A Guide to Implementing Response to Intervention in ...

The Joumaí of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011

A Guide to Implementing Response to Intervention in Long-term Residential Juvenile Justice Schools Sara McDaniel Kristen M. Heil David E. Houchins Ellen L. Duchaine

Abstract Since the passage of the Individuals with Disabiiities Education improvement Act (2004), pubiic schoois have been permitted to use a response to intervention modei to address academic and sociai problems of students and identify students with disabilities. As the collective educational community tackles impiementation of response to intervention in mainstream public schoois, minimal attention has been provided to juvenile justice school settings. The purpose of this paper is to provide juveniie justice professionals with guidance on how to impiement response to intervention in their schooi setting. Emphasis is piaced on the iong-term faciiities and the use of a muitidiscipiinary approach. Suggested guidelines and unique considerations are discussed and a student scenario is provided to iiiustrate response to intervention impiementation.

Introduction How students can be identified as having a disability was dramaticaiiy aitered with the passage of the individuáis with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA, 2004). The IDEA permits states to use a Response to Intervention (Rtl) model (Mesmer, 8 Mesmer, 2008), commonly impiemented through a threetiered service delivery modei (Johnson, Mellard, Fuchs, 8 McKnight, 2006). The Rtl paradigm was designed to identify iow-performing students not meeting grade-ievei expectations, and to subsequently provide intensive academic or behavioral interventions to students prior to referring the student for speciai

51

The Joumai of Correctional Education 62(1 ) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

education services. The Rtl model has been defined in several ways but in general follows five basic principles (Barnes, & Harlacher, 2008) including (a) preventing student failure, (b) matching instruction to learner needs (c) making data-driven decisions based on probiem-solving, (d) impiementing effective teaching strategies, and (e) moving students based on their documented performance. Overall, Rtl models involve a multi-tiered process that aliows local education agencies (LEAs) to provide children with effective strategies based on the idea that all students are capable of learning (Barnes a Harlacher, 2008; Elliott, 2008). All students should be provided effective teaching strategies. Students not experiencing success in school are provided with targeted effective teaching strategies matched to deficit areas in hopes of improving academic and/or behavioral problems. Formative assessment of student progress is an important component in determining the effectiveness of impiemented strategies. Students who do not make sufficient progress are provided effective teaching strategies with increasing intensity and longer duration prior to being identified as having a disabiiity. Since the passage of IDEA, numerous states have impiemented various versions of Rtl. While much attention has been given to Rtl implementation in traditional pubiic schoois, minimai consideration has been given to how Rti can be used in juvenile justice (JJ) settings. Developing context-specific methods for implementing Rtl in JJ is especially important considering the distinctive JJ population and setting. Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, and Poirier (2005) indicated that approximately 35% of incarcerated students have disabilities. Of those with disabilities, 47.7% had emotional disturbance eligibilities, 38.6% had specific learning disabiiity eligibilities, and 9.8% had intellectual disability eligibilities. These prevalence rates are significantiy higher when compared to the traditionai school public schooi population (Colarusso a O Rourke, 2009). Accurately identifying students with disabilities in the JJ system is an essential component of providing students with individual and appropriate educational services. While JJ schools abide by the same laws as traditionai fédérai legislations of public education (e.g., IDEA and No Child Left Behind, 2001), the application of these mandates are often challenging to apply in JJ facilities (Leone, ö Cutting, 2004). The purpose of this paper is to meet this challenge by providing professionals in long-term JJ school settings with guidance on how to effectively and efficiently implement Rtl which can improve youth outcomes. First, a brief background of Rtl is provided. The emphasis is on cun-ent nationai Rtl approaches. Next, context-specific information is offered on how Rtl can be implemented in 52

The Journal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

a long-term JJ facility. The unique characteristics of Rti in a JJ setting are emphasized. Finally, a scenario is presented that illustrates Rti in a JJ school. What is Rti? Typically, Rti models consist of three tiers of interventions, which each tier representing an increase in intense interventions. Tier 1 is the least-intensive level of intervention services. It is commonly viewed as high quality, scientifically based general education curriculum and instruction employed in school systems (Johnson et al., 2006). Students are assessed on a formative basis, and students deemed unresponsive to Tier 1 instruction and universal supports are recommended to Tier 2. Academic and behavioral universal screenings for all students are administered at Tier 1. Fuchs and Fuchs (2007) recommend schools administer universal screenings and progress monitor for a minimum of five weeks to reduce over identification of students considered to be 'at-risk. According to Vaughn (2003), 80%-85% of all students are successful at Tier 1 and do not require placement in Tier 2. Tier 2 represents students who continue to receive general education instruction in addition to interventions tailored to the identified area of weakness. At Tier 2, students receive targeted, research-based, small group instruction in general education classrooms. Best practices state interventions as this level and subsequent tier levels should be delivered at least three to four times a week, with the duration ranging from 30 to 60 minutes (Johnson et al., 2006). In order to inform decisions regarding student progress and movement between tiers, progress monitoring is usually performed on a weekly basis. Students faiiing to respond to Tier 2 interventions are typically referred to Tier 3 for more individualized, intensive support. Students at this tier or the final tier of the service-delivery model, are generally referred for a special education evaluation to determine if special education eligibility is appropriate (Johnson et al., 2006). Current Rti Approaches

