BUILDING LEVEL TEAMS

RtI: Gap Guzzling

Fundamental Assumptions

There is a need for Special Education, but not as itcurrently exists.

Education has not done well by students of diversebackgrounds, cultures, ethnicities, and languages

Too much time has been spent admiring problems.

The best place to address diverse learning needs is inthe instructional process.

If you want to change and improve the climateand outcomes of schooling –

both for students and teachers, there are features of the school

culture that have be to changed, and if they arenot changed, your well intentioned efforts willbe defeated.

Seymore Sarason1996

http://www.nsdc.org/connect/projects/resultsbased.cfm

School Improvement Activity

What are your current SI Goals?What content is covered in the current

professional development plan?What problems or issues often come up at

your school?

The last 30 years of American Public Education can be characterized byremarkable sameness of approach and remarkable flatness of performance.

Joel Klein Chancellor, NYCSchools

“It is not the pace of change that is the culprit, it is the piecemealness andfragmentation what wears us down.”

Fallan, 2003

Piecemealness

Essential Components of PS/RTI

An integrated data collection/assessment system to inform decisions at each tier of service delivery;

A problem-solving method; andMultiple tiers of intervention service delivery

Response Components of RTI

Student problems must be identified accurately

Student responses that reflect those problems must be assessed in a relaible and valid manner

This is not about another new “initiative”

This is about integrating what we know works!

Are We “Every Ed” Yet?:

A National Perspective• CASE National Survey– www.k12spectrum.com• 424 Districts– 14% West, 18% Northeast, 32% Midwest,

37% South• Conducted March 7-18, 2008• Margin of Error +/- 4.6%, 95% Confidence

Level

Findings

32% of districts expect full implementation by 2010.

• 47% of districts have a “defined RtI process”—53% do not

• 71% of districts report that implementation is led by general education or a joint general ed/special ed effort

• Only 29% of districts report that it is a special ed effort

Findings

• 71% of districts report that they are using RtI for ALLstudents. 29% report that they are using it primarily toidentify students for specialized services.

• Implementation is primarily with elementary levels (67%), with 27% implementing at middle schools and 16% at high schools

• 67% report planning to implement at middle and 49%report planning to implement at high school level.

Findings

• 84% of districts report implementation forreading, 53% for math and 44% for behavior.

• 96% of districts report that RtI has not beenthe focus of any legal proceedings.

Findings

• Impact on employment– 75% of districts report no change in staff FTE– 22% of districts report increase in staff FTE– 3% of districts report decrease in staff FTE

• 52% of districts report Tier 3 services for both

general and special education students. 48%report Tier 3 services primarily for specialeducation students

Is It All About Reading? Yes!

52% of IDEA $$ go to LD Programs70% +/- of special education “activities”

(e.g., evaluations, staffings, IEPs) related to LD cases

94% of students in LD because of reading/language arts

46% of IDEA $$ go to improve readingChanges in LD Rules will affect the vast

majority of special education “activities”

Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model

Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)

Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)

Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.

Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)

It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS

CURRENT SYSTEM – PROCESS ABOVE RESULTS

CURRENT SYSTEM – WAIT TO FAIL MODEL

DUAL SYSTEM- GENERAL AND SPECIALINADEQUATE PARENT OPTIONS AND

RECOURSECULTURE OF COMPLIANCE

PRESIDENT’S COMMISION SPECIAL EDUCATION: FINDINGS (CONT)

IDENTIFICATION METHODS LACK VALIDITY

BETTER TEACHER PREPARATION NEEDED

RIGOROUS RESEARCH AND EVIDENCE-BASED PRACTICE

FOCUS ON COMPLIANCE AND BUREAUCRATIC IMPERATIVES NOT ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT.

PRESIDENT’S COMMISSION SPECIAL EDUCATION: RECOMMENDATIONS

FOCUS ON RESULTS – NOT ON PROCESSEMBRACE A MODEL OF PREVENTION NOT

FAILURECONSIDER CHILDREN WITH DISABILITIES

AS GENERAL EDUCATON CHILDREN FIRST

Need to Document the Effectiveness of Special Education

Excedrin Headache #1 for Special Education!

