Response to Intervention in the Social-Emotional-Behavioral Domain: Perspectives from Urban Schools

Shireen Pavri

A Feature Article Published in

TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus

Volume 6, Issue 3, February 2010

Copyright © 2009 by the author. This work is licensed to the public under the Creative Commons Attri- bution License Response to Intervention in the Social-Emotional-Behavioral Domain: Perspectives from Urban Schools

Shireen Pavri

Abstract

This article examines the application of the popular Response to Intervention (RTI) approach to the early identification and service delivery for students with social, emotional, and behavioral difficulties in schools. The article begins with an explanation of the RTI model as applied to the social behavior domain, based on the empirical research base. It proceeds to share data from focus group interviews with exemplary urban special education teachers about RTI strategies used in their schools and classrooms and what it would take to implement RTI in this domain. The article then discusses implications for school personnel who are interested in adopting an RTI model in this domain.

Keywords RTI, social-behavior

SUGGESTED CITATION: Pavri, S. (2010). RTI in the Social-Emotional-Behavioral Domain: Perspectives from Urban Schools. TEACHING Exceptional Children Plus, 6(3) Article 4. Retrieved [date] from http://escholarship.bc.edu/education/tecplus/vol6/iss3/art4

2 Starting with universal screening, an prevention programs such as Character RTI approach will allow for early identifica- Counts, and social skills curricula such as tion of children at-risk for social-emotional- Skill-streaming. Generally, the goal of univer- behavioral difficulties. Universal behavioral sal intervention is to teach prosocial behav- screening techniques should be accurate, sen- iors necessary for academic and life settings. sitive, and specific so as to identify risk fac- Sugai, Horner, and Gresham (2002) deter- tors in students. These screening measures mine that approximately 80 – 90% of young- should incorporate multiple methods and in- sters are well served by these universal inter- formants while also being cost efficient and ventions. easy to administer (Severson, Walker, Hope- Simple measures may be used to de- Doolittle, Kratochwill & Gresham, 2007). termine which students are non-responsive to Recently the Office of Special Education Pro- the universal interventions and who need ad- grams (OSEP) worked with several leading ditional support. For instance, office disci- researchers in the field of emotional and be- pline referrals (ODRs) may be indicative of havior disorders in an attempt to identify vi- students who need more targeted interven- able and technically adequate behavioral tions. In and out of school suspensions are screening and assessment measures (Severson another indicator of behavior problems. et al., 2007). The Systematic Screening for Commercially available Internet based infor- Behavior Disorders (SSBD) emerged as the mation systems such as the School Wide In- most heartily endorsed measure. The SSBD tervention System (www.swis.org) (May, Ard, has a strong norm sample, uses three levels of Todd, Horner, Sugai, Glasgow, & Sprague, screening, and has an empirical support base. 2008) could be adopted to gather information, At the first level of screening in the SSBD, enter data, and generate reports on on-site of- teachers identify students who are at high risk fice discipline referral information. These for difficult behaviors. In the second stage of measures are effective in identifying students screening, teachers complete a behavior rating scale on students screened as being at high-risk for behavior problems, with the in- “Simple measures may be used tent to provide additional assessment for this to determine which students are group of students. At the final stage of screen- non-responsive to the universal ing in the SSBD, teachers conduct classroom and playground observations of the target interventions and who need addi- students considered to be most at-risk for be- tional support.” havior difficulties. Tier 1 or universal interventions are who demonstrate physical or verbal acting out implemented school-wide or class-wide either or externalizing behaviors. Youngsters who daily or weekly, to all children in a school. are shy, quiet, withdrawn and demonstrate Universal interventions address those social internalizing behaviors, such as depression or behaviors that all students at a school are ex- high anxiety, are more effectively assessed pected to demonstrate (Sandomierski et al., using teacher nominations or the SSBD 2008). Generally, universal interventions tar- (Hawken et al., 2008). It is important to cau- get social and academic development tion that students are to be identified for se- (Gresham, 2004). These could include school- lected interventions only if high quality aca- wide expectations, rules, procedures, disci- demic and behavior instruction and interven- pline plans, character building and violence-

