Response to Intervention

1
Response to Intervention

• A School-wide Framework for Student Success
• PA Training and Technical Assistance Network
  (PaTTAN)

2
Session Goals

• Provide an overview of Response to Intervention
  including its
• Definition
• Legal authority and
• Historical perspective
• Describe Pennsylvanias RtI Approach
• Three-tiered model
• Team Role and Responsibilities
• Connection to the School Intervention Model
• Discuss next Steps
• Share Roll-out Plan
• Pilot Activities

3
RtI Team

• University Consultants
• Dr. Edward Shapiro, Center for Promoting Research
  to Practice, Lehigh University
• Dr. Joseph Kovaleski, Indiana University of PA.

4
RtI Team-BSE/PaTTAN

• Carol Good
• Ron Sudano
• Mike Miklos
• Amy Smith
• Diane Funsten
• Dan Thompson

• Kerri McCarthy
• Linda Lupp-BSE
• Dr. Carl DiMartino
• Dr. Paul Lowery
• Dr. William Galbraith
• Dr. Joy Eichelberger
• Dr. John Dellegrotto

5
Acknowledgements

• We gratefully acknowledge the following for
  allowing the use of selected slides
• Jack Fletcher, University of Texas-Houston
• Jeff Grimes and David Tilly, Innovations
  Conference, Sept. 2003
• David Prasse, Loyola University and Dick Hall
  (Eastern Lancaster County SD)
• Jason Pederson, Cornwall-Lebanon SD
• Mark Shinn, National Lewis University

6
How Did (DO)I (We) Get Here (There)?

• Instructional Support
• DIBELS
• School Improvement Teams
• SWEBS
• Effective Instruction
• Progress Monitoring
• Governors Institute for Reading
• Scientifically research-based reading program
• Flexible Grouping
• School-wide screening
• Benchmark Assessment
• Student Centered Teams

• RtI

7
What Is Response to Intervention?

• A comprehensive, multi-tiered intervention
  strategy to enable early identification and
  intervention for students at academic or
  behavioral risk.
• An alternative to the discrepancy model for the
  identification of students with learning
  disabilities.

8
Key Characteristics of RtI

• Universal Screening of academics and behavior
• Multiple tiers of increasingly intense
  interventions
• Differentiated curriculum-tiered intervention
  strategy
• Use of scientifically research-based
  interventions
• Continuous monitoring of student performance
• Benchmark/Outcome assessment

9
The Response to Intervention Approach

• Legal Authority

10
Influences on Current Practice

• Where We Are
• Reauthorization of IDEA 2004 (underway)
• Gaskin
• No Child Left Behind

• Where weve Been
• IDEA 1997
• LD Summit August 2001
• Presidents Commission on Special Education

11
NCLB

• Provided the impetus for school improvement
  through AYP accountability.
• Defined and required implementation of
  scientifically research-based practices.
• Supported involvement of all children in the
  general education curriculum.

12
Problems with the Discrepancy Approach Summary

• Need to wait until discrepant to deliver SDI
• Doesnt link with intervention
• False positives (high IQ average achievement)
• False negatives (the slow learner myth)

13
IDEA 2004 Specific Learning Disabilities

• The LEA shall not be required to take into
  consideration whether the child has a severe
  discrepancy between achievement and intellectual
  ability in oral expression, listening
  comprehension, written expression, basic reading
  skill, reading comprehension, reading fluency,
  mathematical calculation, or mathematical
  reasoning.

14
IDEA 2004 Specific Learning Disabilities

• In determining whether a child has a specific
  learning disability, a local educational agency
  may use a process which determines if a child
  responds to scientifically research- based
  interventions.

15
RtI and PA Screening Regulations

• Academic assessment
• Behavioral assessment
• Intervention based on assessment
• Assessment of response to intervention

• Lack of instruction or limited English
  proficiency
• Ability of the regular education program to
  maintain the student
• Activities designed to gain the participation of
  parents

16
Pennsylvanias RtI Approach

• A Schoolwide Intervention Model

17
Pennsylvanias Three-tiered Model

• An Integrated Approach (General, Remedial and
  Special Education)
• Based upon a functional perspective
• Focused on academic/behavioral growth of all
  students
• Student needs exist on a continuum
• Resources organized and provided in direct
  proportion to student need
• Implementation
• Scientifically research-based practices
• Problem Solving Model
• A Best Practice approach
• Considers all system variables (child, teacher,
  environment)
• Results in objective and measurable interventions
  (evidence-based n of 1)

