Catálogo de publicaciones - libros

In 1994 the Minneapolis Public Schools (MPS) formally adopted the problem-solving model (PSM) as an alternative approach to determining the eligibility of high-incidence disabilities. However, the groundwork for successful implementation of this approach was laid by three important initiatives which were undertaken in the years prior to adoption of the PSM: data-based decision-making, curriculum-based measurement (CBM), and collaborative teaching. In addition, the concurrent implementation of a district-wide data warehouse and screening system further facilitated implementation of the PSM.

Since the early 1990s Ohio has implemented statewide or regional school-based projects focused on use of problem solving as a key method and student improvement as a primary goal. These initiatives have evolved through implementation experience, partnering with other states through the Innovations in Education Conference, and learning and improvement from emerging research. This chapter describes the evolution of Ohio’s model/approach into a comprehensive, integrated model for school improvement. Ohio uses a three-tiered approach for universal, supplemental, and individualized instruction/ intervention called the Ohio Integrated Systems Model (OISM). OISM involves problem solving both academic and behavior concerns at all three tiers. This model is consistent with the response to intervention (RTI) model as described by the National Association of State Directors of Special Education (NASDSE, 2005) and other authors (e.g., Tilly, 2003). In discussing the evolution of the OISM, we emphasize key components, the evaluation model and emerging data, and lessons learned. Ohio’s experiences and the collective experiences described in other chapters should help inform the efforts of both practitioners and scholars as they implement and evaluate RTI practices in a systemic way to improve student outcomes.

The Illinois Flexible Service Delivery System (FSDS) model is a problem-solving and responseto- intervention (RTI) service delivery model that has evolved since its conception in 1994. It began as the result of a systems change effort to develop a more flexible and responsive delivery system for all students (NSSED, 2005). The first portion of this chapter outlines some of the basic principles that underlie the model, discusses some of the historical influences that supported its development, and provides a brief history of the growth of the model in Illinois schools. A description of sustaining structures for this initiative and a more complete discussion of the unique features and basic principles of the FSDS will follow this section. The statewide evaluation of the program, including evidence of its impact, is also addressed. This chapter concludes with a discussion of the lessons learned from the authors’ work as consultants/trainers in implementing FSDS in a number of Illinois school districts.

The provision of the 2004 reauthorization of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEIA) that allows school districts to identify learning disabilities (LDs) by measuring student response to scientifically based instruction/ intervention (RTI) will undoubtedly make the LD classification process more instructionally relevant. Another goal of RTI in the larger context is to prevent large numbers of students from ever becoming labeled LD in the first place (Fletcher, Coulter, Reschly and Vaughn, 2004). With new legislation mandating scientifically based reading instruction and an accountability scheme for ensuring that all children learn to read effectively (No Child Left Behind Act; No Child Left Behind, 2001), it seems that the pendulum is swinging towards requiring effective reading instruction as away to prevent LD identification (President’s Commission on Excellence in Special Education, 2002).

Response to intervention (RTI) is receiving significant national attention. For many schools and districts, and even a few states, RTI has been “in the works” for several years. While empirical evidence regarding RTI continues to be collected and reviewed, its popularity with parents and educators can be viewed as a function of dissatisfaction with the traditional approach (i.e., achievement—ability discrepancy) and a desire for more immediate and meaningful solutions for struggling students.

The System to Enhance Educational Performance (STEEP) is a program that provides a blueprint for implementation of response to intervention (RTI). RTI has been defined as the practice of “(a) providing high quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and (2) using learning rate over time and level of performance to (3) make important educational decisions” (NASDSE, 2006, p. 5). In other words, RTI is a process for gathering data, applying decision rules, and making decisions. As a generic process, RTI may include various types of screening procedure, decision-making processes, and, interventions. Implementation and decision-making with RTI by professionals using a problem-solving model may differ from case to case and school to school. STEEP represents a specific set of decision rules and procedures that, together, help to operationalize the RTI process. The purpose of this chapter is to describe the empirical and epistemological foundation for STEEP.

The Florida Department of Education (FLDOE) approved and funded ($1.2 million/year) a 5-year project in spring, 2006, to implement the problemsolving/ response-to-intervention (PSM/RTI) model throughout the state. The project was awarded to the School Psychology Program at the University of South Florida. However, building the infrastructure necessary to implement the PSM/RTI model actually began in 1991, and the state systematically built capacity to support the implementation of this model. This chapter describes how the state built capacity to implement the PSM/RTI model, the three-stage implementation process, the training model, the implementation plan and the evaluation protocol.

School psychologists and other educational professionals are faced with increasingly demanding data collection needs. There is increasing pressure to engage in data-driven decision-making for the purpose of making eligibility, instructional planning, program evaluation, and accountability decisions. For example, school psychologists are expected to engage in all of the data-driven decision-making activities specified in the Blueprint for Training and Practice in School Psychology III (Ysseldyke et al., 2006), and to help teachers identify evidence-based instructional practices while monitoring the effectiveness of those practices. Thus, school psychologists need to be knowledgeable about and capable of implementing continuous and periodic monitoring systems designed for use at universal, targeted, and intensive levels of intervention.

The concept of providing scientifically based instruction, progress monitoring, and data-based decision-making within a tiered model seems like an appropriate and promising approach for English language (EL) learners (Klinger and Edwards, 2006). Unfortunately, making an assumption that what works with native English speakers will work with students from diverse language backgrounds may be inaccurate (McLaughlin, 1992). Although substantial empirical support exists for the use of a response-to-intervention (RTI) approach to address literacy problems with native English speakers (e.g., Burns, Appleton, and Stehouwer, 2005; Mathes et al., 2005; Vellutino, Scanlon, and Tanzman, 1998), very little data exist about the effectiveness of this approach with EL learners (Vaughn et al., 2006).

A response-to-intervention (RTI) approach to determining when and how to best exit students from special education has the potential to improve current educational practices and outcomes for students with disabilities.We know that post-secondary outcomes of students with disabilities are considerably less favorable than those of students without disabilities (National Council on Disability, 2004). Compared with adults without disabilities, those with disabilities are (a) twice as likely to be unemployed, (b) three times as likely to live in poverty, (c) twice as likely to have inadequate transportation, and (d) significantly less likely to socialize, eat out, or attend religious services than their nondisabled counterparts (National Organization on Disability, 2004). In addition, a disturbing upward trend has been observed in the rates of youth with disabilities who experience some type of disciplinary action at school, work, or with law enforcement (Wagner, Newman, Cameto, and Levine, 2005). RTI strategies, such as using continuously collected progress data to guide instruction and interventions, may improve the services designed to transition students from special education to general education and adulthood.