It will be interesting to hear the district's RTI plan.
Here is an account by a school psychologist (not a Wantagh psych) who was charged with setting up RtI in her district. I like her 7 things parents need to know about RtI.
__________________________________________
Oh, don't worry--I have no problem letting you (or anyone else for that matter) know if your posts are off-base or wrong. You are not the only one who is struggling to understand this whole RtI concept. Unfortunately, my time on the computer these days is limited so I have to prioritize how I spend it. Frankly, it took me about 2 years of workshops, conferences, etc. to fully understand RtI, so it is even more difficult for parents. Trying to explain RtI via the message boards is quite difficult for various reasons. However, I will outline some things parents needs to know:
1. RtI is a school-wide process. It does not apply to individual intervention/programs. Kids aren't "in" RtI--it is not a thing. It involves a philosophical shift in thinking regarding how students who are at-risk for academic/behavioral difficulties are identified and how those difficulties are addressed. This process takes years to fully implement.
2. RtI involves ALL kids--it is NOT special education or general education, but education for ALL.
2. RtI means doing things DIFFERENTLY!
3. RtI is a regular education initiative due to the reauthorization of IDEIA.
4. RtI involves different levels of support using scientifically-based programs for those identified as at-risk.
5. Implementing thr RtI process takes a significant amount of coordination, scheduling, and professional development for staff.
6. RtI is about making data-based decisions using the Problem-Solving Process to identify student needs.
7. Parents are involved at every step of the process.
This is the first time in history (mine, anyway) that general education curriculum is scruntinized to make sure that it has a good scientific base to it and that it teaches ALL five components of reading as identified by the National Reading Panel. This is the first thing that school districts must evaluate when moving the the RtI process. Many times kids were identified as having learning issues, when they were in fact "curriculum-disadvantaged". But, the only way to help these poor kids was to slap a label on them and provide special education services. Let me give you a real-world example (meaning, this happened at one of my schools this year
. Benchmark assessment (a hallmark component of RtI) was conducted with all kindergarten students using early literacy measures (CBM). According to research, if you have a good core reading curriculum about 80% of the students will not need anything additional to become a fluency reader, about 15% will need supplementary intervention, and about 5% will need intensive intervention. I'm assuming your state RtI plan included a picture of the RtI triangle -80% green, 15% yellow, and 5% red. Now, the results of our winter benchmark data for kindergarten were as follows (not actual percentages, but close): 67% green, 21% yellow, and 12% red. So, about 1/3 of the entire kindergarten class is at-risk for reading difficulties--this is not a kid problem, it's a curriculum problem. The other curriculum problem is that kids with LD's in reading were taken out of the core curriculum to receive special education support. Research has shown that this does not decrease the gap. This is true in my own kids school district. The percentage of kids who were continuously not meeting standards on our state tests in the area of Reading was pretty staggering. So much so the state board of education decided to come and do a Focused Monitoring Visit. The report was pretty dismal. Fortunately, my kids district is starting to implement the RtI process so things will improve, but it will take time. The kids in the district where I work receive 90 minutes of core reading instruction in the classroom with support if needed during center-based activities and classroom work. Work is adapted if needed. They also receive an additional 40 minutes of supplementary reading instruction at least 4 days per week. We also have some kids receiving an additional 15 minutes 3 days/week working on fluency using a scientifically-based program. Kids are making real progress--because we are really monitoring it. Their goals are set up so they make more than a year's progress in a year's time. Most of our students are on target to meet their goal--more exciting stuff. There are a small handful who are not. The difference is we already know that what they are receiving isn't enabling them to make progress, so we are doing something DIFFERENT and are continuing to monitor progress. We don't wait until the end of the year to try to figure this out.
This is the first time in history (mine, anyway) that teaching methods are under scrutiny as well. The is also the first time in history (mine, anyway) that fidelity is becoming an everyday word. Let me give you an example...a teacher brought a student to my problem-solving team because of the student's difficulties with reading. The teachers are suppose to teach the reading curriculum in the same way and have planning time set up for this so they can discuss it together. Conducting center activities using leveled readers is part of the curriculum and every teacher is implementing these centers except for the teacher at our team meeting. So, as we were discussing the student's issues I asked the teacher how centers were going for this particular child. Well, after some hemming and hawing she admitted that she wasn't doing them. So, after some discussion and getting the assistant principal involved, needless to say she is now implementing centers and her students are now getting the reading practice they should have been getting.
