Problem Solving and Response to Intervention
Clark Dorman, Project Leader, Florida’s PS/RtI Pilot Project
David Wheeler, School Psychology Consultant, BEESS/FDOE
Heather Diamond, SLD Program Specialist, BEESS/FDOE

Shifts in the Law . . . 

Alignment of ESEA and IDEA

•	Improved student outcomes
•	Effective instruction (highly qualified teachers)
•	Early intervention and prevention
•	Use of evidence-based interventions
•	Use of data (data-driven accountability & data-based decision making)

Shifts in Practice . . .

•	Focus on intervention not placement
•	Use assessment to identify effective interventions 
•	Base intervention intensity on student need rather than label or diagnosis
•	Make decisions based on student outcomes
•	Apply Problem Solving/RtI fluidly
•	Every Ed 

PS-RtI is Every Ed!

Graphic with pictures of notable individuals (and one horse) whose names are Ed

Response to Instruction/Intervention (RtI): The Foundation

RtI is the practice of 
1.	providing high-quality instruction/intervention matched to student needs and 
2.	using learning rate over time and level of performance to 
3.	making important educational decisions to guide instruction 

Avoiding Myths…
•	RtI IS:
•	A process designed to maximize student achievement
•	A method to deliver effective interventions earlier and efficiently
•	Focused on outcomes
•	About student progress 
•	RtI IS NOT:
•	A way to delay services to students
•	A way to avoid special education placement
•	A hoop to jump through to ensure special education placement

TIER I: Core, Universal

•	GOAL: 100% of students achieve at high levels
•	Tier I: Implementing well researched programs and practices demonstrated to produce good outcomes for the majority of students. 
•	Tier I: Effective if at least 80% are meeting benchmarks with access to Core/Universal Instruction. 
•	Tier I: Begins with clear goals:
•	What exactly do we expect all students to learn?
•	How will we know if and when they’ve learned it?
•	How you we respond when some students don’t learn?
•	How will we respond when some students have already learned? 
Questions 1 and 2 help us ensure a guaranteed and viable core curriculum

TIER II: Supplemental, Targeted

•	For approx. 20% of students
•	Core plus Supplemental…to achieve benchmarks
•	Tier II Effective if at least 70-80% of students improve performance (i.e., gap is closing towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring standards).
•	Where are the students performing now?
•	Where do we want them to be?
•	How long do we have to get them there?
•	How much do they have to grow per year/monthly to get there?
•	What resources will move them at that rate? 

TIER III: Intensive, Individualized 

•	For Approx 5% of Students
•	Core plus Supplemental plus Intensive Individual Instruction…to achieve benchmarks
•	Where is the student performing now?
•	Where do we want him to be?
•	How long do we have to get him there?
•	What supports has he received?
•	What resources will move him at that rate?
•	Tier III Effective if there is progress (i.e., gap closing) towards benchmark and/or progress monitoring goals.

Three Tiered Model of Student Supports 
All students get all 3 tiers of support in order to meet benchmarks.  The goal of the tiers is student success, not labeling.

RtI & the Problem-Solving Process

Academic and Behavior Systems
•	Tier 3: Intensive, Individualized Interventions & Supports. 
The most intense (increased time, narrowed focus, reduced group size) instruction and intervention based upon individual student need provided in addition to and aligned with Tier 1 & 2 academic and behavior instruction and supports.
•	Tier 2: Targeted, Supplemental Interventions & Supports. 
More targeted instruction/intervention and supplemental support in addition to and aligned with the core academic and behavior curriculum.
•	Tier 1: Core, Universal Instruction & Supports. 
General academic and behavior instruction and support provided to all students in all settings.

The Problem-solving Process

Timeline
•	Once a problem is clearly defined and analyzed by the problem solving team, the next step is to design and implement an intervention.  
•	If the intervention is successful after the first attempt teams can make decisions about whether or not to continue, how to fade the intervention, etc.  
•	If student data is not yielding the progress the team defined as acceptable, then team members may need to back up and revisit the problem analysis stage.

