RtI

1
RtI Formative Assessment using AIMSweb

• August 10, 2007
• Kelly Doan and Cindy Jones

2
Todays focus

• General understanding of Response to Intervention
• Introduction to AIMSweb
• Administration and Scoring of AIMSweb probes
• Discussion of Implementation within the district,
  schools, classes, and individual students

3
Key Idea

• Best practices in a comprehensive approach to RtI
  (Response to Instruction and Intervention) align
  with what is known about effective school
  practices

4
Key Practices within RtI

• Scientifically-based, research-based instruction
  and interventions, within a multi-tiered approach
• Core instruction
• Supplemental intervention
• Targeted, intensive intervention
• Data-based decision making for instruction and
  intervention within and across tiers
• Universal screening
• Progress monitoring

5
Integrated Systems Model for Academics and
Behavior
Academic Systems
Behavioral Systems
Decisions about tiers of support are data-based
Adapted from OSEP Effective School-Wide
Interventions
6
What This Means for Schools

• The School Administrator, April, 2007
• RtI is a general education responsibility and
  activity along with special education, Title, ELL
• Requires major changes in district-wide
  configuration of instruction in basic skills
  (reading, math) for all students

7
NEA Definition

• RtI process is the practice of providing high
  quality instruction and intervention matched to
  student skill needs, monitoring student progress
  frequently to make changes in instructional
  goals, and applying child response data to
  important educational decisions.
• NEA (2006) Role of General Education Teachers in
  the RtI Process

8
NEA (2006)

• RtI focuses on early identification of learning
  and behavior needs and the provision of
  appropriate evidence-based interventions in order
  to address skill gaps early to keep them from
  becoming larger issues.
• RtI is a school-wide process approach, the
  foundation of which is quality core instruction
  in the GE classroom.

9
Changes in Practices Before Referral and
Evaluation

• Previous Practices
• Wait for referral (often wait to fail)
• Pre-referral
• Intervention responsibility on teacher
• Anecdotal progress reports
• Wait to fail had to be deficit to be eligible

• RtI Practices
• Teams review universal screening data and
  automatically intervene with 20-30
• Interventions are automatic, designed by team and
  delivered flexibly by building personnel
• Progress monitoring data reviewed by team to make
  decisions

10
Change in Practices During Evaluation

• Previous Practices
• Most information collected after referral
• Testing had most influence on eligibility
  decision
• Little focus on other criteria than tests
• Proving deficits, waiting to fail

• RtI Practices
• Most information already gathered when
  comprehensive evaluation begins
• RtI data have most influence on eligibility
  decision
• All criteria are fully analyzed
• Diagnostic and other assessment used as needed to
  fill in missing information needed for
  intervention planning

11
Changes in Practices After Evaluation and for
the IEP

• Previous Practices
• Frequently, more evaluation was needed to
  establish goals and services
• If not eligible, frustration of educators,
  parents, and lack of student support and progress
• No clear link between assessment and IEP, as
  required by IDEA

• RtI Practices
• IEP team has extensive information on student
  response to instruction by time eligibility is
  established
• Clear, on-going link between assessment and IEP
  same data methods used to progress monitor on IEP
  goals

12
We did then what we knew how to do, when we knew
better, we did better.

• - Maya Angelou

13
Tier 1 Core instruction - All Students

• Effective, scientifically-based core instruction,
  linked to state standards
• Differentiated instruction and adaptation as
  needed to meet the needs of all students
• Universal screening data
• To identify student progress in core instruction
  and effectiveness of core

14
Universal Screening

• Curriculum Based Measurement
• Dynamic indicators of basic skills
• Reading fluency and early literacy
• Mathematics numeric principles and computation
• Written Expression
• Spelling
• Web-based tool - AIMSWEB

15
Tier 1 Decision Making

• Using data to examine effectiveness of overall
  practices
• 80 of students reaching benchmark
• No achievement gaps for subgroups
• If no to either, strengthen core instruction
  (grow the green!)
• Use of school-wide team (Building-level Team) for
  planning and decision making, including parent
  representation

16
Building-Level Team Decision Making

• Examination of core instruction
• Examination of effectiveness (student data
  state test data and screening hows that
  working for you?)
• Matching instructional practices to student needs
• Differentiation and help as needed
• Flexible grouping
• Flexible use of resources (including teaching
  staff)
• Effective, efficient use of instructional time