Effectiveness of LD Programs based on Discrepancy Model

Special education placements tend to stabilize the reading growth of students with reading disabilities rather than accelerate it. (Vaughn, 1998, Moody, 2000)

Acceleration rates about .04 SD/year. It will take 8 years to move from 5th to 9th percentile (Torgeson, in press; Hanushek, 1998)

Students who enter special education 2+ years below age mates can be expected to maintain disparity or fall farther behind.

Effect size for LD programs is .29 (Reschly)

It’s the nature of the program more than the label that makes the difference.

Status of Reauthorization- IDEA 2004

Title: “Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act”

Passed House in 2003, Senate in 2004

Signed by President Bush in December.

IN EFFECT July 1, 2005Regulations August, 2006

IDEA 2004 CHANGES: Eligibility Determinations

A child shall not be determined to be a child with a disability if determinant factor is: Lack of scientifically-based instructional

practices and programs that contain the essential components of reading instruction.

Lack of instruction in math Limited English Proficiency

IDEA 2004 ChangesSpecific Learning Disabilities

The LEA shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

Regulations

§300.307 Specific learning disabilities. (a) General. A State must adopt, consistent with

§300.309, criteria for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in §300.8(c)(10). In addition, the criteria adopted by the State--

(1) Must not require the use of a severe discrepancy between intellectual ability and achievement for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10);

(2) Must permit the use of a process based on the child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention; and

(3) May permit the use of other alternative research-based procedures for determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, as defined in §300.8(c)(10).

Regulations

(b) To ensure that underachievement in a child suspected of having a specific learning disability is not due to lack of appropriate instruction in reading or math, the group must consider, as part of the evaluation described in §§300.304 through 300.306--

(1) Data that demonstrate that prior to, or as a part of, the referral process, the child was provided appropriate instruction in regular education settings, delivered by qualified personnel; and

(2) Data-based documentation of repeated assessments of achievement at reasonable intervals, reflecting formal assessment of student progress during instruction, which was provided to the child’s parents.

Regulations

§300.311 Specific documentation for the eligibility determination.

(a) For a child suspected of having a specific learning disability, the documentation of the determination of eligibility, as required in §300.306(a)(2), must contain a statement of--

(1) Whether the child has a specific learning disability;(7) If the child has participated in a process that assesses the

child’s response to scientific, research-based intervention-–(i) The instructional strategies used and the student-centered

data collected; and (ii) The documentation that the child’s parents were notified

about--(A) The State’s policies regarding the amount and nature of

student performance data that would be collected and the general education services that would be provided;

(B) Strategies for increasing the child’s rate of learning;

Federal LAW Gave YOU A Choice!(6) SPECIFIC LEARNING DISABILITIES-

(A) IN GENERAL- Notwithstanding section 607(b), when determining whether a child has a specific learning disability as defined in section 602, the local educational agency shall not be required to take into consideration whether the child has a severe discrepancy between achievement and intellectual ability in oral expression, listening comprehension, written expression, basic reading skill, reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, or mathematical reasoning.

(B) ADDITIONAL AUTHORITY- In determining whether a child has a specific learning disability, a local educational agency may use a process which determines if a child responds to scientific, research-based intervention as a part of the evaluation procedures in paragraphs (2) and (3).

NEW YORK STATE LAW: PHASE OUT OF DISCREPANCY MODEL BY 2012

What we know

We know far more about the causes of learningdisability and reading problemsWe know more about effective instructionWe know more about the limitations of ourcurrent systems and have viable alternatives It is not so much the issue any longer of “whatworks?” It is an issue of how we deploy it so that it can

work.

RtI: Whachamacallit

• Problem Solving Model-TAT/SAT• School Improvement/Safe & Civil School

– Review, Revise, Adopt, Implement• Action Research• Gap Analysis• Circle of Inquiry• Audit• Baldridge

– Plan, Do, Study, Act

Paradigm Shift

FROM:

• Eligibility focus– Diagnose and Place– Get label

TO:

• Outcome focus– Problem Solving and Response to

Intervention– Get help

Instruction:The absolute place to start!