3 tions have been applied at both the school- ately to the intervention. Daily behavior re- wide and classroom levels, and students have port cards can be developed and used by the not responded appropriately to these interven- teacher to monitor the effectiveness of inter- tions. ventions adopted. A daily behavior report card report is similar to a home-school note or good note home, and is used by the student “Tier II interventions are im- and teacher to monitor the effectiveness of an plemented to build a student’s intervention applied toward a target behavior. social-behavioral and/or Target behaviors are first defined, and a plan academic-behavioral repertoire, is developed to rate the student on these be- so that students will become haviors, usually several times daily (Cha- fouleas, Riley-Tillman, Sassu, LaFrance, & more responsive to universal Patwa, 2007). interventions.” Tier III or targeted interventions are provided to the group of students, generally no more than 1 – 5% of a class, who exhibit Tier II or selected interventions are chronic academic and/or behavioral difficul- targeted at those students (10 – 20%) in the ties and are not responsive to Tier II interven- class who are not responsive to the universal tions (Sugai et al., 2002). At this point, more interventions received by all. It is important in-depth data is collected on the student, in- to note that a large number of students who cluding a review of interventions already demonstrate behavior difficulties also have used. The intensity and persistence of the academic difficulties which likely need to be problem behaviors in these students requires remediated. Tier II interventions are imple- individualized and comprehensive interven- mented to build a students’ social-behavioral tions that are resource-intensive and often and/or academic behavioral repertoire, so that reach beyond the school system. Mental students will become more responsive to uni- health, juvenile justice, and social service versal interventions. Behavioral interventions agencies may be involved. Generally, a func- that are easy to administer in small groups, tional behavior assessment (FBA) is con- and are not too time and personnel intensive ducted to learn about the relationship between would be appropriate such as social skills the student’s behavior and variables in his or training, group counseling, or mentoring pro- her environment and positive behavior sup- grams (Gresham, 2004; Sandomierski et al., port interventions are tailored to reduce the 2008). Often, individually focused interven- specific problem behavior and replace these tions such as a behavior contract, self- with positive behaviors (Gresham, 2005). The management strategy, or behavior reduction purpose or communicative intent of students’ techniques such as response cost or differen- behavior is investigated. Again, the students’ tial reinforcement might be employed ongoing progress is frequently monitored, (Gresham, 2005). either daily or weekly, using direct measures Ongoing progress monitoring, at such as teacher-rating scales or direct obser- minimum biweekly, is required to ensure that vation of target behavior. the students are indeed responding appropri-

4 Figure 1

Social- Emotional- Behavioral RTI Framework

Intensive Intervention Individualized 1-5% of students

Select Intervention Small group of at risk students Effective for 5-20% of students

Universal Interventions Class or School-wide Effective for 80-90% of students

Application of Social-Emotional-Behavioral report using in the social-emotional- RTI in Urban Schools behavioral domain? Special education teachers are often 2) What are exemplary urban special viewed as a resource to others at the school education teachers’ attitudes towards the use when it comes to implementing academic and of RTI in the social-emotional-behavioral behavior interventions. A group of urban spe- domain? cial education teachers who worked closely 3) What would it take for schools to with school administrators and general educa- adopt an RTI approach in the social- tion teachers were interviewed to determine emotional-behavioral domain? the extent to which schools have the capacity to implement an RTI approach in the social- Methodology behavior domain. Focus group interviews were conducted to learn about how the RTI Participants. Nine special education model is being used at their schools and to teachers (7 female and 2 male) from 3 urban ascertain special educators’ perceptions about school districts in the Western United States the feasibility of the RTI approach in the be- participated in the focus group interviews. havioral domain. The following questions Participants taught across three large diverse were explored using focus group interviews: urban school districts on the West Coast, each 1) What early identiﬁcation, interven- serving 26,000 to 88,000 students, many of tion, and progress monitoring strategies do who were English language learners and on exemplary urban special education teachers free and reduced price lunch. The schools the

