RtI Practices and Problem Solvingin General Education

FSSM Summer Institute

June 26 & 27, 2007

with Beth Wood

P S T

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Goals for the session:

• Clearer understanding of what RtI is… and is not

• Refining Problem Solving Teams and Process

• A look at Universal Screening and Progress Monitoring using CBM

• Good Educational Decision Making and Student Outcomes

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Frayer Model Word Map

meaningheard or read

non-examplesexamples

Response to Intervention

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Interventionis an instructional

decision-making framework.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention is an EVERY EDUCATOR

initiative.... whose roots are in

General Education.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention is a systematic and standardized approach to looking at high quality instruction and

student learning through the use of formative assessment;

assessment for learning not of learning.

CBM

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention is a starting point and a continuous process...

not a last resort!

RTI

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention and its use

demonstrate an emphasis on outcomes for students rather

than labels for learners.

Outcome

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention allows us to identify and intervene with both

academic and behavioral concerns.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

RtI is early intervention

rather than “wait to fail”.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention emphasizes high quality instruction purposefully matched to student need... The process informs our instruction.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

And instruction is the major variable in

student achievement- - - it’s not just about IQ!

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention is a second chance for students

who are not successful when presented with ONE set

of instructional methods.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention considers both level of performance and

rate of learning over time to make good educational decisions.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Response to Intervention calls for Universal Screening of ALL students

three times per year.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

You’ll almost never hear about RtI without reference to a pyramid…

Students

InterventionsAssessments

…and tiers

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

80% of our students will respond adequately to typical instruction, management techniques, and

classroom instruction/intervention.

15% of students will need small group strategicstrategic evidence-based

intervention for a period of time to make

adequate progress.

Approximately 5% of students will require intense, specialized, and/or individualized intervention

(which may include Special Education).

The 3 Tiers of RtI

1

2

3

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

You’ll almost never hear about RtI without reference to a pyramid…

Students

InterventionsAssessments

Schedules

…and tiers

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

For which students will we problem solve ?

• Individual student whose academic or behavioral achievement is below expectation and who is not responding to typical core classroom instruction or classroom management.

• Groups of students in a classroom/grade level who have been identified as having similar skill deficits.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

How do we pinpoint students with problems?

• Classroom Achievement– Daily work in all academic areas– Classroom assessments– Behavior

• Benchmark CBM/Universal Screening– Students who fall near or below

the 25th percentile on fall, winter, or spring CBM screening

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

RtI calls for…

• Elite Problem Solving Teams

• A structured Problem Solving Process

• Instruction/intervention with a strong research or evidence base

• Progress Monitoring frequently

• Good, Data Driven Educational Decision-Making based on rules

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

A Small but Mighty Problem Solving Team

• Ability to allocate resource• Curriculum, instruction, & assessment expertise• Capacity to help analyze data meaningfully• A skilled facilitator• Committed members with a common purpose

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

TST Critical Attributes

• Teacher driven, not top down process

• General education, not ‘specialist’ oriented

• Team meetings are regularly scheduled

• Structured, timed agenda followed

• Use of a formal problem solving process

• Focus on operationalized problem statement

• Results in a plan of high quality intervention

• Focus on student skill acquisition vs. simply accommodation

• Decisions based on data• Follow-up support and

consultation provided

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Problem Solving Process

• Isolate, identify, and define the problem

• Target research based interventions

• Monitor student progress

• Make educational decisions

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Typical 20 minute PST Agenda• Teacher requesting assistance identifies

student strengths, problem statement, and strategies implemented.

Team clarifications (5 minutes)

• Team brainstorms interventions (10 min.)• Closure: intervention(s), resources

needed, and progress monitoring method identified.

Follow-up support indicated (5 minutes)

Individual

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Can your building teams…

• Help teachers isolate, identify, and define problems that students are experiencing?

• Recommend and plan effective interventions and support implementation?

• Plan progress monitoring schedules and analyze the data to make good decisions?

• Possibly work any harder?

• Work smarter?

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

If your teachers are reluctant to come to “the mountain”, bring

“the mountain” to your teachers.

• Individual problem solving

vs.

• Universal screening and intervention protocols delivered to groups of students with similar skill deficits

PST

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Sometimes teachers are “shy” about bringing a student to PST

• They aren’t aware of all the team has to offer

• They haven’t yet had a positive experience with the team or the process

• They just want to get their student the help they “need” through Special Education

• They see the Problem Solving Team as a perfunctory hoop

• They say they don’t have time

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Powerful Systematic Teamwork

• Allows teams to problem-solve for small groups of students with similar skill deficits rather than one-student-at-a-time

• Can save time and energy• When used in conjunction with standard

treatment protocols, replaces somewhat less precise “brainstorming”

• Efficiently and effectively improves outcomes for more learners

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Powerful Systematic Teamworkby Invitation

• Use what we know about students to develop a failing or at-risk list

• If you’ve Benchmarked or Universally Screened students, you’ve got it made!

