|
|
How is RTI used in Oregon?
Oregon's Response to Intervention
Initiative (Or- RTI)
Tigard-Tualatin School District has developed a
"Response to Intervention" (RTI) training program for ODE
(Oregon Dept. of Ed.). Tigard-Tualatin has implemented the key components
of the RTI approach for nearly five years and as a result has valuable
experience that will aid the Department in disseminating their nationally
recognized resources and knowledge statewide.
Five school districts have been selected to participate in
Or-RTI. The five districts chosen demonstrated commitment to the RTI
process, long- term goals for their district, and the resources needed to
carry through a major systems change. They are: Sheridan School District,
Ontario School District, Roseburg School District, Corvallis School
District, and Pendleton School District.
The purpose of this project is to provide training,
technical assistance, and guidance to school districts that would like to
implement the RTI system of prevention and eligibility determination
district-wide. The project will focus on training and technical
assistance to establish school and district capacity to implement and
sustain RTI systems in Oregon.
Nine districts that applied for the OrRTI grant but did not
receive it are now receiving grant money to bring their districts to a
higher level of readiness for RTI. These schools districts had many of
the components in place that create an appropriate environment for RTI
implementation, but needed some extra assistance to be ready for initial
training. The grant monies will be used to fund various projects in the
districts, from teaming between general education and special education
teachers and administrators to purchasing supplementary curricula. The
nine districts receiving grants are: Banks, Bethel, Hood River, Ione,
Lebanon, Medford, North Clackamas, Nyssa, and Woodburn.
On January 27th, ODE and the Confederation of Oregon
School Administrators (COSA) teamed up to create a day of "Action
Planning for RTI Readiness." Presenters from the University of
Oregon and ODE spoke about topics such as school-wide screening and
progress monitoring and tying assessment to core and supplementary curricula.
ODE and COSA will be holding another
RTI conference on May 19th in Eugene. Please look for
information on the COSA Web site: www.cosa.k12.or.us Find out more....
|
|
|
|
Greetings!
LDA of Oregon has
elected new officers!
President: Kristina Breaux, Ph.D.
Vice-President: Larry Bruseau
Secretary: Linda Stenberg, LPC
Treasurer: Kim Barton
National LDA Conference
in Jacksonville:
"Response to intervention" and
the determination of a specific learning disability was a hot topic at
this year's national LDA conference. Among all the controvery and
confusion, we want to keep you informed. Keep in mind, the federal
definition of "specific learning disability" remains unchanged;
however, states and school districts may differ considerably in the
criteria used to identify learning disabilities and determine eligibility
for services.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
· What is RTI?
|
|
|
In recent years, a problem-solving approach
referred to as responsiveness to intervention (RTI) has received
increased attention as a process of remedial interventions that can help
generate data to guide instruction and identify students with learning
disabilities (LD) who may require special education and related services.
Core concepts include the systematic (1) application of scientific,
research- based interventions in general education; (2) measurement of
student responses to the interventions; and (3) use of the response data
to change the intensity or type of subsequent intervention.
Historically, RTI refines earlier
initiatives such as prereferral intervention and teacher assistance
teams. Recent interest in RTI has emerged from concern about the
inadequacies of the ability- achievement discrepancy criterion for
identifying LD, the need to reduce referrals to special education by
using well-designed instruction and intensified interventions in general
education, and the recent NICHD-coordinated research on early reading
difficulties indicating that early intervention could significantly
reduce reading problems in students. IDEA 2004 now includes language
permitting the use of data from a process that determines if the child
responds to scientific, research-based intervention as part of the
evaluation procedures as an alternative criterion to the
ability-achievement discrepancy. In addition, up to 15% of Part B funds
can be used for "early intervening services...[for those needing]
additional academic and behavioral support..."
Although there is no universal RTI
model, it is generally understood to include multiple tiers that provide
a sequence of programs and services for students showing academic
difficulties. Briefly, Tier 1 provides high-quality instruction and
behavioral supports in general education, Tier 2 provides more
specialized instruction for students whose performance and rate of
progress lag behind classroom peers, and Tier 3 provides comprehensive
evaluation by a multidisciplinary team to determine if the student has a
disability and is eligible for special education and related services.
Although parent participation is widely
recognized as essential to improving educational outcomes for students,
many parents express concern about whether ongoing, meaningful
involvement will occur in an RTI model. How will they be included in
state and local planning? Involved in all phases of an RTI process?
Informed of their referral rights? Will their child's education depend
more on their own knowledge and initiative than on school efforts?
Certainly, positive parent-school partnerships will depend on commitment
by both home and education professionals.
