Response to Intervention (RTI) – Support for Struggling Students

Brief overview

  • Students struggle in school for different reasons.
  • RTI is an acceptable way of identifying students with learning disabilities.
  • RTI isn’t a specific program or type of teaching.
  • RTI works on a tier system with three levels of intervention.

Full Article

Students struggle in school for different reasons. Response to Intervention (RTI)  can help by combining high quality, culturally responsive instructions with assessments and interventions that are proven to work by evidence from research.

RTI was originally recognized in the 1970s as a system for helping students with potential learning problems early, instead of waiting until they fail. With the reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) in 2004, RTI was noted as an acceptable way to identify students with learning disabilities. RTI can help students who haven’t yet been identified as eligible for special education or those who struggle but don’t qualify for special education services.

At any time during the RTI process, parents or teachers can request an evaluation for special education services.  The evaluation can determine whether a student qualifies for an Individualized Education Program (IEP) or accommodations through a Section 504 Plan. RTI does not replace a school’s responsibility to evaluate students who might qualify for special education services. See PAVE’s article on Child Find, a mandate of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA).

RTI’s goal is for schools to intervene before a student falls too far behind. RTI is not a specific program or type of teaching, but rather a proactive way to check in with a student to see how things are going. Data help school staff decide which types of targeted teaching would work best for the student. If a student’s progress is slow or stagnant, then teachers adjust based on the student’s needs. 

RTI has three levels, or tiers, for intervention:

  • In the general education classroom
  • In a special education classroom, resource room, or small group
  • For an individual student

RTI works best when parents are involved

Parents can monitor their child’s progress and participate in the process. Parents can talk to the school about which instructions or reinforcements are working and boost the benefit by being consistent with the same strategies at home.

As military families move from one location to another, they may notice that each school uses different techniques to implement RTI programs.  Schools will format their programs to best fit the needs of their students by using a variety of tools to improve learning for all students. Keeping up with what’s happening at school might be challenging but can help the student find success.

RTI is part of a Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) framework.  MTSS provides a method for intervention in academic and non-academic areas, including Social Emotional Learning or behavior support. MTSS is used to support adult students and professionals as well. In this video, a researcher from the American Institutes for Research, Rebecca Zumeta Edmonds, Ph.D., discusses differences between MTSS and RTI.

PAVE has an article that describes MTSS and how it can provide a larger framework for Positive Behavior Interventions and Supports (PBIS), when a child’s behavior becomes a barrier to learning.

For more information on RTI, MTSS, and PBIS:

The Three RTI Tiers

Center on Response to Intervention

Response to Intervention (RTI)

 What is the Difference Between RTI and MTSS?

MTSS: What You Need to Know

Positive Behavioral Interventions & Supports (PBIS) in Schools

I want the kind with the people and the pictures

By John O’Brien

After a Difficult Start…

Institutionalized from age three to twenty-three in a place where “they treated us like animals”– Mike has composed a good life, taking many valued roles: husband, father, worker, home owner, friend, organizer, advocate, mentor, teacher, neighbor.[1] Anticipating the changes that come with aging, Mike requested funding for a person-centered plan from his case manager (a service option in his state). The case manager said that it was unnecessary for him to spend any of his budget on a plan because a new Federal Rule requires that Mike’s annual plan of care meeting be a person-centered plan. Mike, who has participated in many person-centered plans organized through self-advocacy, asked some questions about the required plan and concluded, “I still want the kind with the people and the pictures.”

Regulations that require a person-centered plan as a condition of receiving Medicaid Waiver funds introduce a distinction between Want-to-plans and Have-to-plans. Each can make a positive contribution; both must creatively respond to constraints. A good Want-to-plan supports discovery of possibilities and life direction and mobilizes a person’s allies at important moments in their lives. A good Have-to plan gives a person effective control of the Medicaid waiver funded assistance they rely on. Committed and skilled facilitators with the time necessary to prepare and follow-up make a difference to the impact of both kinds of plan. How well either process works for a person depends on conditions outside the planning process: the extent, diversity and resourcefulness of the person’s social network; the openness of the person’s community; the flexibility and responsiveness of providers of necessary assistance; the sufficiency of public funds for necessary assistance and the means for people to control those funds. Good plans will identify the current reality of these conditions and consider how to engage them.

Mike’s is a want-to-plan. At his initiative, he and his invited allies (the people) collaborate to create a customized process to address his desire to deal proactively with the new responsibilities and increasing impairments that show up with aging. Mike chose Michele, an experienced facilitator, to guide the process. Their agreement makes it clear that Michele is responsible for facilitating a process of change over time, not just a meeting.[1] A graphic record (the pictures), created by Alex, provides an energizing memory of what emerges, a way to track and update action plans, and a way to orient new people to Mike’s intentions.[2] Occasional check-ins and revisions guide continuing action. One-to-one meetings assist Mike in sorting through all the suggestions and offers of help he receives to assure a good fit with who he is. Mike will bring some the information generated by this work to inform the required annual person-centered support plan, but his Want-to-Plan does not substitute for it.