How effective is the instruction inyour classroom, building, district?

Tier I

Universal instruction to all studentsIs the core curriculum effective (80% or

90% of students making benchmarks)?Which students are at-risk for failure?Does any over-representation of

particular student groups exist in those students identified at risk?

Decisions Made Related to Tier I

Level of effectiveness and levels of over-representation (or disproportionality)

If evidence for either exists, modifications must be made to the core instructional programs.

If core instruction is both effective and equitable, then tier 2 (supplemental) interventions are provided to those students identified as “at-risk”

Tier II

Interventions delivered to smaller groups either in general education classroom or outside of general education classroom

Interventions must be provided in addition to core instruction.

Academic Engaged Time (AET) predicts achievement better than any other variable

Tier II

Focus on particular skill areas that need strengthening

Progress monitoring of students performance is conducted frequently with same measures used to assess Tier I performance

Effective Tier II intervention-approximately 70% of students should have a positive response and will reach benchmark performance

A small percent will not respond to Tier II levels of instruction and will require the most intensive instruction (Tier III)

Tier III

Developed based on student needs following a problem solving process that will use diagnostic assessment to inform intervention development

Progress monitoring of intervention effectiveness is the same as Tier III as Tier II

Does not mean more of what is not working at Tier II unless you are seeing positive gains

Characteristics of Tier III Interventions

Delivered in very small groups or to students individually

Must be provided in addition to Tier I instruction.-does not supplant the core instruction

Should be receiving the most instructional minutes.

Characteristics of Tier III Interventions

Interventions focus more narrowly on defined skill areas.

Most minutes of instructionSmallest number of children in the groupMost opportunities to respond and receive

corrective feedbackMost practiceMost powerful motivational support

Implementing Response to Intervention

Three Phases of ImplementationConsensus Building (Commitment)-80% buy-in

Infrastructure Development

Implementation

Steps in Implementing School Wide Assessment to Assist in Improving

Outcomes for All Students?

Establish benchmarks (performance standards) at various points in time for various skills

Identify effectiveness of Universal Instruction (Tier I)

Identify Needs for Tier IIIdentify at-risk students to receive Tier II

or III interventionsProgress monitoring (Tiers I, II and III)

Establish Benchmarks (Performance Standards) at Various Points in Time for Various Skills

Benchmark= average performance or level of performance that predicts success (e.g., ISAT or behavior standard)

Occur at least three times per year (fall, winter, and spring)

Assessment method should be time efficient to administer and score

School Wide Assessment Strategies

Behavior Variable

Office discipline referralsTardinessAttendanceHomework Completion levels/ratesTeacher implemented proceduresOthers?

Upload to database monthly

Academic VariablesCurriculum based measurement

Using probes (brief assessments) to measure student performance.

Dynamic- sensitive to changeIndicators- overall performance (health)Skill- specific observable and measurable

behavior

Math Variables

Digits correct per minute (add, subtract etc.)Numbers identified per minuteThese are indicators! Not achievement

measures!

Spelling Variables

Letter sequences correct per minuteB-o-y-These are indicators not achievement

measures.

Writing Variables

Correct word sequencesThese are indicators not achievement

measures.

Reading Variables

Initial sounds correctRate of decoding pseudowords wordsOral reading rate (WRCPM)Letter naming Rate of breaking words down into soundsThese are indicators not achievement measures!

