Human Growth Assignment Help

.

, , .

School Psychology Review, • ^ .

2006, Volume 35, No. 4, pp.

519-534 Integrating Frameworks From Early Childhood Intervention and School Psychology to Accelerate Growth for All Young Children .

Amanda M. VanDerHeyden - University of California at Santa Barbara Patricia Snyder Vanderbik University Abstract. Knowing what behaviors adults can engage in to accelerate child growth toward desired outcomes is fundamental to achieving the promise of early education and intervention. Once adequate progress-monitoring measures are developed, patterns of child performance over time and in response to certain interventions can be quantified.

The ability to quantify response to intervention with young children will produce at lea.st three immediate benefits; (a) the ability to improve child outcomes in a more efficient fashion through iterative problem- solving attempts, (b) a resulting data set Ibat could be used to detennine what additional supports and services might be needed in the context of early learning environments, and (c) a cumulative data set that should reflect whether the additional supports and services are meaningfully accelerating child growth. This article discusses the rationale for response to intervention in early education, tbe logical basis for response to intervention decision making, and barriers to effec- tive implementation witb young children. This article also introduces the articles in this special series, each of which focuses on accelerating learning and growth for all young children and has implications for the use of response to intervention in early education.

Early childhood education and care is a families. Familiar to tnost school psychologists contemporary term used to refer to a variety of as Part C (early ititervention) and preschool spe- programs that serve young children from in- cial education (Section 619) programs under the fancy through age 5 and their families. For Individuals with Disabilities Education Act school psychologists, a major historic point of (IDEA), these programs now ai^ considered part interface with early education atid care was of a larger "system" of early education and care through early intervention or early childhood that includes Early Head Start and Head Start, special education programs that served young child and family care, early education, and pre- childreti with or at risk for disabilities and their vention programs.

Correspondence regarding this article should be addressed to Amanda VanE>erHeyden, University of California at Santa Barbara, Department of Counseling, Clinical, and School Psychology, 1324 Phelps Hall. Santa Barbara, CA 93106; e-mail: [email protected].

Copyright 2006 by the National Association of School Psychologists, ISSN 0279-6015 519 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 The purpose of this article is to describe a proactive approach to early identification, evaluation, and intervention with young chil- dren who are experiencing developmental and leaming challenges, which is an alternative to traditional diagnostic, deficit-based approaches.

We will describe the potential benefits associ- ated with using an early intervening or re- sponse to intervention (RTI) framework, ac- knowledging the unique challenges associated with its application in contemporary early ed- ucation and care programs. After reviewing basic tenets of RTI, we describe relationships between RTT and multitiered intervention models commonly used in early childhood.

Our intent is to stimulate discussion and de- bate about the opportunities and challenges associated with developing and implementing early intervening systems that are based on RTI and to situate the articles in this special series within the context of these developing RTI systems.

Public Initiatives to Support Early Intervening Systems Federal initiatives focused on early childhood increasingly are emphasizing the importance of early intervening systems, sup- ports, and services for young children and their families. Early intervening (IDEA, 2004) is a term used to characterize approaches for identifying and intervening with young chil- dren (and their families) who might benefit from targeted supports or services to acceler- ate growth and leaming. Early intervening systems emphasize prevention, rather than strictly remediation, and universal screening to identify young children who might need specialized assistance to participate meaning- fully in early leaming experiences. IDEA (2004) permits local educational agencies to use up to 15% of the yearly funds they receive under Part B in combination with other funds to develop and implement coordinated early intervening services for children in kindergar- ten through age 12 (particularly emphasizing kindergarten through Grade 3) who have not been identified as needing special education services, but who might need additional aca- demic or behavioral support to participate suc- cessfully in the general education curriculum.

Given the current emphasis in early childhood on prevention and the widespread recognition that early experiences prepare or place chil- dren at risk for later school success, the Divi- sion for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children has recommended that the concept of early intervening services be broadened to include young cbildren or chil- dren under the age of five (Division for Early Childhood, 2005). Extending the concept of early intervening might belp facilitate coordi- nation of services and supports across a vari- ety of federal, state, and local initiatives fo- cused on young children.

Initiatives such as Head Start. Early Head Start, Title I Preschool, the Child Care and Development Block Grant, the Maternal and Child Health Services Title V Block Grant, and Part C and Section 619 of IDEA share several underlying premises about early development and leaming, including the im- plied (though not yet explicitly stated) impor- tance of early intervening approaches. Table I shows several early leaming programs that historically have operated somewhat indepen- dently and under separate authorities. Under the Good Start, Grow Smart (2002) initiative, a federal effort is underway to coordinate pro- grams designed to support young children's growth and early leaming. The goal of Good Start, Grow Smart is "to ensure that children enter kindergarten with the skills they need to succeed by partnering with states to improve early childhood education, strengthen Head Start, and provide research-based infonnation to teachers, parents, and caregivers" (Good Start, Grow Smart Interagency Workgroup, 2005, p. 3). The Interagency Workgroup has been charged to "develop a common early childhood message across federal agencies and programs and to identify strategies for collaborating and coordinating resources to support the development of high quality, co- ordinated, state and local early care and edu- cation systems" (p. 7).

At state and community levels, initia- tives are underway to develop coordinated, high-quality early care and early education 520 Accelerating Growth for Young Children feb I >1 CQ -a u u on c W o $ tt, - £^ I- u I U o c > o CO O u u an to CO CO o o P.

Ml m en 5 ? ^ JH -^ flj a> u 3 C J3 • — iJl "p U •= o « c 3 , 1/1 S ^

Ml O 2 .£ c I • 2 JJ £ CO E o y f Si £ -S S If £ •g 5 13 U Q :3 c « ^ a.

Q W UJ .a o T3 CO U T3 hil U e a.

d^ vel( Q u 13 t/i o o S 2 S -a £ £ w a, II u.

