Hallam et al.  Conversations on the meaning and implications of RTI.  Presented at the DEC Conference, 10/08.

• Carta - from Juniper Gardens - project an OSEP funded initiative
• practice has often come before evidence - therefore, how will RTI work in the real world?
  • especially, how will this work in pre-K
  • Remember to keep an open mind about how this might work
  • there is some skepticism, but don't rule it out!
• Background on RTI - lots of information available on the web
  • consists of systematic problem-solving
    • earlier identification
    • instructional intensity matched to responding - individualized
    • data-based decision-making
  • hopefully - less need for special education services,  and decreased referrals
  • assumes high quality general instruction
  • more individualized, fewer delays to referral and intervention
  • assessment continues throughout intervention
  • service coordination brings intervention to the student
  • tiered intervention
  • evidence-based practice at all levels
  • problem-solving at all levels
• Tiers of intervention
  1. Tier I - all children get this intervention - preventative
  2. Tier II - not adequate progress in Tier I - determined through progress monitoring
     • intensive instruction
     • more opportunities for practice
  3. Tier III - very intensive instruction/intervention
  • can be math, literacy, social skills, etc... - can be on different tiers in different subjects
• Tier I challenges
  • increasing skills of often low-paid ECE providers with limited training
  • training and technical support needs to be continuous
  • lack of evidence-based practices
  • staff turnover
• Tier II and Tier III Challenges
  • views not shared by everyone - there needs to be a paradigm shift
  • we don't know much about effectiveness
  • who is going to do this with fidelity?
  • how does this fit into a day?
  • how can we guarantee fidelity?
• Use of monitoring assumptions
  • Tier I - monitoring documents lack of growth
  • Tier II and Tier III - documents growth - allows intensive intervention to be time-limited
  • used for instructional planning not diagnosis - should be a short inventory
    • e.g., - Early Communication Indicator - used in Early Head Start -
• Use of monitoring for decision-making
  • all kids are monitored
  • implementation of intervention
  • monitor progress and adjust the intervention
• Issues
  • not many tools for progress monitoring - MCLASS
  • guidance - how should we use?  What are the cutoffs for each Tier?
  • Who's going to do it? - Staff is typically unskilled
• Issues - problem solving
  • limited coordination and communication among teams
  • relies on information gathered and shared across settings
  • takes some time to play out!
  • avoid over or under-identification
• FINAL CHALLENGE - what will motivate ECE professionals to implement RTI?
• RTI in Connecticut - funded through Emily Hall Tremaine, Frank Porter Graham
  • Preschool is a focus in CT
  • Has Early Learning Standards
  • Preschool Assessment Framework - 30 standards
    • cycle of intentional teaching
    • change and modification based upon observation and data
    • allows teachers to summarize data and share it with parents
    • flipchart of developmental progression - benchmarks
      • benchmarks - can mark which benchmark the child falls into
    • also includes a classwide profile - where do all children fall?
      • can plan for class
      • Tier II or Tier III
    • uses a matrix to plan teaching strategies - cycle of intentional teaching
  • Scientifically-based research methods
    • must align with higher grades
    • "continuum, not an abrupt shift"
  • family-based intervention - communicate with parents
  • criteria for programs
    • NAEYC accredited and Head Start approved
    • documented use of assessment
    • positive TA and monitoring reports
    • up to 3 teachers must be willing to implement practices
    • at least 1 teacher with BA - train-the-trainer model
  • ongoing coaching by U staff - 4-5x/year - collaborative facilitation
    • building local capacity for continuation
    • parent piece as well - not well described by my notes
  • Data '07-'08
    • 12 participant schools, 11 coaches, 55 total staff
    • there are national partners and state partners

More later....