Content uploaded by Matthew K Burns
Author content
All content in this area was uploaded by Matthew K Burns on Jan 07, 2014
Content may be subject to copyright.
A preview of the PDF is not available
Comparison of Existing Responsiveness-To-Intervention Models to Identify and Answer Implementation Questions
Abstract
Responsiveness-to-intervention (RTI) is the front-running candidate to replace current practice in diagnosing learning disabilities, but researchers have identified several questions about implementation. Specific questions include: Are there validated intervention models? Are there adequately trained personnel? What leadership is needed? When does due process protection begin? and Is RTI a defensible endpoint in the identification process? These questions were addressed by examining four existing large-scale RTI models, Heartland Model (Iowa), Intervention-Based Assessment (Ohio), Instructional Support Teams (Pennsylvania), and the ProblemSolving Model in Minneapolis (Minnesota) Public Schools. The RTI process led to positive outcomes for children with and without disabilities, but all four models were phased-in over time, relied on extensive training for a multidisciplinary team, and followed a protocol to develop data-based adaptations. Clarification about team membership, leadership, and initiation of due process is still required. Additional questions about RTI were generated regarding students in secondary grades, parental involvement, and fidelity of implementing. Recommendations for implementation are included.
... There remains, however, a need for research on the use of RtI in areas outside of literacy and reading, including implementation of the approach in middle and secondary schools (Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005), applications for understanding the processes underlying skill deficits and strengths (also called neuropsychologically based RtI; Witsken & Stoeckel, 2008), professional development to promote implementation (Gilbertson, Witt, Singletary, & VanDerHeyden, 2007), technology use for assessment and databased decision-making (Allsopp, McHatton, & Farmer, 2010), and mathematics instruction (Allsopp et al.;Fuchs et al., 2007a;Fuchs et al., 2007b). ...
... RtI models are designed to help prevent the onset of difficulties and to ensure early intervention through an emphasis on functional behaviours (Gresham, 2007). Although there are varying RtI models described in education, there are multiple common factors, including the focus on high quality, evidence-based classroom instruction across multiple domains (Burns and Ysseldyke, 2005). Employing a developmentally responsive model such as RtI, with embedded collaboration among school support professionals (defined as professionals who are hired by schools or schoolboards to provide support to children with special needs) ensures involvement of professionals having the required expertise to support students (Castillo et al., 2018). ...
The response‐to‐intervention (RtI) model is widely used to support students with special educational needs and their teachers. However, little is known about how educational and health care professionals support the implementation of this model in specific contexts. The purpose of this study was to examine the perceptions of educational and health care professionals (n = 101) regarding their involvement in RtI practices in Quebec, Canada. A cross‐sectional online survey was sent to school‐board directors responsible for overviewing support services (n = 35), and to professionals implementing those services (n = 66). Descriptive and content analyses were performed and perspectives of the two groups were compared. Regarding perspectives of RtI implementation, discrepancies were revealed between directors' perceptions of the involvement of their professionals versus the professionals' reported implementation of the RtI model in practice. Directors reported greater knowledge about RtI (84%) than professionals (72%). Professionals consistently reported lower involvement in supporting RtI implementation than did directors. Coaching was the most frequent activity reported and was mentioned by both directors and professionals as a service provided at all RtI tiers. Results reveal inconsistencies about tiered practices among administrators and school health care professionals, with individuals defining tiers differently and varying in practices implemented at specific tiers. Participants also provided useful suggestions to further implement RtI.
... The same trend has also been observed in Canada, but it has been less formally documented. RtI refers to providing high-quality education through the use of multileveled services, aimed at supporting academic learning (Ball & Trammell, 2011;Burns & Ysseldyke, 2005). These models generally use three service levels, where Level 1 refers to universal services for many children such as an entire classroom, Level 2 to greater involvement with small groups of children, and Level 3 to more intense, individual services. ...
Background
The occupational therapy school-based Partnering for Change (P4C) model has mostly been documented in Ontario.