18
Response to Intervention Framework
Tier 3Intensive Interventions for Low Performing
Students Alter curriculum, Add time, support
resources
Continuum of Time, Intensity and Data Increases
Percentage of Students Requiring Intensive
Supports Decreases
Strategic Interventions for Students at Risk of
Academic Failure
Tier 2 Strategic and Targeted Interventions for S
tudents At Risk for Failure Strategic
Instruction, Increased Time and Opportunity to
Learn
Tier I Benchmark and School Wide
Interventions for Students on Grade-level
(benchmark) and All Students (Effective
Instructional Practices provided within the
General Education Curriculum)
19
RtI Foundations

• Curriculum, Assessment and School Organizational
  Structure
• Teaming Structure (grade level, department, etc.)
• Data collection and analysis
• Flexible scheduling
• Data-based decision-making

20
RtI Management

• RtI teams
• Review school-wide student performance data
• Prescribe instructional or behavioral
  interventions for students based on intensity of
  identified needs
• Sets short term and long term goals for the
  school and students to progress toward
  established benchmark or standards
• Group all students via level of intervention
  based on student performance data
• Monitor students progress toward established
  goals and benchmarks
• Adjust interventions based on student performance
  data

21
Tier 1 Benchmark/Schoolwide

• Definition Students who are making expected
  progress in the general education curriculum and
  who demonstrate social competence
• Benchmark also describes those school-wide
  interventions that are available to all students
• Effective instruction
• Clear expectations
• Effective student support
• Periodic benchmark assessments
• Universal prevention

22
Tier 1 Functions

• Universal screening
• Data analysis teaming
• School-wide behavior supports
• Whole group teaching

23
Tier 1 Benchmark/Schoolwide
Universal Prevention, Screening, Monitoring

• High quality instructional and behavioral
  supports are provided for all students in general
  education
• School personnel conduct universal screening of
  literacy skills, academics, and behavior.

• Teachers implement a variety of scientifically
  research-based teaching strategies and approaches
  
• Students receive differentiated instruction based
  on data from ongoing assessments.

Adapted from Kovaleski (2005). Special
Education Decision Making ppt.
24
Tier 1 Effective Teaching Principles

• Engaged Time
• High Success rates
• Opportunity to learn content
• Direct and supervised teaching
• Scaffolded instruction

• Critical forms of Knowledge
• Organizing, storing and retrieving knowledge
• Sameness taught
• Strategic Instruction
• Explicit Instruction

25
Tier 1 Benchmark/Schoolwide

• Examples Strategies/Interventions
• Core instructional program available to all
  students in general education curriculum
• Differentiated instruction within the core
  curriculum
• School-wide Effective Behavior Support (SWEBS)

26
EXAMPLES ONLY
TIER 1 Benchmark/School-wide 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 Slide developed by
Mark Shinn
27

• Florida Center for Reading Research www.fcrr.org
• Oregon Reading First Center reading.uoregon.edu
• Texas Center for Reading and Language Arts
  www.texasreading.org

28
Results of Tier 1

• Continue effective practices for responders
• Non-responders begin Tier 2 interventions

29
Kindergarten Tier 2 Students Progress (SL)
30
Tier 2 Strategic/Targeted

• Definition Academic and behavioral strategies,
  methodologies and practices designed for students
  not making expected progress in the general
  education curriculum and/or have mild to moderate
  difficulties demonstrating social competence.
  These students are at risk for academic failure.

31
Tier 2 Strategic Interventions

• Use of standard protocol interventions
• Scientifically research-based interventions
• Academic
• Behavior
• Core instruction with supplemental materials
• Differentiated instruction in general ed.
• Specialists assist with strategic instruction in
  regular classroom

32
A Standard Protocol Intervention

• is scientifically research-based.
• has a high probability of producing change for
  large numbers of students.
• is designed to be used in a standard manner
  across students.
• is usually delivered in small groups.
• is often scripted or very structured.
• can be orchestrated by a problem-solving team.

