Curriculum Based Decision Making (CBDM)

1. Curriculum Based Decision Making (CBDM) With Response to Intervention (RTI) By Michelle Fattig

2. Why Curriculum Based Decision Making? • Access to the general curriculum in the regular classroom • Strengthening the role “and responsibility” of parents • Coordinating IDEA with NCLB 15% Flex Spending opportunities (IDEA) • Scientifically based instruction • Providing incentives for whole school approaches, scientifically based early reading programs, positive behavioral supports and interventions, and early intervening services to reduce the need to label children as disabled in order to address the learning and behavioral needs of such children. Allison, R. (2006)

3. Curriculum Based Decision Making & Flex Spending • Focus on early intervention and prevention in general education • May be used at the district, school, grade, class, small group and individual level • The process may or may NOT lead to special education referral • Assessment and data-based decision-making are critical components Allison, R. (2006)

4. Curriculum Based Decision Making • Empirically supported interventions are provided at the point of need NOT eligibility • Interventions MUST be implemented with integrity and fidelity • Collaborative, Systematic, problem-solving model Allison, R. (2006)

5. Curriculum Based Decision Making • An effective way to monitor Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) • NOT A “ RUBBER STAMP “ into Special Education • May reduce special education referrals • Eliminates the “wait to fail” model • Provides much more information • Accountability for what is happening in the classroom Allison, R. (2006)

6. Curriculum Based Decision Making • Will require training time for proficiency • Finding research-based interventions • Some staff reluctance possible • Howell, K. (2005)

7. What is Problem Solving Assessment? • educational assessment seeking to maximize resources available • utilizes scientifically-based interventions • seeks to empower individuals within schools and communities to help provide solutions to the educational difficulties of our students UNK Special Seminars 1996

8. What is Problem Solving Assessment? Cont. • Allows for schools to demonstrate greater accountability • Regular and special education are seen as partners • Children with educational difficulty are seen in terms of their whole environment not solely residing within the child • Student identification in terms of disability labeling become less an issue and more emphasis placed on finding solutions for learning problems. • UNK Special Seminars 1996

9. CBDM and PSA Should Include: • Curriculum Based Measures and/or DIBELS • Curriculum Based Assessments • Active and prevalent problem solving teams • Thorough assessment of building resources • Identification of scientifically based instruction • Prescriptive teaching • Child centered decision making • Curriculum Based Measurement and/or DIBELS UNK Special Seminars 1996

10. CBDM and PSA • Based on principle of testing students over what is actually taught in the classroom • Doesn’t rely solely on national achievement tests to measure progress • Can provide performance data regarding areas of curriculum being learned • Can be more meaningful to teachers and parents • Easy, quick, effective way to measure student progress • Should be combined with nationally normed/standardized testing to maintain perspective (big picture) UNK Special Seminars 1996

11. Curriculum Based Assessment • Informal use of the principles of CBM to study an individual’s performance • Can be used to measure a student’s levels of achievement to alleviate frustration and promote learning • Can be used to tailor instruction at comprehension level • Can be used to monitor progress regarding teacher interventions • Allison 2006

12. Problem Solving Teams • An expanded and important role is envisioned beyond that of traditional SAT teams • Emphasis on interventions sooner rather than later • Little or no emphasis on “reaching referral” • After careful analysis of building resources, teams may consist of: regular educators, special educators, counselors, school psychologists, parents, and others each bringing his or her own expertise UNK Special Seminars 1996

13. Ecological Assessment • Assessments and interventions should include multiple sources, multiple settings, and multiple methods. • Is this truly a behavior problem or could it be an intolerant adult problem? • Is this truly a learning problem or could it be a teaching style/learning style mismatch? • Defining the strengths and needs of children and applying the knowledge allows for more appropriate interventions to be generated. • UNK Special Seminars 1996

14. Prescriptive Teaching • Assumes that each individual teacher has certain teaching strengths or certain modes of teaching in which they are most comfortable and each individual student has a learning strengths or modes in which they best learn. • The goal of a PSA team is to discover these modes and to be flexible in trying to match teaching style with student learning style. • To do this can help students reach their potential and reduce the frustration of teachers who are doing their very best to help the student learn.UNK Special Seminars 1996

15. Shifting the Common Sense • “Changing the assumptions and accepted interpretations about the world we live in,leading to new possibilities for action.” ~Robert Dunham

16. Shifting the Common Sense • Shift in sequence • Shifting our view of the problem • Howell 2005

17. Shifting the Common Sense • Over the years we have evolved a process through which we try to find the student entitled for funding first, and then we get around to developing an appropriate educational program to meet her needs. • This is backwards! Howell 2005

18. Shifting the Common Sense • Because need is one criteria for entitlement, finding a solution to the student’s learning problems has to come first then go looking for resources you need to implement the solution. • We cannot draw conclusions about need from evidence of a disability (the second criterion for entitlement). • The central question is not: “What about the learner is causing the performance discrepancy?” Howell 2005

19. Shifting the Common Sense • The Central Question Should be: “What about the interaction of the curriculum instruction, learner and learning environment should be altered so that the child will learn?” • Howell 2005

20. Shift in Sequence • The emphasis of our inquiry is the target of the educational interaction --- learning. • Learning is illustrated with measures that show us how the student’s behavior is changing in the areas (academic, social or task-related) in which he or she is being taught. • Stanovich, P.J. & Stanovich, K.E. (2003).

