780 likes | 980 Views
C. Lee Goss, 2008. 2. 3-Day RTI Summer Institute Plan. Day 1:Review of RTI, Benchmark Screening
E N D
1. Response To Intervention Summer Institute:Reading and RTI C. Lee Goss, M.S., LPE
Psy.D. Pre-doctoral Intern
University of Southern Maine
2. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 2 3-Day RTI Summer Institute Plan Day 1:
Review of RTI, Benchmark Screening & Implementing Progress Monitoring
Day 2:
Data-Based Decision Making and Tier 2-3 Interventions
Day 3:
School-Wide Implementation of RTI
3. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 3 Day 1: Goals to Action Brief review of RTI & 3-Tier Model
Review benchmark screening process using curriculum-based measures (CBM)
Develop plan to implement progress monitoring procedures
Begin Development of School/District RTI Implementation Action Plan
Benchmark Screening
Progress Monitoring
4. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 4 Day 1: Action Plan Acknowledgments
Historical to Current RTI Influences
Review of RTI & 3-Tier Model
Review Role & Purpose of CBM
Review of Benchmark Screening Process
Organizing Benchmark Assessment Data
Managing Data
Reporting Data
Reviewing Data
5. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 5 Day 1: Action Plan, Contd Progress Monitoring: The Logistics
Who will collect the data?
Deciding how often to collect data?
Reporting Progress Monitoring Data
Reviewing Progress Monitoring Data
Small Group Action Plan Development
6. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 6 Acknowledgments Marcia Davidson, Ph.D.
Rachel Brown-Chidsey, Ph.D.
Mark Steege, Ph.D.
RTI & research-based reading instruction is built on a foundation of years of research, professional expertise, and leadership (e.g., Dan Reschly, Ph.D., David Tilley, Ph.D., Stan Deno, Ph.D., Mark Shinn, Ph.D, Sharon Vaughn, Ph.D. Joseph Torgeson, Ph.D., Barbara Foorman, Ph.D.)
7. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 7 Historical Context: Why RTI? NCLB 2001 & IDEIA 2004 Federal Policies
Evidence of over-identification of children as disabled, particularly in mild disabilities (i.e., LD)
Research shows that many children identified for special education services will respond to research based instruction and research based early interventions
RTI procedures offer well-child prevention-focused methods for education.
8. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 8 Current Research Statistics Nationally < 35% of 4th graders are proficient readers
~18% of the student pop in Maine is served in special education, the majority w/ mild disabilities (e.g., LD)
We are one of the very highest states in terms of students identified in special education.
9. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 9 NRC Reading Research Long-Term Research shows: 75% of the students who are not reading on grade level by 3rd grade never master functional literacy skills, (NRP, NRC).
Most children w/ mild disabilities, especially LD, are not even identified until 3rd grade, by which time it is often too late to close the gap, (Matthew Effect).
10. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 10 Research on RTI Research shows reductions in SLD child counts after RTI methods implemented (Marston, et al 2003, OConnor, 2003).
Tilly (2003) reported significant reduction in primary grade special ed referrals when RTI used for early intervention programming.
Studies show that not all students will be successful with RTI alone; those who still struggle will need to receive special education services.
11. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 11 RTI and Identification of LD Copious studies have shown the inaccuracy of IQ score-achievement test discrepancy scores for documenting the presence of a specific learning disability (SLD)
RTI methods for documenting the presence of SLD are at least as accurate as discrepancy methods and automatically include effective instruction
12. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 12 Historical Summary The number of special education students has increased significantly since 1975, PL 94-142: Education of the Handicapped Act
Both NCLB and IDEIA 2004 specifically call for the use of RTI as a way to ensure the use of research- based instruction and interventions in schools
RTI is a Prevention/Early Intervention model versus a Wait to Fail Model
13. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 13 National Scene: State RTI Leaders Iowa--Heartland
Colorado, Oregon, Illinois, Rhode Island, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Minnesota, Florida, Utah, Ohio, Idaho, Texas & Alaska have also been recognized as RTI/Research-Based Reading Instruction leaders
New Hampshire (PBIS)
14. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 14 Rationale for RTI NCLB requires schools to use research-based reading programs, measure student progress, & initiate research based early interventions
Clear evidence that RTI methods help promote better interventions and optimize outcomes for all students
RTI model focuses on prevention & early intervention
15. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 15 Rationale for RTI (Contd) RTI model allows for use of standard assessment practices as well as individual problem-solving
RTI helps to build a bridge between general and special education
Focus is on exit as much as entrance
Matches our belief about education for all children
16. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 16 What is Response To Intervention? Response to Intervention (RTI):
Early intervention and prevention model that begins in general education
Foundation of research-based instruction and interventions (RBIs) with systematic progress monitoring and data analysis for all children within general education
17. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 17 RTI is a Well-Child Prevention Model Prevention efforts to foster educational success for all students in school
Incorporates regular screening of ALL children to determine who is at risk for developing academic and/or behavioral problems
Provides strategic interventions for children determined at-risk in the early stages of a problem
Acknowledges that some children will have serious and persistent problems that will require intensive support
18. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 18
19. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 19 RTI is a Well-Child Program for Education Health Care
Infant screenings
Annual check-ups
Comparison to developmental standards
Immunizations
Use of research-based standard protocol treatments for common problems
Hypothesis testing as part of evaluation
Referral for specialist care if needed Education
Standardized Kindergarten screening
Three yearly check-ups
Comparison to local and national benchmarks
Use of research-based instruction for general education instruction
Hypothesis testing as part of curriculum and assessment practices
Referral to special education only if progress in other instruction is not made
20. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 20
21. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 21 RTI 3-Tier Academic & Behavior Model
22. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 22 Paradigm Shift Traditional identification model viewed as a Wait to Fail Model based on a Deficit Model of assessment and intervention
RTI is designed to be an early intervention/prevention model based on a a Risk Model of early identification of potential risk, early intervention, and on-going analysis of response to intervention
23. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 23 RTI Prevention Model Prevention-based model
Primarybefore any problems exist
Secondaryat the first sign of problems
Tertiaryto reduce effects of problems
Includes three elements:
Effective instruction
Data recording
Systematic review of data to inform instruction
24. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 24 Core Features of RTI Process High quality, scientific, research-based instruction and behavioral support in general education
Multiple tiers that identify and increase intensity of scientific research-based interventions based on individual student needs
Continuous progress monitoring w/ research-based measures sensitive to short-term student progress
Curriculum Based Measurement (CBM)
25. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 25 RTI: 3 Tier Model RTI is generally viewed as a fluid, multi-tier model often described as a 3-Tier Model
All 3 Tiers occur in general education
The level of intervention and individualized assistance is determined by the student response to academic/behavioral instruction
Frequent progress monitoring and data analysis is essential to determine the student response to the instruction/intervention
26. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 26 3-Tier RTI Model Tier 1 (Primary)
Scientifically based general education instruction with regular progress monitoring (Universal: 3-4x/yr)
Tier 2 (Secondary)
Intensive small-group scientifically based instruction with frequent progress monitoring (PM: Weekly)
Tier 3 (Tertiary)
Intensive individualized research-based instruction with frequent progress monitoring (PM: Daily-Weekly)
Comprehensive evaluation for special education services using a problem-solving model
27. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 27
28. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 28 How the Tiers Work Goal: Student is successful with Tier 1 level of support-academic or behavioral
Greater the tier, greater support and severity
Increase level of support (Tier level) until you identify an intervention that results in a positive response to intervention
Continue until student strengthens response significantly
Systematically reduce support (Lower Tier Level)
Determine the relationship between sustained growth and sustained support.
30. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 30 Tier 1: Review of Benchmark Screening Process & CBM Assessments
History of CBM
Purpose of CBM
The Data Tell The Story
Common Initial Stats & Examples
31. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 31 But were already administering a lot of assessments!
32. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 32 Functions of Assessments: MEAs & NWEAs: Summative MEAs & NWEAs are Knowledge or Content Assessments (Untimed)
MEAs & NWEAs are not timed:
They do not measure fluency of academic skills
They measure acquired knowledge of subject given enough time
Universal Screen Only
33. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 33 Characteristics of Summative Evaluations USUALLY appropriate to measure knowledge or content acquisition (given enough time).
NOT useful for decisions teachers need to make every day:
For whom do I need to individualize instruction or find more intensive instructional programs?
How do I organize my classrooms for instructional grouping?
How do I know that my teaching is working for each student so that I can make changes in instruction when necessary?
NOT very useful to administrators who must make decisions about allocating instructional resources, especially in a preventative or responsive model.
34. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 34 Functions of Assessments: CBM: Formative CBMs are Skill Proficiency Assessments
Timed: Thus they measure fluency, or automaticity/proficiency, of academic skills
Fluency does not mean speed or race
CBM At-Risk Benchmarks are Low (25%)
Academic skills are foundation for future academic achievement
Research shows CBM performance is predictive of future state assessment performance
First grade ORF is predictive of 4th grade reading achievement performance on state assessment (Davidson, 2007)
35. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 35 Characteristics of Formative Assessments: CBM Brief
Drawn directly from curricula and skills needed to fluently master content
Dynamic (Sensitive to small increments of progress)
Universal Screen: Multi-form yearly benchmarks to determine instructional status
Progress Monitoring: Multi-forms
Inform current instructional level
36. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 36 History of Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) In 1970s, coinciding with PL 94-142, a group of researchers in Minnesota began developing assessment measures sensitive to small increments of student progress in response to instruction
These measures were refined over time and are now known as curriculum-based measurement (CBM)
37. Kenya: A Global Perspective
38. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 38 Key Questions: How can we learn more quickly that a child is falling behind in development?