The High School Solution:Building Continuously

Improving Tier 1 General Education Instruction

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas)

Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas

Effective Secondary Classroom Management

Study and Organizational Skills

Curriculum Modification

Problem Solving

A process that uses the skills of professionals from different disciplines to develop and evaluate intervention plans that improve significantly the school performance of students

Problem Solving Process

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

EvaluateResponse to

Intervention (RtI)

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Problem AnalysisValidating ProblemIdent Variables that

Contribute to ProblemDevelop Plan

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring

Behavior

Define the ProblemDefining Problem/Directly Measuring

Behavior

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Implement PlanImplement As Intended

Progress MonitorModify as Necessary

Problem Solving

Can be applied to the student, classroom, building, district, and problem levels Student- academic and/or behavior

problem Classroom- discipline, returning

homework Building- bullying, attendance District- over-/under-representation Problem- problem common to

students in building

What is ‘Response to Intervention (RtI)’?

(Batsche, Elliott, Graden, Grimes, Kovaleski, Prasse, Reschly, Scharg, Tilley, 2005)

Identifying and providing high quality instruction and research-based interventions matched to students needs

Measuring rate of improvement (ROI) over time to make important educational decisions

Educators use ongoing student performance data to determine if an intervention is working. If it is not, it is time to do something different.

Ten Things We Have Done Wrong!1st Year (or 2)… Woes

56

1. Insufficient Time to Plan or Meet

2. No Building Administrator3. No Designated Facilitator- Roles Defined4. No Standard Protocol for Intervention5. Not Sticking to the Prob. Solving Steps6. Insufficient Staff Development/Consensus7. Not Using Researched Based Programs8. Not Gathering Data Prior to the Meeting9. Decisions Not Data Based10. Assuming Special Education is an Intervention

BANG HEAD HERE

WHAT IS A 3-TIERED MODEL OF INTERVENTIONS?Standard Protocol

Use Researched-based, Scientifically Validated 3 Tiers of Intervention/Instruction

Frameworks for thinking and planning

The High School Solution:Building Continuously

Improving

Tier 1 General Education Instruction

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

Use of Teaching Routines and Learning Strategies (Kansas)

Well-Designed Curriculum with a “Big Ideas” Focus or Ability to “Distill” Curriculum to Big Ideas

Effective Secondary Classroom Management

Study and Organizational Skills

Curriculum Modification

Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and

Language Arts)

TIER 1: Universal Interventions- Core reading instruction that ALL students receive (90-120 minutes daily)• The focus at this level is on

providing a strong classroom-level comprehensive core reading program (CCRP).

Description of Reading Tiers(University of Texas’ Center for Reading and

Language Arts)

TIER 2: Target Interventions - 30 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not score at benchmark on screening assessment receive.

• In addition to core reading program• Small group (3-5 students), pull out,

similar needs• More intense instruction and

monitoring• Focus on reading areas of need• 10-20 weeks of intervention

Description of Reading Tiers (University of Texas’ Center for Reading and Language

Arts)

TIER 3: Intensive Interventions - 60 minutes of daily small group reading instruction that students who do not make adequate progress in Tier 2 Instruction receive (in addition to core reading instruction)

• Students receive longer term, intensive instructional interventions designed to increase their rate of progress.

• Consideration for special education services might occur at this level.

Example of 3-Tier Level Interventions

Time

Curricular Focus

Curricular Breadth

Frequency of Progress Monitoring

Tier I

90

5 areas

Core

3X Yearly

or greater

Tier 2

120

Less than 5

Core+

Supplemental

Monthly or

greater

Tier 3

180

2 or lessCore

+Supplement

al+

Intensive

Weekly

Reading

Key Skills Sets for Secondary Support

(http://www.ku-crl.org/)

Example Tier 2 and 3:

Targeted / Group

~80% of Students

~15%

~5%

Levels of Problem-Solving

How do we know what to use? Websites for Scientifically Based Reading Interventions

Florida Center for Reading Research: www.fcrr.orgOregon Reading First Center: reading.uoregon.eduTexas Center for Reading and Language Arts:www.texasreading.org

Fcrr reports

Phontis and PhenellMichael Heggerty

INTENSIVE PHONICSCLASSROOM-WIDE FLUENCY

RIGBYSIMS

80% REGULAR ED. MUST MEET OR EXCEED- OTHERWISE FIX THIS FIRST

FRAMEWORK for READING INTERVENTIONS

K PALSEAROBICS

GREAT LEAPSSRA- corrective reading

Read NaturallyPALS--GR 2-6

MY BREAKFAST READING PROGRAMPass Key

LexiaReading Plus

70% Benchmarking

K PALSM. HEGGERTY PROGRAM/

SRA DI PROGRAMS-READING MASTERY, HORIZONS, CORRECTIVE READING

EAROBBICS

GREAT LEAPS /SLANT

REWARDS 6 MIN. SOLUTIONS

REPEATED PHRASESREPEATED READINGS

READ 180

TIER I.