Step 1 - What’s the Problem?
•	In order to identify a problem, you’ve got to start with three pieces of data-
•	Benchmark level of performance
•	Student level of performance
•	Peer level of performance

Step 2 - Problem Analysis: 
•	Why is it occurring?
•	Hypotheses about why the student is not demonstrating the replacement behavior
•	Assessment data are collected to validate hypotheses

Step 3 – Intervention Design
•	Why are we going to do?
•	Match intervention type & intensity to student(s), setting, problem
•	Interventions must focus on teaching replacement behavior or skill
•	Select evidence-based interventions that match context of school/classroom culture
•	Provide support for implementation
•	Training/coaching as needed
•	Evaluation of implementation integrity

Step 4: Evaluating the effectiveness of the intervention
•	Is intervention evidence-based?
•	How effective is this intervention with students from similar backgrounds? 
•	How intense is the intervention? – the dosage (time and focus of intervention)
•	Was the intervention implemented as planned? 

Decision Rules: What is a “Sufficient” Response to Intervention
•	Positive Response
•	Gap is closing
•	Can extrapolate point at which target student will “come in range” of peers – even if this is long range
•	Questionable Response
•	Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening 
•	Gap stops widening but closure does not occur
•	Poor Response
•	Gap continues to widen with no change in rate

Next 3 slides are line charts being used to show the Positive, Questionable, and Poor Responses described in the previous slide above.

Responses & Intervention Decisions

Positive
•	Continue intervention with current goal
•	Continue intervention with goal increased
•	Fade intervention to determine if student(s) have acquired functional independence.

Questionable
•	Was intervention implemented as intended?
•	If no - employ strategies to increase implementation integrity
•	If yes - increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact.  
•	If rate improves, continue. 
•	If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

Poor
•	Was intervention implemented as intended?
•	If no - employ strategies in increase implementation integrity
•	If yes -
•	Is intervention aligned with the verified hypothesis? (Intervention Design)
•	Are there other hypotheses to consider? (Problem Analysis)
•	Was the problem identified correctly? (Problem Identification)

Slide 28 Graphic 
This slide contains a pair of graphics that characterize two different systems – a traditional system and an RtI system. Let’s look at some of the foundational differences.
•	Under a traditional system we would intervene and get one of two potential outcomes
•	Smiley face or
•	Frowny face. And if we got a frowny face we would intervene again (because we have to have two interventions) with two potential outcomes: Smiley face or Frowny face. 
•	And after we’d stacked up enough frowny faces we would consider special education. We had created a system that viewed special education the only mechanism for access to student assistance, so folks would relentlessly pursue that. The central question at the table was, “Are we or are we not going to test this child?” The mindset was that a label equaled help. The problem was that the adults in the system viewed smiley face as a barrier to obtaining help and at times would get quite upset if there was a smiley face. In fact, I’ve heard people at the table say things like, “The only reason he’s doing well is because I’m helping him!” – and the logic almost seemed sound at the time. So this system was built and sustained on the discovery of student failure rather than student success. The more failure that was discovered, the more the adults in the system were reinforced. At the point of eligibility, we would hand the student over to the special education teacher and say something that was, in essence, “We had lots of meetings with lots of people and tried lots of things, but none of them worked so…. do the best you can.”  - and for us, that was where it ended.
•	In a response to intervention system we intervene – with interventions that are designed/developed through a structured problem solving process – again with two possible outcomes.
•	Smiley face or
•	Frowny face.
•	If we get a smiley face, we monitor progress, at a frequency appropriate to the level of resource, to assure that we sustain the smile.
•	If we get a frowny face, we’ll intervene again, still through the structured, self-correcting, problem solving process – with, once again, two potential outcomes: Smiley face or Frowny face.
•	If we get a smiley face we’ll monitor progress and
•	if we get a frowny face, we’ll continue to intervene, until….
•	we get a smiley face. We don’t stop until we get a smiley face and there is no payoff for frowny face. 
•	At this point we can then answer the question, “Can we sustain this smile with the resources available in general education (If so, great), or is the amount of resource needed to sustain this smile so intense that we’ll need the services of special education to provide it?” Also at this point, we have the answers to the two most fundamental instructional questions, “What to teach?” and “How to teach it?” We’ve always had a two pronged set of criteria for special education eligibility – a student must 1) display the characteristics of a disability, and 2) must need special education. Traditionally, we’ve spent a lot of time and developed sophisticated ways to determine whether a child is a child with a disability, but we’ve not paid as much attention to the discovery of need. If a child was referred, we’ve sort of accepted that as evidence of need. So, in the traditional system, we first demonstrate characteristics of the disability and then assume need.
•	 In a PS/RtI system that’s flipped. First we discover what the need is, and then, if necessary explore the existence of a disability. So, it’s need first, then disability. In the words of Dave Tilly, “The change seems subtle…  It ain’t!” 
•	When the target at the student assistance team table is the discovery of ‘what to teach’ and ‘how to teach it’ in order to maximize student outcomes, the activities that occur at that table and the questions asked are much different. In the words of Ken Howell, “The central question is not: ‘What about the students is causing the performance discrepancy?’ but ‘What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?’ This shift alters everything else.” 
•	Whether exceptional education is considered, or not, the student comes to the classroom with a huge body of information gathered all along the way, focused on student success. The entire process targets understanding what instructional, curricular, and environmental variables we can alter to maximize student success. The target is always student success.