Purpose
This implementation study describes the implementation of P4C in two Québec elementary schools (P4C-Q), as well as therapy practices, their impacts, factors perceived to influence implementation, and recommendations.
Method
A sequential mixed-methods design was applied. Therapists (n=2) completed daily journals, describing activities by P4C-Q level. Therapists and other school-stakeholders (n=11) participated in semi-structured interviews, analyzed through a content analysis framework.
Findings
Daily journals illustrated that the majority of therapy time was spent on activities targeting the entire classroom, and on collaboration with educators. Interviews illustrated how coaching was used across different practices and the impact of these practices for schools (e.g., capacity-building) and children (e.g., increased functioning), and highlighted how relationship-building is key to facilitating the implementation of this model.
Implications
Lessons learned may be helpful for others implementing P4C in their own contexts.
Purpose
Speech-language pathologists (SLPs) in public schools have a key role in assessment, intervention, program design, compliance, and prevention. They address the needs of students of all ages and disorders, ensure the educational relevance of their services, and provide culturally competent care. Given the scope of their work, SLPs must balance and prioritize their varying responsibilities in school settings. This study investigates how SLPs navigate their involvement with the prevention-oriented framework Multi-Tiered System of Supports (MTSS) while providing direct support to students with disabilities through Individualized Education Programs (IEPs).
Method
This study took place in a district with a stated goal for the academic year of deepening their involvement with the MTSS framework. Eight SLPs working in this rural district participated in a series of interviews over the course of the 2022–2023 school year. Qualitative data were collected about SLPs' motivations and evolving views related to MTSS.
Results
While participants in this study were motivated to engage in MTSS because they viewed this framework as a useful mechanism to support students outside of special education, they were limited by time constraints and the challenges of forming collaborative relationships. Each participant navigated the process of balancing their efforts related to MTSS and IEPs in a unique way that reflected their specific setting and circumstances.
Conclusion
This study directly investigated how SLPs navigate this balancing act in real time and provided a novel perspective on the potential synergies and disconnects between SLPs' efforts related to MTSS and their responsibilities related to providing appropriate speech-language services via IEPs.
Purpose
This tutorial highlights the challenges and opportunities school-based speech-language pathologists (SLPs) face related to engagement with the multitiered systems of support (MTSS) framework in their public school work practices. It positions SLP involvement in MTSS as an area where a gap between research and practice exists and highlights key ways for SLPs to overcome barriers to support student success within this framework.
Method
This tutorial provides a general description of the MTSS framework and highlights the immediate applicability of the framework to SLP school practices. Key considerations are offered for SLPs ready to take concrete steps related to implementing the MTSS framework. Hypothetical cases are used to illustrate how school-based SLPs can use these considerations to guide meaningful but realistic changes.
Results
Ongoing concerns about the impact of the pandemic on student outcomes and growing awareness of systemic inequities in education are prompting SLPs to move beyond asking if they should be involved in MTSS to focusing on how they should be engaged with this framework. This tutorial provides five key considerations for SLPs to realistically deepen their engagement with MTSS and overcome the research–practice gap in this area.
Conclusion
This tutorial provides a resource for SLPs to take concrete and immediate steps to support at-risk students through MTSS given the needs at this unique moment in time when concerns about learning loss and achievement gaps are front and center in public schools.
This multi-site interpretive case study examined the roles of school culture, personal beliefs, and knowledge of RTI on implementation. Through individual interviews, observations and document reviews, the researcher was able to capture teachers’ and administrators’ pedagogical beliefs and interpret how these factors influence the general educators’ and administrators’ perception of RTI and implementation of programs for the general population of students. The theories that guided this study included cultural theory, conflict theory, and structural-functionalism. A variety of coding methods were used and thirteen themes were developed from the researcher’s interpretation of the participants’ responses. Participants also shared other factors that impact. Key findings also included educators’ varied perceptions of the purpose of RTI, which correlated with their professional disciplines.