Although Rti models can vary from state to state, typically one of two Rti approaches is employed: problem solving or standard treatment protocol approach (Fuchs a Fuchs, 2006; Johnson et al., 2006). In certain instances, school districts may choose to employ a combination of the approaches, with the standard treatment protocol occurring first (Johnson et al., 2006). Nonetheless, the general goal of both Rti approaches is to provide supplemental instruction to students not responding to scientifically based Tier

53

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

1 instructional curriculum (Johnson et al., 2006). The problem solving approach is implemented through a problem solving team, such as a student instruc-itional team (SIT), student study teams (SST), or building assistance team (BAT) (Johnson et al., 2006). This approach may have three or more phases where practitioners objectively define the problem in measurable terms, determine the severity of the identified weakness based on analyzed data, in addition to hypothetical causes. It calls for the implementation of student accommodations and modifications to general education curriculum (Johnson et al., 2006) as well as individualized, coordinated interventions based on individual student achievement data (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). School personnel implement interventions and monitor progress on a consistent basis. Based on obtained student data, educators determine whether the accommodations, modifications, and interventions are effective. If not, adjustments to the intervention are necessary. Conversely, the standard treatment protocol approach is less focused on individual interventions tailored to fit each student s needs and focuses on instructional programs designed to enhance a specific skill (Johnson et al., 2006). It requires less depth of knowledge and skill from practitioners (Fuchs & Fuchs, 2006). The specific interventions with this approach are pre-determined, and are given to all students displaying similar weaknesses as though there is a standard treatment for each deficit. This intervention approach requires designated trial durations at each tier level, where interventions are implemented in a homogeneous small group setting, with three to five students per teacher (Johnson et al., 2006). Generally, this additional instruction will occur for thirty minutes in addition to standard general education instruction. Students should be monitored on a weekly basis to determine if the instructional program is effective. Progress is usually monitored for eight to twelve weeks. After this time period, it is determined whether or not the student should remain in the program or receive interventions at a more intense level (Johnson et al., 2006). The model of implementation may look different at the elementary and secondary levels due to the following reasons. First, at the middle and high school level, educators should not place as much emphasis on screening individuals. At the secondary level, academic deficits should be established, and more emphasis should be placed on previous assessment and teacher nomination for placement into the Rtl process (Fuchs, Fuchs a Compton, 2010). Secondly, Fuchs et al. (2010) states students at the middle and high school level may not respond to interventions at the secondary level of Rtl; they suggest 54

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 iVIcDaniei, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

that students identified with significant discrepancies and identified at-risk for academic failure shouid be placed in the most intensive tier ievei with the goai of decreasing academic weaknesses. Rtl Process of Implementation In gênerai, impiementing the Rtl model requires effectiveiy fulfilling six progressive requirements. After making the decision to implement the most appropriate Rti model (problem solving approach and/or standard treatment protocoi), schools should designate personnel to serve on the Rtl committee. These individuáis wiii be responsibie for making important decisions regarding placement, interventions, and speciai education eligibility designation. Typically this committee is comprised of stake-holders such as administrators, gênerai and special education teachers, and school psychologists and/or counselors. Subsequent decisions made by the committee prior to impiementation invoive the four W's: (1) which interventions will be impiemented at which tiers, (2) who will quaiify for movement up and down the tiers (based on academic and behavioral data), (3) when wiil Rtl impiementation begin and what the duration commitment to Rti is, and (4) where will students on each tier be served (inciusion ciassroom, small group, etc.) which are based from Fuchs, et al. 2003. The next requirement for general Rtl impiementation is the provision of academic and behavioral universal screening for the student s current ievei of achievement. Universai screeners should be sensitive to aii student needs and easy for teachers and additional school personnel to administer. Universal screening shouid be compieted twice a year. Elliott (2008) suggests key qualities of effective assessments inciude (a) measuring targeted skiiis directly, (b) being sensitive to change over short amounts of time, (c) giving them repeatedly and in muitipie formats (d) summarizing them in teacher-friendly ways, (e) drawing on abiiity comparisons across students, (f) monitoring individuai progress over time, and (g) implementing strategies based on assessment findings. In addition to the universal screening process, teachers will also cioseiy monitor academic and behaviorai progress for at least eight weeks while implementing the designated effective Tier 1 teaching strategies. Appropriate academic strategies include grade-Ievei, data-based interventions in all academic areas in a gênerai education ciassroom. Behaviorai strategies at Tier 1 shouid include positiveiy stated expectations, consistent consequences for positive and negative behavior choices, and a simple reward system for appropriate behavior. The fourth requirement involves determining tier movement for students who are unresponsive at Tier 1 after receiving effective teaching strategies in 55

