STEEP

1
STEEP

• John Carruth
• Amanda VanDerHeyden

2
VAIL SCHOOL DISTRICTPROFILE

• Size of district - 5809
• Free and reduced - 18
• Number of Teachers - 435 certified staff
• 5 Elementary Schools
• 2 Middle Schools
• 1 Comprehensive High School
• 2 Charter Schools (1 High School, 1 Elementary
  School)

3
Vail School District Profile

• Average of 12 student growth rate over past 5
  years
• Over 60 of Vail teachers have less than 3 years
  experience in the District
• 11.5 special education population

4
Early Screening Identifies Children At Risk of
Reading Difficulty
J
5
Alligator
4
Children get tested Here
Low Risk on Early Screening
Reading grade level
3
Test Early Why wait to Fail
2
At Risk on Early Screening
1
1 2 3 4
Grade level corresponding to age
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Information gathered from Reading First Panel
5
Early Intervention Changes Reading Outcomes
J
5.2
5
4
Low Risk on Early Screening
Reading grade level
3
2.5
2
At Risk on Early Screening
1
1 2 3 4
Grade level corresponding to age
This Slide from Reading First Experts
Information gathered from Reading First Panel
6
Summary Does STEEP work?
A

• Extensively field-tested with decreases in
  referrals to sp ed between 20-50, more so for
  minority students
• Improved achievement scores schoolwide
• Produces data to meet requirements of both reg ed
  and sp ed
• Each component research-based and peer reviewed
  published studies that report exact properties
  (accuracy, utility, reli, validity)
• Now operating in multiple states
• CEC, OCR, USDOE

7
Universal Screening

• One Day Blitz- teachers administer with coach in
  room to monitor integrity
• Math- Classwide 2 min CBA/CBM
• Writing- Classwide 3 min CBM
• Reading- Individual 1 min CBM
• 40-50 minutes per class

8
1 hr screening yields
9
Example of Classwide Problem
10
Response to Classwide Intervention
Student A
11
Cant Do/Wont Do Assessment
A
3-7 minutes per child

• Cant Do/Wont Do
• Individually-administered
• Materials
• Academic material that student performed poorly
  during class assessment.
• Treasure chest plastic box filled with tangible
  items.

12
Decision Rule Following Cant Do/Wont Do
Assessment
13
Response to intervention
Before Intervention
During Intervention
Avg. for his Class
14
Student A Needs Individual Help
Did it Work?
15
Intervention Outcomes

• Evidence-based interventions implemented through
  the model (fidelity) are successful for all but
  about 2-5 of children screened
• These are the children who should be considered
  for special services

16
One Schools Story

• No grade-wide reading problems observed 2
  classwide reading problems observed out of 60
  classrooms measured
• Pervasive Math problem
• Address basic fact fluency problems as
  supplemental activity
• Provide concentrated problem-solving practice
  with feedback at the correct skill level
• Use an appropriate monitoring system to track
  growth and to guide instructional efforts
• Do these things in the simplest, most
  cost-effective, and least intrusive way possible

17
Integration Gen Sp EdSchoolwide Math
Intervention

• Weekly probe to check retention
• Weekly probe to track intervention growth and to
  make decisions about increasing task difficulty
  classwide (increase level when class median
  reaches mastery range)
• Monthly multi-skill probe to track year-long
  progress
• Daily Intervention, 15 minutes as supplemental
  activity

18
Data to Principal
Instructional range
Frustrational range
Each bar is a students performance
Math problems grades 3-5
19
Re-screening Indicates No Systemic Problem
Fourth Grade
20
Intervention EffectivenessGrowth in One Class
Before
During
21
Growth Obtained
actual growth
aimline
22
Schoolwide Math RTI

• Applying our decision rule this year with two
  schools grades 1-5 (about 45 classes)
• 98-99 of children responding successfully to
  schoolwide math intervention
• Hence, only 1-2 proceed for cant/wont do
  assessment and individual intervention

23
SAT-9 Data Math
24
2003-2004 Data so Far
Post intervention, classrooms performing
similarly average of class median scores shown
here
25
Referral- 2
Individual Intervention 5 (10 min per day per
class)
Individual Assessment Brief session 10 (9-15
min/class) Skill/performance 14 (12-28
min/class)
Classwide Screening 100 of students (40-50 min
per classroom)
26
Filters
How does all this Help?
Even Less Require Full Evaluation
27
Referrals Decreased Example- DW Elementary

• 2002- 30 evaluated, 19 qualified
• 2003- 24 evaluated, 12 qualified
• 2004- 5 evaluated, 100 match with STEEP response
  to intervention (4 had failed intervention and
  qualified, 1 had successful intervention and did
  not qualify)

Sarah Grether, School Psychologist
28
Effect of Interventions on Special Education

• School Year 01/02 03/04
• Total K- 12 Population 4582 5809
• Total PreK-12 SE Pop. 12.6 (578) 11.6 (667)
• Total K-8 SLD Count 6 (277) 4.3 (250)

29
Creating System Change

• External and Internal Pressure
• Create culture where research based practices are
  utilized/welcomed
• Long-term sustainability (training and
  retraining)
• Reallocation of resources

30
Vail Unified School District

• www.vail.k12.az.us
• 520-762-2000
• John Carruth - carruthj_at_vail.k12.az.us
• Amanda VanDerHeyden - vanderheydena_at_vail.k12.az.us