Precision Teaching (PT) presents as a systematic educational approach used to monitor and evaluate pupil performance, as underpinned by data-based decision making. As part of the implementation process, PT emphasises the importance of frequency-building to promote behavioural fluency for the learner. This article seeks to critically examine the potential application of frequency-building and PT in Irish mainstream primary schools to support pupil intervention in foundational curricular learning. Particular focus is placed on core academic subjects, in light of the national governmental drive to increase literacy and numeracy standards for all. This article provides an overview of the PT approach to intervention, with reference to recent Irish developments in the field spanning research and practice. The application of frequency-building and PT within a special education context is considered, particularly for pupils struggling to move beyond the ‘acquisition’ stage of the learning hierarchy. The author critically considers the alignment of PT with key tenets of the guidelines from the Department of Education and Skills (2017a DES (Department of Education and Skills). 2017a. Guidelines for primary schools: Supporting pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Accessed 31 January 2019. http://www.education.ie/en/The-Education-System/Special-Education/Guidelines-for-Primary-Schools-Supporting-Pupils-with-Special-Educational-Needs-in-Mainstream-Schools.pdf. [Google Scholar]) for supporting pupils with special educational needs in mainstream schools. Finally, limitations of PT-related research are forwarded, with reference to applied research in the field. Based on cumulative findings, the author advocates for a balanced and contextualised approach to fluency-focused instruction within schools, in light of the learning hierarchy and alternate, non-behaviourist approaches to teaching and learning.
special education is the segment of the education domain that deals with students experiencing difficulties in the regular system / to deal with these students, special education has developed a wide array of its own particular methods and materials / although paralleling the regular education system, the promotion of an assortment of different procedures and techniques has caused special education to face continually a fundamental question: is it effective / the purpose of this chapter is to explore that question
history of special education / the meaning of special education / judging the effectiveness of special education / the status of special education / quantitative methods of research synthesis / meta-analysis and special education / process training / special versus regular class placement / medically based interventions / implications for special education (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
The CEC Research Award recognizes researchers for the significant contributions they have made to special education. We believe that the members of this distinguished group have much to share with our readers. We have invited each of them to contribute an article, addressing their perspectives on special education research and practices. Jim Ysseldyke was awarded the Research Award in 1995, recognizing more than 25 years of research investigating a variety of assessment and instructional decision-making practices. This article presents generalizations that he has gleaned from his years of research, as well as his thoughts for the future.
This study examined the fidelity of problem-solving implementation by multidisciplinary teams (MDTs) in 227 schools and the relationship to student outcomes. Judgments about fidelity of problem-solving implementation and student goal attainment were derived from independent ratings of work products submitted by MDTs. Highest fidelity scores were evident for "Behavioral Definition of the Problem" and "Clearly Identified Goal;" lowest fidelity scores were demonstrated for "Hypothesized Reason for the Problem" and "Treatment Integrity." Ratings of student goal attainment indicated positive student change during problem-solving implementation. Statistically significant but modest correlation coefficients were demonstrated between ratings of student outcomes and ratings of six of the eight problem-solving components. Stepwise multiple regression of student outcome ratings on ratings of implementation fidelity demonstrated that two problem-solving components ("Clearly Identified Goal" and "Data Indicating Student Response to Intervention") were significant predictors, accounting for 8% of the variance in student outcome (F = 11.09, p < .001).
A statewide sample of Ohio schools employing Intervention-Based Assessment (IBA) reported rates of multifactored evaluation for special education, eligibility findings, and the proportion of children receiving interventions outside of general education classroom settings. Results were compared with data reported for an earlier version of prereferral intervention, Intervention Assistance Teams (IATs). Unlike IAT, IBA required documentation and analysis of interventions in the process of determining special education eligibility. Results favored IBA over IAT in proportions of children on team caseloads who underwent multifactored evaluation and were found eligible for special education, but not for proportion of children receiving interventions in general education settings. Implications of these findings for school-based problem-solving efforts are discussed.