Download
1 / 133
1.33k likes | 1.59k Views
Linking Achievement and Basic Psychological Processes. Systems of SRBI & Assessment . Integrating Multiple Sources of Data. SLD Manual Training. SLD Rule. The Session Organizer. SLD Manual Training Sequence: Systems of SRBI and Assessment. NAME: . DATE: . Course Map: Inset View.
E N D
Linking Achievement and Basic Psychological Processes Systems of SRBI & Assessment Integrating Multiple Sources of Data SLD Manual Training SLD Rule The Session Organizer SLD Manual Training Sequence: Systems of SRBI and Assessment NAME: DATE: Course Map: Inset View Previous Topic 2 Current Topic Future Topic 1 3 Questions about Comprehensive Evaluation SLD Rule Systems of SRBI and Assessment Special Education Map 5 is about Tier 1: Core Instruction beginning with receiving • Creating access & progress in general education curriculum for all students -Integration of data into the eligibility decision/PLAAFP/ S-B IEP -Designing Special ed. instruction receiving -Assessment --Screening --Evaluating effectiveness of core instruction -Instructional practices --Matching student needs with research-based instructional practices receiving Tier 3: Intensive and Individual Interventions Tier 2: Targeted Group Interventions Assessment --Monitoring Progress --Making data-based instructional decisions Instructional practices --Re-analyzing the learning problem --Secondary prevention (small group) -Re-consideration the learning problem in context (ICEL) -Tertiary prevention (individualized) -Suspecting a Disability 6 Challenge Question Self-test Questions 7 Tasks 8
Today’s Presentation:Systems of Scientific Research-based Instructional (SRBI) Practices and Assessment Overview • Link to SLD Rule • Multi-tiered Systems of Support • Systems of Assessment Tier 1: Core Instruction Tier 2: Targeted Group Intervention Tier 3: Intensive and Individual Intervention Special Education
Specific Learning Disabilities Eligibility Criteria Options In Handouts
Link to SLD Rule UnderstandingSRBIandSystems of Assessments can help us to answer the questions: How do we verify that a student • “Does not learn at an adequate rate?” • Has been “provided with the usual developmental opportunities and instruction from a regular school environment?” • Has had “appropriate instruction in reading or math?” Mn Rule 3525.1341
Link to SLD Rule: Criteria D UnderstandingSRBIandSystems of Assessments can help us to answer questions relating to SLD eligibility: • When are we ready to use ABD criteria to determine eligibility for SLD? • How to understand ABD eligibility determination on students moving into your district with this determination in place? MN Rule 3525.1341, Subpart 2 (1) the child does not make adequate progress to meet age or state-approved grade-level standards in one or more of the areas listed above when using a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention (SRBI);
All Students Need to Make Progress Towards Proficiency Job #1 =Make progress towards grade level content standards . . . Eligibility Determination
ALL Students Must Have Access and Make Progress: Special Education Has Two Masters Elementary Secondary Education Act (ESEA) for All Adequate Yearly Progress Accountability is to group level 504 IDEA Progress on IEP Accountability to Individual
The Terminology We Use Is Evolving Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) As of July 2011 new Minnesota literacy legislation uses this term. Systems of Scientific Research-Based Instruction
Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) New MN legislation “Reading Well By Third Grade” Minnesota Statute 122A.06 (July 2011)https://www.revisor.mn.gov/statutes/?id=122A.06&format=pdf See Handout-”Scientifically-based Reading Instruction”
Key Ideas in “Reading Well by Third Grade” 1. Literacy program(s) or collection of practices MUST include, at a minimum, effective, balanced instruction in all five areas of reading: *Phonemic awareness *Vocabulary development *Fluency *Phonics *Reading comprehension. 2. Comprehensive, scientifically-based reading instruction also includes and integrates instructional strategies for continuously : • assessing and evaluating • communicating reading progress and needs • designing and implementing ongoing interventions. 3. Students of all ages and proficiency levels can read and comprehend text and apply higher level thinking skills. In Handouts-”Scientifically-based Reading Instruction”
Multi-tiered Systems of Support (MTSS) Features are the same as used in term “RtI” Refers to a continuum of supports for all students Generally includes levels or tiers of support, including core curriculum.
