Regulatory Support for Intervention-based Service Delivery
Regulations structure, guide and direct the provision of special and general education services. Federal and state law that directly or indirectly enable a problem-solving, intervention-based services are reviewed.
Federal regulatory support for intervention-based service delivery
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) legislation establishes compelling incentives for public schools to support improved achievement of all students. Each year districts and the states must assess academic performance of at least 95% of all enrolled students using a state approved district-wide assessment process. Achievement results are analyzed by gender, major racial/ethnic groups, English Language Learners, migrant status, students with disabilities and economically disadvantaged. Accountability requirements include sanctions and rewards for all public schools and districts for student achievement based on an Adequate Yearly Progress formula required in the federal law and developed by the state department of education. Consequently, schools are seeking improved performance levels of all students, including individuals with disabilities. Five key features of NCLB are important to educators:
- All students are included in academic assessments activities to determine their achievement levels which are reported to the public. All students are expected to improve academically
- Educators must use scientifically-based curriculum, instructional, and assessment practices to enhance educational outcomes.
- Schools provide safe environments where learning is supported.
- Highly qualified staff provide instructional services.
- Parents have expanded choice in determining the school for their child if a school does not meet standards.
In a comparable manner, the Individual with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) has a set of expectations that influence the design of educational services in America's school. An increase emphasis on pragmatic assessment, student outcomes, and the use of data from implementation of interventions for educational decision-making is present in the house and senate reauthorization of IDEA.
- Full and individual evaluation is carried out to understand and plan for each child's needs and develop intervention plans to deliver specially design instruction intended to demonstrate progress on measurable goals.
- Assessment include a review existing evaluation data on the child, including evaluations and information provided by the parents of the child, current classroom-based assessments, and observations, and teacher and related services providers observations.
- In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process that determines if the child responds to scientific, research-based intervention (Gresham, 2002).
- The IEP is designed to enabling the child to be involved in and progress in the general curriculum (Fuchs & Deno, 1991).
- Students with disabilities receive educational services in the least restrictive environment. The focus of the individualized educational program is intended to support progress in the general curriculum.
- Parents are involved in decisions for their child and due process rights are provided.
Integrated service delivery models that enhance achievement of all students are appealing to school leaders on two counts. First, for high-stakes accountability reasons, and secondly because of significant fiscal constraints impinging on educational agencies. Consequently efficiency and effectiveness of efforts are of paramount importance to support schools in meeting the demands of Adequate Yearly Progress. The school-wide model provides the technology to systematically assess the performance of all learners and identify those who are meeting expectations and those students who require additional interventions (Simmons, Kame enui, Good III, Harn, Cole, & Braun, 2000; Simmons, Kame ennui,1998).
State support for intervention-based service delivery
Iowa Administrative Rules of Special Education (2000) governing special education establish an infrastructure for intervention-based services (Grimes & Tilly, 1995). These regulations articulate statewide expectations for professionals, provides operational definitions of the processes, and support the review of implementation through the state's compliance monitoring system. Three examples are provided showing how a multiple tier interventions system supports Iowa's state regulations. First, consider the definition of general education interventions, a concept consistent with secondary interventions or tier 2: "General education interventions shall include teacher consultation with special education support and instructional personnel working collaboratively to improve an individual's educational performance. The activities shall be documented and shall include measurable and goal-directed attempts to resolve the presenting problem or behaviors of concern, communication with parents, collection of data related to the presenting problem or behaviors of concern, intervention design and implementation, and systematic progress monitoring to measure the effects of interventions." (Iowa Administrative Code 281.42 (48) (2))
Additionally, Iowa rules defines the concept of "systematic problem-solving" as a set of procedures with five essential components: (a) description of problem, (b) data collection and problem analysis, (c) intervention design and implementation, (d) progress monitoring, (e) evaluation of intervention effects (Table 1). The definition gives form and substance to the practice of problem-solving when applied to special education entitlement decision-making (Iowa Administrative Code 281.42 (47)(2)). These practices have been further clarified statewide by the Iowa Special Education Directors Association, which adopted standards to guide implementation of problem solving practices (Iowa Directors of Special Education Association, 1995).
Lastly, information gained through the problem solving process is utilized in the full and individual evaluation if required to determine eligibility for special education. Iowa rules state, "the purpose of a full and individual evaluation is to determine the educational interventions that are required to resolve the presenting problem behaviors of concern or suspected disability including whether or not the educational interventions are special education" (IAC 281.48 (32)). Thus, the process directly supports the intent of Iowa and Federal special education law.
The Iowa Administrative Rules of Special Education (2000) state that special education services must be individually designed, individually determined and based on the specific educational needs of the individual. Further, special education instructional services are defined as specially designed instruction. To provide individually determined, specially designed instruction, it is necessary to focus on what will enable a child to be successful. The purpose of Heartland's problem solving process is to do just that.
Table 1. Iowa Administrative Rules Defining Systematic Problem Solving (2000)
41.47(3) Systematic problem solving process. When used by an AEA in its identification process, systematic problem solving means a set of procedures that is used to examine the nature and severity of an educationally related problem. These procedures primarily focus on variables related to developing effective educationally related interventions. Active parent participation is an integral aspect of the process and is solicited throughout. At a minimum, the process includes:
a. Description of problem. The presenting problem or behavior of concern is described in objective, measurable terms that focus on alterable characteristics of the individual and the environment. The individual and environment are examined through systematic data collection. The presenting problem or behaviors of concern are defined in a problem statement that describes the degree of discrepancy between the demands of the educational setting and the individual's performance.
b. Data collection and problem analysis. A systematic, data-based process for examining all that is known about the presenting problem or behaviors of concern is used to identify interventions that have a high likelihood of success. Data collected on the presenting problem or behaviors of concern are used to plan and monitor interventions. Data collected are relevant to the presenting problem or behaviors of concern and are collected in multiple settings using multiple sources of information and multiple data collection methods. Data collection procedures are individually tailored, valid, and reliable, and allow for frequent and repeated measurement of intervention effectiveness.
c. Intervention design and implementation. Interventions are designed based on the preceding analysis, the defined problem, parent input, and professional judgments about the potential effectiveness of interventions. The interventions are described in an intervention plan that includes goals and strategies; a progress monitoring plan; a decision-making plan for summarizing and analyzing progress monitoring data; and responsible parties. Interventions are implemented as developed and modified on the basis of objective data and with the agreement of the responsible parties.
d. Progress monitoring. Systematic progress monitoring is conducted which includes regular and frequent data collection, analysis of individual performance across time, and modification of interventions as frequently as necessary based on systematic progress monitoring data.
e. Evaluation of intervention effects. The effectiveness of interventions are evaluated through a systematic procedure in which patterns of individual performance are analyzed and summarized. Decisions regarding the effectiveness of interventions focus on comparisons with initial levels of performance.
Previous Page | Next Page
(Introduction) | (Heartland's Model)