An Essential Shift in Thinking

The central question is not: 
“What about the students is causing the performance discrepancy?” 
but
“What about the interaction of the curriculum, instruction, learners and learning environment should be altered so that the students will learn?” 
This shift alters everything else.
Ken Howell

To stay in the game and improve results, shift thinking from
•	Procedural Concerns to Instructional Focus
•	Reliance on Formulas and Checklists to Systematic Problem-solving
•	Territorial Silos to Blended Expertise
•	Label-seeking to Instructional Solution-seeking
•	Comfortable Safety to Sensible  Solutions
•	“Testing” to Instructionally Relevant Assessment
•	Categories to Whole Child as a General Education Student, regardless of educational needs

Impetus for Change
•	Educational Reform
•	ESEA/NCLB
•	IDEA
•	State Initiatives
•	State Board Rules 

Reauthorization of ESEA–Key Priorities

•	Highly effective educators – great teachers and leaders in every school
•	College and career-ready students – rigorous standards and assessments aligned with standards 
•	Equity and opportunity for all students – improving student learning and achievement in lowest-performing schools
•	Raise the bar and reward excellence
•	Promote innovation and continuous improvement

What We Need for Education Reform
“Response to Intervention” (RTI) . . 
” a way of screening children, early in their schooling, that can help schools and educators identify those who may not be responding to instruction – and thus may be at risk for school failure. The technique allows schools, on a school-wide basis, to provide any student more intensive support–and monitor their progress – than may be typically available in every classroom.”
Alexa Posny, Assistant Secretary, OSERS

IDEA 2004 Congress’ Vision
“Improving educational rights for children with disabilities is an essential element of our national policy of ensuring equality of opportunity, full participation, independent living, and economic self-sufficiency for individuals with disabilities.”