5 teachers worked at varied in the extent to were team leaders providing consultation and which they implemented an RTI model. All support to general and special educators schools used some version of a tiered system across schools in the district. The final par- of interventions, and one school had a full- ticipant served as a resource specialist provid- fledged RTI model in place, primarily for ing both pull out services and support in in- academic interventions. clusive settings. Five participants taught at the The participants had taught students elementary level, two at a middle school with disabilities for between one to eleven level, one at the high school level, and one years. Eight of the nine participants had prior supported teachers across all grade levels. All experience working with individuals with dis- participants served students with a range of abilities in a different capacity (e.g., para mild/moderate disabilities including learning educator, parent, ABA therapist, etc.) prior to disabilities, mental retardation, autism, other pursuing their special education certification. health impairments, and emotional and be- Six participants taught students with disabili- havioral disturbance. Please see Table 1 for ties in a pull-out program. Two participants participant demographics. Table 1 Participant Demographics

Name* Gen- Age Ethnicity Highest Grade Type of edu- Years Years Type of der education levels cational Set- of teaching disabilities taught ting tchng students served exp with disabilities Luisa F 35 - 39 Caucasian Bachelor’s 9th and Self- 1.5 1.5 BD/ED, + 10th contained OHI Roxanne F 50 – 54 Caucasian Masters 1st – 3rd Self- 10 10 LD, MMR, contained Autism, BD/ED Heather F 30 –34 Caucasian Masters 2nd – 4th, Self- 5 5 LD, MMR, & 8th contained ADHD Carol F 45 – 49 Caucasian Bachelor’s 2nd - 4th Self- 11 11 LD, + contained Autism, MMR, ADHD Marco M 30 – 34 African- Bachelor’s Middle Team Leader 9 9 All American + school & Cauca- sian Stephanie F 30 – 34 Caucasian Bachelor’s Middle Self- 6 5 BD/ED, + school contained Autism, ADHD Jake M 25 – 29 Caucasian Bachelor’s 4th – 5th Self- 4 4 LD, BD/ + contained ED Fay F 30 –34 Asian- Masters K – 5th Resource 7 7 LD, MMR, American support, Autism, inclusion OHI Jennifer F 35 – 39 Caucasian Masters All Team Leader 10 10 All * Participant’s names have been changed to preserve confidentiality.

6 The participants were graduates of a participants’ responses to the previous focus special education credential program at a group questions and sought clarification and large, urban, comprehensive public Univer- elaboration of responses as needed. The par- sity and had been nominated by their Univer- ticipant feedback enhanced the trustworthi- sity professors and fieldwork supervisors to a ness of the data gathered. Questions at the “Demonstration Network” based on demon- second focus group session related to teacher strated excellence in practice. University fac- attitudes and perceptions of use of the RTI ulty nominated these participants as demon- model, and what it would take for their school strating exemplary practice based on ongoing to consider adopting RTI. Interviews were classroom observations, interviews with ad- audiotaped and transcribed for later analysis. ministrators and site-supervisors, and inter- Data analysis. The author coded the views with the candidates themselves. Excel- emerging themes using grounded theory ap- lence in practice was documented in the fol- proaches (Glaser & Strauss, 1967). This proc- lowing areas: theoretical and historical foun- ess comprised of development of initial dations of special education, assessment for themes, categorization of these themes, planning and progress monitoring, program grouping themes by category, looking for er- planning, instructional implementation, man- rors and inconsistencies, and refining themes aging the teaching and learning environment, using the extant literature (Huehls, 2005). and professionalism and interpersonal skills. Procedures. Email invitations were “Some participants expressed sent to members of the Demonstration Net- a general sense that their school work of teachers. Of those who responded as being willing to participate, the nine partici- could be doing more in the area pants were available at mutually determined of social-emotional-behavioral times to participate in focus group interviews. needs, and others reported that All participants had completed coursework their school had many resources and /or professional development related to and supports.” RTI and had a working knowledge of RTI, primarily in the area of learning disabilities. Results Participants attended two, hour-long Participants were initially asked about focus group interviews facilitated by the the extent to which they felt their school ad- author at the local University. The focus dressed the social-emotional-behavioral needs groups were structured using semi-structured of students. There was variability in their re- interview questions that were followed up sponses. Some participants expressed a gen- with probing questions as needed. The first eral sense that their school could be doing focus group inquired into strategies used in more in this area, and others reported that universal screening and identification, school- their school had many resources and supports wide and class-wide preventative strategies for students. The participants most frequently adopted at the school, targeted interventions cited counseling services and referrals to both to build positive behavior repertoires, and in- in-school counseling and community-based tensive interventions for students with signifi- mental health services as ways in which their cant difficulties. At the second focus group school addressed student needs. Secondary meeting, a month later, a member check was teachers indicated that their schools adopted a conducted where the interviewer reviewed the punitive approach where students with social

