1 / 41

From Screening to Verification: The RTI Process at Westside

From Screening to Verification: The RTI Process at Westside. Jolene Johnson, Ed.S. Monica McKevitt, Ed.S. District Overview. 10 elementary buildings, 4 are Title I buildings Focus is on K-2 Approximately 1200 students in K-2. RTI at Westside . Focus is on K-2 reading

prue
Download Presentation

From Screening to Verification: The RTI Process at Westside

An Image/Link below is provided (as is) to download presentation Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author. Content is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use only. Download presentation by click this link. While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server. During download, if you can't get a presentation, the file might be deleted by the publisher.

E N D

Presentation Transcript

  1. From Screening to Verification:The RTI Process at Westside Jolene Johnson, Ed.S. Monica McKevitt, Ed.S.

  2. District Overview • 10 elementary buildings, 4 are Title I buildings • Focus is on K-2 • Approximately 1200 students in K-2

  3. RTI at Westside • Focus is on K-2 reading • Started 4 years ago with only the Title I buildings, mainly using benchmarking - no systematic intervention • Last 2 years all K-2 students were involved in the RTI process

  4. Screening • 3 times a year • AIMS web measures and portfolio measures • All K-2 students • Screened by school psychologists, reading specialists and trained graduate students

  5. Kindergarten Phonemic Awareness - Rhyming and Beginning Sounds Portfolio Letter ID AIMSweb Assessments - Letter Naming Fluency - Letter Sound Fluency

  6. 1st grade • Rigby Running Records • 1st 100 Fry Words • AIMSweb Measures • Nonsence Word Fluency (NWF) • Oral Reading Fluency (Winter and Spring only)

  7. 2nd grade • Rigby Running Records • 1st and 2nd 100 Fry Words • AIMSweb Assessment • Oral Reading Fluency (ORF)

  8. Development of Local Norms • Local norms were developed on all measures • Random sample was selected (100 students from each grade) • Means, standard deviations and percentiles were derived for each assessment

  9. Students in Need of Intervention • Team meetings (after each benchmark) • Included the teacher, principal, school psychologist, reading specialist, district reading interventionist and district elementary special education coordinator • Criteria to receive services • Below 16th to receive services (K-2) on a preponderance of the measures • Some measures carried more weight than others • The 16th percentile score was chosen as it equals a standard score of 85 which is at the end of the average range.

  10. Interventions • Daily 25 minutes for 45 sessions • All instruction was delivered by the reading specialist(s) at each building • No more than 4 students per group • Focus of each session was phonemic awareness, fluency, word work, comprehension • Supplemental to daily core curriculum instruction (large group and guided reading instruction)

  11. Progress Monitoring • 6 data points over each session • Generally on one measure • Goal lines were set at the exit criteria (25th or 35th percentiles) • Changes to the intervention were made after three consecutive points below the goal line - substantial change form

  12. Validity Checks • Completed by the reading specialist midway through each intervention session • Principal meets with the reading specialist to determine if changes need to made • Observations of the student can be requested • Any intervention changes are documented

  13. After Session #1 • Benchmark all students • Meetings • Exit criteria (25th and 35th percentile) • New students can enter at this time • Interventions can change for students who are not making progress

  14. Session #2 • Run in a similar fashion

  15. After session #2 • Benchmark all students • Early Literacy Meetings are held • Students exit, remain in RTI, may be referred for special education • Students who have received 2 intervention sessions can be considered for a special education referral

  16. Westside Chart

  17. Referral Process • Students are not making sufficient progress • Data points remain below the goal line • Referral is started at early literacy meetings-these meetings function as the SAT meeting • MDT chair completes referral form and obtains parental consent

  18. Graphs

  19. Verification Questions • What is the student’s rate of progress compared to peers? • What is the student’s level of performance? • What are the student’s instructional needs?