Mike’s experience unfolds under highly favorable conditions for any person-centered plan. He has a strong desire to assure his wife and himself the best possible old age. Reciprocity for decades of generous neighborliness, concern for co-workers and leadership in advocacy give him a diverse network to call on. He is not inhibited in asking for help when he needs it. The help he needs is largely with navigating the unfamiliar territory of selling and buying property and preparing wills and other necessary documents and demands no change in his current paid services. Hard work and careful management has accumulated equity in family home. Many Want-to-plans will need to include provision for strengthening or establishing the social and material conditions for moving toward a desirable future.

Want-to-plans can also originate in a person’s positive response to an invitation to join a process of organizational change. This sort of plan poses a challenge that an organization must stretch its capacities to meet.

Have-to-plans are a necessary step in determining expenditure of Medicaid funds on services to meet the assessed needs of eligible people. They are the final responsibility of system staff assigned to coordinate services. While the process can vary to accommodate a person’s preferences, the process and resulting plan must comply with detailed standards. The New York OPWDD Person Centered Planning Regulation Checklist enumerates 23 requirements, 21 of which track US Federal Regulations.[3]

Have-to-plans serve a worthy purpose. The rules set conditions for the person to direct the meeting, understand the results and assure that the person-centered service plan documents the person’s needs strengths, preferences, goals and appropriate services.

This checklist item, based on a Federal requirement, identifies the intended result of Have-to plans:

2‐5. The plan documents the necessary and appropriate services and supports that are based on the individual’s preferences and needs and which will assist the person to achieve his/her identified goals. [Complies with CFR 441.301©(2)(v)]

This form of words sets Have-to-plans in the context of publicly funded disability services. Offering increased influence on which available provider(s) will serve a person and how those services will be of assistance is a clear benefit of Have-to-plans when there is a real choice among providers with a capacity to individualize supports.

This standard also locates a tension that constrains Have-to-plans as two impulses struggle with each other within the same sentence. One impulse, energized by commitment to self direction and the development of people’s strengths, expresses the life a person wants to live and the supports that they prefer to live that life. The other, tied to the historical anomaly of funding US disability support as if it were a medical service, aims to select necessary and appropriate services that are clearly linked to professionally assessed need. State policy can bias the struggle toward one impulse or the other. In some states[1] the person centered plan is bracketed between an assessment of need that involves an extensive inventory of a person’s deficiencies and writing an Individualized Service Plan (ISP) that must demonstrate a direct connection between assessed need and specified services and avoid public funding of “wants” or “lifestyle choices”. Without the skillful facilitation of an intentional shift in perspective, a Have-to-plan will be primed by a focus on deficiencies and develop within unconscious boundaries set by judgements of what can realistically be funded.

A Want-to-plan can safeguard a Have-to-plan. A person and those who care can choose to create a space outside the world of disability services for conversation about a person’s identity, gifts and capacities and the circumstances that offer the best life chances. Often, as with Mike, some action will result from this conversation that requires no change in publicly funded services. When the sort of changes in services that require a Have-to-plan are necessary, a person and their allies have a foundation for negotiating what they need from publicly funded services.

____________________________________________________

[1] See for example, NJ Division of Developmental Disabilities (March 2016). Supports Program Policies & Procedures Manual (Version 3.0).

[1] Other agreements might suit other circumstances. A different person might agree to fill the necessary follow up role.

[2] Denigrating graphic records has become a cliche criticism of person-centered planning (“people have colorful pictures on their walls but their lives are unchanged”). Lack of commitment or capacity for creative action seem to me more likely causes of inaction than a vivid record of people’s thinking does.

[3] http://www.opwdd.ny.gov/sites/default/files/documents/PCPChecklist.pdfThe 22nd standard, specific to New York, defines a person-centered planning process as a right and requires written notice of that right. The 23d assures that all relevant attachments are filed with the plan. The rule itself, Medicaid Program; State Plan Home and Community-Based Services, 5-Year Period for Waivers, Provider Payment

Reassignment, and Home and Community-Based Setting Requirements for Community First Choice (Section 1915(k) of the Act) and Home and Community-Based Services (HCBS) Waivers (Section 1915(c) of the Act), was published in the Federal Register on January 16, 2014.

[1] You can view Mike’s witness to growing up in an institution and a snapshot of his life today in this 2015 TV investigation into his state’s continuing operation of institutions: http://www.king5.com/news/local/ investigations/wash-decades-behind-in-serving-developmentally-disabled-1/48265785

 

Assistive Technology

Assistive technology (AT) can dramatically affect the success of your special needs family member.