TIER II.At-risk students-Supplemental interventions

TIER III.Highly at-risk studentsIntensive interventions

Students identified through data. PS team matches

students to appropriate

intervention- teacher, aide.

More intensive individual support-

MATRIX OF RESEARCH-BASED READING INTERVENTIONS-

5 Big Areas of Phonemic Reading: Awareness

Phonics Fluency Vocabulary Comprehension

Kindergarten -KPALS -Earobics

-KPALS -Metacognitive Strategies

1st Grade -MHeggerty Program -1st Gr. PALS -Great Leaps-K-2 -Earobics

-MHeggerty Program -1st Gr. PALS -Great Leaps-K-2 -SLANT

-1st Gr. PALS -Great Leaps-K-2 -SLANT

-Bringing Words to Life -CORE Vocabulary Handbook

-Metacognitive Strategies

2nd Grade -Great Leaps- K-2

-Great Leaps-K-2 -SLANT

-6 Min.Solutions -Great Leaps, K-2 -SLANT -PALS-Gr. 2-6 -Repeated Phrases -Repeated Readings

-Bringing Words to Life -CORE Vocabulary Handbook

-Metacognitive Strategies

3rd Grade -Great Leaps-K-2

-Great Leaps,Gr.3-5 -REWARDS, Gr. 3-5

--6 Min.Solutions -Great Leaps, Gr.3-5 REWARDS, Gr. 3-5 -PALS-Gr. 2-6 -Repeated Phrases -Repeated Readings

-Bringing Words to Life -CORE Vocabulary Handbook

-Metacognitive Strategies - Collaborative Strategic Reading

4th Grade -Great Leaps,Gr.3-5 -REWARDS, Gr. 3-5 -

-6 Min.Solutions -REWARDS -PALS- Gr. 2-6 -Repeated Phrases

-Bringing Words to Life -CORE Vocabulary Handbook -MultiLevel Vocab.

-Metacognitive Strategies - Collaborative Strategic Reading

Administrator Resources

Finance

Resources

Facilities

Finance

Title ITitle II A Teacher QualityTitle II D TechnologyTitle V Innovative ProgramsReading Improvement Block Grant

Resources

Grants

Personnel

Facilities

Every Available Space

What will we do when students don’t learn?

Established RTI TeamEach grade level structured time for

supplemental and intensive instructionDetermined personnel to provide

instruction Teachers from all areas supporting content

teachersSelected set of “standard treatments”Developed “exit” criteria

Monitor Student Performance

For Tiered groups, we need to monitor progress probably weekly or once every couple weeks

We need to use our data to determine the effectiveness of our instruction

We need to change instructional programs that are not working

Monitor Student Performance

For tiered groups, progress should be monitored frequently (weekly or bi-weekly)

Graph the data Demonstrates progress over time

Review the data to determine the effectiveness of instruction Are my students learning and applying what I am teaching? Are my students ready to move forward in the curriculum? Is the intervention strong enough (meeting goal)?

Change instructional programs that are not working

Decision Rules: What is a “Good” Response to

Intervention?

Good Response Gap is closing Can extrapolate point at which target student will

“come in range” of peers--even if this is long rangeQuestionable Response

Rate at which gap is widening slows considerably, but gap is still widening

Gap stops widening but closure does not occurPoor Response

Gap continues to widen with no change in rate.Batsche, G.M. (2007)

Decision Rules: Linking RtI to Intervention Decisions

Positive, Questionable, Poor Response Intervention Decision Based on RtI (General Guidelines)

Positive Continue intervention until student reaches benchmark

(at least). Fade intervention to determine if student has acquired

functional independence. Questionable

Increase intensity of current intervention for a short period of time and assess impact. If rate improves, continue. If rate does not improve, return to problem solving.