O E.2 521 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 systems and to ensure supports and services are available and accessible for all young chil- dren and their families. State systems-plan- ning initiatives have been supported by a va- riety of sources (e.g., federal., state, county, city government; foundations; national orga- nizations) and many states have multiple ini- tiatives operating. One example is the early childhood comprehensive services initiative funded by the federal Matemal and Child Health Bureau, which emphasizes "collabora- tions and partnerships to support families and communities in their development of children who are healthy and ready to leam at school entry" (http://www.state-eccs.org/). Efforts of those involved with early childhood compre- hensive services emphasize integration of a range of public and private early childhood services including health and medical, early care and early education, mental health, social-emotional development, and family support and parenting education (http://www .state-eccs.org/). Another example is the re- quest for proposals from the National Gover- nor's Association Center for Best Practices, which invited applications from governors' of- fices in June 2(X)6 to support state leaders in their efforts to build comprehensive, coordi- nated early childhood systems for children from birth through age 5 (http://www.nga.org/ FiIes/pdf/0605EARLYCHlLDRFP.PDF).

One common message across these many early childhood initiatives is that earlier identification and the subsequent use of em- pirically based interventions should lead to improved health, developmental, behavioral, and leaming outcomes for young children, particularly those characterized as "at risk." This premise is based on decades of empirical evidence demonstrating young children's pro- nounced capacities for physical, cognitive, adaptive, emotional, and social growth and leaming in their earliest years (e.g.. National Research Council and Institute of Medicine, 2000; Guralnick, 1997, 2005). In addition, sci- entific evidence continues to accrue indicating that early intervention can prevent later aca- demic failure, promote social-emotional com- petence, and reduce the occurrence of second- ary disabilities when high-quality, ecologi- cally valid, developmental, systems-focused interventions are used (e.g., Guralnick, 2005; Ramey & Ramey, 1998). Promising early in- tervening models have been shown to accel- erate leaming trajectories for children at risk, particularly in the areas of early literacy and numeracy (Good & Kaminski, 1996; Good, Simmons. & Smith, 1998:

Griffin & Case, 1997; National Institute of Child Health and Develop- ment, 2000; Starkey, Klein. & Wakeley, 2004).

Efforts at early childhood systems inte- gration coupled with increased demands for results-focused accountability has resulted in the need to identify promising early interven- ing models and practices that support and ac- celerate the growth and leaming of young children in the context of community-based education and care settings. For young chil- dren at risk for leaming challenges or those with disabilities, meaningful inclusion is more than access to community-based education and care settings. In the context of early inter- vening systems, inclusion means meaningful access to and participation in the general early childhood curriculum with specialized sup- ports and services available as needed. Those working in inclusive early childhood programs are challenged to identify children in need of specialized supports early and accurately, to use scientifically valid prevention and inter- vention practices, and to demonstrate children (and their families) are achieving desired out- comes. We believe that the extension of RTl to systems of early education and care has the potential to "prune" the existing system by providing a paradigm for articulating the pur- pose of early education, evaluating the degree to which that purpose is being achieved, and determining how to alter efforts formatively to improve (a) programming efficiency and (b) programming effectiveness as measured by child growth, development, and leaming.

Defining RTI: Basic Methods and Models With Older Children The relevance of RTI for early interven- ing and decision making has been most appar- ent to practitioners working with older chil- dren in elementary schools. The logical basis 522 Accelerating Growth for Young Children for RTI hinges on demonstration of child need.

Children who are not meeting established edu- cational benchmarks are identified and provided with intervention in general education. Incre- mental and iterative decisions are made about the child's continued need for assistance when empirically supported interventions are pro- vided. If the amount of service needed is beyond tbe scope of general education, then the child might be deemed eligible to receive additional services through special education (Reschly, Tilly, & Grimes. 1999).

The logical basis for RTI as an eligibil- ity criterion is that a child who is ut risk or who has a disability would be expected to need more intensive supports than would a child who is not at risk or who does not have a disability. The types and levels of additional supports needed are tested empirically using RTI procedures, rather than inferred from de- contextualized test scores or clinical opinions.

Decision-making data are judged ultimately by the consequences for children, and RTI is an assessment method that emphasizes progress monitoring and is directly linked to instruction and outcomes.

Despite the logical fit between the goals of RTI and the goals of early education and intervention, RTI as a service delivery method and decision-making criterion has not caught on to the extent one might expect. A variety of explanations for the relative lack of research and writing about RTI in early childhood and early intervention are tenable, including a de- emphasis on diagnostic decision making with younger children, a need to focus on "child find" activities as opposed to contending with overidentification. and severely limited meth- ods for monitoring progress. Nonetheless, sev- eral benefits for addressing identification and intervention within the context of early inter- vening systems might be possibie using RTI.

Applying RTI in an Early Education Context Whereas RTI models have yet to be widely implemented in early leaming con- texts, the potential for these models has been recognized {Bamett, VanDerHeyden, & Witt.

in press; Coleman, Buysse, & Neitzel, 2006; Hagans-Murillo. 2005). In addition, several hierarchical or tiered intervention models have been proposed in the early intervention litera- ture (Bamett et al.. 2006; Brown, Odom, & Conroy, 2001; Fox, Dunlap, Hemmeter, Jo- seph, & Strain, 2003; Sandall & Schwartz, 2002).

Further, the Division for Early Child- hood has produced a set of child-focused prac- tices (Wolery, 2005) suggesting intervention strategies that might be appropriate for appli- cation within and across the various tiers.

These tiered intervention models might provide a useful context for initiating RTI in early education.

Tiered intervention models share com- mon features with the multitiered models pro- posed in the RTI literature, which might sug- gest points of convergence between early in- tervention and school psychology for further advancement of early intervening models. Ta- ble 2 shows comparisons between RTI models proposed for preschool and the tiered-inter- vention models of early childhood and lists the three statements under which the Division for Early Childhood child-focused practices are organized. The purpose of this table is to high- light the similarities that exist between multi- tiered models of service delivery and RTI ap- plications in early education. We assert that RTI is a logical science of decision making that could and should be applied to existing multitiered models to enhance growth and de- velopment of children.

Certainly, decisions are currently occurring within those models to determine which children need more intensive interventions. Researeh related to RTI in early intervening systems will advance the capacity of the multitiered models to describe replica- ble procedures, decision mles, and effects.

As is the case with older children, each early intervening model begins with attention to the "everyday" leaming environments of the child and stresses the importance of high- quality education and care. Quality in early childhood is a multidimensional constmct that includes attention to structural (e.g., teacher- child ratios, class size, ages of children), dy- namic or process (e.g., curricular content and instmctional strategies, teacher-child interac- 523 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 I a t a; H ot: .5 ^ J u ^ij —• • c entio erv c 61 ting ] OUI Pro own CQ X O d 0) 1 u CQ c 0 !A •c a 00 ^ — 2 g 5 u (A U 11 &s a, 2 S g S 6 a E •S E *= •r o tfl S K c ., "• o c u a 00 c y o c a.

