This document outlines an approach to improving the student referral process through response to intervention (RTI). It discusses implementing dynamic assessment to better identify student needs, developing targeted teaching strategies, and evaluating student progress through multiple rounds of intervention. The goal is to reduce unnecessary referrals and evaluations by teachers and speech language pathologists working collaboratively at each step of the RTI process.
AMERICAN LANGUAGE HUB_Level2_Student'sBook_Answerkey.pdf
Collaborating with Teachers to Make Great Referrals: Identifying treatment methods that work across languages and cultures
1.
2. Learner Objectives
• Participants will:
▫ View RTI from a broad perspective
▫ Introduce a macro approach to looking at the
results of RTI and further driving accurate
assessment
▫ Evaluate the speech pathologist’s role in the
referral process
▫ Show how to use the referral process to reduce
caseload work, better identify students, and
reduce special education spending.
3. Outline
The greatest issues facing educators in the schools
• Studying our current situation
▫ Identifying the greatest issues for :
Speech-language pathologists
Administrators
Teachers
Speech department leads
• Case study of a Texas school district
▫ Follow 23 students through the referral process
during Fall 2011
• Share resources to improve the referral process
5. What is our goal today?
• Improving services in the schools
▫ Reducing our caseloads
▫ Improving the referrals that we receive
from teachers
▫ Reducing the number of DNQs from
evaluations
▫ Improve our relationships and success
with other professionals
8. What are the greatest difficulties we
face?
Speech Language Pathologists:
• My caseload is too large
• I have too many campuses
• I have too much paperwork
• I don’t have time to complete the evaluations
given to me
9. What are the greatest difficulties we
face?
Principals and Assistant Principals:
• I can’t get this student into special education
• There are too many annual meetings
• I can’t believe this child didn’t qualify
• The evaluation process is too long
• Any others that you have heard?
10. What are the greatest difficulties we
face?
Speech Department Leads:
• My staff is stretched too thin
• There are not enough bilingual SLPs
• There is no money in the budget
• We are over-identifying certain minority
groups
• Any others that you have heard?
11. What are the greatest difficulties we
face?
Teachers:
• I can’t understand my student
• I want to help in the classroom but I don’t know
what to do
• I have 19 other students
• The referral process:
▫ Is complicated
▫ Takes too much time
▫ Involves a lot of paperwork
▫ Doesn’t result in students getting help.
12. 1. How do we solve these problems
and appease everyone in the process?
Conflicting interests
and needs Speech
Pathologists
Speech
Department
Administration
and School
Staff
13. 2. How are we currently trying to
solve these problems?
Response to Intervention
• Referral Team (RT)
• Student Success Team (SST)
• All Children will Learn
(ACWL)
• Impact Process
• Student Progress Monitoring
• Database Decision Making
• …
14. What is RTI?
A regular education initiative to deal with the
problems of the discrepancy model (discrepancy
between IQ and achievement).
A way to determine how students respond to
intervention (in the classroom with the teacher)
A screening to identify children with learning
disabilities.
A way of determining whether children who receive
“intensive” intervention in the classroom respond.
All of these lead to reduced disproportionality.
15. • RTI is an approach to LD identification that was
first proposed by a 1982 National Research
Council report.*
▫ Google: “Response to Intervention + Year (1982-2009)”
*Heller, Holtzman, & Messick, 1982
Hits in Millions
0
2,000,000
4,000,000
6,000,000
8,000,000
10,000,000
12,000,000
1982
1983
1985
1986
1988
1989
1990
1991
1992
1993
1994
1995
1996
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
When was RTI created?
16. • “RTI was first proposed by Gresham
(2002 ) as a viable alternative to the
discrepancy model.”
• Provide children from culturally and linguistically
diverse populations with the assistance they need to
succeed.
• To better identify children with reading disabilities.
• To better identify children with learning disabilities.
• Do SLPs use a discrepancy model?
• How does RTI serve SLPs in it’s intended mission of
correctly identifying populations?