7 and behavioral difficulties were sent to on- identified where community members and campus suspension, referred for special edu- school personnel could volunteer to mentor a cation, failed their courses, or received a dis- student of the same gender and ethnicity, and ciplinary transfer. Some teachers at the ele- weekly mentor-mentee meetings were ar- mentary level reported a greater emphasis on ranged where a curriculum was implemented building a community atmosphere at the to support participating students. school with home-school activities, multicul- Marco talked about an innovative pro- tural programs, and monthly family events gram that his school had implemented called being commonplace. Teachers reported that “student alerts”. Photographs of students who youngsters with internalizing problems, who were at-risk for behavioral and/or academic did not call attention to themselves, were difficulties were shared confidentially with largely ignored by the school system and their the school staff as part of these alerts. Staff needs largely remained unaddressed. received professional development on how to provide encouragement and support to the Tier I or universal interventions students highlighted through the alerts. Anec- When asked about the school-wide dotal evidence indicated that this technique and/or class-wide programs and techniques was very successful in orienting the student adopted by their school to facilitate social, toward the desired behavior. emotional, and behavioral skills in students, participants reported using several school- Tier 2 or selected interventions wide and/or class-wide positive behavior sup- When asked about the specific strate- ports. Amongst the techniques cited were gies or techniques used at the school to iden- school-wide incentive programs such as the tify students who may be experiencing social/ use of tokens exchanged for a reward, and emotional/behavioral difficulties, teachers rewards when they were caught doing some- reported that the process of identifying stu- thing good e.g., earning “school cash” for dents with behavioral difficulties was much good behavior. One of the districts where par- like that used to identify students with aca- ticipants worked had adopted Safe and Civil demic difficulties. Classroom teacher obser- Schools (Sprick, 2008), a school-wide posi- vation and referral were most common. Often tive behavior support model, in all of its ele- a general education teacher would approach mentary and middle school buildings. At the special education teacher asking for in- these schools, site-based teams reviewed data formal consultation and support. A prereferral on student behavior in their process of estab- intervention team was often convened. Some lishing goals and determining priorities for secondary teachers reported that it could take the school. Most schools used positive rela- a while to convene the prereferral team at tionship building techniques such as checking their school site with an occasional student in with students, informal teacher-student getting arrested in the meantime. Parents may lunch gatherings, and showcasing students' or may not be invited to this initial team strengths and talents to enhance faculty- meeting to discuss the students’ demonstrated student and student-student relationships. difficulties. Most often, the complaints or re- Character Education programs taught desir- ferrals dealt with students demonstrating ex- able traits and rewarded students for demon- ternalizing behaviors. Students demonstrating strating these. The school counselor often internalizing behaviors most often went un- conducted mini-lessons on topics such as bul- recognized and unattended to. In some in- lying and teasing with large and small groups stances, behavior problems resulted in disci- of students. Mentoring programs were also plinary referrals to the truancy center or the

