RTI: Using Student-Centered Data to Make Intervention and Eligibility Decisions

1. RTI: Using Student-Centered Data to Make Intervention and Eligibility Decisions Laguna Cliffs Institute Sopris West Educational Services Dr. George M. Batsche Co-Director, Institute for School Reform Florida Problem-Solving/RtI Statewide Project University of South Florida Tampa, Florida

3. Steps in the Problem-Solving Process PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION � Identify replacement behavior � Data- current level of performance � Data- benchmark level(s) � Data- peer performance � Data- GAP analysis PROBLEM ANALYSIS � Develop hypotheses( brainstorming) � Develop predictions/assessment INTERVENTION DEVELOPMENT � Develop interventions in those areas for which data are available and hypotheses verified � Proximal/Distal � Implementation support � Intervention Fidelity/Integrity Response to Intervention (RtI) � Frequently collected data � Type of Response- good, questionable, poor

4. Criteria for Evaluating Response to Intervention Is the gap between desired/current rate or gap between slopes of current and benchmark converging? If yes, this is a POSITIVE RtI Is the gap closing but not converging (e.g., parallel)? If yes, this is a QUESTIONABLE RtI If the rate/slope remains unchanged OR if there is improvement but shows no evidence of closing the gap, then this is a POOR RtI

5. Data For Each Tier - Where Do They Come From? Tier 1: Universal Screening, accountability assessments, grades, classroom assessments, referral patterns, disciplikne referrals Tier 2: Universal Screening - Group Level Diagnostics (maybe), systematic progress monitoring, large-scale assessment data and classroom assessment Tier 3: Universal Screenings, Individual Diagnostics, intensive and systematic progress monitoring, formative assessment, other informal assessments

6. How Does it Fit Together? Group-Level Diagnostic Std. Treatment Protocol

7. How Does it Fit Together? Uniform Standard Treatment Protocol

8. �Universals� 85% of �referrals� or �requests for assistance� are for 5-7 reasons Phonics, fluency, comprehension Written language fluency Failure to complete work Inability to sustain on-task attention Non-compliance etc

9. Therefore�. Building principals can predict, with 85% accuracy, next years referral types Annual referrals (or referrals to office, teacher surveys) area primary source of data to predict building needs Teachers refer students for whom they believe they do not have the skills or resources to meet student needs CPD should focus on these building issues to enhance �capacity�

10. Planning Ahead:Predicting Who Will Be Referred Code referrals (reasons) for past 2-3 years Identifies problems teachers feel they do not have the skills/support to handle Referral pattern reflects skill pattern of the staff, the resources currently in place and the �history� of what constitutes a referral in that building Identifies likely referral types for next 2 years Identifies focus of Professional Development Activities AND potential Tier II and III interventions Present data to staff. Reinforces �Need� concept

11. Data-Driven Infrastructure:Identifying Needed Interventions Assess current �Supplemental Interventions� Identify all students receiving supplemental interventions For those interventions, identify Type and Focus (academic, direct instruction, etc) Duration (minutes/week) Provider Aggregate Identifies instructional support types in building This constitutes Tier II and III intervention needs

12. Steps in the Problem-Solving Process PROBLEM IDENTIFICATION � Identify replacement behavior � Data- current level of performance � Data- benchmark level(s) � Data- peer performance � Data- GAP analysis

13. Example- ORF Current Level of Performance: 40 WCPM Benchmark 92 WCPM Peer Performance 88 WCPM GAP Analysis: 92/40= 2+X difference SIGNIFICANT GAP Is instruction effective? Yes, peer performance is at benchmark.

14. Example- Behavior Current Level of Performance: Complies 35% of time Benchmark (set by teacher) 75% Peer Performance 40% GAP Analysis: 40/35= 1.1X difference NO SIGNIFICANT GAP Is behavior program effective? No, peers have significant gap from benchmark as well.