Potential benefits cited by RTI
proponents include (1) earlier identification of students with LD using a
problem-solving approach rather than an ability- achievement discrepancy
formula with the expectation of minimizing "wait to fail," (2)
reduction in the number of students referred for special education, (3)
reduction in the overidentification of minority students, (4) data that
are maximally relevant to instruction, (5) focus on student outcomes with
increased accountability, and (6) promotion of shared responsibility and
collaboration. While RTI seems to encourage addressing the needs of
students at risk, the use of RTI for eligibility purposes has raised
questions about whether RTI is prone to systemic errors in identifying
students with LD. For example, some high-ability students with
intellectual strengths and support may achieve in the normal range and be
denied the individualized instruction enabling them to make academic
progress consistent with their ability.
Although it is generally agreed that RTI
can identify a pool of at-risk students, it does not appear to be
sufficient to identify a specific learning disability. It may, however,
serve as an important component of an evaluation for special education
eligibility. Research data from large-scale implementation of RTI are
needed to determine the efficacy of RTI for differentiating a specific
learning disability from other disabilities and students without
disabilities. Before implementation of an RTI approach, many issues about
the structure and components to be used, as well as how students will
move through the process, must be addressed and efficacy research
conducted. In selecting the number of tiers and instructional options,
and timelines to be used, models will vary along a flexibility-rigidity
continuum. The result will affect such factors as degree of
individualization, cost of staff resources, and likelihood of replication.
Factors that affect movement within and between tiers, such as cut
scores, timelines for team decision-making, and where interventions are
provided must also be resolved so that access to services is maximized
and delay of services, including special education, is avoided.
Ensuring availability of needed
resources is also an important step prior to implementation. What space
and materials will be required? How will student and teacher schedules be
affected? What time must be allowed for phase-in and professional
development? How will the impact of increased documentation requirements
be minimized? Especially unclear is the answer to the question of whether
costs will increase or decrease and by how much. Although NJCLD has long
been concerned about professional preparation, RTI approaches will
require new or changed roles for administrators, general education and
special education teachers, and related services personnel. Questions
arise about how needed professional development will be determined, provided,
and followed-up. What are the specific competencies required to provide
high quality scientific, research-based interventions, continuous
progress monitoring, and timely recognition of nonresponsiveness in
general education? What types of field experience and mentoring are most
helpful to novice and practicing teachers? How will collaborative skills
be fostered within the culture of the school?
Once vital competencies are determined,
the question of what documentation can ensure that those competencies are
actually in the repertoire of professionals must be asked. Does state
licensure address the needed competencies or are alternate certification,
Board certification, or other formal documentation of competence useful?
A related, and growing, personnel problem is the difficulty recruiting
and retaining highly qualified teachers, especially when career ladders
have not proved effective and advanced certification often results in
teachers moving out of the classroom. It is not yet known whether the new
responsibilities of RTI will motivate teachers to stay in classrooms.
Research on RTI has primarily focused on
intervention studies that investigate the delivery and efficacy of
instructional methods and materials or on field studies that explore the
instructional components that might be incorporated into an RTI approach.
Intervention studies, many of which have been conducted by the NICHD,
formed the basis for the provision in IDEA 2004 that permits "use of
a process that determines if the child responds to scientific,
research-based intervention as part of the evaluation procedures"
for identifying LD. Focusing on early skills in decoding, these studies
have shown that many evidence-based early reading programs are equally
effective, if instruction is focused, uses small groups, ensures high
response rates, includes immediate feedback, and follows a sequential
mastery of topics. Field studies of RTI have explored the actual
practices applied in problem-solving approaches using either standard
protocols or individualized interventions. Although existing studies have
found changes in the way support services were used and identified a
lower proportion of minority students as having LD, many key questions
have not yet been addressed. These include student success rates over
time and the numbers of children beyond third grade receiving continued
interventions or returning to general education, as well as the effects
of various criteria for adequate response to intervention and achievement
norms or benchmarks based on classroom, local, or state criteria on
eligibility for tiers or for special education and related services.
Of special interest is the work of the
National Research Center on Learning Disabilities, which is seeking to identify
and study medium- and large- scale RTI sites that use best practice and
meet criteria enabling replication. Using these as pilot sites, the goal
is to recognize RTI models that demonstrate improved achievement in
students with and without disabilities beyond the primary years and
assist others in adopting such proven models. While the need for such
research and evaluation is pressing, it is also an enormously complex
undertaking. Large-scale implementation of RTI will vary widely depending
on factors such as the selection and fidelity of interventions, tiers,
resources, timelines, and professional development. Careful reporting of
such variables and adherence to established research standards will be
critical to shaping RTI models that successfully inform and enhance
instruction.
The National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities intends that this paper will encourage study and
consideration of the information, issues, and research related to RTI in
order to guide its thoughtful implementation, advance the field of
special education, and enhance the academic outcomes and life success of
all students, including students with learning disabilities. NOTE: This
document was approved by the National Joint Committee on Learning
Disabilities (NJCLD) as an official paper of the NJCLD.
|
|
|
Read on...
|
|
|
|
· LDA Supports the
National Children's Study
|
|
|
The Learning Disabilities Association of
America (LDA) strongly supports the work of the National Children's Study
and considers the data associated with the Study to be of the utmost
importance in further understanding the nature and causes of specific
learning disabilities, and especially the impact of environmental
neurotoxins on fetal and child brain development. Much thought and care
have gone into the planning of this unique and timely study, and the time
has come to fulfill the promise of full funding for the implementation
phase of National Children's Study.