S o ... > .2 o ^ -S c ~ c ^ 2 •^ ^ <.B Ba M c "^ 00 <^ •3 * ^ ^ g i g I > D. > O S£ •^ § ^ « a I E ^ U I I o c Ts a V a u c o a.;a „ g = c • i ^ y 73 -S -O > C > S '-a I S T3 k- o « .— a en 1 s a .c u a u u 'ifl C g.

n idu Accelerating Growth for Young Children tions, collaborative relationships between families and teachers), and contextual (e.g., the proximal and distal ecologies in which a leaming environment is nested) variables.

Child-environment fit is evaluated, and where there is a lack of fit, interventions are imple- mented to alter the environment or the child's capacity to interact witb environmental de- mands (e.g., providing performance contin- gencies, skill-building intervention). Similar to RTI witb older children, the tiers become increasingly focused on identifying empiri- cally supported strategies for use with small groups or individual children to promote en- gagement and sufficient leaming opportunities within the context of everyday leaming envi- ronments. At the highest levels, individual cbild-focused strategies might include direct instruction on targeted learning objectives.

Implicit within tiered models of service delivery for older and younger children is the link to child data as tbe basis for determining whether additional supports or intervention are needed. Similar to RTI with older children, tbe success of RTI toward enhancing child leam- ing (and the validity of RTI as a decision- making model of identification and service delivery) binges on tbree key factors: the de- gree to which (a) cbildren are idenfified tbrough universal screening and provided ac- cess to Tier 1 intervention or supports, (b) adequate progress monitoring data are used to indicate that additional intervention or sup- ports are or are not needed, and (c) effective interventions are implemented with fidelity for a sufficient period of time.

Existing multitiered models of service delivery for preschool children are pbilosopb- ically congment witb RTI decision making.

RTI will benefit tbose models (and the out- comes achieved by them for families and chil- dren) by providing a common basis for eval- uating effectiveness and a consistent system of decision making tbat is related to cbild growth. Table 3 is provided to highlight tbe emerging promising practices in the use of RTI with young children. The core elements of RTI in early education include (a) ensuring use of a research-based core curriculum, (b) monitoring progress toward socially important outcomes, (c) using progress monitoring data to infonn and enhance instmctional efforts, and (d) using the resulting data to make ser- vice allocation decisions including eligibility.

Substantial progress has been made in multi- ple areas, for example, in developing useful and meaningful progress monitoring measures (Carta, Greenwood, Luze, Cline, & Kuntz, 2004; Greenwood, Luze, Cline, Kuntz, & Leitscbuh, 2002; Luze et al., 2001; Missal, McConnell, & Cadigan (2(X)6). Yet additional research is re- quired to develop the procedures, measures, and decision rules to use RTI effectively for decision making witb tbis age group. We con- tend tbat institution of a system of universal screening, monitoring cbild progress, and us- ing the resulting data to detennine whether additional intervention is needed will ulti- mately enhance cbild outcomes, simplify tbe evidentiary basis for early education, and pro- duce several additional benefits for young children. • Anticipated Benefits of the Application of RTI to Early Education Several benefits of the use of RTI witb young cbildren are possible. Attaining tbese benefits depends on dealing with challenges (articulated in the following section) and building local capacity. Nonetheless, RTI as an organizing paradigm for service delivery in early intervening systems has the potential to produce many benefits, some of which are articulated as follows:

Larger Numbers of Children Will Have Access to High-Quality Instruction Universal screening data combined witb scripted intervention procedures and associ- ated decision mles enhance decision-making accuracy (VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Naquin, 2003).

RTI provides a system that protects against the error-prone assumption of a with- in-child cause of poor leaming or inadequate performance by focusing on environmental quality, curricular quality, and teaching strat- egies used in the classroom as the first step in multitiered intervention. Hence, failure to re- spond to regular instruction is a cue that leads 525 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No.

4 ; ' Table 3 '- Framework for RTI in Early Education and Future Directions Core Elements of RTI in Early Intervening Systems Current Status in Early Childhood Future Directions in Research and Practice Implementing research- based instructional practices rV- Monitoring child progress using socially important outcome measures Modifying instruction based on student progress and needs Data about children's per- formance to determine who is in need of intervention or who is in need of more ' intensive interventions, services, and supports DEC-recommended practices (Sandall. Hemmeter, Smith, & McLean. 200.5). NAEYC developmental ly appropriate practice guidelines (Bredekamp & Copple, 1997). Ongoing funded research througb tbe Institute of Education Sciences (Early intervention and assessment for young children with disabilities:

special education research).

Early childbood outcome frameworks.

Early leaming standards. General outcome measures (Early Cbildbood Researcb Institute on Measuring Growtb and Development; Early Cbildbood Outcomes Center).

Curriculum-based assessment. Data collection protocols. General outcome measures.

Developmental surveillance and screening protocols. Emphasis on early identification and "cbild find." Differential Identification of wbich practices are most effective for whicb cbildren under what circumstances.

Identification and empirical validation of promising practices.

Establisbing bencbmarks and aim lines.

Empirical identification of a range of normative pierfor- mances. Identification of cut scores. Alignment with outcomes valued by various stakeholders.

Decision-making criteria.

Intervention scripts. Data collection protocols.

Universal screening and surveillance protocols.

Tecbnically adequate measures. Development of decision-making criteria linked to eligibility.

Note.

RTI = response lo intervention; DEC = Division for Early Childhood of the Council for Exceptional Children; NAEYC = National Association for the Education of Young Children.

|i to additiotial ititervention rather than itnmedi- ate consideration for eligibility for specialized early intervention services (Sandall. Schwattz, & Joseph. 2001). Additional intervetition. dif- ferent from what was previously performed (often referred to as the core curriculum), spe- cific to the probletn, and performed with in- tegrity, contributes RTI data for consideration by the team.