15. Outline � Implementing An RtI System Tier 1 Decision Making Collect and evaluate universal screening data against criterion for successful Core (many suggest 80% proficiency based on Core instruction) If modification of the Core is needed Conduct curriculum diagnostic assessment � compare core curriculum against a standard if available (e.g., Kame�enui & Simmons) or evaluate core using problem analysis procedures Create hypotheses and predictions Modify curriculum and instruction Evaluate curriculum and instruction modifications Monitor sufficiency of core each time universal screening is completed � modify as necessary

16. Tier I Data Example

17. Tier 1 Data Example

20. Screening indicates math problem grades 3 to 5

21. Screening indicates math problem grades 3 to 5

22. Screening indicates math problem grades 3-5

24. Analyze Discipline Referrals Gender Grade Level Type Frequency Race SES ELL Time Schedule

25. Tier 1 or Tier 2?:Behavior Example Replacement Behavior �Waiting Turn� Current Level of Performance 27% Accuracy (success/opportunity) Peer Performance 58% Average Benchmark 75%

27. Intervention Decision? Is the student significantly below benchmark performance? 75/27= 2+ Times GAP Is the peer group significantly below benchmark performance? 75/58= 1.3+ Times GAP Not 2X, but not appropriate either DECISION?

29. Outcome? Rate of Peer Performance? 82-58= 58/24 or 2.42 Rate of Target Student Performance? 42-27= 27/15 or 1.80 Type of Response to Intervention? Peer?? Student?? Intervention Effectiveness Decision?

31. Analyze Data Tier 1: Type of RtI Postive, Questionable, Poor? Intervention Decision? Keep As Is? Modify Existing? Change Completely?

32. Outline � Implementing An RtI System Tier 2 Decision Making � Dx Assm�t Option Identify less than proficient students Administer additional brief assessments to examine performance profiles Group students with like performance profiles for supplemental instruction Provide supplemental instruction based on skill needs Monitor progress Review student progress monitoring data at scheduled intervals How successful are students in response to Tier 2 Interventions? 70% is a good criterion Modify supplemental instruction as necessary Move students across tiers as data warrant

33. Tier 2 Decision-Making:Small Group 11 Students High Risk: Initial Sounds Fluency Additional 30 Minutes Direct Instruction Wilson�s Fundations Fluency

34. Tier 2

36. A Smart System Structure

40. 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? Training Notes: This is the decision model at Tier 1. Lisa�s ORF is above benchmark for some risk, her comprehension skills are judged as at levels equal to that reflected in her ORF. Therefore, she is not at risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum (in this case, Open Court) is working and she is making the expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a disability. You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum) instruction.Training Notes: This is the decision model at Tier 1. Lisa�s ORF is above benchmark for some risk, her comprehension skills are judged as at levels equal to that reflected in her ORF. Therefore, she is not at risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum (in this case, Open Court) is working and she is making the expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a disability. You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum) instruction.

42. Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction Step 1: Screening ORF at end of 2nd grade is 93 cwpm, end of 2nd benchmark for some risk is 90 cwpm Reading comprehension skills are judged as adequate by her teacher. Is this student at risk? Training Notes: This is the decision model at Tier 1. Latana earned a CBM score of 93, above the level of the at risk benchmarks. Her teacher believes she is an above average reader in her class. Therefore, she is not at risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum is working and she is making the expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a disability. You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum) instruction.Training Notes: This is the decision model at Tier 1. Latana earned a CBM score of 93, above the level of the at risk benchmarks. Her teacher believes she is an above average reader in her class. Therefore, she is not at risk, which means that the instruction within the Core Curriculum is working and she is making the expected level of progress. She is NOT a student with a disability. You would continue to maintain her at Tier 1 (core curriculum) instruction.

43. 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 Training Notes: Rita is in the same class, and at the fall benchmark screening she scores 20 wcpm. The teacher judges that her comprehension skills are equally low and not reflected as being substantially different than ORF.Training Notes: Rita is in the same class, and at the fall benchmark screening she scores 20 wcpm. The teacher judges that her comprehension skills are equally low and not reflected as being substantially different than ORF.

44. Training Notes This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the 25th to 75th percentile of the normative group. Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this language which I think works): In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency. We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the 100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents, they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and expository text. Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50% on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at 100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even though a student may read the text. Training Notes This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the 25th to 75th percentile of the normative group. Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this language which I think works): In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency. We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the 100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents, they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and expository text. Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50% on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at 100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even though a student may read the text.