Poor Return to problem solving for new intervention

Batsche, G.M. (2007)

Questionable or Poor Response to Intervention

Instructional Program Change Re-teach certain skillsRe-group: Move into a smaller groupIncrease instructional timeChange instructional strategy

Decision Rules: Criteria for Special Education Eligibility

Significant gap exists between student and benchmark/peer performance

The Response to Intervention is insufficient to predict attaining benchmark

Student is not a functionally independent learner

Batsche, G.M. (2007)

Decision Making - Graphs

Consider changing/intensifying interventions if 3 data points are below the aimline or goal line

Use at least 6 data points when making placement decisions

If possible, review multiple types of data and integrate (Triangulate your Data)

Progress Monitoring: Closing the Gap

Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring2nd Grade

0

20

40

60

80

Wo

rds

Pe

r M

inu

te

WPM 28 26 35 45 25 42 55 39 47 60 56 64

Goal 28 55

Nat. Norms-Low Risk Cut-off 44 68

Fall Bch

Oct wk1

Oct wk2

Oct wk3

Oct wk4

Nov wk1

Nov wk2

Nov wk4

Dec wk1

Dec wk2

Jan wk1

Win Bch

Goal

Low Risk Cut-off

Trend Line

Progress Monitoring: Gap Widening

Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring,2nd Grade - Flat Trend Line

0

20

40

60

80

Wo

rds

Pe

r M

inu

te

WPM 28 29 33 30 25 28 31 34 32 27 28 29

Goal 28 39

Nat. Norms-Low Risk Cut-off 44 68

Fall Bch

Oct wk1

Oct wk2

Oct wk3

Oct wk4

Nov wk1

Nov wk2

Nov wk4

Dec wk1

Dec wk2

Jan wk1

Win Bch

Goal

Low Risk Cut-off

Trend Line

Progress MonitoringGap Remains the Same

Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring2nd Grade

0

20

40

60

80

Wo

rds

Pe

r M

inu

te

WPM 28 32 26 35 25 42 52 39 47 56 52 57

Goal 28 55

Nat. Norms-Low Risk Cut-off 44 68

Fall Bch

Oct wk1

Oct wk2

Oct wk3

Oct wk4

Nov wk1

Nov wk2

Nov wk4

Dec wk1

Dec wk2

Jan wk1

Win Bch

Goal

Low Risk Cut-off

Trend Line

On-task Behavior Graph

On-task Behavior

020

406080

100120

10/1

0/20

07

10/2

4/20

07

11/7

/200

7

11/2

1/20

07

12/5

/200

7

12/1

9/20

07

1/2/

2008

% o

f O

n-t

ask

Beh

avio

r

Student

Peers

Behavior Occurrences Graph

Behavior Chart

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

2/26

-3/2

3/6-

3/9

3/12

-3/1

6

3/19

-3/2

3

3/26

-3/3

0

4/2-

4/6

4/16

-4/2

0

4/23

-4/2

7

4/30

-5/4

5/7-

5/11

5/14

-5/1

8

5/21

-5/2

5

# o

f O

cc

urr

en

ce

s P

er

We

ek

Aggression - Adult

Aggression - Peer

Noncompliance

Using Data to Develop Goals

What is the student’s current performance level?

What is the student’s growth rate? Weekly average rate of improvement.

(Ending score(s) less beginning score(s) / number of weeks of data

Determine growth rate for low risk students DIBELS norms, AimsWeb norms, national norms, local

normsEstablish a goal that reduces the

discrepancy between actual performance level and desired performance level Current level of performance + (desired weekly rate of

improvement X # of weeks until goal).