8 school office, or referrals to the school coun- behavioral difficulties. Academic interven- selor. tions were generally considered to have a de- Several teachers reported that ongoing sirable effect on difficult behaviors. For in- communication with parents was both a nec- stance, Amy clarified, “Half the students I essary and effective technique. Teachers regu- have with significant behavior problems can- larly communicated with their student’s fami- not read- they have made a lot of growth aca- lies using planners, phone conversations, and demically this year and they are beaming- it face-to-face meetings. Many schools were has really changed their behavior too”. using a pyramid of interventions approach, Most special education teachers re- with teachers being required to document the ported that they were acculturated to always use of more than one intervention prior to ini- look for the student’s strengths and find posi- tiating a prereferral team meeting on a stu- tive behaviors to work with. Token econo- dent. mies, praise, tangible reinforcers, tickets, raf- fles, and good telephone calls home were widely used across grade levels and school “Teachers in general education sites. sometimes don’t feel as empow- A level system was often adopted ered as we special educators feel where students had to earn a certain number to deal with behaviors when of points, based on classroom behavior, in they come up. They feel like exchange for a privilege. The psychologist was viewed as a valuable resource for leading their hands are tied behind their small group discussions around topics such as backs.” anger management, making good choices, pregnancy prevention, and bullying. Building relationships with students was believed to be Roxy- Teachers in general edu- key to the intervention process. Students were cation sometimes don’t feel as provided non-contingent attention. A strong empowered as we special edu- message shared with students was that they cators feel to deal with behav- were separate from their behaviors, and even iors that come up. They feel though the teacher did not like their behaviors that their hands are tied behind that did not suggest that she did not like the their backs. To a certain extent student. they don’t want to single kids out because they need some- Jenny- really letting them see thing extra. Or they don’t have that you can separate the per- the energy to deal with it, or son from the behavior. You are they don’t know how. not bad, your behavior is bad. Especially by Middle School Tier 3 or targeted/intensive interventions and High School, they are Teachers were asked about the tar- quite lumped in together. geted approaches they have used to build positive social-emotional behavior in the stu- Teachers took the time to get to know dents they work with. In most instances, the the student as a person, both at school and special education teachers identified them- outside school settings. Teachers often made selves as the primary resource for students home visits to get to know the family and who had been identified as having chronic home context and see the child in a different

9 setting. For some students, the use of social same old drone of my voice stories and role-playing appeared to be effec- because I am tired. It is a good tive. Other teachers used individual or group opportunity for us to go back meetings with students to process problems and consider what can we do evidenced and assist with problem solving. to implement more structure Clearly data collection leads to effec- and consistency in their day. tive interventions. In some instances, teachers reported using a Functional Behavior As- Students were encouraged to partici- sessment or an antecedent-behavior- pate in goal setting. For instance, in the morn- consequence (ABC) analysis to better concep- ing during advisory Jenny would let students tualize and intervene with the students’ prob- know what levels they were at, and then initi- lems. Others referred to collaborative ap- ate a goal setting activity to find out what stu- proaches where various school personnel, in- dents were going to do to maintain their cur- cluding the bus driver, assisted in collecting rent level or to move up a level during that structured observation data to monitor student week. progress toward established objectives. External mental health and counseling Special education teachers were usu- services were also cited as a resource for in- ally the case managers for students who tensive interventions. Some high schools had needed more intensive interventions. Behav- on-site mental health support, while other ior contracts and point systems such as level schools worked closely with community men- systems, token economies, and class-wide or tal health agencies that supported the student individual contracts were widely cited. Pro- and their families as well. moting supportive relationships with an adult at school such as checking in with the assis- Attitudes Towards Using RTI in the Social- tant principal or counselor each morning were Emotional-Behavioral Domain reported. Another approach commonly used While there was a tendency for par- by the special education teacher was focusing ticipating teachers to favor an RTI approach, on student strengths. Marco described how he there was healthy skepticism regarding its had a whiteboard in his classroom with two implementation in the schools. The promise columns on it, one for positive comments on of early intervention, preventing problems student behavior and the other for negative from becoming chronic, the impact of inter- comments. Each time he called on a student ventions on students’ academic growth and for breaking a rule or misbehaving, he had to consequent elevation of self-esteem and self- say three positive things about the student. worth were cited as part of the attraction of His students were welcomed to draw his at- RTI. There was also a belief that RTI would tention to instances when he did not keep up help reveal the reason for a student's low per- the 3:1 ratio of positives to negatives. formance and behavior difficulties by distin- Teachers also discussed being reflec- guishing between underlying emotional and tive about classroom instructional strategies learning difficulties. For example, Amy ex- and routines and reflecting on ways to en- plained, “There may be some emotional is- hance student engagement. sues going on, but anything you can give them that will make them feel successful is Jenny- This is a time to go going to eliminate some of that. Who is to say back to see what’s my struc- that they cannot learn because of the ED, or ture, pacing, are my lessons because of the disability that causes the ED.” engaging or am I back to the