AT can give students equal access to curriculum, the work environment, or any other environment that use government funding.  Assistive Technology includes devices that are used by individuals in order to perform functions that might otherwise be difficult or impossible.

The AT can compensate for the impairments of the disability, increase classroom participation, foster independence, improve learning and working, assist in communication, and help the individual become successful in multiple aspect of life. In the school environment, assistive technology accomplishes these goals by allowing students with many types of disabilities to see, hear, read, write, and communicate.  In fact, assistive technology often provides the student with the only access to the general curriculum.

People who use AT products and services may have difficulty speaking, typing, writing, remembering, pointing, seeing, hearing, learning, walking, breathing, etc.  Everyone uses assistive technology.  We may not think that the things we use on a daily basis to make our life a little bit easier, like alarm clocks, planners, computers, talk to text software, canes, automatic windows and doors, lined paper, stools or chairs, the list could go on and on.  An individual with special needs may rely on AT devices to perform tasks and be more independent, enriching their life.

AT devices are protected under the law. This means that if there is need for an individual, then the use of the devices cannot be denied.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act or IDEA is the federal special education law that addresses services for children with disabilities, set into law in 1975. IDEA requires that states provide a free appropriate public education for children with disabilities, including related services. This law requires schools to provide necessary assistive technology devices and services to help children with disabilities receive an appropriate education. To that end, every child with a disability must be considered for assistive technology.

Section 504 of the rehab act protects qualified individuals with a disability in the US from discrimination in any program or activity receiving FEDERAL FINANCIAL ASSISTANCE—for instance: government offices, banks, educational institutions, hospitals and clinics, etc. So, if money can be traced back to the federal government through grants, loans, tax breaks, and the like. then this law is applicable.

When selecting AT devices, evaluating the product or device is critical.  The goal is to help or improve function, access or ability, not hinder or impede it.  Following the steps below can help us narrow in on the selection process.

Consider: Look at what tools are available and how they may restrict or support skills by doing a skills assessment. With an assessment, we are looking at the easiest or simplest way to solve the problem without distracting others or causing more difficulty for the individual, teachers, or other students.

Consult: After the needs are figured out, ask other people about the AT devices they use. Don’t be afraid to seek out professionals for advice.  Check out websites, blogs, and forums for advice on different devices.  Ask for examples of how the device helps, the limitations one might encounter, and pros and cons of the device.

Conclude:  Once a decision has been made about what is appropriate and what will meet the needs, it then is necessary to purchase, make, or obtain the AT and begin using it.  When we make a decision on AT devices, we must keep in mind that the needs may change, a person’s ability may outgrow the device, or that we might need to reevaluate.

Building in some flexibility when selecting the device can save time and money in the future.  For instance, if a person struggles to turn pages of a book, then an e-reader would be more appropriate.  However, if the person is unable to use a mouse and keyboard as well, then selecting a device that is internet capable may be a better option.  Before you purchase the device, try it out.  Each state has a National Assistive Technology center. Often, families can try out devices or other AT items prior to purchasing.  Below are a few links:

History of Quality Indicators for Assistive Tehcnology

State Tech ACT Projects

Early Childhood Technical Assistance Center

National Center for Technology Innovation

Things to remember about Assistive Technology:

  • AT levels the playing field by providing access
  • Each person requires different types of AT
  • One size does not fit all
  • AT does not have to be expensive
  • AT can change based on the needs, development, and milestones reached by the individual
  • AT is protected by law

“Working Together with Military Families of Individuals with DisAbilities!”

 

Q & A Transportation and Private Schools

I have enrolled my child in a private school in our town.

Q: She is also receiving special education services at our local district. We have been discussing if the District is responsible for providing transportation from my home to the private school. What are your thoughts?

A: We have Washington Administrative Codes (WAC 392-172A-04045: http://apps.leg.wa.gov/WAC/default.aspx?cite=392-172A-04045) that address that particular issue.

If it is necessary for the student to benefit from or participate in the services provided by a parentally placed private school, students eligible for special education services must be provided transportation.

This includes:

From the student’s private school or the student’s home to a site OTHER than the private school.

From the district school to the private school or the students’ home, depending on the time of the service.  For instance, if the student received the special education service at the end of the school day then transportation would be provided home.

Districts are not required to provide transportation from the student’s home to the private school.

Hope this helps!

 

Q&A – Should the Whole Team be Present for an IEP?

Amending the Individualized Education Program (IEP)

Q: My son’s special education teacher informed me she wants to have a meeting to amend his Individualized Education Program (IEP). It is not time for his annual review, but he has met some goals and objectives and she would like to change them. Do you think this is a good idea, and can we do this without the whole team?

A: Absolutely!  If you and the district agree with the changes and write an amendment that would be perfectly acceptable.  Again, both parties must agree and the full IEP Team should be informed – even if they’re not present.  Make sure you get a copy for your records and congratulations on your son’s progress.