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

academic and behaviorai domains. Students who do not respond as expected to pre-determined decision rules established by the Rtl committee are subsequently moved to Tier 2. In Tier 2, students typically receive smail group support based on deficit areas approximately three times per week for approximately 30 to 60 minutes (Johnson et ai., 2006). In addition to this specific instruction students are aiso piaced on a weekly progress monitoring scheduie. Progress monitoring should be targeted to data-based academic and/or behavioral deficits. Progress monitoring assessments should be predetermined and sensitive to student growth over short time periods. Progress monitoring data should be gathered by the classroom teacher and presented to the Rtl committee for determination of tier movemenL Targeted Tier 2 academic and/or behavioral supports and interventions continue for a minimum of eight weeks. During this time, supports and interventions shouid be both appropriate for each student and consistently implemented. Further, teachers may choose to combine muitiple Tier 2 supports and interventions. IDEA requires interventions to be scientificaiiy vaiid. By definition, effective teaching strategies are: (a) methodicai and empiricai, (b) tested with thorough data analyses, (c) dependent on valid data, and (d) have been published in a peer-reviewed journai (NCLB; 2002). The What Works Clearinghouse (n. d. b.) website provides systematic reviews of research and categorizes them based on the four criteria mentioned above. Specific academic interventions utiiized for the purposes of Rtl vary. Researched instructionai methods include: peer tutoring, 'literacy iabs', specific math and reading programs, after-school tutoring, direct instruction strategies and curricula, and explicit, systematic instruction (Johnson 8 Smith, 2008; Ardoin, et. ai, 2005; Vaughn, et. ai, 2008). Researched progress monitoring tools for use with academic domains and Rtl inciude: gênerai outcome measures, reading curriculum-based measurements, math curricuiumbased measurements, and Dynamic Indicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Cummings, Atkins, Aiiison 8 Coie, 2008; Ardoin, et. al, 2005). In addition to academic considerations, Gresham (2005) suggested Rtl as an alternative approach to identifying students with behavioral concerns. Behaviorai supports and interventions that have been implemented with Rtl include: (1) school-wide positive behaviorai interventions and supports, (2) school based mentoring, (3) targeted social skiiis instruction, (4) functional analyses, and (5) behaviorai intervention plans (Cheney, Flower 8 Templeton, 2008). Behaviorai universai screening and progress monitoring tools inciude: daily progress reports, teacher rating scaies, office discipline referrals, and attendance and tardiness records (Cheney, et al., 2008; Hawken, Vincent, 8 Schumann,

56

The Journal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

2008).The final requirement of implementing an effective Rtl model is continuing assessment of effectiveness and fidelity of impiementation. This requires expiicit, performance-based assessments of teachers and school personnel. Inconsistencies and integrity drift shouid be addressed with ongoing training to fluency and continued communication of expectations and training to fluency. Unique Rtl Implementation Considerations in a JJ School While establishing a Rtl model and procedures in a long-term JJ school share several common characteristics with mainstream pubiic schools, the unique nature of a JJ school requires special attention be given to certain components when developing and impiementing Rtl. Juvenile justice schoois are complex settings with multiple service providers who are heaviiy invoived in the iife of an incarcerated student. Not only are JJ settings complex, but youth characteristics within a given school tend to vary tremendously also. Incarcerated youth have different developmental pathways, committed various crimes, possess gender-specific needs, as well as distinctive strengths and weaknesses. Instituting Rtl in a JJ setting requires a 24-hour, multi-disciplinary approach. Figure 1 provides readers with a Rtl procedural checklist specifically designed for JJ schools. This checklist highlights salient school, mental heaith, housing, security, transition, and overall considerations when implementing Rtl in a JJ setting. The checkiist should be used in conjunction with the following information that illustrates a number of distinctive JJ barriers and suggests potential solutions to overcome difficulties JJ facilities might encounter when impiementing Rtl.