10 RTI was also hailed as an objective Jenny- General education approach involving scientific practices used to teachers think we have this make decisions about children. Teachers real- wealth of knowledge that they ized that standardized tests that have been an have no knowledge of – some integral part of the discrepancy formula used of the interventions we do are in the identification of LD have been flawed pretty basic. We don’t do this and biased. Making intervention decisions magic with the kids...” based on “concrete guidelines” and hard data was reassuring to the teachers. Eliminating Questions were also raised regarding subjectivity was believed to reduce bias in the role of RTI in high schools. Teachers were how students are identified for special educa- frustrated that by the time the student reached tion. Despite this objectivity, teachers were high school there was little that could be done concerned about the lack of consistency in to prevent the problem from escalating. how RTI would be implemented across sites. Luisa- By high school, unfor- tunately, they have heard so “Most of the concerns many times only the bad part that that has become their stemmed from resource implica- whole persona. If you take that tions such as staffing, budgetary away from them, they don’t concerns, and professional de- know who they are.... By high velopment for both special and school RTI is more about re- general education teachers.” tention and stopping drop-outs than it is about prevention.

Most of the concerns stemmed from Implementation of RTI in Schools resource implications such as stafﬁng (e.g., who will provide the interventions), budget- Special education teachers identiﬁed ary concerns, and professional development several variables that would need to be in for both special and general education teach- place for RTI to be adopted school-wide. ers (e.g., lack of expertise or technical know- Firstly, a standardized student assessment sys- how). tem would be needed that would identify the Jake- General education teach- measures to be used at different tiers and the ers are often uninformed- give cut scores or criterion on these measures to it 6 weeks for behavior to see determine whether or not a student is respon- changes. If you are getting sive to interventions. Secondly, ongoing pro- more help earlier, you are fessional development would be a key com- more likely to continue ponent for effective RTI implementation. Pro- through with the intervention fessional development on behavioral strate- to see if it really works with gies i.e., the purpose of behavior, antecedents the kid. If you don’t get the and consequences of behavior, dealing with help and are told to keep giv- hard-to-handle students, tiered interventions, ing something a chance, I can classroom and individual behavior planning, see how the teachers get fraz- etc. would be required. Third, school-wide zled. and class-wide PBS models would need to be developed and systematically implemented. A