33
Tier 2 Strategic Interventions (cont.)

• Increased opportunity to learn
• Increased instructional time
• Small group instruction
• Increased assessment
• Data collection and analysis once per month
• Data-based decision-making

34
TIER 2 StrategicStrategic/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)
• Slide developed by Mark Shinn

EXAMPLES ONLY
35
Results of Tier 2 Interventions

• Cycle responders back to
• Tier 1
• Identify non-responders for
• Tier 3
  

36
First Grade Tier 2 Students Progress
37
Tier 3 Intensive Interventions

• Definition Academic and behavioral strategies,
  methodologies and practices designed for students
  significantly lagging behind established
  grade-level benchmarks in the general education
  curriculum or who demonstrate significant
  difficulties with behavioral and social
  competence.

38
Tier 3 Intensive Interventions

• Use of standard protocols
• Supplemental instructional materials
• Small intensive groups
• Can be outside the general ed. classroom
• Tutoring by remedial educators
• 10-20 week interventions

39
Tier 3 Instructional Strategies
Examples

• Increased direct instruction time
• More time on task
• More immediate and corrective feedback
• More opportunity to respond

• Functional behavior analysis (FBA), Behavior
  Intervention Plan (BIP)
• More frequent progress monitoring (once per week)
• Core curriculum and intensive intervention

40
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.)
• Slide developed by Mark Shinn

EXAMPLES ONLY
41
Results of Tier 3 Interventions

• Cycle responders back to Tier 2
• Refer non-responders for evaluation for
  eligibility for special education

42

• Data Analysis Teaming
• Effective Instruction
• Universal Screening
• Progress Monitoring
• General Education Curriculum
• Schoolwide Behavior Support

43
Tier 2 Strategic and Targeted Interventions for S
tudents At Risk for Failure Strategic
Instruction, Increased Time and Opportunity to
Learn
Targeted Skill based Interventions More Frequent
Progress Monitoring FBA/BIP
44
Tier 3 Intensive Interventions for Low
Performing Students Alter curriculum, Add time,
support resources
Intensive instruction Small Group skill based
instruction Weekly Progress Monitoring FBA/BIP
45
Response to Intervention Framework
Tier 3Intensive Interventions for Low Performing
Students Alter curriculum, Add time, support
resources
Continuum of Time, Intensity and Data Increases
Percentage of Students Requiring Intensive
Supports Decreases
Strategic Interventions for Students at Risk of
Academic Failure
Tier 2 Strategic and Targeted Interventions for S
tudents At Risk for Failure Strategic
Instruction, Increased Time and Opportunity to
Learn
Tier I Benchmark and School Wide
Interventions for Students on Grade-level
(benchmark) and All Students (Effective
Instructional Practices provided within the
General Education Curriculum)
46
(No Transcript)
47
(No Transcript)
48
Teams Analyze Data

• Step 1
• View skills critical to meeting standards
• Identify which students have attained skill
• Identify which are developing skill
• Identify which are deficient

49
Teams Set Group Goals

• Step 2
• Create brief statements describing expected
  attainments of group
• Set a deadline or target date
• For example By January, 90 of students will
  demonstrate proficiency on (describe specific
  skill)

50
Teams Select Strategies

• Step 3
• With goal in mind, teachers review specific ideas
  for teaching to the target skill
• Can use existing known strategies
• Many teams choose to create entirely new
  strategies
• Keep focused on scientifically research-based
  strategies

51
Teaming Video
52
RtI Management Grade Level Team Functions

• Review grade-level student performance data
• Initiate instructional or behavioral
  interventions for students based on intensity of
  identified needs
• Sets short term and long term goals for the
  school and students to progress toward
  established benchmark or standards
• Group all students via level of intervention
  based on student performance data
• Monitor students progress toward established
  goals and benchmarks
• Adjust interventions based on student performance
  data
• Articulate with Student-centered Team for
  students in need of Tier 2 and Tier 3
  interventions

53
RtI Management Student-centered Team Functions

• Articulate with GLT and SCT
• Refer, triage, coordinate and provide support for
  Tier 2 and Tier 3 student assessment and
  interventions
• Prescribe instructional or behavioral
  interventions for students based on intensity of
  identified needs
• Sets short term and long term goals for the
  students to progress toward established benchmark
  or standards or goals
• Monitor students progress toward established
  goals and benchmarks
• Adjust interventions based on student performance
  data
• Team provides special education eligibility
  decision making or consultation to an eligibility
  decision making team

54
To Access Critical Data

• Teams require
• Two forms of data group tests and district
  performance tests/tasks
• a process for gathering data
• someone to convert data into teacher-friendly
  summary documents
• training on how to read summary documents
• a structure (time, place, etc.)