45. 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 Is this student at risk? Training Notes: Decision making at Tier 1 shows that Rita is NOT making sufficient progress in general education setting, and that the instruction within the core curriculum is not sufficient for her to meet benchmarks. As such, you move to a Tier 2, Strategic intervention. Training Notes: Decision making at Tier 1 shows that Rita is NOT making sufficient progress in general education setting, and that the instruction within the core curriculum is not sufficient for her to meet benchmarks. As such, you move to a Tier 2, Strategic intervention.

46. Data-Based Determination of Expectations Data- Current Level of Performance Data- Benchmark Level Date- # of Weeks to Benchmark Calculate- Difference between current and benchmark level Divide by # Weeks Result: Rate per week of growth required REALISTIC? Compare to Peer Group Rate

47. Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Rita Benchmark Level: 54 WCPM Current Level: 20 WCPM Difference to Feb Benchmark (Gap): 34 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 20 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 34/20= 1.70 WCPM for Rita Peer Group Rate = 1.20 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.40 WCMP (for �some risk� benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

48. Training Notes This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the 25th to 75th percentile of the normative group. Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this language which I think works): In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency. We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the 100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents, they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and expository text. Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50% on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at 100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even though a student may read the text. Training Notes This slide graphically illustrates the difference. Visual displays such as this one are valuable ways to efficiently talk about student performance at team meetings. The boxes represent the 25th to 75th percentile of the normative group. Additional Info on Comprehension (John Delgaddo offered this language which I think works): In reading fluency we have specific targets that we know result in improved comprehension and we have data on thousands of students to indicate this relationship or correlation. There is no one set number in reading fluency where we can guarantee comprehension, so there are ranges of reading fluency where we believe a student should be within in order to have the greatest opportunity to comprehend the text. In the area of comprehension we do not have something such as words read correct to count as we do in fluency. We do however, have certain long-standing targets for mastering information, such as we often define mastery on specific skills as being 90-100%. Therefore, in reading comprehension, we know that we want 100% comprehension as our target. When students fall below the 100% mark in total comprehension, or on one of its subcomponents, they will have difficulty with the meaning of text in narrative and expository text. Traditionally, when large scale achievement tests are administered, it is advisable to consider scores in the bottom 50% on a particular subtest to be at-risk of academic failure, and deserving additional attention. When assessing students for reading comprehension and its subcomponents, we want students to be at 100%. Even 50% for comprehension is not adequate, but we often use it as an indictor in large scale assessments. When we take a look at a student's reading fluency and compare it with responses on reading comprehension subcomponents, it is reasonable to find that if a student only reads 30% of the words, that his comprehension may only be 30%. However, it is possible that this student may recognize specific words in other parts of the text that he was not able to read fluently, and subsequently answer some comprehension questions correctly. Therefore, there is no direct one to one correspondence between reading fluency scores and the percentages for reading comprehension subcomponents, but it is clearly understood that we want comprehension to approach 100%. We become concerned any time it is not near 100% and even more concerned on specific subcomponents of comprehension that may be deficient, even though a student may read the text.

49. 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 Training Notes The data based decision making team decides that the PALS program, a peer tutoring program, would be an excellent method for Rita to improve her reading. The specifics of PALS are described by clicking the link and showing the audience the following information off the link: Click PALS Manual, Sample, PALS Student Question Card. This illustrates two examples of the strategies of the PALS program, paragraph shrinking and prediction relay. 2. Return to click DEMO VIDEO, PALS, and show the two video clips from the PALS. Although the images are small and cannot be enlarged, they illustrate the nature of a standard protocol intervention. The intervention will be implemented in small groups from the second and third grade where students have similar skill levels and needs. The team puts the intervention into place 3 times per week for 30 minutes each, two different instructional personnel (the special ed teacher and an instructional aide) are available to facilitate the intervention, and the intervention will be in place for 8 weeks with PM conducted every 2 weeks. Given that this is a strategic intervention, one increases the intensity of the supplemental instruction AND the PM over the benchmark, tier 1 level, but not at the level that will occur at tier 3. Remind the audience that it is the variation in intensity of instruction and the frequency of monitoring that are key variables that change as one moves up the tiers.Training Notes The data based decision making team decides that the PALS program, a peer tutoring program, would be an excellent method for Rita to improve her reading. The specifics of PALS are described by clicking the link and showing the audience the following information off the link: Click PALS Manual, Sample, PALS Student Question Card. This illustrates two examples of the strategies of the PALS program, paragraph shrinking and prediction relay. 2. Return to click DEMO VIDEO, PALS, and show the two video clips from the PALS. Although the images are small and cannot be enlarged, they illustrate the nature of a standard protocol intervention. The intervention will be implemented in small groups from the second and third grade where students have similar skill levels and needs. The team puts the intervention into place 3 times per week for 30 minutes each, two different instructional personnel (the special ed teacher and an instructional aide) are available to facilitate the intervention, and the intervention will be in place for 8 weeks with PM conducted every 2 weeks. Given that this is a strategic intervention, one increases the intensity of the supplemental instruction AND the PM over the benchmark, tier 1 level, but not at the level that will occur at tier 3. Remind the audience that it is the variation in intensity of instruction and the frequency of monitoring that are key variables that change as one moves up the tiers.