11 collaborative community climate would need trict with tunnel vision for to be fostered to allow students to feel com- raising test scores. fortable to work together. Fourth, teachers Implications for Schools identified a need for a shift in attitudes at their schools for RTI to work. A strong belief that RTI is an appealing and promising all kids can learn would be needed to make approach to the prevention of chronic social, RTI systemic. “A belief that these are still emotional, and behavioral difficulties in chil- kids and that they can learn, that it is not too dren and youth. This approach has received late…” (Roxy). Fifth, there would need to be increased attention in the research literature, support from school leadership, who would although there is very little empirical support need to allocate resources to allow RTI to for its use in the social-emotional-behavioral take root and be successful. In Jenny’s words, domain at this time (Fairbanks et al., 2007; “RTI needs to be an accepted philosophy Gresham, 2005). While it is critical to deter- from those above…”. mine the effectiveness of such an approach on student outcomes, a parallel line of inquiry Teachers also called for clear direc- relates to whether schools have the capacity tions on how to implement RTI. They thought to implement RTI across the academic and it would be essential to show general educa- behavioral domains (Hawken et al., 2008). tion teachers “exactly what RTI looks like and The data from the focus groups conducted in how it will work”. It would not be sufficient this study provide insights on how practicing to tell teachers to use interventions without special educators perceive RTI and how RTI showing them how to implement these. Jake, is implemented in their classrooms and who taught at a school that had an RTI model schools. This investigation also sheds light on in place and had tasted its success, talked special educators’ attitudes and concerns un- about how a boost in student performance derlying school-wide implementation of RTI. motivated school staff to adopt the model. The perspective of a special educator is a Finally, several teachers called for valuable one, as special educators are pre- policy changes and increased research on pared to provide academic and behavioral in- RTI. They sought evidence proving that RTI terventions and to serve as a resource for ad- works, and for specific empirical support on ministrators and general educators at their curricular, instructional, and assessment schools. Established RTI models have been of strategies that can be applied with fidelity to fairly recent origin, primarily since the pas- positively impact student performance. An- sage of the Individuals with Disabilities Edu- other teacher recommended the following cational Improvement Act (IDEIA) in 2004. policy changes for RTI to be successful: Special educators are increasingly providing Jenny- if the constraints of pre-referral support and services to students NCLB remain in place, then at-risk for learning and behavior difficulties, RTI will not work. The two do and are in a position to provide leadership, not go together. If schools are technical support, and much needed profes- solely measured on test scores, sional development for the establishment and they do not have the time, en- implementation of an RTI model at their ergy, resources, and even the school. care to do anything but raise The shift in traditional service deliv- test scores; they are not going ery models will make corresponding demands to try out interventions… RTI on schools for the early identification of stu- would not take root in a dis- dent needs, implementation of universal

12 screening measures, identification of appro- Teachers in this investigation dis- priate interventions of increasing intensity, cussed their collaboration with parents when and the development of robust progress moni- developing and implementing interventions. toring measures to determine student response Parental communication and participation in to interventions. Criterion measures and deci- educational decisions strengthens the inter- sion rules will need to be determined that al- ventions implemented (Duffy, 2007). Partner- low school-based problem solving teams to ing with parents in an RTI model is very de- determine when a student responds appropri- sirable, and requires outreach to the family ately to an intervention, and when he or she is and community at multiple levels. non-responsive and needs more intensive in- In summary, RTI emerges as a promis- terventions (Noell & Gansle, 2006). Grouping ing model for youngsters who experience dif- in tiers is intended to be flexible and dynamic, ficulties in the social-emotional-behavioral such that a student can be moved or retained domain. Despite the promise of RTI, there is a at a particular tier depending on his or her need for more conclusive research about the progress. Progress monitoring data must be specifics of implementation and the feasibility reviewed every 6- 8 weeks to ensure that the of large-scale adoption of this model. student is not “stuck” at a particular tier of intervention. These questions call for in- RESOURCE BOX creased research and ongoing professional development for school personnel. Useful resources for positive behavior An allied area that schools will need support and planning are available at to address when implementing RTI in this http://www.pent.ca.gov domain is securing support and buy-in from http://www,pbis.org all school personnel. Teacher willingness to intervene when difficult behaviors emerge is www.swis.org paramount to this model's success. Building needed technical skills and supports amongst http://www.rtinetwork.org/Learn/Behavi the teachers will help change teacher atti- or/ar/SchoolwideBehavior tudes, resulting in more flexible staff who are willing to redefine their roles and share their turf with colleagues to better serve students (Danielson, Doolittle, & Bradley, 2007; Fuchs & Deshler, 2007). Similarly, committed administrators who set clear expectations for the implementation of RTI, ensure adequate resources are available, and support the use of empirically based practices facilitate RTI practices at a school (Danielson et al., 2007). As was apparent from the focus group interviews, strong leadership at the district and site level is needed to set the tone for RTI implementation. The social-emotional functioning of youngsters would need to be declared to be a strategic priority, with the necessary resources provided to facilitate needed intervention.