RtI and IDEA

•	IDEA emphasizes improving educational results for children with disabilities (20 USCS §1400(c)) 
•	IDEA promotes whole-school approaches and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs (20 USCS §1400(c))
•	IDEA funds the implementation of coordinated, early intervening services (20 USCS §1411) 
•	IDEA promotes coordinating ESE with other school improvement efforts (20 USCS §1400(c)) 

PS/RtI Supports IDEA

•	Systematic procedure for identifying students with disabilities (Child Find)
•	Data-driven process for establishing need
•	Provides evidence of instructional impact (lack of instruction cannot be determinant factor per 20 USCS §1414(b))
•	Eligibility criterion for SLD (LI & E/BD in FL Rules) 

Improving Outcomes for Students with Disabilities – 20 U.S.C. § 1400(c)(5)(F)

•	High expectations & ensuring access to the general education curriculum in the regular education classroom.
•	Coordinating special education with other efforts so that special education becomes a service NOT a place.
•	Providing incentives for whole-school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral interventions and supports, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address their learning and behavioral needs.

Aligning FL Rules & Practice with IDEA

•	Prior to being concerned with any program eligibility criteria, we need to understand the requirements of rule 6A-6.0331, often called “The General Rule” (effective Dec., 2008)
•	6A-6.0331: General Education Intervention Procedures, Identification, Evaluation, Reevaluation and the Initial Provision of Exceptional Education.  (“Initial Provision of Exceptional Education” means providing ESE services to a student for the very first time.)

Highlights of the “General Education Interventions Rule”

•	Why? – Provide a coordinated system of intervention support in general education. 
•	Who? – Students needing additional support to succeed in the general education environment.
•	How? – Teams applying a problem solving process to develop and implement coordinated general education intervention procedures.

Organization of 6A-6.0331

(1)	General Education Intervention Procedures
(2)	PreK Procedures
(3)	Initial Evaluation
(4)	Parental Consent for Initial Evaluation
(5)	Evaluation Procedures
(6)	Determination of Eligibility
(7)	Reevaluation Requirements
(8)	Additional Evaluation & Reevaluation Requirements
(9)	Parental Consent for Services

General Education Intervention Procedures 6A-6.0331(1)
•	District responsibility to develop and implement coordinated general education intervention procedures for students who need additional academic and behavioral support to succeed in the general education environment
•	District may carry out activities that include the provision of educational and behavioral evaluations, services, and supports as part of the general education intervention procedures
•	Parent involvement including discussion of student’s RtI
•	Observations in the educational environment
•	Review of existing data 
•	Screenings (not evaluations) – screenings & assessments permitted
•	Evidence based interventions 
•	Developed through a PS/RtI process that uses student performance data to 
•	identify the area of concern 
•	analyze the area of concern 
•	select and implement interventions, and 
•	monitor the effectiveness of the interventions
•	Interventions implemented as designed for a reasonable period of time (fidelity) 
•	Intensity of intervention matched to student need
•	Ongoing progress monitoring communicated to parent in understandable format (graph) 

Initial Evaluation 6A-6.0331(3)
•	Full and individual initial evaluation
•	District
•	Parent
•	Documentation that:
•	Gen Ed intervention procedures were implemented and indicate that ESE eligibility should be considered, or 
•	Team determination that nature & severity of concerns render General Education procedures inappropriate 
•	Qualified Examiners
•	60-day Evaluation Timeline 

Evaluation for Eligibility
•	All of the procedures used to determine whether a student is a student with a disability, and the nature and extent of the special education needs (Rule 6A-6.03411(1)(l), F.A.C.)
•	Team must (6A-6.0331(8), F.A.C.):
•	Review existing evaluation data on student
•	Identify additional data needed
•	Evaluation data used to determine:
•	Whether the student is a student with a disability 
•	Educational needs of the student
•	Present levels of academic achievement
•	Need for special education & related services
•	Modifications needed to participate in general education curriculum 

Parent Consent
•	When is parent consent required?
•	Whenever the team will be using assessment data to make an eligibility decision
•	Purpose for which the assessment data are used – not the nature of the data – that drive consent
•	Not required for screening/diagnostic assessments that inform intervention
•	When must consent be obtained?
•	Interventions are effective but require high level of intensity and resources to sustain growth
•	Student does not make adequate growth given effective core instruction and intensive & individualized, evidence-based interventions
•	Whenever parent initiates a request for an evaluation