How can we use that information to guide what we do in our programs?
How do we know if what we are doing is improving a childs trajectory?
39. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 39 Identifying the vital signs of a students educational health The first thing we have to decide is what to measure
40. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 40 CBM: Vital Signs of Education CBM provides educators data on the vital signs of a students educational health
ORF significant indicator and predictor of future academic achievement
ORF equivalent to blood pressure screening for medical health
41. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 41 Purpose of CBMs? To provide educators with an efficient means to evaluate the effectiveness of a students instructional program
Why is this so important?
Research shows that instruction & intervention is not one size fits all
CBM helps determine which interventions are the most effective for individual students
42. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 42 RTI: Not One Size Fits All A teaching method might work with all of the students some of the time
..
And some of the students all of the time
But a method doesnt work with all of the students, all of the time.
Need to try a minimum of 2 research-based interventions to determine response to Tier 2
Recommend 3-5 evidence-based interventions per curricula area
43.
44. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 44 Curriculum-Based Measures CBM was explicitly designed to be:
Standardized (Training required so always administered the same way for accurate, reliable & valid results)
Show skill fluency (thus they are timed)
Drawn directly from the curriculum and skills students were learning in school
Brief w/ multi-forms to monitor progress
Sensitive to individual student growth over short periods of time (ex: weekly/daily)
Able to inform the next instructional steps
Over time CBM contributed to the data demonstrating the efficacy of RTI
45. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 45 RTI Initial CBM Benchmark Stats Initial Benchmark At-Risk Stats are often a surprise
Typical Initial Benchmark Results:
(~30 50%) At-Risk
High Risk Populations (e.g., ELL (~70%-80%)
Reflect national stats and high Title 1, Special Education, and drop out stats (high school and college)
47. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 47 Organizing Benchmark Assessment Data RTI Team/SAT Team/Grade Level Team
Collecting Benchmark Data
Managing Data
Reporting Data
Reviewing Data
48. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 48 RTI Team Members Administrator (Principal)
General Education Teachers (Grade Level Rep)
Special Education Teachers (Grade Level Rep)
Specialists
Literacy Specialist
Speech & Language Pathologist
Counselor/Social Worker
School Psychologist
Technology/Data Management Specialist
49. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 49 RTI Team Professional Development RTI Team members need professional development and/or expertise in
RTI 3-Tier Model
Selection of Research Based Instruction & Interventions
RTI Assessments: CBM
Data Collection, Analysis, & Interpretation
Treatment Integrity
50. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 50 RTI Team Role RTI school-based needs assessment
RTI implementation begins Tier 1 w/ RBI core instruction
Implement RTI Tier 1Tier 3 strategically & systematically (Action Plan)
Ensure & Monitor Treatment Integrity
Monitor & Review RTI CBM data Tier 1 Tier 3 to determine efficient and effective RTI evidence-based curricula and interventions
Data-Based Decisions Tier 1 - 3
51. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 51 Select/Obtain Benchmark Assessment Materials A variety of published materials exist
AIMSweb
DIBELS
Intervention Central
Read Naturally
Materials need to match curriculum
52. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 52 Benefits of Published/Computer CBM Data Program Resources Research-Based
Reliable & Valid Benchmark Norms
Charts/Graphs/Descriptive Data at your fingertips when enter benchmark and/or progress monitoring scores
District
School
Grade Level
Classroom
Student
Parent Reports
53. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 53 Train Benchmark Staff Train all staff assigned to collect benchmark data
Training should include schedule, samples (video), materials, and opportunities to practice to establish inter-rater reliability (7-10x)
The most efficient people to collect data are the teachers
Need help from others for individually administered items (RTI Team/CBM Assessment Team)
54. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 54 Assessment follows Instruction
56. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 56 RTI Step 2 Collect benchmarks of all students performance 3 times during the school year:
Fall (September 15 October 15)
Winter (January 1 31)
Spring (May 1 31)
See Forms 4 and 5 and Examples 3 and 4
57. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 57 Benchmarks as Universal Assessment By collecting academic performance data on every student 3 times a year we quickly know who needs help
These data help determine which students will need tier 2 instruction and assessment
It is the application of primary prevention steps in education
58. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 58
59. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 59
60. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 60 Collect and Organize Data Have a day or time window when benchmarks will be collected
RTI/Grade Level Data Collection Teams
Have teachers report data back in a uniform way
Either fill out a master list for the class or enter the scores into a computer
Have a firm deadline for reporting scores
Computers help with this!