55
The Tri-Community and PATTAN Partnership
Student Learning is Our Business!
56
About Tri-C..

• Grades served K-5
• Student enrollment 386
• Students qualifying for free and reduced lunch
  62
• Students with IEPs 29
• Diversity
• 42 White
• 37 Black
• 19 Hispanic
• 2 Asian

Illustration 1. Students by Race/Ethnicity
Asian
Asian
Caucasian
African
Caucasian
African
37
37
Hispanic
Hispanic
57
Tri C Teaming Structure

• School Intervention Team
• Grade-level Teams
• Reading Team
• Behavior Team
• Data Analysis and Assessment Team
• Maintenance Team

58
School Intervention Team

• Responsibilities
• Data Analysis
• Selecting of Target Areas
• Identifying School-wide Improvement Goals
• Developing the Action plan
• Designing Intervention Framework
• Monitoring Student Performance
• Making School-wide Adjustments, as appropriate

59
Tri-Community Workgroup Planning for Improved
Student Achievement Grade 2 Content Area
Reading
EXAMPLE
60
(No Transcript)
61
Sample Intervention Framework

• Project READ
• Corrective Reading
• Early Reading Intervention
• Weekly Progress Monitoring
• FBA/BIP

Below Basic

• Intensive
• Interventions
• Low Performing Students
• Alter curriculum, Add time, support resources

• Project READ
• Corrective Reading
• SOAR to Success
• Bimonthly Progress Monitoring
• FBA/BIP

• Strategic and Targeted Interventions
• Students At Risk for Failure
• Strategic Instruction, Increased Time and
  Opportunity to Learn

Basic

• Effective Instruction
• DIBELS
• Monthly Progress Monitoring
• Houghton-Mifflin
• Behavior Support

• Benchmark/School Wide Interventions
• 100 of Students
• Effective Instruction, Clear Expectations, Teach
  Behaviors, Rules, routines and physical
  arrangements

Advanced and Proficient
Goal To improve student performance through
targeted interventions, focused, data -driven
instruction, professional learning, and the
ongoing monitoring of student progress. Focus
Areas Reading, Effective Instruction, Progress
Monitoring, Behavior
62
Grade Level Teams

• Responsibilities
• Data analysis
• DIBELS, Diagnostics, CBA, Teacher observations
• Instructional Grouping
• Instructional Interventions
• Tracking Student Progress
• Instructional Adjustments

63
Data-Based Instructional Planning and
Intervention Critical Questions

• What are the important skills/strategies
  students need to learn?
• What do they know already?
• How do I teach what they dont know?
• How do I know if they are learning and making
  progress?
• How do I collect the best data in the shortest
  amount of time to allow me to monitor progress
  over time?
• How do I use assessment to plan instruction?

64
Look at individual measures, then multiple
measures
Collect and Examine Data
Identify children who will need
Intensive Intervention
Strategic Intervention
Benchmark Intervention
Set Goals (four week and long-term)
65
Design and Implement Intervention
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark
Curriculum Materials
Curriculum Materials
Curriculum Materials
Time
Time
Time
Grouping
Grouping
Grouping
Opportunities to Respond
Opportunities to Respond
Opportunities to Respond
Monitor Progress and Make Instructional
Decisions 1 time per week
Monitor Progress and Make Instructional
Decisions 1 time per month
Monitor Progress and Make Instructional
Decisions 3 times per year
66
SAMPLE READING INTERVENTION MODEL
Heterogeneous Grouping All Students in grade
level core Instruction tied to Anchors 1.5
hours daily with push-in support
Intensive
Strategic
Benchmark

• Homogeneous Skill Group
• 1 hr. daily
• Flexible groups
• Phonemic Awareness
• Scott Foresman (ERI)
• Decoding
• Project READ, Corrective Reading
• Comprehension
• SOAR or Corrective Reading Comp.