Whereas early intervention has tradi- tionally focused on serving children identified as at risk or with special needs, arguments are being made for increased access to early edu- cation services for all children. All 50 states, Washington, DC. and several U.S. territoties have either developed and implemented, or are in the process of developing, early leaming standards. The pressure to sort and label chil- dren is likely to intensify, especially for those working with young children, because of ex- pectations for higher success for all children (Good Start, Grow Smart, 2005; No Child Left Behind Act, 2(X)2). The application of RTT to service delivery and decision making in early 526 Accelerating Growth for Young Children childhood will likely result in structured assis- tance to an entire group of children wbo pres- ently receive no specialized intervention ser- vices.

These cbildren, who might otherwise be cbaracterized as "delayed" or "at risk," are likely to be identified as needing intervention to acbieve functional goals and growth trajec- tories that place tbem on a patb to school success, independence, and meaningful partic- ipation. Depending on how intervention re- sponsiveness decisions are operationalized (Fuchs, 2003), many of these preschool-aged children are likely to receive structured inter- vention in regular preschool settings. For pre- school cbildren at risk, providing an experi- ence of early success has substantial benefits to the child, which includes facilitation of par- ent-scbool bonding and prevention of school failure.

Decisioti'Making Accuracy Will Be Enhanced t The use of RTI in early intervention is also likely to make salient the tremendous variation in program quality (and its relation- ship to cbild skill level and growth) across sites, underscoring thorny questions that tbe field has struggled w'\\h for years (i.e., who should receive early intervening supports and services and how those services can most ef- fectively be provided). Base rates and selec- tion criteria profoundly affect decision analy- ses (Meehl & Rosen, 1955). Poverty is asso- ciated with high base rates of children who could be characterized as having various leaming problems and has been identified as a potentially disabling condition in our society (Donovan & Cross, 2002). Tbe pressure in systems is acute for strong approaches for identifying learning needs, and the traditional model with tbe additional constraints of higb base rates and the need for higb selection ratios bas made tbe traditional approacb a very error-prone and expensive endeavor (Hart & Risley, 1995). In other words, identification accuracy is severely affected by large numbers of children experiencing similarly weak skills.

For example, decision making in programs that serve high numbers of children living in poverty (e.g.. Head Start) is likely to be an error-prone process in the absence of struc- tured intervention to control for leaming bis- tory (or opportunity for growtb and develop- ment), Yet this problem of misidentification also occurs in high-achieving, high socioeco- nomic schools (low base rates, pressures to diagnose, and inconsistent selection criteria; VanDerHeyden & Witt, 2005). By applying objective identification metbods that control for opportunities to leam and capture the con- text of assessment, RTI can improve identifi- cation accuracy in high-achieving and low- achieving programs. Previously, practitioners and scholars in early intervention have primar- ily focused on the challenge of identifying children with disabilities as early as possible (i.e., child find). The role of universal screen- ing will become increasingly important as larger numbers of cbildren are enrolled in Tier 1 early leaming environments. Diagnostic accuracy will likely need to be redefined, par- ticularly as early leaming environments in- creasingly serve all children, not only tbose thought to be at risk or diagnosed with a disability (with implications for calculation of base rates, sensitivity, and negative predictive power estimates). Tbe use of universal screen- ing and frequent progress monitoring, evalu- ated relative to functionally meaningful crite- ria for performance and growtb, offers practi- tioners an opportunity to improve diagnostic accuracy and aim directly at the target of child bebavior change as an indicator of capacity for change (Macmann & Bamett. 1999; Neisworth & Bagnato, 1992).

(( Formative Use of Data Will Enhance Child Leaming and Growth Contextualized decision making should produce more accurate decisions and therefore enhance child growtb. Because tbe environ- ments in wbich children live and leam are not standardized, child leaming and growth must be evaluated relative to tbe opportunities and supports in the environment. The type of in- formation yielded from sucb an analysis is much more interpretable than an estimate of global functioning. Just as older children's 527 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 performance can be evaluated relative to cer- tain stimuli {e.g., tasks, environmental sup- ports and contingencies), younger children's performance and growth can most meaning- fully be evaluated relative to opportunity in their current environment. Opportunity can be operationalized and systematically altered to assess a child's capacity to grow and leam given different, more optimal learning condi- tions.

These data can be used to identify and program adequate supports to maintain opti- mal growth and development (Fuchs & Fuchs, 1998) and can be used to determine whether such services would best be provided if the child were made eligible for special education (Reschly et al., 1999).

Data-based decision making allows the decision-making team to identify the "func- tion" of the problem(s) for the system (e.g., school-wide, classwide, or teacher with lim- ited repertoire of effective instructional strat- egies) so help can be specifically linked to problem resolution and more restrictive treat- ments can be avoided. Once adequate pertor- mance is achieved, facets of intervention can be systematically withdrawn to allow inter- ventions to become more natural, ecologically sustainable, and self-regulated (Bamett, Elliot et al., 2006). RTI brings strong methods to address the question of "movement" toward the least restrictive environment (Bamett, Daly, Jones, & Lentz, 2004). Because of the tendency for ineffective treatments to be re- placed by ineffective and increasingly restric- tive treatments (Walker, Stieber, & O'Neill, 1990), this benefit alone is significant. Whereas prevailing philosophies of best practice with young children emphasize inclusion, the use of systematically withdrawing intervention com- ponents to maintain child learning and growth over time will produce less restrictive treat- ments inside the classroom. Systematic fading of child support will maximize intervention outcomes and promote their sustainability.

Challenges Related to Implementing Early Intervening Models Based on RTI Despite the benefits likely to be associ- ated with implementing early intervening models based on RTI principles, challenges to full implementation exist. Several challenges described in the general RTI literature (Christ & Poncy, 2005; VanDerHeyden, Witt, & Bar- nett, 2005) are likely to be relevant for early intervening models based on RTI. Further, RTI in early intervention faces several unique challenges. Early childhood development is distinguished by significant change in brain growth, physiology, emotional regulation, and interactive capacities that occur in a relatively short period (Meisels, 2(K)6). In addition, young children's behavior is often variable across people and contexts. Opportunities to leam differ greatly in the early childhood years depending on factors such as child char- acteristics and family and community circum- stances.