*Fasko, 2006
Why was RTI implemented?
17. • Are we correctly identifying students?
• Are we still over- or under-identifying?
• Have we improved the types of referrals
that we receive from general education?
• Has our involvement in the referral
process gone down?
Is RTI Successful?
18. Analysis of a State's SE Population
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
% of Special Education Students
860 Districts Over-
Identifying
8.0%
Correctly
Identifying
1001 Texas Districts and their Special Education Population
19. How successful are we?
District Proportionality Study Results
• Out of 1008 Districts in Texas,
860 are over-identifying
• The referral process takes 4- 8
months on average
• There is a high rate of DNQs
each school year from testing
• Teachers do not unanimously
feel supported
• The system is often abandoned
by “fast-tracking” students or
“work-arounds.”
20. Should RTI be abandoned?
RTI seems to be successful or unsuccessful for
the very same reason:
The fact that it is largely undefined.
Vice or Virtue?
21. Virtue
RTI is hugely successful in situations
in which good collaboration takes
place.
It can be adapted to current campus
initiatives.
It combines Special Education
personnel, General Education
personnel and resource
professionals.
22. Vice
RTI allows people on the same
team to perceive their role
differently.
It does not provide consistency
or a framework.
It encourages immense
bureaucracy and paperwork in
order to cover all our bases.
24. Supporting our
Colleagues Effectively –
A Case Study
Simultaneously:
Supporting Teachers
Responding to Administrations
Monitoring Student Progress
Improving Referrals
Reducing our workload
25. Case Study of a District
• Timeframe: Fall Semester, 2011
• Population:
▫ Kindergarten and first grade students on two
campuses
▫ Dual Language Program
• Number of Students: 23
• Teacher Concerns:
▫ Speech
▫ Language
▫ Fluency
▫ Attention/Pragmatics
26. Case Study of a District (continued)
• Timeframe: Fall Semester, 2011
• Population:
▫ Kindergarten and first grade students on two
campuses
▫ Dual Language Program
• Number of Students: 23
• Teacher Concerns:
▫ Speech
▫ Language
▫ Fluency
▫ Attention/Pragmatics
27. Our Question:
Can we improve the referral process?
• Measures
▫ Reduced # of referrals resulting in a full evaluation
▫ Reduced # of evaluations resulting in a DNQ
▫ Reduced SLP time spent on referrals and evaluations
▫ Teacher satisfaction
▫ Administrator satisfaction
▫ SLP satisfaction
28. RTI Problem Solving Method*
*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
student’s
difficulties
Develop
strategies
Implement
the
strategies
Evaluate
student’s
success
Who is
concerned?
29. RTI Problem Solving Method*
*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
student’s
difficulties
Develop
strategies
Implement
the
strategies
Evaluate
student’s
success
Is there a
problem?
30. RTI Problem Solving Method*
*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
student’s
difficulties
Develop
strategies
Implement
the
strategies
Evaluate
student’s
success
What shall
we do
about it?
31. RTI Problem Solving Method*
*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
student’s
difficulties
Develop
strategies
Implement
the
strategies
Evaluate
student’s
success
Here are
the steps.
32. RTI Problem Solving Method*
*Adapted from NASDSE, 2006
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
student’s
difficulties
Develop
strategies
Implement
the
strategies
Evaluate
student’s
success
Did our
plan work?
33. Gather Student Information
1. Name
2. Date of Birth
3. Grade
4. Teacher
5. Vision and Hearing
6. Parent Concern and History
7. Teacher Concern
1. I can’t understand my student
2. My student doesn’t speak enough, is
confusing, or can’t understand me
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
1
34. Initial Data
• Hearing Concern
• Parent Concern
• Teacher Concern
• I can’t understand the
words that my student
uses.
• My student doesn’t speak
enough, is confusing, or
can’t understand me.
Part A - Everyone
Part B – Which best describes
your student
Click here to download this chart as a pdf.
35. Speech and Language Concerns
The Language Information
generates data about each area
of possible concern.