57

The Journal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

Figure 1. Implementation Procedure Checklist for Rti in Long-Term Juvenile Justice Facilities

Task General 1. Determine composition of Rti teams. 2. Determine Rti locations (campus/system-wide) 3. Create a record keeping system. 4. Organize compliance monitoring. 5. Determine it Rti will be used in academic and social domains. 6. Involve parents/guardians. School I. Determine identification criteria tor domain(s) at each tier. 3. Chose universal screening measures tor academics and behavior. 4. Determine who m\\ provide universal screening. 5. Determine when students will complete universal screenings. 6. Create decision rules tor tier movement. 7. Compile Tier 1 academic and behavioral interventions 8. Determine minimum length ot time students should spend at each tier 9. Compile Tier 2 academic and behavioral interventions. 10. Choose Tier 2 progress monitoring toois tor domain(s). I 1 . Compile Tier 3 academic and behaviorai interventions. 12. Organize classrooms tor ettective groupings/placement. 13. Determine appropriate ciass sizes. 14. Organize a system that communicates academic and behaviorai needs with housing unit personnei. 15. Create 6-12 week academic and behaviorai objectives. 16. Identity procedures tor providing students with academic instruction when placed in restrictive settings.

58

Status

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

Mental Health 1. Identify student mental health needs. 2. Determine Tier 2 mental health strategies and resources. 3. Determine Tier 3 mental health strategies and resources. 3. Identify mental health data collection and collaboration procedures. 4. Establish family communication procedures. Housing 1. Establish comprehensive data collection procedures (e.g., around-the-ciock). 2. Determine Tier 2 housing interventions. 3. Determine Tier 3 housing interventions. 3. Identify necessary training for housing staff. Security 1. Identify security staff training needs. 2. Establish comprehensive data coliection with security staff and discipiine procedures. 3. Identify procedures for behavioral referrals for removal from mainstream. 4. Establish continuum of removal procedures. 5. Establish integration of discipline procedures and behaviorai interventions. 6. Determine procedure for academic access during removal and isoiation. 7. Integrate behavior management tools from school into housing units. Transition 1. Determine how can the JJ staff can collaborate with the public schools upon exit and entry. 2. Determine procedures for credit recoupment with public schools. 3. Develop procedures for family participate in transition planning. Additional Resources To Consider 1. Determine who will measure fidelity of implementation. 2. Determine available funding for services, personnel and educational programming. 3. Hire highly quaiified teachers and compensate them according to their expertise. 4. Identify/organize available facility resources (afterschool programs, mentoring volunteers, tutors). A=Addressed, NA=Not Addressed, P=Pending 59

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) » March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al. invoive muitipie JJ service providers and parents

JJ schoois should involve ali members of the muiti-disciplinary facility team, in addition to educators, including housing staff, security personnel, transition specialists, mental health professionals (sociai workers, psychologists, behavioral speciaiists), and medicai practitioners (psychiatrists, physicians) is essential. All personnel must work collaborativeiy to effectively address the intricate academic and behavioral needs of students in the JJ popuiation. Research highlights the importance of ail facility service members to be positive, youth-centered, and trained according to their position specifically taiiored to the JJ population. Furthermore, maintaining effective multi-discipiinary communication and receiving constructive feedback about performance helps aid the Rtl process (Houchins, Puckett-Paterson, Crosby, Shippen a Jolivette, 2009). In addition to collaboration within the facility, collaboration with parents is viewed as equally important, increased parental involvement, such as participation in lEP meetings and facility visits would facilitate youth achievement and success (Houchins, et al., 2009). Moreover, to reduce recidivism and support incarcerated youth, Leone, Quinn a Osher (2002) suggest facilities collaborate with parents in addition to internal and external service providers. This fosters a rehabilitative community for the incarcerated youth. Specificaiiy appiied to Rti, efforts to collaborate with parents, the multidiscipiinary team of service providers within and outside the faciiity would improve Rti goals of effectively preventing academic and behavioral deficits as well as impiementing appropriate interventions for nonresponsive youth. Modify Uti decision ruies for tier assignment and movement

Incarcerated youth require meaningful and relevant instruction (Houchins, Puckeft-Patterson, Crosby, Shippen a Jolivette, 2009). Upon transitioning back to mainstream society, certain societal expectations such as independence, employabiiity, and maintaining positive social connections exist (Lehman, Clark, Bullis, Rinkin, a Castellanos, 2002). Given the tremendous needs of incarcerated youth to meet societal expectations, it is critical for juvenile justice faciiities to modify typical Rti decision rules for tier assignment and movement. Overaii, youth shouid be able to gain access to a more intensive tier of academic and/or behavioral support based on obvious lack of responsiveness at an existing tier. For example, the prescribed length of time a youth stays at one of the tiers may be eight weeks. But if a student is obviously not responding earlier than eight weeks, JJ schools should accommodate student needs and expedite movement to a more supportive tier. 60