• Homogeneous Skill Groups
• 1 hr. daily
• Flexible groups
• Comprehension
• SOAR TO SUCCESS
• Decoding
• Project READ, Corrective Reading

• Homogeneous Skill Groups
• 1 hr. daily
• Flexible groups
• Trade-books
• Literature Circles

67
Reading Team

• Responsibilities
• Tracking student progress in core reading and
  skill groups
• Instructional support to teachers
• Approve inter and intra-tier movement of students
• Keeping abreast of reading research and effective
  instructional practices
• Assisting with training activities
• Consulting with grade-level teams

68
Reading and Grade-level Teams

• Responsibilities
• Data analysis
• DIBELS
• Diagnostic Assessment
• Curriculum based assessment
• Teacher input
• Instructional Grouping
• Schedule Adjustments
• Progress Monitoring and Instructional Adjustments

69
Behavior Team

• Responsibilities
• Provides leadership to school-wide behavior
  support activities
• School rules
• Reinforcement system
• Disciplinary referrals
• Data collection and analysis
• Intervention planning

70
School-wide Behavior Support

• Consistent rules throughout building
• Explicit Teaching of Rules
• Reinforcement System
• Bulldog Bucks

71
Maintenance Team

• Monitors individual student cases after intensive
  interventions are exhausted
• Refers students to IST (instructional support
  teacher)
• Refers students for evaluation

72
Tri Community

• 1st Year Outcomes

73
Grade Level Performance Kindergarten

74
(No Transcript)
75
Student Outcomes IEP Subgroup

• At the start of the year, 92 of special
  education students in second grade were
  considered to be at risk and of need for
  intensive reading intervention. By the end of the
  year, this number decreased to 74.
• As the number of special education students in
  second grade decreased in the at risk category,
  there was a positive shift in the number of
  students who were strategic by the end of the
  year. There were no strategic special education
  students in second grade at the start of the
  year by the end of the year, 25 of the second
  grade special education students were considered
  to be strategic or at some risk. The gains made
  by second grade special education students have a
  direct impact on the overall progress for this
  grade. With a total of 48 of students
  considered at-risk based on the fall oral reading
  fluency, the gains made by special education
  students contributed to the noteworthy weekly
  gain of .99 wcpm across the academic year.
• Overall, fourth grade students in special
  education gained an average of .83 words correct
  per week across the school year. This average
  word gain is only slightly under the .97 word per
  week gain for Tri-Community fourth grade students.

76
(No Transcript)
77
General Outcomes

• Increased Expectations for ALL Students
• Shared ownership of ALL students
• Focus on instruction
• Focus on the matching of instructional
  approach/method to student need
• Reduced special education referrals
• Reduced disciplinary referrals

78
Activity Compare this list of data sources the
Tri-C team used to the ones commonly available
and used in your building.

• PSSA SAT 9 PVAAS 4Sight(05-06)
• DIBELS Corrective Reading Checkouts
• Basal Mastery Tests Project Read Mastery
• Attendance discipline referrals
• Suspensions schedules class size

79
Evaluating RtI

• Criteria for moving students among tiers
• Criteria for moving students within tiers
  (flexible grouping)

80
Evaluating RtI

• Identify which students have good or poor
  response to instruction (RtI)
• Sort students who need additional intervention
• Decide which students are assisted in general
  education
• Decide which students need evaluation for special
  education

81
Special Education Eligibility
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Discrepancy
Instructional Needs
Educational Progress
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
(Grimes Tilly, 2003)
82
Step 1 Appraising the students rate of learning

• Evaluating the students response to
  evidence-based instruction.
• What was the students progress during the
  intervention?
• Progress monitoring tools (aimline, trendline,
  slope)

83
Conditions for Special Education Eligibility
Progress

• Educational Progress - previous interventions
  have not sufficiently improved a students rate
  of learning and additional resources are needed
  to enhance student learning or the interventions
  that have sufficiently improved the students
  learning are too demanding to be implemented
  without special education resources.
• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

84
Special Education Eligibility
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Discrepancy
Educational Progress
Instructional Needs
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
(Grimes Tilly, 2003)
85
Step 2 Appraising the Extent of Academic
Deficiency

• Is the student discrepant from realistic
  expectations for his or her grade and age level?

86
Conditions for Special Education Eligibility
Discrepancy

• Discrepancy - given equal or enhanced
  opportunities, the students current level of
  performance is significantly lower than typical
  peers or identified standards (Grimes Tilly,
  2003)

87
Special Education Eligibility
Assessment and Progress Data From Problem Solving
Process
Instructional Needs
Educational Progress
Discrepancy
Convergence of Data from a Variety of Sources
(Grimes Tilly, 2003)
88
Step 3 Evaluating the Need for Specially
Designed Instruction

• Eligibility defined as the need for a criterion
  level of intensity of or types of programs and
  services.