Further, because children are rapidly developing, and there is not much develop- mental history because of their age, identify- ing children whose development will be af- fected without prevention or intervention is difficult and often carmot be reliably based on level of performance (e.g., relative to a bench- mark) in isolation. Variation in opportunities to leam and quality of early leaming environ- ments coupled with expected variation in de- veloping skills (timing of first appearance and rate) creates a major challenge for the devel- opment of models that predict outcomes over time.

The use of RTI offers practitioners the opportunity to measure the potential for growth and development, rather than simply what level of development is currently occur- ring (VanDerHeyden, 2005). RTI is a model of contextual!zed decision making ultimately evaluated by whether child outcomes are en- hanced. In the following section, we briefly elaborate on some of the unique challenges associated with the use of RTI in early inter- vening systems.

Lack of Agreement About Desired Outcomes of Early Education and Intervention ^ At the most basic level, early interven- ing models are likely to be most successful when desired outcomes are specified clearly (Carta, 2002). Although most federal early 528, Accelerating Crowtb for Young Children childhood programs have identified desired outcomes for young children, and in some cases their families, consistency of outcomes across programs is lacking. For example, early intervention and early childhood special edu- cation programs under IDEA are charged with documenting the progress children make to- ward achieving three outcomes: (a) positive social-emotional skills (including social rela- tionships), (b) acquisition and use of knowl- edge and skills (including early language and communication and early literacy), and (c) use of appropriate behaviors to meet their needs (Early Childhood Outcomes Center, 2005). In contrast, the Head Start Child Outcomes Framework includes eight general do- mains, 27 domain elements, and 100 specific indicators of desired skills, abilities, knowl- edge, and behaviors. For pre-K and other early education and care programs, many states have developed early leaming standards and are using these standards as part of their early childhood curriculum and accountability sys- tems (National Association for the Education of Young Children & The National Associa- tion of Early Childhood Specialists in State Departtnents of Education Position Statement.

2002).

Using early intervening modeis effec- tively in diverse early childhood settings will require policy makers, researchers, practitio- ners, and families to clarify desired outcomes and to specify indicators that will be used to evaluate whether benchmarks or instructional targets are being achieved. What outcomes does the field recognize as important goals for intervention (including the value judgments of parents, practitioners, and ultimately children themselves)?

Lack of Sufficient Progress Monitoring Tools Adequate progress monitoring tools are needed to reflect a child's capacity to grow and leam in response to particular instmc- tional strategies or environmental supports.

RTI offers a system for organizing highly con- textualized assessment data (a) to identify which variables promote or establish adequate skill performance, (b) to provide sufficient leaming opportunities, and (c) to use resulting trend data to reflect growth and reach mean- ingful decisions (Greenwood, Walker, Carta, & Higgins. 2006). The value of RTI judg- ments will be determined by two factors: the fidelity with which an intervention is selected and implemented, and the degree to which progress monitoring data accurately and sen- sitively reflect the effects of that intervention.

The need for curriculum-based or general out- come measures that reliably indicate a child's skill level on tasks that are functionally mean- ingful are sorely needed. These measures must not only indicate what a child can do at a given moment, btit also must be sensitive to change attributable to intervention and development.

Perhaps the most widely recognized work to- ward identifying general outcome measures useful for screening, progress monitoring, and RTI decision making was the development and subsequent validation of the Dynamic In- dicators of Basic Early Literacy Skills (DIBELS; Good & Katninski, 1996; Kaminski & Good, 1996).

The DIBELS has been widely pro- moted and used by schools to track and facil- itate adequate yearly progress in early reading because of its demonstrated link to reading competence and high-stakes testing at the end of Grade 3 (Good et al.. 2001).

With younger children, progress has been made in developing useful general out- come measures, most notably by the Early Childhood Research Institute for Measuring Growth and Development and more recently the Early Childhood Outcomes Center. Re- searchers affiliated with these centers bave developed and researched a number of prom- ising general outcome measures for language development (Luze et al.. 2001), social inter- action (Carta et al.. 2004). motor development (Greenwood et al., 2002), and early literacy (Missal, et al., 2006). Other researchers have developed measures of numeracy skills with preschoolers (VanDerHeyden et al.. 2(K)4:

VanDerHeyden, Broussard, & Cooley, in press).

Much work remains to be done, how- ever, to develop measures that possess stan- dards of technical adequacy described in the RTI and curriculum-based measures litera- tures (see Fuchs & Deno, 1991; Shinn & Bam- 529 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 onto, 1998). Because growth pattems are not likely to be perfectly linear, identifying typical growth rates (and tbe window of skill devel- opment or time within wbich they are mean- ingful) is likely to be challenging. Sensitiv- ity of tbe measure's scores and the accuracy witb whicb scores represent child perfor- mance will contribute to measurement error and probably will do so in a nonuniform fashion. In addition, acceleration relative to expected rapid growth in key skills with young children will be difficult to operation- alize.

Technical models specifying typical growth standards for key skill development are in tbeir infancy.

The Independent Variable Has Not Been Operationalized Definition and measurement of tbe in- dependent variable in early intervening sys- tems raises pivotal questions sucb as the following: What types of functional skills (and skill hierarchies or clusters) are funda- mental to desired outcomes and which inter- ventions are associated with attainment of desired outcomes? For example, in a tiered model, does altering the learning environ- ment by expanding the size of the dramatic play center and location of materials within the center to accommodate a child in a wheelchair increase the child's engagement witb materials and peers in a way tbat is sufficient to produce measurable differences in desired outcomes such as social interac- tion and language? Or, are individualized instructional strategies needed in addition to the environmental modifications to produce measurable differences in social interaction and language use? How are decisions made about intervention intensity and levels of support if both tbe independent variable and dependent variables are poorly defined?

Knowing what behaviors adults can engage in to accelerate child progress is fundamen- tal to achieving the promise of early inter- vention. As the field develops measures ca- pable of reflecting growth attributable to intervention, pattems of child performance over time and in response to certain stimuli.

conditions, and consequences can be quan- tified. The ability to quantify tbis informa- tion will produce at least three immediate benefits: (a) the ability to improve child outcomes in a more efficient fashion tbrougb iterative problem-solving attempts, (b) a re- sulting data set tbat could be used to deter- mine what additional supports and services might be needed and wbether those should be provided tbrough special services and supports in the context of everyday routines and activities, and (c) a cumulative data set that should reflect whether the additional supports and services are meaningfully ac- celerating child growtb.

