Kettler (Eds.), Universal screening in educational settings: Evidencebased decision making for schools (pp. 3–17). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
Kovaleski, J., VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The RTI approach to evaluating learning disabilities. New York: Guilford Publications.
Kratochwill, T. R., Clements, M. A., & Kalymon, K. M. (2007). Response to intervention: Conceptual and methodological issues in implementation. In S. R. Jimerson, M. K. Burns, & A. M. VanDerHeyden (Eds.), Handbook of response to intervention: The science and practice of assessment and intervention (pp. 25–52). New York: Springer Science.
Messick, S. (1995). Standards of validity and the validity of standards in performance assessment. Educational Measurement: Issues and Practice, 14(4), 5–8.
O’Connor, R. E., Fulmer, D., Harty, K., & Bell, K. (2005). Layers of reading intervention in kindergarten through third grade: Changes in teaching and child outcomes. Journal of Learning Disabilities, 38, 440–455. doi:10. 1177/00222194050380050701.
Reschly, D. J. (1988). Special education reform: School psychology revolution. School Psychology Review, 17, 459–475.
Reschly, A. L., & Reschly, D. J. (2014). School consultation and response to intervention: Convergence, divergence, and future directions for research and practice. In W. P. Erchul & S. M. Sheridan (Eds.), Handbook of research in school consultation (2nd ed., pp. 495–512). New York: Routledge.
Spectrum K-12 School Solutions. (2010). Response to intervention adoption survey 2010. Eagan: Scantron. U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education Statistics. (2013). Digest of education statistics, 2012 (NCES 2014–015). Washington, DC: author.
Ysseldyke, J., Burns, M., Dawson, P., Kelley, B., Morrison, D., Ortiz, S., Rosenfield, S., & Telzrow, C. (2006). School psychology: A blueprint for training in practice III. Bethesda: National Association of School Psychologists.
Zirkel, P. A., & Thomas, L. B. (2010). State laws and guidelines for implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43(1), 60–73.
Part I
Foundations of Science
Data-Based Decision-Making
Stanley L. Deno
The use of data to make decisions is both central and basic in the response to intervention (RTI) approach. While data are central to effective RTI, the procedures for basing RTI decisions on data are complicated and varied. The purpose of this chapter is to consider core ideas of data-based decision-making in RTI, to provide a perspective on issues related to data-based decision-making, and to recommend procedures for maximizing success in data-based decision-making.
Why Data-Based Decisions? A Personal Story
Early in the my tenure as a faculty member at the University of Minnesota, I was fortunate to receive funding to develop a collaborative training program for special education teachers in a nearby Minneapolis elementary school (Seward Elementary). A primary feature of that project involved spending my days in the school to help create a noncategorical special education resource program by disestablishing two segregated special classes. At the time, the setting was referred to as a university field station, and my role included working there each day with six to eight university students. The goal for the university students was to learn how to function in,
S. L. Deno ()
University of Minnesota, Minneapolis, MN 55455-0364, USA
e-mail: denox001@umn.edu
what was then, a new special education program model in which students with high-incidence disabilities would spend most of their days in general education classrooms rather than special classes and receive supplementary instruction from resource teachers.
The role and procedures for functioning as special education resource teachers in such a setting were, as yet, undeveloped. And so the author’s job was to develop both program and the role requirements for the resource teachers in training. The primary goal of our work there was to create a supportive academic program for all special education students that would enable them to acquire basic academic skills in reading, writing, and arithmetic. Since the students, now integrated, presented significant management challenges for their teacher, it was also necessary to develop the capacity of the teachers to address the social behavior of the special education students. In the approach to teacher education, each university student assumed responsibility for the programs of several of the Seward special education students who were now integrated into general education classrooms. My role was to provide direction and support for the university students as they assumed responsibility for designing the special education students’ programs and that, typically, included supplementary tutoring.
Moving ahead in this project, the decision that was most challenging for me was the type of instructional program that the university students would use in attempting to increase the basic skills
Another random document with no related content on Scribd:
G V. P 18.
BROOM HOLDER
G V P 19
BENCH HOOK
RIGHT AND LEFT HAND
G VI. P 20.
TEAPOT BLOCKS (BLANK MODEL—TO
BE MODIFIED)
SUGGESTIONS
STOCK 3⁄4″ THICK
G VI. P 21.
THERMOMETER BACK (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
G VI. P 22.
CALENDAR MOUNT (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
DESIGNED BY GORDON KELLAR
G VI
23
CARD HOLDER (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
SUGGESTIONS
G VI. P 24.
BILL FILE (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
30d WIRE BOX NAIL
GLUE
VI
HANDKERCHIEF BOX (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
MODIFIED EDGES TOP-BOTTOM TOP-BOTTOM TOP
G
GLOVE BOX (BLANK MODEL TO BE MODIFIED)
MODIFIED EDGES TOP-BOTTOM TOP-BOTTOM TOP TOP-BOTTOM
