RTI: Reasons, Practices, Systems, &

ConsiderationsGeorge Sugai

OSEP Center on PBIS

University of ConnecticutDecember 6, 2007

www.pbis.org www.cber.org

George.sugai@uconn.edu

My “Task”

Good Teaching Social Behavior Support

STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT

Increasing District & State Competency and Capacity

Investing in Outcomes, Data, Practices, and Systems

RtI: Good “IDEiA” PolicyApproach for redesigning &

establishing teaching & learning environments that are effective, efficient, relevant, & durable for

all students, families & educators

• NOT program, curriculum, strategy, intervention

• NOT limited to special education

• NOT new

RtI

Sounds simple, but IMPLICATIONS

General Educator

Functioning

Special Educator

Functioning

Implementation Fidelity

Measurement Requirements

Curricular & Instructional Decisions

Where’d “triangle” come from….a

PBIS perspective?

“Triangle” ?’s

• Why triangle?

• Why not pyramid or octagon?

• Why not 12 tiers? 2 tiers?

• What’s it got to do w/ education?

• Where’d those %’s come from?

Specialized Individual Interventions(Individual StudentSystem)

Continuum of Effective BehaviorSupport

Specialized GroupInterventions(At-Risk System)

Universal Interventions (School-Wide SystemClassroom System)

Studentswithout SeriousProblemBehaviors (80 -90%)

Students At-Risk for Problem Behavior(5-15%)

Students withChronic/IntenseProblem Behavior(1 - 7%)

Primary Prevention

Secondary Prevention

Tertiary Prevention

All Students in SchoolCirca 1994

Public Health & Disease PreventionKutash et al., 2006; Larson, 1994

• Tertiary (FEW)– Reduce complications,

intensity, severity of current cases

• Secondary (SOME)– Reduce current cases of

problem behavior

• Primary (ALL)– Reduce new cases of

problem behavior

Primary Prevention:School-/Classroom-Wide Systems for

All Students,Staff, & Settings

Secondary Prevention:Specialized Group

Systems for Students with At-Risk Behavior

Tertiary Prevention:Specialized

IndividualizedSystems for Students

with High-Risk Behavior

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM OFSCHOOL-WIDE

INSTRUCTIONAL & POSITIVE BEHAVIOR

SUPPORT

1-5% 1-5%

5-10% 5-10%

80-90% 80-90%

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•High Intensity

Intensive, Individual Interventions•Individual Students•Assessment-based•Intense, durable procedures

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Targeted Group Interventions•Some students (at-risk)•High efficiency•Rapid response

Universal Interventions•All students•Preventive, proactive

Universal Interventions•All settings, all students•Preventive, proactive

Designing School-Wide Systems for Student Success

Academic Systems Behavioral Systems

Circa 1996

RtI Application Examples

EARLY READING/LITERACY SOCIAL BEHAVIOR

TEAMGeneral educator, special

educator, reading specialist, Title I, school psychologist, etc.

General educator, special educator, behavior specialist, Title I, school

psychologist, etc.

UNIVERSAL SCREENING

Curriculum based measurement SSBD, record review, gating

PROGRESS MONITORING

Curriculum based measurementODR, suspensions, behavior incidents, precision teaching

EFFECTIVE INTERVENTIONS

5-specific reading skills: phonemic awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, comprehension

Direct social skills instruction, positive reinforcement, token economy, active supervision, behavioral contracting,

group contingency management, function-based support, self-

management

DECISION MAKING RULES

Core, strategic, intensive Primary, secondary, tertiary tiers

Responsiveness to Intervention

Academic+

Social Behavior

All

Some

Few RTIA Continuum of Support for All

Dec 6, 2007

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)

0-1 '2-5 '6+

3%8%

89%

10%

16%

74%

11%

18%

71%

K=6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

Mean Proportion of Students

ODR rates vary by level

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Major Office Discipline Referrals (05-06)Percentage of ODRs by Student Group

'0-1 '2-5 '6+

K-6 (N = 1010) 6-9 (N = 312) 9-12 (N = 104)

32%

43%

25%

48%

37%

15%

45%

40%

15%

A few kids get many ODRs

Has triangle been useful?