50. Intervention Implementation Find additional time Ensure that supplemental and intensive interventions are integrated with core instruction/behavior plan Intervention support available Frequent meetings with teacher(s) Data review Review intervention steps

51. Intervention Implementation Identify number of intervention support personnel available Identify the number of students needing supplemental and intensive support See if the ratios make sense! Example 600 students, 300 making benchmarks 30 teachers, 6 support personnel 30 teachers for 300 students 6 support staff for 300 students DOES NOT MAKE SENSE

52. Intervention Development and Support Intervention Development Proximal (Immediate) Increase Supervision Lower Difficulty Level Distal (Longer Term) Teach skills Shape Behavior Empirically Supported

53. Intervention Development and Support Intervention Support (G. Noell, 2006) Initial Week Teacher Meeting 2 or more times Subsequent-weekly (6-8 week minimum) Agenda for Meetings Review Data Review Intervention Steps Problem Solve Barriers

55. Training Notes: This graph depicts the outcomes of the Tier 2 intervention. The aimline, based on the decided level of expected progress is shown in blue dots, the actual outcomes of the intervention is shown by the trendline. The dashed blackline shows the anticipated outcomes over time based on the intervention imlementation. A question will arise as to whether one now continues the intervention until benchmarking occurs again in winter. I believe that IF the resources are available to continue the process until benchmarking, that would be the right decision. The student would then be exited from tier 2 as long as they met benchmarks. IF a resource problem develops and the team cannot sustain the effort, the child would be exited to tier 1 at the end of 8 weeks but obviously would be carefully examined as the second benchmark period was implemented.Training Notes: This graph depicts the outcomes of the Tier 2 intervention. The aimline, based on the decided level of expected progress is shown in blue dots, the actual outcomes of the intervention is shown by the trendline. The dashed blackline shows the anticipated outcomes over time based on the intervention imlementation. A question will arise as to whether one now continues the intervention until benchmarking occurs again in winter. I believe that IF the resources are available to continue the process until benchmarking, that would be the right decision. The student would then be exited from tier 2 as long as they met benchmarks. IF a resource problem develops and the team cannot sustain the effort, the child would be exited to tier 1 at the end of 8 weeks but obviously would be carefully examined as the second benchmark period was implemented.

56. 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 1.70 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? Training Notes: The decision making process at tier 2 shows that Rita was responsive to the intervention and would not be a student who is considered any further to have a disability. Given her data, she would probably be exiting from the tier 2 intervention and return to tier 1, core instruction only intervention . Training Notes: The decision making process at tier 2 shows that Rita was responsive to the intervention and would not be a student who is considered any further to have a disability. Given her data, she would probably be exiting from the tier 2 intervention and return to tier 1, core instruction only intervention .

57. Elsie Second grade student End of School Year Regular Education Scores at 62 wcpm in second grade material Teacher judges (based on in-class observation/evaluation) comprehension to not be substantially different from ORF � not great, not terrible At the end of second grade, Elsie is a reader, but not a good reader. Her fluency is below benchmark. Her Fluency is also below her peers.At the end of second grade, Elsie is a reader, but not a good reader. Her fluency is below benchmark. Her Fluency is also below her peers.

59. Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction Step 1: Screening ORF = 62 wcpm, end of second grade benchmark for at risk is 70 wcpm (see bottom of box) Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 12th percentile + or - Elsie�s teacher reports that she struggles with multisyllabic words and that she makes many decoding errors when she reads Is this student at risk? Training Notes: This is an example from a school that collected DIBELS data for a time, but did not use it. The spring of this school year is when they first started using their data to help make instructional decisions. Elsie�s historical data throughout second grade (fall and winter) are included for illustrative purposes. These are data of tier 1 screening data indicating an intense problem. That is, Training Notes: This is an example from a school that collected DIBELS data for a time, but did not use it. The spring of this school year is when they first started using their data to help make instructional decisions. Elsie�s historical data throughout second grade (fall and winter) are included for illustrative purposes. These are data of tier 1 screening data indicating an intense problem. That is,

60. Decision Model at Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction Supplemental, small group instruction will be provided to Elsie She will participate in two different supplemental groups, one focused on Decoding (Phonics for Reading; Archer) and one focused on fluency building (Read Naturally; Imholt) She will participate in small group instruction 3x per week, 30 minutes each � and she will also continue with her core instruction Supplemental instruction implemented by certified teachers in her school (2 different teachers) Progress monitoring about every 2 weeks Training Notes Additional data were collected on Elsie�s performance using additional reading fluency passages to look at both Fluency and accuracy (a proxy for decoding), she completed some maze comprehension assessments. Because her reading accuracy was below the preset cutoff in her school (95%), Elsie was asked to read some additional passages to elicit a set of errors. Her errors were typified and summarized. There were a number of patterns present in her errors (including multisyllabic words, compound word errors, and leaving off suffixes). It was noted that Elsie�s fluency also decreases as she is given even slightly more difficult passages. The literacy team in her school placed her in two existing supplemental groups as described above.Training Notes Additional data were collected on Elsie�s performance using additional reading fluency passages to look at both Fluency and accuracy (a proxy for decoding), she completed some maze comprehension assessments. Because her reading accuracy was below the preset cutoff in her school (95%), Elsie was asked to read some additional passages to elicit a set of errors. Her errors were typified and summarized. There were a number of patterns present in her errors (including multisyllabic words, compound word errors, and leaving off suffixes). It was noted that Elsie�s fluency also decreases as she is given even slightly more difficult passages. The literacy team in her school placed her in two existing supplemental groups as described above.

61. Training notes. At the end of Training notes. At the end of

62. Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level: 90 WCPM Current Level: 47 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 34 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 34/41= .83 WCPM for Elsie NOT VERY AMBITIOUS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! What would happen if we moved the target to the middle of the �some risk box?�

63. Training notes. At the end of Training notes. At the end of

64. Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level: 100 WCPM Current Level: 47 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 53 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 41 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 53/41= 1.29 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = about 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for �some risk� benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

65. Training notes. At the end of Training notes. At the end of

66. Tier 2- Supplemental Instruction - Revision The intervention appeared to be working. What the teachers thought was needed was increased time in supplemental instruction. They worked together and found a way to give Elsie 30 minutes of supplemental instruction, on phonics and fluency, 5x per week. Training Notes The revised intervention made a huge difference. Elsie was now getting 2:00 hours of reading instruction a day (between her core and her supplemental) and she is making gangbusters progress.Training Notes The revised intervention made a huge difference. Elsie was now getting 2:00 hours of reading instruction a day (between her core and her supplemental) and she is making gangbusters progress.

67. Data-Based Determination of Expectations: Elsie Benchmark Level: 100 WCPM Current Level: 56 WCPM Difference to June Benchmark (Gap): 44 WCPM Time to Benchmark: 27 Weeks Rate of Growth Required: 44/27= 1.62 WCPM for Elsie Peer Group Rate = 1.1 WCPM growth (at benchmark) 1.2 WCMP (for �some risk� benchmark) REALISTIC? Not unless you increase AET

68. Training notes. At the end of Training notes. At the end of

69. Training notes. At the end of Training notes. At the end of

70. By the Spring of Third Grade Elsie�s reading accuracy had improved significantly. Her average % correct hovers around 95 percent. She still struggles with multisyllabic words Normatively, at periodic and annual review time, she is now performing at about the 19th percentile compared to peers from Heartland AEA. She is catching up! Elsie is not a student with a disability