Having teachers enter their own data is most efficient and helps them know which kids need help
61. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 61 Managing RTI Data Recommendations Administrative Leadership Key
RTI Team/Grade Level Team
Data/Technology RTI Team Member
AIMSweb/DIBELS Data Collection Resources
AIMSweb (3-Rs: K-8)
Fee for CBM & Data Reports/Graphs ($5/student)
Manage DIBELS Data
DIBELS (Literacy PreK-6: Free to Download)
Data Reports/Graphs ($1/student)
62. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 62 RTI Step 3 Rank students by benchmark scores
Identify which students scored below the benchmark target(s)
Those students below the target are at-risk for significant school difficulties
Compare the at-risk student list with teacher judgment and other indicators of students progress
See Form 6 and Example 5
63. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 63 What is a Target Score? Benchmark targets are score goals for all students
They are criterion-based because they are predictive of later success in school
Example, students who can read 40 or more words in one minute by the end of first grade are very likely to be successful in later grades
Can be set nationally and locally
National targets for reading have been established from DIBELS and AIMSweb data
64. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 64
65. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 65 Tier 2: Progress Monitoring Logistics Instruction IS Intervention
Progress Monitor At-Risk Students
Progress monitoring ensures that students are receiving appropriate interventions
The data tell the story
Skill Level
Type/Level of Intervention Needed
Response to Intervention
66. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 66
67. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 67 Weekly Progress Monitoring Recommended Usually, progress data are collected at least once per week
When collected weekly, the assessment can be very brief because the weekly scores will accumulate to show reliability
Anyone who has been trained to administer the outcome measure can collect the data
68. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 68 Reviewing & Interpreting Data RTI/Grade Level Team Meeting Infrastructure needed to review & interpret weekly progress monitoring data
Need to have at least 3 data points before engaging in interpretation
Data interpretation steps include:
Checking reliability
Checking level changes (progress?)
Checking slope (rate of progress?)
69. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 69 RTI and Meeting Student Needs RTI is designed to meet students specific instructional needs in a time-sensitive manner
Progress Monitoring Data are collected only on those students showing some risk level
If a student does not respond to an intervention, another intervention is tried to meet the students learning needs
70. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 70 Potential Benefits of RTI Eliminate a wait to fail model and implement an early intervention/prevention model
Research has shown that many children will respond to research based instruction and research based early intervention
RTI helps to build a bridge between general and special education by offering data-based decision-making tools and opportunities for collaboration and communication to support successful learning experiences for all students
71. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 71 Potential Benefits of RTI, Contd Early Intervention can reduce the number of students unnecessarily referred for special education services
RTI student progress monitoring techniques (CBM) provide more instructionally relevant information due to sensitivity to small increments of progress than traditional snap-shot assessments
72. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 72 Longitudinal Intervention Research
73. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 73 Summary CBM data have been shown to be highly effective for collecting and reviewing individual student progress toward learning goals
Data collected during the intervention show whether the instruction is working
If a students data show lack of desired response, another intervention is needed
74. Example of Tier 1 and Tier 2 Data
75. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 75 Progress Monitoring Data Analysis Data Analysis:
Student has met or exceeded January DIBELS BM Goals in mid-November
Recommendation:
Return to Tier 1 Research Based Literacy Classroom Instruction
Universal Benchmarks at Grade Level
77. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 77 Progress Monitoring Data Analysis Data Analysis:
Student is below January DIBELS BM Goals
Trendline indicates student is not likely to meet target January DIBELS NWF benchmark
Recommendation:
Modify/Intensify Tier 2 Intervention
Begin RM Small Group Intervention
Continue weekly progress monitoring and analyze data in 3 weeks to determine If student is making adequate progress
If adequate progress, continue Tier 2 until benchmark goals are mastered
If student is not making expected progress initiate Tier 3
78. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 78 RTI/CBM Resources Brown-Chidsey, R. & Steege, M. W. (2005). Response to Intervention: Principles and Strategies for Effective Practice. New York: Guilford
Hosp, M. K., Hosp, J. L., & Howell, K. W. (2007). The ABCs of CBM: A practical guide to curriculum-based measurement. New York: Guilford
AIMSweb
www.aimsweb. com
DIBELS
www.dibels.uoregon.edu
Intervention Central: CBM Warehouse
www.interventioncentral.org/htmdocs/interventions/ cbmwarehouse.shtml
National Center on Student Progress Monitoring
www.studentprogress.org
Research Institute on Progress Monitoring
progressmonitoring.org
79. © C. Lee Goss, 2008 79 Day 1: Small Group TaskBegin to Develop Action Plan Tier 1: Benchmark Screening Action Plan
Identify CBMs & Data Collection Plan(3x/yr)
Data Management Plan
Data Review & Reporting Plan
Tier 1 Core Status & Needs Assessment
Tier 2: Progress Monitoring Logistics Action Plan
Data CollectionCBMs? Who? How Often?
Data Management Plan
Data Review & Reporting Plan