More Burdensome Technical Adequacy Models will be Required Tbese types of data (i.e., trend data re- flecting relationships to particular stimulus conditions and leaming trials) will create a need for hybrid models of tecbnical adequacy with a particular focus on decision-making analyses. In reality, tbe independent and de- pendent variables implemented in early inter- vening models are continuous. Children can respond some, but not enough. Tbe interven- tion can vary in intensity. Yet for decision making, RTI is a dichotomous decision. The child's response was either sufficient or insuf- ficient. The standard should be. Is tbe right cbild getting tbe right intervention at tbe right level of intensity? If a decreasing intensity design is used (Bamett et al., 2004), tben ac- curate identification (RTI validity as a deci- sion-making metric) depends upon the ade- quacy of the Tier 1 and 2 environments. Yet as a service delivery method, it may be more efficient (and less disruptive to tbe classroom) to begin with a Tier 3 intervention and fade intervention components. Hence, RTI is a de- cision-making metric intended to reflect ca- pacity for success in early leaming contexts and simultaneously is a prevention-oriented service model. Critically, each of these pur- poses requires different metbods of technical validation. , , 530 Accelerating Growth for Young Children Identifying Standards Against Which Judgments can he Compared Another challenge will be identifying the standards against which judgments can be compared (i.e., there is no incontrovertible index among the high-incidence disability cat- egories). For young children, just as with older children, focusing on measurable outcomes vital to functional competence should take pri- ority. For young children, pertormance and growth related to engagement, social interac- tion, communication, independence, participa- tion, and early academic skills are the most promising. Population characteristics influ- ence identification rates and anticipated out- comes (Fuchs, 2003), and the population in early childhood settings is one that is likely to fluctuate depending on which children have access to early childhood education programs.

A further focus on equity in assessment will force attention to universal screening systems (e.g.. What would universal screening look like in early childhood when not all children are enrolled in early leaming programs, much less similar programs with similar goals?) and initial identification criteria relative to base rates by poverty, race, and gender.

Conclusion Each of the articles in this series ad- dresses a critical component of RTI use with young children that might inform a research agenda related to what is needed to operation- alize and implement RTI with young children.

Contributions to this issue represent applica- tions of RTI research with young children.

Many other areas of research are of interest and pertinent to school psychologists working in early intervening systems (e.g.. early liter- acy assessment and intervention, early nu- meracy assessment and intervention). For this issue, we attempted to highlight work related to addressing the challenges of applying RTI in early education. Greenwood and colleagues describe the development and initial validation of a new general outcome measure of prob- lem-solving appropriate for use with toddlers and preschoolers. Komatsu and Witt (2006) and Greenwood et al. (2006) address challenges related to identifying outcomes in early interven- tion and developing meaningful progress moni- toring tools. Specifically, Komatsu and Witt describe a model for isolating academic defi- cits that are distinct from language deficits that might have utility in universal screening with young children. Bamett et al. (2006) describe the implementation of an RTI model for chal- lenging behaviors in Head Start centers and highlight how particular components of the model are tied to decision making (demon- strating a model of decision making that might be useful when applying RTI to a multitiered behavioral inter\'ention program). Hemmeter, Ostrusky and Fox (2006) summarize existing models of tiered interventions for challenging behaviors and suggest applications for RTI.

Hojnoski and Missal (2006) describe how school psychologists can play a fundamental role in an outcomes-focused RTI system of service delivery that relies on progress moni- toring, effectively selected and implemented intervention, and evaluation of intervention effects to determine whether additional inter- vention is needed. Hojnoski and Missal con- tend that school psychologists can and should capitalize on the opportunity to serve as effec- tive instructional consultants in early educa- tion and intervention settings.

With children who are of elementary school age, the primary benefits of RTI are likely to occur for children served under the so-called high-incidence categories, particu- larly specific leaming disabilities. The field of early intervention has much to offer in ex- panding a model of RTI to serve infants, tod- dlers, and preschoolers with a much broader range of intervention needs. As a field, several philosophical underpinnings make a change to RTI practices and decision making a logical fit for individuals working in early intervention.

First, the emphasis on prevention and inter- vention, the working assumption that interven- tion might alter not only performance but tra- jectories of performance over time, is a pow- erful precursor to realizing the intended consequences of such change. Second, the fo- cus on inclusive services in early intervention provides a context within which meaningful intervention can occur. RTI creates an oppor- 531 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 tunity for school psychologists to focus onde- cision-making models for supporting child leaming and developmental outcomes rather than traditional diagnostic evaluation and as- sessment. If the assessment process is context driven and data based, and practitioners are well prepared in requisite skills, then meeting time is reduced and consultants can allocate more time to working side-by-side with teach- ers, parents, and children in classrooms to solve problems. This shift is a more responsi- ble use of professional time. If done "right," RTI will reduce costs by serving more chil- dren, serving them earlier, and using strategies that are likely to be effective.

Use of RTI in early childhood will allow practitioners to avoid "the science of strange behavior of children in strange situations with strange adults for the briefest possible period of time" (Bronfenbrenner, 1977, p. 513) and implement ecologically valid identification, assessment, and intervention practices. Eco- logically valid assessment will allow practitio- ners to contextualize child behavior relative to environmental expectations and opportunities.

The use of general outcome measures will enable practitioners to monitor child progress and make decisions about intervention selec- tion and success based upon child perfor- mance exceeding benchmarks for perfonnance level and growth. The formative use of these data will permit practitioners to focus on im- proving child outcomes in tbe natural places where young children develop and leam.

Hence, the use of RTI with young children is consistent with the values and ideals of both early intervention and school psychology.

School psychologists have an opportunity like never before to partner with early education practitioners and researchers to focus on the goal of improving child leaming for the future.

. • References Baraett, D. W., Daly, E. J., ID, Jones, K. M., & Lentz.

F.

E,, Jr. (2004). Response to intervention: Empirical- ly-based special service decisions from increasing and decreasing intensity single case designs. The Journal of Special Education, 3S, 66-79.

Bamett, D. W., Elliott, N., Wolsing. L., Bunger, C. E., Haski, H., McKissick. C, & Vander Meer, C. D.

(2006).

Response to intervention for young children with extremely challenging behaviors: Whal it might look like. School PsycMogy Review. 35. 568-582.