Determining Student’s Rate of Growth - Example

Oral Reading Fluency Progress Monitoring2nd Grade

0

20

40

60

80

Wo

rds

Pe

r M

inu

te

WPM 16 29 19 34 37 15 29 28 30 39 32 30

Goal 16 43

National Norms - LowRisk Cut-off

44 68

Fall Bch

Oct wk

Oct wk

Oct wk

Nov wk

Nov wk

Nov wk

Dec

Dec

Jan wk

Jan wk

Win Bch

Trend Line

Goal

Low Risk Cut-off

Student’s Weekly Growth Rate: Ending score less beginning score divided by # of weeks. (30-16)/16 = .875 words per week

Low Risk Students’ Weekly Growth Rate: (68-44)/16 = 1.5 words per week

Data Days…In God we trust…everyone else bring data

Components of the Infrastructure

Building-based Leadership TeamData CoachProblem-solving ProcessDecision Rules Regarding RtIData Sources and Decision-MakingTier 1 FocusStandard Protocol Interventions for Tier 2Intervention Support and FidelityTechnology SupportTechnical Assistance

Sustaining the Infrastructure

Sustaining requires Documentation Procedures Manual Decision Rules Forms that reflect and GUIDE the procedures Nested in District Policy and Procedures Reflected in professional educator evaluation criteria

DATA DAY- What is it?

½ Day 3X a year- handoutStandard Protocol – Entrance/Exit Criteria

(3 points of data) Reading Level and/or ISAT Teacher Recommendation- Form DIBELS/AIMSWEB Benchmarking Progress Monitoring Graphs

Effective Problem Solving Teams

Monthly Problem/ Solving Team Meetings

Same team as Data Day Team½ day approx. 1X monthly (4-6 Weeks)Individual problem solving w/ parent

Tier III students and teacher referral studentsTeacher Referral Binder (K-6 & 7-8)Teacher Interview Prior to Individual Child

PST Meeting

Individual Problem Solving: Team Meetings

Data Coach brings to meetings:Progress monitoring graph(s)CalculatorNormsGrowth rates for low-risk studentsGrowth rate for student(s)

Grade Level Data Meetings

Data coach brings to meetings:Progress monitoring graphs for each

student in tier II or tier III CalculatorNormsGrowth rates for low risk studentsBenchmark scores for all students (sorted

from lowest to highestTeacher recommendations

Evaluation- Rule of Thumb

How do we know it’s working?IF 80% of student population are meeting or

exceeding on ISAT and local assessments….THEN as a rule of thumb 70% of intervention

students are making benchmark

Evaluate RTI

Evaluation Self Studies and Surveys

www.interventioncentral.orgwww.illinoisaspire.org

Websites to Note

www.fcrr.orghttp://dibels.uoregon.edu

www.aimsweb.comwww.studentprogress.org

“I suggest that diverse learners face on a daily basis the tyranny of time, in which the educationalclock is ticking while they remain at risk of falling further and further behind in their schooling.

Kameenui, E. J. (1993). Diverse learners and the tyranny of time: Don't fix blame; fix the leaky roof. The Reading Teacher, 46, 376-383.

The Tyranny of Time

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS:

Dr. Barb CurlDr. Sharon VaughnDr. David TillyDr. Mark ShinnMs. Judy HackettDr. Judy ElliotInternational

Reading Association

Dr. G. BatscheDr. Joseph TorgesenDr. Sally ShaywitzFlorida Center for

Reading ResearchMs. Melissa Ward

We would like to thank the following institutions and/or individuals for their wisdom and select slides for this presentation.

Flowchart For Problem Resolution

Don’t Mess With It!

YES NO

YES

YOU IDIOT!

NO

Will it Blow UpIn Your Hands?

NO

Look The Other Way

Anyone ElseKnows? You’re SCREWED!

YESYES

NO

Hide ItCan You Blame Someone Else?

NO

NO PROBLEM!

Yes

Is It Working?

Did You Mess With It?

Contact Information

Meg Thurman, Director of Special Ed. mthurman@deemack.org or thurman8@mchsi.com

Michele Jacobs, Principal mjacobs@deemack.org