Upload
kianna-brabazon
View
214
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
Citation preview
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
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. [email protected] or [email protected]
Michele Jacobs, Principal [email protected]