Bamett, D, W,. VanDerHeyden. A. M., & Witt. J. C. (in press).

Achieving science-based practice through re- sponse to intervention: What il niighl look like in preschools. Journal of Educational ami Psychological Consultation.

Bredekamp. S., & Coppie. C. (Eds.). (1997). Developmen- tally appropriate practice in early childhood programs (rev.).

Washington, DC: National Association for the Education of Young Children.

Bronfenbrenner, U. (1977). Toward an experimental ecol- ogy of human development. The American Psycholo- gist. 32. 513-5?l.

Brown, W. H.. Odom. S. L.. & Conroy, M. A. (2001). An intervention hierarchy for promoting preschool chil- dren's peer interactions in natural environments. Top- ics in Early Childhood Special Education, 21. 162- 175.

Carta, J. J. (2002). An early childhood special education research agenda in a culture of accountahility for re- sults.

Journal of Early Intervention, 25, 102-104.

Carta. J. J., Greenwood, C. R., Luze, G. J., Cline. G.. & Kuntz, S. (2004). Developing a general outcome mea- sure of growth in social skills for infants and toddlers.

Journal of Early Intenrntion. 26, 91-f 14.

Christ. T. J., & Poncy, B. C. (2005). Guest editors' intro- duction to a special issue on response to intervention.

Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment. 23. 299- 303.

Coleman. M. R,. Buysse. V.. & Neitzel. J. (2006, May).

Recognition and response: An early intervening .•;yslem for young children at-risk for learning di.whllities. Full report. Chapel Hill: The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, FPG Child Development ln.stilute.

Division for Early Childhood. (2(K)5, September). Com- ments submitted hy the Division for Early Childhood to the Part B IDEA notice of proposed rulemaking. Re- trieved June 6, 2006, from htlp://www,dec-sped.org/ pdf/Policy/DEC_CommenLs_Nashviile%206_17_05.pdf Donovan. M. S., & Cross, C. T. (2002). Minority students in special and gifted education. Washington. DC: Na- tional Academy Press.

Early Childhood Outcomes Center, (2005. April). Family and child outcomes for early intervention and early childhood special education. Available from: http:// www.the-eco-center.org.

Fox, L., Dunlap, G., Hemmeter. M. L.. Joseph, G. E.. & Strain, P. (2003). The teaching pyramid: A model for supporting social competence and preventing challeng- ing behavior in young children. Young Children, 5^{4), 48-52.

Puchs, L. (2003). Assessing intervention responsiveness:

Conceptual and technical issues. Learning Disabilities Research and Practice. 18. 172-186, Fuchs. L. S.. & Deno. S. L. (1991). Paradigmatic distinc- lions between instructional ly relevant measurement models. Exceptional Children. 57. 488-500.

Fuchs, L. S.. & Fuchs. D. (1998). Treatment validity: A unifying concept for reconceptualizing the identifica- tion of learning disabilities. Leaming Disabilities Re- search and Practice. 13. 204-219.

G(X)d, R. H., III. & Kaminski. R. A. (1996). Assessment for instructional decisions: Toward a proactive/preven- tion model of decision-making for early literacy skills.

School P.sychohgy Quarterly. II. 326-336.

532 Accelerating Growth for Young Children Good. R. H.. Simmons. D. C. & Kame^enui, E. J. (2001).

The importance and decision-making utility of a con- tinuum of fluency-based indicators of foundational reading skills for third grade high-stakes outcomes.

Scientific Studies of Reading.

5, 257-288.

Good. R. H.. Simmons. D. C. & Smith. S. (1998). Eftec- live academic intervention in the Uniled States: Eval- uating and enhancing the acquisition of early reading skills.

School Psychology Review. 27, 45-56.

GIKKI Start. Grow Smart Initiative (2002). Good Stan.

Grow Smart: Tlie Bush udrninistration's early child- hood initiative. Retrieved September 6. 2006. from hup://www. whitehouse.gov/infocus/earlychildhood/ toc.html Good Start, Grow Smart Inieragency Workgroup. (2005, December). Good Start, Grow Smart: A guide to Good Start, Grow Smart and other federal early leaming ini- tiatives. Retrieved June 6, 2(X)6. from http://www.acf .hhs.gov/programs/ccb/ta/gsgs/fedpubs/interagency I .htni Greenwood. C. R., Luze. G. J., Cline. G.. Kuntz. S.. & Leitschuh. C. (2002). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in movement for infants and tod- dlers.

Topics in Early Childhood Special Educa- tion.

22. 143-157.

Greenwood. C. R.. Walker. D.. Cana, J. J.. & Higgins, S. K. (2006). Developing a general outcome measure of growth in the cognitive abilities of children 1 to 4 years old: The early problem-solving indicator. School Psychology Review. 35.

535-551.

Griffin. S.. & Ca.se. R. (1997). Re-thinking the primary school malh curriculum: An approach based on cogni- tive science. Issues in Education. 3, 1-49.

Guralnick. M. J, (1997). The effectiveness of early inter- vention. Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Guralnick, M. J. (2005). An overview of the developmen- tal systems model for early interveniion. In M. J.

Guralnick (Ed.). The developmental .systems approach to early interx-ention (pp.

1-23).

Baltimore, MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Hagans-MuHllo, K. (2005). Using a response-to-interven- lion approach in preschool to promote literacy. The California School Psychologist. 10. 45-54.

Hart. B., & Risley. T. R. (1995). Meaningful differences in the everyday experience of young American children.

Baltimore. MD: Paul H. Brookes Publishing.

Hemmeter, M. L.. Ostrosky. M.. Fox. L. (2006). Social and emotional foundations for eariy leaming: A con- ceptual model for intervention. School Psychology Re- view, 35.

583-601.

Hojnoski, R. L.. & Missall, K. N. (2006). Addressing school readiness: Expanding school psychology in early education. School Psychology Review. 35, 602-614.

Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA 2004). PL. 108-446 (2004).

Kaminski. R. A.. & Good. R. H., III. (1996). Toward a technology for assessing basic early literacy skills.

School Psychology Review. 25. 215-227.

Komatsu. C. & Witt, J. C. (2006). Assessing effects of directive complexity on accuracy of task completion in English language learners. School P.sychology Re- view. 35. 552-567.