There is No One State Model for MTSS • Starting points may vary • Applications to other areas may vary • The ways students are supported may vary • Entry, progression, and exit • The time it takes to fully implement may vary
Moving to new Language • MTSS: _______________ _____________ _____________ ____ _____________ ESEA: ___________________ _______________ ________________ ____________ Discuss with your partner why special education needs to be aware of both IDEA and ESEA.
Because. . . We Have Multiple Initiatives with Tiers of Supports Few Some All Social- Emotional Academics Physical Behavioral
Remember: A Student may not be just one “color” or level! Phonemic Awareness Math Fact Retrieval Concepts Listening comprehension Emotional Regulation Vocabulary Adapted from Sugai 2009
1s first, Explain the previous slide to your partner • What is the key message? • How does this slide apply to MTSS? Eligibility? • What, if anything, is still confusing on this slide ? • Reverse roles and 2s explain the slide to your partner. • What data does your school currently have that may show a student’s overall strengths and weaknesses?
Multi-Tiered System of Supports Range of literacy skills held by all students within a building Range of literacy practices implemented within a building
A Multi-tiered System of Literacy Supports Requires. . . Range of literacy skills held by all students within a building Staff’s Capacity to Address Group Needs
A Multi-tiered System of Literacy Supports Requires. . . Range of literacy skills held by all students within a building Staff’s Capacity to Address Group Needs System of Assessment Indicates Needs System of Assessment Indicates Needs
A Multi-tiered System of Supports Range of literacy skills held by all students within a building Staff’s Capacity to Address Group Needs System of Assessment Indicates Needs Range of Evidence-Based Practices
A Multi-tiered System of Literacy Supports Requires. . . Range of literacy skills held by all students within a building Staff’s Capacity to Address Group Needs Range of Evidence-Based Practices System of Assessment Indicates Needs
Critical Features of a Multi-Tiered System:System of Assessments Screening Diagnostic MonitoringProgress Determining Eligibility Choral Read
Complete System of Assessment Screening and informal diagnostics Standards based outcome measures Progress Assessments Beginningof year End of year End of year “high stakes” test Throughout the year • General screening • Targeted screening • Informal diagnostics Center on Instruction - Reading StrandFlorida Center for Reading Research Florida State University February 2009
On track Classroom based formative assessments Grade level, standards based progress monitoring At risk - receive further targeted screening Grade level, standards based progress monitoring Classroom based formativeassessments Needs support forcomprehension Needs comprehensive intervention Classroom based formative assessments CBM- lower level growth indices Further diagnostics General Screening info. at beginning of year Center on Instruction - Reading StrandFlorida Center for Reading Research Florida State University February 2009
Tier 1: Core Instruction • Assessments: • Screening • Evaluating effectiveness of core instruction • Research-based/Evidence-based Instructional Practices • Matching student needs with research-based instructional practices
Multi-tiered Systems of Support Tier 1. Core Instruction • Allstudents • Differentiated and accessible • Pro-active based on school and grade performance data
We Improve Student Outcomes with Problem Solving 1. Identify gaps between performance and grade-level expectations. 4. Evaluate the data and determine if the plan is working. 3. Carry out the intervention as intended. 2. Identify the instructional variables to be included in plan to address the gap.
Systems of Assessment : Screening/Effectiveness of Programming Screening Instructional Decisions Monitoring Progress Determining Eligibility Indicate effectiveness of instruction • Disaggregated into groups • Across levels of supports Accurately identify students at-risk • Predict future performance • Conducted 3 times per year
Systems of Assessment : Screening/Effectiveness of Programming Screening Instructional Decisions Monitoring Progress Determining Eligibility Indicate effectiveness of instruction • Disaggregated into ________ • Across _______ of supports Accurately identify students ______ • Predict __________ performance • Conducted __________ per year
Problem Solving Applies to Programs and Systems In Handouts
Turn and Talk • With your group, look at this diagram and discuss your understanding of this and how this could be used for problem solving in a program or system.