13 References to ask). Learning Disabilities Re- search and Practice, 22, 129 – 136. Bailey, D. B., Aytch, L. S., Odom, S. L., Sy- mons, F., & Wolery, M. (1999). Early Gresham, F. (2004). Current status and future intervention as we know it. Journal of directions of school based behavioral Early Intervention, 24, 1 – 14. interventions. School Psychology Re- view, 33, 326 – 343. Cheney, D., Flower, A., & Templeton, T. (2008). Applying response to inter- Gresham, F. (2005). Response to intervention: vention metrics in the social domain An alternative means of identifying for students at risk of developing emo- students as emotionally disturbed. tional or behavioral disorders. The Education and Treatment of Children, Journal of Special Education, 42, 108 28, 328 – 344. – 126. Glaser, B. G. and A. L. Strauss (1967). The Chafouleas, S. M., Riley-Tillman, T. C., discovery of grounded theory: Strate- Sassu, K. A., LaFrance, M. J., & gies for qualitative research. New Patwa, S. (2007). Daily behavior re- York: Aldine. port cards: An investigation of the consistency of on-task data across ra- Harris-Murri, N., King, K., & Rostenberg, D. ters and methods. Journal of Positive (2006). Reducing disproportionate Behavior Interventions, 9 (1), 30 – 37. minority representation in special education programs for students with Danielson, L., Doolittle, J., & Bradley, R. emotional disturbances: Toward a cul- (2007). Professional development, ca- turally responsive response to inter- pacity building, and research needs: vention model. Education and Treat- Critical issues for response to inter- ment of Children, 29 (4), 779 – 799. vention implementation. School Psy- chology Review, 36 (4), 632 – 637. Harry, B., Klingner, J., Sturges, K., & Moore, R. (2002). Of rocks and soft places: Duffy, H. (2007). Meeting the needs of sig- Using qualitative methods to investi- niﬁcantly struggling learners in high gate disproportionality. In D. Losen & school: A look at approaches to tiered G. Orfield (Eds.) Racial inequity in intervention. National High School special education (pp. 71- 92). Cam- Center, American Institutes of Re- bridge, MA: Harvard Education Press. search. Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, Fairbanks, S., Sugai, G., Guardino, D., & J. (2008). Response to intervention for Lathrop, M. (2007). Response to in- social behavior: Challenges and op- tervention: Examining classroom behavior support in second grade. Ex- portunities. Journal of Emotional and ceptional Children, 73, 288 – 310. Behavioral Disorders, 16, 213- 225.

Fuchs, D., & Deshler, D. (2007). What we Huehls, F. (2005). An evening of grounded need to know about responsiveness to theory: Teaching process through intervention (and shouldn’t be afraid

14 demonstration and simulation. The tional Association of School Psy- Qualitative Report, 10, 328 – 338. chologists.

May, S., Ard, W., Todd, A., Horner, R., Sugai, G., Glasgow, A., & Sprague, J. (2008). About the Author: School wide intervention system. Re- trieved November 9, 2008 from Shireen Pavri is the Associate http://www.swis.org/ Dean for Graduate Studies and a Professor of Special Educa- Noell, G. H., & Gansle, K. A. (2006). Assur- tion at California State Univer- ing the form has substance: Treatment sity, Long Beach. plan implementation as the foundation of assessing response to intervention. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 32, 32 – 39.

Sandomierski, T., Kincaid, D., & Algozzine, B. (2008). Response to intervention and positive behavior support: Broth- ers from different mothers or sisters with different misters? Positive Be- havior Interventions and Supports Newsletter, 4 (2). Retrieved October 20, 2008 from http://www.pbis.org/news/New/Newsl etters/Newsletter4-2.aspx

Severson, H. H., Walker, H. M., Hope- Doolittle, J., Kratochwill, T. R., & Gresham, F. M. (2007). Proactive, early screening to detect behaviorally at-risk students: Issues, approaches, emerging innovations, and professional practices. Journal of School Psychology, 45, 93- 223.

Sprick, R. (2008). Safe and Civil Schools. Re- trieved November 9, 2008 from http://www.safeandcivilschools.com/

Sugai, G., Horner, R., & Gresham, F. (2002). Behaviorally effective school envi- ronments. In M. Shinn, H. Walker, & G. Stoner (Eds.), Interventions for academic and behavior problems II (pp. 315 – 350). Bethesda, MD: Na-