RTI Data-based Decisions

1. RTIData-based Decisions Marilyn Bechtel Psychologist/Elliott Elementary School Lincoln Public Schools July 30, 2007

2. LPS RTI Implementation • Reading fluency K-2 • Voluntary pilot schools – with principals’ approval • 5 of 6 pilot schools had Title 1 services • Central office leader is director of special education (now) • Coordination through psychologists

3. Data-based decisions: • Local norming • Intervention planning • Goal-setting • Verification determination

4. Local Norms • Establish local validity of DIBELS probes • Determine local average rate of gain • Provide local comparison with classroom assessments • DRA (Developmental Reading Assessment) • LRP (Leveled Reading Passages) • Report card rubrics

5. Local Norms • DIBELS – Dynamic Indicators of Early Literacy Skills: www.dibels.uoregon.edu • Random sample 250 students/grade • K-2 first year, then 3-5, then 6 • Included all students in sample • Established replacement protocol for students who moved • Sampled 3 times/year during one-week window

6. 1st Grade DIBELS LPS Norms

7. 1st Grade DIBELS LPS Norms

8. First Grade Average Growth • Fall to Winter • PSF = .58 phoneme/week • NWF = 1.20 grapheme/week • Winter to Spring • PSF = .14 • NWF = .05 • ORF = 1.63 word/week • Fall to Spring • PSF = .25 • NWF = 1.09

9. Student A Percentiles: Winter PSF: 35 Winter NWF: 14 Winter ORF: 8 Intervention focus: Sound/symbol skills Student B Percentiles: Winter PSF: 35 Winter NWF: 35 Winter ORF: 8 Intervention focus: Sight words and fluency Intervention Planning

10. 3rd quarter report card: DRA 14-16 40 – 60 cwpm 4th quarter report card: DRA 18 40 – 60 cwpm Winter benchmark: DIBELS graded probes 64th – 73rd percentile Spring benchmark: DIBELS graded probes 41st – 54th percentile Correspondence to Classroom Assessments – First Grade Proficiency

11. 3rd quarter report card: DRA 24 78 – 106 cwpm 4th quarter report card: DRA 18 94 – 124 cwpm Winter benchmark: DIBELS graded probes 32nd – 63rd percentile Spring benchmark: DIBELS graded probes 35th – 76th percentile Correspondence to Classroom Assessments – Second Grade Proficiency

12. So…who should receive RTI interventions? General guideline adopted by LPS: Consider those students at and below 20th percentile. Example: a second grader who reads at or below 37 cwpm in the fall. Report card rubric: 53 – 82 cwpm at DRA 20 is proficient at first quarter. <40 cwpm at DRA 16 is “significantly below grade level”.

13. Things to consider: • If resources are scarce, may limit interventions by grade (K-2) or other criteria. • As resources grow, number of students in interventions may go up…criteria may change. • Resources can grow. • Spaghetti rule doesn’t apply.

14. Resource Continuum Individual Plans----------------Manualized Programs RTI Toolkit Sonday Flashcards Sound Partners Fluency practice Early Success Peer tutoring* Reading Mastery

15. Goal setting • What do we want?

16. This?

17. Or this?

18. RTI goal First grade: PSF 1/week NWF 2/week All grades: ORF 2.5/week Average from Norms First grade: PSF .25/week NWF 1.09/week 1st grade winter/spring: ORF 1.63/week 2nd grade fall/spring: ORF 1.02/week LPS Goal Rates

19. What it takes…

20. Individual student profile • Individual Baseline – can be benchmark only if within 1 week • Administer 3 probes. Use median score as baseline. • Apply goal criteria to graph goal line. • Monitor weekly with one probe. • Can do manually or by using Excel, Chartdog on www.InterventionCentral.org.

23. Verification Determination • RTI method requires a dual discrepancy model for determining need. • Progress compared to self (meeting goal?) • Students who complete at least two 8-week interventions and do not meet goals • Progress compared to peers • Students who are at or below 12th percentile

24. Dual discrepancy • Students who do not make adequate progress may: • Be considered for another intervention • Continue the intervention with or without modifications • Be considered for additional special services, including special education verification as a student with a learning disability in the area of reading fluency or basic reading skills

25. Case Example: • Second grade student this year • First grade: Reading Recovery*, computer-assisted learning program, volunteers who did individualized, integrated reading. *only RTI intervention • Sonday this year for 15 weeks (small group), then Sound Partners (individual) for 12 weeks.

27. ELL Student Example: • Enrolled in February from out of state with SLI verification: artic. and language goals • Evaluated in first grade. Did not meet guidelines in any area. • UNIT SS = 108 • BVAT = 75 • CELF/Spanish = 90 • Teacher very concerned about reading, DRA 3 (kindergarten level at end of first grade). • Received services from SLP for rest of first grade.

28. ELL Example cont’d In second grade: Sonday from ELL teacher for 15 weeks. Sound Partners from 3 interventionists for 15 weeks. Extra practice in fluency and sight words from another ELL teacher (not considered separate RTI intervention).

30. Verification decision • Both these students were verified SLD/reading at the end of the year • LPS’ RTI protocol was followed in addition to data management: • Parent permission at start of last intervention • Procedural checklist (available from website) • Integrity checks

31. RTI data pluses: • Ongoing intervention system for students who need it…no need to fail over and over • Data from multiple sources that is timely, relevant to local population, sensitive to small changes, easy to interpret, correlates to classroom and other assessments • Parent and staff friendly • Helps buildings/districts identify and strengthen need areas

32. Future plans • Behavior – pilot this fall • Math – small pilot in progress • Writing – norming in progress, small pilot programs this year • Reading comprehension – pilot in progress in elementary and middle schools…will help with norming issues • ELL data analysis