17
TIER 1 Benchmark/Schoolwide Benchmark/Core
Reading Programs Rigby Literacy (Harcourt
Rigby Education, 2000) Trophies (Harcourt School
Publishers, 2003) The Nations Choice (Houghton
Mifflin, 2003) Macmillan/McGraw-Hill Reading
(2003) Open Court (SRA/McGraw-Hill,
2002) Reading Mastery Plus (SRA/ McGraw-Hill,
2002) Scott Foresman Reading (2004) Success For
All (1998-2003) Wright Group Literacy
(2002) Reviewed by Oregon Reading
First Comprehensive Addressed all 5 areas and
included at least grades K-3
18
TIER 1 School-Wide Discipline
Programs Positive Behavior Support Prosocial
Discipline Programs School-wide Discipline
Committee Attendance Programs
19
Tier 2 Supplemental, Some Students

• Supplemental, research-based intervention,
  delivered in a timely, automatic fashion to
  students who need it, approximately 5-10 (not
  referral based)
• Use of universal screening data (e.g., DIBELS,
  CBM) for early identification of who is in need
  of more intensive intervention
• Usually involves small group intervention,
  flexible grouping

20
Tier 2 Supplemental, Some Students

• Use of regularly scheduled (at least weekly)
  systematic progress monitoring to evaluate
  student progress and determine if more intensive
  intervention is needed
• Use of instructional teams (e.g., grade level
  teams, with data manager support) to make
  decisions on interventions, delivery of
  interventions, grouping, student progress

21
Tier 2 Decision Making

• Apply decision rules (progress, closing gap
  toward meeting benchmark) to students receiving
  intervention
• Move to more intensive intervention (Tier 3) as
  needed by data

22
Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions

• Available in general education settings
  increased dose of instruction for students who
  fail to make progress with core instruction on
  state benchmarks
• Opportunity to increase exposure (academic
  engaged time) to core curriculum and content
  standards
• Opportunity to narrow focus of the instruction to
  meet skill needs
• Interventions are research-based

23
Characteristics of Tier 2 Interventions (cont.)

• Typically delivered in small groups (with
  flexible grouping) by classroom teachers, with
  support as needed from resource specialists
  (e.g., Title, reading teachers)
• Sufficient time for interventions to have an
  effect (10-30 weeks), with
• Frequent (at least weekly) progress monitoring to
  assure are examining effectiveness and student
  response, with opportunity to intensify as
  indicated by data

24
TIER 2 Supplemental Reading Programs Early
(Soar to) Success (Houghton Mifflin) Read Well
(Sopris West) Reading Mastery (SRA) Early
Reading Intervention (Scott Foresman) Great
Leaps (Diamuid, Inc.) REWARDS (Sopris
West) Ladders to Literacy (Brookes) Read
Naturally Peer Assisted Learning Strategies
(PALS)
25
Tier 2 Group Results
26
Tier 3 Intensive Intervention, Few Students

• Intensive, individualized interventions (using
  problem-solving methods and research-based
  practices) for students who need it,
  approximately 1-5
• Use of systematic progress monitoring data, at
  least weekly

27
Tier 3 Intensive Intervention, Few Students

• Additional research-based intervention, in small
  group or individualized, for students with
  insufficient progress to Tier 2 interventions
• Use of small problem-solving team, including
  parents, teacher, support teacher, others as
  needed
• Use when need for support, demonstrated by data,
  is chronic and intensive

28
Tier 3 Data-based Decision Making

• Weekly progress monitoring data, reviewed
  regularly by team, using decision rules
• Consideration of
• Level
• Slope (rate of progress) closing gap
• Intensity of instruction/intervention needed to
  close gap/change trajectory

29
Tier 3 Intensive Intervention, Few Students
(cont.)

• Tier 3 is not special education
• Response to Tier 3 determines if suspect
  disability (consistent with Questions and
  Answers from Office of Special Education Programs
  clarification that do not suspect disability
  until track response to instruction and
  intervention)

30
TIER 3 INTENSIVE Reading Programs Corrective
Reading (SRA) Language! (Sopris West) Wilson
Reading System Reading Mastery Earobics
(phonics/phonemic awareness Cognitive
Concepts) Great Leaps/ Read Naturally
(Fluency) REWARDS (Fluency, Comp. and Vocab. in
Plus Program) Soar to Success (comp.)
31
Moving to Suspecting Eligibility and Eligibility
Determination

• Time clock starts when suspect disability
• Comprehensive evaluation means examining all data
  and collecting what additional data are needed
  (if any) to answer questions
• In need of specialized instruction?
• Eligible as a child with a disability?
• If yes to both (do 1 first), move to IEP

32
Typical Implementation Activities by Year

• Year 1 Planning, reviewing data and
  instructional practices and use of resources,
  setting up structure, communicating about
  benefits, building skills through professional
  development (PD)
• Year 2 Implementation begins (school-wide or
  within grade/s), use of universal screening data,
  targeted interventions, continued planning and PD
• Year 3 Data-based decision making, evaluating
  outcomes, making adjustments, continued planning