89
Intervention Intensity

• Qualities of time, effort, or resources that make
  intervention support in typical environments
  difficult as intensity increases

Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
90
Logistical Characteristics of Interventions
Related to Intensity

• Intervention management and planning
• Activities embedded in typical classroom
  routines
• Intervention episodes
• Materials and other tangible resources
• Change agents

Adapted from Barnett, Daly, Jones, Lentz (2004)
91
Intensity of the Need for Special Support

• Extraordinary effort, time, or resources to be
  sustained
• Extensively or throughout the school day
• Re-planning and special resources

Hardman, McDonnell, Welch (1997)
92
Conditions for Special Education Eligibility
Instructional Needs

• Instructional Needs - instructional needs have
  been identified that are beyond what can be
  provided in general education (needs beyond tier
  3). This is evident when curriculum, instruction
  or environmental conditions need to be very
  different for the student as compared to the
  needs of other students in the general education
  environment. (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

93
Special Education

• Academic and behavioral intervention directed to
  an individual student having made insufficient
  documented progress during intensive
  intervention.
• These students needs require additional time,
  materials, and instructional opportunities for
  skill mastery.

94
Special Education Services

• Increased Direct Instruction Time in smaller
  group or individual instruction, ie. Tutoring
• More time on Task
• More Immediate and Corrective Feedback
• More Opportunity to Respond
• More Frequent Progress Monitoring
• Services from Specialized Personnel i.e. speech
  and language therapist, school psychologist, etc.
  outside the general education setting

95
Decision Making

• Is the students rate of progress given equal
  opportunity significantly less than the rate of
  typical peers or an expected rate of skill
  acquisition or are the interventions that
  sufficiently improved the students rate of
  learning too demanding to be implemented with
  integrity without special education resources?
• Does the students performance remain
  significantly different than that of peers or
  identified standard?
• Does the student continue to need curriculum and
  instruction that is significantly different than
  what is provided in the general education
  classroom?

Yes
Yes
Yes

• (Grimes Tilly, 2003)

96
Case Studies

• Green Light, Yellow Light, Red Light
• or
• The Road to Special Edor Not?

97
Lisa
Mrs. RETTIs Second Grade Class
Steven
Rita
Bart
98
District RtI Elements In Place

• Scientifically supported reading curriculum
• Open Court
• Fidelity of implementation
• Quarterly observation of teachers implementing
  Open Court Reading program
• Benchmarking assessment of all students
• Previous year only 6 of 60 first graders (10)
  failed to achieve benchmarks
• Presence of grade level teams for data analysis
• Teams co-lead by school psychologist and reading
  specialist examine assessment data to screen for
  those needing strategic intervention plans
• Administrative support to pool resources
• Reg ed, Sp ed, Remedial ed are one combined
  resource

99
Key Info

• Level Benchmark Levels for Measure
• DIBELS or Local Norm (some risk)
• Fall 26 - 44
• Winter 52 - 68
• Spring 70 90
• Comprehension checks 50 (some risk)
• Learning Rate Expected Gain Over Time (slope)
• Known rates based on national studies or
  statewide rates
• Second grade students 1.5 words correct/week
  (Fuchs)

100
Lisa

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 50 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

101
(No Transcript)
102
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 50 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension skills are judged as at levels
  equal to ORF by her teacher
• Is this student at risk?
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is Working

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Lisa
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
103
Rita

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

104
(No Transcript)
105
Reading Comprehension Screening Rubric
106
Rita Benchmark for Risk 3 on RN rubric (60)
107
Rita Benchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
108
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension deficits in all 4 of 5 areas are
  noted
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Rita
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
Rita
109
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction (3-4
  students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol intervention
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

110
Aimline 1.50 words/week
111
Rita Benchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
112
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention
Instruction

• ORF 34 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 1.85 words/week
• Gains above benchmark in 4 of 5 comprehension
  areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
• Step 2 Is student responsive to intervention?