Evaluation Procedures 6A-6.0331 (5)
•	Variety of assessment tools and strategies including
•	Information provided by the parent
•	Information related to enabling the student to progress in general curriculum
•	Not use any single measure or assessment as sole criterion for determining eligibility
•	Technically sound instruments
•	District must ensure that assessment instruments/procedures are: 
•	Nondiscriminatory on racial or cultural basis – selection & administration
•	Administered in native language or other mode of communication & in a form most likely to demonstrate student skills 
•	Used for purposes for which assessments are valid and reliable 
•	Administered by qualified personnel consistent with instructions provided by producer (Manual) 
•	Assessment tools and strategies that provide relevant information to determining the student’s educational needs 
•	Assessed in all areas related to a suspected disability
•	Sufficiently comprehensive to identify all of a student’s ESE needs

Determination of Eligibility 6A-6.0331 (6)
•	Group of qualified professionals and parent
•	Utilize data from a variety of sources
•	aptitude and achievement tests, 
•	student’s response to interventions/instruction
•	parent input & student input (when appropriate) 
•	teacher recommendations, and 
•	information about the student’s physical condition, social or cultural background, and adaptive behavior
•	Ensure that all information is documented and carefully considered 

Eligibility for Special Education
•	Assessment and Progress Data from Problem Solving Process
•	Group and Individual Interventions
•	Rate of Progress – Performance Discrepancy – Educational Need provides a convergence of data from a variety of sources  

NOT Eligible if determinant factor is:
•	Lack of appropriate instruction in reading including the essential components of reading instruction
•	Lack of appropriate instruction in math
•	Limited English proficiency

State-level Infrastructure Development for RtI

•	State Management Group
•	State Transformation Team
•	Advisory Committee 
•	Regional RtI Coordinators
•	DA Regional RtI Specialists
•	District Based Leadership Teams
•	School Based Leadership Teams
•	School-Based Coaches
What is your level of commitment for positively affecting change within this Infrastructure? 

State Transformation Team
•	Four Topical Subcommittees:
•	PK-12 Curriculum/Instruction/Assessment
•	Higher Education (Pre-service)
•	Parent and Community Engagement
•	Policy and Communication
•	Refining goals and action planning specific to each topic has been initiated.
•	The problem-solving process (state-level) is the way of work.

PS/RtI Resources for Staying Informed
•	BEESS Weekly Newsletter
•	Florida’s RtI Website: http://www.florida-rti.org/ 
•	News and Events
•	Resources (ex., RtI Parent Brochure)
•	State Plan
•	On-line Professional Development
•	Partnerships
•	Three Statewide Projects:
•	PS/RtI Pilot Project: http://floridarti.usf.edu/ 
•	RtI-TLC Project: http://rtitlc.ucf.edu/ 
•	PBS Project: http://flpbs.fmhi.usf.edu/ 

Coming attractions…

•	State level advisory committee representing all stakeholders to provide on-going input and receive frequent updates
•	Series of model standards-based math and science lessons incorporating Tier 1 problem-solving/RtI concepts (c-palms, iTunesU, RtI Web site, Office of Math and Science Web site)
•	Parent workshop kits to increase awareness and build consensus among families and community
•	Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem-Solving (GTIPS)

Guiding Tools for Instructional Problem-Solving (GTIPS)

•	Guiding Principles: Purpose, Foundation Beliefs, PS-RtI Framework, Connections
•	Guiding the PS Process: Needs Assessment, Parent and Team Engagement, Problem-solving Worksheets
•	Tools for Guiding ESE Eligibility: Gen. Ed. Intervention Requirements; Tools for guiding referrals, consent, and evaluation
•	Tools for Guiding Eligibility Decisions for SLD, E/BD, LI, InD: Decision Tree
•	On-going Problem-solving within RtI for Students with Disabilities
•	Re-evaluations