Teachers read it from top to
bottom
SLPs read it from left to right
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
1
36. Speech and Language Concerns
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
1
Click here to download this chart as a pdf.
37. Analyze Student Difficulties
1. I can’t understand my student.
2. 27 common outcomes (not including
multiple issues, 2nd language, or age).
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
38. Analyze Student Difficulties
1. My student doesn’t speak enough, is
confusing, or can’t understand me
2. 7 common outcomes across expressive
and receptive domains
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
39. Why referrals might be
daunting to teachers
• There are 7 pieces of data from three sources
• Multiple Causes
▫ There are 27 common speech outcomes
▫ There are 7 common language outcomes
• There are 12 steps across 3 tiers
• Referral Manuals can be 12-58 pages
• Teachers on average receive less than 2 hours of
training per year
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
40. Are Teachers Referring the
Right Students?
Research on agreement between teachers and
SLPs
• Numerous studies have explored the rate of agreement
between teachers and SLPs about who should receive
speech services (Friberg, 2008).
Diehl & Sinnet (1959) – 60%
James & Cooper (1966) – 40%
Clauson & Kopatic (1975) – 18%
Davis and Harris (1992) – 81%
Cartwright-Gard, Harmon & Bryne (2002) – 58%
• On average, teachers- SLP agreement is 60%.
• Research indicates that 40% of students who should be
referred are not (Mosheim, 2009)
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
41. Teacher confidence
• Cartwright-Gard, Harmon & Bryne (2002)
surveyed teachers and found:
▫ 75% of teachers reported low confidence in
making referrals
▫ 80% of teachers indicated a desire for more
training to improve their referrals
• Many teachers report very low confidence when
making referrals for bilingual children
Are Teachers Referring
the Right Students?
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
42. Distribution of time over a
student’s week
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
43. Research on Dynamic
Assessment
• Mediation Sessions
▫ Intentionality
▫ Meaning
▫ Transcendence
▫ Competence
• Targeted Components and Structure
following script
• Modifiability Score (responsiveness +
effort)
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
49. Implementation
• What are ways of applying DA in the schools?
• What are ways of collaborating with other team
members to do DA?
• Other implications?
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
50. Outcomes of DA
• Helps us distinguish between language
difference and language disorder
• Process-oriented approach to assessment and
intervention
• Interactive procedures
• Helps predict change
• Guides intervention
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
2
51. Develop Strategies
1. What problem is a child having?
2. Example: Answering questions
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
3
52. Implement Strategies
1. Example: Answering questions
2. Tell the student this story and ask him these
questions
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
4
Who wanted to
go to the ball?
What did
Cinderella
lose?
When did she
have to leave?
Where did the
prince live?
53. Evaluate Student Success
1. Example: Answering questions
2. How did he do?
Gather
Student
Information
Analyze
Student
Difficulties
Develop
Strategies
Implement
Strategies
Evaluate
Student
Success
5
Who wanted to
go to the ball?
What did
Cinderella
lose?
When did she
have to leave?
Where did the
prince live?
57. What is the outcome?
• Administration satisfaction
▫ Are the children getting served?
▫ Are the teachers supported?
• Teacher Satisfaction
▫ Are my concerns being addressed?
▫ Are the students’ needs being met?
• SLP satisfaction
▫ Is the amount of work less?
▫ Is the data and outcome better?
63. Example Letter - No Speech
Concern
Hello,
Thank you for the information that you provided
on the sounds that your student produces. As
children get older, they are expected to produce
more and more sounds…
Thank you for all that you do!
65. Example Letter – Speech Concern
Hello,
Thank you for the data that you provided on this
student’s communication. Some of the sounds
that you identified should be produced by a child
at this age. We would like to see if your student
can make the corrections of the sounds….
70. Great Resources on
Cultural and Linguistic Diversity
Who wanted to
go to the ball?
What did
Cinderella
lose?
When did she
have to leave?
Where did the
prince live?