This process is also enabling students with LD's receive appropriate instruction and students who are at risk will receive intervention before waiting to fail--another first in the history of providing sped services (mine, anyway). Special education for kids with LD's was never about remediation (although, some school districts did it right, but not many) or closing the gap between kids with LD's and their grade level peers. Special education teachers used a myriad of things, typically the "a little of this, a little of that" or what I term the "eclectic" approach. So, it doesn't suprise me that the special education teacher sitting next to you did not know what SDI is. Now, with RtI interventions are matched to student need. Yes, it's really true--I've been doing it all year. This can happen for all academic areas. However, special education teachers are conditioned to adapt and modify--even programs. That's where the fidelity piece comes in. One of my special education teachers came to me about a particular intervention a student needed and stated that she didn't have the time to do both pieces as the program intended, so she was going to cut down the time spent on each component. My response--find the time, which she was able to do. The fidelity issue is huge because you need to know exactly what was going on if kids are or aren't making progress with particular interventions. I routinely observe interventions in action--do I always know what exactly I'm looking for--not totally for every situation, but having someone come in to observe an intervention puts folks on their best behavior, so to speak. Plus, I ask a lot of questions! Also, contrary to popular belief, there are many scripted programs out there that are excellent and have a good research base. I've used some of them.
RtI at the middle school level (high school is a different animal entirely) involves restructuring the school day. I don't have specifics for you because I am not at a middle school. But remember, your benchmark assessment data tells you what is needed in terms of intervention. However, I do know some middle schools who are successfully implementing this process. For example, at one of my elementary buildings the principal and I will be discussing how to re-structure the building schedule so that each grade level has 1 hour of "intervention" time so kids aren't missing out on other subject areas. We'll also be adding supplementary programs to the core curriculum implemented by general education teachers--really exciting stuff! RtI at the secondary level is really just in its infancy at this point, so I really don't have anything substantial to offer about that.
Logistics--huge issue. I takes a huge amount of scheduling, re-scheduling, and planning. I spend a great deal of time in meetings. I meet every month with the general education and special education staff at each grade level to review the progress of every student who is receiving a supplemental intervention--this includes students with IEP's for SLD. Actually, a special education teacher and I just re-worked her schedule so she can provide 1-1 Wilson instruction because this student has made minimal progress. Unfortunately, in order for this to happen we will have to carve some time out of this student's specials. We also have problem-solving meetings to develop individual intervention plans. We also have problem-solving meetings to develop group intervention plans after we conduct our benchmark assessment (3 times per year). Remember, either districts commit to implementing the RtI process, or they don't. Most School Improvement Plans will specifically incorporate RtI implementation plans. So, your scenario..."The school does not offer Resource of any kind, just placement options (self-contained, Inclusion, reg-ed.)" would not be an issue. The school folks must restructure the school day to accommodate students needing supplementary intervention. Frankly, how that looks would vary given student needs. Intervention for other types of LD issues is not being ignored, they're just in the minority. However, it doesn't mean interventions can't be developed and monitored. About 95% of students referred for evaluations are reading-based.
OK, I'll stop here since I could honestly go on since I've only just grazed the surface in explaining what all is involved in the process. But, I hope this helps give you (and others) a better understanding.
. Benchmark assessment (a hallmark component of RtI) was conducted with all kindergarten students using early literacy measures (CBM). According to research, if you have a good core reading curriculum about 80% of the students will not need anything additional to become a fluency reader, about 15% will need supplementary intervention, and about 5% will need intensive intervention. I'm assuming your state RtI plan included a picture of the RtI triangle -80% green, 15% yellow, and 5% red. Now, the results of our winter benchmark data for kindergarten were as follows (not actual percentages, but close): 67% green, 21% yellow, and 12% red. So, about 1/3 of the entire kindergarten class is at-risk for reading difficulties--this is not a kid problem, it's a curriculum problem. The other curriculum problem is that kids with LD's in reading were taken out of the core curriculum to receive special education support. Research has shown that this does not decrease the gap. This is true in my own kids school district. The percentage of kids who were continuously not meeting standards on our state tests in the area of Reading was pretty staggering. So much so the state board of education decided to come and do a Focused Monitoring Visit. The report was pretty dismal. Fortunately, my kids district is starting to implement the RtI process so things will improve, but it will take time. The kids in the district where I work receive 90 minutes of core reading instruction in the classroom with support if needed during center-based activities and classroom work. Work is adapted if needed. They also receive an additional 40 minutes of supplementary reading instruction at least 4 days per week. We also have some kids receiving an additional 15 minutes 3 days/week working on fluency using a scientifically-based program. Kids are making real progress--because we are really monitoring it. Their goals are set up so they make more than a year's progress in a year's time. Most of our students are on target to meet their goal--more exciting stuff. There are a small handful who are not. The difference is we already know that what they are receiving isn't enabling them to make progress, so we are doing something DIFFERENT and are continuing to monitor progress. We don't wait until the end of the year to try to figure this out.