• Let’s take a look at an Aimsweb Distribution Report

• And see how this Group Problem-Solving Process can work for your school or district

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

For Teachers: Classroom Report

From Aimsweb: www.aimsweb.com

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Here’s how it works. The principal…• Starts with the student screening data

• Determines a date and window of time to meet for early intervention

• Invites a teacher or an entire grade level

• Asks teacher(s) to bring their class roster and weekly schedule

• Invites available support staff

• Is prepared to recommend intervention or instruction (STP)

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

At the meeting…

• Students are identified through the distribution report or other cut-score data

• Interventions are discussed and selected• Groups are created• Implementers are pinpointed• Blocks of intervention time are identified• Realistic yet ambitious goals developed• Progress Monitoring measures and

schedules are selected

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

At the meeting…

• Plans are made to collect and graph data

• Fidelity of Implementation checks are planned for upfront

• Follow up meetings to review data and make decisions are scheduled

• Materials, resources, and any needed professional development are provided

• And later, progress is published and celebrated!

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

K-1 Fall - Winter Progress (CBM)Percent of students in the bottom 10th

Percentile (8 wks intervention)

34%

14.00%

42.00%

25%

17%

6.00%

27.50%

17%

0%5%

10%15%20%25%30%35%40%45%

Grade level Chad Sutton &

Briarcliff

PST

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

So what do you need?

• Screening data • Groups• Targeted

interventions• Personnel• Blocks of time• Progress Monitoring

Tools• Graphing capabilities

• Decision-making rules• Norms (local or

research based)• A dedicated team• Leadership• Professional

development• A commitment that

failure is NOT an option

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

RtI calls for Progress Monitoring

• The only way to know if an intervention is working (or not) is to collect progress monitoring data.

• For core academics, collect CBM data twice weekly, graph the data in a student trend line, and analyze.

• For behavior, use a data collection tool that captures or measures the student’s response to the plan of intervention.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Data Collection Tools For Behavior Related issues

• Tools must be– Simple– Repeatable– Reliable– Graphable– Comparable – Sensitive– Feasible/do-able

• Pair Peer Comparison• Anecdotal recording• ABC• Frequency• Rate• Duration• Latency• Interval• Self monitoring

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

What is CBM?

Curriculum-Based Measurement (CBM) is the method of monitoring student progress through direct, continuous assessment of basic skills. CBM is used to sensitively assess skills in early literacy, reading fluency and comprehension, spelling, written expression, early numeracy, math computation and applications, and most recently, vocabulary in core content.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Introduce CBM• Curriculum Based Measurement is

direct, continuous and formative assessment; it drives instruction.

• CBM sensitively and reliably measures early literacy, reading fluency and comprehension, spelling, written expression, early numeracy, math computation, math concepts and applications, and most recently, vocabulary in core content areas; in minutes!

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Introduce CBM

• Student performance is scored for speed and accuracy (fluency) to determine overall skill proficiency.

• CBM probes are quick to administer, simple to score and provide timely information based on hard data.

• Some CBM probes are administered individually to students and some may be administered to a small group or an entire class.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Individual administration…

• Letter naming fluency (1 min.)

• Letter sound fluency (1 min.)

• Phoneme segmentation fluency (1 min.)

• Nonsense word fluency (1 min.)

• Reading fluency (1 min.)

• *Word identification fluency (1 min.)

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Group administration…

• Reading maze/comprehension (3 min.)

• Spelling (2 min.)

• Written expression (3 min. + 1 min.)

• Vocabulary (5 minutes)

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Numeracy• Oral counting (1 min.)

• Number identification (1 min.)

• Missing number (1 min.)

• Quantity discrimination (1 min.)

Math• Math computation (2 min.)

• Math facts (2 min.)

• Math (mixed) facts (2 min.)

• Math Concepts and Applications (2-4 min)

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Introduce CBM• Benchmark:

– All students 3 times per year (F, W, S)

• Strategic Monitor:– Monthly check of students with mild to

moderate skill deficits

• Progress Monitor:– Twice weekly monitoring of student

response to more intensive intervention; data are graphed for educational decision-making

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Benchmark Assessment• Also known as Universal Screening• All students three to four times per year• Fall window: September 1 to October 15• Winter window: January 1 to February 1• Spring window: May 1 to June 1• All students in a class screened within ten

school days• Standardized administration and scoring• Suggested measures• Use the data!