71. Decision Model at Tier 1- General Education Instruction Step 1: Screening ORF = on track for 100 wcpm, end of third grade benchmark for some risk is 110 wcpm (see top of box) Compared to other Heartland students, Elsie scores around the 19th percentile + or - Is this student at risk? Still a bit of risk, maintain Tier II instruction for another benchmark period, if progress continues, move to tier 1

72. 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 Training Notes Steven is a third student from the same class. All the same things from previous slides introducing students apply here.Training Notes Steven is a third student from the same class. All the same things from previous slides introducing students apply here.

74. 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? Training Notes: The decision process at Tier 1 shows that instruction in the core curriculum alone is not working, so one move to a tier 2 strategic intervention.Training Notes: The decision process at Tier 1 shows that instruction in the core curriculum alone is not working, so one move to a tier 2 strategic intervention.

75. Decision Model at Tier 2- Strategic Interventions & Instruction Supplemental, small group instruction in Rita�s 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 Training Notes: Steven is placed into the same group with Lisa for PALS. This slide just reiterates that this is a tier 2 strategic intervention.Training Notes: Steven is placed into the same group with Lisa for PALS. This slide just reiterates that this is a tier 2 strategic intervention.

76. Training Notes: Steven�s performance on ORF is shown here. While he is making some progress, the rate of improvement over the 8 weeks is about 3 times slower than the target which is shown on the aimline. One can see that if the same trend was maintained he is unlikely to meet the winter benchmark.Training Notes: Steven�s performance on ORF is shown here. While he is making some progress, the rate of improvement over the 8 weeks is about 3 times slower than the target which is shown on the aimline. One can see that if the same trend was maintained he is unlikely to meet the winter benchmark.

77. 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? Training Notes: The decision making process at tier 2 shows that while gains were present, they were far below the expected level. As such, Steven needs to move to tier 3 interventions which would be greater in intensity and with more frequent progress monitoring. At this point he has NOT been responsive to intervention, Training Notes: The decision making process at tier 2 shows that while gains were present, they were far below the expected level. As such, Steven needs to move to tier 3 interventions which would be greater in intensity and with more frequent progress monitoring. At this point he has NOT been responsive to intervention,

78. Outline � Implementing An RtI System Tier 3 Decision Making Conduct additional, instructionally relevant diagnostic assessments to determine more precisely student performance profile Create individual hypotheses and predictions based on student performance Match intensive instruction to student performance needs (identify resources within the school to support intensive instruction, e.g., title 1, ELL, SPED) Monitor progress at least once a week Modify intensive instruction as necessary based on progress monitoring data Move students across tiers as data warrant

79. Decision Model at Tier 3- Intensive Interventions & Instruction Supplemental, 1:3, 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 Training Notes: At tier 3, the teams looks specifically at Steven�s skill development and pulls together an individualized plan that emphasizes specific decoding and analysis strategies, increases the intensity of instruction (5x per week), and increases the frequency of PM (once per week). Two additional peers with similar level of need at Tier 3 are grouped with Steven, these students come from a different class within his grade within his school. Again, two different personnel are selected to implement the strategies, a regular ed teacher and a special ed teacher. Training Notes: At tier 3, the teams looks specifically at Steven�s skill development and pulls together an individualized plan that emphasizes specific decoding and analysis strategies, increases the intensity of instruction (5x per week), and increases the frequency of PM (once per week). Two additional peers with similar level of need at Tier 3 are grouped with Steven, these students come from a different class within his grade within his school. Again, two different personnel are selected to implement the strategies, a regular ed teacher and a special ed teacher.