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, eL al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

Suggested decision rules for each tier differ for academic and behaviorai domains. Due to the complexity of academic learning environments in JJ schoois, tier movement in the academic domain shouid be based on percentage of assignments compieted and percentage of accuracy of completed work. An example of a decision ruie for movement from Tier 1 to Tier 2 in the academic domain is: youth wiii be piaced on Tier 2 if he/she is unable to maintain an average of at ieast 75% compieted assignments at 80% accuracy for eight weeks with data provided by a classroom teacher, as decided by the Rtl committee. This decision rule can be applied generaily across academic domains (e.g., reading, math, social studies) or for individuai academic domains. In the behavioral domain, decision rules in JJ schoois can be based on office discipline referrals during the schooi day and discipline reviews from probiematic behaviors outside the schooi setting. An exampie of a decision rule in the behavioral domain for movement from Tier 1 to Tier 2 is: youth will be placed on Tier 2 if he/she earns three or more office discipline referrais and/or one discipiine review per week over a eight week time period, as evidenced by discipiine records and decided on by the Rtl committee. Determine appropriate JJ academic EBis

Students in JJ schoois generaily achieve academic goals at a slower rate when compared to typically developing peers (Vacca, 2008). This discrepancy is more pronounced in the area of literacy. Students in JJ schoois are typically two grade levels behind in reading. Research studies show that students in JJ schools who are exposed to more education whiie detained tend to recidivate iess and are more iikeiy to become employed (Malmgren 8 Leone, 2000). Inconsistent deiivery of effective instruction decreases chances of obtaining skills required to iive successfully for incarcerated youth (Leone, Krezmien, iVIason, 8 Meisel, 2005). Research is iimited with regard to effective programming for incarcerated youth, yet several evidence based interventions exist (Sheiley-Tremblay, O'Brien, 8 Langhinrichsen-Rohiing, 2007; iVIalmgren 8 Leone, 2000; Houchins, Jolivette, Krezmien 8 Baitodano, 2008; Drakeford, 2002). In general, effective programming for incarcerated youth incorporates effective teaching strategies such as systematic, sequenced design, direct instruction delivery and positive reinforcement strategies. Instruction must be intense, efficient and continuous in order to be effective at ciosing the achievement gap for iearners with deficits (Malmgren 8 Leone, 2000). Figure 2 presents exampies of academic EBIs at each tier modified from the Georgia Department of Juveniie Justice Rtl modei (Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009). 61

The Joumai of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

Figure 2. Suggested Rtl Assessments and interventions

Tieri

Tier 2

Tier 3

universal, comprehensive assessment, student records from home school, assignment completion tracking sheets, permanent products

Quarterly curriculum based measurements, assignment completion tracking sheets, permanent products

Documented special education eligibility from home school, weekly curriculum based measurements, assignment completion tracking sheets, permanent products

Differentiated instruction, extended time, re-teaching, graphic organizers, manipulatives, cooperative learning

After school tutoring, peer tutoring, fiexible grouping, supplemental instruction, technology resources for additionai rehearsal

Individualized remedial instruction, shortened and modified assignments and assessments

Office discipline referral and discipline review records, student records from home school, teacher rating scaies

Office discipline referral and discipline review records, weekly teacher progress reports, selfmonitoring reports

Daily progress reports, function based assessment, frequency count, event recording, and anecdotal data of targeted behavior

Classroom management, preferential seating, proximity control, reinforcement of positive behavior, structured breaks from academic tasks

Group counseling, targeted social skills, substance abuse, problem solving lessons, behavioral contracts, school based mentoring, reinforcement of positive behavior

Individual counseling, behavior intervention plan, progress chart, token economy system, reinforcement of positive behavior

Academic Screening/Assessment

Strategies/Interventions

Behavioral Screening/Assessment

Strategies/Interventions

Determine appropriate JJ behavioral EBIs in order to effectively improve behavior and social skills in students attending JJ

62

The Journal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

schools, it is important to remember that students in JJ facilities require specific interventions contingent on individual student characteristics. To counteract all of the risk factors which lead to social, emotional and behavior problems for incarcerated youth, multi-disciplinary teams should identify strategies and supports proven effective with incarcerated youth. After identifying these interventions, they should be organized into levels of support corresponding with the three-tiered Rti model. Effective programming aimed at improving social, emotional and behavioral problems in an incarcerated setting includes the school-wide model of positive behavioral interventions and supports (PBIS; Scott, Nelson, Liaupsin, Jolivette, Christie, & Riney, 2002). Additional individuai difterences that should be taken into consideration when designing appropriate behavioral and social strategies and EBis inciude age differences, presence of disabilities, varying oftense patterns, and different functions of inappropriate behavior. Figure 2 provides suggestions for behavioral EBIs at each tier (Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice, 2009). Use effective JJ assessment procedures