School-wide Evidence Can be Used for Judging Effectiveness Effectiveness of instruction • Data suggests how well instructional practices and materials are meeting needs of all students • Data is used proactively to formulate core instructional match to student needs
Partner Practice • First on your own think about as many ways as you can that looking at data in this manner will help teams address core instruction. • Compare with your partner
Organizing Data to Judge Effectiveness Goal 70% Target: 43 72 90 Spring Fall Winter Benchmark 45 students 05-06 66% 04-05 61% 03-04 56% Benchmark 47 students 05-06 70% 04-05 69% 03-04 61% Benchmark 56 Students 04-05 68% 03-04 54% 42 4 Students 9 Students 2nd grade Strategic 6 students 9% Strategic 10 students 15% Strategic 1 Student 5 students 5 students Intensive <26 17 students 25% Intensive Intensive 10 students 15% 5students 67 Slide Originally Presented at the Midwest Leadership Conference, 2007 By Kim Gibbons.
We Need to Identify Acceptable Range of Differences Across Classrooms
We Need to Identify Acceptable Range of Differences Across Classrooms Is the problem at a systemic level? Is it an effort or fidelity issue? Is it instructional, curricular, or environmental? -73.5 hrs -83 hrs 90 min. sessions 60 min. 95% 75% 67% 95%
Considerations when Selecting Screening Tools • How does the data inform instructional decisions? • Measure what predicts future performance • Measure students like the ones in your district • How will the screening process work? • Completed 3 times per year • Who, how, when, with what is specified and supported • Is there training to ensure that staff are doing it the same way and making same judgments?
Considerationswhen Selecting Screening Tools • How will we be sure we are accurate in our judgments? • Procedures in place to assure good data goes in and comes out • Make consistent judgments of data. • Process for using data to target the right problem • Procedures for integrating and prioritizing multiple sources of data • Collecting additional data to verify risk • Will vs. ability • 5 wks of progress monitoring for ELL and young students
Screening Requires Cut-off Scores Aimsweb normative scores (2007) & Assisting Students Struggling with Reading: Response to Intervention (RtI) and Multi-tier Intervention in the Primary Grades (2009). Institute of Education Sciences Practice Guide.
We Apply Problem Solving to Systematically Change Outcomes 1. Identify gaps between performance and grade-level expectations. 3. Evaluate the data and determine if the plan is working. 4. Carry out the intervention as intended. 2. Identify the instructional variables to be included in plan to address the gap. Chapter 4-15, 6, 8, 9, 10
Purposes of Assessment Data: Targeting Students Screening Instructional Decisions Monitoring Progress Determining Eligibility Indicate effectiveness of instruction • Disaggregated into subgroups • Across levels of supports Accurately identify students at-risk • Predict future performance • Conducted 3 times per year
Screening Tools Must Correctly Target Students Measures are specific if do not pick up students who are proficient Surprised but happy Measures are sensitive if pick up students truly at-risk Surprised and unhappy
Did You Know? • An evidence-based program is one thing… • Implementation of an evidence-based program is a very different thing. (Fixsen and Blase, 2006) Why is this important? What message are you trying to get across to your audience?
Effective Core Instruction: Aligned to Standards, Aligned Language, Differentiated Core instruction designed to address needs of 80% of students Limited Prior Knowledge Large Body of Prior Knowledge Needs Systematic Explicit Instruction Can Perform with Implicit or Guided Discovery
Effective Core Instruction • Alterable variables (Instruction/Curriculum/Environment) • Differentiated(Content/Process/Product) for Heterogeneous groups to make progress • High rates of student response to teacher talk • Frequent feedback (rapid cycles of formative and summative assessment) • Coordination between services (core and intervention) • Aligned instructional language • Flexible Grouping • Accommodations/Modifications for students with disabilities to access and make progress Range of Academic and behavioral skills
Good Core Instruction Uses Research Based Instructional Practices • Formative Assessment • Vertically aligned curriculum with standards • Common assignments and assessments • Pre-skills identified and taught • Common language & vocabulary • Frequent, clear & specific feedback • Peer tutoring & cooperative learning • Universal Design for Learning (UDL) • Differentiate process and product Range of Academic and behavioral skills
Evidence-Based Practices that Strengthen Core Instruction These inform intensity and access to instruction: • Horizontal and vertical alignment • Coaching/mentoring of evidence based practices • Interpretation of data • Quantitative • Student work • Effectiveness of implementation • Alternatives or options to strengthen student response • Collaboration to improve instruction based on performance data See SLD Manual Chapter 4 and 6