Luze. G. J.. Linebarger. D. L.. Greenwood. C. R.. Carta, J. J., Walker, D.. Leitschuh. C. & Atwater. J. B.

(2001).

Developing a general outcome measure of growth in expressive communication of infants and toddlers. School Psychology Review, 30. 383-406.

Macmann. G. M., & Bamett. D. W. (1999). Diagnostic decision making in school psychology: Understanding and coping with uncertainty. In C. R. Reynolds & T. B.

Gutkin (Eds.), Tlie handbook of school psychology (3rd ed.. pp. 519-548). New York: Wiley.

Meehl, P. E., & Rosen. A. (1955). Antecedent probability and the efficiency of psychometric signs, pattems. or cutting scores. Psychological Bulletin, 52, 194-215.

Meisels. S. J. (2(H)6, March). Accountability in early childhood:

No easy answers. Chicago: Erikson Insti- tute, Herr Research Center for Children and Social Policy. Retrieved August 20, 2006, from http://www .erikson.edu/research.asp?file = publ!cations_topic Missall. K. N.. McConnell. S. R.. & Cadigan, K. (2006).

Early literacy development: Skill growth and relations between classroom variables for preschool children.

Jounial of Early Inten'ention, 29(1). 1-21.

National Association for the Education of Young Children & The National Association of Early Childhood Spe- cialists in State Departments of Education. (2(X)2).

Early learning standards: Creating the conditions for succe.ss.

Washington, DC: Author.

National Institute of Child Health and Human Develop- [nent. (2000). Report of the National Reading Panel.

Teaching children to read:

An evidence-based a.s.tess- ment of the scientific literature on reading and its implications for reading instruction (NIH Publication Number 00-4769}.

Washington. DC: U.S. Govem- ment Printing Office.

National Research Council and Institute of Medicine.

(2(KK)). From neurons to neighborhoods: The science of early childhood development. Committee on Inte- grating the Science of Early Childhood Development.

Board on Children, Youth, and Families. Commission on Behavioral and Scx:ial Sciences and Education.

Washington, DC: National Academy Press.

Neisworth. J. T., & Bagnato. S. J. (1992). The case against intelligence testing in early intervention. Topics in Early Childhood Special Education. 12. 1-20.

No Child Left Behind Act (2002). PL 107-110.

Ramey. C. T., & Ramey, S. L. (1998). Early intervention and early experience. American Psychologist. 53, 109- 120.

Reschly. D. J., Tilly. W. D., Ill, & Grimes. J. P. (1999).

Special education in transition: Functional a.ssessment and noncategorical programming. Longmont, CO: So- pris West.

Sandall. S. R.. Hemmeter, M. E., Smith. B. J., & McLean, M. E. (2005). DEC recommended practices in early intervention/early childhood special education: A com- prehensive guide for practical application in early inters'ention/early childhood special education. Long- mont. CO: Sopris.

Sandall, S., & Schwanz, L (2002). Building blacks for teaching preschoolers with special needs. Baltimore.

MD:

Paul H. Broiikes Publishing.

Sandail, S.. Schwartz. L, & Joseph, G. (2001). A building blocks model for effective instruction in inclusive early intervention settings. Young Exceptional Children. 4.

3-9.

Shinn, M. R.. & Bamonto, S. (1998). Advanced applica- tions of curriculum-based measurement: "Big ideas" and avoiding confusion. In M. R. Shinn (Ed.). Ad- 533 School Psychology Review, 2006, Volume 35, No. 4 vanced applications of curriculum-based measurement (pp.

1-31).

New York: Gullford Press.

Starkey, P..

Klein, A..

& Wakeley.

A.

(2004). Enhancing young children's mathematical knowledge through a pre-kindergarten mathematics intervention. Early Childhood Research Quarterly. 19, 99-120.

VanDerHeyden, A. M. (2005). Intervention-driven assess- ment practices in early childhood/eariy intervention:

Measuring what is possible instead of what is present.

Journal of Earty Inten'ention.

28.

28-33.

VanDerHeyden.

A. M., Brous.sard, C. & Cooley.

A, (in press).

Further development of measures of early math performance for preschoolers. Journal of School Psy- chology.

VanDerHeyden, A. M.. Broussard.

C, Fabre, M., Stanley.

J.. Legendre.

J., & Creppel, R.

(2004). Development and validation of curriculum-based measures of math performance for four-year old children. Journal of Early Intervention.

27.

27-41.

VanDerHeyden, A. M., & Witt, J. C.

(2005). Quantifying context in assessment: Capturing the effect of base rates on teacher referral and problem-solving model of identification. School Psychology Review, 34, 161-183.

VanDerHeyden.

A. M..

Witt.

J. C. & Bamett, D. A.

(2005).

The emergence and possible futures of re- sponse to intervention. Journal of Psychoeducational Assessment.

23.

339-361.

VanDerHeyden, A. M..

Witt.

J. C, & Naquin, G.

(2003).

Development and validation of a process for screening referrals to special education. School Psychology Re- view.

32.

204-227.

Walker.

H. M..

Stieber.

S., & O'Neill.

R. E.

(1990).

Middle school behavioral profiles of antisocial and at-risk control boys: Descriptive and predictive out- comes. Exceptionality.

I.

61-77.

Wolery, M.

(2005). Child-focused intervention practices.

In S.

Sandall.

M. L.

Hemmeter, B. J.

Smith.

& M.

McLean (Eds.). DEC recommended practices:

A com- prehensive guide, (pp. 71-106). Longmont, CO: Sopris West.

I Date Received; June 6. 2006 Date Accepted: September 5, 2006 • Action Editor: Thomas Power • Amanda M. VanDerHeyden. PhD, is an assistant professor at the University of Califomia at Santa Barbara. She has authored over 40 articles and chapters and has worked as a national trainer to implement data-driven practices in schools, She is associate editor for Journal of Behavioral Education and serves on the editorial boards for Journal of Early Intervention and School Psychology Review.

Patricia Snyder, PhD. is a professor of pediatrics and the director of research at the Center for Child Development. Department of Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics.

Vanderbilt University Medical Center. Her primary research interests are in the area.s of early intervention and prevention, evidence-based professional development, family- professional collaboration, and ecologically valid assessment in early childhood. She is the current editor of the Journal of Early Intervention.

534