Within an effective Rti framework, formative and summative assessment drives intervention and placement decisions. Given the importance of eftective intervention and appropriate placement, it is important to gather data which is useful and easily maintained in a JJ school. During the intake process, JJ facilities often provide students with a battery of tests designed to guide schoolbased decisions. Such assessments should be viewed with caution. Upon arrival, a student often will experience emotional and behavioral difficulties, distorting their true abilities. More accurate data may be gathered after the first few weeks youth arrive to the facility. The receiving JJ facility should also obtain academic and behavioral student records from the youth s home school. This process is often complicated and difticult but tremendously important. Because more than 30% of incarcerated youth receive special education services, it is critical for receiving JJ facilities to obtain accurate student resources upon entry so that youth receive necessary supports and interventions (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, a Poirier, 2005). If youth with disabilities are not identified upon entry they would inefticiently move through the Rti process for special education determination. In addition to the first set of assessments, students in JJ schools should be assessed in academics and behavior at least three times a school year. Given the iarge numbers of students in JJ schools and relatively low numbers of staft and teachers, it is important to choose assessments that are quick and easy to administer, but yield reliable, valid and useful results. 63

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

Once assessment procedures are put into place it is also important for JJ schools to create an effective database which maintains assessment results. Account for distinct JJ cultural and ethical issues

Students from minority racial and linguistic backgrounds, families and communities with low socioeconomic statuses, and those with disabilities are overrepresented in the JJ population (Quinn, Rutherford, Leone, Osher, & Poirier, 2005). Because these students represent a vulnerable population, it is important for juvenile justice facilities to use sensitive, unbiased measures when evaluating and placing youth. By implementing Rtl, inappropriate special education eligibilities should decrease due to preventative and targeted instruction on tier levels. Further, Rtl should benefit students with diverse needs such as English language learners due to the focus on early intervention (Xu, & Drame, 2007). Diverse needs should be considered when deciding appropriate supports and interventions available at each tier. The primary ethical issue for Rtl implementation is unbiased assessment procedures (Xu a Drame, 2007). This issue highlights difficulties with making the determination that lack of student progress is due to ineffective teaching rather than student deficits. Drame and Xu (2008) identify the need for examining the entire school context when determining tier movement and placement. Response to intervention committees and school administrators should be able to eliminate classroom and school environments and instructional practices as causes for student unresponsiveness. This determination can be made through direct observation of classroom management, teaching practices, and school policies and procedures. Consider transition concerns with the JJ population

One of the most unique characteristics of JJ schools is the amount of transition that occurs in this setting. Students transition in and out of long-term facilities, within the facility (from unit to unit and class to class) as well as possibly between short-term and long-term facilities. JJ schools are challenged by this unique characteristic to provide transition services and to maintain effective communication. Record keeping is an issue when tracking all of the students who come into contact with the JJ school. Instead of focusing transition services only on the high school students before they leave the school, research suggests that all students have a transition plan that begins when they enter the facility and is revisited throughout the time of detention (Hosp, Griller-Clark & Rutherford, 2001). The benefits to providing comprehensive transition services 64

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice

are that students are aware of and invoived in their own planning, and credit accrual and transfer to mainstream schools and employment opportunities upon leaving are more likely. A Case Study of Rtl in a JJ School

Michelle is a fifteen year oid female who has been court-involved since she was tweive years oid. Michelle is currently incarcerated at a iong-term JJ faciiity for assault and has a 14-month detention term. Michelle s home school records indicate that she was retained in third grade and consistently struggied academicaiiy and behaviorally. Michelle began earning office referrals in second grade and was suspended three times in seventh grade. Her fourth week of detainment in the iong-term JJ facility, Michelle completed universal academic and behavioral screening assessments. Michelle's behavioral screening results identified her as at-risk for behavioral problems due to high levels of disruption during classroom instruction. Academic screening results identified Michelle as significantly below grade Ievei in aii subject areas except math. The JJ Rtl team (ciassroom teacher, support staff, lead teacher, counselor, and school psychologist) noted Michelle's behavioral and academic deficits and decided to keep her on Tier 1 with re-evaiuation in three weeks. Michelle received grade ievei, differentiated instruction at Tier 1 for three weeks. During this time, Micheiie's teacher tracked percentages of assignments compieted and accuracy In ail academic areas, examined her permanent products for specific skill deficits, and tracked the number of discipline referrals during classroom instruction were earned in the 3-week period. The results from the data collected during this time led Micheiie's teacher to believe that Micheiie struggied primarily with reading tasks. At the re-evaiuation Rtl meeting, the committee decided to move Micheiie to Tier 2 for aii instruction except math for a eight week period. The committee determined that Micheiie should complete weekiy curriculum based reading measurements to assess student growth. The reading goai set for Micheiie at Tier 2 was an increase of three words read correctly with fourth grade reading probes. During the 6-week Tier 2 piacement Michelle received targeted, small group reading instruction with two of her peers during of language arts instruction in her classroom. The supplemental curriculum impiemented for her small reading group was a research based, direct instruction remedial reading program for adoiescent struggling readers. Overail Micheiie received this targeted instruction three times a week for 45 minutes each session. Micheiie's teacher tracked her orai reading fiuency growth with the curriculum based measure and determined that in the eight week time period Michelle increased an average of