The President's budget for the fiscal
year 2007 cuts funding for this important national, longitudinal study.
If you want to support the National Children's Study, please write to
your Congressman.
|
|
|
Read on...
|
|
|
|
· "Reading
Machines" for Students with LD?
|
|
|
|
 The use of optical character recognition (OCR)
systems combined with speech synthesis (computer generated speech) has
become increasingly accepted as a means to compensate for reading
disabilities. These OCR systems, or &ldquoreading
machines,&rdquo convert printed text to spoken language so the user
can hear as well as see written words. These technologies are now marketed
internationally (e.g., WYNN®, Kurzweil 3000®), commonly found in
assistive technology centers serving individuals with learning
disabilities (LD), frequently exhibited at LD conferences, generally
considered in assistive technology evaluations for students with LD,
and regularly discussed in publications on LD and assistive technology.
As OCR systems continue to gain
popularity as a compensatory tool for children with reading
difficulties, it is important for parents to know whether scientific
studies support their use. Furthermore, parents need to be aware that selecting specific technologies for
their children is dependent on the individual child, the task to be
performed, and the setting in which it is to be used. Hopefully,
this article will shed light on these issues by reviewing research on
the use OCR combined with synthetic speech for persons with reading
disabilities.
OCR systems are generally desktop
computers combined with full-page scanners. Users scan in printed
documents (e.g., pages from books) in much the same way a copier is
used. The printed text is automatically changed to electronic text that
is then read aloud by a built-in speech synthesizer. The text is
displayed on the computer monitor while the system reads the words
aloud. OCR systems often include features that allow the user to
&ldquocustomize&rdquo the system for individual preferences
including speech rate, pitch, volume, simultaneous highlighting of
spoken text, font size/style, as well as background and text color.
These systems may also include additional features such as study,
writing, and Internet tools.
Higgins & Raskind (17), in a study
of postsecondary students with LD, found that severely disabled readers
improved reading comprehension scores when using OCR. In addition, they
found an &ldquoinverse correlation&rdquo between silent reading
without assistance and reading with an OCR system, such that, the
greater the severity of the reading disability, the more the technology
elevated reading comprehension scores. However, there is a flipside to
this finding. The technology actually appeared to interfere with the
reading comprehension of some individuals with a &ldquoless
severe&rdquo reading disability. The researchers speculated that
the reading of every word aloud by means of the speech synthesizer may
actually have interfered with comprehension by overly taxing working
memory in those readers whose deficits were not as severe. A similar
finding was reported by Elkind, Cohen & Murray (15). This is a very
important finding as it emphasizes that a technology that may be very helpful to one person, may be of
little benefit or, in fact, impede performance in another.
In another study, students with
reading disabilities aged 10 to18 performed significantly better in
reading comprehension tasks when using the device as compared to
reading without it. Furthermore, unlike previous studies, this research
did not indicate an &ldquointerference effect&rdquo for the
readers with less severe deficits. This result is probably due to the
fact that the reading pen user only scanned difficult words on an
&ldquoas needed&rdquo basis, unlike the desktop unit user, to
whom entire passages of text were read aloud, whether or not the user
needed help with every word.
There is no intention to suggest that
handheld units are superior to desktop systems, or vice-versa, but,
rather, that each technology must be considered relative to the needs
of the specific individual, task, and setting. For example, there are
individuals who may need almost every word read to them aloud, an
operation that is easier to perform on a desktop unit. Or, a person
might use a more portable OCR device if he needed to use the technology
in multiple settings. Other factors such as cost, compatibility, ease
of use, technical support, and reliability should also be considered
when selecting any assistive technology.
This exerpt was written by Marshall H.
Raskind, Ph.D., Director of Research and Special Projects at Schwab
Learning. See www.schwablearning.org for the full article.
|
|
|
|
|
· Free Advocacy Course
for Parents
|
|
|
|
LDA proudly
presents its interactive Advocacy Course for Parents on IDEA '97,
annotated with changes that occurred in IDEA 2004. This course is free
to members of LDA.
Take a 4-hour training course at your
own pace on getting the services your child needs under the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA). Featured Instructor Jane
Strawser, parent and volunteer education advocate with the LDA of
Calvert County, Maryland shares her knowledge and expertise on the IDEA
law.
Sign up for the course on the national
LDA website by logging on as a member, using your member ID and
password. After you are re-directed to the "Members Only"
page, click on the training course.
Learn More...
|
|
|
|
|