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n of

S

tude

nts

Met SET (N = 23) Not Met SET (N =12)

Central Illinois Elem, Middle SchoolsTriangle Summary 03-04

6+ ODR

2-5 ODR

0-1 ODR

84% 58%

11%

22%

05%20%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

0

0.2

0.4

0.6

0.8

1

Mea

n P

ropo

rtio

n of

S

tude

nts

Met SET N = 28 Not Met SET N = 11

North Illinois Schools (Elem, Middle) Triangle Summary 03-04

6+ ODR

2-5 ODR

0-1 ODR

88% 69%

08%

17%

04%14%

SWPBS schools are more preventive

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

CONTINUUM of SWPBS

Tertiary Prevention• Function-based support• • • •

Secondary Prevention• Check in/out• • • •

Primary Prevention• SWPBS• • • •

Audit

1.Identify existing efforts by tier

2.Specify outcome for each effort

3.Evaluate implementation accuracy & outcome effectiveness

4.Eliminate/integrate based on outcomes

5.Establish decision rules (RtI)

RtI Systems & Considerations?

Quotable Fixsen • “Policy is

– allocation of limited resources for unlimited needs”

– Opportunity, not guarantee, for good action”

• “Training does not predict action”

– “Manualized treatments have created overly rigid & rapid applications”

“Train & Hope”

REACT toProblemBehavior

REACT toProblemBehavior

Select &ADD

Practice

Select &ADD

Practice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

Hire EXPERTto TrainPractice

WAIT forNew

Problem

WAIT forNew

Problem

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Expect, But HOPE for

Implementation

Possible RtI OutcomesGresham, 2005

Responder Non-Responder

High Risk

False +Adequate response

True +Inadequate response

No Risk

True –Adequate response

False –Inadequate response

Avoiding False +/-

Still not so simple: EBD?

Gresham 2005

Implications & Complexities(E.g., Gresham, Grimes, Kratochwill, Tilly, etc.)

• Psychometric features of measures?

• Standardized measurement procedures?

• Documented “cut” criteria for determining responsiveness?

• Interventions efficacy, effectiveness, & relevance?

• Cultural, familial, language, etc. considerations?

• Students with disabilities?

• Professional development?

• Applications across grades/schools & curriculum areas?

• Treatment integrity & accountability?

• Functioning of general v. special education?

• K-12 applications

•

SYST

EMS

PRACTICES

DATASupportingStaff Behavior

SupportingStudent Behavior

OUTCOMES

Supporting Social Competence &Academic Achievement

SupportingDecisionMaking

Simple Systems Elements

IMPLEMENTATIONPHASES

Need,Agreements, Adoption, &Outcomes

LocalDemonstration

w/ Fidelity

Sustained Capacity,

Elaboration, &Replication

4. SystemsAdoption, Scaling,

& ContinuousRegeneration

2.

3.

1.

ValuedOutcomes

ContinuousSelf-Assessment

Practice Implementation

EffectivePractices

Relevance

Priority Efficacy

Fidelity

SUSTAINABLE IMPLEMENTATION & DURABLE RESULTS THROUGH CONTINUOUS REGENERATION

Future: Document…• Technical adequacy of RtI components

(measurement, decision rules, etc.)

• Full implementation across range of contexts

• Impact & relationship of academic & social behavior interaction

• Systems, resources, competence needed to maintain effects, support high fidelity of implementation, expand applications, & sustain implementation of practices

Messages

• RtI logic is “good thing” for all students, families, & schools

• Still some work to refine technology, practices, & systems

• Consider implications & complexities for practice & systems implementation

Keynote “Homework”

1. Work as team

2. Think/work systemically

3. Develop fluency w/ “Big Ideas”

4. Work smarter w/ existing resources

5. Conduct self-audit

George.sugai@uconn.edu

www.pbis.org

www.scalingcenter.org