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

3

90

43969

130

42631

148

47706

163 0.9

75 103 124 139 1

50 77 96 110 0.9

25 49 67 82 0.9

10 30 41 52 0.6

Mean 78 96 110 0.9

StdDev 39 43 44 0.1

4

90

35769

149

37050

168

37689

184 1

75 123 141 155 0.9

50 99 114 126 0.8

25 73 89 100 0.8

10 48 62 73 0.7

Mean 99 115 128 0.8

StdDev 40 44 122 2.3

5

90

33720

169

35344

183

35579

198 0.8

75 142 158 171 0.8

50 112 128 141 0.8

25 85 99 109 0.7

10 60 73 82 0.6

Mean 114 128 140 0.7

StdDev 45 45 48 0.1

Grade % # Fall Winter Spring Rate

Intermediate

R-CBM

Norms

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

6

90

32483

185

33071

198

34375

212 0.8

75 160 171 184 0.7

50 133 145 157 0.7

25 103 114 127 0.7

10 71 83 95 0.7

Mean 130 142 154

StdDev 44 47 46

7

90

21254

187

21333

197

24120

209 0.6

75 163 171 184 0.6

50 135 143 155 0.6

25 107 115 125 0.5

10 84 89 98 0.4

Mean 135 143 154

StdDev 42 44 45

8

90

18867

186

19139

192

20042

201 0.4

75 166 171 181 0.4

50 142 148 156 0.4

25 113 119 128 0.4

10 82 88 96 0.4

Mean 138 143 153

StdDev 41 42 45

Grade % # Fall Winter Spring Rate

Middle

School

R-CBM

Norms

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

3

90

43969

130

42631

148

47706

163 0.9

75 103 124 139 1

50 77 96 110 0.9

25 49 67 82 0.9

10 30 41 52 0.6

Mean 78 96 110 0.9

StdDev 39 43 44 0.1

4

90

35769

149

37050

168

37689

184 1

75 123 141 155 0.9

50 99 114 126 0.8

25 73 89 100 0.8

10 48 62 73 0.7

Mean 99 115 128 0.8

StdDev 40 44 122 2.3

5

90

33720

169

35344

183

35579

198 0.8

75 142 158 171 0.8

50 112 128 141 0.8

25 85 99 109 0.7

10 60 73 82 0.6

Mean 114 128 140 0.7

StdDev 45 45 48 0.1

Grade % # Fall Winter Spring Rate

R-CBM

Aggregate

Norms

Aimsweb

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Lines! Lines! Lines!

• Baseline = Three assessments are administered. Plot the points. Select the median score.

• Goal line = Select a realistic, but ambitious goal for the student. Plot that point, too. Draw a line from the (median) baseline point to the goal point.

• Trend line = Administer eight assessments to monitor progress. Plot the points and connect the dots.

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Magic CBM Numbers

• At least 3 data points for a baseline Find the median (middle number) [11, 11, 13, 14, 16]

• Use 8 points to create a trend line (three points, two points, three points)

• Rule for 4 consecutive data points 4 below: change the intervention (phase line)

4 above: increase the goal

4 above and below: continue the course

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Corrects ***

Goal-----------

Trend- - - - - -

Errors * * * *

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Corrects ***

Goal-----------

Trend- - - - - -

Errors * * * *

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

So let’s move forward and empower our

General Education colleagues by dispelling a few myths…

or misconceptions!

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Misconceptions…

• About the only way to get students the meaningful help they may need to achieve is to refer them for Special Education services

• There is always something truly ‘special’ about all SpEd programs (highly intense, specialized and individualized use of evidence-based standard treatment protocols)

• That Special Education consistently and significantly improves outcomes for students

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

More Misconceptions…

• That we must wait for learners to fail enough to qualify for SpEd eligibility criteria to “help”

• That traditional instruments for evaluation have more utility than they actually may

• That traditional discrepancy methods of evaluation always mean an internal/biological processing problem rather than an external or environmental instructional deficit

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Still More Misconceptions…• That once a student’s eligibility for SpEd is

established that it’s then someone else’s responsibility to primarily target the area of concern (alternate vs. augmented instruction)

• That traditional methods of evaluation are somehow preferred to ones that “inform” the instruction of classroom teachers

• That the use of RtI to make decisions about student achievement is brand new and without adequate research and outcomes

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Talk with your team about…• Progress Monitoring with CBM• Norms for making goals and

decisions• Base, Goal, and Trend Lines• Rules for decision-making• Myths or misconceptions that may

proliferate among colleagues• How you can dispel them• General plans to refine and

empower your building based teams

© Beth Wood KCMO 2007

Contact Information

• Beth 2215 NE 74th Street Gladstone, MO 64118

• bwood44@kc.rr.com

• 816.436.7536 816.645.3376

• North Kansas City Schools

• bwood@nkcsd.k12.mo.us

• 816.413.5096