21. Cumulative Effect Problem solving effect is cumulative. If a teacher goes through the problem solving process with one student, when a student with a similar problem comes along, the teacher will go ahead and try the various interventions before coming to the team. UNK Special Seminars 1996

22. Shift in Focus • Instead we must become immediately interested in measures which directly sample the curriculum and that are sensitive to instruction. That is because the emphasis of our inquiry is the target of . . . Domains of Influence in Problem Solving • Instruction – How we teach what is being taught • Curriculum – What is being taught • Environment – Context where learning is to occur • Learner – Characteristics intrinsic to the individual in relation to the concern Howell, 2005

23. Dual Discrepancy • Performance Discrepancy • Progress Discrepancy • Alterable Variable – something that can be altered through instruction • Shifting the focus from unalterable to alterable variables allows educators to get information about things that they can do something about. Howell, 2005

24. Unalterable Variables • IQ • Physical/medical status • Lives with a single parent • Unalterable does not mean unimportant! • Howell, 2005

25. In preparing to implement CBDM (RTI) 1. Realize that there is a developmental progression that schools must go through before full implementation can be achieved. 2. For those with progress monitoring and intervention skills, talk to others in your schools about it. 3. Make sure the fundamentals are in place. –Data-based problem solving –Progress monitoring –Scientific support for instruction/interventions 4. Make sure the necessary systemic changes are in place. –A coordinated school wide system for monitoring progress and providing interventions –A school wide screening system –Resources to deliver interventions 5. Choose a model for evaluation and decision making. –A system for determining intervention placement/service delivery NASDSE, 2005.

26. Creating a Team • An Important Initial Step. . . Reflect! • Identify what is in place that will help support your efforts or barriers to overcome, (i.e. administrative support (leadership), personnel, resources, expertise, present problem solving process, change process, time, professional development, etc.) • Teams will vary from school to school. • Each district will identify and recruit knowledgeable, professional, caring, and creative staff members to assist with the team process. UNK Special Seminar 1996

27. The team will need a framework and decisions • Example for Dual Discrepancy Model (LPS) • Discrepancy in level • Age based comparison • For example, < 12th%ile after 2 planned intervention periods of 8 weeks each • Discrepancy in rate of learning Individual improvement in response to intensified, research based instruction examined with progress monitoring • For example, expected to improve by 16 correct read words per min in 8 weeks • Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L., (2003).

28. CBDM Handbook • Resources and information about the CBDM (RTI) Team planning process and guidelines. • Beginning with the research and information about the team process, the handbook is divided into sections that lead the participants through the critical problem solving process. • Suggestion forms which may be modified to best meet your district’s needs.

29. Available CBDM Supports • Technical assistance • Team training • Facilitation • For a copy of the handbook or more information about CBDM please call or email • Anniebooks@fbwpub.com

30. References Allison, R. (2006) Response to Intervention: Critical Components and Important Consideration. PPT presentation ** cite correctly Curwin, R. & Mendler, A. N. (1988). Discipline with Dignity Resource Handbook. Bureau of Education and Research: Bellevue, WA. http://www.disciplineassociates.com/dwd.htm Daly, E. & Glover, T. (2006). Response to Intervention. Pres **cite correctly http://www.nde.state.ne.us/SPED/RTI%20Video%20Conference/Ed%20Daly%20Todd%20Glover%20UNL.pdf Fuchs, L.S., Fuchs, D., & Speece, D.L., (2002). Treatment validity as a unifying construct for identifying learning disabilities. Learning Disabilities Quarterly,25, 33-45. Fuchs, D., Mock, D., Morgan, P.L., & Young, C.L., (2003). Responsiveness-to-Intervention: Definitions, evidence, and implications for the learning disabilities construct. Learning Disabilities Research & Practice, 18, 157-171. Howell, K. (2005) presentation Kearney, NE ESU 10 NASDSE, 2005. Response to Intervention Policy Considerations and Implementation, Alexandria, VA. www.nasdse.org. Pre-referral Intervention Teams, Multidisciplinary Teams, and Section 504: How can we possibly do it all? Workshop of the Professional Development Seminar Series sponsored by the University of Nebraska @ Kearney, Department of Counseling and School Psychology. Stanovich, P.J. & Stanovich, K.E. (2003). Using Research and Reason in Education. RMC Research Corporation: Portsmouth, New Hampshire. http://www.nifl.gov/partnershipforreading/publications/pdf/Stanovich_Color.pdf Tilly, W.D., (2005) ppt. http://www.studentimprovementteam.org/Downloads/PM%20Resource%20Book.doc