65

The Joumal of Correctional Education 62(1) « March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al.

1.5 words read correctly which fell short of the goal set by the committee. The Rtl committee met for re-evaluation again after eight weeks of Tier 2 instruction. The committee determined that iVlichelle displayed significant unresponsiveness to the reading program. The committee then decided that Michelle needed to complete a comprehensive psychological assessment to determine if a specific learning disability existed. The school psychologist completed this assessment and determined that iVlicheiie preformed significantly below the expected level given her IQ scores. Michelle struggled specifically with an understanding of basic decoding skiiis. A speciai education eligibility meeting was held and it was determined that Michelle would qualify for special education services with a reading disability. Micheiie was piaced on Tier 3 and provided individualized reading instruction five times per week for 20 minutes from the reading specialist with a focus on decoding instruction. Progress in oral reading fluency was monitored on a weekiy basis, with the individuaiized education pian team meeting annuaily to discuss ievels of performance and growth. Whiie Michelle s reading growth was slow, her disruptive behavior significantiy improved with individualized Tier 3 reading support. In Conciusion

JJ faciiities are complex, multidimensionai systems charged with rehabilitating incarcerated youth. The youth they serve are equaiiy complex and multidimensionai with significant needs. Much is still unknown about Rtl applied to mainstream school settings (Käme enui, 2007). Still less is known regarding effective supports and interventions for incarcerated youth and Rtl in general. Implementation of Rtl in JJ facilities brings faciiity-specific chaiienges mostiy due to the need for a 24-hour, multi-discipiinary approach. By considering these challenges with stakeholders, multi-disciplinary team members can decide how to best work around the challenges in order to provide a consistent, comprehensive and effective Rtl model in the JJ faciiity. References Allen-DeBoer, R. A., Malmgren, K. W., & Glass, M. (2006). Reading instruction for youth with emotional and behavioral disorders in a juvenile correctional facility. Behaviorai Disorders, 32, 18-28. 8arnes, A. C. a Harlacher, J. E. (2008). Clearing the confusion: Response to intervention as a set of principles. Education and Treatment of Chiidren, 31. 3, 417- 431. Bums, M. K., Jacob, S., a Wagner, A. R. (2008). Ethical and legal issues associated with using response-to-intervention to assess learning disabilities. Journal oJSchooi Psychoiogy. 46. 3, 263-279. 66