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1
Rita
Move to Tier 3 Intensive Interventions
No
Yes
113
Steven

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

114
Steven Benchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
115
(No Transcript)
116
Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education
Instruction

• Step 1 Screening
• ORF 20 wcpm, fall benchmark for some risk 44
  wcpm
• Comprehension screen also shows deficits in all 5
  areas
• Current Gen Ed Instruction is NOT Working
• Is this student at risk?

Continue Tier 1 Instruction
Steven
No
Yes
Move to Tier 2 Strategic Interventions
Rita
117
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, small group instruction in Ritas
  group (3-4 students with similar skill levels)
• Standard protocol implementation
• 3x per week, 30 minutes each
• Team selects PALS (Peer Tutoring Strategy)
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every 2 weeks

118
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.55 words/week
119
Steven Benchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
120
Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Intervention
Instruction

• Step 2 Is student responsive to intervention?
• ORF 24 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 8 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 1 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.55 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5 areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark
• Is student responsive to intervention at Tier 2?

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 1
Steven
Move to Tier 3 Intensive Interventions
No
Yes
121
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive
Interventions Instruction

• Supplemental, 13, pull-out instruction
• Individualized Problem-Solving, Targeted
  Instruction
• Specific decoding and analysis strategies
• Emphasis on comprehension strategies
• 5x per week, 30 minutes each
• Implemented by 2 different available
  instructional personnel
• Implemented for 8 weeks
• Progress monitoring once every week

122
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.2.32 words/week
123
Steven Benchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
124
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention
Instruction

• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention at
  Tier 3?
• ORF 45 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 2.32 words/week
• At or above comprehension benchmarks in 4 of 5
  areas
• Student on target to attain benchmark
• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention?
• Move student back to Strategic intervention

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2
Steven
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination
No
Yes
125
Bart

• Second grade student
• Beginning of school year
• Regular Education
• Scores at 20 wcpm in second grade material
• Teacher judges (based on in-class
  observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be
  substantially different from ORF

126
Aimline 1.50 words/week
Trendline 0.95 words/week
127
BartBenchmark for Risk 3 on rubric (60)
128
Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Intervention
Instruction

• Step 3 Is student responsive to intervention at
  Tier 3?
• ORF 31 wcpm, winter benchmark (still 4 weeks
  away) for some risk 52 wcpm
• Target rate of gain over Tier 2 assessment is 1.5
  words/week
• Actual attained rate of gain was 0.95 words/week
• Below comprehension benchmarks in all areas
• Student NOT on target to attain benchmark

Continue monitoring or return to Tier 2
Bart
Move to Sp Ed Eligibility Determination
No
Yes
129
Comprehensive Evaluation is Required
130
Sp Ed Determination

• Is student of average cognitive ability?
• Administer screening measure for IQ
• If score suggests MR, administer appropriate full
  IQ and adaptive behavior measure
• Does student have E/BD?
• Administer screening measures to determine E/BD
• If score suggests E/BD, administer appropriate
  full measures to determine
• Does students difficulties due to cultural or
  linguistic differences
• Administer screening measures to determine
• If results suggest, conduct comprehensive
  evaluation of cultural or linguistic
  contributions to problem

131
In a Nutshell.

• When assessment driven, effective evidence based
  instruction in a standards driven core curriculum
  is available to all students, it provides
• early intervening for all students
• the resources and infrastructure for effective
  RtI.
• a baseline against which we can measure student
  performance.
• a problem-solving mechanism for all students.
• School-wide ownership of all students and
  required interventions.

132
Sp Ed Determination

• Is student of average cognitive ability?
• Administer screening measure for IQ
• If score suggests MR, administer appropriate full
  IQ and adaptive behavior measure
• Does student have E/BD?
• Administer screening measures to determine E/BD
• If score suggests E/BD, administer appropriate
  full measures to determine
• Does students difficulties due to cultural or
  linguistic differences
• Administer screening measures to determine
• If results suggest, conduct comprehensive
  evaluation of cultural or linguistic
  contributions to problem

133
Are you ready for RTI?

• Do you have administrative support with
  collaboration of general, remedial and special
  education as first step?   
• Do you have in place scientifically
  research-based core curricula?
• Do you do universal screening of all students?
     
• Do you provide flexible groupings for those not
  proficient in Tier 1 screening?

134
For information contact

• East Amy Smith,
• asmith_at_pattan.net
• Central Dan Thompson, dthompson_at_pattan.net
• West Ron Sudano,
• rsudano_at_pattan.net