  20. Data Collected • Analysis of existing data • Running records, classroom information, progress monitoring data • Observation of the student • Interview with the teacher(s) • May Include: -Language, cognitive and other academic testing

  21. Verification Decision • LD reading • May be another verification if other assessments were completed • No special education verification

  22. Outcome Data 21 referrals • 13 students verified as LD in reading; this doubled our population of students with learning disabilities in K-2 grades • No kindergarten students were referred • Most students referred at the end of 2 intervention sessions ended up receiving special education services. Those who did not qualify often had other issues that needed further examination or a different plan of support.

  23. Case Study #1Student History • 2nd grade student who moved in from private school • Had received reading intervention in K and 1st grade • Identified for reading services after fall benchmark • Received 2 sessions of intervention during school year

  24. Case Study #1 continuedReferral Decision • During spring team meeting, the decision was made to evaluate this student based on level of performance on spring benchmarks as well as rate of progress on graphs. • Parent consent obtained to review reading data and to complete assessment in areas of written language and math due to concerns in those areas.

  25. Case Study #1 continuedAssessment and Data • Rate of progress compared to peers: • Student gained .02 words per week • Typical peers gained 1.7 words per week • Current level of performance compared to peers: • Student was below 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency, Rigby Reading Level, and Fry Word List • Instructional needs: • Group of 2 for Guided Reading (Gen Ed) • Additional 25 minutes of instruction with specialist • Significant accommodations in general ed classroom due to reading difficulty

  26. Case Study #1 continuedAdditional Considerations and Conclusion • Additional data was collected due to concerns in written language and math: • Full Scale IQ: 101 • WJ-III standard scores: • Broad Math: 96 • Broad Written Language: 82 (would not have met 20 point discrepancy) • Based on data collected, student was verified LD in reading using RTI data

  27. Case Study #2Student History • 1st grade student • Had received reading intervention in K • Identified for reading services after fall benchmark • Received 2 sessions of intervention during school year

  28. Case Study #2Referral Decision • During spring team meeting, the decision was made to evaluate this student based on level of performance on spring benchmarks as well as rate of progress on graphs. • Parent consent obtained to review reading data and to complete assessment in areas of written language and math due to concerns in those areas. • The team also wanted to rule out MH so intellectual assessment also considered

  29. Case Study #2Assessment and Data • Rate of progress compared to peers: • Student gained .02 words per week • Typical peers gained 1.7 words per week • Current level of performance compared to peers: • Student was below 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency, Rigby Reading Level, and Fry Word List • Instructional needs: • Group of 2 for Guided Reading (Gen Ed) • Additional 25 minutes of instruction with specialist • Significant accommodations in general ed classroom due to reading difficulty

  30. Case Study #2Additional Considerations and Conclusion • Additional data was collected due to concern possible Mental Handicap: • Full Scale IQ: 78 (would not meet criteria for MH or LD • Based on data collected, student was verified LD in reading using RTI data

  31. Case Study #3Student History • 1st grade student • 2 years of kindergarten • Received supplemental reading services both years of kindergarten • Received RTI intervention for both sessions in 2006-2007

  32. Case Study #3Referral and Data Collection • Team decided to refer the student due to his lack of growth in reading, his discrepancy from peers and his need for assistance with almost all reading tasks. • The only data collected for this evaluation was the reading data, classroom observation and teacher interview.

  33. Case Study #3Verification Criteria • Rate of progress compared to peers: • Student gained -.03 words per week while typical peers gained 1.07 words per week • Current level of performance compared to peers: • Student was below the 10th percentile on AIMSweb Oral Reading Fluency and below the 16th percentile on the Rigby Running Records Level • Instructional needs: • Small group for guided reading in the classroom • Group of 2 for RTI intervention with the reading specialist • Accommodations in classroom for reading, math and writing tasks

  34. Case Study #3Decision • Student had been assessed during his first year in kindergarten and did not qualify. His IQ was in the low average range (SS=85) and language testing was commensurate with his IQ. • Based on the data collected in the 2006-2007, the student was verified as LD in reading using RTI data.

  35. Considerations • Which norms to use? • Substantial change in intervention • Progress monitoring • “Catch all” category • Shift from a black and white decision to more of a gray decision • Collaborative MDT decision

More Related