80. Training Notes This slide depicts the outcomes of the intensive strategic intervention effort. As seen in the trendline, Steven shows substantial improvement here and reaches a level of gain that is likely to lead to a successful winter benchmark. Again, the question of whether he would continue until the winter benchmark will be raised. Given that this would now be 16 weeks after starting tier 2 intervention, it is likely that the winter benchmark is about to occur so the team would likely leave him in the strategy until the benchmark was taken. Assuming he meets the benchmark, the team may ease him back to tier 2 strategies again to see if a less intense effort will sustain his progress.Training Notes This slide depicts the outcomes of the intensive strategic intervention effort. As seen in the trendline, Steven shows substantial improvement here and reaches a level of gain that is likely to lead to a successful winter benchmark. Again, the question of whether he would continue until the winter benchmark will be raised. Given that this would now be 16 weeks after starting tier 2 intervention, it is likely that the winter benchmark is about to occur so the team would likely leave him in the strategy until the benchmark was taken. Assuming he meets the benchmark, the team may ease him back to tier 2 strategies again to see if a less intense effort will sustain his progress.

81. 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 Training Notes: Decision making at tier 3 shows that Steven is responsive to intervention and there should be no need to move toward a special ed determination decision. Given his data, one would probably continue monitoring through the end of the benchmark period and if he maintains his progress, return to a Tier 2 intervention. Training Notes: Decision making at tier 3 shows that Steven is responsive to intervention and there should be no need to move toward a special ed determination decision. Given his data, one would probably continue monitoring through the end of the benchmark period and if he maintains his progress, return to a Tier 2 intervention.

82. 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 Training Notes: Bart is the 4th student from the same class.Training Notes: Bart is the 4th student from the same class.

83. Training Notes: Bart moves through the same process as Rita and Steven, but with far less success. As one can see, even with intensive tier 3 intervention, Bart�s progress does not reach the level that will likely lead him to meet winter benchmarks. Given that we have moved through tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, and these interventions have been done with integrity, Bart is referred for consideration for special education eligibility.Training Notes: Bart moves through the same process as Rita and Steven, but with far less success. As one can see, even with intensive tier 3 intervention, Bart�s progress does not reach the level that will likely lead him to meet winter benchmarks. Given that we have moved through tier 2 and tier 3 interventions, and these interventions have been done with integrity, Bart is referred for consideration for special education eligibility.

84. 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 Training Notes Bart is NOT responsive to intervention at the level that will lead to successful outcomes, even with intensive interventions. As such, one moves to a special ed eligibility determination. Training Notes Bart is NOT responsive to intervention at the level that will lead to successful outcomes, even with intensive interventions. As such, one moves to a special ed eligibility determination.

86. HOW DO WE DOCUMENT THIS?

87. Problem-Solving Process ADDITIONAL DATA ADDED THROUGH THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS AND MEETING - It is extremely important to set a goal, as well as a follow-up date to evaluate the intervention process.ADDITIONAL DATA ADDED THROUGH THE PROBLEM-SOLVING PROCESS AND MEETING - It is extremely important to set a goal, as well as a follow-up date to evaluate the intervention process.

88. Criteria for Special Education Eligibility I: Establish NEED �Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance. �The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark �Student is not a functionally independent learner II: Student Possesses CHARACTERISTICS �Complete comprehensive evaluation

89. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation Problem Identification Oral Expression Listening Comprehension Written Expression Basic Reading Skill Reading Fluency Skills Reading Comprehension Mathematics Calculation Mathematics Problem-Solving

90. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation Relevant behavior noted during the observation and relationship of Bx to academic functioning Data from required observation

91. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation The child does not achieve adequately for the child�s age or to meet state-approved grade-level standards GAP Analysis from Tier 1 AND

92. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation The child does not make sufficient progress to meet age or to meet state-approved standards when using a process based on the child� response to scientific, research-based intervention RtI Data from Tiers 2 and 3 OR

93. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation The child exhibits a pattern of strengths and weaknesses in performance, achievement or both , relative to age, state-approved grade level standards or intellectual development that is determined by the group to be relevant to the identification of a SLD, using appropriate assessments Differential Academic Performance Levels NOTE: Requirement for a severe discrepancy between ability and achievement was removed.

94. IDEIA Comprehensive Evaluation The findings are not primarily the result of: Sensory or Motor Disability Mental Retardation Assess Adaptive Behavior First Emotional Disturbance Data from observation Observation and performance data Cultural Factors AYP Data for Race (NCLB) Comparative AYP for Culture (Local Norms) Environmental or Economic Disadvantage AYP Data for Low SES Limited English Proficiency AYP Data for LEP