The Joumai of Correctional Education 62(1) • March 2011 McDaniel, e t al. Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice Cheney, D., Flower, A., & Templelton (2008). Applying response to intervention metrics in the social domain for students at risk of developing emotional or behavioral disorders. Journal of Spedai Education, 42, 2, 108-126. Drakeford, W. (2002). The impact of an intensive program to increase the literacy skills of youth confined to juvenile corrections, lournai of Correctionai Education, 53, 139-144. Drame, E. R., & Xu, Y. (2008). Examining sociocultural factors in response to intervention models. Chiidhood Education, 85, 26-32. Elliott, J. (2008). Response to intervention; What & Why? School Administrator, 65, 8, 10-12. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P. L., 8 Young, C. L. (2003). Responsiveness-to-lnterventlon: Definitions, evidence, and Implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research a Practice, r8,157-171. Fuchs, D a Fuchs, L.S. (2007) A model for introducing responsiveness to intervention. TEACHiNG Exceptionai Chiidren, Vol. 39, No. 5, pp. 14-20. Fuchs, D. a Fuchs, L. S. (2006). Introduction to response to intervention: What, why, and how valid Is it? Reading Research Quarterly, 41, 93-99. Fuchs, LS., Fuchs, D., a Compton, D.L. (2010) Rethinking response to intervention at middle and high school. School Psychology Review, 39, 22-28. Georgia Department of Juvenile Justice (2009). Personal Communication. Gresham, F. M. (2005). Response to intervention: An alternative means of identifying students as emotionally disturbed. Education and Treatment of Chiidren, 28, 4, 328-344. Hawken, L. S., Vincent, C. G., & Schumann, J. (2008). Response to intervention for social behavior: Challenges and opportumties. Journal of Emotional and Behaviorai Disorders, 16, 4, 213-225. Hosp, M., Griller-Clark, H., a Rutherford, R. (2001 ). Incarcerated youth with disabilities: Their knowledge of transition p\ans. Journal of Correctionai Education, 52, 3,126-130. Houchins, D. E., Jolivette, K., Krezmien, M.P., a Baltodano, H. M. (2008). A multi-state study examining the impact of explicit reading instruction with incarcerated students. The Journai of Correctionai Education, 59, 65-85. Houchins, D. E., Puckett-Patterson, D., Crosby, S., Shippen, M. E., a Jollvette, K. (2009). Barriers and facilitators to providing incarcerated youth with a quality education. Preventing Schooi Failure, 53, 159-166. Johnson, E., Mellard, D.F., Fuchs, D., a McKnight, M.A. (2006). Responsiveness to intervention (RTi): How to do it Lawrence, KS: National Research Center on Learning Disabilities. Käme enui, E. (2007). A new paradigm: Responsiveness to intervention. Teaching Exceptional Chiidren, 39, 6-8. Lehman, CM., Clark, H. B., Bullis, M., Rinkin, J., a Castellanos, L A. (2002). Transition from school to adult life: Empowering youth through community ownership and accour\tab\\\ty. Journai of Child and Famiiy Studies, 11, 127-141. Leone, P. E., Meisel, S. M., a Drakeford, W. (2002). Special education programs tor youth 67

The Journal of Correctional Education 62(1) « March 2011 Response to Intervention in Juvenile Justice McDaniel, e t al. with disabilities in juvenile corrections. Journal of Correctional Education, 53, 2. Leone, P. E., Quinn, M. M., 8 Osher, D. M. (2002). Collaboration in the juvenile justice system and youth serving agencies: Improving prevention, providing more efficient services, and reducing recidivism for youth with disabilities. Monograph series on education, disability and juvenile justice. American Institutes for Research, Washington D.C., Center for Effective Collaboration and Practice. Leone, P. E. 8 Cutting, C. A. (2004). Appropriate education, juvenile corrections, and No Child Left Behind. Behavioral Disorders, 29, 3, 260-265. Malmgren, K. 8 Leone, P. (2000). Effects of a short-term auxiliary reading program on the reading skills of incarcerated youth. Education and Treatment qf Children, 23, 3, 239247. Mesmer, E. M. 8 Mesmer, H. A. (2008). Response to intervention (RTI): What teachers of reading need to know. Reading Teacher, 62, 4, 280-290. No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L No. 107-110, 115 Stat. 1425 (2002). Ouinn, M. M., Rutherford, R. B., Leone, P. E., Osher, D. M. 8 Poirier, J. M. (2005). Youth with disabilities in juvenile corrections: A national survey. Exceptional Children, 77, 3, 339345. Sänger, D., Maag, J. W. 8 Spilker, A. (2006). Communication and behavioral considerations in planning programs for female juvenile delinquents. The Journal of Correctional Education, 57, 108-125. Scott, T M., Nelson, C. M., Liaupsin, C. J., Jolivette, K., Christie, C. A., 8 Riney, M. (2002). Addressing the needs of at-risk and adjudicated youth through positive behavior support: Effective prevention practices. Education and Treatment of Children, 25, 532551. Shelley-Tremblay, J. O'Brien, N., 8 Langhinrichsen-Rohling, J. (2007). Reading disability in adjudicated youth: Prevalence rates, current models, traditional and innovative treatments. Aggression and Violent Behavior, 12, 376-392. What Works Clearinghouse, (n.d.b.). What Works Clearinghouse. Retrieved October 16, 2009, from http://ies.ed.gov/ Vacca, J. S. (2008). Crime can be prevented if schools teach juvenile offenders to read. Children and Youth Services Review,

30,1055-1063.

Xu, Y., 8 Drame, E. (2007). Culturally appropriate context: unlocking the potential of response to intervention for English language learners. Early Childhood Education Journal, 35, 305-311.

Biographical Sketch SARA MCDANIEL is a doctoral student at Georgia State university in the department of Educational Psychology and Special Education. Her research experiences and interests focus on students with behavioral and academic challenges in alternative school settings.

68

Copyright of Journal of Correctional Education is the property of Correctional Education Association and its content may not be copied or emailed to multiple sites or posted to a listserv without the copyright holder's express written permission. However, users may print, download, or email articles for individual use.